HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-16 (G. Kapalili) to 2024-11-18 (W. Kelly) - (24) Additional TestimoniesFrom:George-Kapalili Smith
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:SMA 2021-000078, Jeketrina Mysin testimony, 11/21/2024 to be distributed to Leeward Planning Commission
members
Date:Saturday, November 16, 2024 10:22:30 AM
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.png
Importance:High
George & Roberta Smith
75-6150 Alii Dr. #3Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
Ala Ka La condominium, adjacent lot to Mysin property
The applicant property TMK: 750200660000, 9,934 sq ft
Zone: RM -1.5
Application: a six unit condominium.
The applicant has publicly published their intent for the projected construction, characterizedas a six-unit condominium. A statement of intent was published on FaceBook, on August 17,
2021 (to the best of my remembrance, the time stamp states month and date, but not year, andNikolay Mysin has since removed the post history). An annotated screen shot of the post is
attached.
That statement includes the following:
Mysin statemnent of intent, posted on Facebook 08/17/21
Paragraph 6:
We made it six units so we can cover payment for our construction loan and be able to have affordable for
kama'aina.
Paragraph 7:
Once the construction is completed we wouldn't sell it. I'm hoping that with kama'aina rates available local families
would be able to enjoy a staycation, high school graduation, honeymoons, class reunions, weddings or celebrate kids
birthdays by the pool.
We protest the continuance of the above-mentioned SMA for the following reason:
The comments in the statement of intent clearly define the use as a mini-hotel and event center. Such is not an
allowed use in a RM zone.
We must take the applicant’s own words as their true intent, which clearly demonstrates an
improper use of the property. The application is rendered invalid by the applicant’s ownstatements, and must be withdrawn, and a new SMA application tendered with a true
statement of intent.
Additionally, the site plans contain several non-conforming features, but those may beaddressed at a different time within the public testimony period of the 11/21/24 Leeward
Planning Commission review.
Please review and respect the specifics of this contact to the Commission.
Mahalo George Smith, resident
Attachement:
From:George-Kapalili Smith
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:2021-000078 Mysin Comments in testimony
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 3:12:25 PM
Attachments:Planning 21-078 .pdf
From adjacent property owner George Smith75-6150 Alii Dr. #3 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
Ala Ka La condominiums
-- Aloha no, Smitty & Kapalili
The Smiths
75-6150 Alii Dr. #3 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 phn: 808.331.1511, 808.743.6618 e-mail: smittyberta@gmail.com
11/16/2024
to:
Zendo Kern, Planning Director
County of Hawaii
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720
from:
George & Roberta Smith
75-6150 Alii Dr. #3
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
Ala Ka La condominium, adjacent lot to Mysin property
Please provide a copy of this transmittal to all members of the commission, and to the planner meeting with
applicant on Monday 11/18/20 am (time unknown).
Application by Jeketrina Mysin: a six-unit condominium.
The applicant property TMK: 750200660000, 9,934 sq ft
Zone: RM -1.5
We protest the major changes in site plans at such short notice. It is impossible to digest and respond to a 40-page
addendum with less than two weeks before the Commissioners meeting. However, given what we understand to
be the current proposition we have comment on actual on-site conditions, specifically related to deep excavation
for an underground garage and swimming pool.
SITE CONDITIONS
Average soil depths in the PuaPua’a 2 Ahupua’a range from 50 to 100 centimeters (18.5” – 37”). On the subject
property below that is a sheet of almost solid basalt. The below-grade lava shelf extends across the entire southern
face of the land protrusion currently identified as “Alii Point” and includes the adjacent lots to the south and west.
(see Illustration 1) In addition to the underlying basalt layer there are multiple above grade lava domes on all three
properties. The subject property adjacent to AlaKaLa includes a large lava dome that varies from grade to more
than four feet high of solid basalt, which straddles our common property boundary (see illus. 2). Additionally, there
is a lava dome on the north approximately 1/3 of the lot that protrudes an average of three feet above grade.
PROPOSED EXCAVATION
The below grade parking garage/building foundations will have to be excavated to a depth greater than 2.75
meters (9’) encompassing the entire footprint of the building. Additionally, there will be a driveway ramp ranging
from grade at Alii dr. to basement level. The swimming pool with a depth of seven feet lies in the far southwest
corner of the lot, with a zero lot line setback. The pool is directly under the four plus foot high solid basalt dome
that straddles our common boundary (see illus. 3). In addition, there will, of necessity, be trenches to
accommodate electric, water supply, sewage, and surface runoff, which will crisscross the site, including under the
basement and pool, to an unknown additional depth.
DIRECT IMPACT
The southwest corner of the lot’s common boundary lava dome is planned to be excavated on the property line to
level the site and dig down an additional seven feet to accommodate the swimming pool-spa combination. Literally
inches on our side of the lot line is an electric supply power pole. The site has been inspected by a HELCO
engineering representative, who stated that the planned excavation WILL cause the pole to fall. In addition, the
pool/spa is required by code to be no closer than five feet from an electric power transmission source. Also
adjacent to the lot line is a fifty-year-old Bougainvillea tree that is prized by our owners, and must remain
undisturbed.
INDIRECT IMPACT
The excavation of basalt will require an excavator and rock hammer. I’m sure you all have experienced the noise
created by breaking basalt during excavation procedures. The author (George Smith) was on-site engineering
representative for Bowers & Kubota for the installation of two large fuel tanks at Ellison Onizuka Intl. Airport (see
Illus. 4), prior to retirement, last job, YAY! The rock hammer was operating constantly on the subsurface basalt for
the foundations of the two tanks (each approx. 30’ in diameter, approximately 2,800sq ft each). The hammering
went on eight hours a day for over FIVE WEEKS. Anyone entering the one-acre job site was required to wear ear
protection at all times. Mysin’s project will have a similar impact on the entire neighborhood (remember, the
subject lot is less than one-quarter of an acre), who will be subjected to noise levels above federal highway
construction standards for weeks. The east units of AlaKaLa are less than 20’ from the property boundary, and
those units, if not our entire building, will be rendered uninhabitable during work hours until excavation is
complete. Beyond that time we will continue to be subjected to constant major construction impacts.
While we recognize that a property owner has a right to utilize their real property as they choose, there must be
limits imposed by the regulating bodies to minimize impact on the right to enjoyment by neighboring owners of
THEIR property. We understand that Mysin’s property lies within the RM – 1.5-unit allowance, but this proposed
project impacts the surrounding neighborhood to an extreme. The Commission must exercise their powers to
reflect the character of the surrounding properties and neighborhood in general. Mysin must present a proposal
the is in keeping with those parameters, honor the character, and reduce the impacts on the place wherein they
made their purchase.
Respectfully,
George Smith, AlaKaLa unit #3
Illustrations:
No. 1, Basalt outflow, Alii Point
No. 2a - d, Common boundary line adjacent lot surface photos
No. 3, Annotated building*renderings.
No. 4, Fuel tank no. 2 Ellison Onizuka Intl. Airport
.
No.1: Alii Point, continuation of basalt lave flow that is sub-surface over the entire peninsula
No. 2a: Demising boundary line
No. 2b: Surface lave adjacent lots, left – north, right - south,
,
No. 2c: Southwest corner lava dome, Bougainvillea tree, power pole.
No. 2d: Boundary pin at base of power pole, Bo Bougainvillea tree to left
No. 3a Southwest corner indicating proposed bisection of lava dome and property boundary fence
No. 3b, Rendering indicating Alii Dr. view of relative scale of structure on AlaKaLa condominium to the west
NOTE: This is a previous (of many) version of the proposed building.
No. 4 George and mo’opuna kane on top of KOA tank #2 … 180,000 gallons of Jet-A fuel
NOTE: I include this photo to demonstrate that I do have the experiential knowledge whereof I speak.
From:Alexis Storrs
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Please DENY/postpone the Mycin Building!!!!
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 2:56:42 PM
Dear Members of the Hawaii County Planning Commission,
I’m reaching out to request that the commission delay the approval of the Mycin Group’s
condominium project on Ali’i Drive. The Mycin Group’s submission of multiple site plans hascaused a great deal of confusion, making it nearly impossible for residents to assess the
project’s full impact. Additionally, the Background Report by the Planning Department isoutdated and does not reflect the most recent changes to the plans. Violations of the Sunshine
Laws have severely limited our ability to be informed and involved. With the publicopposition to this project recorded in 2021, we deserve a fair chance to review the current
plans and provide input. Please consider postponing this decision in the interest oftransparency and public engagement.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Alexis Alvarez
From:Bart Storrs
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Oppositional testimony and request for delay for Mycin proposed building
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 5:58:19 PM
Dear Members of the Hawaii County Planning Commission,
I am writing to request that the commission consider a delay in the application approval for
the proposed Mycin Group condominium project on Ali’i Drive. There is widespreadconfusion among residents due to the submission of multiple site plans by the Mycin Group,
which makes it difficult to understand what the true impact of this project might be.Additionally, the County of Hawaii Planning Department’s Background Report on this
proposal has not been updated in some time and does not reflect the current realities of theproject or its potential effects. Furthermore, violations of Sunshine Laws have limited the
transparency needed for meaningful public participation, and many of us feel that the timeallowed for our input has been insufficient. Please remember that this project already faced
overwhelming public opposition in 2021, yet many of us are still in the dark about the mostrecent changes to the plans. I respectfully urge you to postpone this decision until the
commission can address these issues, allowing our community the opportunity to fully reviewand understand the project’s impact.
