HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-19 Stephen Stimac Opposition TestimonyFrom:
To:Planning LPC Testimony
Subject:Formal Opposition to 10-Year Extension of SMA Use Permit No. 07-019, Application No. PL-SMA-2026-000087
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2026 11:58:42 AM
Attachments:Zone swap approval August 7, 2000.pdf
SiteM_Position_Brief v2 260416.pdf
SMA_Permit_Extension_Opposition_Letter.pdf
Mauna Lani Resort Site “M” SOLD on August 14, 2017-$9.pdf
Belt Collins file.pdf
Stephen Stimac, Owner, Unit 431
The Villages at Mauna Lani, Mauna Lani Resort, South Kohala, Hawaiʻi
April 19, 2026
TO: Members of the Leeward Planning Commission, County of Hawaiʻi
RE: Opposition to SMA Use Permit No. 07-019 Extension —
Application No. PL-SMA-2026-000087
HEARING: April 23, 2026
Dear Members of the Leeward Planning Commission:
I am an owner at The Villages at Mauna Lani (VML) in strong and
unequivocal opposition to the request by DHL Mahi Site-M LLC — a
Special Purpose Vehicle of ProspectHill Group, San Francisco — to
extend SMA Use Permit No. 07-019 for an additional ten (10) years.
This developer has held the permit for nearly nine years with zero
construction activity. Granting this extension would reward non-
performance, circumvent the public interest, and impose serious, lasting
harm on every residential owner and community within the Mauna Lani
Resort. I respectfully urge the Commission to DENY this extension in its
entirety.
My opposition rests on five specific grounds:
A Decade of Inaction Justifies Denial. The original SMA permit
was issued in 2007 — nearly twenty years ago. Site-M (TMK 6-8-
22:10), a 150-acre parcel sold for $9.75 million in August 2017,
remains a vacant dry lava field and fire hazard today. No
construction has commenced. Non-performance alone is sufficient
grounds to deny this extension.
The Public Notification Process Was Wholly Inadequate. VML
owners learned of this hearing through informal person-to-person
communication less than 40 hours before it was scheduled. No
formal written notice was provided. The hearing notice was posted
at a location seen by almost no one with a direct interest. Adjoining
communities most impacted by Site-M — Kulalani, Kamilo, and
Fairways at Mauna Lani — received no notification at all. The
Commission should not allow a permit extension to proceed on the
basis of a process that effectively excluded the communities most
affected.
Owner Opposition Is Overwhelming. Every participating owner in
the organized VML owner discussion group opposes this
extension. Community surveys indicate that active, vocal
opponents represent between one-fifth and one-seventh of the total
opposed owner population — meaning the voices heard at this
hearing represent the views of the vast majority of VML owners.
The Underlying 2000 Zoning Swap Was Improperly Approved.
The SMA permit rests on a 2000 zoning swap that was deliberately
processed as a "non-significant" administrative determination to
avoid public scrutiny. Belt Collins discovery documents — including
an internal memo explicitly stating that "Seacliff doesn't want any
public notice" — confirm that the process was engineered to
circumvent standard public review. A change that permanently
redirected approximately two-thirds of resort traffic onto North
Kaniku Drive is not "nonsignificant" in any meaningful sense.
Material Infrastructure Deficiencies Remain Unaddressed. All
supporting studies date to the original 2007 permit. No current,
independently verified analysis has been provided for: (a) traffic —
full build-out is estimated to add approximately 3,660 additional
vehicle trips per day onto North Kaniku Drive; (b) water supply —
South Kohala already experiences recurring mandatory water
reduction events; (c) wastewater and drainage — no updated
capacity study reflects removal of the golf course pervious buffer
protecting the Mauna Lani fishponds; (d) emergency services and
evacuation — the required emergency road remains unbuilt and
unbonded; and (e) financial capacity — the developer carries a
$275 million Goldman Sachs mortgage encumbering approximately
750 acres, including state-leased parcels.
Enclosed with this email is one PDF file,
SMA_Permit_Extension_Opposition_Letter.pdf, containing the full
formal opposition letter and four supporting attachments:
Attachment 1: SiteM_Position_Brief v2 260416.pdf— Detailed
technical analysis supporting denial
Attachment 2: Mauna Lani Resort Site “M” SOLD on August 14,
2017-$9.pdf — Developer ownership history
Attachment 3: Belt Collins file.pdf — Internal memoranda
establishing that the 2000 zoning swap was structured to avoid
public scrutiny
Attachment 4: Zone swap approval August 7, 2000.pdf — The
administrative zoning change whose conclusion is challenged
herein
We are not opposed to responsible development. We are opposed to
this extension — at this time, as presented — because it rewards nearly
a decade of inaction, rests on a flawed and procedurally suspect
foundation, relies on twenty-year-old studies wholly inadequate to
assess 2026 conditions, and will cause real and lasting harm to the
owners, residents, and natural resources of the Mauna Lani Resort. We
respectfully and urgently request that the Commission DENY the 10-
year extension of SMA Use Permit No. 07-019 in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Stimac
Owner, Unit 431, The Villages at Mauna Lani
Mauna Lani Resort, South Kohala, Hawaiʻi
Page 1 of 6
Owners of The Villages at Mauna Lani
Mauna Lani Resort, South Kohala, Hawaiʻi
April 19, 2026
Leeward Planning Commission
County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department
25 Aupuni Street, Suite 1301
Hilo, Hawaiʻi 96720
Re: Formal Opposition to 10-Year Extension of SMA Use Permit No. 07-019
Application No. PL-SMA-2026-000087 — Leeward Planning Commission Hearing, April 23,
2026
Dear Members of the Leeward Planning Commission:
I am an owner at The Villages at Mauna Lani (VML), write in strong and unequivocal opposition
to the request by DHL Mahi Site-M LLC (a Special Purpose Vehicle of ProspectHill Group, San
Francisco) to extend SMA Use Permit No. 07-019 for an additional ten (10) years. I respectfully
urge the Commission to DENY this extension in its entirety.
