Regarding Bill 108, the latest testimony concerning the approximately 583-acre Kīhei Mauka growth area brings the infrastructure question into focus.
The landowners support planning the entire area for future growth so housing, roads and community facilities can be planned comprehensively. That is a reasonable planning objective. HR_KR_MPC_ltr_20260930
They also propose that transportation improvements be provided “prior to or concurrent with each phase of development,” rather than requiring completion of the entire mauka collector road before development begins. They propose that the specific improvements be determined later through traffic studies and future land-use approvals. HR_KR_MPC_ltr_20260930
I am not suggesting that infrastructure for all 583 acres must be built before the first home.
I am asking what “prior to or concurrent with each phase” actually means.
Before you can responsibly phase infrastructure, you have to know where you are starting.
What is South Maui's existing road capacity?
What is its water and wastewater capacity?
What demand has already been committed to development that has been approved but not yet built?
What reserve capacity must remain for emergencies and system reliability?
And after accounting for all of that, what capacity actually remains for additional growth?
The landowners also caution against relying too heavily on the County's growth forecast because forecasts can change and future housing demand may be greater than projected. HR_KR_MPC_ltr_20260930
That creates an important issue for Bill 108.
If you are going to preserve flexibility for more growth, you also need firm standards protecting the infrastructure required to support that growth.
The exact road design twenty years from now does not need to be known today. The standard does.
Establish the baseline. Account for existing and already-committed demand. Establish necessary reserve capacity. Then require each phase to demonstrate that the infrastructure necessary to support it will actually be available when that phase creates the demand.
Otherwise, “prior to or concurrent with development” is not an infrastructure standard.
It is a promise to determine the standard later.
Bill 108 is the twenty-year plan. This is where you establish the rules.
You cannot responsibly phase infrastructure if you do not know where you are starting.
Aloha,
The Community Plans for each region are an undeniable benefit to future generations. My concerns for appropriate planning for water, amounts of housing, runoff, evacuation capacities and the well being of future generations are often given a slight nod in comparison to the determined pivot needed for this community at this time. It’s unnecessary and inappropriate to transfer land use. We need a halt to new construction while we assess water & traffic capacities. The concept of tearing down old buildings and building in their place seems absent, tho incredibly necessary and relevant, and MUST be the direction at this time. Please stop following the plans and patterns, of those proven inept in large scale, that are absolutely frightening in this delicate archipelago. Hawai’i is the creme de la creme of existence! Not this proposed strip mall worthy, lucky to be asked, hated stepchild, these Colonizers profit so immensely from advertising to this government as they do. i ask that the kanaka maoli of Kihei have the reigns in their Community Plan design, and that Their mana’o carry the final say. No longer can we tolerate these obtusely egregious plans of building in wetlands and draining wells to below the waterline, for these jungle fantasies to be played out in the dry land forests! Mahalo for ur divine alignments and decisions that guide the future in a delightful, abundant, sustainable direction.
Malama pono,
C. Rose Reilly
My name is Wayne Levin, and along with my wife, Michelle Levin, we are homeowners at Keala O Wailea. I am writing in support of the position taken by the Keala O Wailea Board of Directors and the Wailea Community Association concerning the proposed Wailea Golf development.
I join in strongly opposing any plan that would permit residential development on the Blue Course or otherwise materially alter the Blue Course from its existing use. The current Wailea Golf proposal would place housing directly below Keala O Wailea and would eliminate the existing Blue Course configuration. The WCA revised plan, by contrast, preserves the Blue Course and does not include development below Keala O Wailea.
Michelle and I have owned our home at Keala for many years because of what makes this part of Wailea unique: the open space, the golf courses, the views, and the relatively low-density character of the community. I recognize that Wailea will continue to evolve and that some additional development is inevitable. I am not asking that all development be stopped.
That is why I believe the WCA proposal represents a reasonable and meaningful compromise. It allows redevelopment to proceed on the Emerald Course while preserving the Blue and Gold Courses as 18-hole courses.
The distinction between Blue and Emerald is important. The Blue Course winds through the heart of established Wailea and is closely integrated with numerous existing residential communities. Development of the Blue therefore affects not just Keala O Wailea, but many existing homeowners who live around and adjacent to the course. The Emerald Course, by comparison, is situated where substantially fewer existing residential communities directly adjoin the course. The geography therefore makes the WCA compromise particularly sensible: it permits meaningful redevelopment while concentrating that development in an area where fewer existing homeowners are directly affected. Wailea Golf’s own materials confirm that the Blue Course and the Gold/Emerald courses occupy distinct parts of the resort, with the Blue based on Wailea Ike Drive and the Gold and Emerald farther south at Wailea Golf Club Drive.
