1. If the condos in question do not have NPDES permits as required by the hard-won 2020 SCOTUS decision requiring such permits for functional equivalents to direct ocean discharges, why grant permanent hotel zoning when the most recent UIC data showing astronomical fecal indicator bacteria measurements are from the early 2000's?
2. What rationalizes codifying a few hundred dollars per day profit per STR, when $25K/day per injection well potential penalty fines are being avoided?
3. Who receives the financial upside from permanent hotel zoning, and who carries the wastewater and reef risk?
4. Why make the commercial entitlement permanent when some of the environmental safeguards and permit requirements are not being met?
5. What evidence establishes that converting residential land-use designations to Hotel is actually safe for visitors implicitly being given the green light to enter the ocean receiving the illegal discharge(s)?
6. Why does the bill call these properties “appropriate” for hotel zoning without presenting a wastewater or reef carrying-capacity analysis?
7. If these properties are specifically inside the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area, why is that being used to justify continued tourism rather than greater environmental caution?
8. What problem requires H-4 zoning today that cannot wait until Maʻalaea's wastewater problems are resolved?
9. Maʻalaea Kai's latest available UIC analytical report is from 2001, according to DOH. Isn't the absence of any newer pathogen indicator data itself a reason for caution?
10. Island Sands' latest available UIC analytical report is from 2005. Isn't the absence of any newer pathogen indicator data itself a reason for caution?
11. Since these are genuinely the latest available reports of detailed effluent water quality data from the condos in question, how can Council characterize present-day wastewater performance as appropriate for rezoning, or safe for visitors - or residents?
12. Both Ma'alaea condos under consideration for rezoning's latest available analysis reported fecal coliform at 16,000 MPN/100 mL. That's 605,665 chances to get sick aka colony forming units per gallon effluent. Does the Council think that is safe?
13. Both latest available reports documented substantial nitrogen and phosphorus. Where is the current nutrient-load calculation before Council?
14. Why should taxpayers and the reef accept massive uncertainty so that property owners can receive certainty through permanent H-4 zoning?
15. Was Council informed that a former Maʻalaea Village Association president documented in these exhibits had roughly 35 years of petroleum-engineering and oil-and-gas experience?
16. Was County informed of the former MVA President Lyndon Ibele's Marathon Oil production and project-management background before he coordinated sea level rise presentations by Tara and Wes?
17. Petroleum engineering may provide subsurface expertise, but where was the independent coral-reef, microbiological and public-health expertise balancing it?
18. Were technical representations concerning injection wells and wastewater independently reviewed, or accepted through community-association leadership with ties to an industry that has a massive interest in undermining the 2020 SCOTUS decision?
19. Is the Council aware of the direct link between infections and malignancy/cancer?
20. Why should community advocacy, social groups, and small-time profits per day substitute for independent environmental due diligence when permanent zoning is at stake?
21. Maui Ocean Center is a major Maʻalaea tourism interest owned by a foreign corporation. What weight has its economic interest been given in decisions affecting this community?
22. Why should a foreign-owned tourism corporation capture visitor revenue while Maʻalaea residents and reefs absorb its local wastewater externalities?
23. Coral World was founded by billionaire Morris Kahn. Who ultimately receives the economic benefit from preserving and expanding Maʻalaea's visitor economy, and who pays if the environmental assumptions prove wrong?
24. Why should ownership thousands of miles from Maui receive peripheral but permanent land-use benefits before local wastewater questions are settled?
25. Maui Ocean Center's own 2018 flow diagram showed protein-skimmer and sand-filter backwash process wastewater going to the Maʻalaea Triangle sewer. The operator of the Triangle WWTP Sal Marino stated the signatory did not inform him of the concentrated animal waste stream when he drafted the UIC permit application.
26. How many years was aquarium process wastewater routed to the Triangle system before that permit-description problem was formally reported?
27. Who independently characterized what was actually present in that protein-skimmer rinse and filter-backwash wastewater?
28. Were microorganisms, nutrients, disinfectants, salts, treatment chemicals and aquarium-derived organic material specifically characterized before underground injection?
29. Why was aquarium process wastewater being handled under permit language describing only secondary-treated domestic (aka human-sourced) wastewater?
30. When the operator discovered that UM-1954 did not adequately describe all wastewater being treated and injected, was injection of those streams stopped pending clarification? If not, why not?
31. If the discharge was fully authorized already, why did the operator ask DOH how to revise the injectant characteristics and authorization?
32. By July 2026, DOH-UIC said it had no documents responsive to the requested UM-1954 modification records. How has MOC continued to operate without proper permitting?
33. If no approved modification can be produced, what exactly is Council relying on when it assumes this region's wastewater regulation is functioning adequately, in the context of rezoning nearby properties that are also not compliant?
34. Why expand or permanently preserve tourism-oriented zoning while a nearby injection-well permit issue documented by the operator itself remains unresolved?
35. What testing has ever been performed for nontuberculous mycobacteria in the Maʻalaea Triangle influent, treatment process or injected effluent? Is the council aware that NTM are routine or even mundane in aquaria and aquaculture operations?
36. If no NTM testing exists, on what scientific basis could anyone claim chlorination made that wastewater microbiologically safe?
37. CDC says NTM can be 20 to 100 times more chlorine-resistant than coliform bacteria. Why would a chlorine residual or fecal-coliform result be treated as proof of NTM control?
38. What chlorine concentration and contact time at the Triangle plant were actually validated against NTM rather than ordinary indicator organisms?
39. Was the treatment process ever validated against biofilm-forming mycobacteria, or was “chlorinated” simply treated as synonymous with “disinfected”?
40. If NTM were never measured, how could operators know whether chlorine was controlling them at all?
41. Why would Council expand visitor-oriented land use before knowing whether the wastewater treatment barrier addresses chlorine-resistant organisms discharging into the same waterbody as the condos, also not measuring any pathogens or pathogen indicators?
42. If the Triangle WWTP treatment technology was never designed or validated for NTM reduction, shouldn't that uncertainty be resolved before nearby, also noncompliant condos for hotel zoning, not after it?
43. DOH rated the nearby Maʻalaea Small Boat Harbor wastewater plant “Unacceptable” in 2023 and documented operation without authorization for use. Why is that regional compliance history absent from the rezoning rationale?