Site-M was sold on August 14, 2017 for $9.75 million. This developer has now held this permit
for nearly 9 years with zero construction activity. Granting a further extension rewards non-
performance, circumvents the public interest, and would inflict serious, lasting harm on every
residential owner within the Mauna Lani Resort (MLR). My objections are detailed below and
are further supported by the attached documents.
I. The Extension Is Not Justified After a Nine Years of Inaction
The original SMA Use Permit No. 07-019 was issued in 2007 — nearly twenty years ago. With
only two years remaining on the permit and no development activity to date, this developer now
seeks a further ten-year extension. The Commission should ask a fundamental question: what
justification exists for rewarding a developer who has failed to break ground in nearly nine
years?
Site-M (TMK 6-8-22:10), a 150-acre parcel at the intersection of North Kaniku Drive and the
Mauna Lani service road, was sold by Stanford Carr’s group to a ProspectHill-affiliated entity
(DHL Mahi Propco LLC) for $9.75 million in August 2017 (see Attachment 2). The developer
had previously acquired the Mauna Lani Bay Hotel and Bungalows, golf course, and racket club
assets. Despite substantial financial resources and ample time, Site-M remains a vacant dry
lava field — and a fire hazard. Non-performance alone is sufficient grounds to deny this
extension.
Page 2 of 6
II. Deficient and Inadequate Public Notification
The public notification process for this SMA extension hearing was wholly inadequate and
fundamentally undermined the right of affected owners to participate in the process. I raise the
following specific deficiencies:
• The SMA Hearing notice was posted on Quʻeenʻs Highway — a location seen by almost
no one with a direct interest in this matter. The Commission should ask why the notice
was not posted in a conspicuous location adjacent to North Kaniku Drive, the primary
artery directly affected by Site-M’s development.
• Adjoining residential communities that will bear the greatest burden of Site-M
development — specifically Kulalani, Kamilo, and Fairways at Mauna Lani — were not
notified of the SMA permit extension hearing, despite the fact that these communities
face direct, material traffic and infrastructure impacts.
• Notification to property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel was the bare
minimum applied during the original 2000 zoning swap approval — a standard wholly
insufficient for a development of this scale and community impact.
The Commission should not allow a permit extension to proceed on the basis of a notification
process that effectively excluded the communities most affected by the proposed development.
III. Overwhelming Owner Opposition Within The Villages at Mauna Lani
Opposition to the SMA permit extension is widespread and deeply felt across our community.
Through an organized owner discussion group (Groups.io), 22 VML owners have actively
exchanged information and analysis regarding Site-M — and every participating owner is
opposed to granting the extension.
Active, vocal members represent only a fraction of the total owner population. Community
surveys and informal canvassing indicate that the ratio of active, engaged, opposed owners to
the total number of opposed owners is estimated to be between 1-in-5 and 1-in-7. This means
the active opposition voices heard at this hearing represent the views of the vast majority of
VML owners who oppose this extension.
The attached Position Brief (Attachment 1), prepared by VML Owner #413, summarizes the
consensus position of the owner community and provides detailed technical analysis in support
of denial. I adopt and incorporate that brief as part of this letter.
Page 3 of 6
IV. The Underlying Zoning Swap Was Improperly Approved Without Public
Scrutiny
The current SMA permit rests on a foundation that is itself legally and procedurally suspect. The
2000 zoning swap — which transferred Resort-Hotel (V-1.25) zoning onto Site-M-1 in exchange
for rezoning the 49 Black Sand Beach parcel to Multiple Family Residential (RM-4) — was
processed as a “non-significant” administrative determination specifically in order to avoid public
scrutiny.
The Belt Collins Discovery: A Process Designed to Avoid Public Input
Attached as Attachment 3 is a summary of the Belt Collins discovery documents, which reveal
the following:
• Internal Belt Collins memoranda — including a memo dated February 9, 1999 from Anne
Mapes to Roger Harris, planning consultant for Seacliff Development — make explicit
that the non-significant zoning change process was chosen in order to avoid public
scrutiny. The memo confirms that the normal procedure would keep the matter off the
public Council agenda, and includes a handwritten notation that “Seacliff doesn’t want
any public notice.”