Thank you,
Bart Storrs
From:CAROLINE WALSH
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:November 21, 2024 Leeward Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 Applicant: Jekaterina Mysin (SMA-2021-
000078)
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 1:40:37 PM
Attachments:Leeward Planning Commission Caroline Walsh Postponement Request for Applicant Jekaterina Mysin (SMA-2021-
000078) 11.18.2024.pdf
Leeward Planning Commission Caroline Walsh Written Testimony for Applicant Jekaterina Mysin (SMA-2021-
000078) 11.18.2024.pdf
Mysin Social Media Post for Hotel Event Center (SMA-2021-0078).PDF
Aerial View of Mysin Lot (SMA-2021-000078).PDF
Aloha Leeward Planning Commission,
Attached are the following items:
1. Request for postponement of the above-referenced Agenda Item
2. Written Testimony on the Agenda Item, together with two additional exhibits: (1)
Mysin social media post about the intended use of the project as a mini-hotel
and event center and (2) aerial view of the project site to visualize the size of
the five-story project vis a vis the surrounding two-story residential community
Mahalo for your consideration of these items.
Caroline H. Walsh75-6150 Ali'i Dr Unit 6
Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 97640
Caroline H. Walsh
75-6150 Ali’i Dr. Unit 6
Kailua-Kona, Hawai’i 96740
November 18, 2024
County of Hawaii
Leeward Planning Commission
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawai’I, 96720
RE: November 21, 2024 Agenda Item - Applicant: Jekaterina Mysin (SMA-2021-000078)
REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION (POSTPONEMENT) OF SMA-2021-000078
Delivered via email LPCtestimony@hawaiicounty.gov
Honorable Members of the Leeward Planning Commission :
I have a home at Ala Ka La Condominiums, the property adjacent to the lot related to the above-
referenced project. I am writing to formally request the continuation (postponement) of the above-
referenced agenda item at the November 21,2024 meeting. This request is made to ensure public
transparency and appropriate due process during the planning approval process.
There are several significant reasons why the Leeward Planning Commission should continue this item:
1. Multiple Site Plans and Confusion in the Public Record
The public has been presented with multiple, conflicting site plans and usage for the same
application, there is widespread confusion about what is being proposed and what the public is
expected to support or oppose. With the public comment period ending today, November 18,
2024, at 4:30 pm, it is necessary to delay the meeting until a clear and accurate record is
established. This confusion creates significant ambiguity around the proposed permit itself,
leaving the community uncertain about what is being supported or opposed.
2
2. Outdated Background Report
The County of Hawaii Planning Department’s Background Report appears to be
outdated considering the latest plan proposals, that now include an underground parking
garage, instead of the street level parking that the Background Report was predicated upon.
The project's scope has expanded dramatically, shifting from a minor ground-level intervention
to a major excavation project digging 9 feet into lava rock. The original Background Report only
accounts for ground-level grubbing and grading work, and does not mention stockpiling and
excavation of lava rock outlined in recent submissions.
Accordingly, the current Background Report does not appear sufficiently updated upon which to
base any decision-making or public comment.
3. Sunshine Laws and Public Transparency
As we know, Hawaii's Sunshine Laws require transparency in public processes, especially for
projects of this scale. The public should be afforded an appropriate period to properly review the
various and changing plans, assess their implications, and provide meaningful input.
4. Community Opposition
As of this morning, November 18, 2024, the County has received 100% oppositional testimony,
and therefore, no letters in support of approving this project as written.
This level of community opposition highlights the need for a comprehensive review to assess the
reasons for such opposition to this permit in our community. It is important to note that in 2021,
there was overwhelming community opposition to the original application and the public has not
been fully informed about the subsequent changes to the evolving site plans.
Given the above, I respectfully request that you grant a continuation of the Jekaterina Mysin SMA 21-
000078. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully,
Caroline H. Walsh
Caroline H. Walsh
75-6150 Ali’i Dr. Unit 6
Kailua-Kona, Hawai’i 96740
November 18, 2024
County of Hawaii
Leeward Planning Commission
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawai’I, 96720
RE: November 21, 2024 Agenda Item - Applicant: Jekaterina Mysin (SMA-2021-000078)
Delivered via email LPCtestimony@hawaiicounty.gov
Honorable Members of the Leeward Planning Commission :
I have a home at Ala Ka La Condominiums adjacent to the proposed above-referenced applicant’s
project. My unit is about 30 feet from the rear of the vacant lot for the proposed condominium project.
Members of our Ala Ka La ohana, George Smith and Lisa Oasay, have submitted written testimony and
plan to provide public testimony at the Commission meeting on November 21, 2024. I support the
technical issues raised in their written testimony.
I would like to emphasize some items for your consideration.
1. For the past few years, there has been a very public discourse about the housing crisis in Hawai’i.
The concern echoed by our government officials at both the state and county level is that we
need more permanent solutions for long-term residential housing and minimizing short-term
housing. Those solutions can only be facilitated by our government officials in our local
communities when approving projects for development. These are difficult but necessary
decisions if we want to provide residents with permanent housing options. Based on the Mysin’s
posts on social media (see attached copy of post), the intention is to have a mini-hotel/event
center for the local community. That doesn’t seem to comport with the need for more
permanent residential housing. In addition, having a commercial enterprise in a quiet residential
2
area is an extreme imposition on long-term residents who have heretofore enjoyed a traditional
residential community. See attached aerial view of Mysin lot to visualize a five-story building on
the size of a tennis court in the middle of two-story buildings.
2. There seems to be conflicting information about this project and the current plan provisions.
One example is whether the permit covers excavation and stockpiling for digging the “basement”
area for underground parking and the pool area rather than grading and grubbing. For this
reason, among other conflicting information, I have submitted a separate request for
postponement of the agenda item to a future meeting.
3. Excavation of lava during site preparation will make my home uninhabitable due to the noise
levels. My home is approximately 30 feet from the property line. I am a remote worker and will
not be able to conduct normal business work during the day, or even engage in daily home
activities. Hawai’i must have some financial provisions to require the developer to protect the
affected neighbors when construction conditions impact one’s ability to reasonably reside in
their home during construction. I will further research this but do not yet know how the County
enforces that obligation for the benefit of the impacted homeowner. I wanted to highlight a
specific concern for the Ala Ka La ohana.
Respectfully,
Caroline H. Walsh
From:carolyn strawn
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Request for Immediate Postponement of the JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT
APPLICATION (SMA 21-000078)
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 3:13:44 PM
Aloha Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally request the postponement of the upcoming hearing regarding the
JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA
21-000078) currently scheduled for November 21, 2024. This request is prompted by serious
concerns over the lack of clarity, consistency, and accuracy in the documentation and plans
submitted for this project. It is imperative that the planning process be conducted with full
transparency and proper public input, and as it stands, the community has not been given a
fair opportunity to participate.
The most pressing issue is the confusion surrounding the site plans for this application.
There have been multiple versions submitted, each with different details and specifications.
This inconsistency creates significant uncertainty about the actual nature of the proposal.
With the public comment period concluding today, there is simply not enough time for the
community to properly review these fluctuating plans and provide informed feedback. The
public deserves to see a clear, consistent proposal before any hearing takes place. Without
such clarity, it is unreasonable to expect meaningful input from the public, and it would be
unjust to proceed with the review under these conditions.
Another critical issue is the outdated background report that has been used to support this
application. The report, which was based on an earlier version of the plans, fails to account
for significant changes in the project’s scope. Notably, the proposal now includes an
underground parking garage and extensive excavation into lava rock, a detail that was not
considered in the original report. This outdated information misrepresents the true scale of
the project and misleads the public, making it impossible for them to make informed
decisions. The use of an obsolete background report undermines the integrity of the planning
process and violates the public's right to an accurate and complete understanding of the
project.
With the hearing set for just a few days from now, it is unreasonable to expect the community
to fully understand the implications of the new 40 page submission and how it differenciates
from the previous submissions that were revised after the background report was written.
The public must be given adequate time to conduct their due diligence and participate in the
review process of new information meaningfully. Rushing this through without giving thecommunity sufficient time to assess the changes and their potential impacts constitutes a
violation of the public’s right to due process.
