Testimonies received by DRIP Committee

I oppose this project, these bills, these proposals, these exhibits, and the developer submissions because the County is being asked to approve the legal framework for large-scale urban expansion before the underlying infrastructure, environmental review, water availability, wastewater capacity, cultural review, and public planning process are complete.

I oppose this project because the Planning Department itself warned that this abbreviated Council-initiated process bypasses the normal developer application process, reduces impact analysis, reduces community input, and may create impacts to the community.

I oppose this project because the Council is being asked to approve entitlements first and deal with the consequences later.

I oppose this project because the Department of Water Supply acknowledged the proposal relies on private wells within the Paʻia Aquifer System while also acknowledging reported pumpage already exceeds sustainable yield figures discussed in the record.

I oppose this project because the County is effectively being asked to urbanize agricultural land before long-term water sustainability is secured.

I oppose this project because the Department of Environmental Management acknowledged the project lies outside the County sewer service area, lacks current treatment capacity, and may not even be capable of future County sewer connection until approximately 2029 or 2030 depending on future infrastructure expansion.

I oppose this project because the legislation itself guarantees very little.

I oppose this project because Bill 163 does not secure:

* permanent affordability protections,
* binding infrastructure timelines,
* guaranteed water allocations,
* completed wastewater capacity,
* transportation mitigation,
* or enforceable long-term public safeguards.

I oppose this project because the affordability conditions contain loopholes allowing units to be rented to non-income-qualified residents after vacancy periods and because portions of the County workforce housing requirements are effectively bypassed through HHFDC structures and exemptions.

I oppose this project because non-residential development may move forward after permits are merely issued for a limited number of housing units, not after homes are actually built, occupied, or serving local residents.

I oppose this project because the proposal is repeatedly presented primarily as workforce housing while simultaneously seeking broad M-1 Light Industrial zoning and mixed-use urban expansion rights involving commercial, office, industrial, hospitality, recreation, and other future development flexibility.

I oppose this project because the public hears one version of the project while the entitlement structure allows something much broader over time.

I oppose this project because once the Urban Growth Boundary is expanded and the zoning changes are approved, the leverage permanently shifts away from the public and toward future project momentum.

I oppose this project because the Environmental Impact Statement process remains incomplete while the Council is still being asked to advance major entitlements.

I oppose this project because the Planning Department itself questioned why the EIS Preparation Notice was withdrawn from County review and shifted toward the State Land Use Commission process.

I oppose this project because the Department of ʻŌiwi Resources acknowledged the cultural significance of the area and referenced archaeological concerns and prior iwi kūpuna discoveries associated with nearby development activity.

I oppose this project because Maui already contains:

* vacant industrial lands,
* underutilized commercial centers,
* partially occupied business parks,
* aging retail corridors,
* stalled redevelopment areas,
* and previously entitled urban inventory with existing infrastructure access.

I oppose this project because instead of prioritizing redevelopment, infill housing, adaptive reuse, and activation of already urbanized land, the County is being asked to expand outward into agricultural land and create entirely new long-term infrastructure obligations.

I oppose this project because this is not smart growth.
This is leapfrog expansion.

I oppose this project because residents are tired of watching the same development pattern repeat itself:

* approve first,
* amend later,
* expand later,
* and leave future residents and taxpayers responsible for the infrastructure consequences afterward.

I oppose this project because residents no longer simply evaluate the initial project presentation. Residents evaluate the approval structure itself, and this structure gives away enormous leverage upfront while deferring critical realities into:

* future studies,
* future amendments,
* future negotiations,
* future administrations,
* and future taxpayers.

I oppose this project because responsible planning requires:

* completed environmental review,
* secured infrastructure,
* demonstrated water sustainability,
* wastewater capacity,
* transportation analysis,
* enforceable affordability protections,
* cultural review,
* transparency,
* sequencing,
* and public trust.

Those standards have not been met here.

Lore Menin, Kihei Resident

Chair and Committee Members,

I am in strong opposition to Bills 163, 164, and 165 relating to Ho‘onani Village.

This project is being presented primarily as workforce housing, but the actual entitlement package goes far beyond housing and would permanently expand the Urban Growth Boundary, convert agricultural land to Business/Multi-Family use, and rezone 166 acres to M-1 Light Industrial before critical infrastructure and environmental questions are resolved.

The County is being asked to approve the legal framework for urban expansion first and deal with the consequences later.

The Planning Department itself warned this abbreviated process reduces impact analysis and public review. Water availability remains uncertain, wastewater capacity does not currently exist, the Environmental Impact Statement process is incomplete, and significant cultural resource concerns remain unresolved.

Meanwhile Maui already has vacant and underutilized commercial and industrial areas with existing infrastructure that should be prioritized before expanding outward into agricultural lands.

Residents are tired of the same pattern:
approve first, amend later, expand later, and leave future residents and taxpayers responsible for the infrastructure consequences afterward.

Please refer to my written testimony for a more detailed discussion regarding:

* infrastructure deficiencies,
* water and sewer concerns,
* Environmental Impact Statement issues,
* Opportunity Zone-style speculative growth concerns,
* leapfrog urban expansion,
* and the long-term risks of granting broad entitlements before the public has a complete and transparent record.

I respectfully urge the Committee to deny or defer Bills 163, 164, and 165.

Thank you.

I would like to provide an update on SBA's Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience efforts throughout Maui.