44. DOH confirmed in September 2025 that the harbor plant still lacked an active approval-to-construct or approval-to-use. Why should Council assume wastewater oversight will catch future problems promptly?
45. DLNR was still submitting documents seeking approval to construct that wastewater works in January 2026. Why is the County rushing hotel zoning while basic Maʻalaea wastewater approvals are still being cleaned up?
46. State reef material describes Maʻalaea as a “Total System Collapse,” with coral cover falling from an estimated 50 to 75 percent historically to roughly 8 percent. How much more ecological risk is Council willing to accept for hotel zoning?
47. State reef material specifically identifies anthropogenic shoreline development and human use as major pressures at Maʻalaea and links elevated nutrients to wastewater or fertilizers. Why isn't reducing those pressures a prerequisite to rezoning?
48. Maui Ocean Center reported 548 of 802 collected fish dying during the 2021-22 permit year. Why should conservation branding carry more weight than documented environmental performance?
49. With injection wells involved, has anyone performed even one property-specific analysis under the Supreme Court's 2020 County of Maui “functional equivalent of a direct discharge” standard before granting H-4 zoning?
50. With decades-old latest-available condo UIC analyses, a self-reported UM-1954 injectant problem for the aquarium, documented Ma'alaea Small Boat Harbor wastewater violations, chlorine-resistant organisms associated with aquarium operations never shown to be controlled, a foreign-owned "ecotourism" interest benefiting economically, petroleum-industry experience embedded in past Maʻalaea leadership, and a reef already described as a total system collapse, what evidence justifies permanently rezoning these properties to hotels before fixing the wastewater system, when the same tourists being given the implicit green light with rezoning could get sick, or die from an illegal exposure? Who is liable for that? Are condo owners aware of this risk/exposure?
Please defer now as THERE IS ANOTHER STORM ON THE WAY.
With the Super El Nino, there's no limit to how extensive this season could be!!!
Aloha-
Justification for a zoning change from H-3 to H-4 to allow STR, in apartment zoned areas, by citing sea level rise is a weak effort to pander. Those are two separate issues and would be ridiculous to base the zoning change. Please oppose this effort.
Aloha Chair and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee,
My name is Tracey McConnell, and I am submitting this testimony on behalf of my mother, who has owned her condominium at Hale Kai O Kihei, 1310 Uluniu Road, Kihei, for approximately 20 years.
I respectfully support Resolution 26-129 and ask that Hale Kai O Kihei be included in the County-initiated review and rezoning consideration being afforded to other similarly situated properties.
Hale Kai O Kihei is a long-established, 59-unit A-1 Apartment-zoned oceanfront condominium built in 1969. The property has a decades-long history of short-term rental use. My mother purchased her condominium approximately 20 years ago and has owned and maintained it throughout that time under the land-use and short-term rental framework that existed for this property.
Hale Kai O Kihei is located within the 3.2-foot Sea Level Rise Exposure Area (SLR-XA) and faces significant coastal concerns, including sea-level rise, flooding, coastal erosion, drainage limitations, high-wave flooding, and concerns regarding safe ingress and egress.
Yet Hale Kai O Kihei has been excluded from the County-initiated process while other nearby and similarly situated properties have been included.
This raises an important question of fairness, consistency, and equal consideration.
We respectfully ask that the same objective planning criteria be clearly defined and consistently applied to Hale Kai O Kihei and to all similarly situated properties. Decisions about which properties receive County-initiated consideration should be based on transparent and consistent land-use criteria rather than distinctions that result in comparable properties being treated differently.
Our family has previously submitted information documenting Hale Kai O Kihei's zoning, long-standing visitor accommodation history, and sea-level-rise exposure. Hale Kai O Kihei has existed as an oceanfront condominium for more than five decades and has a long history of vacation rental use.
The consequences of exclusion are very real for long-time owners such as my mother. After approximately 20 years of ownership, decisions being made today could fundamentally affect the use and value of a property she purchased and has maintained for two decades.
These are not simply properties on a map. They represent years of ownership, financial investment, maintenance, and reliance upon the rules and permitted uses under which owners purchased their properties.
We are not asking for special treatment or a guarantee of short-term rental rights.
We are asking for equal consideration and the same opportunity for public, agency, and Planning Commission review that is being afforded to other similarly situated properties.
At a minimum, Hale Kai O Kihei deserves the opportunity to be evaluated through the same County-initiated process before a decision is made that could permanently affect its owners.
I respectfully ask the Housing and Land Use Committee to include Hale Kai O Kihei in the appropriate County-initiated review and rezoning consideration associated with Resolution 26-129 and to apply the County's objective criteria fairly and consistently.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Tracey McConnell
On behalf of my mother, a 20-year owner at Hale Kai O Kihei
1310 Uluniu Road, Kihei, Maui
The State’s coastal-hazard maps do not support treating Hale Kai O‘Kihei and Kihei Bay Vista as equally vulnerable. Although both developments are located entirely within FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas, Hale Kai O‘Kihei is more directly threatened by the specific effects of rising seas.
The difference is visible in the State’s 3.2-foot sea-level-rise scenario. At Hale Kai O‘Kihei, the blue exposure area appears to affect roughly one-quarter to nearly one-third of the entire parcel and approximately 8–12% of the buildings. At Kihei Bay Vista, the corresponding estimates are closer to 15–20% of the property and no more than about 5% of the building area. These percentages are approximations based on the map rather than professional survey measurements, but they demonstrate a meaningful difference in the extent of exposure.
Shoreline erosion creates an additional concern at Hale Kai O‘Kihei. The red erosion projection comes extremely close to—and appears to meet—the seaward corner of its building. The same line remains farther away from the structures at Kihei Bay Vista. Hale Kai O‘Kihei’s buildings are therefore exposed not only to a larger area of projected flooding, but also to a more immediate erosion threat.
The two developments also have very different options if their normal entrances become unusable. Hale Kai O‘Kihei is served by Uluniu Road, and the surrounding layout provides no apparent location for a second route connecting the complex to another public street. If flooding cuts off that access, residents, emergency responders, and evacuation vehicles could have no practical alternative.