The public opposition to this project is also noteworthy. To date, the County has received
only letters of opposition, with no support for the application. This unprecedented level of
dissent should not be ignored. It is essential that the reasons for this opposition be
addressed thoroughly before any further steps are taken. The Planning Commission must
recognize the strength of public sentiment on this issue and take the time to ensure that the
concerns raised by the community are properly evaluated and responded to.
Furthermore, it is important to remember the significant public opposition that this project
faced in 2021. While the plans have evolved since then, the public has not been adequately
informed about the nature of these changes. The lack of transparency regarding these
modifications and multiple revisions entered into the record at the last minute and after
the background report was submitted has only deepened public concern. The Planning
Commission should not move forward without ensuring that the public has access to the
most current, accurate, and complete set of plans, and that any changes from the original
proposal are clearly communicated to the community.
In conclusion, the application cannot and should not proceed until these issues are
addressed. The public deserves a fair opportunity to engage in a transparent process based
on accurate and up-to-date information. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to delay
the hearing and allow for a thorough review that ensures the integrity of the decision-making
process, adheres to the requirements of Hawaii’s Sunshine Laws, and respects the public’s
right to participate meaningfully.
Mahalo for considering and acting on this important request to postpone this meeting until
the records can be updated accurately. I trust the Commission will make the responsible
decision and postpone the review and ensure that this process is conducted in a fair and
transparent manner with accurate public records.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Strawn
Ala Ka La Resident and Owner
From:chris krueger
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:JEKATERINA MYSIN (SMA-2021-000078)
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 1:24:27 PM
Aloha Planning Department,
I am writing to let you know that I totally disapprove of this totally mainland idea of a 5
foot structure that will impede the views of our local community. This is the beginning of
the total disrespect for this neighborhood and don’t think for a moment that this is what
the neighbors of Ala Ka La Condo want. Why would we allow a 9,943 sq. lot to have a 5
story building with pool and spa. Where are they going to park? Total mainland money
coming in and trying to define what Kona should look like! And you know this is not
housing for the local community. This is the greed that has come to Kona. Very much
like the greed that purchased all the parking lots in Kona and is bringing down our Alii
drive businesses in town. I am told we have clout as we have a voice. I pray you hear my
voice.
Chris Krueger
Alii Heights owner
From:David Oasay
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Request for Continuation (Postponement) of JEKATERINA MYSIN Special Management Area Use Permit
Application (SMA 21-000078)
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 3:57:34 PM
Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to request, in the strongest terms, the immediate postponement of theSpecial Management Area Use Permit (SMA 21-000078) application for the property ofJekaterina Mysin. The upcoming review of this application, scheduled for November 21,2024, must be delayed until a proper, transparent, and comprehensive public review cantake place. The current state of this application presents a number of severe issues—issues that cannot be ignored without compromising the integrity of the planning processand undermining the trust of the public.
As a property owner that lives adjacent to the proposed site on Ali’i Drive, I have beenclosely following the progress of this application and the ongoing changes in itsproposals. From my perspective, and from the feedback I have seen from the broadercommunity, it is clear that the planning commission must postpone this review for anumber of important reasons.
One of the most significant issues is the confusion surrounding the multiple conflictingsite plans that have been submitted. Since the initial application was filed in December2020, there have been several revisions, each one introducing discrepancies and shifts inthe proposed scope and scale of the project. The applicant has submitted plans that, attimes, have been incompatible with earlier submissions, leaving the public—myselfincluded—with no clear understanding of what exactly is being proposed for this site,and the record currrently has a 40 page amendment that was just added just a few daysago that clouded the already confusing record with multiple submissions and revisionsafter the background report was issued.
The record is now scattered with versions of the proposal that are not only inconsistentbut actively contradictory. The public comment period, which ends today, offersinsufficient time to review such a rapidly changing record, let alone provide informedfeedback. As a result, community members have no clear idea of what they are beingasked to support or oppose, and this leads to an untenable situation where decisions arebeing made based on incomplete and conflicting information. A clear, unified site planneeds to be presented before any further action is taken, and the site plan needs to reflectthe background report or a new background report must be written.
The current Background Report provided by the County of Hawaii’s PlanningDepartment, which serves as the basis for evaluating this application, no longer reflectsthe application or permits or plans submitted on the public record and it obsolete andnow outdated. Originally drafted in May 2021, this report does not account for thesubstantial changes that have been made to the project’s scope in the interim. Notably,the applicant now proposes the construction of a massive underground parking garage—a seismic shift from the earlier plans that envisioned only minimal grading and ground-level improvements. This new proposal would require extensive excavation andstockpiling, which was never addressed in the original report, and the county never
approved this when the report was written.
The existing Background Report is no longer relevant to the current application, as itfails to reflect the new, much larger scale of the project. It is a serious concern thatdecisions regarding a project of this magnitude could be based on outdated andincomplete information. The Planning Commission cannot move forward with anevaluation until an updated, accurate, and comprehensive report is provided—one thattakes into account all the latest revisions and changes in the plans.
Under Hawaii’s Sunshine Laws, there are strict requirements for public access toinformation and participation in the decision-making process, especially when it involvesprojects that could have significant impacts on the surrounding community. Theapplicant has submitted revisions at the last minute, mere days before the scheduledhearing. This lack of advance notice leaves the public with insufficient time to properlyreview the new plans, understand their implications, or provide feedback, andsubmitting multiple site plans is not transparency and needs to be addressed before theCommission can hear the Application.
The applicant’s failure to provide timely, clear documentation is detrimental to thetransparency that the Sunshine Laws require, and it risks alienating the communityfrom a process that should be open, participatory, and inclusive. Without proper publicaccess to all the relevant materials, it is impossible for residents to make informeddecisions or to advocate effectively for their concerns. This rush to move forward is aclear violation of the public’s right to due process. It also deprives the community of theopportunity to engage with the planning process with an accurate public record.
Given the strong opposition from the community, it is clear that the project as currentlyproposed is not in alignment with the interests of the residents who will be directlyaffected. The concerns raised by the public deserve a thorough and thoughtful review,not a rushed decision made without proper consideration of the community’s objections.Moving forward with this hearing would be premature and could result in decisions thatare not in the best interest of the public. Another key factor that cannot be overlooked is the unprecedented level of publicopposition that this project has generated. As of this morning, I understand that 100% ofpublic testimony submitted to date has been in opposition to the project, with no lettersof support. This level of community pushback is remarkable and speaks volumes aboutthe deep concerns that local residents, including myself, have about the proposeddevelopment. These concerns are not insignificant; they touch on critical issues such asthe scale of the project, the impacts on traffic, the strain on local infrastructure, and theenvironmental risks associated with such an intensive development.
In addition, we must consider the history of public opposition in 2021, when the originalapplication faced overwhelming opposition. Many of the concerns raised at that timeremain unresolved, and the subsequent changes to the plans have not been adequatelycommunicated to the public. The lack of transparency about how the plans have evolved,coupled with the failure to properly update the Background Report, makes it all themore difficult for the public to follow the changes and understand the true scale of whatis being proposed versus what has been preliminarily approved in the backgroundreport, creating an inaccurate public record.
In light of all these concerns—the conflicting and unclear site plans, the outdated
Background Report, the lack of transparency, and the overwhelming public opposition—it is absolutely critical that this hearing be postponed until the applicant can addressthese issues fully and clear up the public record, and be transparent with the intentionsof this permit. It is only fair to the public, and only responsible for the Commission, toensure that the planning process is conducted with integrity, transparency, andACCURACY so there is no confusion for the Ohana of Kona that are clearly opposingthis application.
Therefore, I respectfully request the Commission to postpone the review of the SMA UsePermit until the application is brought into alignment with the legal and proceduralstandards that the public is entitled to expect. Only once the record has been corrected,the concerns addressed, and the public properly informed can a fair and informeddecision be made, and having multiple site plans is impossible for the community toevaluate and understand, and should never have been submitted.
Thank you for your time and attention to this critical matter. I look forward to yourresponse and to the Commission’s thoughtful consideration of this request to postponethis meeting until the public record can be fixed and the public actually knows what isbeing approved or declined.
Mahalo for your time and consideration addressing the inaccurate record andaddressing multiple plans submitted for SMA 21-000078.
AlohaDavid Hall
From:don strawn
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Request for Immediate Postponement of the JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT
APPLICATION (SMA 21-000078)
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 2:55:09 PM
Aloha to the Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to request an immediate postponement of the review for the JEKATERINA
MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 21-000078)
scheduled for the upcoming Leeward Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 2024.
This request is grounded in serious concerns regarding the incomplete, inconsistent, and
outdated information currently in the public record, which directly undermines the public’s
ability to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process.
