HLU-18 Reso 26-110 RESOLUTION 26-110, REFERRING TO THE MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED BILLS TO AMEND THE KIHEI-MAKENA COMMUNITY PLAN AND WEST MAUI COMMUNITY PLAN, AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR CERTAIN TIMESHARE, LEASEHOLD, AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE A-1 AND A-2 APARTMENT DISTRICTS (HLU-18)
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO RESOLUTION 26-110 (HLU-18)
Housing and Land Use Committee
July 1, 2026
Chair, Vice Chair Batangan, and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I have been a Maui Realtor for more than 30 years and have spent decades working with homeowners, buyers, investors, residents, and our local communities. I respectfully submit this testimony in opposition to Resolution 26-110.
This testimony is not directed against any individual property owner or condominium association. It is directed at the process being used to determine which private properties receive extraordinary legislative relief while others do not.
The issue before you is larger than transient vacation rentals. It is whether the County of Maui is making land use decisions through an objective, transparent, legally defensible process or through a process that appears arbitrary, subjective, and susceptible to political influence.
The answer matters because the Council is about to make decisions affecting billions of dollars in private property rights, housing policy, and public confidence in government.
The County Has Not Demonstrated Objective Selection Criteria
Resolution 26-110 proposes to change Community Plan designations and zoning for selected Apartment District properties so they may continue operating transient vacation rentals.
However, nowhere in the Resolution is there a comprehensive explanation of how these particular properties were selected while thousands of others were excluded.
The stated categories include:
mixed timeshare and vacation rental properties,
leasehold properties,
and smaller properties considered difficult for the average resident to purchase.
Those are policy judgments—not objective standards.
Where is the evidence?
Where is the analysis?
Where is the scoring methodology?
Where are the findings demonstrating that every property was evaluated equally?
Without those answers, this process appears arbitrary.
Corporation Counsel Appears to Recognize This Problem
Perhaps the most revealing document submitted for this agenda is the June 29 review from Corporation Counsel.
While approving the Resolution as to form and legality, Corporation Counsel specifically noted:
"Bills will need to establish evidence supporting determination criteria."
That statement speaks volumes.
Even the County's own attorneys recognize that the legislation ultimately must establish evidence supporting why these properties qualify while others do not.
If the evidence has not yet been established, why is the Council moving forward today?
Shouldn't the evidence come before the legislative action rather than afterward?
Planning and Finance Have Not Completed Their Reviews
Equally concerning are the requests sent by the Committee Chair to the Departments of Planning and Finance.
Those departments were asked to review the proposal and provide written comments after this committee meeting.
Why is the Committee considering these resolutions before receiving the formal analyses from the very departments responsible for planning, implementation, fiscal impacts, and long-range policy?
Good government requires informed decision-making—not decisions first and analysis later.
Reliance Upon an Informational List Is Not a Substitute for Findings
The Committee has attached the June 27, 2024 list entitled "Apartment District Properties Allowed to be Used for Short-Term Occupancy."
Yet that same document contains an important disclaimer.
It expressly states that:
the list grants no entitlement,
it is subject to error,
and confirmation should always be obtained from the Department of Planning.
If the County itself acknowledges the list may contain errors, how can it now serve as the foundation for deciding which properties receive permanent zoning changes?
This raises obvious questions:
Were all properties independently verified?
Were errors corrected?
Were all owners afforded equal consideration?
Were properties omitted?
If so, why?
Equal Protection and Fairness Matter
Government cannot simply choose winners and losers without explaining why.
Every owner affected by Ordinance 5909 deserves equal treatment under the law.
If one condominium receives hotel zoning while another similarly situated property does not, the County must be able to explain that distinction through objective evidence—not political preference.
Anything less invites litigation and undermines confidence in government.
Public Trust Is Already Fragile
Today's earlier Council discussions regarding ethics, accountability, transparency, and public confidence underscore why this Committee must proceed carefully.
