AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA
STATE PARKBACKGROUND INFORMATION AND
RECENT PLANNING INITIATIVES

Department of Land and Natural Resources
Division of State Parks
February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface .............................................................................................................. iii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................ v
1
Some Background Material ....................................................................... 1

2

1.1

Ahupuaʻa ʻo Kahana State Park ‐ Profile ................................................................. 1

1.2

Kahana Stories ........................................................................................................ 6

1.3

Overview of Kahana State Parks ........................................................................... 16

1.4

List of Kahana Documents .................................................................................... 18

1.5State Board of Land and Natural Resources Conservation District Use Permit
Action .................................................................................................................... 21

1.6

Act 5 ...................................................................................................................... 33

1.7

Act 15 .................................................................................................................... 35

1.8

DLNR Action on Six New Leases for Kahana ......................................................... 46

1.9State Parks Data on Kahana Visitors and Activities .............................................. 61

1.10

State Parks Data on Kahana Cultural Programs .................................................... 62

Recent Planning Initiatives for Kahana .................................................... 63
2.1

Master Plan Scoping: Townscape, Inc. Report ..................................................... 63

2.2

Phase 1A Planning and Analysis Methods ............................................................ 78

2.3

Overview of Current Critical Issues ....................................................................... 79

2.4

Alternative Strategies for the Three Critical Issues .............................................. 80

2.5State Parks Survey of Kahana Lessees .................................................................. 83

2.6

State Parks Survey of the Six Families Awaiting Leases ........................................ 88

2.7

Lessee Interviews by Townscape .......................................................................... 90

2.8

Analysis: The “Living Park” Concept ..................................................................... 97

2.9

Analysis: The 65‐Year Leases .............................................................................. 102

2.10

HRS 516 ............................................................................................................... 111

2.11

Analysis: Applicability of HRS 516 ....................................................................... 120

2.12

Analysis: Future Management of Kahana – Options .......................................... 129

2.13

Summary of Actions Needed in the Near Term .................................................. 131

Table of ContentsiDraft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

FiguresFigure 1 Kahana Ahupuaʻa Map ................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Ahupuaʻa ʻo Kahana State Park Leased Areas ................................................................................ 3
Figure 3 Residential Area A .......................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4 Residential Area B .......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 5 Letter and Survey Form Sent to Kahana Lessees ......................................................................... 84
Figure 6 Survey Form Sent to the Six Kahana Families Awaiting Leases ................................................... 88

TablesTable 1 Alternative Strategies for the Future of Kahana Families and Kahana Natural, Cultural, andRecreational Resources ............................................................................................................................... 81

Appendices
A Lease Documents: Kahana, Miloliʻi, Maunalaha, Waiāhole

ii

Table of Contents

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

PREFACE[By Curt Cottrell]

Executive Summaryiii

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

iv

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Table of Contents

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report on AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK is a collec on of maps, data lists, Kahana stories,
recent (2015 to 2017) survey data and issues analyses. This collection of information is intended toprovide DLNR decision makers and State Legislators with an overview of the Kahana community and anunderstanding of actions that need to be taken in the near future for the betterment of the Kahana
community and State Parks’ management of this very special ahupuaʻa.

Summary of Near‐Term Actions Needed for Kahana
1. Natural and Cultural Resources Management
State Parks should continue to work with Kahana families on important natural and cultural resource
management programs, including the restoration of Huilua Fishpond, community‐based management of
the ocean resources of Kahana Bay, restoration of loʻi and ʻauwai, and restora on of the free flow of
Kahana Stream. In the longer term, State Parks and the Kahana community need to work together
toward a comprehensive program for the ongoing management and stewardship of the natural andcultural resources of this 5,249‐acre ahupuaʻa.
2. Property Management
State Parks plans to create a position for a full‐time property manager for Kahana – as distinct from thecurrent part‐time cultural programs manager position. As Kahana lessees have clearly and repeatedly
stated, it will be essential for the Kahana property manager to have strong and proven “people skills,”
and to have the ability to work with Kahana lessees and families to help them to address and solve
community and family problems, large and small.
3. Leases for the Six Families Awaiting Leases
State Parks plans to continue to work with the six families that are awaiting Kahana leases. State Parks
first needs to obtain funding and Department of Health approval for the construction of wastewater
vaults for the six house sites. State Parks will also need to work with the Board of Land and Natural
Resources (BLNR) to amend the 1979 Conservation District Use Permit. The application for that permit,
dated June 8, 1979, stated that: “No dwelling units will be constructed in hazard (flooding, tsunami)prone areas.” However, the six families that are awaiting Kahana leases plan to live in houses that arewithin the coastal flood plain. Once these actions have been completed, leases for the six Kahana
families can be executed. Note: These six leases should include revisions to Kahana leases that need tobe made to further the economic well‐being of Kahana lessees.

