Maui Planning Commission holds off decision-making on Honuaʻula; public testimony nearly 9-1 opposed

Maui Planning Commission members heard nearly six hours of public testimony Tuesday in Kīhei, with 58 of 66 testifiers opposed to developer requests for land-use amendments for the Honuaʻula master-planned community, a hotly debated 670-acre development south of Maui Meadows and mauka of Piʻilani Highway in South Maui.

After closing public testimony around 3 p.m., the commission denied project opposition requests for intervention and a motion for declaratory orders. Commissioners received legal advice from corporation counsel that the requests were inapplicable because they’re not engaged in a contested case or the final decision-maker. The matter before commissioners is to provide recommendations on proposed changes to the Honuaʻula project district zoning conditions to the Maui County Council, which will decide whether to change project district ordinances.

Then, the commission turned to drafting its recommendations to the Council. Commissioners undertook several lengthy discussions; sometimes veering off course to clear up confusion. For example, they debated whether workforce housing units should be built before or after the widening of a portion of Piʻilani Highway from two to four lanes; or whether home occupancy would be allowed only after the highway project is finished.

Shortly after 8:30 p.m., the commission ran out of steam, with cellphone and laptop batteries nearly wiped out. Chair Kimberly Thayer recessed the meeting until 9 a.m. March 25 at the Kalana Pakui Building in Wailuku.

Earlier, public testimony on the project presented many of the familiar pro- and anti-development arguments heard over the years. Project opponents painted a picture of Honuaʻula Partners LLC as a faceless offshore corporation more interested in profit and long-game, bait-and-switch real estate tactics than in the community’s desperate need for affordable housing.

Among project enticements included as community benefits were 253 acres set aside as a preserve area and a native plant nursery. Also, a revised condition would have the developer contribute $5 million to a nonprofit organization for development and management of a cultural, educational and community facility.

During the public hearing, 66 people testified either in person or online. Of those, 58 (87.9%) opposed the development and/or the proposed land-use changes. Concerns included reducing the project’s number of workforce homes and objecting to the prioritization of luxury homes over affordable housing.

Six testifiers (9.1%) supported the proposed changes, arguing that any increase in housing inventory would help mitigate Maui’s housing crisis. Proponents also highlighted the project’s potential to generate construction jobs for local workers. Some of these supporters represented construction labor unions, asserting that they had the backing of hundreds of union members. Two testifiers (3%) remained neutral or did not take a clear position, according to the Maui Planning Commission’s testifier log.

A sticking point for project opponents was the proposed deal for the state Department of Transportation to take over the widening of Piʻilani Highway from Kilohana Drive to Wailea ʻIke Drive, with the developer’s projected share put at $42 million. In lieu of helping pay for the highway improvements, Honuaʻula would agree to develop as many as 50 additional workforce housing units in the project district. If the state takes on the highway project, the developer commitment for workforce units would rise from 288 to 338 units, and the number of market-priced units or housing lots would fall from 862 to 812, according to Honolulu attorney Cal Chipchase, representing Honuaʻula Partners.

Chipchase said sales of the project’s market-priced units subsidize workforce housing and other public benefits. He put it this way:

“I heard the comment (from testifiers) that if you don’t provide housing at all ranges, then the ranges that can afford it end up buying housing that was intended for or developed initially for residents. And that’s really what leads to the inflation of the median home price. And, I think that’s an accurate observation. So, the project is supplying an existing need for housing that would otherwise be met with existing housing inventory. And, if you meet it with existing housing inventory, you’re taking those away from residential, local residential buyers.”

Chipchase also said that the 800-plus, market-priced units will subsidize and make workforce housing possible. “Without those, there is no units developed in that area,” he said. And, the number of workforce housing units will be more than the area “has ever seen in its history… and will likely ever see, even if all the other projects that are under contemplation go forward and provide their share.”

The project’s market units are supporting more affordable homes, and “they’re also supporting the development of the highway and the preservation area, funded in perpetuity, and without those market units, you don’t have any of them.”

“One project can’t do everything. This project is doing a lot of those things,” Chipchase said.

Livit Callentine, who worked for 16 years in Maui County’s Department of Planning Current Planning Division, said she wanted to bring “possible procedural errors” about the Honuaʻula development project to the attention of planning commissioners.

A new Phase 2 approval is required for the project after amending Phase 1, she said, and infrastructure should be developed before the proposed development.