Kihei Bay Vista is less constrained. Liloa Drive runs inland of and parallel to South Kihei Road, and the excavated, relatively open land behind the development may provide a feasible corridor for future emergency access. Whether such a road could ultimately be approved would require further study, but the physical opportunity exists. No comparable option is readily apparent at Hale Kai O‘Kihei.
Viewed as a whole, the mapping shows a consistent pattern: Hale Kai O‘Kihei has more land within the projected exposure area, more of its buildings directly affected, a closer erosion line, and a more serious risk of being left without road access. On those objective measures, Hale Kai O‘Kihei is the more vulnerable of the two properties.
Hale Kai O‘Kihei is objectively MORE VULNERABLE to sea-level rise, coastal erosion, flooding, and loss of emergency access than Kihei Bay Vista.
Both Hale Kai O‘Kihei and Kihei Bay Vista are entirely within FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas. However, the State’s 3.2-foot Sea Level Rise Exposure Area mapping shows substantially greater direct exposure at Hale Kai O‘Kihei.
Based on the mapped blue exposure areas, approximately 25–30% of the Hale Kai O‘Kihei property is within the 3.2-foot SLR-XA, compared with approximately 15–20% of the Kihei Bay Vista property. The blue area also appears to cover approximately 8–12% of Hale Kai O‘Kihei’s building footprint, compared with approximately 5% or less of the Kihei Bay Vista building footprint. These are reasonable visual estimates from the State mapping tool rather than surveyed measurements, but the difference between the two properties is readily apparent. Hale Kai O‘Kihei has at least approximately 50% greater proportional property exposure and roughly twice the building-footprint exposure.
The erosion hazard is also more immediate at Hale Kai O‘Kihei. The red erosion line shown by the State mapping tool reaches or comes extremely close to the northern oceanfront corner of the Hale Kai O‘Kihei building. Kihei Bay Vista is located inland of South Kīhei Road, and the red erosion line is not nearly as close to its buildings.
Emergency access presents another significant distinction. Kihei Bay Vista has access to South Kīhei Road, and Kenolio Road runs generally parallel to South Kīhei Road farther inland. There is also a cleared, excavated, or graded tract immediately behind Kihei Bay Vista. Although any future emergency connection would require confirmation of ownership, easements, engineering feasibility, and government approval, the physical configuration creates a conceivable opportunity for an alternate access route toward Kenolio Road and the inland road system.
Hale Kai O‘Kihei has no comparable option. Vehicles must first reach Uluniu Road, and there is no obvious way to create a direct alternate connection from the property to another inland public road. The property is constrained by the ocean and developed neighboring parcels. Any alternate route would require crossing developed private property, obtaining permanent easements or acquiring land, potentially relocating existing improvements, and securing engineering and governmental approvals. Hale Kai O‘Kihei therefore has both greater coastal exposure and fewer realistic options for preserving emergency access.
If Kihei Bay Vista qualifies for favorable hotel-zoning consideration because of coastal vulnerability, the same rationale applies even more strongly to Hale Kai O‘Kihei. Excluding Hale Kai O‘Kihei while including a demonstrably less-exposed property would be inconsistent with the stated sea-level-rise rationale. Hale Kai O‘Kihei should be added to Resolution 26-129.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl Vohaska,
Bill 9/ Bill 88 Committee Chair
Hale Kai O’Kihei
This is in support of the amendment to Resolution 26-129 to include Makani A Kai as a property identified in the County's SLRXA map. We are requesting your vote for approval of the proposed resolution and the rezoning of this property to the H-3 Hotel District.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this agenda item.
Respectfully,
Ron Rascia, Makani A Kai owner and board treasurer
Dianne Rascia, Makani A Kai owner
I am writing in strong opposition to Resolution 26-129 and Resolution 26-130 and the proposed properties being considered for H3/H4 upzoning.
Your goal in the endeavor should be to preserve as much of these apartments as housing for residents to buy or rent, not appease an extractive industry that profits off of our housing crisis.
Our people are still displaced, and families are still struggling to find stable housing. With FEMA assistance expected to end in early 2027, we cannot afford to keep creating exceptions that preserve short-term rentals. I've seen countless people searching for a place to live. It's not an issue of cost or "suitability" there is simply nothing available. Building will take time, our community needs a lifeline NOW. These supposed "business losses" have 5 years to adapt and pivot. During COVID we had much less time than that. This is part of being a business owner. They have a luxury of time and money that our residents do not have.
We don't need to recreate the problems that created the Minatoya list in the first place. I understand that some of these properties are appropriate to upzone, but that should be determined by strict criteria, not a goalpost that continues to move to include more exemptions. I'm appalled by this argument that the building are unsafe for residents. If the buildings are *that* unsafe they should be condemned. It feels like another exaggeration rather than actual care or concern for people. Residents are more able to prepare and respond to weather warnings. Tourists are not equipped for that and have less of an ability to care for themselves in a disaster. Housing tourists in an "unsafe" place puts more strain on emergency response systems. Residents at least know the roads, are likely subscribed to emergency alerts, and have community connections to get them through big storms like the one we just had. Is a tourist really bringing a whole disaster kit with them? I doubt it.
For the shoreline parcels, previous discussions included public beach access, public parking, and managed retreat conditions—none of which have materialized. Given the vulnerability of these properties, the answer should be no. The SLRXA list is not meant to be a loophole for properties to continue short term rental operations and it's disingenuous to even argue that. The County should instead look at these areas comprehensively, including potential acquisition where appropriate.
These were meant to be and *should be* residential properties, not permanent commercial short-term rentals.
I respectfully urge the Committee to reject Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130, stay true to the intent of Bill 9, and hold the line on recovering housing for our community.
I will not stand by while housing opportunities for our people are given away FOREVER.
Mahalo for listening to the voices of our community.
I am writing in support of Resolution 26-129. I ask the County Council Housing and Land Use Committee to approve this resolution and the proposed amendment adding Makani Sands to the list of condominiums to be exempted from Ordinance 5909.
Makani Sands is unique in that it can meet all four criteria for exemptions to Ordinance 5909:
1. Historically operated as a hotel. Our attorney has indisputable documentation on file.
2. Located in the sea level rise exclusion area (SLRXA) per the County's map viewer tool.
3. Also located in the Flood Zone per the County's map viewer tool.
4. Not affordable for local residents to purchase. Monthly payments exceed the County’s criterion of $4,500 per month (mortgage PMI, property tax, AOAO dues and Insurance). Our attorney has calculations on file.