• A June 16, 2000 letter from Planning Director Goldstein — missing from the County’s
public file — was found in the Belt Collins production at pages 502–506. Internal Belt
Collins memoranda responding to that letter are at pages 493–497. These documents
demonstrate that there were zoning conflicts deliberately left in place in order to
preserve the administrative (non-public) processing track.
• The documents support the reasonable conclusion that the 2000 zoning swap approval
was specifically engineered to avoid the public input and scrutiny that would have
accompanied a standard rezoning process.
The Zoning Swap Conclusion Is Invalid
The conclusion of the Zone Swap Approval (August 7–17, 2000, Attachment 4) states:
“The above analysis demonstrates that the request qualifies as an administrative
determination for a nonsignificant zoning change. The change would result in no
net change of zoning area or density and is consistent with the General Plan
designation of Mauna Lani Resort as a resort destination area.”
This conclusion is invalid on its face. While the acreage swap was mathematically equal, the
swap fundamentally altered the traffic and circulation pattern of the entire Mauna Lani Resort by
redirecting approximately two-thirds of resort traffic from its original intended routes onto North
Kaniku Drive. The Mauna Lani Resort master plan was never revised to accommodate this
change. The infrastructure — road capacity, intersection design, emergency access, water, and
sewer — was never upgraded to reflect the actual impact of relocating hotel-density zoning to
Site-M-1. A change that materially and permanently alters traffic flow, infrastructure demand,
and community character across an entire resort is not “nonsignificant” in any meaningful sense
of the word.
Page 4 of 6
V. Material Infrastructure Deficiencies Remain Unaddressed
As documented in detail in the attached Position Brief (Attachment 1), the developer has failed
to provide current, independently verified studies on any of the infrastructure systems that Site-
M will stress. All supporting studies date to the original 2007 permit — nearly twenty years ago.
Key unaddressed concerns include:
• Traffic and Circulation: Full build-out of Site-M is estimated to add approximately 3,660
additional vehicle trips per day onto North Kaniku Drive. The primary entrance to The
Villages at Mauna Lani sits approximately 80 feet from the Foodland/shopping center
entrance — already one of the most hazardous intersections in the resort. No updated
traffic study reflecting 2026 conditions has been presented.
• Water Supply: The South Kohala District already experiences recurring mandatory water
reduction events. No current water capacity analysis addressing the incremental
demand of 925 additional hotel and residential units has been provided.
• Wastewater and Sewer: The resort disposes of treated wastewater via Underground
Injection Control (UIC) wells near the coastline — a practice flagged as a coastal water
quality concern. No updated wastewater capacity study has been presented, nor has the
developer provided an updated drainage study reflecting the removal of the golf course,
which served as a pervious buffer protecting the Mauna Lani fishponds.
• Emergency Services and Evacuation: The proposed emergency evacuation road is a
pre-existing binding obligation of the original master plan, not a new project benefit. It
has not been completed and has not been bonded. South Kohala emergency services
have not been assessed for capacity under full Site-M build-out.
• Financial Capacity: The developer holds a $275 million mortgage from Goldman Sachs
(February 2025) encumbering approximately 750 acres, including state-leased parcels
containing archaeological sites and fishpond buffers. No evidence has been provided
that this debt does not constrain the developer’s ability to fund required infrastructure
upgrades.
Page 5 of 6
VI. Conclusion and Request for Action
For the reasons set forth above, the owners and residents of The Villages at Mauna Lani
respectfully and urgently request that the Leeward Planning Commission:
1. DENY the 10-year extension of SMA Use Permit No. 07-019 in its current form. The
application is materially deficient and the developer has demonstrated neither the
willingness to build in a timely manner nor the capacity to do so without imposing
unacceptable burdens on existing residents.
2. REQUIRE that any future reconsideration be predicated on current, independently
verified studies covering traffic/circulation, water supply, wastewater capacity,
emergency services, wildfire risk, archaeological resources, and coastal/fishpond
environmental impact — all reflecting 2026 conditions.
3. REQUIRE the emergency evacuation road to be bonded and completed prior to the
issuance of any first building permit. This is not a new project benefit; it is a pre-existing
binding obligation.
4. ENSURE that all 17 residential communities within Mauna Lani Resort — not just those
immediately adjacent to Site-M — are properly notified and given meaningful opportunity
to participate in any future hearing on this matter.
5. INVESTIGATE the procedural validity of the 2000 non-significant zoning swap in light of
the Belt Collins discovery documents, which establish that the process was deliberately
structured to circumvent public scrutiny.
Attachments:
1. SiteM_Position_Brief v2 — VML Owner #413 (April 15, 2026).pdf — Detailed technical
analysis supporting denial
2. Mauna Lani Resort Site “M” SOLD on August 14, 2017 — $9.75M (Hawaii Luxury Resort
Properties record).pdf — Documents the sale of Site-M and developer ownership history
3. Belt Collins Discovery File.pdf — Internal memoranda and documents establishing that
the 2000 zoning swap was structured to avoid public scrutiny
4. Zone Swap Approval, August 7–17, 2000 — County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department
(NZC 00-04).pdf — The administrative zoning change whose conclusion is challenged
herein
Page 6 of 6
I am not opposed to responsible development. I am opposed to this extension, at this time, as
presented, because it rewards non-performance, rests on a flawed procedural foundation, relies
on outdated studies, and will cause real and lasting harm to the owners, residents, and natural
resources of the Mauna Lani Resort.
