You have a property owner telling you that one policy makes approximately 90 percent of a 13-acre residential parcel unusable. That parcel has been identified for years for residential development associated with Wailea's affordable-housing obligations. Before you accept or reject that claim, where is the County's engineering analysis? Show why this drainageway is classified as a gulch. Show why 100 feet is necessary. Show why Low Impact Development is acceptable in one circumstance but not another. And explain why West Maui can use an LID exception while South Maui apparently cannot.
Deleted User
27 days ago
If concentrated private influence has reached Maui's political, regulatory, nonprofit, business, and law-enforcement institutions, then government should stop asking the public for trust. Open the records. Follow the money. Follow the property. Follow the permits. Follow the campaign contributions. Follow the grants. Follow the enforcement decisions. Follow the parcel changes. And see whether they lead to the same people.
Testimony Re: Gulch Policies in the Draft South Maui Community Plan, Section 2.3, DRIP-25 Bill 108 (2026)
September 17, 2026
Aloha Chair Paltin and Members of the DRIP Committee,
The draft South Maui Community Plan (the Draft Plan) policies regarding gulches and protections of important gulches unfortunately is written in such a way that it creates unnecessary takings of property.
Policies 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 differentiate on the applicability of 100’ buffers for development for either redevelopment or new development. Redevelopment, in 2.4.5, can mitigate buffers from “top of gulch” with the use of Low Impact Development, or LID, in project design. New development, in 2.4.6, cannot use LID to mitigate buffers, creating wide swaths of 200-300 foot undevelopable areas across many parcels. One such parcel is SF-8, a residentially zoned vacant 13 acre parcel behind the Wailea Fire Station, nestled in existing, older, residential neighborhood. Mauka water runs through this parcel in an unnamed minor drainageway, but it is shown on Planning’s map as a “gulch”.
Ledcor Maui planned to use this parcel to satisfy some of our workforce housing requirements as per our accepted FEIS. We hired Amanda Cording, PhD, an expert in LID and drainage, to evaluate the effect of 2.4.6 on this parcel, and she and her team walked the parcel, used the gulch maps available from the Planning Department, identified “top of gulch” to the best of their ability, and produced a map that wiped out 90% of the property. Clearly, this is a taking with no rational basis to impose and we would be forced to challenge this policy as a regulatory taking.
The simple fix is to use the same language as the West Maui Community Plan’s Policy 2.3.2 and keep gulch interpretation consistent. Policies 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 should be consolidated to:
“Gulches, as identified in the map in Figure 2.3 of the Plan, must remain in open space and no new permanent structures may be developed in or within 100 feet of the top of the bank identified gulches, unless Low Impact Development strategies are implemented to prevent stormwater runoff.”
Please note I and others have been testifying on this issue before the CPAC and the MPC, and while the MPC attempted to consolidate 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 at their final meeting on the Draft Plan, Planning staff repeatedly rebuffed and thwarted any meaningful adjustment.
Mahalo for the opportunity to comment relating to gulch policies.
Disaster Recovery, International Affairs, and Planning Committee
Maui County Council
200 South High Street
Wailuku, Hawaiʻi 96793
RE: Testimony on Section 2 of the Draft South Maui Community Plan Committee Meeting of September 16, 2026
Aloha Chair Paltin and Members of the Committee:
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify on Section 2 of the Draft South Maui Community Plan. My name is Brad Anderson, and I am the Senior Director of Development for Mākena Golf & Beach Club. I respectfully ask the Committee to consider the following adjustments to the policies with section 2 of the draft South Maui Community Plan.
Policies 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 – Gulches and Drainageways: Consolidate into a Single Policy
As currently recommended, Policy 2.4.5 applies to all identified gulches and drainageways and allows development within the 100-foot buffer when low-impact development (LID) strategies are implemented to prevent stormwater runoff for any re-development action. Policy 2.4.6 applies the same 100-foot restriction to new development plans and subdivisions, but without the LID provision.
I recommend combining Policy 2.4.6 and Policy 2.4.5 into a single policy that treats new development and redevelopment alike, as the West Maui Community Plan does.
