HLU-25 Bill 109 (2026) BILL 109 (2026) AND BILL 115 (2026), COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE IN ZONING FOR 19.933 ACRES IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEYS (2) 2-5-005:023 AND (2) 2-5-005:054, P??IA, HAWAI?I (P??IA SUGAR MILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT) (HLU-25)
I respectfully urge the Committee to defer Bills 109 and 115 and take a deeper look at what Maui is actually receiving in return for these land-use changes.
Bill 109 would amend the Pāʻia-Haʻikū Community Plan designation for 19.933 acres at the Pāʻia Sugar Mill. For the larger 19.688-acre parcel, the designation would change from Heavy Industrial and Agriculture to Light Industrial. Bill 115 would rezone the entire 19.933 acres from Urban Reserve to M-1 Light Industrial. These are significant legislative decisions that will determine how this privately owned property can be developed and used well into the future.
The history of how this proposal reached Council deserves particular attention. The County's own documents identify it as a “Council Initiated Project via Resolution No. 25-195,” adopted October 24, 2025. The record also identifies Daniel Ellis, manager of Paia Village Company LLC, as a recipient of the Council resolution initiating the process.
That does not establish that anything improper occurred, and that is not the purpose of this testimony. It does mean Council should examine the history of this proposal carefully and transparently. Who requested these land-use changes? What discussions occurred before Resolution 25-195 was introduced? Why did Council choose to initiate these changes for these particular privately owned parcels? Most importantly, what public purpose did Council intend to accomplish by doing so?
Those questions matter because Council is no longer simply discussing preservation of an old sugar mill. It is considering legislation that will change the allowable economic use of nearly 20 acres of privately owned land.
The applicant's own justification explains the economic importance of the rezoning. It states that the current designation may restrict redevelopment and delay beneficial use; that industrial-zoned land on the North Shore is limited; that rezoning could provide space for trades, artisans and small businesses; and that the site's existing infrastructure makes it well suited for light-industrial use. Those may be legitimate objectives. But they also demonstrate why Council should examine what value its legislative action is creating and who ultimately receives the benefit.
The County's own record gives the Committee another reason to look deeper. During the Planning Commission proceeding, staff stated that “there wasn't a lot of information provided to the Department.” A Community Plan amendment and rezoning of nearly 20 acres deserves a complete record, particularly when Council itself initiated the process.
The Planning Commission did add conditions. Bill 115 limits the property to specified uses, including artisan and maker spaces, warehousing and distribution, light manufacturing, service trades, offices and coworking, farmers markets, community events, historical displays, business centers, eateries and retail. It also requires at least 20 percent of the property to remain open space in perpetuity.
Those conditions are real and should be acknowledged. But Council should also recognize what they do not address.
There is no workforce-housing obligation. There is no project-specific traffic improvement contained in those conditions. There is no requirement identified there for contributions toward the Pāʻia bypass. There is no stated water or wastewater infrastructure contribution. And there is no measurable economic-benefit requirement establishing how many local jobs must actually be created or how much of the commercial or industrial space must remain accessible to local businesses.
Traffic provides perhaps the clearest example of why more scrutiny is necessary. The Planning Commission itself recognized the problem and recommended that Council urge the State Department of Transportation to advance the Pāʻia bypass “to alleviate traffic on Baldwin Avenue and enable future development to occur without aggravating traffic.”
That statement deserves serious attention. The Commission recognized that future development at this site and traffic on Baldwin Avenue are connected. Yet the bypass is not a condition requiring the developer to mitigate that impact. Council should determine what transportation impacts this entitlement will create, who will pay for the necessary improvements, and whether Maui taxpayers should ultimately carry costs associated with increased private development.
Housing deserves the same examination. The contemplated uses are employment-generating. Manufacturing, warehousing, trades, offices, coworking, restaurants and retail require workers. Those workers need housing and transportation. If the purpose of this redevelopment is to create economic activity, then the County should examine the complete equation: where the workforce will live, how workers will reach the site, and what additional pressure the project may place on housing and infrastructure.
That leads to a larger question that I believe Council needs to answer honestly: Who are we developing this property for?
