Maui Council advances bills for agricultural tourism and food trucks in ag districts

The Maui County Council moved forward two bills this week aimed at bolstering island agriculture, but one — Bill 75, which seeks to establish agricultural tourism — sparked a debate over safeguarding indigenous Hawaiian cultural practices from commercial exploitation.

In a less contentious move, Bill 76 received unanimous final Council approval to allow food trucks or trailers of 1,000 square feet or less as permitted accessory uses on farms in Maui County’s agricultural district. It now heads to Mayor Richard Bissen for his signature, veto, or to become law without his signature.

Also passed on second reading was Bill 104, which would permit kitchenettes (with long-term occupancy and added parking) and restrict wet bars in residential/rural zones on Maui and Lānaʻi, along with conforming definition updates.

For more than an hour, council members discussed Bill 75, a measure to establish agricultural tourism as an accessory use in the agricultural district. Ultimately, it passed first reading with an 8-1 vote. Council Member Keani Rawlins-Fernandez cast the dissenting vote. With amendments, the bill now advances to second reading at a future Council meeting, where it will face a final vote.

The measure aims to promote the teaching of traditional practices, including aquaculture, subsistence agriculture, alternative health practices, and Indigenous Hawaiian architecture. It also seeks to diversify the tourism industry by supporting niche activities such as medical and agricultural tourism.

Advocates emphasize farmer resilience

During public testimony, council members heard support for both bills.

Sydney Smith, chair of the Ag Working Group, strongly supported Bill 75, emphasizing its crucial role in bolstering Maui’s agricultural community. She noted that Hawaiʻi was the last state to incorporate agricultural tourism into its land use code 15 years ago, a move intended to enhance the resilience of the state’s farms and ranches.

Smith explained that Maui County’s Title 19.30A was designed to align with state law (Chapter 205) to promote agricultural development and preserve resources. The Ag Working Group, formed in 2012, intentionally avoided overly specific definitions for agricultural tourism to allow for innovation.

However, Smith said that new leadership in the Department of Planning began requiring exhaustive detail for every permissible activity. She cited an instance where a Hawaiian family was told they needed a costly and time-consuming state special use permit just to hold a lei-making class, despite agricultural tourism and education being clearly permitted uses. Smith urged the bill’s passage to prevent undue burdens on farmers.

Maui Chamber of Commerce President Pamela Tumpap also supported Bill 75 for modernizing regulations, but she raised concerns about certain provisions.

She criticized the proposed 60-day limit for ceasing ag tourism activities if agricultural operations paused as being too short. She argued that it fails to account for farming realities like crop rotation, pest issues or natural disasters.

Tumpap also took issue with 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. activity hours as being too restrictive for night-time cultural activities. Additionally, she expressed apprehension about requiring approval from the Department of ʻŌiwi Resources, viewing it as another layer of bureaucracy.

Finally, Tumpap voiced concern over proposals for a “three strikes” rule that could lead to a five-year business shutdown, suggesting education and counseling would be more effective than punitive measures.

Support for agricultural ventures vs. protecting indigenous Hawaiian culture

Council Member Gabe Johnson, who introduced the bill and chairs the Agriculture, Diversification, Environment and Public Transportation Committee, emphasized that Bill 75’s goal is to provide farmers with more viable options for success.

He noted that the bill’s initial committee draft version had incorporated Planning Department recommendations and included provisions for cultural protection, such as requiring consultation with the director of the Department of ʻŌiwi Resources for cultural appropriation violations and allowing for revocation of registration for intentional violations. This version passed committee approval unanimously.

However, Johnson later introduced an updated version, following further consultation with the Department of Corporation Counsel. This new version removed several key provisions: the requirement for ʻŌiwi Resources approval for cultural activities (changing it to consultation only), and the planning director’s right to revoke registration for intentional violations. Johnson said corporation counsel determined that some of the stronger enforcement provisions were unconstitutional.

Council Member Tom Cook supported the revised bill, saying it would help agriculture move forward and that the community would self-police against abuses.

