“Stale entitlements.” That’s the term that the Hawaiʻi County Planning Department uses to describe approvals given decades ago for a Holualoa development. The time for performance ran out and, with no requests made for time extensions, one might think that the entitlements are not just stale, but dead and buried.
Yet for the last eight years, landowner Kona Three, LLC, has been pushing the county to refresh a rezoning ordinance for the 70-acre area, first rezoned in 1984 and most recently reauthorized in 2003. Now Kona Three is asking for ten more years to finish the Kona Vistas project, at an estimated cost of $170 million in 2022 dollars.
Not only has the time frame changed, but also the project itself. What had initially been proposed as a 285-unit development has now morphed into 450 multi-family units, some to be rented, others to be sold.
In 1983, this area was part of a 170-acre development that included around 215 single-family lots to the south of the current project. The development in Holualoa, around three miles south of Kona village and mauka of Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway, was about half done when Kona Three acquired the land in 2015.
By that time, most of the single-family lots had been developed and sold. What remained undone was any improvement on the area proposed for multi-family units.
Last year, after years of working with Kona Three, the Planning Department asked the Leeward Planning Commission to forward a recommendation to the County Council that it amend the 2003 ordinance by extending the deadline for completion – which had expired in 2012 – and removing some requirements for roadway improvements.
The Leeward Planning Commission held a hearing on the proposal on December 15.
It did not go well. About two dozen people testified in opposition. Twice the then-chair, Michael Vitousek, called recesses “for the purpose of maintaining decorum.”
After a raucous four hours, the commission deferred voting on the proposal and instead asked the county’s Cultural Resources Commission for its recommendation.
Over the past year, the CRC held three meetings where the project was on the agenda. At the first, it authorized a permitted interaction group to visit the site. At the second, it heard the P.I.G.’s report. At the third, in June, it adopted a motion to ask the developer to include more open space in its plans and to “more sensitively integrate the natural, historical, and cultural features of the landscape, including trails and archaeological sites.” In addition, the CRC asked Kona Three for further documentation “of lineal descendants and kamaʻaina knowledge of the cultural resources of the project,” including trails.
The Leeward Planning Commission was to consider Kona Three’s proposals at its October meeting, but the company requested a deferral because the Cultural Resources Commission had not yet made any recommendation.
The commission has been tentatively scheduled to meet next on December 21.
A Long History
The project now known as Kona Vistas started out more than 40 years ago, when a Japanese-owned company, Gamlon Corp., petitioned the state Land Use Commission to place around 175 acres of land then in the state Agricultural District into the Urban District. The LUC approved a two-phase redistricting process, with the second phase, of around 50 acres, to be redistricted only after a showing that infrastructure improvements had been made for the first increment. That first increment was to include about half of the single-family lots and all of the area where multi-family units were proposed.
In 1992, Gamlon – which by then had changed its name to Gamrex – asked the LUC to approve redistricting of that second increment. No infrastructure had been extended to the multi-family portion of the first increment. However, Gamrex said it was prevented from doing so until the second increment was developed. The LUC approved, noting in its order, “The water system master plan for the area requires [Gamrex] to develop the water system and other improvements within Increment II prior to the development of infrastructure improvements in the multi-family residential areas within Increment I.”
In 2006, Gamrex conveyed roughly half of its interest in the entire property to Kona Vistas, LLC, a Delaware entity whose three members were Chase Berkeley, based in Austin, Texas, a company called BIMAC, and Gamrex itself. To the LUC, this was not described as a change in ownership – which, under the redistricting order, would have required prior approval of the LUC – but rather as a name change. Court records indicate that Gamrex’s share was 49 percent.
In a 2014 report to the LUC, covering the previous eight years, planning consultant Sidney Fuke referred to challenges brought about by changes in ownership. Although he said the report was to “cover all activities” to date, he omitted any mention of a lawsuit that Gamrex brought against its partners involving the unauthorized transfer of about 50 single-family lots to a Texas business. The outcome was a mediated settlement, with Kona Vistas regaining title to the properties.
By the time the LUC received the next nominally annual report in 2016, the property had changed hands once more – again, with no advance notice to the commission. Kona Three now held title.
Signing off on the report was Richard Wheelock, a real estate agent and one of three members of Kona Three. The others are OIP, LLC, and RJL, LLC. OIP is managed by Orchid Isle Properties Profit Sharing Plan, whose sole member is Robert Williams, a Hilo real estate agent. The three members of RJL are Hilo businessman Roland Higashi, his wife, Janice, and his daughter, Laurie, a real estate agent.
Since then, the company has been working with the Planning Department to develop a new, denser design for the area. Following the publication of a 2021 environmental assessment, the Planning Department appears to have been satisfied with Kona Three’s proposal.
But, 40 years and counting from the original approvals for the project, whether other authorities go along with the plan remains an open question. The surrounding community has already weighed in, voicing its strong disapproval in comments on the environmental assessment and at numerous public meetings.
— Patricia Tummons
Leave a Reply