Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-23 Leeward Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES APRIL 23, 2026 A video recording is made part of these minutes, which can be viewed on YouTube County of Hawaii Planning Department channel at https://youtube.com/live/yv7S0uW0mQk. Timestamps are provided for reference in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 92, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. In the event the video recording becomes unavailable at the above-mentioned URL address, the public can contact the Planning Department for assistance. The Leeward Planning Commission met in regular session on April 23, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Council Chambers, Building A, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chair Dean Au presiding. This meeting was streamed live on YouTube. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dean Au (Chair), Donna “Kinuko” Noborikawa (Vice Chair), Rebecca “Kawehi” Inaba, Alexandria “Lexie” Ayers (left at 1:28 p.m.), and Shawn “Kele” Makaiau. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Armando Rodriguez. ALSO PRESENT: William “Bill” Jarrett, Esq. (Deputy Corporation Counsel to the Commission), Jeffrey Darrow (Planning Director), and Planning Department staff. Approximately 14 members of the public were in the audience. At 9:34 a.m. Chair Au called for a recess due to YouTube and Zoom difficulties and the hearing reconvened at 9:38 a.m. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 1:15] STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 01:38] At 9:38 a.m. the Commission took up this item with one member of the public providing testimony via zoom in the Council Chambers. The speaker testified in opposition to the request to remove the Kuakini wall in order to rezone the easement area. The speaker expressed concerns regarding the cultural preservation of the existing wall, the sacred bones embedded in the wall, the neighborhood character, and the potential impacts the rezoning may have on the surrounding community and properties. Page 2 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes APPROVAL OF MINUTES [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 7:32] Vice Chair Noborikawa moved to approve the minutes of the December 18, 2025, meeting, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Inaba. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion was approved with five ayes (Noborikawa, Inaba, Au, Ayers, Makaiau), no noes, and one absent and excused (Rodriguez). NEW BUSINESS 1. APPLICANT: PLANNING DIRECTOR (ANDY/KERRY XIE TRUST, WEI LIN ZHAO, EULIX CHIU; FANG/HAN TR, FRED MING LI- FORMERLY T&M PROPERTIES) (PL-PDI-2026-000015/ REZ 17-000220) (PL-PDI-2026-000015) [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 8:45] The Planning Director initiated the repeal of Change of Zone Ordinance Nos. 19- 38, 09-50, 09-49, 06-138, 06-137, 95-118, 92-36, 90-10, 86-49, 533 (1980), and 594 (1973), amendment to Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map) and 25-8 5 (Kailua Urban Zone Map), Chapter 25, Article 8, of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983 (2016 edition, as amended), which will revert the current zoning of 3.331 acres from Village Commercial-7,500 square feet (CV-7.5) to its original Double Family Residential-3,750 square feet (RD-3.75) and 3.227 acres from Multiple Family Residential-2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) to its original Unplanned (Agricultural-5 acres) zoning district. The subject parcel is located on the north side of Hualālai Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of its intersection with Kuakini Highway, Hienaloli 4th & 5th, North Kona, Hawaiʻi, TMK: 7-5-010:013. The Commission considered this item at 9:46 a.m. with approximately 14 members of the public in attendance. Staff presentation was given by Jessica Andrews of the Planning Department. Chair Au opened the floor to allow the Commission to ask staff questions. Vice Chair Noborikawa asked staff if the request is for a down zone to reduce the residential units currently allowed from 172 units to 76 with ADUs. Staff confirmed that the request was a down zone to the original zoning. Vice Chair Noborikawa asked if there will be future opportunity for testifiers and the State Historic Preservation Division to address their concerns regarding the potential proposal for 38 double family residential units as described in the presentation. Staff confirmed that testifiers will have the opportunity when the applicant applies for a building project as long as it is a permitted use within the approved zoning, and if the previous zoning is re-established. When the applicant submits the grading permit the State Historic Preservation Division will review the matter. Page 3 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes Mr. Richard Wheelock, the applicant’s representative, and Andy Xie the applicant, provided a brief presentation and were present to answer questions. The proposed units will be affordable housing if the down zone is granted. Mr. Wheelock stated that no units are being proposed at this time, because it’s a down zone. Chair Au opened the floor for public testimony. One individual provided testimony via Zoom. Action: Vice Chair Noborikawa made a motion that a favorable recommendation on PL- PDI-2026-000015, REZ 17-000220 be forwarded to the County Council on the Planning Director’s request to repeal change of zone ordinances number 19-38, 09-50, 09-49, 06- 138, 06-137, 95-1118, 92-36, 90-10, 86-49, 533 (1980), and 594 (1973) which will revert the current zoning of 3.31 acres from Village Commercial-7,500 square feet (CV 7.5) to its original Double-Family Residential-3,750 square feet (RD 3.75) and 3.227 acres from Multiple-Family Residential 2,500 square feet (RM 2.5) to its original Unplanned (Agricultural-5 acres) zoning district based on the Planning Director’s recommendation and conditions of approval which shall be adopted. Commissioner Inaba seconded the motion. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 29:38] The motion was seconded by Commissioner Inaba. Vice Chair Noborikawa pointed out she is in favor of the repeal because of the change of zone ordinances. She asked staff if the reversion goes through, and the landowner wants to submit an application for a project that is a permitted use under the existing zoning, if the matter will return to the Planning Commission for a hearing. Ms. Andrews confirmed it will not be returned to the Planning Commission. Chair Au asked the applicant and his representative if they had reached out to the community and any associations in the area for feedback. The current client had not, but the applicant and representative said the previous landowner made attempts to get support for a 104-unit elderly care facility which was previously approved, and for which there was mixed support. The project had not progressed due to COVID and the passing of the project sponsor. As a result, the property was sold to the new landowner. Chair Au indicated his support for Vice Chair Noborikawa’s motion. Commissioner Inaba supported the motion due to the concerns from the State Historical Preservation Division and the cultural aspects. The entire scope will be reviewed by the appropriate departments when submissions are received for development. Ms. Andrews took a roll call vote on the motion, and the motion was passed with five ayes (Noborikawa, Inaba, Ayers, Makaiau, Au), no noes, and one absent and excused (Rodriguez). [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 37:47] The hearing on this item concluded at 10:15 a.m. Page 4 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes Chairperson Au recused himself from item number two on the agenda. Vice Chair Noborikawa assumed the Chair ship. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 38:32] 2. APPLICANT: DHL MAHI SITE M LLC and DHL MAHI PROPCO LLC (PL-SMA- 2026-000087/AMEND SMA 07-019) [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 40:23] Application to amend Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit No. 07-019 for a 10-year time extension to Condition No. 2 (Complete Construction); reduce the 2 density of the Mauna Lani Site M master planned development from 1,207 Units (691 Residential & 516 Hotel) to 925 Units (551 Residential & 374 Hotel); remove proposed golf course and conference center use; increase preserved open space; and construct an emergency evacuation road. The project is situated within the Special Management Area and is located approximately 0.75 miles west of Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway, approximately 0.4 miles north of Mauna Lani Drive, Mauna Lani Resort, South Kohala, Hawai’i, TMKs: (3) 6-8-001:050; 052-055, (3) 6-8 022:010. The commission considered this item at 10:17 a.m., with approximately 12 members of the public present. Commissioner Inaba moved that the commission enter into executive session to consult with its attorney regarding questions and issues pertaining to the commission’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statute §92-5 specifically legal issues concerning the criteria to establish standing to intervene in this matter. Commissioner Ayers seconded the request. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 42:19] A roll call vote was taken, and the motion was passed with four ayes (Inaba, Ayers, Makaiau, Noborikawa), no noes, one recused (Au) and one absent and excused (Rodriguez). [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 43:11] The Commission entered executive session at 10:24 a.m. Acting Chair Noborikawa brought the Leeward Planning Commission back from executive session at 11:11 a.m. She explained how the Commission will proceed with this agenda item. First, they would hear public testimony on the application. Second, the two petitioners will provide testimony on how they meet the criteria for standing in a contested case hearing. Third, the Applicant and Planning Director will state any objections regarding the petitions for standing. Then the Commission will decide whether to grant or deny standing. If standing is denied the Commission will determine whether to hear this agenda today or at a future meeting. If standing is granted, the agenda item will be postponed allowing time for mediation between the parties. If an agreement is reached the permit application will return to the Commission for a decision and the public will again have the opportunity to testify at that time. If no agreement is reached during mediation a contested case hearing will occur. This is a trial-like process overseen by the presiding Page 5 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes officer who will review the case and provide a recommendation to the commission based on the information presented and arguments made by the parties. Once a recommendation is presented the public will again have a chance to testify before the Commission, and the Commission will make the final decision. Acting Chair Noborikawa opened the floor to allow the Commission to ask staff questions. One individual provided in-person testimony and three via Zoom Acting Chair Noborikawa closed the public testimony on this item. Acting Chair Noborikawa