To: Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning (DRIP) Committee
Subject: Testimony: DRIP-25 / Bill 108 (2026) South Maui Community Plan Update
Aloha Chair Paltin and Members of the Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning Committee,
The Lahaina fire was a terrible tragedy and a warning of happens in a densely populated and commercial beach area when insufficient infrastructure is available to address wild fire and other emergencies.
I am asking you to amend Bill 108 before moving the South Maui Community Plan forward.
South Maui needs housing, especially housing that local families can afford, but we cannot continue approving growth without the infrastructure needed to keep the community safe.
Please:
1. Restore strong, community-wide concurrency requirements so roads, water, drainage, emergency access, public facilities, and other infrastructure must be available before or at the same time as new development.
2. Reduce the amount of additional growth allowed in the plan. Thousands of housing units are already approved in South Maui, and we should not add another 3,500 units of capacity without demonstrating the need and the ability to safely support that growth.
3. Require adequate evacuation capacity, water, drainage, roads, and emergency infrastructure before approving major new growth areas, and remove or substantially revise North Kīhei Mauka unless these concerns are resolved.
4. Protect South Maui's residential housing for residents. Retain residential designations and prioritize long-term and permanently affordable homes rather than redesignating residential areas to facilitate short-term visitor and luxury uses.
We have an opportunity to create a Community Plan that protects both people and ʻāina while providing the housing our residents need.
Please put infrastructure, public safety, water, and Maui's residents first.
Subject: WRITTEN TESTIMONY – BILL 108 (2026), SOUTH MAUI COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE – REQUIRE AN IMPLEMENTATION AUDIT BEFORE ADOPTION
Aloha Chair and Members:
Before the Council repeals the 1998 Kihei-Makena Community Plan and adopts another 20-year plan for South Maui, the County should first provide the public with a clear accounting of what was actually accomplished under the plan now being replaced.
The County’s own 2026 draft acknowledges that the 1998 Community Plan was ambitious in scope, but that ambiguity in some of its policies and actions left earlier development impacts unremedied.
That admission matters because many of the problems now being addressed in the new South Maui Community Plan are not new.
South Maui is still dealing with traffic capacity, incomplete road connections, pedestrian and bicycle deficiencies, water and wastewater limitations, affordable housing shortages, drainage concerns, emergency evacuation issues, and the need for additional parks and public facilities.
The new plan still calls for completion of the North-South Collector Road, early design and acquisition of a South Maui bypass, widening portions of Piʻilani Highway, and additional multimodal transportation capacity.
The implementation schedule still proposes continuous unobstructed sidewalks and protected bicycle facilities along South Kihei Road, a new multimodal corridor mauka of Piʻilani Highway, and planning and construction of a Kealia bypass.
The new plan also continues to call for expanded recycled-water infrastructure, additional recycled-water users, studies of desalination and potable reuse, and drought-management planning.
Housing remains another major unresolved issue. The new plan calls for missing-middle housing, more long-term housing, conversion of existing vacation rentals, workforce housing, and residency-preference programs.
At the same time, the County’s own draft states that South Maui contained approximately 43 percent of Maui County’s hotel rooms and 54 percent of its vacation rental units, and that in 2022 the average daily visitor population in South Maui was likely about 88 percent of the resident population.
This raises an important question.
Was Maui more successful in implementing the growth contemplated by the 1998 plan than it was in implementing the public infrastructure needed to support that growth?
The record before the Committee suggests that may be the case.
Development occurred.
Population increased.
Visitor accommodations expanded.
Economic activity increased.
Yet many of the same basic public needs are still being carried forward into the next plan.
That does not mean the 1998 plan accomplished nothing. There has clearly been progress in some areas, including recycled-water infrastructure, parks, cultural-resource preservation, road improvements, and public facilities.
But the County has not provided the Committee with a comprehensive implementation audit showing what was completed, what was partially completed, what was never started, what was abandoned, how much was spent, and why major objectives remain unfinished.
Before Bill 108 advances, I respectfully request that the Planning Department provide a 1998-2026 Kihei-Makena Community Plan Implementation Report.
That report should identify every major implementing action in the 1998 plan and classify it as:
Completed;
Partially completed;
Not completed;
Abandoned; or
Status unknown.
For each action, the report should identify the responsible department or agency, the original objective, expenditures where available, current status, and the reason any unfinished action remains incomplete.
The County should also identify every unfinished 1998 objective that has been carried forward into the 2026 South Maui Community Plan.
That is especially important because the new plan now contains an implementation schedule that assigns priorities, responsible agencies, timing, costs and funding sources.
If those accountability mechanisms were missing or ineffective under the previous plan, the public deserves to know why the County expects a different outcome this time.
The Council should not simply replace one long-range plan with another without evaluating government performance under the plan being repealed.
The central question should be simple:
What did the County promise South Maui in 1998, what did it actually deliver by 2026, and what remains unfinished?
Until that accounting is provided, the Council does not have a complete basis to judge whether the proposed 2026 plan is realistic, achievable, or merely another list of promises extending twenty years into the future.
I oppose the current SMCP because it is not updated to the current agreed upon plan for the Wailea Golf Course. The WCA and Wailea Golf has agreed to a revised plan for the Blue Golf Course eliminating the resident units and keeping the Blue Golf Course as it currently is. The SMCP in the documents do not reflect this agreement.
Your video is not working.