Please approve Resolution 26-129 plus the proposed amendments. And please advance the Resolution to the County Planning Commission for evaluation.
Re KIHEI PARK SHORE, 2037 S. Kihei Rd., Kihei, HI 96753; TMK: (2) 3-9-017-010
Dear Committee Chair and HLU Members,
Attached is testimony submitted on behalf of the Kihei Park Shore Association in support of amending Resolution 26-129 to include the Kihei Park Shore condominium resort for Council-initiated rezoning. The attached submission demonstrates that Kihei Park Shore satisfies the objective criteria identified by the Committee in Resolution 26-129, falling almost entirely in the 3.2-foot Sea Level Rise Exposure Area ("SLR-XA") and substantially affected by the Special Flood Hazard Area.
Our testimony also addresses comments made at the last Committee meeting on August 5, 2026, suggesting that the SLR-XA is an obsolete planning tool, and explains why the 3.2-foot SLR-XA remains as the recognized and appropriate planning criterion under current State and Maui County planning policies.
Finally, the enclosed submission reiterates the importance of clearly defining, and consistently applying objective planning criteria to all similarly situated properties so that Council-initiated rezoning decisions are grounded in transparent and rational land-use principals, rather than ad hoc, property-specific subjective determinations.
Thank you for your consideration on behalf of the Board of Directors of Kihei Park Shore.
Rebecca Krill
Principal
HI HOA LAW LLLC
rebecca@hihoalaw.com
My name is not included in this version. This testimony is written on behalf of the 41 short-term-rental units at Lahaina Roads and focuses on the property’s eligibility, lawful operating history, and request for inclusion in the applicable resolutions.
Testimony
Good morning, Chair and Members of the Maui County Council.
I am speaking on behalf of the 41 short-term-rental units at Lahaina Roads, located at 1403 Front Street in Lahaina.
Lahaina Roads is located within the applicable SLR-XA or Flood Hazard Zone and meets the requirements for consideration under Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130. However, Lahaina Roads and its 41 units were not included in the original resolutions or in the subsequent amendments presented to the Council.
We respectfully ask the Council to recognize that Lahaina Roads meets the applicable criteria and should be included in the appropriate resolution or a subsequent amendment.
Lahaina Roads is an established condominium property with a decades-long history of lawful short-term-rental operation. This use is not new or speculative. The property has operated lawfully under the County’s applicable requirements, and its established legal history should be considered when the Council evaluates the properties covered by these resolutions.
We support moving forward through the applicable rezoning process. We are not asking to bypass the County’s procedures. We are asking that Lahaina Roads be included so the property can proceed through the same process available to other properties that meet the established criteria.
We respectfully request that the Council:
Confirm that Lahaina Roads meets the applicable requirements.
Include Lahaina Roads and its 41 short-term-rental units in Resolution 26-129, Resolution 26-130, or an appropriate subsequent amendment.
Recognize Lahaina Roads’ decades-long history of lawful short-term-rental operation.
Allow Lahaina Roads to move forward through the applicable rezoning process.
Ensure that Lahaina Roads is not excluded simply because it was omitted from the original resolutions.
Lahaina Roads meets the applicable requirements, has a longstanding lawful history, and should be considered for inclusion. We respectfully ask the Council to correct this omission and include Lahaina Roads in the resolution.
In transitioning from this morning’s HLU Committee meeting regarding the rezoning of coastal properties from apartment to hotel use to this DRIP Committee meeting regarding the Lahaina Long-Term Recovery Plan and specifically its housing needs, I would like to provide this testimony as a possible solution for the Office of Recovery to explore.
There are approximately 2,000 short-term rental condominium units within the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area (SLR-XA) in West Maui. Because of their location within the SLR-XA, these units are being proposed for rezoning to hotel use. However, I would argue that if these units are not being used for their originally intended purpose, housing for our local workforce and families then they should either be demolished, with their water and sewer allocations freed up for new, safe, affordable housing built outside of hazard zones, or acquired by the County or State for limited-time occupancy by residents. As we heard in today’s presentation, the lack of infrastructure is an impediment to developing new housing.
During the last legislative session, Senate Bill 3034, which did not move forward, proposed the voluntary acquisition of vulnerable coastal properties at a hazard-adjusted residual value. That value accounts for the future costs of demolition, hazard remediation, monitoring, and shoreline restoration.
A property could remain occupied temporarily by Maui residents through short-term, renewable leases only while it remains safe. Further expansion, capital investment, and shoreline armoring would be prohibited. When occupancy is no longer safe, the structure would be removed, redevelopment prohibited, and the shoreline restored.
The proposed bill also allows counties, nonprofit organizations, and land trusts to help manage these properties.
Maui County could partner with an organization such as the Lahaina Community Land Trust to acquire properties with some years of safe occupancy remaining and rent the units temporarily to Maui residents. This would provide time-limited housing without misleading local families into investing their life savings in properties with no secure long-term future.
Rental revenue could help fund inspections, management, eventual demolition, and shoreline restoration. This would also interrupt the cycle of continued investment in aging buildings and failing seawalls, followed by demands for emergency permits, public subsidies, and taxpayer-funded cleanup.
I urge this body to begin this discussion and request that the Office of Recovery evaluate this concept as part of its plans for housing in West Maui.
I will also note that the County of Maui’s current Hoʻokumu Hou program, which provides substantial down-payment assistance for fire-affected families purchasing homes, restricts residents from using those funds to purchase shoreline and flood-zone properties. I support that restriction. However, perhaps a County-initiated program based on SB 3034 could instead allow for County or land trust acquisition of these imperiled condominium properties, followed by safe, time-limited occupancy for Maui residents.
Aloha,
1. If the condos in question do not have NPDES permits as required by the hard-won 2020 SCOTUS decision requiring such permits for functional equivalents to direct ocean discharges, why grant permanent hotel zoning when the most recent UIC data showing astronomical fecal indicator bacteria measurements are from the early 2000's?
2. What rationalizes codifying a few hundred dollars per day profit per STR, when $25K/day per injection well potential penalty fines are being avoided?