Whether discussing ethics, conflicts of interest, procurement, public records, or other governance concerns, the consistent theme is restoring public trust.
That trust cannot be restored by asking the public to simply assume decisions are being made fairly.
Trust is earned through transparency.
Trust is earned through documentation.
Trust is earned through equal treatment.
When government exercises extraordinary discretion over valuable private property rights, every decision must withstand public scrutiny.
Questions That Have Not Been Answered
Before moving forward, the Committee should publicly answer the following:
Who developed the selection criteria?
When were those criteria adopted?
Were they adopted in a public meeting?
Were Planning staff involved?
Were all 7,167 apartment district vacation rental units evaluated?
Was every property evaluated using identical standards?
What evidence supports inclusion of each selected property?
Why were certain properties excluded?
Has every communication regarding these selections been preserved as a public record?
Have all potential conflicts of interest been disclosed?
The public deserves these answers before—not after—zoning decisions are made.
This Process Should Be Paused
Land use decisions are among the most significant powers exercised by government.
They should never be rushed.
They should never rely upon incomplete findings.
They should never depend upon undocumented policy judgments.
And they should never leave the public wondering whether everyone received equal treatment.
This Committee should postpone further action until:
Planning and Finance complete their written analyses;
objective selection criteria are published;
supporting evidence is made available for public review;
and every property owner has confidence that this process is fair, transparent, and legally defensible.
Anything less risks further eroding public trust in County government.
I respectfully urge the Committee to reject or defer Resolution 26-110 until these fundamental issues have been addressed.
Aloha Chair Uʻu-Hodgins, Vice Chair Batangan, and members of the Housing and Land Use Committee. My name is Bonnie Pauli; I am a Wailea Ekahi property owner and chair of Ekahi’s Board appointed Ad Hoc STR Committee. I am speaking with the support of other Ekahi owners. As individual property owners we support Resolution 26-111 as written.
We appreciate the hours of effort that you have put into this process and are gratified to see you agree that Wailea Ekahi, when created in the 1970’s, legally provided short term rentals as well as personal residences and our A1 zoned areas more appropriately belong in the new H3 zoning category.
Units at Ekahi have been used as short term rentals from day one on the property and, initial sales advertised them as such in San Francisco and other market newspapers. Those uses continue through today. Adoption of Resolution 26-111 will help to maintain zoning at Ekahi consistent with the original intended uses by transitioning A-1 properties to H-3. The resolution also will modify the land use designations for the entire property to be consistent with the purposes for which it was developed.
I am happy to provide any additional documentation you might need to move Council Initiated zoning for this property forward.
Additional Info/Materials In support of that decision:
Ekahi currently is a mix of units with H1 zoning and A1 zoning. Upon development of Ekahi in the 1970s, the zoning code provisions for both H1 and apartment zoning allowed use of all units as temporary or short term rentals. Ekahi's original applications, its governing documents and State real estate commission filings clearly anticipated hotel use as well as permanent or temporary residences throughout the entire property.
Ekahi is part of Wailea Resort which was developed in the 1970’s to provide a place for travelers to enjoy the beauties of Maui away from residential areas for locals. There was a recognized need for a stream of income for the island and Tourism was chosen. It was further recognized that locals did not want Tourists in their neighborhoods as part of their family’s daily lives and thus Wailea Resort was conceived. To this day there are no schools in Wailea Resort, no major grocery stores, post office, local public transportation etc. WCA has testified to this use in the past and has consistently supported vacation rental use at the A1 zoned multi family properties in Wailea created while that use was allowed by Maui Code.
Thank you for moving Ekahi along in the Council Initiated Zoning change process.
We respectfully request that Kana’i A Nalu be added to Exhibit 1 or 2, whichever is deemed appropriate, for H-3/H-4 zoning. We make this request based on the details, facts, and photos we have shared within this letter.