To: Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning (DRIP) Committee
Subject: Testimony: DRIP-25 / Bill 108 (2026) South Maui Community Plan Update
Aloha Chair Paltin and Members of the Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning Committee,
The Lahaina fire was a terrible tragedy and a warning of happens in a densely populated and commercial beach area when insufficient infrastructure is available to address wild fire and other emergencies.
I am asking you to amend Bill 108 before moving the South Maui Community Plan forward.
South Maui needs housing, especially housing that local families can afford, but we cannot continue approving growth without the infrastructure needed to keep the community safe.
Please:
1. Restore strong, community-wide concurrency requirements so roads, water, drainage, emergency access, public facilities, and other infrastructure must be available before or at the same time as new development.
2. Reduce the amount of additional growth allowed in the plan. Thousands of housing units are already approved in South Maui, and we should not add another 3,500 units of capacity without demonstrating the need and the ability to safely support that growth.
3. Require adequate evacuation capacity, water, drainage, roads, and emergency infrastructure before approving major new growth areas, and remove or substantially revise North Kīhei Mauka unless these concerns are resolved.
4. Protect South Maui's residential housing for residents. Retain residential designations and prioritize long-term and permanently affordable homes rather than redesignating residential areas to facilitate short-term visitor and luxury uses.
We have an opportunity to create a Community Plan that protects both people and ʻāina while providing the housing our residents need.
Please put infrastructure, public safety, water, and Maui's residents first.
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.
Sincerely,
Martin (Marty) Adler
Testimony received by DRIP Committee
Subject: WRITTEN TESTIMONY – BILL 108 (2026), SOUTH MAUI COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE – REQUIRE AN IMPLEMENTATION AUDIT BEFORE ADOPTION
Aloha Chair and Members:
Before the Council repeals the 1998 Kihei-Makena Community Plan and adopts another 20-year plan for South Maui, the County should first provide the public with a clear accounting of what was actually accomplished under the plan now being replaced.
The County’s own 2026 draft acknowledges that the 1998 Community Plan was ambitious in scope, but that ambiguity in some of its policies and actions left earlier development impacts unremedied.
That admission matters because many of the problems now being addressed in the new South Maui Community Plan are not new.
South Maui is still dealing with traffic capacity, incomplete road connections, pedestrian and bicycle deficiencies, water and wastewater limitations, affordable housing shortages, drainage concerns, emergency evacuation issues, and the need for additional parks and public facilities.
The new plan still calls for completion of the North-South Collector Road, early design and acquisition of a South Maui bypass, widening portions of Piʻilani Highway, and additional multimodal transportation capacity.
The implementation schedule still proposes continuous unobstructed sidewalks and protected bicycle facilities along South Kihei Road, a new multimodal corridor mauka of Piʻilani Highway, and planning and construction of a Kealia bypass.
The new plan also continues to call for expanded recycled-water infrastructure, additional recycled-water users, studies of desalination and potable reuse, and drought-management planning.
Housing remains another major unresolved issue. The new plan calls for missing-middle housing, more long-term housing, conversion of existing vacation rentals, workforce housing, and residency-preference programs.
At the same time, the County’s own draft states that South Maui contained approximately 43 percent of Maui County’s hotel rooms and 54 percent of its vacation rental units, and that in 2022 the average daily visitor population in South Maui was likely about 88 percent of the resident population.
This raises an important question.
Was Maui more successful in implementing the growth contemplated by the 1998 plan than it was in implementing the public infrastructure needed to support that growth?
The record before the Committee suggests that may be the case.
Development occurred.
Population increased.
Visitor accommodations expanded.
Economic activity increased.
Yet many of the same basic public needs are still being carried forward into the next plan.
That does not mean the 1998 plan accomplished nothing. There has clearly been progress in some areas, including recycled-water infrastructure, parks, cultural-resource preservation, road improvements, and public facilities.
But the County has not provided the Committee with a comprehensive implementation audit showing what was completed, what was partially completed, what was never started, what was abandoned, how much was spent, and why major objectives remain unfinished.
Before Bill 108 advances, I respectfully request that the Planning Department provide a 1998-2026 Kihei-Makena Community Plan Implementation Report.
That report should identify every major implementing action in the 1998 plan and classify it as:
Completed;
Partially completed;
Not completed;
Abandoned; or
Status unknown.
For each action, the report should identify the responsible department or agency, the original objective, expenditures where available, current status, and the reason any unfinished action remains incomplete.
The County should also identify every unfinished 1998 objective that has been carried forward into the 2026 South Maui Community Plan.
That is especially important because the new plan now contains an implementation schedule that assigns priorities, responsible agencies, timing, costs and funding sources.
If those accountability mechanisms were missing or ineffective under the previous plan, the public deserves to know why the County expects a different outcome this time.
The Council should not simply replace one long-range plan with another without evaluating government performance under the plan being repealed.
The central question should be simple:
What did the County promise South Maui in 1998, what did it actually deliver by 2026, and what remains unfinished?
Until that accounting is provided, the Council does not have a complete basis to judge whether the proposed 2026 plan is realistic, achievable, or merely another list of promises extending twenty years into the future.
Mahalo for your consideration.
Edward Codelia
I oppose the current SMCP because it is not updated to the current agreed upon plan for the Wailea Golf Course. The WCA and Wailea Golf has agreed to a revised plan for the Blue Golf Course eliminating the resident units and keeping the Blue Golf Course as it currently is. The SMCP in the documents do not reflect this agreement.