Maui County’s implementation of Bill 9 continues as the Housing and Land Use Committee considers another group of apartment-zoned vacation rental properties for potential H-3 and H-4 Hotel District zoning.
The current proposals, Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130, have generated hours of public testimony, multiple proposed amendments and questions about which properties should qualify for hotel rezoning.
Unlike Resolutions 26-110 and 26-111, which the Maui County Council advanced in July, Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130 remain under review.
The next Housing and Land Use Committee meeting is currently scheduled for September 9, when we will be watching to see which proposed amendments are adopted, which properties remain on the list and whether the resolutions advance to the Maui Planning Commission.
Understanding the Maui Vacation Rental Rezoning Resolutions
With several similarly numbered bills, ordinances and resolutions involved, here’s what each one does:
Bill 9 / Ordinance 5909: Vacation Rental Phaseout
Phases out transient vacation rental use in Maui County’s A-1 and A-2 Apartment Districts. The phaseout is scheduled to take effect beginning January 1, 2029, for West Maui properties and January 1, 2031, for properties elsewhere in Maui County.
Bill 88 / Ordinance 6008: New H-3 and H-4 Hotel Districts
Bill 88 established the new H-3 and H-4 Hotel Districts, creating a potential rezoning pathway for certain apartment-zoned properties affected by the vacation rental phaseout.
Importantly, the creation of H-3 and H-4 zoning did not automatically rezone individual properties. Property-specific zoning changes still have to proceed through the County’s land-use process.
Resolutions 26-110 and 26-111: First Property Rezoning Referrals
Cover properties identified based on characteristics including timeshare use, leasehold status, existing variances and hotel-like operations.
The Maui County Council advanced Resolutions 26-110 and 26-111 in July, referring proposed community plan and zoning changes for Planning Commission review.
Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130: Current Property Rezoning Proposals
These are the current proposals before the Housing and Land Use Committee.
Resolution 26-129 focuses on apartment-zoned properties within the County’s Sea Level Rise Exposure Area, while Resolution 26-130 addresses a smaller number of properties with additional property-specific circumstances.
Resolution 26-129: Sea Level Rise Exposure Area Properties
Resolution 26-129 proposes community plan amendments and H-3 or H-4 Hotel District zoning for A-1 and A-2 Apartment District properties within the County’s Sea Level Rise Exposure Area.
The resolution uses the County’s recognized planning threshold for coastal erosion associated with 3.2 feet of sea level rise. It also notes that properties within the Shoreline Setback Area and Special Management Area remain subject to applicable shoreline and SMA regulations regardless of their zoning.
As originally introduced, Resolution 26-129 identified eight properties:
South Maui and Māʻalaea
- Island Sands
- Māʻalaea Kai
- Kīhei Bay Surf
- Kīhei Bay Vista
West Maui
- Lokelani
- Hale Ono Loa
- Pikake
- Hale Kai I
Importantly, these properties have not been rezoned. Resolution 26-129 would refer the necessary community plan amendments and proposed zoning changes to the Maui Planning Commission for review.
However, that original eight-property list is no longer the only list under consideration.
Maui Vacation Rental Rezoning: More Properties are Being Considered for Resolution 26-129
During the committee’s August review, Council members introduced amendments that could add substantially more properties to Resolution 26-129.
The additional properties proposed through amendments include:
South Maui and Māʻalaea
- Makani A Kai
- Maalaea Banyans
- Kamaole One
- Kīhei Resort
- Waiohuli Beach Hale
- Shores of Maui
- Kihei Parkshore
West Maui
- Kahana Reef
- Nohonani
- Makani Sands
- Hoyochi Nikko
- Noelani
- Puunoa Beach Estates
- Polynesian Shores
- Lahaina Roads
- Kaleialoha
Because some Council members’ proposed amendments overlap, these represent 16 distinct additional properties, rather than 16 properties per amendment.
These additions are still proposals. The committee has not yet adopted a final amended property list.
That distinction is important for owners: being proposed for addition is not the same as being approved for referral or rezoned.
Why the Sea Level Rise Criteria are Getting More Complicated
One of the central questions emerging from the committee’s review is surprisingly basic:
How much of a property needs to be within the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area to qualify?
That threshold has not yet been clearly established.
During testimony, representatives for Kīhei Parkshore argued that nearly the entire property falls within the exposure area, while some properties already included in the original resolution reportedly have considerably less exposure.
The Planning Department has also sought clarification about how the criterion should be applied.
That creates a broader question for the Council. If partial exposure is sufficient, how much is enough? And if similarly situated properties exist outside the original list, should they also be considered?
Those questions are contributing to the growing number of proposed amendments.
A Key Question: What Qualifies as Being Within the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area?