I respectfully request that this letter and its attachments be entered into the public record for
Application No. PL-SMA-2026-000087.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Stimac, Owner, Unit 431,The Villages at Mauna Lani
Mauna Lani Resort, South Kohala, Hawaiʻi
SITE M SMA PERMIT AMENDMENT & 10-YEAR EXTENSION
Position Brief: The Villages at Mauna Lani — Owner #413
Prepared for: VML Community Representation
Leeward Planning Commission Hearing — April 23, 2026
Application No. PL-SMA-2026-000087 | SMA Use Permit No. 07-019
About the Author: Renée B. Lahti has owned VML Unit #413 since 2008 and has been a full-time resident of
Waimea, Hawaiʻi since 2017. A Global Technology Executive with 25+ years of experience assessing
complex systems, risk, and governance, she brings that same analytical lens to this brief. She values
cultural humility and a strong pay-it-forward mindset so that the individual, the organization, and the broader
community all benefit. She is also an active CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) member in
South Kohala, with firsthand experience of the district’s current emergency response challenges.
I. POSITION STATEMENT
The 10-year extension of SMA Use Permit No. 07-019 for Site M should not be granted in its
current form. The developer, DHL Mahi Site M LLC (a Special Purpose Vehicle of ProspectHill
Group, San Francisco), has presented no demonstrable evidence that it can bear the fully
loaded cost to implement and operate this project without negative impact on the existing
communities it sits within and depends upon.
The burden of proof rests entirely with the developer. Until that burden is met with current facts,
verified studies, and enforceable conditions (not promises) it is my opinion the Commission
should deny the extension.
A note on development intent: Site M is currently a vacant dry lava field and a fire hazard.
Development, done correctly, is not opposed. The position here is that correct development
requires the project to be, at minimum, neutral in its impact on surrounding communities, and
ideally, in the Hawaiian tradition of stewardship, to leave those communities better than it found
them.
II. THRESHOLD CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
The following conditions must be satisfied, with current independently verified evidence, before
any extension is considered:
1. All infrastructure studies must be refreshed to 2026 conditions.
The original SMA permit was issued in 2007, nearly 20 years ago. Traffic volumes, water
demand, sewer capacity, environmental conditions, wildfire risk, and emergency evacuation
requirements have all materially changed. Approving an extension based on stale studies is not
legally defensible under HRS §205A.
2. The developer must demonstrate full financial capacity to bear all infrastructure costs.
No infrastructure improvement costs (on-site or off-site) shall be passed to the MLRA or any of
its sub-communities. The developer holds a $275 million mortgage from Goldman Sachs
(February 2025) encumbering approximately 750 acres, including state-leased parcels
containing archaeological sites and fishpond buffers. The Commission should require evidence
that this debt does not constrain the developer's ability to fund required infrastructure upgrades.
3. Enforceable project gates must be established as binding permit conditions.
Conditions must be sequenced as construction gates, not aspirational guidelines. Precedent
exists: the original SMA permit required shuttle service as a condition of occupancy (VML
Agreement, Section 8). That model must be applied systematically to all material conditions,
with bonding requirements prior to the first building permit.
III. FACTUAL BASIS — ISSUE BY ISSUE
A. Traffic & Circulation
The Problem Already Exists — Site M Makes It Permanent
• An administrative zoning swap redirected approximately two-thirds of Mauna Lani Resort
traffic onto North Kaniku Drive. This imbalance exists today. Site M amplifies and
permanently locks in this defective circulation pattern.
• Site M at full build-out adds an estimated 3,660 additional vehicle trips per day (360
hotel rooms x 6 trips/day + 500 residential units x 3 trips/day) directly onto North Kaniku
Drive.
• The primary entrance to The Villages at Mauna Lani sits approximately 80 feet from the
Foodland/shopping center entrance, already one of the busiest and most hazardous
intersections in the resort. Increased queuing in this corridor directly raises the
probability of rear-end and turning collisions.
• Emergency vehicle access to The Villages is compromised when the 80-foot corridor
between the shopping center entrance and the primary VML entrance is congested or
blocked.
• Pedestrian, cyclist, and golf cart safety on North Kaniku Drive is already degraded.
Adding arterial-level traffic volumes eliminates meaningful non-vehicular use of the road.
• Living on a major arterial reduces residential property values by approximately 10%. For
a typical VML unit, this represents $200,000+ in lost value, or roughly $25 million across
the 130-unit community.
Required Commission Actions — Traffic:
◦ Require a full independent traffic circulation study reflecting 2026 conditions, not the
2007 baseline.
◦ Require the developer to disclose all traffic studies and trip generation assumptions
used to justify the original zoning swap and SMA approval.
◦ Require corrective measures, such as restoring Site M-1 to RM-4 zoning or
implementing design changes that rebalance traffic distribution across the
roundabout, before any extension is granted.
