Disaster Recovery Committee Meeting on South Maui Community Plan - September 15, 2026

Note: The agenda listed the meeting as September 14, 2026, but the provided date for this summary is September 15, 2026. The meeting took place in-person at Kihei Community Center from approximately 5:07 p.m. to 7:32 p.m. (HST). The committee heard a presentation from the Planning Department and received public testimony on Bill 108 (2026) to adopt the updated South Maui Community Plan. No legislative action was taken; the meeting was for discussion and community input only.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kay Anderson (resident): Expressed concern that the plan projects 3,700–6,100 new residents but identifies over 8,000 new units, potentially doubling the population. She questioned infrastructure, water (citing 98% sustainable yield of Central Maui system), and the lack of a financial plan. She also noted inconsistencies with the Wailea Golf Plan.
• Nick Drance (resident): Criticized the plan for lacking specific infrastructure costs and benefits, called for detailed financial accountability, and highlighted erosion and evacuation risks. He stated the plan contradicts countywide policy and felt the process moves too fast.
• MJ Duberstein (resident): Opposed the “rush to judgment,” cited conflicts of interest, and asked for detailed plans for affordable housing and policies for the unhoused. He referenced the 2012 Maui Island Plan.
• Charlotte Chandrika McLaughlin (resident): Opposed additional development, citing traffic gridlock, flood risks, water shortages (Kamaole aquifer overdraft), and desalination harm to reefs. She urged preserving open space and requiring infrastructure upgrades before growth.
• Stephanie Musbach (resident): Accused the council of ignoring community input, demanded infrastructure be completed before new housing, and referenced the county’s forecast of only 1,700 needed housing units.
• Kelly King (former councilmember): Advocated returning to the CPAC version of the plan, noting that the Planning Commission removed strong infrastructure-first policies. She stated the Planning Commission lacked South Maui representation and urged slowing the process.
• Eve Hogan (Ma'alaea condominium owner): Requested that South Maui’s updated plan recognize Ma'alaea as a mixed-use harbor area, not as conventional residential, noting sea-level rise exposure and lack of infrastructure.
• Autumn Ness (resident): Shared personal experiences of flooding, wetland failure, and reef degradation. She urged mandatory language requiring water, wastewater, and stormwater upgrades before any development.
• Robin Knox (resident, KCA member): Emphasized the need for infrastructure before growth, called transportation and evacuation routes inadequate, and supported the CPAC version. She noted the North-South Collector Road is not a full solution.
• Brad Anderson (representing Makena Golf & Beach Club): Raised four technical points: stormwater retention basin conflicts, map alignment issues with gulches, affordable housing policy inconsistency with HUD rules, and a map mislabeling a private park as government facility. He said he would submit written details.
• Randy Wagner (resident, design review): Urged returning to CPAC language, especially concurrent infrastructure requirements. Noted that the Kīhei Māʻalaea development’s occupancy should be tied to road completion.
• George Rixie (architect, former KCA president): Stressed that the 1996 plan’s vision was good but implementation failed. He advocated using “shall” language for critical policies, especially drainage and traffic.
• Lucien DeNay (historian): Advocated stronger cultural site protections and not rushing the process. Recommended prior due diligence on archaeological sites before zoning.
• Sheila Walker (resident): Requested tsunami zone overlay be added to planning maps.
• Anita Schmidt (resident, business owner): Called the development plan a “death trap” due to lack of evacuation routes, shared personal experience of traffic gridlock during tsunami warning, and urged stopping all new housing until infrastructure is in place.
• Suzanne Lall (resident, facilitator): Asked to slow down and foster more community dialogue, noting climate change impacts and insurance concerns.
• Keawe A. (kupuna) : Shared generational perspective, echoed need to slow growth, cited loss of cultural sites, and supported affordable housing only with infrastructure first.
• ʻAlohalani Hill (former planning commissioner, cultural advisor): Emphasized listening to the earth and community, called South Maui a death trap in emergencies, and urged a slower, more deliberate process.
• Anonymous (resident): Noted land use outpacing infrastructure, high cost of living, fire risk, and requested that the vision statement be read at each meeting and that council members “walk the land.”
• Lexi Sawaki (resident): Highlighted lack of preparation for emergencies, referenced the Lahaina fire, and urged long-term planning starting with worst-case scenarios.
• Kahea Lani Silva (resident): Expressed support for Bill 108, trusting the council to refine the plan. She hoped her grandkids could afford to live in South Maui.
• Michelle Del Rosario (resident): Supported a moratorium on new construction until more than one evacuation route exists, paralleling Lahaina’s experience.
• John Kukahiko Plunkett (kamaʻāina): Recalled childhood memories of healthy wetlands, expressed pain over cultural loss, and prayed for compromise.
• Wendy Makahele (resident): Called for coastal retreat, wetland restoration, and a comprehensive water management approach; suggested condemnation of at-risk areas.

Discussion Items

• Planning Department Presentation: Long-Range Planner Karen Konkovich presented an overview of the Maui County General Plan structure, the update process (six phases from 2020 to 2026), and key challenges: flooding, road network deficiencies, and housing needs. The presentation highlighted that the draft plan accommodates projected growth and includes policies for multi-modal transportation and resilient systems.
• Committee Discussion on Process: Chair Tamara Paltin outlined the review schedule: Section 2 (policy framework) first, then Section 4 (implementation), Section 3 (growth framework), Section 1, and Section 5 (appendices). The committee will meet daily through October 8, 2026, in hybrid format starting the next day. No legislative action was taken at this meeting.

Key Outcomes

• No votes or decisions: The meeting was informational only; no motions were made.
• Next Steps: The committee will reconvene on September 16, 2026, in the council chambers in hybrid format. Public testimony will continue. The committee will proceed with line-by-line review of the plan using cross-referencing documents (Attachment 3, 4, and 10). The deadline for focused committee review is October 8, 2026.
• Public Input: The majority of testifiers urged slowing the process, strengthening infrastructure requirements, returning to the CPAC version, and addressing evacuation, water, and erosion issues. A minority expressed support for the plan with trust in council refinements.
• Discrepancy noted: Agenda listed meeting as September 14, 2026; summary date provided as September 15, 2026.