Executive Summaryv

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

4. Amending the Kahana Leases
State Parks plans to work with Kahana lessees to revise and amend the Kahana leases in order toprovide more economic flexibility and potential economic benefits to lessees. Changes to the terms of
the Kahana leases may include an option of nominal monetary lease rents in lieu of the currently
required 25 hours per month of participation in cultural programs for each Kahana family. This leaseamendment process will also further explore the possibility of lease to fee conversion as an option for
Kahana lessees. State Parks will retain expert legal counsel to assist with this lease amendment process.
5. Changes State Land Use Designation “Conservation” to State Land Use “Agricultural”
The existing residential and small‐scale agricultural uses within Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana State Park are notpermitted uses within the State “Conservation” District. Technically, such residential and agriculturaluses require a Conservation District Use Permit before these uses can be implemented. State Parks is
considering the submittal of an application to the State Land Use Commission to change the Kahana
residential and small‐scale agricultural areas from “Conservation” lands to “Agricultural.”vi

Table of Contents

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

1

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

SOME BACKGROUND MATERIAL

1.1 Ahupuaʻa ʻo Kahana State Park ‐ Profile
LOCATION:

District of Koʻolau Loa, Island of Oʻahu. TMKs 52002001:0000; (1) 5‐2‐001: 001(portion); (1) 5‐2‐002: 001 to 008; and (1) 5‐2‐005: 001, 003, 020, and 021.

SIZE:

5,249 acres; 8.2 square miles

STATE LAND USE:CONSERVATIONLAND TENURE:

Land Commission made 34 Kahana kuleana awards in 1851 totaling 96 acres.
5,000+ acres of Kahana were awarded to the high aliʻi Keohokālole.
The KAHANA HUI with 47 members purchased Kahana in 1874.
Mary E. Foster had acquired 97% of Kahana by 1920.
The State of Hawaiʻi acquired the Kahana Ahupuaʻa in 1970 for $5 million.

NATURAL RESOURCES: Kahana today is one of the last undeveloped ahupuaʻa on the island of Oʻahu.
The average annual rainfall of about 75 inches per year at the shoreline to 300
inches per year in the mountains, supports dense forests and perennial streams.
Kahana Bay has been an important local fishing area for hundreds of years.
PRE‐CONTACT:

Archaeologists have estimated that the population of Native Hawaiians in
Kahana before western contact numbered more than 1,000 people.

THE “LIVING PARK”

In 1971 the Hawaiʻi State Legislature enacted a Resolu on that created theconcept of a “Living Park.” The DLNR Division of State Parks adopted the “Living
Park” concept for Kahana State Park in that same year.

CDUP APPROVAL:

In 1979, the BLNR approved a Conservation District Use Permit that provided forthe creation of residential lots in two separate areas of Kahana, and alsoprecluded construction of new homes within the coastal floodplain area.

KAHANA FAMILIES 2018: As of December 2017, there were 28 lessees of Kahana residential lots, 27 ofwhom lived at Kahana. There were also six families living at Kahana who were
awaiting State leases per decision of the BLNR in 2013.
RECENT LEGISLATION: In 1987, the Hawaiʻi State Legislature enacted ACT 5, authorizing 65‐year
residential leases for Kahana families and requiring lessees to participate in the“interpretive program” of the park. In 2009, the Legislature enacted ACT 15
which included a 2‐year moratorium on evictions, authorized DLNR to issue
additional residential leases for Kahana and established the Kahana PlanningCouncil to develop a Master Plan for Kahana.