B. Water Supply
• The Mauna Lani Resort area (zip code 96743 / South Kohala District) already
experiences recurring mandatory and voluntary water reduction events due to well pump
failures, not water availability. Adding a development of 925 units to a system already
operating at stress points will increase the frequency and severity of these reductions.
• The majority of VML water usage is irrigation. More severe or frequent water reduction
orders will directly degrade existing landscaping, increase HOA operational costs, and
require long-term landscape replanning: costs that would be borne by current residents,
not the developer.
• No updated water capacity analysis has been presented. The developer must
demonstrate, with verified data, that the existing system (or a developer-funded
upgrade) can sustain Site M demand without degrading service to existing users.
Required Commission Actions — Water:
◦ Require a current, independent water capacity study that models peak demand
scenarios under full Site M build-out.
◦ Require the developer to fund any required upgrades to water supply infrastructure
as a bonded condition prior to first building permit.
C. Wastewater / Sewer
• The Mauna Lani Resort currently disposes of treated wastewater via Underground
Injection Control (UIC) wells near the coastline. This practice is regulated under Hawaii
DOH Title 11, Ch. 23 and has been flagged by the Sierra Club as a coastal water quality
concern for this specific resort area.
• No information has been presented on the current maximum capacity of existing
wastewater processing equipment, or its ability to handle peak load under full Site M
build-out.
• Under HRS §205A-26(2), a permit must be denied if the development has a 'substantial
adverse environmental or ecological effect' that is not minimized. The developer has not
provided an updated drainage study reflecting the removal of the golf course, which
functioned as a pervious buffer protecting the fishponds. This is a legal deficiency in the
current application.
Required Commission Actions — Wastewater:
◦ Require a current wastewater capacity study including peak load scenarios and UIC
well proximity impact assessment.
◦ Require an updated drainage study accounting for the removal of the golf course
buffer, per HRS §205A-26(2) compliance.
◦ Developer must fund all wastewater infrastructure upgrades. No cost to MLRA or
sub-communities.
D. Beach Club & Shared Amenities
• The Beach Club parking lot currently operates at or above capacity during peak periods;
cars routinely spill onto grass. Adding approximately 374 hotel guests and 551
residential owners to the Beach Club user pool (a ~75% increase) without a
corresponding expansion of parking, shade, and food service infrastructure is
unacceptable.
• The original SMA permit and the VML Agreement (Section 8) required Site M to provide
shuttle service from the hotel to beaches prior to any certificate of occupancy,
specifically to mitigate Beach Club traffic impacts. This condition must be explicitly
confirmed, updated to reflect the revised project scope, and enforced with bonding.
• The Napua restaurant and Shops at Mauna Lani (including Foodland) are already
operating at or near capacity during holiday periods. These community-serving facilities
were not designed to absorb a 23%+ increase in resort density.
• The developer's proposed 23% density reduction appears calibrated to fall just below
thresholds that would trigger obligations under the VML Agreement: a legal maneuver,
not a community benefit.
E. Emergency Services & Broader Regional Infrastructure
This section addresses infrastructure that extends beyond the resort boundary. Mauna Lani
Resort is not a self-contained township. It depends entirely on the broader South Kohala District
(zip code 96743) for fire, police, medical response, hospital services, evacuation routes, and
fuel supply.
• Emergency evacuation from the resort area is already critically constrained. During a
recent tsunami evacuation, resort residents evacuating to inland areas (e.g., Waimea,
which is outside the tsunami inundation zone) experienced severe road stress on
existing evacuation corridors. This was observed firsthand by the author of this brief,
who serves as a CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) member deployable
in South Kohala.
• The proposed emergency evacuation road is listed as a new project benefit. It is not. It is
a binding requirement of the original master plan. Under HRS §205A, the Commission
can and should require this road to be completed and bonded prior to the issuance of
the first building permit, not as a future promise.
• Adding 925 units of residential and hotel density increases the permanent and transient
population that depends on South Kohala emergency services. The developer has
presented no assessment of its impact on fire response capacity, medical response
times, or hospital capacity at North Hawaii Community Hospital.
• Wildfire risk in the South Kohala District has materially increased since 2007. The
Mauna Lani area is surrounded by dry lava fields, including Site M itself, which is
currently a fire hazard. No updated wildfire risk assessment has been presented.
Required Commission Actions — Emergency & Regional Infrastructure:
◦ Require the emergency evacuation road to be bonded and completed prior to the
first building permit, not framed as a voluntary project benefit.
◦ Require a current South Kohala emergency services capacity assessment, including
fire, police, medical response, and evacuation route modeling under full Site M build-
out.
◦ Require a current wildfire risk assessment and mitigation plan for the Site M parcel
and adjacent areas.
◦ Developer must fund any required upgrades to regional emergency infrastructure
serving the expanded resort population.
F. Archaeological & Environmental Compliance
• Archaeological Inventory Surveys (AIS) for the Site M area date to the original 2007
permit. These surveys predate modern ground-penetrating radar and current SHPD best
practices for site identification. The Commission should require updated AIS approval
from the State Historic Preservation Division before any extension is granted.
• The $275 million Goldman Sachs mortgage (February 2025) encumbers parcels that
include state-leased land containing identified archaeological sites and fishpond buffers.