The primary reason for this request is the significant confusion created by the multiple,
conflicting site plans that have been submitted for review. These evolving proposals leave
the community unable to fully understand the scope of what is being proposed, and as a
result, there is widespread uncertainty about what the public is being asked to approve or
oppose. With the comment period ending today, it is unreasonable to expect the public to
adequately review these conflicting plans and provide informed feedback in such a short time
frame. The public deserves clarity and a clear, consistent proposal to evaluate—not a series
of changing submissions. Until this issue is resolved, it would be unjust to move forward with
any hearing or decision.
Another serious concern is the outdated background report that the Planning Department is
relying on to assess this application. The report, which was based on earlier, much simpler
plans, fails to account for significant changes in the project’s scope, such as the introduction
of an underground parking garage and major excavation work. The proposal now involves
extensive excavation into lava rock, a detail that was not included in the original background
report. This outdated report misrepresents the current plans and cannot serve as the
foundation for any decision-making or public comment. The public relies on accurate, up-to-
date information to assess the impacts of such projects, and continuing to use this obsolete
report is a violation of the public’s right to a fully informed process.
Moreover, the rushed timeline surrounding this application presents another serious issue.
While this project has been in development since 2021, the public has not been given
sufficient time to review the changes made to the plans. With the review scheduled in just a
few days, there is no reasonable way for the community to assess the complexities of the
new proposal. This lack of time to properly engage with the information constitutes a clear
violation of the public’s right to due process. Residents of Kona should not be rushed into
commenting on a project of this magnitude without ample time to conduct proper due
diligence.
It is also critical to acknowledge the overwhelming opposition to this proposal. As of today,
every single letter submitted to the Planning Department has been one of opposition, with no
letters of support. This unprecedented level of public dissent speaks volumes about the need
for a more thorough and transparent review. The Planning Commission should not ignore
this outpouring of concern from the community. A responsible review of this application
requires that the reasons behind this opposition be fully addressed and carefully considered
before moving forward.
Additionally, we must remember the significant public opposition the project faced back in
2021. Since then, the plans have changed, but the public has not been adequately informed
about these changes. The lack of clear communication regarding the modifications to the
proposal only deepens the concerns surrounding this application. The public has no way of
fully understanding the new scope of the project or its potential impacts. Given the changes
made since the original submission and the history of opposition, it would be irresponsible for
the Planning Commission to proceed without ensuring that the public has access to a fully
accurate and updated set of plans.
In light of these numerous concerns, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to grant
the postponement of this hearing. A decision cannot be made based on incomplete or
outdated information. The integrity of the planning process, compliance with Sunshine Laws,
and the public’s right to participate in an informed and transparent manner must take
precedence over any rushed schedule.
I trust the Planning Commission will recognize the importance of this request and act in the
best interests of the community by postponing the hearing.
Mahalo for your attention to this urgent matter, and I look forward to your prompt action in
ensuring that the review of this permit is conducted with the fairness and transparency it
deserves in a hearing that has accurate public records for review and consideration.
Don Strawn
Ala Ka La Resident
From:Kaden Storrs
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Opposition and request for delay for the Mycin development on Ali’i Dr
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 3:09:31 PM
Dear Members of the Hawaii Planning Commission,
As an environmentalist and advocate for sustainable development, I am requesting apostponement of the application approval for the Mycin Group’s proposed condominium
project on Ali’i Drive.
The inconsistencies in the Mycin Group’s site plan submissions have made it difficult for the
public to accurately assess the project’s potential impact. Furthermore, the PlanningDepartment’s Background Report is outdated, missing critical updates to these plans.
Transparency and public trust are vital, yet the apparent violation of Sunshine Laws hasprevented open community involvement. The significant opposition recorded in 2021
underscores that the public is invested in this decision, and they deserve a thorough reviewprocess.
Please consider postponing the approval to allow for proper public engagement.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kaden Storrs
From:Kai Hall
To:LPCtestimony; info@landplanninghawaii.com
Subject:re: URGENT Request to Postpone and Continue at a Later Date to clear up the confusion surrounding the
JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 21-000078)
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 12:20:16 PM
Aloha Esteemed Members of the Planning Commission and Planning
Department,
I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to respectfully request
the immediate postponement of the JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL
MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 21-000078),
currently scheduled for review at the Leeward Planning Commissioners
Meeting on November 21, 2024. It is absolutely necessary due to serious
concerns regarding public transparency, due process, and the integrity of
this planning process considering the conflicting documents in the
Laserfiche Weblink.
It has become clear that moving forward with the hearing as scheduled
would not be in the best interest of the public, nor would it allow the
Planning Commission to properly fulfill its duties. There are several
significant issues that must be addressed before any further action can be
taken, or a meeting can be called with such confusing records.
First and foremost, there is considerable confusion surrounding the site
plans associated with this application. Multiple versions of these plans have
been submitted, some of which appear to contradict one another, leaving
the public uncertain about what exactly is being proposed. The public
deserves a clear and consistent proposal to review, not an ever-changing
set of documents that make it impossible to form a definitive opinion. With
the public comment period ending today, there is simply no time left for the
community to adequately understand and respond to these multiple site
plans in the official record. Without a coherent and finalized proposal, the
decision-making process is compromised, and it is unreasonable to expect
the public to provide meaningful input under these confusing circumstances.
In addition to the confusion around the site plans, the Background Report
from the County of Hawaii Planning Department is woefully outdated. The
report, which was prepared before the latest revisions to the application
were made, does not account for the new underground parking garage or
the major excavation work that is now part of the proposed permit.
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
inaccurate information and confusing and opposing documents, which is not
in the best interest of our Kona community. The timeline is simply too
rushed to allow for the necessary scrutiny of the conflicting records and
documents and to clear up the confusion caused by the multiple revisions
and entries surrounding the original permit, the current permit, the revised
permits and the outdated background report that does not reflect any
current permit. The public’s right to participate in this process should not be
sacrificed for the sake of expediency.
For all of these reasons, I strongly solicit you to grant a postponement of the
review for the JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE
PERMIT APPLICATION. The integrity of the planning process, adherence to
Hawaii’s Sunshine Laws, and the fundamental rights of the public to
participate in an informed and transparent process must take precedence
over any schedule or timeline or published agenda.
The current confusion, outdated information, and lack of public clarity make
it impossible for the public or the Planning Commission to move forward
with this matter responsibly. A postponement is the only reasonable course
of action to ensure that the community is fully informed and that this
application is handled in a fair and transparent manner for our Kona Ohana.
Mahalo for taking the time to consider this request. I trust that you will act in
the best interest of our community, ensuring that this process is handled
properly and in accordance with the law and remove all confusion
and provide an accurate record surrounding this overwhelmingly opposed
permit application.
I look forward to your prompt decision on the important matter of postponing
this matter until the record can be clear and the confusion can be abated.
Mahalo for your attention to this request for postponement.
David Oasay
Owner Ala Ka La #8
From:kathleen
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Fwd: URGENT REQUEST for delay of SMA Use Permit Application (SMA 21-000078)
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 2:46:06 PM
Begin forwarded message:
From: kathleen <kflynnpowers@gmail.com>Date: November 18, 2024 at 12:09:34 PM HSTTo: planning@hawaiicounty.govCc: alex.roy@hawaiicounty.gov, info@landplanninghawaii.com,smittyberta@gmail.com, Kai Hall <lisasplanet@gmail.com>,
wrnklddog@yahoo.com, Bernadette Schrempf <beschrempf@gmail.com>Subject: URGENT REQUEST for delay of SMA Use Permit Application(SMA 21-000078)
November 18, 2024
Hawaii County Planning Department
Re:
Request for Continuation (Postponement) of
JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT
AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 21-000078)
Aloha Respected Members of the Planning Commission
and the Planning Department
I am writing to formally request the immediate
continuation (postponement) of the JEKATERINA
MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT
APPLICATION (SMA 21-000078), which is currently
scheduled for review as Agenda Item #1 at the
upcoming Leeward Planning Commissioners Meeting
on November 21, 2024. This request is not made
lightly, but is rather grounded in fundamental principles
of public transparency, due process, and the integrity of
the planning approval process.
This application cannot, and must not, move forward as
scheduled given the current circumstances:
There are several critical reasons why the Leeward
Planning Commission must grant this request:
1. Multiple Site Plans and Confusion in the Public
Record:
The public has been presented with multiple,
conflicting site plans and usage for the same
application, there is mass confusion about what is
being proposed and what the public is expected to
support or oppose. With the public comment period
ending today at 4pm, it is imperative to delay the
meeting until a clear and accurate record is
established. This confusion creates significant
ambiguity around the proposed permit itself,
leaving the community uncertain about what is
being supported or opposed.