One of the most significant questions to emerge during the review of Resolution 26-129 is how the County determines whether a property qualifies under the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area criterion.
The issue is not simply whether a parcel touches the mapped exposure area.
The question is:
How much of the property needs to fall within it?
During testimony, representatives for Kīhei Parkshore argued that nearly the entire property falls within the exposure area, while some properties included in the original Resolution 26-129 reportedly have considerably less exposure.
The Planning Department has also sought clarification regarding how the criterion should be applied.
That creates an important consistency question. If a property that is partially within the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area qualifies for consideration, other similarly situated properties may argue that they should receive the same opportunity.
This issue appears to be one reason the proposed property list has continued to evolve.
Some Property Owners are Asking to be Included
Another development during the August hearings has been active participation from owners and condominium associations seeking inclusion in the proposed hotel rezoning.
Representatives associated with properties including Kihei Parkshore, Nohonani and Waiohuli Beach Hale have argued that their properties should also be considered.
Their testimony raises a broader issue the committee must address: whether the criteria being used to identify properties are being applied consistently.
At the same time, opponents of expanding H-3 and H-4 zoning argue that removing additional properties from the Bill 9 phaseout would reduce the number of apartment-zoned units potentially available for long-term resident housing.
That tension between property-specific circumstances and the broader housing goals behind Bill 9 has become a central part of the implementation debate.
What is Resolution 26-130?
Resolution 26-130 is a separate, smaller proposal from the Sea Level Rise-focused Resolution 26-129.
It addresses two A-2 Apartment District properties proposed for H-4 Hotel District zoning.
The properties include 10 Walaka Street in Kīhei, a single-owner property with historical transient rental use, and the Makai Sunset Inn properties at 1411 and 1415 Front Street in Lahaina.
The Makai Sunset Inn historically operated as transient accommodations, is located within the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area and was destroyed during the August 2023 Lahaina wildfire.
Because Resolution 26-130 involves additional property-specific circumstances, it is useful to distinguish it from Resolution 26-129 rather than describing both measures simply as “sea level rise rezoning.”
Why Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130 have not Advanced Yet
The committee first took up Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130 on August 5.
After nearly three hours of testimony, the meeting recessed without a vote.
The committee returned to the issue on August 19 and heard approximately another two and a half hours of testimony, before again recessing without final action.
The review continued on August 27, with the resolutions remaining before the Housing and Land Use Committee.
The extended proceedings reflect the number of questions the committee is now working through, including which properties should qualify, how eligibility criteria should be applied and what effect additional hotel rezoning could have on the housing goals behind Bill 9.
The Housing Question Remains at the Center of the Debate
The August hearings also introduced new data about sales of properties affected by the vacation rental phaseout.
The Maui Vacation Rental Association presented an analysis of 162 Minatoya List sales between December 1, 2025 and August 14, 2026.
According to MVRA, 12 of those sales, or 7.4%, could be confirmed as purchases by Maui resident owner-occupants. Including another nine buyers MVRA classified as probable resident owner-occupants increased the figure to approximately 13%.
The significance of that number is disputed.
Vacation rental advocates have cited the analysis in questioning whether eliminating transient vacation rental use will result in a significant number of units becoming resident housing. Supporters of the phaseout have argued that the same figures show that some properties are already transitioning toward resident ownership.
Because the analysis comes from MVRA rather than an independent County study, the figures should be viewed as one data point in the broader discussion rather than a definitive measure of Bill 9’s impact.
What’s Next for Maui Vacation Rental Rezoning? September 9 is the Next Date to Watch
The Housing and Land Use Committee is currently scheduled to continue its consideration of Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130 on September 9, 2026.
There are several developments we will be watching closely.
Which properties remain on Resolution 26-129.
Numerous additions have been proposed, but the committee has not established a final property list.
Whether additional properties are proposed.
The list has continued to evolve throughout the committee process, and further amendments could still change which properties are considered.
How the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area criterion is applied.
Greater clarity about whether partial exposure qualifies a property could affect both the current resolution and other properties seeking similar treatment.
Whether Resolutions 26-129 and 26-130 advance.
These resolutions do not themselves complete the rezoning. Advancement would move the proposed community plan and zoning changes further through the County’s review process.
For owners, buyers and sellers, the most important distinction remains that being named in a resolution or proposed amendment does not mean a property has already been rezoned.
We will continue monitoring the County’s proceedings and update our coverage as the property lists and rezoning proposals become clearer.
If you own a Maui property affected by Bill 9, or are considering buying or selling a property that may be affected, contact Maui Real Estate Advisors to discuss how the evolving regulations may relate to your specific property.
With Aloha,
This Bill 9 Maui Real Estate update represents our opinion based on available information and should not be considered financial or legal advice.
Interested in learning more about Bill 9? You can read our other updates here.
