2024-11-18 Kai Hall - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Originally, the report was based on a relatively simple grading and grubbing plan, but the project has since evolved into a significant construction effort that requires digging 9 feet into lava rock and involves stockpiles and deep excavation not mentioned in the permit or the written Background Report. Given that the Planning Department's Background Report is built on obsolete information, it can no longer serve as a reliable foundation for any decision-making or public comment. It is imperative that this report be updated to reflect the current plans before any further actions are taken. Continuing to rely on this outdated information is a breach of due process, as it undermines the public's right to make informed decisions based on accurate and up-to-date facts. Moreover, the public's right to transparency has been significantly compromised in this case. Hawaii's Sunshine Laws mandate that all public processes be open and accessible, especially when they concern projects of this scale and potential impact. Unfortunately, the way this application has been handled thus far does not meet the standards of transparency set forth by the law. The submission of multiple conflicting plans, the outdated background report, and the rushed timeline all prevent the public from fully understanding the implications of this project. It is a clear violation of the community's right to participate in an open and transparent decision-making process. Compounding these issues is the unprecedented level of opposition this project has received. To date, there is not a single letter of support for the proposed permit in its original or current form. This speaks volumes about the concerns of the Kona community. It would be irresponsible for the Planning Commission to ignore such a clear and overwhelming expression of dissent without taking the necessary time to thoroughly review and address the reasons behind this opposition and to provide an accurate record and non-conflicting record. It is also important to consider the context of this application's history. In 2021 , the original proposal faced overwhelming public opposition. Given that the plans have changed several times since then, and the public has not been adequately informed about these changes, it would be irresponsible to move forward with this decision without first ensuring that the public has access to a complete and accurate record. The plans and the background report must be updated to reflect the current scope of the project, including all of the revisions made since the original submission. Without these updates, the record cannot be considered complete, and any decision made would be dones so with