We also sincerely thank you for all the onerous, time-consuming hard work you have put in to get us Bill 88 and the creation of H3-H4 zoning for the county. What you have accomplished will give Condo owners, their vendors, managers, cleaners, support staff, and Maui County the long-term stability needed to grow, prosper, and flourish in the future. Mahalo.
Reviewing the initial Council resolutions, we see that leasehold properties have been declared inappropriate for local families.
Kana’i A Nalu, 250 Hauoli Road in Ma’alaea, an 80-unit building, is a leasehold property but isn’t included in the resolutions.
Our lease was signed into effect on December 1, 1976. It is a 90-year lease term, with negotiations every 30 years. Our current lease rate is $1004.23 per unit per month, with the next increase in December 2026 to $1255.29. It will be renegotiated again in 2036, with expected 25% increase every ten years throughout the entire lease.
Individual owners, through our association, per our lease, are required to pay for items our landlord won’t cover:
• Maui County property taxes on the land and buildings.
• Repairs, maintenance, and improvements to the land, buildings, and seawall.
• Insurance for the land, buildings, and seawall, including liability.
As examples, currently Kanai A Nalu condo owners are facing increases to monthly maintenance fees for a new roof because the existing roof is failing, as well as a separate assessment for our shoreline adaptation, a 2.4-million-dollar sea-level-rise plan for a burrito structure with a dune and public beach access, is in the final stages of County approval, and will be paid for by the owners of Kana’i A Nalu. The expenses for operating this property are immense and will continue to be ongoing.
Our condo buildings also have a staffed front office that handles a variety of property-related functions as well as registration to include check-in/check-out dates and times.
In closing, once again please accept this letter and the explanations herein to support our request to be included on the final list for the proposed bill to change the zoning for our property Kanai A Nalu.
Please see attached copy of our original lease.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Kana’i A Nalu AOAO Representatives
_____Jim Walters__________ ________ Mary Pedretti__________
Jim Walters, Vice President AOAO Board of Directors Mary Pedretti Secretary AOAO Board of Directors
Photos include:
1) Check-in registration area, 2) Office for onsite manager , 3) Brochures for local activities
Testimonies received from HLU Committee
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO RESOLUTION 26-110 (HLU-18)
Housing and Land Use Committee
July 1, 2026
Chair, Vice Chair Batangan, and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I have been a Maui Realtor for more than 30 years and have spent decades working with homeowners, buyers, investors, residents, and our local communities. I respectfully submit this testimony in opposition to Resolution 26-110.
This testimony is not directed against any individual property owner or condominium association. It is directed at the process being used to determine which private properties receive extraordinary legislative relief while others do not.
The issue before you is larger than transient vacation rentals. It is whether the County of Maui is making land use decisions through an objective, transparent, legally defensible process or through a process that appears arbitrary, subjective, and susceptible to political influence.
The answer matters because the Council is about to make decisions affecting billions of dollars in private property rights, housing policy, and public confidence in government.
The County Has Not Demonstrated Objective Selection Criteria
Resolution 26-110 proposes to change Community Plan designations and zoning for selected Apartment District properties so they may continue operating transient vacation rentals.
However, nowhere in the Resolution is there a comprehensive explanation of how these particular properties were selected while thousands of others were excluded.
The stated categories include:
mixed timeshare and vacation rental properties,
leasehold properties,
and smaller properties considered difficult for the average resident to purchase.
Those are policy judgments—not objective standards.
Where is the evidence?
Where is the analysis?
Where is the scoring methodology?
Where are the findings demonstrating that every property was evaluated equally?
Without those answers, this process appears arbitrary.
Corporation Counsel Appears to Recognize This Problem
Perhaps the most revealing document submitted for this agenda is the June 29 review from Corporation Counsel.
While approving the Resolution as to form and legality, Corporation Counsel specifically noted:
"Bills will need to establish evidence supporting determination criteria."
That statement speaks volumes.
Even the County's own attorneys recognize that the legislation ultimately must establish evidence supporting why these properties qualify while others do not.