stated that the Commission received two petitions for standing in the contested case hearing and asked the Planning Department staff if both petitions filed by Villages at Mauna Lani AOAO and Pacific Resource Partnership were received in a timely manner. Planning staff confirmed both petitions were timely filed and provided to the Commission. Acting Chair Noborikawa reminded the Commission that the focus should be on why standing should or should not be granted, not on the merits of the application. PETITION OF VILLAGES AT MAUNA LANI ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS (“VILLAGES”) [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 01:55:11] Mr. Tim Irons, the petitioner representative with Denton’s US LLP representing the Villages at Mauna Lani Homeowners Association, gave a brief presentation. Acting Chair Noborikawa opened the floor for questions from the Commissioners to the Petitioner. Commissioner Ayers asked Mr. Irons if there was a breach in contract in the original settlement between the developer and Villages at Mauna Lani AOAO. Mr. Irons responded, stating the original settlement agreement defined the project is and tied it into the Special Management Agreement application. What was agreed upon at that time was a specific project for that application, not a perpetual agreement for changes that occur in the future for different projects. Mr. Irons confirms the original settlement agreement was tied to the Special Management Area Use Permit for the original project. Commissioner Inaba asked Mr. Irons to state the items that have changed since the original agreement. Mr. Irons stated converting 100 bungalows into a four-story hotel increases the height restriction that was originally stated in the agreement. Also, increasing the density on parcel 3A by use. Moreover, reducing the density on parcel 3B as a result increases the height restriction that was originally stated in the agreement. Mr. Irons is not sure what will replace the golf course, the landscape plan, nor was there information about the 1,800 plus-on-site parking stalls. Page 6 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes Commissioner Ayers asked Mr. Irons to clarify the term” covered claims” due to its broad meaning that is stated in the settlement. Mr. Irons responded stating the term “covered claims” is defined and is tied in the original settlement and the SMA application that was under review. There is language at the bottom in the last paragraph which elaborates the “covered claims” meaning while specifying that time period when the settlement agreement was created. The settlement agreement specifically identified what the project was at that time, and how it tied to the SMA application. There are significant changes when comparing the original settlement agreement with the SMA application compared to the amended application. Commissioner Makaiau asked Mr. Irons if he is objecting to the amended application and how it will affect his client, the Villages of Mauna Lani AOAO. He confirmed objecting to the amended application because the construction must end by 2028. Mr. Irons cited in his petition whether it’s reducing or modifying a project, the change in time creates a change in circumstances and in some respects, a new project. Acting Chair Noborikawa asked Mr. Irons how are the interests of the Villages of Mauna Lani AOAO distinguishable from that of the general public. Mr. Irons responded, stating his clients would primarily be affected if they used the same infrastructure that included roadways, ingress and egress points, as well as water and sewer services. Also, his client pays fees to the same organization that manages Mauna Lani Resort. In terms of the general public, they will not be taxed on higher fees nor suffer from increased traffic right at their door. Mr. Iron points out if another 1,500 to 2,000 people are added to the area significant impacts are going to happen for the surrounding community as opposed to the general public. Acting Chair Noborikawa asked Mr. Irons how the impact would be different from the proposed amendment for the Villages at Mauna Lani AOAO as opposed to the original settlement agreement with the tied SMA application. Mr. Irons responded, stating that since the completion of the original project, new communities have been built within the resort since the last permit, each development has had greater impact on use of services. Changes in the visual impact going from bungalows to a hotel, a golf course look with open space to structure that is unknown at this time. Mr. Irons points out an extensive review must be done with the SMA application and/or amendment. The community has grown over time, the demand for services increased over time, the landscape has changed over time, that didn’t exist originally. Acting Chair Noborikawa asked Mr. Irons if the goal for the Villages of Mauna Lani AOAO is to avoid the underlying permit or to block these amendments that are being proposed. Mr. Irons responded stating his client is not trying to do either, but merely to protect the Villages at Mauna Lani AOAO’s interest with regards to this development. He pointed out if his client did nothing and the commission approved of the SMA amendment; one could argue that the settlement no longer applies. Page 7 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes Applicant Representative, Katherine Garson from Carlsmith Ball, along with Pat Fitzgerald opposed the petition for standing by “The Villages” and provide a brief presentation. Acting Chair Noborikawa opened the floor for questions from the Commissioners to the Applicant. Commissioner