HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-13 Stephen D Lopez Opposition Testimony
From: Steve Lopez
To: Kay, Christian; Planning LPC Testimony
Cc: "Steve Lopez"
Subject: Testimony in OPPOSITION to PL-SPP-2025-0001-019
Date: Monday, July 13, 2026 4:21:25 PM
To: Planning Department, County of Hawaii
RE: Docket #PL-SPP2025 000109
I am writing this letter to show my OPPOSITION to the application for a special permit
PL-SPP-2025-000109.
Since 2012 I have been a resident of the Ka’Aina Pono (KAP) subdivision whose residents
own the Nani Kailua Gate and Roadway that provides grants of easement to a limited
number of properties outside the subdivision. The grants of easement clearly state the
grant is for access and utilities to these lots. We, a residential community of 37 lot
owners own this road by all legal standing. 21 of these owners have a property line to the
middle of Nani Kailua Drive and the easement on Pikake Place is on land owned by the
owners of TMK 75-012-089. All these owners, like myself, are assessed property taxes
and pay liability insurance for our owned area. While I am not speaking for anyone else,
these statements help set the background for my opposition testimony. I found it quite
revealing that the letters in support have nothing to do with the merits of the proposal
but “glowing” comments on Mr. Eisert’s character and goodness. In review it is clear to
me that these supporters have related business interests and one is a partner in his
enterprises; characterization all contrary to the overwhelming sentiment of his KAP
neighbors.
For my ownership of the roadway where this proposed project must traverse I fail to
understand why I was not notified of this case. Nonetheless, I own 25’ x 290’ or 7,250
sqft of this roadway. I have been here since 2012 and witnessed the growth of KAP and
the acquisition of the properties in this proposal. Since his acquisition of the properties
I’ve personally witnessed and tried to slow down the speed and noise of traffic going
both ways but worst is the downhill traffic on a relatively steep slope. Many of my
attempts have been met with with cursing, middle finger salutes, jeering and just plan
disrespect for my neighboood. This traffic includes scooters joyriding between the Eisert
property and our gate with whoops and hollers during their downhill speed fun. The
ones on the scooters told me these were rentals from the upper property (mansion)
where they were staying. This activity contributes to the detriment of neighbors with
excessive noise, backing out of their driveways and children playing on or near the
roadway in front of their home. In backing out of my driveway I have often been avoided
by ones coming fast down the hill by taking a wide swath on the uphill side to avoid
collision while never reducing their speed. Mr. Eisert has been contacted about some of
this but feigns no knowledge to say he talks to his guest and contractors on their safe
use of the roadway. In one case I called him regarding a red vehicle nuisance which
exited from his property. He would check and let me know. He never called back. How
is he enforcing his stated noise/speed mitigation efforts?
This proposal seeks to dramatically increase the volume and thus number of speedsters
and noise to existing high levels since his many businesses have grown at this address;
all with no assumption of liability for the use of “my” road. To name a few, consider the
traffic to support this list of business enterprises (sourced from BREG) with access to his
property to and from,
Rising Kona Coffee. His many aspects of tastings, yoga, etc. Rental of motorized
scooters
RISING KONA COFFEE FARM TOURS Short term overnight rentals & vehicles
KONA KAI CARS, LLC. A Turo enterprise Hosting of special events & vehicles
KONA PREMIUM COFFEE, LLC/CORNWELL COFFEE, LLC Coffee growing, roasting,
tours, sales.
While perhaps not licensed at his residence location his guests use these business
offerings from/at his location.
Why does the application include old photos and maps? These are nothing like the
present conditions. Is Mr. Eisert trying to show something other than what the
neighborhood currently looks like? From my research It appears the majority of the
actual coffee farming occurs at Kona Premium Coffee/Cornwell Coffee, which Mr. Eisert
purchased in approximately 2025.
What is UNUSUAL about a Farm Tour, Coffee Roasting, etc., which could be done at his
Kona Premium Coffee location in Holualoa that has a tour for which you MUST register.