Is the objective primarily to increase economic activity and the County's tax base? Is it to increase the value and productive use of an underutilized private property? Is it to preserve an important historic site? Is it to provide affordable space for Maui's tradespeople and small businesses? Is it intended to address the needs of the Pāʻia community?
Any of those may be legitimate policy objectives. But they are not the same objective, and Council should know which one it is pursuing before permanently changing the Community Plan and zoning.
If the purpose is to provide affordable space for local businesses, secure that benefit.
If the purpose is job creation, establish measurable commitments.
If the development creates additional transportation demands, determine the project's fair share of those costs.
If workforce housing is part of the justification, require it rather than discussing it as a future possibility.
If historic preservation is a public benefit supporting the entitlement, identify precisely what must be preserved and make that obligation enforceable.
And if increased property value and tax revenue are significant reasons for approving these bills, say so openly and weigh those fiscal benefits against the public costs that additional development will create.
The property was purchased privately under the land-use designations and zoning then applicable to it. Council is now being asked to use its legislative authority to change those rules. The important issue is not whether the owner paid too much or too little for the property. The important issue is that a government land-use decision can create significant additional economic opportunity, and Council has an obligation to determine what Maui receives when it grants that opportunity.
This does not require Council to oppose redevelopment. The Pāʻia Sugar Mill may be an excellent candidate for adaptive reuse. Preserving historic structures, creating places for local businesses and trades, and putting an underutilized property back into productive use could benefit Maui.
But that possibility is precisely why Council should get this right.
Do not confuse a potentially good project with a complete land-use agreement. Do not rely on benefits that are discussed but not secured. Do not leave traffic, housing and infrastructure for another Council, another agency, or Maui taxpayers to resolve after the development rights have already been granted.
Before Bills 109 and 115 advance, determine what the project will actually provide, what impacts it will actually create, who will pay for those impacts, what obligations will run with the land, and who will ultimately benefit from the decision.
The question is not simply whether the Pāʻia Sugar Mill should be redeveloped.
The question is what kind of redevelopment Maui needs, who it is being developed for, and whether the public is receiving a fair and enforceable return from a land-use decision initiated by its own government.
Until those questions are answered in the record and reflected in enforceable conditions, I respectfully ask the Committee to defer Bills 109 and 115.
Aloha Chair and Members,
I respectfully urge the Committee to defer Bills 109 and 115 and take a deeper look at what Maui is actually receiving in return for these land-use changes.
Bill 109 would amend the Pāʻia-Haʻikū Community Plan designation for 19.933 acres at the Pāʻia Sugar Mill. For the larger 19.688-acre parcel, the designation would change from Heavy Industrial and Agriculture to Light Industrial. Bill 115 would rezone the entire 19.933 acres from Urban Reserve to M-1 Light Industrial. These are significant legislative decisions that will determine how this privately owned property can be developed and used well into the future.
The history of how this proposal reached Council deserves particular attention. The County's own documents identify it as a “Council Initiated Project via Resolution No. 25-195,” adopted October 24, 2025. The record also identifies Daniel Ellis, manager of Paia Village Company LLC, as a recipient of the Council resolution initiating the process.
That does not establish that anything improper occurred, and that is not the purpose of this testimony. It does mean Council should examine the history of this proposal carefully and transparently. Who requested these land-use changes? What discussions occurred before Resolution 25-195 was introduced? Why did Council choose to initiate these changes for these particular privately owned parcels? Most importantly, what public purpose did Council intend to accomplish by doing so?
Those questions matter because Council is no longer simply discussing preservation of an old sugar mill. It is considering legislation that will change the allowable economic use of nearly 20 acres of privately owned land.
The applicant's own justification explains the economic importance of the rezoning. It states that the current designation may restrict redevelopment and delay beneficial use; that industrial-zoned land on the North Shore is limited; that rezoning could provide space for trades, artisans and small businesses; and that the site's existing infrastructure makes it well suited for light-industrial use. Those may be legitimate objectives. But they also demonstrate why Council should examine what value its legislative action is creating and who ultimately receives the benefit.
The County's own record gives the Committee another reason to look deeper. During the Planning Commission proceeding, staff stated that “there wasn't a lot of information provided to the Department.” A Community Plan amendment and rezoning of nearly 20 acres deserves a complete record, particularly when Council itself initiated the process.
