2025-01-07 Proposed Corrections to the October 11, 2024 Draft Transcripts_Exhibit B

Home

in the background. That's essentially the common boundary and—between Hokuli`a and intervenors property. We'll get through these, so again I noted this project was approved in the 1990's. A lot has changed, and I think you heard some of that public testifiers speak to that. I think one thing that the initial developer learned very quickly, there was significant community opposition to development in this area, particularly south in the area of Keopuka. Those lands are now subject to conservation easement, but once they were slated to be developed by the original developer and possibly connected to Hokuli'a via that connector road. The reality is no developments occurred north or south, that's not something that was really contemplated back in the 1990's and the communities really expressed a strong desire to maintain the l-rural character of particularly south Kona, in the area of Hokuli'a. A lot of these community sentiments were, you know, kind of reflected in the 2008 adoption of the Kona Community Development Plan. You know, limits rezonings outside of the Kona urban area, again maintains the desire for rural character. The maps,the concurrency maps doesn't really show any new roadways planned or proposed for this area. So, some things have changed, some things haven't, but it's important to note the current context. Quick background on this on this appeal, I know declaratory ruling appeals is probably not something that comes before the board often. In 2023 March of last year, the intervenor filed a I lawsuit against both the County and my client-k I'm essentially alleging that Oceanside wasn't complying with and the County wasn't enforcing those ordinances and development agreements I spoke about earlier.Ultimately, the court directed the parties and intervenor specifically to go seek out declaratory rulings from the Planning Director, -as a way to get clarity and guidance from the Planning Director on some administrative matters and that was ultimately done pis why we are here today. I can skip through these. It's just kind of an explanation of declaratory rulings. There's a State statue and a County level administrative rule that allow parties to seek out clarity from the Planning Director. Here's an explanation from the Hawaii Supreme Court, I will not read you. Okay, so following the Court's ruling, the intervenor filed an initial petition and a second follow-up supplement to that petition. There was a total of twenty-six requested rulings from the Planning Director. Oceanside's position was sort of that on their face, those petitions really didn't seems to be a good faith attempt to get the clarity the court was looking for, and as a result of that, Oceanside went ahead and filed its own petition seeking twenty-four declaratory rulings. Falling in one of five categories and really went out of its way to try to prevent—you know—present simple straightforward questions that are capable being answered very easily. In April of this year, the Director issued two declaratory orders now before you today. There was I three requests he determined- He he could rule upon from Coupe's petitions and eight requests from Oceanside's. You will see the orders are quite similar. There's some additional rulings on Oceanside's order related to variances and some additional rulings on the Coupe order related to its request for a public hearing before the Planning Director, but that's about the extent of the differences. WAN: Two minutes remaining. DRAFT EXHIBIT B Page 5