HLU-22 Reso 26-130 RESOLUTION 26-130, 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 PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEY (2) 3-9-016:019, K?HEI, HAWAI'I, AND TAX MAP KEYS (2) 4-5-013:002 AND 026, LAHAINA, HAWAI'I, IN THE A-2 APARTMENT DISTRICT (HLU-22)
My name is Edward Codelia, and I am a Kula resident. I oppose Resolution 26-130.
This resolution would launch Council-initiated plan amendments and hotel rezonings for 10 Walaka Street in Kihei and the Makai Sunset Inn properties in Lahaina. It would use public legislative resources to obtain land-use benefits that ordinarily should be pursued through private applications.
The argument presented for 10 Walaka Street is essentially the argument of every vacation-rental owner: short-term rentals are more lucrative, while long-term rents may not cover the owner’s mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance costs, and expected return.
That is a private investment argument—not a public land-use justification.
The owner reportedly purchased the property in 2021, occupies one dwelling, and rents two dwellings as short-term rentals. The Council is not responsible for guaranteeing that a 2021 real-estate purchase or vacation-rental business model remains profitable indefinitely. If an owner’s carrying costs are enough to justify hotel zoning, practically every apartment owner could make the same demand.
The resolution identifies single ownership as a reason to include 10 Walaka Street. Single ownership may make an application administratively easier, but it does not explain why land designated Multi-Family should become Hotel. The Council would first amend the Community Plan from Multi-Family to Hotel and then use that amendment to make H-4 zoning appear consistent with the plan. That is not following the plan; it is rewriting the plan for the benefit of a particular owner.
The record also indicates that the owner learned about the Council-initiated route after communicating with Councilmember Cook’s office. That does not establish corruption, but it demonstrates the unequal gatekeeping problem: an owner who obtains Council sponsorship can avoid submitting an ordinary private application and potentially avoid approximately $11,502 in Change in Zoning and Community Plan Amendment filing fees, in addition to the expense of preparing supporting studies and notices.
Nothing in this resolution requires affordable housing, replacement housing, local ownership, hotel services, infrastructure improvements, living-wage employment, or any other enforceable public benefit. The zoning would run with the land, meaning the benefit could later be transferred to a future owner who made none of the current representations.
The fact that Makai Sunset may have historically operated like a hotel or lies within a sea-level-rise area does not excuse its owner from demonstrating impacts and public benefits through the normal application process.
These are existing visitor accommodations. Reclassifying them is unlikely to create additional tourism or substantially expand the tax base. It preserves existing vacation-rental income while reducing the likelihood that the properties will contribute housing.
The Council may have legal authority to initiate zoning, but that power should be used for genuine countywide planning—not to rescue selected private business models from legislation the Council recently adopted.
Please file Resolution 26-130 and require the owners of both properties to pursue ordinary private applications.
From: Natia Barber <natiabarber@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 7:13 PM
To: Maui_County Council_mailbox <county.council@mauicounty.us>
Subject: OPPOSE Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130.
You don't often get email from natiabarber@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Aloha Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee,
My name is Natia Barber, and I am writing in strong opposition to Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130.
I am concerned that redesignating apartment-zoned properties as Hotel or Resort/Hotel in order to preserve transient vacation rental use moves Maui in the wrong direction at a time when residents continue to face serious housing pressures.
Apartment zoning should first and foremost serve Maui’s residential needs. Converting these properties into hotel districts may protect the economic interests of individual vacation-rental owners, but it also risks permanently removing properties from Maui’s potential long-term residential housing supply.
Tourism is an important part of Maui’s economy, but economic resilience also requires balance. Maui should be working toward an economy that supports residents, strengthens local industries, keeps workers on island, and reduces dependence on systems that prioritize visitor demand over the basic needs of the community.
Housing is a fundamental part of that economic resilience. Local businesses, schools, farms, healthcare providers, restaurants, and other essential industries cannot function without workers who can afford to live on Maui. When housing is increasingly treated as visitor accommodation rather than residential infrastructure, the effects extend far beyond the housing market and into Maui’s entire workforce and economy.
I am also concerned about establishing a precedent in which properties currently zoned for apartments can be redesignated as hotel properties primarily because they have historically operated as vacation rentals. Land-use decisions should reflect Maui’s long-term community needs rather than simply preserve an existing commercial use.