The Planning Commission did add conditions. Bill 115 limits the property to specified uses, including artisan and maker spaces, warehousing and distribution, light manufacturing, service trades, offices and coworking, farmers markets, community events, historical displays, business centers, eateries and retail. It also requires at least 20 percent of the property to remain open space in perpetuity.
Those conditions are real and should be acknowledged. But Council should also recognize what they do not address.
There is no workforce-housing obligation. There is no project-specific traffic improvement contained in those conditions. There is no requirement identified there for contributions toward the Pāʻia bypass. There is no stated water or wastewater infrastructure contribution. And there is no measurable economic-benefit requirement establishing how many local jobs must actually be created or how much of the commercial or industrial space must remain accessible to local businesses.
Traffic provides perhaps the clearest example of why more scrutiny is necessary. The Planning Commission itself recognized the problem and recommended that Council urge the State Department of Transportation to advance the Pāʻia bypass “to alleviate traffic on Baldwin Avenue and enable future development to occur without aggravating traffic.”
That statement deserves serious attention. The Commission recognized that future development at this site and traffic on Baldwin Avenue are connected. Yet the bypass is not a condition requiring the developer to mitigate that impact. Council should determine what transportation impacts this entitlement will create, who will pay for the necessary improvements, and whether Maui taxpayers should ultimately carry costs associated with increased private development.
Housing deserves the same examination. The contemplated uses are employment-generating. Manufacturing, warehousing, trades, offices, coworking, restaurants and retail require workers. Those workers need housing and transportation. If the purpose of this redevelopment is to create economic activity, then the County should examine the complete equation: where the workforce will live, how workers will reach the site, and what additional pressure the project may place on housing and infrastructure.
That leads to a larger question that I believe Council needs to answer honestly: Who are we developing this property for?
Is the objective primarily to increase economic activity and the County's tax base? Is it to increase the value and productive use of an underutilized private property? Is it to preserve an important historic site? Is it to provide affordable space for Maui's tradespeople and small businesses? Is it intended to address the needs of the Pāʻia community?
Any of those may be legitimate policy objectives. But they are not the same objective, and Council should know which one it is pursuing before permanently changing the Community Plan and zoning.
If the purpose is to provide affordable space for local businesses, secure that benefit.
If the purpose is job creation, establish measurable commitments.
If the development creates additional transportation demands, determine the project's fair share of those costs.
If workforce housing is part of the justification, require it rather than discussing it as a future possibility.
If historic preservation is a public benefit supporting the entitlement, identify precisely what must be preserved and make that obligation enforceable.
And if increased property value and tax revenue are significant reasons for approving these bills, say so openly and weigh those fiscal benefits against the public costs that additional development will create.
The property was purchased privately under the land-use designations and zoning then applicable to it. Council is now being asked to use its legislative authority to change those rules. The important issue is not whether the owner paid too much or too little for the property. The important issue is that a government land-use decision can create significant additional economic opportunity, and Council has an obligation to determine what Maui receives when it grants that opportunity.
This does not require Council to oppose redevelopment. The Pāʻia Sugar Mill may be an excellent candidate for adaptive reuse. Preserving historic structures, creating places for local businesses and trades, and putting an underutilized property back into productive use could benefit Maui.
But that possibility is precisely why Council should get this right.
Do not confuse a potentially good project with a complete land-use agreement. Do not rely on benefits that are discussed but not secured. Do not leave traffic, housing and infrastructure for another Council, another agency, or Maui taxpayers to resolve after the development rights have already been granted.
Before Bills 109 and 115 advance, determine what the project will actually provide, what impacts it will actually create, who will pay for those impacts, what obligations will run with the land, and who will ultimately benefit from the decision.
The question is not simply whether the Pāʻia Sugar Mill should be redeveloped.
The question is what kind of redevelopment Maui needs, who it is being developed for, and whether the public is receiving a fair and enforceable return from a land-use decision initiated by its own government.
Until those questions are answered in the record and reflected in enforceable conditions, I respectfully ask the Committee to defer Bills 109 and 115.
Mahalo for your consideration.
Edward Codelia