If the evidence has not yet been established, why is the Council moving forward today?
Shouldn't the evidence come before the legislative action rather than afterward?
Planning and Finance Have Not Completed Their Reviews
Equally concerning are the requests sent by the Committee Chair to the Departments of Planning and Finance.
Those departments were asked to review the proposal and provide written comments after this committee meeting.
Why is the Committee considering these resolutions before receiving the formal analyses from the very departments responsible for planning, implementation, fiscal impacts, and long-range policy?
Good government requires informed decision-making—not decisions first and analysis later.
Reliance Upon an Informational List Is Not a Substitute for Findings
The Committee has attached the June 27, 2024 list entitled "Apartment District Properties Allowed to be Used for Short-Term Occupancy."
Yet that same document contains an important disclaimer.
It expressly states that:
the list grants no entitlement,
it is subject to error,
and confirmation should always be obtained from the Department of Planning.
If the County itself acknowledges the list may contain errors, how can it now serve as the foundation for deciding which properties receive permanent zoning changes?
This raises obvious questions:
Were all properties independently verified?
Were errors corrected?
Were all owners afforded equal consideration?
Were properties omitted?
If so, why?
Equal Protection and Fairness Matter
Government cannot simply choose winners and losers without explaining why.
Every owner affected by Ordinance 5909 deserves equal treatment under the law.
If one condominium receives hotel zoning while another similarly situated property does not, the County must be able to explain that distinction through objective evidence—not political preference.
Anything less invites litigation and undermines confidence in government.
Public Trust Is Already Fragile
Today's earlier Council discussions regarding ethics, accountability, transparency, and public confidence underscore why this Committee must proceed carefully.
Whether discussing ethics, conflicts of interest, procurement, public records, or other governance concerns, the consistent theme is restoring public trust.
That trust cannot be restored by asking the public to simply assume decisions are being made fairly.
Trust is earned through transparency.
Trust is earned through documentation.
Trust is earned through equal treatment.
When government exercises extraordinary discretion over valuable private property rights, every decision must withstand public scrutiny.
Questions That Have Not Been Answered
Before moving forward, the Committee should publicly answer the following:
Who developed the selection criteria?
When were those criteria adopted?
Were they adopted in a public meeting?
Were Planning staff involved?
Were all 7,167 apartment district vacation rental units evaluated?
Was every property evaluated using identical standards?
What evidence supports inclusion of each selected property?
Why were certain properties excluded?
Has every communication regarding these selections been preserved as a public record?
Have all potential conflicts of interest been disclosed?
The public deserves these answers before—not after—zoning decisions are made.
This Process Should Be Paused
Land use decisions are among the most significant powers exercised by government.
They should never be rushed.
They should never rely upon incomplete findings.
They should never depend upon undocumented policy judgments.
And they should never leave the public wondering whether everyone received equal treatment.
This Committee should postpone further action until:
Planning and Finance complete their written analyses;
objective selection criteria are published;
supporting evidence is made available for public review;
and every property owner has confidence that this process is fair, transparent, and legally defensible.
Anything less risks further eroding public trust in County government.
I respectfully urge the Committee to reject or defer Resolution 26-110 until these fundamental issues have been addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Edward Codelia
Maui County Resident
Please see attached testimony in support.
Support - Please see the attached letter and enclosures.
Aloha Chair Uʻu-Hodgins, Vice Chair Batangan, and members of the Housing and Land Use Committee. My name is Bonnie Pauli; I am a Wailea Ekahi property owner and chair of Ekahi’s Board appointed Ad Hoc STR Committee. I am speaking with the support of other Ekahi owners. As individual property owners we support Resolution 26-111 as written.
We appreciate the hours of effort that you have put into this process and are gratified to see you agree that Wailea Ekahi, when created in the 1970’s, legally provided short term rentals as well as personal residences and our A1 zoned areas more appropriately belong in the new H3 zoning category.