Council Member Tamara Paltin criticized the revised bill changes, arguing they were made without sufficient committee discussion or input from relevant departments like the Fire Department, Department of Agriculture, and ʻŌiwi Resources. She specifically pointed to the removal of enforcement for intentional violations, leading to “zero accountability.” Deputy Corporation Counsel Andrew Nelson clarified that a general enforcement section of the zoning code would still apply.

Council Member Nohelani Uʻu-Hodgins questioned the vagueness of the “may consult” language for ʻŌiwi Resources and sought clarification on enforcement mechanisms. Greg Post of the Planning Department acknowledged the revised version was weaker on cultural misappropriation enforcement compared to the earlier draft bill.

Rawlins-Fernandez vehemently opposed the bill, stating she found the dilution of cultural protection “offensive” and wanted strong safeguards in place to protect Hawaiian culture.

“Many tourists come to Hawaii to experience our Hawaiian culture,” she said. “Our culture has been exploited and misappropriated too often by folks who do not practice our culture.”

Instead, they only perform “what they imagine our culture is for profit,” she said.

“Protecting our indigenous intellectual property is one of the very reasons the ʻŌiwi department was established,” Rawlins-Fernandez said. “And to dilute this section this much is offensive. I would support it going back to committee because I consider these pretty substantive, especially after hearing committee members talk about how they had so much discussion to even get to this point.”

Johnson said: “I totally hear where we’re coming from; where we don’t want to commercialize culture.”

Yet, “this is the water we swim in,” he said. “People do that. And how do we stop them from doing that? Does this body have that power? I don’t know if we do.”

Council Member Tasha Kama suggested sending the bill back to committee for further review to strengthen it, but Johnson was not in support of that.

Later, Paltin introduced two amendments to the revised version that were both passed 9-0:

• For activities representing indigenous cultures’ traditions and customs, the Department of ʻŌiwi Resources must be consulted.
• A new provision stating that a producer’s registration shall be suspended for three years and disallow continued agricultural tourism activities upon three violations of the chapter. This “timeout” provision aims to provide a stronger enforcement mechanism.

Despite the amendments, Rawlins-Fernandez maintained her opposition, arguing the bill still lacked adequate protections against cultural harm and exploitation. She emphasized the importance of preventing egregious examples of cultural abuse rather than waiting for them to occur.

On other action, council members gave final approval to:

Bill 158 to authorize the mayor to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the Maui Police Department to help Kauaʻi County with forensic drug testing.

Bill 83 to disband the South Maui and Pāʻia-Haʻikū advisory committees to the Maui Planning Commission.

Bill 84 to amend the fiscal 2026 budget to appropriate another $95,600 from the state Department of Health Clean Water Branch to the Department of Environmental Management to update the Māʻalaea Wastewater Study.

Bill 85 to amend the fiscal 2026 budget, adding an $80,750 “Emergency Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant” appropriation to the Office of the Mayor. The purpose of this grant is to purchase two electric vehicles.

Council members also adopted resolution 25-122 authorizing the acceptance of two parcels at 644 Lāna‘i Ave. and Seventh Street, Lāna‘i City, Hawai‘i, with 14,379 and 10,510 square feet, respectively. Various uses are being considered for the property. (Council approval by resolution is required to accept donations of land.)

Resolution 23-163 was adopted to refer to the Lāna‘i, Maui and Moloka‘i planning commissions a proposed bill to require places of public accommodation with at least 50 parking spaces to have at least two parking spaces specifically designated for electric vehicles; and have an additional two spaces for electric vehicles for each increment of 50 parking spaces.

Council members also adopted resolution 25-140 would authorize the grant of a lease of a little more than an acre of County property in Kualapu‘u Park and Community Center for $1 a year to the Ho‘ahu Energy Cooperative Moloka‘i and Ho‘ahu CBRE 2 Kualapu‘u LLC. The lease would expire Sept. 18, 2043.

And, they agreed to resolution 25-142 would submit to the Lāna‘i, Maui and Moloka‘i planning commissions a proposed bill to standardize the allowable size of accessory dwellings and associated decks and similar structures for lots that are smaller than a half acre.

On first reading, the Council passed Bill 47, which would authorize the mayor to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, and Hawai‘i counties for the Hawaiʻi Creative Economy Collaborative.