After hearing nearly three hours of public testimony Wednesday, a Maui County Council committee recessed without voting on two resolutions that would refer proposed bills to the Maui Planning Commission to rezone additional apartment-district properties into newly created hotel districts.

Roughly half of the 31 people who signed up to testify were still waiting to speak when the meeting ended shortly before lunch.

Combined with two earlier resolutions the Council adopted in July, the four measures working through the Planning Commission process would move about 2,554 apartment-zoned units—more than a third of the roughly 7,000 units affected by Bill 9—onto a path toward permanent hotel zoning, according to written testimony submitted by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Committee Chair Nohelani Uʻu-Hodgins ended Wednesday’s meeting at 11:46 a.m., about 15 minutes earlier than planned, citing a family commitment. The committee will resume public testimony on Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130 when it reconvenes at 9 a.m. Aug. 19.

Sea level exposure exceptions to Bill 9

The two resolutions are the latest step in implementing exceptions to Ordinance 5909, earlier known as Bill 9. Mayor Richard Bissen signed that measure into law on Dec. 15. It phases out transient vacation rentals in apartment districts, beginning Jan. 1, 2029, for West Maui, and Jan. 1, 2031, for the rest of Maui County. In the wake of Bill 9 came Bill 88, now Ordinance 6008, which created the H-3 and H-4 hotel districts in June to maintain hundreds of apartment-zoned units as vacation rentals but in outright hotel zoning.

Resolution 26-129 covers eight properties the county identified as being within a sea level rise exposure area, using a 3.2-foot planning threshold for coastal erosion by 2100. Resolution 26-130 covers two properties—10 Walaka St. in Kīhei and Makai Sunset Inn, which had operated in Lahaina as a transient vacation rental before it was destroyed in the August 2023 wildfires. Those properties were not on the county’s list of properties allowed to continue short-term rentals.

On Resolution 26-130, the Planning Department said 10 Walaka St. had conducted transient rental use in the past, though county tax records hadn’t been updated to reflect it; the Department of Finance is correcting that classification. The Makai Sunset Inn was similarly approved for transient rental use historically but was never added to the county’s short-term rental occupancy list, the department said, adding that both properties validly conducted vacation rental use.

Consultant Rory Frampton, representing Makai Sunset Inn’s ownership, told the committee the Lahaina property was purchased around 2021 by Andrew Chang and Andrew Chang Jr. after Frampton advised them it legally qualified for transient rental use. The family wants to preserve that zoning right before deciding whether to rebuild, a decision that would require separate Planning Commission review, he said.

Council Member Gabe Johnson questioned whether the seawall had been inspected since the 2023 wildfire and said he remained skeptical. “I don’t know that this is something that I can support,” Johnson said.

Testimony breaks into two groups

Public testimony—both written and oral—was divided. One group consisted of owners and associations named in, or seeking addition to, the resolutions to have their complexes rezoned as hotels for continued vacation rental use. They argued that flooding, sea-level rise or coastal erosion make their complexes unsuitable for long-term residential use.

Caitlin Miller, executive director of the Maui Vacation Rental Association, submitted testimony supporting the resolutions.

“As implementation continues, we respectfully encourage the committee to maintain consistency with the framework adopted through Ordinance 6008 so that affected property owners have a clear and predictable implementation process,” Miller wrote.

The other group, opponents of advancing the resolutions, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and a Lahaina wildfire recovery advocate, maintained that the resolutions undercut Bill 9’s purpose of returning apartment-zoned units to local housing during the county’s ongoing housing crisis.

OHA urges rejection

McKenna Woodward, a public policy advocate for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, wrote that Resolutions 26-110 and 26-111, adopted in July, already moved about 2,056 units toward the Planning Commission, and that Wednesday’s two resolutions would add another 498, bringing the total to roughly 2,554 units — more than a third of the 7,000 units affected by Bill 9.

“That is a significant land-use decision,” Woodward wrote. “The County should not rush to permanently remove potential homes from the residential framework created by Bill 9 without parcel-specific review, objective criteria, and a clear public-interest justification.”

Woodward cited Department of Finance data showing that of 101 Bill 9-affected properties sold since the ordinance took effect, 25 went to local buyers at an average price of about $452,000. She also cited University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization findings that 85% of affected owners have out-of-state mailing addresses.

“Building even a few new homes would require millions of dollars in public and private investment for construction along associated infrastructure and water availability considerations,” she wrote. “In contrast, preserving the possibility that existing units may return to local homeownership requires only that the Council wait for action (and) allow Bill 9 a meaningful opportunity to work. There is no comparable urgency to permanently protect transient accommodation use.”

OHA argued the county hasn’t established objective, coherent criteria for the rezoning and asked the committee to defer both resolutions.

Why flood risk helps condos qualify for new hotel zoning

For property owners making a case that their units should be in the new hotel zoned areas, demonstrating flood risk serves two purposes: it meets the county’s stated criteria for hotel rezoning, and it argues that transient guests—who can be rescheduled or relocated—are better suited to a flood-prone property than long-term residents who cannot simply leave.

A flood risk corridor

Much of the flood-risk testimony centered on Kīhei Bay Vista and Kīhei Bay Surf, both already included in Resolution 26-129, and on the South Kīhei Road corridor where they sit, near Kūlanihākoʻi Gulch.

