Maui committee sets tentative September review, plans site visits for South Maui community plan

Committee Chair Tamara Paulton opened the Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning (DRIP) Committee meeting on July 3 to discuss the process for the South Maui Community Plan update and to solicit member feedback and public testimony.

The committee agreed to pursue a compact review of the plan — roughly two to three weeks of concentrated committee time, tentatively in September — and to hold at least one in‑district meeting in South Maui preceded by daytime site visits. Planning staff offered a recommended order of plan sections for review and said the department will provide a matrix showing changes made by the long‑range planning division, the South Maui Community Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), the Maui Planning Commission and any edits from Corporation Counsel.

The discussion matters because the community plan is the county’s 20‑year blueprint for land use, growth and infrastructure in South Maui and informs later discretionary approvals. Deputy Corporation Counsel Mike Hopper told the committee that the plan “applies with the full force and effect of law” for discretionary actions such as zoning changes, subdivision approvals and Special Management Area reviews, while ministerial permits (for example, building or plumbing permits) are generally not routed for community plan compliance review.

Planning staff described the work already completed on the draft and said it has moved through five phases — research, community engagement, a department draft, CPAC review and the Maui Planning Commission review — and is currently with Corporation Counsel. Karen Konkovich, planner 5 with the planning department, summarized the department’s recommended focus areas for council review: the policy framework (section 2), growth framework (section 3) and implementation framework (section 4). Konkovich said, “The planning department's long range division began working on updating the community plan for South Maui in 2020.”

Members and staff discussed logistics for site visits and public meetings. Legislative counsel and the committee’s attorney advised that off‑site inspections must be publicly posted, safe and accessible; private property may be visited only with owner consent and any site chosen must allow public attendance. The committee floated a format of daytime site visits followed by an evening in‑district committee meeting to take testimony.

Public testimony at the meeting underscored several recurring concerns: Kaye Anderson of Wailea 808 urged removal of named developers from plan text and objected to several draft policies including a blanket prohibition on new gated communities; she also raised water‑supply concerns related to Wailea Golf LLC, saying the golf course “has 8 wells that draw brackish water from [the] Kamakama‘oli Aquifer” and that potable water for over 1,000 homes was “extremely limited.” Albert Perez of Maui Tomorrow urged the council to prioritize the CPAC version and to avoid overriding the community’s expressed desires, saying, “If we dismiss the desires and the concerns of the community, we will discourage citizen participation.” Rob Wilkman, who identified himself as CPAC chair, expressed support for a focused council review and site visits.

Multiple testifiers and committee members asked the department to provide an infrastructure analysis tied to timelines and costs. One public commenter (identified in testimony materials available to the committee) said the CPAC version requested an infrastructure assessment; a separate testifier said the CPAC’s draft envisioned “over 8,000 units” in potential build‑out and urged the council to require a detailed analysis of infrastructure costs and funding responsibilities. Planning staff said the draft plan separates implementation actions into short‑term (1–5 years), mid‑term (5–10 years) and long‑term (11–20 years) timeframes and noted the capital improvement program and project budgets are where more precise cost estimates appear.

Committee members also reviewed a state Senate resolution posted with meeting materials; the resolution urges retention of the word “require” in infrastructure‑related policies so that development does not proceed without adequate supporting infrastructure. Planning said the advisory committee and planning commission debated using “require” and adopted language in some places that reads “require, to the extent possible” to balance infrastructure goals with concerns about potentially blocking housing projects.

On timing, staff and members reported that the Maui Planning Commission completed its review in March and the packet was transmitted to the council in May; the draft remains with Corporation Counsel for form and legality review. The committee agreed tentatively to try for concentrated review in September, subject to receipt of the transmittal from Corporation Counsel and staff availability; planning asked the committee to avoid certain dates already constrained by conferences and other commitments.

No formal legislative action or vote occurred; the chair closed the meeting by deferring the item pending receipt of the finalized transmittal documents and staff coordination. The committee asked planning and Corporation Counsel to provide the transmittal, the change matrix, recommendations for site visits and any available infrastructure costing or CIP‑level estimates before the scheduled review.

Next steps: Corporation Counsel is expected to finish the transmittal, planning will assemble a matrix of edits and recommended site‑visit locations, and the DRIP committee will post a schedule and template for proposed amendments prior to the concentrated review and in‑district meeting.