The public deserves a clear, accurate and unified
permit proposal to comment on, and not an ever-
evolving series of submissions that make it
impossible for anyone to provide informed
feedback.
2. Outdated Background Report:
The County of Hawaii Planning Department’s
Background Report is severely
outdated considering the latest plan proposals,
that now include an underground parking garage,
instead of the street level parking that the
Background Report was predicated upon.
The project's scope has expanded dramatically,
shifting from a minor ground-level intervention to a
major excavation project digging 9 feet into lava
rock. The original Background Report is obsolete
and irrelevant based on the most current site plans
of record. The original Background only accounts
for ground-level grubbing and grading work, and
does not have any mention of the stockpiling and
excavation outlined in recent submissions.
The public relies upon the completeness and
accuracy of The COUNTY OF HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENTS BACKGROUND
REPORTS to make informed decisions to
approve or oppose delicate SMA permits.
The current Background Report cannot serve as
the basis for any decision-making or public
comment, as it does not accurately reflect the
plans currently submitted in the official record or
resemble the original application on which the
Approval Recommendation was granted.
The record must be accurate and updated to
reflect the most recent and complete information
before the public or the Commission can evaluate
the Permit Request. The continued reliance on this
outdated Background Report constitutes a material
breach of due process and is a fundamental
violation of the public's right to know and
participate in the
decision-making process to approve or disapprove
of this outdated Background Report.
3. Violation of Sunshine Laws and Public
Transparency:
As we know, Hawaii's Sunshine Laws demand
absolute transparency in public processes,
especially for projects of this scale and impact fails
to meet those standards. The public is
being denied the necessary time and
opportunity to properly review the various and
inconsistent and ever changing plans, assess
their implications, and provide meaningful input.
This is a clear violation of their rights to participate
in a transparent decision-making process. This
record is extremely clouded and clearly not
transparent as required by law.
4. UNPRECEDENTED OPPOSITION:
As of 11am this morning the County has
received 100% OPPOSITIONAL TESTIMONY
and ZERO LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF
APPROVING THIS PERMIT AS WRITTEN.
This level of public opposition underscores the
need for a meticulous, accurate and
comprehensive review to assess the reasons for
such opposition to this permit in our Kona
Community.
5. Insufficient Time for Public Due Diligence:
Even if the applicant, Mr. Mysin, were to withdraw
one or all of the multiple site plans currently on the
record, the fact remains that the public has been
denied adequate time to conduct the required
due diligence, which denies their rights of due
process. This application has been essentially
dormant since 2021, and now, with an impending
Planning Commission Review in 3 days, the
community is left with insufficient time to
meaningfully decipher the record as it is currently
presented, and does not have an the ability without
an accurate record to make informed choices or
participate meaningfully in the approval or denial
process.
6. Public Opposition and Concerns in 2021:
It is critical to note that in 2021, there was
overwhelming public opposition to the original
application and the public has not been fully
informed about the subsequent changes to the
ever evolving site plans.
Given the overwhelming history of public
opposition and the current lack of transparency, it
would be irresponsible for the Planning
Department or The Leeward County Commission
to move forward with this decision without first
ensuring that the public has an accurate record
reflecting the correct building of this permit with
corresponding accurate plans, changes and an
updated Background Report reflecting the drastic
changes since the original application and the site
plans. The Background Report, predicated on the
initial submission, is now obsolete and does not
accurately reflect the revised permit submissions.
Given the above, I respectfully urge you to grant this
request for a continuation of the JEKATERINA MYSIN
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT
APPLICATION (SMA 21-000078). The integrity of the
process, adherence to Hawaii's Sunshine Laws, and the
fundamental rights of the public to be heard and make
informed decisions based on transparent and accurate
information must take precedence over any
schedule. Given the contradictory and outdated
information in the public record, the only reasonable
course of action is to postpone the upcoming Leeward
Planning Commission Hearing until the record is
transparent and the public is 100% clear on what the
proposed plan is for this permit application.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I
look forward to your prompt action in ensuring that this
application is handled transparently, fairly, and in
accordance with the law.
Mahalo for your postponement of this deeply flawed
Agenda Item #1.
Respectfully and with Aloha,
Kathleen Flynn
75-6150 Ali'i Drive #5
Kailua Kona, Hawaii 96740
From:Kirk Nygaard
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Request for continuation of Jekaterina Mysin Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA 21-000078)
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 2:03:25 PM
To the members of the Planning Commission and the Planning Department:
We are writing to formally request the immediate continuation of SMA 21–000078 which is currently scheduled for
review as Agenda item #1 at the upcoming Leeward Planning Commissioners meeting on November 21, 2024.
This request is grounded in the fundamental principles of the integrity of the planning approval process and of
public transparency.
The Leeward Planning Commission must grant this request for several reasons:
1. Confusion about what is being proposed and what the public is being asked to support or oppose. There are
multiple site plans, etc. in the record.
2. The Background Report on which this permit relies is severely outdated and even irrelevant.
3. The public has not had adequate time for due diligence, even if the multiple site plans were withdrawn.
In conclusion, we have questions about how this project will fit in and work with the immediate surrounding
community, how variances are considered and approved, and how we can meaningfully contribute to the discussion.
Mahalo for considering postponing this flawed Agenda item #1,
Kirk and Gayle Nygaard
From:Kaeo Keeling
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Sma21000078 Mysin Special Management Area Use Permit
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 4:10:31 PM
Aloha Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally oppose the approval of the JEKATERINA MYSIN
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 21-
000078), which is set for review at the upcoming Leeward Planning
Commission meeting on November 21, 2024. After thorough review and
careful consideration of the multiple, evolving proposals submitted by the
applicant, it is clear that this project has become mired in confusion,
inconsistency, and substantial deviation from the originally agreed-upon
plans. There are serious concerns surrounding the handling of the permit
application, the shifting nature of the intended use of the property, and the
overall impact of this development on the local community. I urge the
Planning Commission to postpone this review until the applicant provides a
clear, coherent, and consistent plan for the proposed project.
Confusion and Chaos Due to Multiple Site Plan Updates
The process for reviewing this permit has been beset by a disturbing level
of inconsistency and confusion. Since its original application in
December 2020, the applicant, Ms. Jekaterina Mysin, has submitted
numerous updated site plans that contradict one another and significantly
alter the scope of the proposed development. To date, there are multiple
versions of the site plans, including changes submitted in May
2021, April 2022, October 2023, and most recently, an extensive 40-
page addendum added in November 2024—just days before the
Planning Commission’s scheduled hearing. These frequent updates have
created an environment where it is impossible for the public or the
Commission to properly evaluate the full scope of the proposal.
It is also important to note that these revisions were submitted after
mediation took place in 2022. The mediation agreement outlined certain
parameters that were agreed upon by all parties involved, yet subsequent
changes to the plans have not only ignored these parameters but in many
cases, directly contradicted the prior agreements. For example,
the background report issued in May 2021 indicated that the property
would be developed for residential use, specifically six residential
condominium units. Yet, in August 2021, the applicant shifted the
intended use, declaring their plan to host weddings, graduations, and
other events. This departure from the original residential application has
created widespread confusion and undermines the integrity of the process
and the faith in which the background report was approved.
The public has been given no opportunity to review these changes in a
timely manner. The latest revisions were filed on Wednesday
afternoon, November 13, 2024, just two business days before the
deadline for written testimony. This late submission has deprived
concerned citizens, including legal counsel, of the opportunity to thoroughly
review and respond to these substantial changes. Given the evolving nature
of this project, it would be irresponsible for the Planning Commission to
move forward without first providing the community with adequate time to
review these modifications.
Shifting Use of the Property – A Complete Departure from
Original Intent
One of the most troubling aspects of this proposal is the dramatic
shift in the intended use of the property. When the applicant first
submitted their request for a Special Management Area (SMA) permit in
December 2020, they stated that this development was an opportunity
to revitalize a long-neglected property for residential use.
The background report from May 2021 specifically outlined that the
project was to consist of six condominium units—units intended
for residential occupancy by local families, as per the zoning
requirements of the area.
However, by August 2021, the applicant began shifting their focus, stating
that the property would be used to host events such as weddings, class
reunions, and graduations. This is a fundamental change in the
intended use of the property, one that completely undermines the
original purpose for which the SMA permit was requested. The applicant’s
statements in public forums, including social media posts and public
comments, further emphasize that they do not intend to sell the property
but rather plan to operate it as an event center. This dramatic shift in use
—from residential development to an event venue—was never part of the
original application and runs contrary to the community’s understanding of
what this project was supposed to be.
This change in use is deeply concerning for several reasons. First, it
is inconsistent with the zoning for the area, which is intended to
accommodate residential development and not commercial event
centers. Second, the operation of an event center would lead
to significant increases in traffic, noise, and activity, which would
disrupt the quiet, residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood. The
project, as proposed now, would significantly alter the character of the
area, with profound implications for the quality of life of those who live
nearby.