3. Who receives the financial upside from permanent hotel zoning, and who carries the wastewater and reef risk?
4. Why make the commercial entitlement permanent when some of the environmental safeguards and permit requirements are not being met?
5. What evidence establishes that converting residential land-use designations to Hotel is actually safe for visitors implicitly being given the green light to enter the ocean receiving the illegal discharge(s)?
6. Why does the bill call these properties “appropriate” for hotel zoning without presenting a wastewater or reef carrying-capacity analysis?
7. If these properties are specifically inside the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area, why is that being used to justify continued tourism rather than greater environmental caution?
8. What problem requires H-4 zoning today that cannot wait until Maʻalaea's wastewater problems are resolved?
9. Maʻalaea Kai's latest available UIC analytical report is from 2001, according to DOH. Isn't the absence of any newer pathogen indicator data itself a reason for caution?
10. Island Sands' latest available UIC analytical report is from 2005. Isn't the absence of any newer pathogen indicator data itself a reason for caution?
11. Since these are genuinely the latest available reports of detailed effluent water quality data from the condos in question, how can Council characterize present-day wastewater performance as appropriate for rezoning, or safe for visitors - or residents?
12. Both Ma'alaea condos under consideration for rezoning's latest available analysis reported fecal coliform at 16,000 MPN/100 mL. That's 605,665 chances to get sick aka colony forming units per gallon effluent. Does the Council think that is safe?
13. Both latest available reports documented substantial nitrogen and phosphorus. Where is the current nutrient-load calculation before Council?
14. Why should taxpayers and the reef accept massive uncertainty so that property owners can receive certainty through permanent H-4 zoning?
15. Was Council informed that a former Maʻalaea Village Association president documented in these exhibits had roughly 35 years of petroleum-engineering and oil-and-gas experience?
16. Was County informed of the former MVA President Lyndon Ibele's Marathon Oil production and project-management background before he coordinated sea level rise presentations by Tara and Wes?
17. Petroleum engineering may provide subsurface expertise, but where was the independent coral-reef, microbiological and public-health expertise balancing it?
18. Were technical representations concerning injection wells and wastewater independently reviewed, or accepted through community-association leadership with ties to an industry that has a massive interest in undermining the 2020 SCOTUS decision?
19. Is the Council aware of the direct link between infections and malignancy/cancer?
20. Why should community advocacy, social groups, and small-time profits per day substitute for independent environmental due diligence when permanent zoning is at stake?
21. Maui Ocean Center is a major Maʻalaea tourism interest owned by a foreign corporation. What weight has its economic interest been given in decisions affecting this community?
22. Why should a foreign-owned tourism corporation capture visitor revenue while Maʻalaea residents and reefs absorb its local wastewater externalities?
23. Coral World was founded by billionaire Morris Kahn. Who ultimately receives the economic benefit from preserving and expanding Maʻalaea's visitor economy, and who pays if the environmental assumptions prove wrong?
24. Why should ownership thousands of miles from Maui receive peripheral but permanent land-use benefits before local wastewater questions are settled?
25. Maui Ocean Center's own 2018 flow diagram showed protein-skimmer and sand-filter backwash process wastewater going to the Maʻalaea Triangle sewer. The operator of the Triangle WWTP Sal Marino stated the signatory did not inform him of the concentrated animal waste stream when he drafted the UIC permit application.
26. How many years was aquarium process wastewater routed to the Triangle system before that permit-description problem was formally reported?
27. Who independently characterized what was actually present in that protein-skimmer rinse and filter-backwash wastewater?
28. Were microorganisms, nutrients, disinfectants, salts, treatment chemicals and aquarium-derived organic material specifically characterized before underground injection?
29. Why was aquarium process wastewater being handled under permit language describing only secondary-treated domestic (aka human-sourced) wastewater?
30. When the operator discovered that UM-1954 did not adequately describe all wastewater being treated and injected, was injection of those streams stopped pending clarification? If not, why not?
31. If the discharge was fully authorized already, why did the operator ask DOH how to revise the injectant characteristics and authorization?
32. By July 2026, DOH-UIC said it had no documents responsive to the requested UM-1954 modification records. How has MOC continued to operate without proper permitting?
33. If no approved modification can be produced, what exactly is Council relying on when it assumes this region's wastewater regulation is functioning adequately, in the context of rezoning nearby properties that are also not compliant?
34. Why expand or permanently preserve tourism-oriented zoning while a nearby injection-well permit issue documented by the operator itself remains unresolved?
35. What testing has ever been performed for nontuberculous mycobacteria in the Maʻalaea Triangle influent, treatment process or injected effluent? Is the council aware that NTM are routine or even mundane in aquaria and aquaculture operations?
36. If no NTM testing exists, on what scientific basis could anyone claim chlorination made that wastewater microbiologically safe?
37. CDC says NTM can be 20 to 100 times more chlorine-resistant than coliform bacteria. Why would a chlorine residual or fecal-coliform result be treated as proof of NTM control?
38. What chlorine concentration and contact time at the Triangle plant were actually validated against NTM rather than ordinary indicator organisms?
39. Was the treatment process ever validated against biofilm-forming mycobacteria, or was “chlorinated” simply treated as synonymous with “disinfected”?
40. If NTM were never measured, how could operators know whether chlorine was controlling them at all?
41. Why would Council expand visitor-oriented land use before knowing whether the wastewater treatment barrier addresses chlorine-resistant organisms discharging into the same waterbody as the condos, also not measuring any pathogens or pathogen indicators?
42. If the Triangle WWTP treatment technology was never designed or validated for NTM reduction, shouldn't that uncertainty be resolved before nearby, also noncompliant condos for hotel zoning, not after it?
43. DOH rated the nearby Maʻalaea Small Boat Harbor wastewater plant “Unacceptable” in 2023 and documented operation without authorization for use. Why is that regional compliance history absent from the rezoning rationale?
44. DOH confirmed in September 2025 that the harbor plant still lacked an active approval-to-construct or approval-to-use. Why should Council assume wastewater oversight will catch future problems promptly?
45. DLNR was still submitting documents seeking approval to construct that wastewater works in January 2026. Why is the County rushing hotel zoning while basic Maʻalaea wastewater approvals are still being cleaned up?