In my view, that is exactly what a compromise should accomplish. It does not give either side everything it wants. It allows Wailea Golf to realize meaningful development opportunities while preserving the Blue Course, protecting established residential neighborhoods, and retaining much of the open-space character that has long defined central Wailea.
I am also concerned that development on the Blue Course would raise broader questions concerning traffic, ingress and egress, emergency evacuation, water, infrastructure and other public resources that would need to be carefully addressed before any such development should proceed. These concerns are particularly real for those of us who live immediately above the proposed development area.
I therefore respectfully ask the Committee not to advance the current Wailea Golf proposal insofar as it permits development on the Blue Course, and instead to support the revised WCA approach that preserves the Blue Course.
Thank you for considering the views of those of us who live in and care deeply about the future of Wailea.
Sincerely,
Wayne Levin
Homeowner, Keala O Wailea
waynelev@gmail.com
Deleted User
15 days ago
Chair and Members of the DRIP Committee:
At this point, I think the right thing to do is fairly simple.
Stop trying to treat every property the same.
Some of these properties were built and have operated as visitor accommodations. Some function much more like hotels or timeshares. Others are residential condominiums that have been used as short-term rentals.
Those are not the same thing.
Establish objective standards and evaluate the properties based on what they actually are.
If a property was designed, approved and has historically operated as a hotel or visitor accommodation, deal with it honestly as that type of property.
If a property was built as residential housing and can reasonably function as residential housing, protect that housing opportunity.
But don't change thousands of units to Hotel zoning simply because that solves the immediate political problem created by Bill 9.
And don't call thousands of units “housing” simply because government prohibits short-term rentals in them.
Find out what actually happens.
Track the affected units.
Did they become owner-occupied?
Did they become long-term rentals?
Did Maui residents buy them?
What are the rents?
What are the maintenance fees?
How many are sitting vacant?
How many are actually affordable to the people you say this policy is supposed to help?
The County already has much of the information necessary to do this.
Use it.
The condo market is already adjusting. Properties are sitting longer. Sellers are reducing prices. Buyers are negotiating.
Give the market and Bill 9 enough time to show you what is actually happening before making additional permanent land-use decisions based on assumptions.
And where a property truly does not make sense as residential housing, recognize that too.
This does not have to be a fight between housing and vacation rentals.
It should be a factual determination about the best long-term use of these properties for Maui.
Protect real housing. Recognize legitimate visitor accommodations. Stop pretending they are all the same. Measure the results before making permanent decisions.
That is the responsible thing to do.
My name is Amy Shuen, and I am an owner at Keala O Wailea. I am submitting this testimony in my individual capacity as a concerned homeowner.
I oppose the proposed redevelopment of the Wailea Blue Golf Course for substantial residential development, and I support the compromise proposed by the Wailea Community Association that would preserve the Blue and Gold Courses as full 18-hole golf courses while allowing more limited development elsewhere. Please see my detailed written testimony here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nyjvM6sEKj2NZE3bwchYHFlRXfzfSOFX/view?usp=sharing
My name is Michelle Levin.
I am a owner at Keala O Wailea.
I oppose any development projects around the Blue golf course in Wailea. I am not opposed to the WCA compromise, that keeps the blue and gold courses as full 18 hole courses.
I live at Keala O'Wailea between the blue golf course and the Monkey Pod shopping center. I am strongly opposed to the plan as currently submitted by the owner of the wailea golf courses. It is too drastic a change to our community. I recognized the need for change and additional housing (especially work force housing) but this can be achieved via the compromise plan proposed by the WCA which I strongly support. The owner of the Wailea golf courses isn't interested in improving our community. He saw the prices being paid for homes and lots at the private Makena development and is seeking the same returns. Literaly billions of dollars. His offer of a rather small number of work force housing units is simply a 'bribe' to the county in return for rezoning his golf courses for commercial development what will only benefit the wealthy few who buy his new homes. Please vote against his request and urge him to seek a compromise with the local community.
Bruce Herrmann
59 Wailea Gateway Place #102
Kihei
Chair and DRIP Committee:
Regarding Bill 108, the latest testimony concerning the approximately 583-acre Kīhei Mauka growth area brings the infrastructure question into focus.
