2026 Your Future Park Access in Jeopardy

The Maui Planning Commission voted 6-1 to approve the Makena State Park Improvements Project (as recommended by the Planning Department void of any public input) - but with conditions.  Not the worst outcome - and thanks to strong public opposition, the most dangerous elements of DLNR’s long‑term plan are on hold for now.

The Real Threat — Still Waiting in the Wings

From DLNR’s own Makena State Park Plan - “If parking or entry fees are introduced:

• A single point of entry at the North Lot
• A security booth to control access
• An internal road connecting North and South Lots
• A shuttle system from nearby hotels”

From the written testimony of the DLNR Chair - “State Parks is PLANNING on:

• installing an exterior fence to restrict the people who access from outside the park boundary (to block walk‑ins)
• A park‑wide limit of 246 cars
  
• A daily patronage limit
• An advance reservation system” [LINK]
  

This mirrors the Hāʻena business model: 30 days out, all visitor timed parking slots sold out; shuttle seats sold out at $40/person; residents typically get 1 stall per 2,500 residents.
DLNR has repeatedly described Hāʻena as its “playbook for the management of State Parks.”
The limit of 246 parking spaces is so low, half of current - it makes the Hāʻena plan certain.

Public Opposition Worked

Activists from Big Beach and Little Beach testified:

• 2,000+ flyers distributed along Big Beach over several weeks
• Hearing Room Full and overflowing into the corridors
• 46 speakers: 39 opposed, 5 in favor (mostly for restrooms/showers), 2 unclear
• 242 written testimonies, overwhelmingly opposed (accessible to the DSP)

This pressure had an impact on both Maui Planning Commission and the Division of State Parks (DSP).

The Public Hearing — What Really Happened

There were “Save Big Beach” banners waving on the street and cars tooting.  Every one gathered for a 9 AM start.  The County flipped the agenda, moving the Improvements Project from 1st to 2nd place.  Some folks who had taken time off work had to leave, effectively sabotaged from testifying.  The June 23 hearing had to be continued on July 14.

DSP Administrator Alan Carpenter came in person and claimed the plan did not include:

• A single point of entry
• Security fencing
• An advanced reservation system
• A shuttle service from hotels
• Or the Hāʻena Solution

You can accept that - but only until the DSP changes its mind back to where it has been all along.

The Context Behind Carpenter’s Denial:

In 2021 the DSP, in its Environmental Assessment and SMA Permit Application, segmented the Improvements Project from the DLNR’s full Makena Plan.  That was in violation of HRS §343 and HRS §205A-26(2)(A).  From that point on, the DSP has had to pretend that the DLNR’s full Plan does not exist.

Carpenter dismissed the concerns as baseless rumors that had gone viral on social media.  But he knew the true source — his own boss, the DLNR Chair — and chose to conceal it.  His denial of the source, signals one thing: Phase 2 is still real, just politically inconvenient to admit right now. 

Later, the 2 sources for the DLNR’s full plan (see The Real Threat above) were read aloud in live testimony - directly contradicting Carpenter.  The Planning Commission Chair asked the DSP if they had any questions.  The DSP replied “No Questions.”  Translation: “We’d sooner not talk about this.”  Similarly, the Commissioners had no questions - avoiding the topic.

Still, public pressure likely bought the community several years.

The Final Decision — What Was Approved

The Commission approved the project, with modifications based on DSP’s 8‑Point Written Response [LINK] and a requirement for a Carrying Capacity Study.  (Only Points 2, 5, and 6 affect beach access.)

1. Restrooms with Showers (DSP Response 7)
Approved, with lighting restrictions. But they replace porta‑potties (in 5 more convenient locations) with 2 restroom buildings, which will draw more residents and visitors - creating the “overcrowding” justification to trigger Phase 2, limiting beach access.

One of the DSP team explained that the human waste problem on Big Beach had been pretty much solved by increasing the porta-potties from 2 locations to 5 locations.  The Planning Commission’s decision takes it back to 2 locations.  Problem unsolved.

2. Natural Parking Preserved (DSP Response 6)
New asphalt stalls with white lining eliminated. Natural parking areas remain, possibly with gravel or permeable grid paving. The potential use of wheel-stops to regulate parking spaces was discussed.

However, it remains unclear if the planned steel guard rails are eliminated or if the 107 natural parking spaces, that were slated for elimination from the North Lot, are still being eliminated.  This ambiguity matters.