Traffic Impacts and Public Safety Concerns
The issue of traffic congestion is one of the most pressing concerns
raised by the community. The original application claimed that the traffic
impact of the project would be minimal, limited to unit owners and
their guests, and would be comparable to typical residential traffic levels.
However, the applicant’s change in use to accommodate weddings,
graduations, and other events is fundamentally at odds with this initial
traffic assessment. Event traffic—particularly for large gatherings such as
weddings—can involve dozens, if not hundreds, of guests, resulting in a
much larger traffic footprint than would be generated by a residential
project with six units.
The property is located on Ali’i Drive, a narrow, two-lane road that is
already heavily congested, particularly during tourist seasons. The
introduction of event-related traffic will exacerbate this issue, leading
to increased congestion, delays, and potential safety hazards. There
has been no adequate assessment of these additional traffic impacts,
nor any plans to mitigate them. The Planning Department’s reliance on
outdated traffic assessments is concerning, especially given that the
intended use of the property has changed so dramatically since the initial
application.
Overdevelopment of the Site
Another major concern is the overdevelopment of this small property.
The applicant proposes a five-story building with four dwelling floors,
a structure that is completely out of scale with the surrounding area. Most
neighboring properties consist of low-rise condominiums or single-family
homes, and a 45-foot-tall building would dramatically alter the
landscape, blocking views and creating an unsightly presence in an
otherwise residential area. Furthermore, the construction of this massive
structure on a small, narrow lot will create significant environmental
impacts, including potential issues with erosion and stormwater runoff,
which have not been adequately addressed in the applicant’s submissions.
The applicant’s use of the property has evolved from a simple residential
development to a project that aims to create a commercial venue.
This shift in use, combined with the proposed scale of the development,
represents an overdevelopment of a site that is simply not appropriate
for such a large structure. This project is an inappropriate and
disproportionate use of the available space and runs counter to the
principles of responsible development that should guide land use decisions
in our community.
Request for Postponement and Further Review
Given the substantial issues outlined above—the confusion caused by
multiple conflicting site plans, the change in use of the property
from residential to event hosting, the significant traffic impacts,
and the overdevelopment of the site—I respectfully request that
the Leeward Planning Commission postpone the review of this permit
application until the applicant can provide clear, accurate, and
consistent plans for the proposed development. Additionally, I urge the
Commission to carefully consider the community’s
overwhelming opposition to this project, as evidenced by the numerous
letters and testimony submitted to date.
The public has been denied adequate time to review these latest rushed
changes and additional plan submissions and it is crucial that the
Commission respect the community’s right to due process.
The shifting nature of the application, combined with the lack of
transparency and inconsistent plans, makes it impossible to evaluate
the full impact of the proposed project.
It would be irresponsible to approve this permit based on the current
state of the application and as such,
I respectfully request that the Commission postpone the Planning Meeting
and Deny the Application as Presented.
Mahalo Nui Loa,
Lancer Keeling
From:Lisa Hall
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:IMMEDIATE DELAY REQUIRED FOR THE OPPOSED JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE
PERMIT APPLICATION SMA 21-000078 IN ORDER TO CORRECT THE DEFECTIVE PUBLIC RECORD.
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 1:58:26 PM
Aloha to the Esteemed Planning Commissioners and Department Staff,
I write to request an immediate delay and continuance of the upcoming
review of the JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE
PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 21-000078), scheduled for the Leeward
Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 2024. It is my firm belief
that moving forward under the current conditions would be a disservice to
the public, as serious issues related to multiple contradicting and duplicate
revisions submitted into the record, lack of clarity, clouded transparency,
and due process with correct information remain unresolved.
First and foremost, there is widespread public confusion surrounding the
site plans associated with this project. The public has been presented with
conflicting versions of these plans, each outlining different uses and
developments for the site. This ongoing inconsistency has left the
community in a state of uncertainty, unsure of exactly what is being
proposed or how to effectively weigh in. Without a final, clear proposal of
record, it is impossible for the public to provide insightful feedback, which
undermines the entire process for which the commission was set up to
protect.
The public comment period concludes today, yet the specific permit and
plan versions under review remain unclear and there is undeniable
ambiguity regarding which permit and plan versions in the record are being
evaluated and reviewed for potential approval. Unfortunately, critical
information is missing and the record is not transparent and as such it is
essential that this meeting be postponed until a single, cohesive site plan is
presented, one that accurately reflects what is being asked of the
Commission and of the Public to Approve or Deny in the official public
record.
The Sunshine Laws that govern public participation in such decisions have
been violated by the ongoing submission of conflicting and incomplete
materials. With multiple plans still circulating and little time for review the
public cannot fully grasp the impact of the multiple submissions by the
petitioner. This violates the spirit of transparency mandated by law.
Another major issue is the outdated background report provided by the
Planning Department. The current report was based on preliminary
proposals and fails to account for the significant and drastic changes in
nature and scope that have since been made to the project, including the
addition of an underground parking garage and major excavation work.
Originally, the plan involved minimal grading at ground level, but the
revised proposal involves digging 9 feet into lava rock. This drastic change
in scope renders the original background report irrelevant, inaccurate and
obsolete. Given how important this report is to the public’s understanding
and participation, it cannot serve as a valid reference for any decision-
making or public comment. It is essential that the report be updated to
reflect the current plans before it is presented to the Leeward Planning
Commission.
Currently, the record reflects 346 Signatures OPPOSING THIS PERMIT, and
67 Written Letters AGAINST THIS PERMIT and 0, none, not a single one,
zero, for issuing this permit as requested. This high level of community
concern cannot be ignored. The Planning Commission must take the time to
carefully review the reasons behind this opposition before making any
decisions and allowing an already unilaterally opposed permit request to
move forward with the conflicting and confusing record presented to the
public. The community deserves accurate records and documents to review,
particularly given the scale of the project and the deep concerns it has
raised.
In conclusion, I respectfully urge the Commission to postpone the Leeward
Planning Commission Meeting on November 21, 2024 to a later date to
maintain the integrity of the public record and ensure that clear and
accurate information is being presented to the public in a clear, transparent
and easily understandable way.
This is essential to preserving public confidence in the planning process and
maintain the collaborative relationship with county officials and the public.
Mahalo for your immediate attention to this confusing and unclear matter of
record. I trust you will prioritize the public's interest and need for
transparency by granting this continuance request, so that the necessary
corrections and clarifications can be made to ensure an accurate public
record is presented to both the public and the Leeward Planning
Commission for comprehensive review.
Lastly, please make sure that this letter is forwarded to Jeff Darrow in the
planning department, that I had the pleasure to speak with last week.
With Sincere Respect and Much Aloha,
Lisa Hall
From:Lou
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Condo proposed at ala kala surf spot alii drive.
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 3:19:19 PM
I would like to add my voice to a negative recommendation for the proposed condo project.The size of the lot does not seem large enough to accommodate all of the different structures
within the permitted area. And as a climate change consideration that whole area of groundfloor would be inundated with water in a large tidal or storm event. Lastly the visual esthetics
lookVery out of place and unattractive. There is no "sense of place''.
Thank you for your consideration
Lou Lambert
50 year resident of cona.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From:Mary Jane Kaipaka
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Applicant: JEKATERINA MYSIN ( SMA -2021-000078)
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 4:27:27 PM
I am writing opposing the building of this on Alii Drive in front of of Ala KaLa condo. First of all the building is too
BIG for area and we certainly don’t need such an eye sore (I saw proposed pictures of the five story, six unit
industrial looking building including a pool and spa.)
I have a business on Alii Drive and do not want to see any more development in the area. Have you ever tried to get
off of Alii Drive when there is a tsunami alert? It’s a nightmare! Not to mention it will not blend in well at all and
what about the poor residents of Ala Kala condo. Parking is already an issue and this building will certainly not help
at all.
I have been living in Kona almost 40 yrs and have seen a lot of changes but this would be a very bad plan for the
area.
NO on this project and I Hope my opinion matters.
Aloha,
Mary Jane Kaipaka
From:shelley carver
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Project
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 2:04:48 PM
The Alii Dr monstrosity does not belong in Hawaii. Our infrastructure & traffic & lack of
access roads does not warrant anything of this size. We need a moratorium on building now.It's already getting overgrown & has to be stopped to save our village. Stop the greed & use
constraint. A cute 1 story modest home is reasonable. Please consider our future. Thank you,Michelle Carver a concerned resident of 35 years
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
From:Patti Tew
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:OPPOSITION TO SMA21-000078 and POSTPONEMENT REQUIRED
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 3:28:58 PM
Dear Honorable Members of the Leeward Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Special
Management Area Use Permit Application submitted by Jekaterina
Mysin for the property located on Ali’i Drive. After reviewing the
multiple submissions made by the applicant, it is abundantly clear
that this project has been plagued by significant inconsistencies,
confusion, and an ongoing shift in purpose, which makes it
impossible to fully evaluate its potential impacts.