A detailed written record submitted by Kīhei Bay Vista owner Julie Graham on behalf of the complex’s “Bill 88 Committee” documents that flood waters swept away Maui County firefighter Tre’ Evans-Dumaran roughly 800 yards through a storm drain while responding to a flash flood on South Kīhei Road on Jan. 27, 2023. He died eight days later — an event Graham’s report says “crystallized countywide attention to the corridor’s flood risk.”

The report also documents the severity of storms that hit the area in March 2026: South Kīhei Road closed entirely on March 13; two blocks from Kīhei Bay Vista, the Kīhei Kai Oceanfront Condominiums lost an entire 16-unit building when floodwaters undermined its foundation; county officials called the event unprecedented; and early estimates found 80% to 90% of Kīhei homes sustained some flood damage.

The county logged 2,506 flood-damaged properties, the governor declared a major disaster, and Maui County’s Office of Recovery has since put total damage from that month’s storms at roughly $100 million countywide, according to Graham’s report.

The report also cites the county’s own 2016 Kīhei Drainage Master Plan, which found Kūlanihākoʻi Gulch’s 100-year design flow at more than 10,700 cubic feet per second where it crosses South Kīhei Road, while the box culverts built beneath the road can handle a combined 672 cubic feet per second — about 6.3% of that flow.

The same report states that a lender determined a Kīhei Bay Vista unit to be “non-warrantable” for conventional Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA or VA financing, citing the property’s sea-level exposure and the homeowner association’s flood-related spending, requiring the owner to secure a portfolio loan with a 25% down payment instead.

Not everyone making that argument owns a vacation rental. Kīhei Bay Vista owners Marla Cooper and Theresa O’Toole wrote that they rent their unit exclusively to long-term tenants but have lost two tenants in five years directly because gulch flooding and erosion closed South Kīhei Road.

“We believe that Kīhei Bay Vista is only useful as an H3/H4 at this time,” they wrote, adding that they still want long-term tenants and are asking the county to address the chronic flooding regardless of the zoning outcome.

A growing list of properties asking to be added

Several testifiers argued the county isn’t applying its stated sea-level-rise criteria consistently, and asked to add more properties to Resolution 26-129.

Attorney Rebecca Krill, representing the Kīhei Park Shore Association, wrote that Kīhei Park Shore is almost entirely covered by the 3.2-foot sea level rise exposure area while Kīhei Bay Surf and Kīhei Bay Vista—the two Kīhei properties already in the resolution—are only about 20% covered by the same mapping layer.

“If the Council includes properties like Kīhei Bay Surf and Kīhei Bay Vista that are only minimally affected by the 3.2-foot sea level rise, while excluding a property like Kīhei Park Shore that is overwhelmingly encompassed by the same 3.2-foot exposure area, the resulting classification is difficult to reconcile with the resolution’s stated findings,” Krill wrote. She also said she was told that Kīhei Bay Surf and Kīhei Bay Vista were included because they sit in a Federal Emergency Management Agency flood hazard zone—a different standard than the sea-level-rise criteria actually written into the resolution. She asked the committee to either apply that standard uniformly or amend the resolution accordingly.

Planning Department staff told the committee they’ve asked the Council to clarify whether a property must be entirely within the exposure area to qualify for the new hotel zoning, or whether partial exposure — the kind Krill says makes Kīhei Bay Surf and Vista’s inclusion inconsistent — is enough. The department said it needs that answer to give the Planning Commission clear guidance.

The largest push to add a complex to the resolutions came from the owners of apartments at Nohonani, a 28-unit oceanfront condominium at 3723 Lower Honoapiʻilani Road in Honokōwai.

At least eight owners—Angela Tyler, Art May, Steven and Loree Holmes, Shaun Yu, Maria O’Donnell, Douglas and Martha Keats, Gerald Kelly, and Russell and Karen McCarley—submitted written testimony asking the committee to add Nohonani to Resolution 26-129. They argued it sits on the same 4-3-006 tax plat as Pikake, Hale Ono Loa and Lokelani, all three already included, and, in several owners’ accounts, Nohonani sits even closer to the shoreline than Pikake.

“It seems wrong to me that other properties could be granted rezoning for being within a sea-level rise exposure area when official state GIS data shows the Nohonani is at least as vulnerable as included properties,” Kelly wrote.

O’Donnell, an original 1973 owner, said she believes Nohonani’s omission “was just an oversight or clerical error.”

Similar requests for inclusion came from Waiohuli Beach Hale, Hale Kai O Kīhei, Kīhei Resort (also known as 777 S. Kīhei Road) and Koa Resort in South Maui, and from Noelani Oceanfront Resort in West Maui, whose board argued the property is operated with hotel-like staffing—three W-2 employees, including a guest services manager and property maintenance staff—and it sits in the same high-risk coastal flood zone the county has cited for nearby rezoned properties, which the board said were “added to previous amendments.”

What’s next?

The committee is expected to resume public testimony and possibly begin substantive discussion—including possible amendments to add or remove properties from either resolution—when it reconvenes Aug. 19.

Opening the floodgates

Jackie Keefe, a Lahaina resident who has supported wildfire survivors for three years, opposed the resolutions, reminding committee members that Bill 9 was about moving apartments from vacation rental to long-term residential use.

“It is unfortunate that the floodgates opened, and now more and more properties are seeking to be added to exemption lists and pleading their cases to continue short-term rental operation,” she said.

“This isn’t about people’s profits,” Keefe said, urging the committee to “stay aligned with the intent of Bill 9 and reject these resolutions.”