Chapter 1

1

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Figure 1 Kahana Ahupuaʻa Map

2

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Figure 2 Ahupuaʻa ʻo Kahana State Park Leased Areas

Chapter 1

3

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Figure 3 Residential Area A

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

4

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Figure 4 Residential Area B

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

5

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

1.2 Kahana Stories
1.2.1

The Anthony ʻOhana: Our Story

By Jim Anthony, PhD, his story and that of his wife, Grace Vaiove’a Anthony and that of some of their‘ohana.
February 23, 2018
“First of all stories are the key sources for a person’s understanding. It is now accepted wisdom backed bya great deal of empirical evidence, that narratives are the most important way that humans learn about
their world.
Give folks a boatload of well‐‐documented statistics, put them up against a story, and the story wins
almost every time.”‐‐‐ Neal Milner, Retired Professor of Political Science,
University of Hawai’i, Manoa, Civil Beat, 9/14/2017

Grace came to Hawaii (specifically to Kahana) from Samoa with her then husband, Sam George. The
year: 1986. Grace was in her mid‐30s. She had left three of her youngest six children behind in Samoa. It
would take five years for those three children to be reunited with her: five heart breaking years during
which she tried, as best as she could, to make her way through the tangled web of U.S. immigration
formalities.
The house that Grace came to in Kahana in 1986 was dilapidated, termite ridden. The roof was indisrepair; it leaked. The land around the house was overgrown, a tangled mess of undergrowth. When
Grace left Samoa to come to Kahana she had no idea what she was getting herself into, but she quickly
sized up what she was confronted with and got to work. With not much more than a machete (and a file
to keep it sharp) she began clearing the brush around what passed for a home. At the same time, shebegan job hunting.
In the ensuing five years she went from one minimum wage job to the next. With barely a completed
high school formal education there wasn’t much else that she could qualify for. Sam worked
intermittently. Grace became the newly arrived principal bread winner as she held down one full time,minimum wage job after another and worked steadily at the same time on hacking away at what wasliterally a jungle around her.
Grace worked her way up until she got Nurses’ Aide credentials. Her first job as a Nurse’s Aide was at a
Private Care Home—long hours, poor working conditions and not all that much money. But she hung in
there. The three left behind children finally joined her. There were school arrangements that had to be
made, adjustment problems to face, three more mouths to feed. Grace had never owned a car and still
didn’t have one. She did not have a driver’s license and did not (yet) know how to drive. She took the6

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018bus. It would take a full ten years after she arrived for her to learn to drive, buy a second‐hand car, get adriver’s license. The newly arrived children were put to work on helping with ”yard” cleaning—raking,removing cut brush, digging soil to plant trees of one kind or another—coconut trees, ulu, miscellaneous
fruit trees, flowers. Grace, for her increasing part of carrying the family’s growing financial load took arange of care giving and other jobs to help make ends meet.
In 1993 when 31 families signed 65‐year terminal leases issued by the State for residential lots in
Kahana, Grace had little to go by in the way of getting much of an understanding as to what this meant.
Her husband, Sam, signed off on the lease. They now had, finally, after many years of wrangling with
the State, some security of tenure. The State offered a $50,000, 30‐year loan to build a house, but Sam
and Grace could not qualify. One of the provisions of the lease was that each lessee would have to do
25 hours of ‘cultural living park related work’ a month in lieu of paying a monetary lease rent. Morework. Grace and her three children now had more work to do. The lease mandated 25 hours of work amonth came to be known as “hours”—they had to be done and recorded and a form had to be filled out
every month to meet and record this requirement. Even though “hours” could not be accumulated andheld, say, in an ‘hours bank’, Grace and her children faithfully did not just 25 hours of work a month but
many more, hundreds of hours more. The face of their residential lot and land around it for which they
had a Revocable Permit, began to change: what was untended, overgrown bush in 1986 began to bereshaped‐‐some of the ornamental plants began to bloom, coconut, banana and ulu trees reachedmaturity and began to bear fruit, several lawns began to emerge. The house, however, continued todeteriorate. The roof continued to leak but it was still a roof over their heads. There were always
buckets in the living room to catch leaking water when it rained. Despite the fact that Grace had asteady but modest income from a full‐time job she had to supplement that income with a range of parttime jobs which meant little quality time for the children growing up into adolescence. There was a
growing family to feed, clothes to be bought, a growing, steady stream of “other expenses” to be met—
and miscellaneous, never ending problems with the State to be dealt with. But Grace, now firmly
established as the sole income earning family member plodded on.
By the turn of the century (the year 2000) the 3 children who had finally made it to Kahana to join Grace
had become teenagers. They would all make their way through High School. Two of them would join“the Military”—one, the US Army, the other one joined the US Air Force. The youngest went to College
on a Volleyball scholarship supplemented by loans. Grace learned to drive, got a Driver’s License, boughta used car. Sam died (in December 2002) a broken man, a man whose spirit had been broken after
many battles with the State bureaucracy (Ralston Nagata, Dan Quinn, Al Rogers, to name a few of them.
By the time of Sam’s death in 2002 the foundations had been laid for the 10,000 sq. feet residential lot(for which there was a 65‐year lease in place) and about 2 acres of land around it (for which year to year
revocable permits were in place) the foundation had been laid for a stand‐alone mini cultural living park.