Given the many unresolved issues surrounding this application, I
respectfully request that the Commission delay further review
until these concerns are properly addressed.
One of the most concerning aspects of this project is the frequent
changes to the site plans submitted by the applicant. Since the
original application was filed in December 2020, there have been
several revisions, including updates in May 2021, April 2022,
October 2023, and, most recently, a 40-page addendum submitted
just days before the upcoming hearing. These numerous, often
contradictory updates have created a serious lack of clarity
regarding the scope and intent of the development. The constant
shifting of plans makes it impossible for the public and the
Planning Commission to adequately review the full scope of the
project, and undermines the public’s confidence in the applicant’s
ability to present a stable, reliable development proposal.
Moreover, it is crucial to point out that these recent revisions were
submitted well after the mediation process in 2022, during which
specific conditions were agreed upon by all involved parties.
However, the applicant’s subsequent changes appear to ignore or
contradict these prior agreements, leading to even more
confusion. For example, in May 2021, the applicant presented a
plan for a residential development consisting of six condominium
units, as outlined in the background report. Yet by August 2021,
the applicant had completely shifted the property’s intended use,
stating publicly through various channels that the development
was now meant to function as an event center to host weddings,
graduations, and other gatherings. This dramatic departure from
the original residential plan has not only caused confusion but also
raised significant concerns about the appropriateness of such a
change, given the zoning and community expectations.
The altered intended use of the property is perhaps the most
troubling element of this application. The applicant initially stated
that the purpose of this development was to revitalize an
underutilized parcel for residential purposes—a purpose clearly
aligned with the area’s zoning. However, shifting from this
residential focus to the creation of an event center constitutes a
fundamental change in the project’s scope, one that has not been
subject to adequate scrutiny. The use of the property for large-
scale events such as weddings, reunions, and other gatherings has
far-reaching consequences, including significant increases in
traffic, noise, and overall disruption to the surrounding residential
neighborhood. These impacts were not addressed in the
applicant’s original assessment of the project, and there has been
no updated traffic study to evaluate the effect of these new uses.
The increase in event-related traffic, particularly on a narrow,
already congested road like Ali’i Drive, could cause significant
traffic bottlenecks and pose serious risks to public safety.
Compounding these concerns is the scale of the proposed
development. The applicant’s plan involves constructing a five-
story building with four residential floors—a structure that would
be out of scale with the surrounding properties. Most of the
neighboring structures consist of low-rise condominiums or single-
family homes, so the introduction of a 45-foot-tall building would
drastically change the character of the neighborhood, blocking
views and potentially lowering the quality of life for nearby
residents. The site itself is small and narrow, and the proposed
structure seems disproportionate to the available space. Such a
development could lead to significant environmental impacts,
including issues with erosion and stormwater runoff, which have
not been adequately addressed by the applicant. These
environmental concerns, when combined with the scale of the
project, point to a serious case of overdevelopment for a site that
cannot sustain such an intensive use.
Additionally, the recent submission of a large addendum confusing
the record with many site plans just days before the testimony
deadline has created an unnecessary sense of urgency, preventing
the community and concerned parties from having adequate time
to review the latest changes. The revisions were submitted late in
the afternoon on November 13, 2024, leaving less than two
business days for the public to evaluate the latest set of
documents and submit testimony. This late submission deprives
stakeholders of the opportunity to fully engage with the new
information and violates principles of transparency and due
process. For those of us who are concerned about the impacts of
this project, this lack of time to properly review the changes with
legal counsel has been frustrating and unfair.
Given these numerous and serious concerns—the shifting nature of
the project’s scope, the drastic change in the intended use of the
property, the inadequate traffic and environmental assessments,
and the undeniably overdevelopment of this tiny lot site. It is not
possible to move forward without an accurate public record with
the multiple site submissions, and stated discrepancies in land use.
I vehemently urge the Planning Commission to postpone the item
to a future meeting once the record has been corrected.
Sincerely and with Aloha,
Pattie Tews
Requesting Postponement Due to Misleading and Inaccurate
Public Records
In Opposition to JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT
AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 21-000078)
From:Rebecca Storrs
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Oppositional testimony and request for delay for Mycin proposed building
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 2:35:33 PM
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am deeply concerned about the proposed condominium project on Ali’i Drive by the Mycin Group. I am writing to
formally request a postponement of the application approval for this project.
Firstly, the planned excavation of approximately ten feet into the lava rock to accommodate a basement parking
level raises significant geological and environmental concerns. Digging into this ancient lava flow may destabilize
the rock structure, which could lead to unanticipated erosion or subsidence issues. Furthermore, altering the natural
landscape in this way may impact the ecosystem, including the potential disruption of natural drainage and aquifer
flows, which are critical in our island’s delicate environmental balance.
The proposed three-story height, combined with a rooftop party deck, would create a substantial intrusion on the
privacy and tranquility of existing homeowners. The rooftop deck in particular has the potential to generate
significant noise pollution, especially during evening hours, which would disrupt the peaceful atmosphere that our
community has long enjoyed. This development, if approved, would impose undue disturbance, affecting the overall
livability and residential harmony for neighboring properties.
Also, has been significant confusion regarding the site plans submitted by the Mycin Group. Multiple versions of
these plans have been recorded, leading to considerable public uncertainty about the true nature and impact of the
project.
Additionally, the County of Hawaii Planning Department’s Background Report on this project is severely outdated.
This document should be current and accurate, reflecting all recent changes to the site plans.
Transparency is vital in such projects. However, the public has not been adequately informed due to what appears to
be a violation of Sunshine Laws. I ask that the Planning Commission consider these serious transparency issues.
Finally, I urge you to consider that in 2021, public opposition to this project was overwhelming. Since then, the
plans have undergone changes without sufficient public notification or engagement. A postponement would allow
residents the time needed to evaluate and understand this project.
In considering this proposal, I urge the Commission to weigh the potential negative impacts that this development
will have on both the environment and the well-being of existing residents.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Rebecca Storrs
From:Robert Henry
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Opposition to Jekaterina Mysin"s Special Management Area Use Permit Application (SMA 21-000078) and Request
for Postponement
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 4:02:29 PM
Aloha Leeward Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the Special
Management Area Use Permit Application (SMA 21-000078) submitted by
Jekaterina Mysin for the property located on Ali’i Drive. After thoroughly
reviewing the applicant's extensive revisions and submissions, it has
become evident that this project is plagued by significant inconsistencies,
shifting plans, and a lack of clarity. These issues undermine the integrity of
the review process and prevent the public from making fully informed
decisions.
Given the numerous unresolved concerns surrounding this application, I
respectfully urge the Commission to postpone further review until these
issues are thoroughly addressed and the public record is clarified.
Frequent Changes and Inconsistent Plans:
One of the most troubling aspects of this application is the frequent revision
of the site plans. Since the initial submission in December 2020, the
applicant has introduced multiple updates, including as recently as
November 2024. These revisions are often contradictory, with each new
submission introducing substantial changes that confuse rather than clarify
the applicant’s intentions. This makes it virtually impossible for the public or
the Planning Commission to adequately assess the scope of the project or
its potential impacts.
The constant changes in the site plans undermine the credibility of the
proposal and hinder any meaningful public review. I strongly urge the
Commission to ensure that a final, clear site plan is presented before
moving forward with any hearing. This will allow all parties, including
residents, legal experts, and the Commission itself, to fully evaluate the
project based on consistent and accurate information.
Additionally, the applicant has dramatically altered the intended use of the
property, raising significant concerns about the appropriateness of this
development. Initially presented as a residential project with six
condominiums, which aligned with the area's zoning, the focus shifted in
August 2021 to a commercial event center designed to host large
gatherings such as weddings. This shift not only changes the fundamental
nature of the development but also conflicts with the area’s zoning laws and
contradicts the original vision laid out in the application.
The introduction of a commercial event center would have profound
consequences for the surrounding community. Increased traffic, noise, and
disruptions to the residential neighborhood are likely outcomes. Ali’i Drive,
already narrow and congested, would face even more traffic pressure, and
nearby residents would experience a significant loss of privacy and quality
of life due to the influx of large-scale events. Despite this change in use, the
applicant has failed to update the traffic study or conduct a new
environmental impact assessment to address the implications of the shift.
This oversight is a serious failure to adequately assess the full scope and
potential consequences of the project.