The landowners support planning the entire area for future growth so housing, roads and community facilities can be planned comprehensively. That is a reasonable planning objective. HR_KR_MPC_ltr_20260930
They also propose that transportation improvements be provided “prior to or concurrent with each phase of development,” rather than requiring completion of the entire mauka collector road before development begins. They propose that the specific improvements be determined later through traffic studies and future land-use approvals. HR_KR_MPC_ltr_20260930
I am not suggesting that infrastructure for all 583 acres must be built before the first home.
I am asking what “prior to or concurrent with each phase” actually means.
Before you can responsibly phase infrastructure, you have to know where you are starting.
What is South Maui's existing road capacity?
What is its water and wastewater capacity?
What demand has already been committed to development that has been approved but not yet built?
What reserve capacity must remain for emergencies and system reliability?
And after accounting for all of that, what capacity actually remains for additional growth?
The landowners also caution against relying too heavily on the County's growth forecast because forecasts can change and future housing demand may be greater than projected. HR_KR_MPC_ltr_20260930
That creates an important issue for Bill 108.
If you are going to preserve flexibility for more growth, you also need firm standards protecting the infrastructure required to support that growth.
The exact road design twenty years from now does not need to be known today. The standard does.
Establish the baseline. Account for existing and already-committed demand. Establish necessary reserve capacity. Then require each phase to demonstrate that the infrastructure necessary to support it will actually be available when that phase creates the demand.
Otherwise, “prior to or concurrent with development” is not an infrastructure standard.
It is a promise to determine the standard later.
Bill 108 is the twenty-year plan. This is where you establish the rules.
You cannot responsibly phase infrastructure if you do not know where you are starting.
Jolee Bindo, Waikapu
Please see attached testimony related to the policies for North Kihei Mauka.
Aloha,
The Community Plans for each region are an undeniable benefit to future generations. My concerns for appropriate planning for water, amounts of housing, runoff, evacuation capacities and the well being of future generations are often given a slight nod in comparison to the determined pivot needed for this community at this time. It’s unnecessary and inappropriate to transfer land use. We need a halt to new construction while we assess water & traffic capacities. The concept of tearing down old buildings and building in their place seems absent, tho incredibly necessary and relevant, and MUST be the direction at this time. Please stop following the plans and patterns, of those proven inept in large scale, that are absolutely frightening in this delicate archipelago. Hawai’i is the creme de la creme of existence! Not this proposed strip mall worthy, lucky to be asked, hated stepchild, these Colonizers profit so immensely from advertising to this government as they do. i ask that the kanaka maoli of Kihei have the reigns in their Community Plan design, and that Their mana’o carry the final say. No longer can we tolerate these obtusely egregious plans of building in wetlands and draining wells to below the waterline, for these jungle fantasies to be played out in the dry land forests! Mahalo for ur divine alignments and decisions that guide the future in a delightful, abundant, sustainable direction.
Malama pono,
C. Rose Reilly
Chair Paltin and Members of the DRIP Committee:
My name is Wayne Levin, and along with my wife, Michelle Levin, we are homeowners at Keala O Wailea. I am writing in support of the position taken by the Keala O Wailea Board of Directors and the Wailea Community Association concerning the proposed Wailea Golf development.
I join in strongly opposing any plan that would permit residential development on the Blue Course or otherwise materially alter the Blue Course from its existing use. The current Wailea Golf proposal would place housing directly below Keala O Wailea and would eliminate the existing Blue Course configuration. The WCA revised plan, by contrast, preserves the Blue Course and does not include development below Keala O Wailea.
Michelle and I have owned our home at Keala for many years because of what makes this part of Wailea unique: the open space, the golf courses, the views, and the relatively low-density character of the community. I recognize that Wailea will continue to evolve and that some additional development is inevitable. I am not asking that all development be stopped.
That is why I believe the WCA proposal represents a reasonable and meaningful compromise. It allows redevelopment to proceed on the Emerald Course while preserving the Blue and Gold Courses as 18-hole courses.
The distinction between Blue and Emerald is important. The Blue Course winds through the heart of established Wailea and is closely integrated with numerous existing residential communities. Development of the Blue therefore affects not just Keala O Wailea, but many existing homeowners who live around and adjacent to the course. The Emerald Course, by comparison, is situated where substantially fewer existing residential communities directly adjoin the course. The geography therefore makes the WCA compromise particularly sensible: it permits meaningful redevelopment while concentrating that development in an area where fewer existing homeowners are directly affected. Wailea Golf’s own materials confirm that the Blue Course and the Gold/Emerald courses occupy distinct parts of the resort, with the Blue based on Wailea Ike Drive and the Gold and Emerald farther south at Wailea Golf Club Drive.