The financial encumbrance of these culturally sensitive areas should be disclosed and
reviewed.
• The removal of the golf course from the project plan eliminates a significant pervious
buffer that protected the Mauna Lani fishponds from stormwater runoff. No updated
environmental impact analysis has been provided for this change.
• Native Hawaiian consultation may be required. The Mauna Lani area contains
petroglyphs, a prehistoric fishing village, and active fishponds: resources with cultural
standing under Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution (PASH doctrine).
IV. DEVELOPER TRACK RECORD — CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT
DHL Mahi Site M LLC is a Special Purpose Vehicle of ProspectHill Group (San Francisco).
ProspectHill acquired the Mauna Lani Resort in 2017. Its principals are the same development
team responsible for Hualālai and Kūkiʻo, the Kona Coast's most exclusive communities. This
history provides relevant precedents:
• Makaiwa Bay Moorings (2024): ProspectHill/DHL proposed offshore yacht moorings in
Makaiwa Bay. The Board of Land and Natural Resources deferred the proposal
indefinitely following over 100 pieces of written public testimony citing reef degradation
and violations of public trust resource statutes. This demonstrates that public pressure
and formal testimony directly influence this developer's project scope.
• Kūkiʻo Public Access: The development provides 28 public parking stalls as required
under the 1995 PASH ruling, but the operational 'pass system' has been challenged as a
practical barrier to public beach access. The Commission should apply the KCRA
standard of 'unencumbered' rather than 'managed' access in any conditions attached to
Site M.
• Hualālai Marine Stewardship: Under pressure from cultural practitioners, this developer
accepted a 10-year fishing ban (no-take period) for local reef areas as a binding
condition. This establishes that the developer will accept firm environmental conditions
when the community demands them.
• The developer failed to build under the original SMA permit despite having more than
adequate time. A 10-year extension rewards non-performance. If an extension is
considered at all, it must carry substantially stronger and more enforceable conditions
than the original permit.
V. MLRA GOVERNANCE CONCERN
The MLRA (Mauna Lani Resort Association) governs all 17 residential communities within the
resort. The Auberge (the resort hotel) holds significant influence within the MLRA structure.
Because Auberge/DHL Mahi Opco LLC is the operational entity of the same developer family
seeking the Site M extension, the MLRA may have a structural conflict of interest in
representing the interests of residential homeowners in this matter.
All affected residential sub-communities (not just The Villages) should be engaged
independently. A coordinated multi-community position would carry substantially greater weight
before the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the County Council.
VI. RECOMMENDED COMMISSION ACTIONS — SUMMARY
The Commission should take the following actions at the April 23, 2026 hearing:
• DENY the extension in its current form. The application is materially deficient: it
relies on studies that are nearly 20 years old and provides no demonstrable
evidence of the developer's ability to fund fully loaded implementation and
operational costs.
• REQUIRE, as conditions of any future reconsideration, current independent
studies on: traffic/circulation, water supply, wastewater capacity, emergency
services capacity, wildfire risk, archaeological resources, and coastal/fishpond
environmental impact.
• REQUIRE the emergency evacuation road to be bonded and completed prior to
the first building permit. This is not a new benefit: it is a pre-existing binding
obligation.
• REQUIRE financial disclosure: the developer must demonstrate that the $275
million Goldman Sachs mortgage does not constrain its ability to fund
infrastructure obligations.
• ESTABLISH enforceable construction gates: each infrastructure condition must
be satisfied and bonded before the corresponding permit milestone is reached,
not deferred to post-occupancy compliance.
• ENGAGE all MLRA sub-communities: the Planning Commission should ensure
that all 17 residential communities within the Mauna Lani Resort have been
properly notified and given opportunity to be heard, not just the communities
immediately adjacent to Site M.
Prepared by: Owner, VML Unit #413 | Date: April 15, 2026
This document is a factual position brief prepared for use by The Villages at Mauna Lani community representation. It
is not a polished personal testimony. All facts cited are drawn from public records, community discussion, the Wilson
Okamoto notice letter, and owner research.
Supporting appendix materials available upon request from the owner.
Mauna Lani Resort Site “M” SOLD on August 14, 2017-$9.75m — Haw... https://hawaiiluxuryresortproperties.com/mauna-lani-resort-site-m-sold...
1 of 2 4/19/2026, 6:28 AM
Mauna Lani Resort Site “M” SOLD on August 14, 2017-$9.75m — Haw... https://hawaiiluxuryresortproperties.com/mauna-lani-resort-site-m-sold...
2 of 2 4/19/2026, 6:28 AM
BELT COLLINGS DISCOVERY
Well, as we discussed, I went through the Belt Collins CD. Although tedious, it
proved helpful. I will go through it one more time, but the gems occur in
volume 2. The June 16, 2000 letter from Planning Director Goldstein missing
from the County file is at pp. 502-506, and is truly technical in nature.
Internal Belt Collins memoranda analyzing that letter are at pp. 493-497. A
draft of Ms. Mapes resonse to the June 16, 2000 letter is at pp. 482-486.