The LID provision matters because it allows the stormwater management tools needed to control runoff, recharge our aquifers, and protect nearshore marine ecosystems. During the Kona low storms earlier this year, 16 of our newly constructed retention basins captured more than 20 million gallons of stormwater, reducing impacts along the Mākena coastline. This effort is reflective of the power of what these types of LID and stormwater tools can achieve.
For reference, West Maui Community Plan Policy 2.3.2 reads:
“Gulches, as identified in the map in Figure 2.3 of the Plan, must remain in open space and no new permanent structures may be developed in or within 100 feet of the top of the bank identified gulches, unless Low Impact Development strategies are implemented to prevent stormwater runoff.”
Policies 2.2.18, 2.2.19, 2.2.20, and 2.2.26 – Affordable and Workforce Housing: Delete
Affordable and workforce housing requirements are already established in Maui County Code (MCC) Chapter 2.96. These four policies add location requirements, targets, and preferences on top of that framework that do not align with it, and I respectfully request that they be deleted.
• Policies 2.2.18 and 2.2.19. Policy 2.2.18 would require affordable and workforce housing projects to be near job centers, schools, transit, and services, and Policy 2.2.19 would require workforce units to be spread throughout all South Maui subareas. Although “to the extent practicable” has been added to both, each still uses the word “require,” and Policy 2.2.18 does not define what “near” means. A project on an otherwise suitable site would be uncertain whether it complies, with no clear recourse if found too far from these services. South Maui needs every viable housing site, and the Plan should not narrow where affordable housing can be built. If the Committee is not inclined to delete these policies, I ask at a minimum that “require” be changed to “encourage” in both.
• Policy 2.2.20. This policy encourages a greater percentage of affordable housing than the law requires in all residential projects. The required percentage is set by MCC Chapter 2.96, and any change to it should be made through that ordinance rather than through a community plan policy.
• Policy 2.2.26. This policy encourages residency preference programs that prioritize current South Maui residents, people employed in South Maui, and residents with generational ties to the area. I appreciate the intent; in Mākena, our community outreach has brought similar requests to reserve affordable units for lineal descendants of the area. However, we have been advised that preferences of this kind raise significant fair housing concerns under federal Fair Housing Act and HUD guidelines, and that we are not able to offer them. The Plan should not encourage programs that housing providers may not be able to lawfully carry out.
Policy 2.2.31 – Gated Communities: Delete
Policy 2.2.31 would prohibit new gated communities to the extent permitted by law. Gated communities provide an added measure of security and privacy for families throughout South Maui and across the island, and whether a private neighborhood is gated is a decision best left to property owners and the County’s existing review processes.
Policy 2.5.11a – Historic and Cultural Resources: Remove “or adjacent to”
As recommended, Policy 2.5.11a would require restoration or preservation of wahi kūpuna and other historic properties located “within or adjacent to” a project area, which would adjust this Policy language back to what the Maui Planning Commission had agreed to. I respectfully request that “or adjacent to” be removed. A project applicant generally has no legal right to access, restore, or preserve a site on neighboring property it does not own or control, and the policy would ask applicants to do something they cannot do.
Mahalo nui loa for your time, your consideration, and your work on this Plan.
Brad Anderson
Senior Director of Development
Mākena Golf & Beach Club
5415 Mākena Alanui Drive
Kīhei, Hawaiʻi 96753
I oppose the current SMCP because it is not updated with the most recent Wailea Golf revised plan for the Blue Golf Course. The newest plan eliminates the housing units on the blue course and keeps the Blue Golf Course in its current configuration.The SMCP in the documents do not reflect this and it should not be passed until it is correctly updated.,
Maui keeps approving plans for growth, but rarely holds government accountable for finishing the roads, water, wastewater, housing, parks, and public facilities those plans promised; before Bill 108 replaces the 1998 plan, the County should prove what it actually completed, explain what it failed to complete and why, and stop treating a new 20-year plan as a substitute for accountability on the last one.