The scale of the proposed development also raises substantial concerns
regarding its feasibility. The applicant's plans call for a five-story structure,
towering at 45 feet, which would be disproportionate to the surrounding
properties—most of which are low-rise condominiums or single-family
homes. This new development could block views and irreparably alter the
character of the neighborhood. Additionally, the lot’s small and narrow size
seems ill-suited for such a large-scale project and could lead to serious
issues with erosion and stormwater runoff, concerns that have not been
sufficiently addressed in the applicant's submissions.
The lack of clarity in the site plans makes it difficult for the public or the
Commission to properly assess these environmental risks. A thorough and
up-to-date environmental impact report must be submitted to evaluate these
concerns fully and ensure the project’s compliance with environmental
regulations.
The complexity of these issues, combined with the late submission, has
deprived the community of the opportunity to fully evaluate the significance
of the revisions. This undermines the public’s ability to provide informed and
meaningful feedback.
Conclusion and Request for Postponement:
Given the numerous inconsistencies in the applicant’s submissions, the
shifting scope of the proposed development, and the failure to provide
sufficient time for public review, I respectfully request that the Leeward
Planning Commission postpone the review of SMA 21-000078 until these
issues are resolved. The public record must be clarified, and the community
must have adequate time to thoroughly evaluate the proposal before any
further action is taken.
It is in the best interest of Kona Communiy,the applicant, the public, and the
Commission— to ensure that this process is handled with integrity, clarity,
and transparency. I urge you to act with care and consideration in
postponing this matter until the pressing concerns raised above are
addressed.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your
response on posting this hearing until the reflected record is accurate and
unclouded.
With respect and aloha,
Robert Henry
From:Robin W
To:LPCtestimony
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 1:41:52 PM
Re: applicant
JEKATERINA MYSIN(SMA-2021-000078)
To Whom it May Concern,
The approval for said 5 Story, 6 unit building on the mentioned Lot should NOT be approved…It is way too big andwill be a terrible addition to Alii Drive…I hope this is not approved..It is an eyesore and the residents of Kailua-Kona say NO..
Robin WeigangConcerned citizenSent from my iPhone
From:Steve Lambert
To:LPCtestimony
Subject:Jekaserina Mysin building application on Alii Drive
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 2:11:51 PM
My wife and I oppose the application for the building referenced as we feel it will add to the already congested Alii
Drive corridor.
It’s true more housing is needed in Kailua Kona but not at this location. It will. Ot help the local residents and will
add more cars on to AliiDrive. Please say no to this development and encourage the developers to put this proposed
building in a more suitable area in the Kona area. Thank you for your consideration.
Aloha,
Steven Lambert
Sent from my iPhone
Walter Kelly
Protect Keopuka Ohana
P.O. Box 166
Honaunau, Hawaii 96726
konajack@earthlink.net
808-345-9229
November 18, 2024
Leeward Planning Commission
74-5044 Ane Keohokaole Highway
Building E, 2nd Floor
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
LPCtestimony@hawaiicounty.gov
Re: Jekaterina Mysin (SMA-2021-000078)
There are many questionable assumptions in the Mysin application, but the most important
one, as far as we are concerned, is the cavalier attitude taken toward the possibility of native
Hawaiian historical resources on the property.
The applicant received an exemption from preparing an Archeological Inventory Survey for
the property, although none exists. Instead, SHPD allowed for a one-day “Field Inspection” of
the property. The applicant hired Hilo-based TesARCH Services to perform the reconnaissance
and file a report. The report sets forth an interesting viewpoint that the parcel is “highly
disturbed.” The rationale offered in the report is that every parcel around the subject parcel is
developed, so whatever happened during that process inevitably must also have disturbed the
subject parcel. Yet the majority of the subject parcel is raw lava rock and brush, with bulldozer
intrusions along its edges and crumbling ranch-era walls.
The applicant states that “it is not known whether the subject parcel or surrounding area was
ever used for gathering by native Hawaiians. It appears very unlikely due to the non-native
dominance of vegetation and history of disturbance by nearby development that any significant
cultural resources would be found.”
Just across the path that leads to the beach, on the lot to the south side of the Mysin parcel, is
a Hawaiian graveyard — direct evidence that the area was once highly populated, and that even
today there is a high likelihood that cultural resources are still present.
SHPD has confirmed, by letter, the determination for the proposed project that there are "no
historic properties affected,” and that the HRS Ch. 6E-42 historic review process has ended.
(SHPD Planning Department Exhibit 5—April 30, 2021 Letter from SHPD). But the agency also
concedes that its determination leaned heavily upon the Scheffler 2021 Field Inspection Report.
“The Scheffler (2021) FI report served to facilitate project planning and the historic preservation
review process. The FI report assisted in preparing SHPD's project effect determination for the
subject permit,” wrote SHPD.
We find the report incomplete, and many of its assumptions just plain wrong. We also believe
that the truncated process allowed by SHPD is not serving the best interests of the possible
cultural resources in the immediate area.
In my research in the SHPD library archives, I found an interesting fact which I later
confirmed. I was searching for Archeological Inventory Surveys, Preservation Plans, and Burial
Treatment Plans created for properties in the immediate area of the Mysin parcel. I found that
most of the properties makai of Ali’i Drive that were built before 2000 were not required to
provide any of the documents listed above. Many of these parcels went through the SMA
process, but only two properties in the immediate area of Mumuhale Point have any
archeological documentation that I can find. Parcels mauka of Alii Drive, like have several
studies that have been performed due to the widening of Alii Drive, the installation of sewer and
water lines, the construction of Kahakai School, and the bulldozing of the proposed Alii
Highway alignment. All of these projects triggered archeological investigation.
The one Archeological Inventory Survey I did find was done after the fact, following the
destruction of a fishing heiau by two homeowners in the Alii Point subdivision. The heiau was
destroyed after the developer had agreed to preserve it as a condition of having their SMA Permit
Application approved. The homeowners at the time; Marc Hembrough, Alii Point Development,
TMK 7-5-035-007 and the Franz Family Trust, Alii Point Development, TMK 7-5-035-009. The
Hamakaokahai Fishing Shrine straddled the two properties. Preservation of the shrine was
required by a SMA Permit issued May 30, 1985 to Ali’i Point Development. Condition F of
that permit states that "the Kamakaokahai fishing shrine shall be preserved and a buffer as shown
on the submitted site plan map shall be reflected on the final subdivision plat map and recorded
with the Bureau of Conveyances and in any private restrictive covenants.” In a June 13. 2013,
letter to JM Leonard Planning LLC, SHPD noted that an SHPD archeologist who visited the site
had determined that the “location where the Kamakaokahai fishing shrine had been located has
been completely developed and landscaped by the neighboring residences. There were no
physical remains of the shrine visible on the land surface, and no intact buffer as required by the
SMA permit. The destruction of this historic site appears to be a violation of the SMA permit that
allowed for the development of this property.” As a result, SHPD required the development
company to conduct an Archeological Inventory Survey to determine whether anything remained
of the site. That survey (TMK: (3) 7-5-35:por. 007) was conducted by Alan Haun & Associates in
November, 2013. The resulting AIS had some very revealing information about the surrounding
environs — information that, had it been accessed by Tes ARCH Services researchers, may have
influenced the thinking of SHPD when they made their conclusions regarding the presence of
cultural properties in the area, including the distinct possibility that ancient burials may exist
anywhere in this area. The test trench pictured here at the shrine contained “displaced human
remains.”
The following passage was taken from the Haun 2013 Survey.
“The earliest archaeological survey of the project area was conducted by John Reinecke
between 1929 and 1930. Reinecke (1930) was contracted by the Bishop Museum to
survey and document archaeological sites in West Hawaii. His survey idenIfied several
sites in coastal Puapua‘a consisIng of Sites 47, 48 and 49 (Figure 10). The
Hamakaokahai Fishing Shrine was documented as Site 48 by Reinecke. Site 47 is
described as follows:
“Site 47 is a cluster of house plaTorms located inland of the project area. This site is
described as, “A succession of five modern house plaTorms. Then two more house
sites, one flat on the ground, the other walled” (1930:36).“
Site 47 and its cluster of house platforms is located in the same area as the Mysin property.
My associates, who are recognized Hawaiian descendants of the area, accessed the property to
investigate. We believe there is evidence of a lava tube running from north to south through the
middle of the parcel, which may or may not contain cultural remains. We are asking that a full
Archeological Survey of the parcel be conducted, and that test pits be dug, to determine whether
cultural remains exist beneath the surface. The public and descendants of this area have a right to
know. If, this misplaced development ever gets off the ground, a SHPD approved Archeological
Monitoring Plan must be developed to guide the ground disturbance. Excavations 20 to 30 feet
deep are contemplated by the developer. The Archeological Monitoring Plan is not sufficient on
its own. The Inventory Survey is a must. We don’t want to have to witness the destruction first in
order to get SHPD and the County to step up to the plate.
Thank you for your time,
Walter Kelly
Vice-President
Protect Keopuka Ohana