In my view, that is exactly what a compromise should accomplish. It does not give either side everything it wants. It allows Wailea Golf to realize meaningful development opportunities while preserving the Blue Course, protecting established residential neighborhoods, and retaining much of the open-space character that has long defined central Wailea.
I am also concerned that development on the Blue Course would raise broader questions concerning traffic, ingress and egress, emergency evacuation, water, infrastructure and other public resources that would need to be carefully addressed before any such development should proceed. These concerns are particularly real for those of us who live immediately above the proposed development area.
I therefore respectfully ask the Committee not to advance the current Wailea Golf proposal insofar as it permits development on the Blue Course, and instead to support the revised WCA approach that preserves the Blue Course.
Thank you for considering the views of those of us who live in and care deeply about the future of Wailea.
Sincerely,
Wayne Levin
Homeowner, Keala O Wailea
waynelev@gmail.com
Chair and Members of the DRIP Committee:
At this point, I think the right thing to do is fairly simple.
Stop trying to treat every property the same.
Some of these properties were built and have operated as visitor accommodations. Some function much more like hotels or timeshares. Others are residential condominiums that have been used as short-term rentals.
Those are not the same thing.
Establish objective standards and evaluate the properties based on what they actually are.
If a property was designed, approved and has historically operated as a hotel or visitor accommodation, deal with it honestly as that type of property.
If a property was built as residential housing and can reasonably function as residential housing, protect that housing opportunity.
But don't change thousands of units to Hotel zoning simply because that solves the immediate political problem created by Bill 9.
And don't call thousands of units “housing” simply because government prohibits short-term rentals in them.
Find out what actually happens.
Track the affected units.
Did they become owner-occupied?
Did they become long-term rentals?
Did Maui residents buy them?
What are the rents?
What are the maintenance fees?
How many are sitting vacant?
How many are actually affordable to the people you say this policy is supposed to help?
The County already has much of the information necessary to do this.
Use it.
The condo market is already adjusting. Properties are sitting longer. Sellers are reducing prices. Buyers are negotiating.
Give the market and Bill 9 enough time to show you what is actually happening before making additional permanent land-use decisions based on assumptions.
And where a property truly does not make sense as residential housing, recognize that too.
This does not have to be a fight between housing and vacation rentals.
It should be a factual determination about the best long-term use of these properties for Maui.
Protect real housing. Recognize legitimate visitor accommodations. Stop pretending they are all the same. Measure the results before making permanent decisions.
That is the responsible thing to do.
Edward Codelia
Maui Resident
I support passage of the ordinance with the requested changes specified in my written testimony, see attached.
My name is Amy Shuen, and I am an owner at Keala O Wailea. I am submitting this testimony in my individual capacity as a concerned homeowner.
I oppose the proposed redevelopment of the Wailea Blue Golf Course for substantial residential development, and I support the compromise proposed by the Wailea Community Association that would preserve the Blue and Gold Courses as full 18-hole golf courses while allowing more limited development elsewhere. Please see my detailed written testimony here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nyjvM6sEKj2NZE3bwchYHFlRXfzfSOFX/view?usp=sharing
My name is Michelle Levin.
I am a owner at Keala O Wailea.
I oppose any development projects around the Blue golf course in Wailea. I am not opposed to the WCA compromise, that keeps the blue and gold courses as full 18 hole courses.
Aloha - please find attached written testimony from Wailea Golf on Section 3 of the SMCP Draft Plan.
Mahalo,
Christian Chan
I live at Keala O'Wailea between the blue golf course and the Monkey Pod shopping center. I am strongly opposed to the plan as currently submitted by the owner of the wailea golf courses. It is too drastic a change to our community. I recognized the need for change and additional housing (especially work force housing) but this can be achieved via the compromise plan proposed by the WCA which I strongly support. The owner of the Wailea golf courses isn't interested in improving our community. He saw the prices being paid for homes and lots at the private Makena development and is seeking the same returns. Literaly billions of dollars. His offer of a rather small number of work force housing units is simply a 'bribe' to the county in return for rezoning his golf courses for commercial development what will only benefit the wealthy few who buy his new homes. Please vote against his request and urge him to seek a compromise with the local community.
Bruce Herrmann
59 Wailea Gateway Place #102
Kihei