Chapter 1

7

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

In July 2004, Grace, with my help, set out in writing, a Statement of Principles for what she called the
SAM LEIALOHA GEORGE MEMORIAL ORGANIC FARM. I quote from that document’s Statement of
Principles:
In launching Stage II of our integrated, sustainable farm project, building on 25 years of farminfrastructure which we have built as a family, we are committed to Soil restoration without pesticides or chemical fertilizers of any kind believing that good,
healthy, natural soil is the primary foundation for all agriculture; Botanical biodiversity and to permaculture; Reusing all green “waste” on the land as part of our commitment to soil restoration;
 Rain catchment as a water conservation measure; Reuse of all grey water if permitted;
 Bird habitat enhancement and protection;
 Restoring native plans and forests.
It went on:
We believe that land is sacred space and that as humans we should live in harmony with it andnot seek to dominate or subdue it;
We believe that a sense of the importance of place is important as we design and create asustainable life style;
We believe in the sanctity and importance of water and to using it with care keeping in mind theneeds of at least the next seven generations;
We believe in ‘green building’ as a means of creating environmentally safe and healthy living
space;We believe in clear air;
We strongly believe in downsizing our lives and delinking from the supermarket economy;
We believe in eating good, healthy, organic food and in food self sufficiency;
We believe in the importance of ritual (the occasional sharing of ‘awa, for example, because it isthrough ritual that we renew and reaffirm our connection to all life and to each other, to ourancestors, their spirits and the ancient spirits of the land, water and the sea around us;
We believe that living in a diverse cultural living park, as Kahana was meant to be, means thateach resident does what is dictated by his or her vision of what is culturally appropriate andrelevant to living in harmony with nature.

8

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

To all of these ends we have created our own ahu (altars) as special gathering places for family, friends
and neighbors and others to honor the land and water which give us life and where we can gather
together in efforts to create and sustain a common sense of community.1
I submitted the document to then Director of the Division of State Parks, asked for a meeting to discuss
the document and hear us out on what we planned to do next. We never heard back. We finally gave up
in disgust but continued to lay more foundations, develop, plan and execute other initiatives that we
had in mind. Our motivation was simple: we had a contract with the State (the 65‐year lease) to be apart of a cultural living park. We were committed to fully honoring our contract. The work that Grace
had done since 1986, and the work that her children had done with her since they joined her in Hawaii
about five years later, was too important a foundation to be squandered even in the face of enormous
bureaucratic insensitivity and indifference.
Before I turn to the other steps that we took after 2004 to make Lot 5 and the land immediately aroundus into a stand‐alone mini cultural living part, there are some other initiatives that I took that ought tobe briefly recorded here. These are stories within this larger story.
In late April 1993 the late Keith Ahue, the Chair of the Land Board wrote to me as Executive Director of
the Hawai’i—La‘ieikawai Association, the non‐profit for which then worked. Mr. Ahue applied for a grantof $80,000 to fund a project in Kahana. We had several discussions about the grant application but
before we could bring the matter to closure, Mr. Ahue passed away. His successor showed no interest in
Mr. Ahue’s initiative and it died with him.
In January 1995 the Hawai’i—La’ieikawai Association commissioned a study called The Pu’uhonua
Project: A proposal for the restoration of the Ahupua’a of Kahana, 50 pp. I tried to get the attention of
the Division of State Parks and the Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources in an effort to getthem to discuss the report with me. We were open to making a substantial investment in the culturalliving park in Kahana on a matching funds basis. The State bureaucrats showed no interest.
In September 2005 I conducted a survey of Kahana Lessees at the behest of the Kahana Community
Association. It was in that survey that almost 92% of the 24 lessees polled who said that they would beinterested in lease to fee conversion if someone would tell them how much it would cost. Nothing wasdone with my work product. No steps were ever taken to find out how much lessees would have to pay
for them to purchase the fee interest in their long‐term leases.
In January 2009, I did the outline of a comprehensive study of Kahana with a string of policy
recommendations for Kahana. This too went nowhere.
As I sit here at our dinner table in Kahana writing this story there’s a pile of documents to my left at least
six inches high comprising reports, hard copies of eMail messages, letters –all of them have fallen on
bureaucratic deaf ears.
1

These are merely quotes from the document. I have not reproduced all of the text here.