Inaba asked if the proposed amendment changed the underlying SMA permit. Ms. Garson responded that the purpose of the amendment was, first, to ask for a 10-year extension and to build the emergency evacuation road, which was a condition of the original agreement. Second, the extension would give the time to reduce the density, eliminate the golf courses, and the conference center. Commissioner Inaba asked if circumstances had changed from the first permit and the original agreement. Ms. Garson responded, “to the extent we have updated all of the studies which were included in the original study.” For example, the TIAR analyzed the resort at a full build out and covered this build out and this project. Commissioner Ayers asked if the applicant believed the Villages at Mauna Lani AOAO lacked grounds for standing because the applicant was not in breach of the original settlement. The applicant affirmed. The Villages at Mauna Lani AOAO waived their right to seek standing in the settlement agreement. They released all of the claims, so there’s no injury that they can point to. They can’t distinguish themselves from the general public because they no longer have those claims. Commissioner Inaba asked if the agreement was changed by the amendment. The Applicant responded that there is no time limit in the agreement. The Applicant insists that it is willing to comply with all of the terms in the settlement agreement, including building road infrastructure that wouldn’t be required today. Acting Chair Noborikawa opened the floor for questions from the Commissioners to the Planning Director. Acting Chair Noborikawa asked the Planning Director if the Planning Department opposes the petition and if so, why. Director Darrow responded that this is a unique situation involving an applicant and an association that is part of the area that involves the project. In terms of criteria for granting standing, it’s very broad. From the perspective of the Planning Department, the one that we are looking at is whether the interest of the AOAO is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public. In the Director’s view, it is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public, because they live in the area, they are part of the Mauna Lani community and will be affected by this project. The Planning Commission and the Planning Department do not get involved in settlement agreements nor enforce them. The settlement agreement is separate from this particular hearing. From the Planning Department perspective, if standing is granted, the parties are sent to Page 8 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes mediation and if that is unsuccessful will then have a hearing. At this time, the Planning Department does not oppose granting standing. Acting Chair Noborikawa asked Director Darrow since the association was already granted standing in the prior underlying application, does that carry over to the amendment. Director Darrow responded, stating that this is a separate matter. Action on Petition of Villages at Mauna Lani Association of Apartment Owners (“Villages”): Commissioner Inaba moved that the Villages at Mauna Lani Association Apartment Owners petition to intervene be granted based on the following criteria within the rules, which is number four, that even though they don’t have an interest different than that of the public generally, that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury in fact and Commissioner Ayers seconded the motion. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 2:29:19] Acting Chair Noborikawa opened the floor for discussion and comments. Commissioner Ayers states the contract language is broad, but there is clear language in the settlement. A roll call vote was taken to grant standing to Villages at Mauna Lani Association of Apartment Owners. The motion carried with four ayes (Inaba, Ayers, Makaiau, Noborikawa), no noes, one recused (Au), and one absent and excused (Rodriguez). [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 02:31:34] Commissioner Makaiau moved to defer the matter until contested case mandatory mediation and/or a contested case hearing was held. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ayers. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 02:32:55] A roll call vote was taken on the motion to defer which carried with four ayes (Makaiau, Ayers, Inaba, Noborikawa), no noes, one recused (Au) and one absence and excused (Rodriguez). [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 02:33:33] The hearing on this item concluded at 12:11 p.m. At 12:11 p.m. Acting Chair Noborikawa called for a recess [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 02:33:52] and the hearing convened at 12:16 p.m.[SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 02:38:49]. Page 9 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes PETITION OF PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 02:39:32] Petitioner Abbey Holden, attorney for Pacific Resource Partnership via Zoom provided a presentation. Acting Chair Noborikawa opened the floor for questions from the Commissioners to the petitioner. Acting Chair Noborikawa asked the Petitioner what the impact would be if the applicant was unable to meet the 2028 deadline considering the size and financing of the project. Ms. Holden responded, stating potential increase/decrease in the jobs available and living wages. Impacts would determine if the project went forward or not. Currently, the issue is making sure the appropriate studies are done in a timely manner. Either way, there will be some form of impact, but it is unknown if it would be positive