These documents more or less show that there was more to this than a mere
swap of zones. There were zoning issues which were left in place in order to
process this swap administratively in order to avoid "public scrutiny." It is
clear from a memo (at p. 452) from Anne Mapes to the Planning Consultant
for Seacliff Development, Roger Harris, dated Feb. 9, 1999, that the process
must avoid public scrutiny, hence the need to keep all of the zoning conflicts
in place. The memo states in pertinent part:"I talked to Norman Hayashi
about the notification rules for a non-significant zone change. As we
discussed, if the planning director accepts the request for non-significant
zone change, the director will notify the applicant and the Council. I asked
Norman whether the notification gets on the Council agenda and thus would
be open to public scrutiny. Norman says it doesn't have to and that the
normal procedure would be to cc the Council on the letter to the applicant.
He remembers a non-significant zone change being done that way QLT."
"Other than that, the only other notification required by the rule is to
landowners within 300 feet of the property subject to zone change. Our
preliminary search shows that most of the adjacent parcels belong to MLR, a
couple to Waikoloa."There is also a hand written statement at the bottom of
the memo the following: "For your information. Seacliff doesn't want any
public notice."There are a couple of other memos/emails at pp. 422, 445-
447, and 451, which along with the technical documents mentioned in the
second paragraph, support the reasonable conclusion that this was process
was specifically designed to avoid public scrutiny. I hope this helps. I will get
back to you on other discovery issues in a separate e-mail.
Virginia Goldstein
Director
Stephen K. Yamashiro
Mayor
filnuuf\! nf ~afuctii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252
(808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742
August 17, 2000
Ms. Anne L. Mapes
Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd.
680 Ala Moana Boulevard, 1st Floor
Honolulu, Ill 96813-:5406
Dear Ms. Mapes:
Non-significant Zoning Change Application (NZC 00-04)
Tokyu Corporation and Sea Cliff Development LLC
TMK: 6-8-22:10; 6-8-33:3-11, 34-48, 52 and
Portions of 1, 2, 12, 13, 20, 21,32, 33, 49, SO, 53
This is to acknowledge receipt on August 8, 2000, of your request filed on behalf of
Tokyu Corporation and Sea Cliff Development LLC for a determination of a non-
significant zoning change in accordance with Section 25-2-45 of Chapter 25, Hawaii
County Code, and Planning Department Rule 8.
Your request is to adjust the boundaries of two areas without increasing the zoning
densities for those areas. Specifically, the following are the zoning districts and land
areas involved:
1. Multiple Family Residential -4,000 square feet (RM-4) to
Resort-Hotel 1,250 square feet (V-1.25): 32.519 acres
2. V-1.25 to RM-4: 32.519 acres
Russeil Kokubun
Deputy Director
Although the zoning boundaries will be transferred from one area to another, the original
amount ofland area for each zoning district remains the same. The relocation of the
affected zoning districts from one area to another will not result in any increase in zoning
densities.
Ms. Anne L. Mapes
Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd.
Page 2
August 17, 2000
Upon review of the request, we have determined that it complies with the criteria set forth
in Section 25-2-45 (a)(l) of Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code, for determining non-
significant zoning changes. The transfer of zoning districts from one area to another will
not result in an increase to the current zoning districts. We, therefore, administratively
grant the requested non-significant zoning changes.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Norman Hayashi of this office
at 961-8288.
Sincerely,
NH:pak
P:wpwin60\norm\tokyu-sea cliffnzc 00-4 8-17-00
cc: Hawaii County Council (w/ attachments)
Real Property Tax Division (w/ attachments)
West Hawaii Planning Office (w/ attachments)
Roy Uchida (w\ attachments and disk)
Ms. Sachiko Murano
Sea Cliff Development LLC
Introduction
Attachment 2
PL ANNING REPORT
Nonsignificant Zoning Change
Request at Mauna Lani Resort 2000 f1UG 8 RPl 9 5 7
PLANi\JING OEP,4RTMENT
COUNTY OF Hf\WP-11
Mauna Lani Resort, Inc. (MLRI) and Sea Cliff Development LLC are reques ting a
determination and administrative approval of a nonsignificant zoning change for about 65
acres on parcels at the Mauna Lani Resort. The proposed changes involves Hotel (V-1 .25)
and Multiple Family Residential (RM-4) zones and would not result in any net change to
the resort's zoning acreages or densities.
The following is a description of the subject areas and a discussion of the nonsignificant
zoning change request. In this report, the two companies are referred to as Mauna Lani
and as Sea Cliff.
State of Purpose and Qualification
The purpose of this request is to exchange the resort zoning district on the Sea Cliff
property, 49 Black Sand Beach, with the multiple family residential zoning on the Mauna
Lani Resort Site M-1 . Relocating the resort zone onto Site M-1 would allow the applicant
to continue to have a site available for future hotel use. Red esignating the Sea Cliff property
to Multiple Family Residential would not affect the current residential project now under
development on the property.
This request qualifies as a nonsignificant zoning change because the action would not
change the existing zoning acreages or densities. The affected areas have also been
previously zoned resort or multifamily. Finally, the request is consistent with the County of
Hawaii's General Plan which designates Mauna Lani Resort as a major resort area and
resort use where the subject properties are located.