Chapter 1

9Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

State bureaucrats have played ‘ring around the rosies’ with Kahana for a long time: their story has been
the story of one big vicious cycle after another. The Lessees blame the State, the State blames thelessees—political ping pong. This has been going on since at least 1968 when Kahana was acquired by
the State and became ‘public land’. 1968 is now 50 years ago.
In any event, I return to 2004 where I left off on this narrative.
We decided that the old, dilapidated house had to go. We found the money we needed to build a newhouse, got the necessary approval from DLNR and took the $50,000 loan offered by HHFDC andcompleted the house building in 8 months. The year: 2007.
As part of our continuing plans to set ourselves up as a mini cultural living park we built a Samoan fale
and a platform from which children might view stars at night. We strengthened the structural
foundation of the imu house. We have now built several ahu (altars) of unhewn stone, two incense
shrines and a very small and compact meditation house (8’ x 4’).
On the food production front, we started growing kalo in about 2010. We have 23 lo’i and a larger single
area where we grow kalo. Last year’s harvest was between 1,500 and 2,000 pounds. This year and thenext will be more if we keep up our work pace. We now have ten producing ulu trees. We grow sometapioca and a few Samoan yams. We have at least six fully producing avocado trees. We grow herbs andchillie peppers and Pacific island spinach (bele). We grow flowers: ginger, ohai ali’i, bird of paradise, avariety of ferns. We have lemon and tangerine trees. We have been experimenting with high end
bamboo – black bamboo (bambusa lako) in particular. We are growing high end edible ginger. We
produce a substantial portion of the bananas we eat. We have lemon and tangerine trees which havebeen in production for the last ten years. We have at least 20 coconut trees in production and at least adozen more close to bearing fruit.
We plan to open our mini cultural living park to the public after certain other steps are taken. We plan
to incorporate (LLC) and begin seeking grants—again, if certain formalities are successfully completed.
Much hangs in the balance of cooperation between the State and us and what changes are made to thelease. The end result of the lease to fee conversion issue is very important to us.
Grace and I have multiple anxieties over the matter of the current terminal lease. We look at the
number of dwindling years remaining on the lease with great apprehension – this has enormously
important consequences for us, our children of this generation and the next generation and the one
after that and the one after that—anxiety and stress in several layers. Our family, like all families in
Kahana, has grown: The three children who were separated from Grace for 5 years noiw have 7 childrenof their own. The three children who came from Samoa to join their mother after five years of
separation have all applied for leases. They have all been waiting to hear for close to ten years. Grace’s
oldest son has been living with us for the last dozen years. He is now an American citizen and is themainstay of the work force which keeps the land we have use of productive and well kept.

10

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

We have done more than our fair share of making the cultural living park concept work. We have beencommitted to it in the past, are committed to it now and more than likely we will continue to becommitted to it in the future. We agree with the proposition that the cultural living park program isbroken but there are at least a couple of bright spots and we think we can safely say that ours is one ofthe ‘bright spots.’ Our relative success has not come easily: it has been the result of hard work and theexpenditure of a considerable amount of the little money that we have had.
The central demoralizing fact of our lives in Kahana is the terms of the lease. It is an instrument that
tethers us to intergenerational poverty. We seek relief from that. As the number of years on the leasedeclines our equity also declines. To put it more graphically: the terms of the present lease are acancerous growth that is devouring our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren. Whatapplies to us, also applies to every other lessee in Kahana. We—and every other lessee in Kahana—lost
8 solid years of equity value because of the failure of the Kahana Planning Council to do what it was
mandated to do under Act 15. And the State is complicit in this failure as it continues with its single‐
minded failure to act. Ralston Nagata failed to act. So did Dan Quinn. Peter Young failed to act. Laura
Thielen acted to evict some lessees, got severely burned, and returned to her office to brood there andto ignore Kahana. William Aila failed Kahana—another case of failure to act. Suzanne Case is now in the
fourth year of tenure as Director of DLNR, she has not even visited Kahana once since her appointment.
Some 70% of our fellow lessees are now in default of their leases to the tune of 50,000 hours of workthat they should have done but have not. This massive story of failure is a part of our story. We arecaught in the middle of this. When the State finally acted about two years or so ago to seek advice from
Townscape, its draft report said that the concept of the cultural living park had failed. We pointed outthat it was not the concept which had failed but the failure of the parties (the State and lessees) to dowhat each should have done and didn’t. All of this is the bigger story in which our smaller story isembedded.
If our story is anything it is the story of collective hard work. We have long looked to the State to do the“right thing’ but little has come of our patience.
The telling of our story as set out here is a companion piece to the paper I was invited to write on HRS
516. That was sent to Townscape yesterday. All of this material is only useful to the extent that someone
in the vast machinery of the State will read it allow us and others to enter into a conversation designed
to fix what is broken.
The State acquired Kahana fifty years ago, in 1968. It took the State 25 years (1968 – 1993) to finallyissue leases. And from 1993 till now is another 25 years. Every story has at least one message. The
message of our story is that it is about time for the State (this means the Division of State Parks, theChair of the Board of DLNR and the Board itself) to act after a full and free conversation withstakeholders—“stakeholders” means us, lessees, all who want to be a part of framing a solution rather
than remaining as victims and as part of the on‐going problem.