Units at Ekahi have been used as short term rentals from day one on the property and, initial sales advertised them as such in San Francisco and other market newspapers. Those uses continue through today. Adoption of Resolution 26-111 will help to maintain zoning at Ekahi consistent with the original intended uses by transitioning A-1 properties to H-3. The resolution also will modify the land use designations for the entire property to be consistent with the purposes for which it was developed.
I am happy to provide any additional documentation you might need to move Council Initiated zoning for this property forward.
Additional Info/Materials In support of that decision:
Ekahi currently is a mix of units with H1 zoning and A1 zoning. Upon development of Ekahi in the 1970s, the zoning code provisions for both H1 and apartment zoning allowed use of all units as temporary or short term rentals. Ekahi's original applications, its governing documents and State real estate commission filings clearly anticipated hotel use as well as permanent or temporary residences throughout the entire property.
Ekahi is part of Wailea Resort which was developed in the 1970’s to provide a place for travelers to enjoy the beauties of Maui away from residential areas for locals. There was a recognized need for a stream of income for the island and Tourism was chosen. It was further recognized that locals did not want Tourists in their neighborhoods as part of their family’s daily lives and thus Wailea Resort was conceived. To this day there are no schools in Wailea Resort, no major grocery stores, post office, local public transportation etc. WCA has testified to this use in the past and has consistently supported vacation rental use at the A1 zoned multi family properties in Wailea created while that use was allowed by Maui Code.
Thank you for moving Ekahi along in the Council Initiated Zoning change process.
Bonnie Pauli
Wailea Ekahi Property owner
June 27, 2026
To the Council of Maui County,
We respectfully request that Kana’i A Nalu be added to Exhibit 1 or 2, whichever is deemed appropriate, for H-3/H-4 zoning. We make this request based on the details, facts, and photos we have shared within this letter.
We also sincerely thank you for all the onerous, time-consuming hard work you have put in to get us Bill 88 and the creation of H3-H4 zoning for the county. What you have accomplished will give Condo owners, their vendors, managers, cleaners, support staff, and Maui County the long-term stability needed to grow, prosper, and flourish in the future. Mahalo.
Reviewing the initial Council resolutions, we see that leasehold properties have been declared inappropriate for local families.
Kana’i A Nalu, 250 Hauoli Road in Ma’alaea, an 80-unit building, is a leasehold property but isn’t included in the resolutions.
Our lease was signed into effect on December 1, 1976. It is a 90-year lease term, with negotiations every 30 years. Our current lease rate is $1004.23 per unit per month, with the next increase in December 2026 to $1255.29. It will be renegotiated again in 2036, with expected 25% increase every ten years throughout the entire lease.
Individual owners, through our association, per our lease, are required to pay for items our landlord won’t cover:
• Maui County property taxes on the land and buildings.
• Repairs, maintenance, and improvements to the land, buildings, and seawall.
• Insurance for the land, buildings, and seawall, including liability.
As examples, currently Kanai A Nalu condo owners are facing increases to monthly maintenance fees for a new roof because the existing roof is failing, as well as a separate assessment for our shoreline adaptation, a 2.4-million-dollar sea-level-rise plan for a burrito structure with a dune and public beach access, is in the final stages of County approval, and will be paid for by the owners of Kana’i A Nalu. The expenses for operating this property are immense and will continue to be ongoing.
Our condo buildings also have a staffed front office that handles a variety of property-related functions as well as registration to include check-in/check-out dates and times.
In closing, once again please accept this letter and the explanations herein to support our request to be included on the final list for the proposed bill to change the zoning for our property Kanai A Nalu.
Please see attached copy of our original lease.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Kana’i A Nalu AOAO Representatives
_____Jim Walters__________ ________ Mary Pedretti__________
Jim Walters, Vice President AOAO Board of Directors Mary Pedretti Secretary AOAO Board of Directors
Photos include:
1) Check-in registration area, 2) Office for onsite manager , 3) Brochures for local activities