Description of Property
This request affects the following properties:
1. Site M-1: This is a 49-acre parcel (TMK (3) 6-8-22:10) located at the intersection of
North Kaniku Drive and the Mauna Lani service road. This request affects 32.519
acres of this parcel. The site is relatively flat and is undeveloped.
2. 49 Black Sand Beach Project: This is a 49-lot residential subdivision located on the
south side of the Mauna Lani Bay Hotel. This request affects 32.519 acres of the
subdivision which is presently under construction.
iBlaid,fir(l))llJlli1lcdl ~-
The subject properties were pa rt of the 1986 LUC decision (LUC Docket no. A84-583)
that expanded to the origin al Urban District at M aun a Lani Resort. Conditio n 5 of that
1986 LUC action stated, 11 Petitioner shall deve lop a full-se rvice hotel on the Property in
conjunction with the recre ation al and residential project to ensure employment
opportu n ities.11
The present zoning configuration for the affected parcels occurred in 1995 (Ordin ance
Nos. 95-37 and 95-64). See Figures 2 and 3, Existing Zoning.
Need for the Request
The proposed exchange of multifamily and resort zoning designations will allow Mauna
Lani Resort to maintain a future hotel site and satisfy Condition 5 of the 1986 LUC
amendment.
Legal Description of the Property
Written descriptions and maps are included as Attachment 3 of this application submittal.
An AutoCAD disk with the map files is also part of the application submittal.
Calculation of Proposed Request
The calculations for the proposed request is shown below. The affected area is about 70%
of the total property area·. Note that the 32. 519 acres being converted from RM-4 to
V-1.25 is equal to the 32.519 acres being converted from V-1.25 to RM-4. There is no net
increase in the acreage of RM or V zoning.
(3) 6-8-22:portion of 10 49.066 acres 32.519 aicres (RM-4
to V-1.25)
(3) 6-8-33: 3 to 11, 34 to 48, 52, 43.710 acres
and portions of 1, 2, 12, 13, 20,
32.519 acres (V-1 .25
to RM-4)
21, 32, 33, 49, 50, and 53
92.776 acres 65 .038 acres
Surrounding Property Owner/Lessee Notification
70.1%
The notification list of property owners and lessees within 300 feet of the subject
properties are included in Attachment 4. Related tax maps are also part of this attachment.
Conclusion
The above analysis demonstrates that the request qualifies as an administrative
determination for a nonsignificant zoning change. Th e change would result in no net
change of zoning area or density and is consistent with the General Plan des ignation of
Mauna Lani Resort as a resort destination area.
2
-
----------
M-3
-----
STATE OF HAWAII LEASE LAND
Pt1tiji,·O,.r,111
r
rl
1I
I
~--c---------~J
=ND • !Fig•,~ ,J j
,m Aceas of Noa·Stg,mcaet zoot,g Chaege PllOJEICT LOC/.ITIO,J , Mauna Lant Resort Non-S1grnficant Zoning Cl1ange R • ~ 1
NORTH
0 450 900 1800
j.WtM'lllR/§\Mmg;;.µ ifoiii4:'9
SCALE IN FEET
p eqt1iE.:,¥
reparnci by Belt Collins Ha'N"HI 1
June 2iJ(}l•J .. , I
-.=,-~~--.J
-----------~
NORTH
0 500
~~
SCALE IN FEET
A-5a
LEGEND
1~,1~~~]:,1 Subject Property (TMK 6-8-22:10)
\ \0
\_----------
V-1.25
0
\
\
\
Woiakvrnofoe
Point
0 250 500 1000
r»i# ·W,;,;;;;;;;;,,Yl½iiN3ftfi4
NORTH SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
1/iil/noehehe
Boy
Woowoa
Point
Honok oope
Bay
I,·::~-~"".'I Subject Property (TMK 6-8-33: various parcels)
Point
LEGEND
O~~~O l~i;\;'~;~"I Proposed RM-4 to V-1.25 Mauna Lani Resort Non-Significant Zoning Change ReQu:,.,,. fi
Prepared by Belt Collins H~,yn}i 1
6=N=O=R=T_H __ s_c_A_LE_1_N_F_EE,_T ___ ..a.,. __________________ ~--~~~~~~=~==~=====·J=u=:!~~'.:J
-------------
0
/'1/aiakvmalae
Point
l/1/linaehehe
Boy
W aawoa
P oint
H onokaope
Boy
\ RM -4
)--
( Rilll -3 -' ........ _
0
Point ~ 11
r:
[i ,,
(1 ~~-==-=~~---w----------~---~-~-~=-"'='-'=======~-=-···-=·-41
49 BLACK StB.ND BrEACii1: PROPOSED c~lt~i~: ~
Mauna Lani Resort Non-Significant Zoning Change Req~l-"'S' ~
?w;"'™,wd*'"&Sitl'91"""1 Prepared by Belt Collins Ha;;!:·.<\ ,
NORTH SCALE IN FEET June 2CGf ~
11.o==----------------------------=~~~~=~========~-,c.=d!
0 250 500
LEGEND
hn~;,~~I Proposed V-1 .25 to RM-4
-