Chapter 1

11

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Grace’s experience in and with Kahana, particularly over the past 25 years and more (since she came toKahana in 1986) is driven by uncertainty. And uncertainty in the lives of people is something that weknow about from literature, biography, psychology and broadly from the social sciences and thehumanities. Uncertainty demeans, diminishes and corrodes the human spirit especially that of the poor,
those who struggle against the tide of poverty. Sam George was a case in point.
Grace is now in her mid‐sixties. The weight of uncertainty weighs more heavily on her now than when
she was younger. The same is true for other lessees in Kahana. For many the weight and thecorrosiveness of uncertainty demean and diminish their lives and they internalize all of this stress. And
this internalization poisons their insides, their innards. In the face of State (i.e. government’s)
indifference the helplessness of victims deepens. This is a part of Grace’s story, to a lesser extent, mine
too. We’re in this together. We’re all in the same canoe with our ‘ohana, headed for a reef—well,maybe. William Aila once told me that the only thing that would solve Kahana’s problems was death.
This from a guy who is not known for the quality of his intellect. He seems to belong to the same schoolas Mike Chun who has recently been reported to have said (when interviewed about the sexual
predation which had gone on at Kamehameha School for a long time: “Sometimes, to do nothing, is to
do something.” Yes Mike, yes William, doing nothing does sometimes get you into $80 million of very
hot water.
This is a summary of our story and we are sticking to it. We hope that someone reads it and asks us
some questions about it so that we might have a conversation about it. We hope. That is no small partof what Grace (and many others in Kahana) have been doing over the last 25+years.: Hope. For Grace it
has been hope and an enormous amount of work—“blood, sweat, toil and tears.”

1.2.2

ʻUlulani Bierne

Trekking to Kamehameha Schools
https://ululanimanaokahana.wordpress.com/author/ululanimanaokahana/
My sister Dannette and I attended Kamehameha Schools, McNeil Campus off Dillingham Boulevard to
start our education. We rode with our Dad from Kahana Valley to Honolulu, on his big Military Weapons
Carrier through the Nuʻuanu Pali Highway and back to Kahana Valley every day the same route. Manytimes it was cold and windy, but we had lots of blankets to keep us warm, lots of military blankets,bought at the Surplus Store on base at Pearl Harbor where Dad worked at Shop 08. It was in the year of
1943/1944 because she was 5 and I was 4 years old. Sometimes Dad was late to pick us kids up so wewere late getting to Kahana Bay….
We lived across the beach area, right in the middle of the Bay. My sister Dannette was in the first Gradewhen I started in Kindergarten at 4 years old since school started in September and my birthday was inNovember, so I was still a baby, a real cry baby at that. As soon as she went to her class, I screamed soloud and not gracious at all till she had to leave her class to “malama” me. I was my sister’s shadow,
followed her all over, and got to know all her friends.