You have a property owner telling you that one policy makes approximately 90 percent of a 13-acre residential parcel unusable. That parcel has been identified for years for residential development associated with Wailea's affordable-housing obligations. Before you accept or reject that claim, where is the County's engineering analysis? Show why this drainageway is classified as a gulch. Show why 100 feet is necessary. Show why Low Impact Development is acceptable in one circumstance but not another. And explain why West Maui can use an LID exception while South Maui apparently cannot.
If concentrated private influence has reached Maui's political, regulatory, nonprofit, business, and law-enforcement institutions, then government should stop asking the public for trust. Open the records. Follow the money. Follow the property. Follow the permits. Follow the campaign contributions. Follow the grants. Follow the enforcement decisions. Follow the parcel changes. And see whether they lead to the same people.
David Goode on behalf of Ledcor Maui
Testimony Re: Gulch Policies in the Draft South Maui Community Plan, Section 2.3, DRIP-25 Bill 108 (2026)
September 17, 2026
Aloha Chair Paltin and Members of the DRIP Committee,
The draft South Maui Community Plan (the Draft Plan) policies regarding gulches and protections of important gulches unfortunately is written in such a way that it creates unnecessary takings of property.
Policies 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 differentiate on the applicability of 100’ buffers for development for either redevelopment or new development. Redevelopment, in 2.4.5, can mitigate buffers from “top of gulch” with the use of Low Impact Development, or LID, in project design. New development, in 2.4.6, cannot use LID to mitigate buffers, creating wide swaths of 200-300 foot undevelopable areas across many parcels. One such parcel is SF-8, a residentially zoned vacant 13 acre parcel behind the Wailea Fire Station, nestled in existing, older, residential neighborhood. Mauka water runs through this parcel in an unnamed minor drainageway, but it is shown on Planning’s map as a “gulch”.
Ledcor Maui planned to use this parcel to satisfy some of our workforce housing requirements as per our accepted FEIS. We hired Amanda Cording, PhD, an expert in LID and drainage, to evaluate the effect of 2.4.6 on this parcel, and she and her team walked the parcel, used the gulch maps available from the Planning Department, identified “top of gulch” to the best of their ability, and produced a map that wiped out 90% of the property. Clearly, this is a taking with no rational basis to impose and we would be forced to challenge this policy as a regulatory taking.
The simple fix is to use the same language as the West Maui Community Plan’s Policy 2.3.2 and keep gulch interpretation consistent. Policies 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 should be consolidated to:
“Gulches, as identified in the map in Figure 2.3 of the Plan, must remain in open space and no new permanent structures may be developed in or within 100 feet of the top of the bank identified gulches, unless Low Impact Development strategies are implemented to prevent stormwater runoff.”
Please note I and others have been testifying on this issue before the CPAC and the MPC, and while the MPC attempted to consolidate 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 at their final meeting on the Draft Plan, Planning staff repeatedly rebuffed and thwarted any meaningful adjustment.
Mahalo for the opportunity to comment relating to gulch policies.
September 16, 2026
Disaster Recovery, International Affairs, and Planning Committee
Maui County Council
200 South High Street
Wailuku, Hawaiʻi 96793
RE: Testimony on Section 2 of the Draft South Maui Community Plan Committee Meeting of September 16, 2026
Aloha Chair Paltin and Members of the Committee:
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify on Section 2 of the Draft South Maui Community Plan. My name is Brad Anderson, and I am the Senior Director of Development for Mākena Golf & Beach Club. I respectfully ask the Committee to consider the following adjustments to the policies with section 2 of the draft South Maui Community Plan.
Policies 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 – Gulches and Drainageways: Consolidate into a Single Policy
As currently recommended, Policy 2.4.5 applies to all identified gulches and drainageways and allows development within the 100-foot buffer when low-impact development (LID) strategies are implemented to prevent stormwater runoff for any re-development action. Policy 2.4.6 applies the same 100-foot restriction to new development plans and subdivisions, but without the LID provision.