46. State reef material describes Maʻalaea as a “Total System Collapse,” with coral cover falling from an estimated 50 to 75 percent historically to roughly 8 percent. How much more ecological risk is Council willing to accept for hotel zoning?
47. State reef material specifically identifies anthropogenic shoreline development and human use as major pressures at Maʻalaea and links elevated nutrients to wastewater or fertilizers. Why isn't reducing those pressures a prerequisite to rezoning?
48. Maui Ocean Center reported 548 of 802 collected fish dying during the 2021-22 permit year. Why should conservation branding carry more weight than documented environmental performance?
49. With injection wells involved, has anyone performed even one property-specific analysis under the Supreme Court's 2020 County of Maui “functional equivalent of a direct discharge” standard before granting H-4 zoning?
50. With decades-old latest-available condo UIC analyses, a self-reported UM-1954 injectant problem for the aquarium, documented Ma'alaea Small Boat Harbor wastewater violations, chlorine-resistant organisms associated with aquarium operations never shown to be controlled, a foreign-owned "ecotourism" interest benefiting economically, petroleum-industry experience embedded in past Maʻalaea leadership, and a reef already described as a total system collapse, what evidence justifies permanently rezoning these properties to hotels before fixing the wastewater system, when the same tourists being given the implicit green light with rezoning could get sick, or die from an illegal exposure? Who is liable for that? Are condo owners aware of this risk/exposure?
Please defer now as THERE IS ANOTHER STORM ON THE WAY.
With the Super El Nino, there's no limit to how extensive this season could be!!!
Aloha
Aloha-
Justification for a zoning change from H-3 to H-4 to allow STR, in apartment zoned areas, by citing sea level rise is a weak effort to pander. Those are two separate issues and would be ridiculous to base the zoning change. Please oppose this effort.
Aloha Chair and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee,
My name is Tracey McConnell, and I am submitting this testimony on behalf of my mother, who has owned her condominium at Hale Kai O Kihei, 1310 Uluniu Road, Kihei, for approximately 20 years.
I respectfully support Resolution 26-129 and ask that Hale Kai O Kihei be included in the County-initiated review and rezoning consideration being afforded to other similarly situated properties.
Hale Kai O Kihei is a long-established, 59-unit A-1 Apartment-zoned oceanfront condominium built in 1969. The property has a decades-long history of short-term rental use. My mother purchased her condominium approximately 20 years ago and has owned and maintained it throughout that time under the land-use and short-term rental framework that existed for this property.
Hale Kai O Kihei is located within the 3.2-foot Sea Level Rise Exposure Area (SLR-XA) and faces significant coastal concerns, including sea-level rise, flooding, coastal erosion, drainage limitations, high-wave flooding, and concerns regarding safe ingress and egress.
Yet Hale Kai O Kihei has been excluded from the County-initiated process while other nearby and similarly situated properties have been included.
This raises an important question of fairness, consistency, and equal consideration.
We respectfully ask that the same objective planning criteria be clearly defined and consistently applied to Hale Kai O Kihei and to all similarly situated properties. Decisions about which properties receive County-initiated consideration should be based on transparent and consistent land-use criteria rather than distinctions that result in comparable properties being treated differently.
Our family has previously submitted information documenting Hale Kai O Kihei's zoning, long-standing visitor accommodation history, and sea-level-rise exposure. Hale Kai O Kihei has existed as an oceanfront condominium for more than five decades and has a long history of vacation rental use.
The consequences of exclusion are very real for long-time owners such as my mother. After approximately 20 years of ownership, decisions being made today could fundamentally affect the use and value of a property she purchased and has maintained for two decades.
These are not simply properties on a map. They represent years of ownership, financial investment, maintenance, and reliance upon the rules and permitted uses under which owners purchased their properties.
We are not asking for special treatment or a guarantee of short-term rental rights.
We are asking for equal consideration and the same opportunity for public, agency, and Planning Commission review that is being afforded to other similarly situated properties.
At a minimum, Hale Kai O Kihei deserves the opportunity to be evaluated through the same County-initiated process before a decision is made that could permanently affect its owners.
I respectfully ask the Housing and Land Use Committee to include Hale Kai O Kihei in the appropriate County-initiated review and rezoning consideration associated with Resolution 26-129 and to apply the County's objective criteria fairly and consistently.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Tracey McConnell
On behalf of my mother, a 20-year owner at Hale Kai O Kihei
1310 Uluniu Road, Kihei, Maui
Please make correction applying same criteria:
The State’s coastal-hazard maps do not support treating Hale Kai O‘Kihei and Kihei Bay Vista as equally vulnerable. Although both developments are located entirely within FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas, Hale Kai O‘Kihei is more directly threatened by the specific effects of rising seas.
The difference is visible in the State’s 3.2-foot sea-level-rise scenario. At Hale Kai O‘Kihei, the blue exposure area appears to affect roughly one-quarter to nearly one-third of the entire parcel and approximately 8–12% of the buildings. At Kihei Bay Vista, the corresponding estimates are closer to 15–20% of the property and no more than about 5% of the building area. These percentages are approximations based on the map rather than professional survey measurements, but they demonstrate a meaningful difference in the extent of exposure.
Shoreline erosion creates an additional concern at Hale Kai O‘Kihei. The red erosion projection comes extremely close to—and appears to meet—the seaward corner of its building. The same line remains farther away from the structures at Kihei Bay Vista. Hale Kai O‘Kihei’s buildings are therefore exposed not only to a larger area of projected flooding, but also to a more immediate erosion threat.
The two developments also have very different options if their normal entrances become unusable. Hale Kai O‘Kihei is served by Uluniu Road, and the surrounding layout provides no apparent location for a second route connecting the complex to another public street. If flooding cuts off that access, residents, emergency responders, and evacuation vehicles could have no practical alternative.
Kihei Bay Vista is less constrained. Liloa Drive runs inland of and parallel to South Kihei Road, and the excavated, relatively open land behind the development may provide a feasible corridor for future emergency access. Whether such a road could ultimately be approved would require further study, but the physical opportunity exists. No comparable option is readily apparent at Hale Kai O‘Kihei.