The Hosted Rental is NOT reasonable, 30K visitors (estimate 7,500 vehicles with 4
tourists, which does NOT count the traffic from the hosted rental or normal AG worker
traffic) along two roads is NOT reasonable. The KAP neighbors did not know about the
Kona Kai Agriculture Permit, so shame on us, however, now we are aware of this Special
Permit.
Mr. Eisert is rushing to ask for an EXCEPTION or Special Permit to get approval of
overnight lodging ahead of Bill 147 and before the State Attorney General gets involved in
any vacation rentals on State Ag land.
Why is he asking for an exception of the Gross Revenue Ratio, pg. 1, paragraph 3? Will
the overnight accommodations be considered “agricultural tourism revenue” or
“agriculture production revenue” or transient accommodation revenue? How can two 5-
acre Parcels, of which less than one-third is in active agriculture production generate
more revenue than a 10,000sf Mansion receiving $2500-5000/night for lodging
accommodations, even at 60-70% occupancy. Mr. Eisert should specifically address
these specifics.
What about the substantial adverse impacts to the surrounding environment (i.e., KAP
Subdivision) and its non-alignment with the General Plan? If approved, Kona Kai has
zero liability on the roadways used, zero risk, pays a nominal $720/year annual
assessment for roadway maintenance (two Lots x $360), while 21 Easement Holders and
all 37 KAP Lot Owners hold all the liability.
In 2024-5 boundary alignments created an easement on the kohala side of the 3 lots
below him (PL-SUB-2023-00127). Mr. Eisert has secured a grant of easement on the
middle property of these 3 properties. The lot immediately below him is owned by his
Kona Kai parter who wrote positive testimony. The 2nd lot is where Mr. Eisert secured a
grant of easement across that portion of the easement. The 3
rd and farthest owner of
the parcel on Heinaloli Rd is the main entrance to this overall easement for the 3
properties. Why is it not a simple case to negotiate an easement with the remaining 2
properties depicted in PL-SUB-2023-00127 or its more current version alleviating all
concerns with subjecting his KAP neighbors to the problems cited herein and other
testimony. PEACE! If this negotiation is not possible, why is that and for what legitimate
reason? If the Planning Department would not allow, what are the details of this
rejection?
How is it that this case is allowed to be tried/debated in submitted testimony with Mr.
Eisert countering every opposition testimony? Notice he has an answer to everything in
the rhetoric he presents to support his case? What is this commission to believe?
Should the Planning Director issue a positive opinion based on a 2023 approval of a bed
and breakfast within the KAP neighborhood, I submit that each application must stand
on its own merits. The approval, much to the dismay and opposition testimony of the
KAP neighborhood, does not in any way nearly approach the volume and disruption of
that prior approval which residence has been sold and now a single family dewelling not
operated as a B&B.
Finally, he says that he is a permitted “hosted rental”; a clear misrepresentation of fact!
How can that be when this County is on record many times that it does not regulate
“hosted rentals” on Ag land. Clearly a violation of Hawaii Supreme Court ruling (Rosehill
ʻ
v. State of Hawai i, Land Use Commission)?
Inasmuch as you may not be able to defend the legal property rights of homeowners, I
hold out hope your unfortunate positive judgement in this case will be much more
scrutinized when the State Land Use Commission does review of this SP in Findings of
Fact. They would exercise closer scrutiny that the proposed use satisfies criteria Rule
6-7 (specifically 7.6). Perhaps they may exercise more concern in their consideration
that this project will cause substantial adverse impacts to the surrounding environment
and community as being on AG land.
Mahalo for the opportunity to submit this testimony in STRONG OPPOSITION. The DEVIL
is in the details so I beseech you to take care to seek the word smithing and misleading
statements presented. Could this positive decision result in a long and embattled
petition for even remotely related future special permit requests thus continuing to
erode the prized quality of life of its residents? Recognize that he is involved as a party
to a hostile lawsuit with KAP and thus a tenuous situation exists while he continues to
fan the proverbial flames. I pray this litigation will be resolved later this year.
Stephen D Lopez
75-473 Nani Kailua Dr
Kailua Kona, HI 96740