The Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning (DRIP) Committee of the Maui County Council on Nov. 6 recommended first reading of two bills to amend the Maui Island Plan and the Kahului Community Plan for roughly 166.511 acres in Kahului, the parcel the proponent calls Ho‘onani Village. The committee voted to forward Bill 163 (Maui Island Plan amendment) and Bill 164 (community plan amendment) with non‑substantive edits; the motion passed by voice vote, 5‑0, with three members excused. The companion zoning bill (Bill 165) was deferred for further work and review by the Maui Planning Commission.

Why it matters: the committee advanced the policy decisions that would place the site inside the county’s urban growth boundary and change its community‑plan designation from agriculture to business‑multifamily — actions that shape allowed land uses and guide later subdivision and permitting decisions. Committee members and staff repeatedly flagged a separate but related question: whether granting M‑1 (light industrial) zoning, as the project proponent requested, would be legally consistent with a business‑multifamily community‑plan designation.

Planning staff recommended B‑2 or B‑3 zoning, not M‑1. Greg Post, administrative planning officer, told the committee the project’s described uses “totally align” with business‑multifamily but said that M‑1 is typically paired with a light‑industrial community‑plan designation. “The most appropriate zoning designation is B‑2,” Post said, noting that M‑1 is a form of stacked zoning that permits a wider range of industrial uses and would carry different consequences for property use and value.

The project proponent urged the committee to allow M‑1 in order to retain flexibility for future, unspecified businesses. “We would prefer to stick with the M‑1, and we do feel the uses would be consistent with the business‑multifamily community plan designation,” project representative Jeff Uyoka said.

Legal staff cautioned that the county code and charter require consistency between zoning and community‑plan designations. Legislative attorney Carla Nakata told the committee that “we would advise that your community plan, district boundary, and zoning all be in alignment,” and Deputy Corporation Counsel Michael Hopper cited the county code provision requiring zoning ordinances to be consistent with the community plan.

Because of that tension, the committee held an executive session to consult with counsel about legal liabilities and the procedural posture of the bills. After returning to open session, members signaled a preferred path: transmit the full package to the Maui Planning Commission for review (staff identified Jan. 13, 2026 as the target MPC meeting) and incorporate the commission’s recommendation into final council action. The committee also agreed to delete a single sentence in Section 1 of the bills that suggested the council could act without MPC review; members said deleting the language preserved options and avoided potential notice problems.

Other substantive issues raised during the hearings and staff briefings included:
- Water: members and staff flagged water supply and permitting. The proponent said wells on or near the site did not appear to be in active use and noted that compliance with Chapter 14.12 (“show me the water”) would be required as construction plans advance. Committee discussion referenced Piau Aquifer figures included in staff materials as a concern for sustainable yield and future allocation.
- Cultural and archaeological resources: County archaeologist Dr. Janet Sicks reported that historic remains have been encountered at nearby construction sites and said a remnant hale exists in the immediate area. She recommended careful review, likely an updated archaeological inventory survey (AIS) and coordination with SHPD and cultural practitioners before major ground disturbance.
- Noise/airport proximity: committee members discussed acoustical mitigation for residential uses near Kahului Airport. The proponent said it would hire an acoustical consultant and meet state/DOT/DOH standards rather than accepting a single prescriptive building‑material requirement.
- Land‑use comparisons: staff noted differences in allowed height (B‑2: ~90 ft; M‑1: ~60 ft in some areas), and clarified that hospitality/short‑term rentals would not be permitted under B‑1/B‑2/B‑3/M‑1 zoning as described in the planning department’s transmittal.
- Transportation and infrastructure: transportation staff said sidewalks and multimodal facilities are addressed during subdivision and construction‑plan review; the proponent indicated willingness to comply with required dedications and traffic mitigation determined by a traffic impact analysis (TIAR).

Votes at a glance
- Bill 163 (Maui Island Plan amendment — add site to urban growth boundary): motion to recommend first reading passed 5‑0 (three excused). Moved in committee and amended to remove one sentence in Section 1 for clarity.
- Bill 164 (Kahului Community Plan amendment — agriculture to business‑multifamily): motion to recommend first reading passed 5‑0 (three excused). Same amendment agreed for Section 1.
- Bill 165 (change in zoning / conditions of zoning for the 166.511‑acre site): deferred for further work and for the Maui Planning Commission’s review (no objection recorded to deferral).

What’s next: planning staff and the project proponent will transmit full materials, including suggested conditions, to the Maui Planning Commission. Planning staff identified Jan. 13 as the target MPC hearing date; the commission’s recommendation will return to council for potential amendments and final readings. Committee members said they wanted MPC’s recommendation on zoning and conditions before final council action to reduce procedural risk.

Reporting notes: quotes are taken from the committee transcript and attributed to speakers who appeared on the record, including planning staff, legal counsel, the project representative and county archaeological and cultural staff.