Viewed as a whole, the mapping shows a consistent pattern: Hale Kai O‘Kihei has more land within the projected exposure area, more of its buildings directly affected, a closer erosion line, and a more serious risk of being left without road access. On those objective measures, Hale Kai O‘Kihei is the more vulnerable of the two properties.
Respectfully,
Bill Vohaska, Hale Kai O’Kihei 119
Hale Kai O‘Kihei is objectively MORE VULNERABLE to sea-level rise, coastal erosion, flooding, and loss of emergency access than Kihei Bay Vista.
Both Hale Kai O‘Kihei and Kihei Bay Vista are entirely within FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas. However, the State’s 3.2-foot Sea Level Rise Exposure Area mapping shows substantially greater direct exposure at Hale Kai O‘Kihei.
Based on the mapped blue exposure areas, approximately 25–30% of the Hale Kai O‘Kihei property is within the 3.2-foot SLR-XA, compared with approximately 15–20% of the Kihei Bay Vista property. The blue area also appears to cover approximately 8–12% of Hale Kai O‘Kihei’s building footprint, compared with approximately 5% or less of the Kihei Bay Vista building footprint. These are reasonable visual estimates from the State mapping tool rather than surveyed measurements, but the difference between the two properties is readily apparent. Hale Kai O‘Kihei has at least approximately 50% greater proportional property exposure and roughly twice the building-footprint exposure.
The erosion hazard is also more immediate at Hale Kai O‘Kihei. The red erosion line shown by the State mapping tool reaches or comes extremely close to the northern oceanfront corner of the Hale Kai O‘Kihei building. Kihei Bay Vista is located inland of South Kīhei Road, and the red erosion line is not nearly as close to its buildings.
Emergency access presents another significant distinction. Kihei Bay Vista has access to South Kīhei Road, and Kenolio Road runs generally parallel to South Kīhei Road farther inland. There is also a cleared, excavated, or graded tract immediately behind Kihei Bay Vista. Although any future emergency connection would require confirmation of ownership, easements, engineering feasibility, and government approval, the physical configuration creates a conceivable opportunity for an alternate access route toward Kenolio Road and the inland road system.
Hale Kai O‘Kihei has no comparable option. Vehicles must first reach Uluniu Road, and there is no obvious way to create a direct alternate connection from the property to another inland public road. The property is constrained by the ocean and developed neighboring parcels. Any alternate route would require crossing developed private property, obtaining permanent easements or acquiring land, potentially relocating existing improvements, and securing engineering and governmental approvals. Hale Kai O‘Kihei therefore has both greater coastal exposure and fewer realistic options for preserving emergency access.
If Kihei Bay Vista qualifies for favorable hotel-zoning consideration because of coastal vulnerability, the same rationale applies even more strongly to Hale Kai O‘Kihei. Excluding Hale Kai O‘Kihei while including a demonstrably less-exposed property would be inconsistent with the stated sea-level-rise rationale. Hale Kai O‘Kihei should be added to Resolution 26-129.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl Vohaska,
Bill 9/ Bill 88 Committee Chair
Hale Kai O’Kihei
Aloha Esteemed Chair and Committee Members,
I am writing to strongly oppose the rezoning of condos in Ma'alaea to hotels.
A detailed video testimony can be found here:
youtu.be/hs9pq2Qixgg
Supporting documents are attached, with statewide effluent data available here: FlushAware.com
Mahalo for your careful consideration of my testimony.
Sincerely,
Travis A. Liggett, MS
+1 (808) 291-9934
travis.liggett@gmail.com
Good morning Council Chair and Committee Members,
This is in support of the amendment to Resolution 26-129 to include Makani A Kai as a property identified in the County's SLRXA map. We are requesting your vote for approval of the proposed resolution and the rezoning of this property to the H-3 Hotel District.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this agenda item.
Respectfully,
Ron Rascia, Makani A Kai owner and board treasurer
Dianne Rascia, Makani A Kai owner
Aloha Chair and Members of the Committee,
I am writing in strong opposition to Resolution 26-129 and Resolution 26-130 and the proposed properties being considered for H3/H4 upzoning.
Your goal in the endeavor should be to preserve as much of these apartments as housing for residents to buy or rent, not appease an extractive industry that profits off of our housing crisis.
Our people are still displaced, and families are still struggling to find stable housing. With FEMA assistance expected to end in early 2027, we cannot afford to keep creating exceptions that preserve short-term rentals. I've seen countless people searching for a place to live. It's not an issue of cost or "suitability" there is simply nothing available. Building will take time, our community needs a lifeline NOW. These supposed "business losses" have 5 years to adapt and pivot. During COVID we had much less time than that. This is part of being a business owner. They have a luxury of time and money that our residents do not have.
We don't need to recreate the problems that created the Minatoya list in the first place. I understand that some of these properties are appropriate to upzone, but that should be determined by strict criteria, not a goalpost that continues to move to include more exemptions. I'm appalled by this argument that the building are unsafe for residents. If the buildings are *that* unsafe they should be condemned. It feels like another exaggeration rather than actual care or concern for people. Residents are more able to prepare and respond to weather warnings. Tourists are not equipped for that and have less of an ability to care for themselves in a disaster. Housing tourists in an "unsafe" place puts more strain on emergency response systems. Residents at least know the roads, are likely subscribed to emergency alerts, and have community connections to get them through big storms like the one we just had. Is a tourist really bringing a whole disaster kit with them? I doubt it.
For the shoreline parcels, previous discussions included public beach access, public parking, and managed retreat conditions—none of which have materialized. Given the vulnerability of these properties, the answer should be no. The SLRXA list is not meant to be a loophole for properties to continue short term rental operations and it's disingenuous to even argue that. The County should instead look at these areas comprehensively, including potential acquisition where appropriate.
These were meant to be and *should be* residential properties, not permanent commercial short-term rentals.
I respectfully urge the Committee to reject Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130, stay true to the intent of Bill 9, and hold the line on recovering housing for our community.
I will not stand by while housing opportunities for our people are given away FOREVER.
Mahalo for listening to the voices of our community.
I am writing in support of Resolution 26-129. I ask the County Council Housing and Land Use Committee to approve this resolution and the proposed amendment adding Makani Sands to the list of condominiums to be exempted from Ordinance 5909.