I recommend combining Policy 2.4.6 and Policy 2.4.5 into a single policy that treats new development and redevelopment alike, as the West Maui Community Plan does.
The LID provision matters because it allows the stormwater management tools needed to control runoff, recharge our aquifers, and protect nearshore marine ecosystems. During the Kona low storms earlier this year, 16 of our newly constructed retention basins captured more than 20 million gallons of stormwater, reducing impacts along the Mākena coastline. This effort is reflective of the power of what these types of LID and stormwater tools can achieve.
For reference, West Maui Community Plan Policy 2.3.2 reads:
“Gulches, as identified in the map in Figure 2.3 of the Plan, must remain in open space and no new permanent structures may be developed in or within 100 feet of the top of the bank identified gulches, unless Low Impact Development strategies are implemented to prevent stormwater runoff.”
Policies 2.2.18, 2.2.19, 2.2.20, and 2.2.26 – Affordable and Workforce Housing: Delete
Affordable and workforce housing requirements are already established in Maui County Code (MCC) Chapter 2.96. These four policies add location requirements, targets, and preferences on top of that framework that do not align with it, and I respectfully request that they be deleted.
• Policies 2.2.18 and 2.2.19. Policy 2.2.18 would require affordable and workforce housing projects to be near job centers, schools, transit, and services, and Policy 2.2.19 would require workforce units to be spread throughout all South Maui subareas. Although “to the extent practicable” has been added to both, each still uses the word “require,” and Policy 2.2.18 does not define what “near” means. A project on an otherwise suitable site would be uncertain whether it complies, with no clear recourse if found too far from these services. South Maui needs every viable housing site, and the Plan should not narrow where affordable housing can be built. If the Committee is not inclined to delete these policies, I ask at a minimum that “require” be changed to “encourage” in both.
• Policy 2.2.20. This policy encourages a greater percentage of affordable housing than the law requires in all residential projects. The required percentage is set by MCC Chapter 2.96, and any change to it should be made through that ordinance rather than through a community plan policy.
• Policy 2.2.26. This policy encourages residency preference programs that prioritize current South Maui residents, people employed in South Maui, and residents with generational ties to the area. I appreciate the intent; in Mākena, our community outreach has brought similar requests to reserve affordable units for lineal descendants of the area. However, we have been advised that preferences of this kind raise significant fair housing concerns under federal Fair Housing Act and HUD guidelines, and that we are not able to offer them. The Plan should not encourage programs that housing providers may not be able to lawfully carry out.
Policy 2.2.31 – Gated Communities: Delete
Policy 2.2.31 would prohibit new gated communities to the extent permitted by law. Gated communities provide an added measure of security and privacy for families throughout South Maui and across the island, and whether a private neighborhood is gated is a decision best left to property owners and the County’s existing review processes.
Policy 2.5.11a – Historic and Cultural Resources: Remove “or adjacent to”
As recommended, Policy 2.5.11a would require restoration or preservation of wahi kūpuna and other historic properties located “within or adjacent to” a project area, which would adjust this Policy language back to what the Maui Planning Commission had agreed to. I respectfully request that “or adjacent to” be removed. A project applicant generally has no legal right to access, restore, or preserve a site on neighboring property it does not own or control, and the policy would ask applicants to do something they cannot do.
Mahalo nui loa for your time, your consideration, and your work on this Plan.
Brad Anderson
Senior Director of Development
Mākena Golf & Beach Club
5415 Mākena Alanui Drive
Kīhei, Hawaiʻi 96753
I oppose the current SMCP because it is not updated with the most recent Wailea Golf revised plan for the Blue Golf Course. The newest plan eliminates the housing units on the blue course and keeps the Blue Golf Course in its current configuration.The SMCP in the documents do not reflect this and it should not be passed until it is correctly updated.,
Maui keeps approving plans for growth, but rarely holds government accountable for finishing the roads, water, wastewater, housing, parks, and public facilities those plans promised; before Bill 108 replaces the 1998 plan, the County should prove what it actually completed, explain what it failed to complete and why, and stop treating a new 20-year plan as a substitute for accountability on the last one.