or negative. Acting Chair Noborikawa asked Ms. Holden what the current relations are between Pacific Resource Partnership and the Hawai’i Regional Council of Carpenters. Ms. Holden stated that PRP is a market recovery fund and represents the interest of union carpenters as well as contractors. Acting Chair Noborikawa called Katherine Garson and Mr. Fitzgerald to the testifying table to answer questions. Acting Chair Noborikawa asked Ms. Garson if her client opposes the petition and if so, why. Ms. Garson responded affirmatively. PRP does not have standing because they cannot identify the impact. The injury needs to be sufficiently described, and there is nothing which differentiates PRP from the general public. Without identifying what the impact is she can’t allege what injury PRP would have because of this action, and that’s fatal to the standing question. Acting Chair Noborikawa called Director Darrow and Jean Campbell, Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Department to the testifying table to answer questions from the Commission. Acting Chair Noborikawa asked Director Darrow if the Planning Department opposes the petition and if so, why. Director Darrow responded, stating he does recall one having to do with unions opposing a project or representatives of unions. However, in this case he looks at the broad criteria, and the Planning Department is having a hard time finding that nexus. At this point, the Planning Department does not support this particular petition for standing. Page 10 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes Action on Petition of Pacific Resource Partnership: Commissioner Inaba moved that the Pacific Resource Partnership petition to intervene be denied for failing to meet the criteria for standing, seconded by Commissioner Ayers. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 2:49:56] Acting Chair Noborikawa opened the floor for the Commission to have a discussion. Commissioner Inaba agreed with the Planning Director’s comments that PRP’s testimony was lacking strength and nexus. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 2:50:41] Commissioner Makaiau agreed with the Planning Director as well due to PRP’s lack of standing, as there is nothing to define how this group is differentiated from the general public. A roll call vote was taken for a motion to deny standing for failing to meet the criteria under Planning Commission Rule 4-6 as to Pacific Resource Partnership with four ayes (Inaba, Ayers, Makaiau, Noborikawa), no noes, one recused (Au) and one absence and excused (Rodriguez). The motion was carried unanimously [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 2:52:46] Acting Chair Noborikawa informed the petitioner they can appeal the Commissioner’s decision since standing has been denied pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, Chapter 91-14. Since the Commission granted standing to the Villages of Mauna Lani AOAO, the Planning Commission Rule 4-6 requires all parties for this contested case to proceed to participate in good faith in mediation first before any contested case is heard. A mediator shall be selected jointly by the parties or appointed by the Commission if the parties fail to agree. The parties will be contacted by email from the Planning Department within one week to select a mediator and start the mediation process. The Planning Commission will determine who will conduct the contested hearing with the following options. (1) the Commission as a whole hears the contested hearing, for (2) the Commission designates one or more members to act as a hearing officer to conduct the hearing, or (3) Commission hires a hearing officer to conduct the hearing. Even if the hearing is conducted by a hearings officer and not by the Commission as a whole, the final decision on the application will be made by the Commission at the public hearing based on the case record and the hearing officer’s recommendations. At 12:33 p.m. Commissioner Inaba moved to enter executive session, seconded by Commissioner Ayers. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 2:56:16] Corporation Counsel William Jarrett asked to clarify for the general public why the Planning Commission is going into executive session and what needs to be discussed for the record. Commissioner Inaba responded, stating I move the Leeward Planning Page 11 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes Commission as a whole move to enter executive session to discuss the actions that are in front of us to include whether the Planning Commission will hear the contested case or refer the matter to hearing officer. A roll call vote was taken for a motion to enter executive session with four ayes (Inaba, Ayers, Makaiau, Noborikawa), no noes, one recused (Au), and one absence and excused (Rodriguez). The motion was carried unanimously. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 2:57:37] The Commission entered executive session at 12:35 p.m. At 12:47 p.m., Acting Chair Noborikawa reconvened the hearing and noted that the Commission consulted with Corporation Counsel regarding issues pertaining to the Commissioner’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities and liabilities pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes §92-5 specifically regarding legal issues concerning the options available for resolution of the contested case hearing. Action Selection of Hearings Officer: Commissioner Inaba made a motion to refer the contested case to a hearing officer, seconded by Commissioner Makaiau. A roll call vote was taken with four ayes (Inaba, Makaiau, Ayers, Noborikawa), no noes, one recused (Au), and one absent and excused (Rodriguez). The motion carried unanimously. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 03:11:02] At 12:51 p.m. Acting Chair Noborikawa called for a recess for lunch [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 3:13:45] and the hearing reconvened at 1:28 p.m. with Chair Au presiding. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 3:50:58] At 1:28 p.m. Chair Au called the meeting back to order and noted Commissioner Ayers was excused and left the meeting and quorum is still established. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 3:50:58] 3. Discussion of proposed amendment to Planning Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 1 regarding General Rules of the Commission. The Commission will discuss adding commissioner attendance standards to Rule 1. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 03:30:46] At 1:29 p.m. the Commission addressed Item No. 3 with no members of the public present in the Council Chambers. There were no in-person or Zoom testifiers for this agenda item. Planning Department Program Manager Maija Jackson provided a brief presentation on history at the joint meeting held in December 2025 to discuss adding the commissioner’s attendance standards to Rule 1. Page 12 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes Chair Au opened the floor to the Commission for questions to the Planning Department. Commissioner Inaba asked Ms. Jackson if both Leeward and Windward Planning Commission have to both agree to the adoption of Rule 1 standards. Ms. Jackson responded and stated if Leeward wants to suggest an amendment, then that can be presented at the joint meeting. At the last meeting Windward decided not to adopt Rule 1 standards, however if they were to adopt Rule 1, they preferred the Maui County example. Chair Au agrees with the Windward Planning Commission’s preference of the Maui County example that could benefit both Commissions. Consideration of the Maui County example would provide verbiage to hold the Commission accountable if there are potential quorum issues. He noted that the Commission is a volunteer position and when things occur one may have to step aside from the volunteer position but are committed to the Commission. Chair Au adds that staff from Hilo come to Leeward meetings, and applicants and testifiers travel from in and out of state to attend hearings. When quorum is not met it wastes everyone’s time. Vice Chair Noborikawa feels that as volunteers of the Leeward Planning Commission guidelines are needed to state the importance and commitment the position requires. If the Maui County example is adopted and an individual is unable to make over 50% of the meetings over the 120-day period they can decide that the volunteer position is not a good fit. She supports adopting the Maui County example. Commissioner Inaba noted that the Leeward Planning Commission is a great team of committed members who share strong rapport, communicate well, and consistently make every effort to attend all meetings. In addition, the planning staff that consistently hold the commission accountable with coordinating meetings, confirming attendance, and sharing constant updates if changes occur. She emphasized how crucial this is among the commission, the planning staff, and most importantly the community we serve to ensure a successful meeting. Chair Au recognized the County of Hawai’i and staff and all that they do to support the Leeward Planning Commission. Their preparation, coordination, communication, and attention to detail are essential to ensure that meetings run smoothly and successfully. He acknowledged their hard work, professionalism, and continued dedication. In addition, he credits the current administration by nominating individuals that are a good fit for the commission position. Commissioner Makaiau shared, as the newest member to the Commission, that she agrees with adopting the Maui County example, because she would not have agreed to accept the position if she wasn’t willing to attend more than 50% of the time. The dedication to attend meetings is very minimal. Page 13 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes Chair Au asked Ms. Jackson how to proceed to adopt the Maui standard. Ms. Jackson stated that she can add the Maui standard in the final draft rule for the Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions to review before meeting jointly. Then, the Joint Commission can discuss how to proceed with the adoption of the Maui standard. Ms. Jackson asks Corporation Counsel, William Jarrett, if a motion needs to occur to add the adoption to the proposed rule. Mr. Jarrett responded affirmatively and deferred it for further discussion to the next joint planning commission meeting on rule making. Chair Au opened the floor to discuss the language of the Maui County Planning Commission Rule §12-201-28. He asked if the Commission, can adopt the same language merely changing the word Maui to Hawai’i. Vice Chair Noborikawa agreed and proposed the revision of the County name to Hawai’i. Chair Au informed Ms. Jackson that the proposed change was to the second sentence of the Maui County standard to say, “in accordance with Hawai’i County’s subsection. Action: Vice Chair Noborikawa moved to defer the decision on Rule 1 regarding General Rules of the Commission to the joint meeting with the Windward Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Makaiau. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 4:03:18] A roll call vote was taken to defer the item to the next joint meeting and to add the amended Maui Rule to the proposed Planning Commission Rules with four ayes (Noborikawa, Makaiau, Inaba, Au), no noes, and two absence and excused (Ayers, Rodriguez). The motion carried unanimously. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 4:04:33] The hearing on this item concluded at 1:42 p.m. 4. Discussion of Planning Commissioners’ suggestions for future amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 4:05:04] At 1:42 p.m. the Commission addressed Item No. 4 with no members of the public present in the Council Chambers. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 4:05:29] Ms. Jackson with the Planning Department provided a presentation. Chair Au asked Ms. Jackson if item number three (commissioner attendance list) that was previously discussed can be added to the “to do” list that both commissions work from. Ms. Jackson responded affirmatively. That way when the joint meeting occurs the commission will be ready to adopt the rules and the Planning Department will provide a complete draft of all the changes to all of the rules a month before the joint meeting. Ms. Page 14 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes Jackson stated she discussed all items with the Windward Planning Commission, and they are in agreement with all of the changes. She also stated the to do list is the Planning Department’s suggestions which requires feedback from the Commission. If there are ideas on how to improve commission rules contact her at the Planning Department or Corporation Counsel William Jarrett. The last revision of the rules was in 2010. The Planning Commission can initiate rule amendments, or a member of the public can by petition, however it does not address the Planning Director or the department initiating rule amendments. Since the Planning Department assists the commission, the Department suggests adding the capacity of the Department to initiate rule amendments. In addition, Ms. Jackson states part of Rule 2 that talks about the public initiating rulemaking by submitting a petition makes it sound like the commission can deny the petition before holding the public hearing. To clarify, the commission can only take action or make decisions in a public hearing. The Department seems to correct this inconsistency. Ms. Jackson also seeks to clarify the procedure for Declaratory Rulings. Regarding Rule 4 on Contested Case Procedure, the Planning Department suggests creating clear language and distinct procedures between a regular Planning Commission meeting and a contested case hearing, to ensure that a contested case procedure is consistent with state law related to administrative hearings. Chair Au asked Ms. Jackson how Rule 12 would apply if there was a geothermal developer applying to do geothermal in Kona. Ms. Jackson explained that they would apply to the State. Authority to approve and condition geothermal development lies with the state. The State would have to give the County the ability to assess royalties on new developers. The two rules were created based on the Puna Geothermal Venture permits which specifically condition that an asset fund be created and that the geothermal relocation fund be created. Now that we don’t have jurisdiction on geothermal permits that is why the two rules were added and the fund was created. Chair Au opened the floor to the Commission for questions. Commissioner Inaba asked Ms. Jackson if the General Plan under All Rules will be converted to plain language for easy understanding since a lot of it needs revision to simplify the language. Ms. Jackson responded, stating the General Plan is at the County Council being reviewed, and the County would need to initiate that. If they do send amendments to the draft it returns to the Planning Commission, then it could be a recommendation from the Commission. Action: Vice Chair Noborikawa moved to defer further discussion of the draft on the future amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure to a future Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Makaiau. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 4:53:42] Page 15 of 15 Leeward Planning Commission April 23, 2026 Minutes A roll call vote was taken, with four ayes (Noborikawa, Makaiau, Inaba, Au), no noes, and two absent and excused (Ayers, Rodriguez). The motion carried. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 4:53:54] The hearing on this item concluded at 2:31 p.m. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 4:54:14] Report on Special Management Area (SMA) determinations and minor permits issued by the Planning Director for December 2025, January, February, and March of 2026. There were no questions from the Commission. AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 4:55:06] Chair Au asked Ms. Jackson how many items are on the agenda for the next meeting. Ms. Jackson responded, stating there are three items scheduled on the agenda. Chair Au noted that he and Commissioner Inaba would not be present at that meeting, but quorum would be met. ANNOUNCEMENTS There was no announcement. ADJOURNMENT [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 4:57:43] Commissioner Inaba moved to adjourn the meeting. Vice Chair Noborikawa seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion carried with four ayes (Inaba, Noborikawa, Makaiau Au), no noes, and two absent and excused (Ayers, Rodriguez). Chair Au adjourned the meeting at 2:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kareen Medeiros Secretary ATTEST: Dean Au, Chairperson Leeward Planning Commission Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador for (Jul 17, 2026 14:24:59 HST) Meli sa Dcay n-S vdvo d-rf(rf( Ju1 7