Makani Sands is unique in that it can meet all four criteria for exemptions to Ordinance 5909:
1. Historically operated as a hotel. Our attorney has indisputable documentation on file.
2. Located in the sea level rise exclusion area (SLRXA) per the County's map viewer tool.
3. Also located in the Flood Zone per the County's map viewer tool.
4. Not affordable for local residents to purchase. Monthly payments exceed the County’s criterion of $4,500 per month (mortgage PMI, property tax, AOAO dues and Insurance). Our attorney has calculations on file.
Please approve Resolution 26-129 plus the proposed amendments. And please advance the Resolution to the County Planning Commission for evaluation.
youtu.be/hs9pq2Qixgg
Re KIHEI PARK SHORE, 2037 S. Kihei Rd., Kihei, HI 96753; TMK: (2) 3-9-017-010
Dear Committee Chair and HLU Members,
Attached is testimony submitted on behalf of the Kihei Park Shore Association in support of amending Resolution 26-129 to include the Kihei Park Shore condominium resort for Council-initiated rezoning. The attached submission demonstrates that Kihei Park Shore satisfies the objective criteria identified by the Committee in Resolution 26-129, falling almost entirely in the 3.2-foot Sea Level Rise Exposure Area ("SLR-XA") and substantially affected by the Special Flood Hazard Area.
Our testimony also addresses comments made at the last Committee meeting on August 5, 2026, suggesting that the SLR-XA is an obsolete planning tool, and explains why the 3.2-foot SLR-XA remains as the recognized and appropriate planning criterion under current State and Maui County planning policies.
Finally, the enclosed submission reiterates the importance of clearly defining, and consistently applying objective planning criteria to all similarly situated properties so that Council-initiated rezoning decisions are grounded in transparent and rational land-use principals, rather than ad hoc, property-specific subjective determinations.
Thank you for your consideration on behalf of the Board of Directors of Kihei Park Shore.
Rebecca Krill
Principal
HI HOA LAW LLLC
rebecca@hihoalaw.com
My name is not included in this version. This testimony is written on behalf of the 41 short-term-rental units at Lahaina Roads and focuses on the property’s eligibility, lawful operating history, and request for inclusion in the applicable resolutions.
Testimony
Good morning, Chair and Members of the Maui County Council.
I am speaking on behalf of the 41 short-term-rental units at Lahaina Roads, located at 1403 Front Street in Lahaina.
Lahaina Roads is located within the applicable SLR-XA or Flood Hazard Zone and meets the requirements for consideration under Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130. However, Lahaina Roads and its 41 units were not included in the original resolutions or in the subsequent amendments presented to the Council.
We respectfully ask the Council to recognize that Lahaina Roads meets the applicable criteria and should be included in the appropriate resolution or a subsequent amendment.
Lahaina Roads is an established condominium property with a decades-long history of lawful short-term-rental operation. This use is not new or speculative. The property has operated lawfully under the County’s applicable requirements, and its established legal history should be considered when the Council evaluates the properties covered by these resolutions.
We support moving forward through the applicable rezoning process. We are not asking to bypass the County’s procedures. We are asking that Lahaina Roads be included so the property can proceed through the same process available to other properties that meet the established criteria.
We respectfully request that the Council:
Confirm that Lahaina Roads meets the applicable requirements.
Include Lahaina Roads and its 41 short-term-rental units in Resolution 26-129, Resolution 26-130, or an appropriate subsequent amendment.
Recognize Lahaina Roads’ decades-long history of lawful short-term-rental operation.
Allow Lahaina Roads to move forward through the applicable rezoning process.
Ensure that Lahaina Roads is not excluded simply because it was omitted from the original resolutions.
Lahaina Roads meets the applicable requirements, has a longstanding lawful history, and should be considered for inclusion. We respectfully ask the Council to correct this omission and include Lahaina Roads in the resolution.
Thank you for allowing me to testify.
Aloha Committee Chair and members,
In transitioning from this morning’s HLU Committee meeting regarding the rezoning of coastal properties from apartment to hotel use to this DRIP Committee meeting regarding the Lahaina Long-Term Recovery Plan and specifically its housing needs, I would like to provide this testimony as a possible solution for the Office of Recovery to explore.
There are approximately 2,000 short-term rental condominium units within the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area (SLR-XA) in West Maui. Because of their location within the SLR-XA, these units are being proposed for rezoning to hotel use. However, I would argue that if these units are not being used for their originally intended purpose, housing for our local workforce and families then they should either be demolished, with their water and sewer allocations freed up for new, safe, affordable housing built outside of hazard zones, or acquired by the County or State for limited-time occupancy by residents. As we heard in today’s presentation, the lack of infrastructure is an impediment to developing new housing.
During the last legislative session, Senate Bill 3034, which did not move forward, proposed the voluntary acquisition of vulnerable coastal properties at a hazard-adjusted residual value. That value accounts for the future costs of demolition, hazard remediation, monitoring, and shoreline restoration.
A property could remain occupied temporarily by Maui residents through short-term, renewable leases only while it remains safe. Further expansion, capital investment, and shoreline armoring would be prohibited. When occupancy is no longer safe, the structure would be removed, redevelopment prohibited, and the shoreline restored.
The proposed bill also allows counties, nonprofit organizations, and land trusts to help manage these properties.
Maui County could partner with an organization such as the Lahaina Community Land Trust to acquire properties with some years of safe occupancy remaining and rent the units temporarily to Maui residents. This would provide time-limited housing without misleading local families into investing their life savings in properties with no secure long-term future.
Rental revenue could help fund inspections, management, eventual demolition, and shoreline restoration. This would also interrupt the cycle of continued investment in aging buildings and failing seawalls, followed by demands for emergency permits, public subsidies, and taxpayer-funded cleanup.
I urge this body to begin this discussion and request that the Office of Recovery evaluate this concept as part of its plans for housing in West Maui.
I will also note that the County of Maui’s current Hoʻokumu Hou program, which provides substantial down-payment assistance for fire-affected families purchasing homes, restricts residents from using those funds to purchase shoreline and flood-zone properties. I support that restriction. However, perhaps a County-initiated program based on SB 3034 could instead allow for County or land trust acquisition of these imperiled condominium properties, followed by safe, time-limited occupancy for Maui residents.
Mahalo,
Kai Nishiki
Maui Nui Resiliency Hui