3. Quantitative Carrying Capacity Study (DSP Response 5)
DSP to complete the study by July 2029. No standards exist for such studies. Environmental/cultural groups may push for extremely low caps. A low limit would allow DSP to declare “overcrowding” and trigger Phase 2, limiting beach access.

It should be noted that a much earlier plan, prepared for the DLNR/DSP, assessed:

• Big Beach capacity: 3,000 individuals/day
• Whole Park capacity: 4,000 individuals/day. 

This was based on the “Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Standards for Moderate Beach Use Density.”  Based on that standard, the Park would require 1,000 internal and external parking spaces.

It should also be noted the DLNR’s more recent Makena State Park Plan showed a massive increase in internal parking spaces. It referenced the earlier plan and stated “Oneloa Beach, a large, expansive beach, can seem relatively empty even when the parking lots are full.” 

In contrast, the Improvement Project EA showed a 107 parking space reduction in the North Lot.  A sign of what is to come under the DLNR/DSP’s commercialization strategy in which parking scarcity significantly increases revenue [LINK].

4. Virtual Reservation System — Still Looming (DSP Response 2)

The Planning Commission Opens the Door:
The DSP had said it was not implementing an advanced reservation system, and public testimony strongly opposed one.  But Commissioners pressed the topic anyway, hopelessly unaware of the facts and opening the door wide.  Residents wanted no change in the current unrestricted resident access.  The Commissioners were trying to guarantee 50% of the parking for residents - unaware that that would already lock out 50% of residents on a good beach day.

Key facts:

• The project provides only 246 internal parking spaces, less than half of current parking
• Residents already use 246 internal/external spaces on good beach days - and will use more when there are restrooms and showers.
• Residents currently rely on ~120 street parking spaces at the 3rd and 4th entrances
• Those and other street spaces would be eliminated because a reservation system requires a single point of entry and a non-porous border - a fence  
  
  

Makena’s weather, wind, and surf are unpredictable, as are the people.  It makes no sense for the DSP to claim it can reserve sufficient parking for residents when it is selling parking time slots to tourists 30 day in advance — and even less sense when 100% of the parking may be insufficient for residents’ needs.

In practice the more often residents are denied beach access, the less often they will try, and then many will eventually give up trying.  The DSP’s commercialization model incentivizes reducing resident access over time. [LINK]

Our existing on-island un-schedulable tourists, here for R&R, are not part of the DSP’s equation - they get nothing right from the start.

DLNR’s Written Response:
DSP’s language is intentionally misleading:

• It frames the advanced reservation system as a “benefit” to visitors and residents when it would be a disaster, severely restricting beach access for both.
• It hides the revenue motive: Hāʻena generates ~$8M annually; scaled to Makena, that becomes ~$20M (current revenue is ~$1M)
• It sidesteps the Commissioners question: “how much can be dedicated for residents” using non-quantitative terms like: “prioritizes resident access” and “subject to available capacity”

Key phrases include:

• "At this time, no visitor reservation system is proposed for Mākena State Park"
• "Should future visitation levels at Mākena State Park indicate that additional management measures are necessary...."
  
  

Translation: The DSP is ready if the restrooms and showers pull in enough people to cause parking overcrowding and congestion.  Claimed “overcrowding” will justify an advance reservation system, to manage “over tourism.” 

An advance reservation system would require:

• A single point of entry
• A security fence around the full perimeter.
• An internal asphalt roadway from the North Lot to the South Lot
• An internal vehicle trail from the North Lot to Oneuli Black Sand Beach.  Already done - cleared and graded in 2023.
• A Minor SMA permit - granted with no Planning Commission review and no public hearing.
  
  

The security fence will eliminate 150+ street parking spaces, taking the park from parking scarcity to extreme parking scarcity.  The remedy for that is an advance reservation shuttle system from nearby hotels.  In other words - the full Hāʻena Solution!

More Information

• June 23 Hearing Video: LINK  Public Testimonies from 1:20:56 to 5:03:58
  
• July 14 Hearing Video: LINK  
  
• Hearing Video Transcripts with Participant Time-markers & Links: LINK
  
• Written Testimonies: go to this Dropbox LINK.
  Click each file to view OR download all as a zip file.
  
• The Makena Business Model (derived from Hāʻena State Park): LINK
• View the crowded hearing room (full size) on You Tube: LINK
  
  

Construction may begin in about a year, with a one‑year build period and intermittent beach access restrictions at both parking lots.