“It is standard operating procedure all over the Mainland and the developed world to require infrastructure prior to the building of the proposed development,” Callentine said. “Why is Maui not following suit? Why do we continue to give developers whatever they want?”

“The traffic all over Maui island has increased over the decades,” she said. “But especially South Maui is severely impacted. Its residents deserve to have safe egress in and out of the area. I strongly advise this commission not to approve or recommend approval of any new development until after an additional means of escape is provided. Safety before profits.”

Pane Meatoga III, representing 3,000 members of the Operating Engineers, said his union supports the project’s proposed amendments. He said union members are “blue collar, middle-class workers.”

“My guys operate the big equipment,” he said. “My guys were the ones that, even though they lost their homes in Lahaina, they were the ones to clean it up. They were the ones working 12-hour shifts in PPE, not being able to see their families because they had a job to do.”

“We support this because it provides housing,” Meatoga said. “To say that this housing is not good for affordable housing I think that’s wrong. We need housing. The only reason Maui is in this (housing shortage) mess is because that (former) 50% affordable housing requirement did not work. That was an impromptu moratorium on building that was untenable. During that time period there were only eight homes built, and the Council changed that because it didn’t work.”

Mark Anthony Clemente, testifying on behalf of the 6,000-member Hawaiʻi Regional Council of Carpenters, also supported the project’s proposed amendments.

“The question before you today is whether more workforce housing units will be developed, which really depends upon the recommendation to pass these amendments,” he said. “Opposing the amendments would result in the delay of much-needed workforce housing from being developed sooner, a delay in supporting the local economy, and a delay in helping alleviate the housing crisis on Maui.”

Council Member Tamara Paltin recalled early public sentiment was opposed to the project, even when it pledged 700 affordable units. Later, the number of affordable homes was reduced to 450, on site, and “to me, I think that’s the good enough compromise.”

“To err on the side of caution, because affordable housing is so desperately needed, maybe they don’t need to make the luxurious homes so luxurious,” she said. “They’re coming to you to take out that 450 affordable homes to be built on site, and I’m just saying, ‘Don’t.’ “

Kula community member Dick Mayer told commissioners he doesn’t support reducing any affordable housing requirements or any delay in widening Piʻilani Highway. He warned commissioners of “two violations of law” if they were proceed with recommendations in favor of amending project conditions.

“I warn you that there may be a lawsuit,” he said. “My guess is there probably will be a lawsuit requiring the Planning Commission to go through all of this all over again if permission were given to accept the developers’ recommendations.”

Tuesday’s public hearing was convened as part of a procedural requirement following the postponement of Maui County Council action on two land-use bills in December. Bill 171 and Bill 172 had been slated for a first reading on the Dec. 13, 2024, Maui County Council agenda. However, the Planning Department acknowledged that the commission had inadvertently failed to conduct a mandatory public hearing in South Maui, as required by the Maui County Code.

On Dec. 3, 2024, the Maui County Council’s Housing and Land Use Committee voted 5-3 to recommend passage of Bill 171 on first reading. Councilmembers Tasha Kama, Tom Cook, Alice Lee, Yuki Lei Sugimura, and Nohelani Uʻu-Hodgins voted in favor, while Gabe Johnson, Tamara Paltin, and Keani Rawlins-Fernandez opposed the measure. Shane Sinenci was absent and excused.

A major point of contention revolved around the number of required residential workforce housing units. Under earlier ordinances, the project was required to allocate 50% of its 1,400 dwelling units to workforce housing, with 450 units on-site and 250 off-site. However, the current Maui County Code mandates that developers provide workforce housing equal to at least 25% of market-rate units.

With the developer now proposing 1,150 total units, the minimum required workforce housing would be 230 units. The developer has pledged to construct at least 288 workforce units, exceeding the minimum by 58 homes.

The Housing and Land Use Committee also made key revisions, including requiring all residential workforce units to be built on-site and capping the total number of units at 1,150, down from the previously approved 1,400. Additionally, Bill 171 removed references to 450 affordable units in the Kīhei-Mākena Project District 9 ordinance. The bill also eliminated provisions for a golf course and related facilities, instead incorporating cultural and educational centers as permitted uses.

The Department of Planning’s Sept. 24 report and recommendation can be found online. Submitted written testimony is available for viewing here and here.