I respectfully ask the Committee to oppose Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130 and instead prioritize policies that preserve residentially zoned properties for Maui residents and strengthen the island’s long-term economic and community resilience.
Aloha Chair and Committee Members:
My name is Edward Codelia, and I am a Kula resident. I oppose Resolution 26-130.
This resolution would launch Council-initiated plan amendments and hotel rezonings for 10 Walaka Street in Kihei and the Makai Sunset Inn properties in Lahaina. It would use public legislative resources to obtain land-use benefits that ordinarily should be pursued through private applications.
The argument presented for 10 Walaka Street is essentially the argument of every vacation-rental owner: short-term rentals are more lucrative, while long-term rents may not cover the owner’s mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance costs, and expected return.
That is a private investment argument—not a public land-use justification.
The owner reportedly purchased the property in 2021, occupies one dwelling, and rents two dwellings as short-term rentals. The Council is not responsible for guaranteeing that a 2021 real-estate purchase or vacation-rental business model remains profitable indefinitely. If an owner’s carrying costs are enough to justify hotel zoning, practically every apartment owner could make the same demand.
The resolution identifies single ownership as a reason to include 10 Walaka Street. Single ownership may make an application administratively easier, but it does not explain why land designated Multi-Family should become Hotel. The Council would first amend the Community Plan from Multi-Family to Hotel and then use that amendment to make H-4 zoning appear consistent with the plan. That is not following the plan; it is rewriting the plan for the benefit of a particular owner.
The record also indicates that the owner learned about the Council-initiated route after communicating with Councilmember Cook’s office. That does not establish corruption, but it demonstrates the unequal gatekeeping problem: an owner who obtains Council sponsorship can avoid submitting an ordinary private application and potentially avoid approximately $11,502 in Change in Zoning and Community Plan Amendment filing fees, in addition to the expense of preparing supporting studies and notices.
Nothing in this resolution requires affordable housing, replacement housing, local ownership, hotel services, infrastructure improvements, living-wage employment, or any other enforceable public benefit. The zoning would run with the land, meaning the benefit could later be transferred to a future owner who made none of the current representations.
The fact that Makai Sunset may have historically operated like a hotel or lies within a sea-level-rise area does not excuse its owner from demonstrating impacts and public benefits through the normal application process.
These are existing visitor accommodations. Reclassifying them is unlikely to create additional tourism or substantially expand the tax base. It preserves existing vacation-rental income while reducing the likelihood that the properties will contribute housing.
The Council may have legal authority to initiate zoning, but that power should be used for genuine countywide planning—not to rescue selected private business models from legislation the Council recently adopted.
Please file Resolution 26-130 and require the owners of both properties to pursue ordinary private applications.
Edward Codelia
Kula, Maui
From: Natia Barber <natiabarber@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 7:13 PM
To: Maui_County Council_mailbox <county.council@mauicounty.us>
Subject: OPPOSE Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130.
You don't often get email from natiabarber@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Aloha Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee,
My name is Natia Barber, and I am writing in strong opposition to Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130.
I am concerned that redesignating apartment-zoned properties as Hotel or Resort/Hotel in order to preserve transient vacation rental use moves Maui in the wrong direction at a time when residents continue to face serious housing pressures.
Apartment zoning should first and foremost serve Maui’s residential needs. Converting these properties into hotel districts may protect the economic interests of individual vacation-rental owners, but it also risks permanently removing properties from Maui’s potential long-term residential housing supply.
Tourism is an important part of Maui’s economy, but economic resilience also requires balance. Maui should be working toward an economy that supports residents, strengthens local industries, keeps workers on island, and reduces dependence on systems that prioritize visitor demand over the basic needs of the community.
Housing is a fundamental part of that economic resilience. Local businesses, schools, farms, healthcare providers, restaurants, and other essential industries cannot function without workers who can afford to live on Maui. When housing is increasingly treated as visitor accommodation rather than residential infrastructure, the effects extend far beyond the housing market and into Maui’s entire workforce and economy.
I am also concerned about establishing a precedent in which properties currently zoned for apartments can be redesignated as hotel properties primarily because they have historically operated as vacation rentals. Land-use decisions should reflect Maui’s long-term community needs rather than simply preserve an existing commercial use.
I respectfully ask the Committee to oppose Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130 and instead prioritize policies that preserve residentially zoned properties for Maui residents and strengthen the island’s long-term economic and community resilience.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Natia Barber