12

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Eventually, our Mama got really tired of us coming home so late getting up so early so she pulled us out
of Kamehameha School and enrolled us in Kaʻaʻawa Elementary School, close to home. Sista, Dannette
was in 4th Grade by then, and I was a Third Grader, so we had been trekking to Kamehameha School fora good four years or so…. Kaʻaʻawa was great, it was close to Kahana Bay, close to the kahakai/beaches
and close to our Mama too. And, yes our friends too because we had to walk to school from Kahana andwe had to walk home from school from Kaʻaʻawa. There were no school buses, there was no such thingas 7 Eleven Store, only Anzai Store across Swanzy Park and Bonnie’s Store across Kaʻaʻawa Park. We hada treat once in a “blue moon” but mostly we learned real early how to husk a coconut for the coconut
water to quench our thirst and how to pound kamani for its crunchy nuts. We learned early to be
survivors.
Dad and Mom were very active in the P.T.A. and also the 4‐H club with Edith Anzai as the leader. Sister
Dannette and I had to join because we were farmers and we were taught how to raise and care foranimals. We also entered the Hawaiʻi Farm Fair when we had a nice pig or cow to enter and took homemany Blue Ribbons. We also learned how to scramble the best eggs, Japanese style, really “da best,” solight and fluffy, because Edith used the fork to beat the eggs in the frying pan as it cooked on medium
heat, I’m sharing that because eggs never come out right if you use high fire and rush…I think she talked
to her eggs because they were perfect and delicious!!!!
Our Dad really got involved with the community and the parents, joined the Lions Club and even the
Hawaiian Civic Club, never knew that till I found his Certificates. Eventually, Kaʻaʻawa Elementary
Schools had Bazaars and planned activities to include Canoe Races, (that is Tin Canoe Races) that my
Dad made out of tin roof/piula and hau ama’s and iako’s. Then there were the bicycle races by the miles,
and age groups and tug‐a‐wars, and swimming competitions, it was really fun living in the country, we
all loved it!!!
On April 1st, 1946, the big TIDAL WAVE hit the Ko’olauloa coastline, and Kahana Valley was devasted
with the loss of Mamo Ha’aheo Kanakanui’s three babies. Houses were lifted off its foundations andcarried across the streets in Punalu’u and other areas along the coastline.
My sister Puanani attended school late, she remembers joining us in 2nd grade because she said Mama
was lonely by herself. Then of course our Brother Francis Daniel Beirne joined us in 1947 and won all thecanoe races, back then we had Tommy and Larry Price all paddling. They had a beautiful home up in the
Ka’a’awa Hills, the mauka lands.
Dad hunted for pigs up mauka a lot so we had eight hunting dogs, chickens, ducks, geese and we raised
pigs. I remember our dog “Palooka” was always chasing Tsuneo’s Gorai’s chicken so one day, he was sopissed, he shot our dog. Well, my Tutu Lady of Kahana, treated our ‘ilio with hawaiian herbs, gathering
the “hauohi” plant and pounded it to a pulp, mixed with hawaiian salt/pa’akai and our mimi and used
la’au lapa’au to treat Palooka. Our dog survived the bullet that went right through his head. He was asurvivor, like us he was family/’ohana, love that dog. God is GOOD!!! Mahalo Ke Akua.

Chapter 1

13

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING(Trophies for Tin canoe race; left to right Front Row, Tommy Price, Ululani, Puanani and Brada Beirne
and Jonah Kekipi; 2nd Row two haole boys, I forgot their names; Third Row Third person Sista Beirne,
5th person, LARRY PRICE, FAMOUS TV SPORTS REPORTER and Raymond from Kualoa, forgot last name)14

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

1.2.3

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

My Vision for Kahana by Aunty May Au

15

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

1.3 Overview of Kahana State Parks
1969

State acquisition




1970

Governor’s Task Force created




1971
1977

Residents placed on month‐to‐month permits
State informs residents of plans to relocate them outside the park
A number of residents choose to move rather than face eviction
Others stayed and organized under Hui O Kanani O Kahana. They staged a demonstration and asked
the Legislature for the right to stay and reside in Kahana
Task Force develops concept of “cultural living park”
Park plan developed (Mogi’s Plan)

BLNR adopts “living park” concept
Hawaiʻi State Legislature adopts Senate Resolution 264, defining a “living park”“The purpose of a ‘living park’ in Hawaii is to nurture and foster native Hawaiian culture and spreadknowledge of its values and ways, and that in such a living park, the individuals living there shallparticipate in the purposes of the park by helping in the education of the public and by incorporating into
the structure of their daily lives such values and ways.”

1978

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared based on 1974 revised plan by Mogi

1979

AG opinion that State money could not be used for resident’s housingThe ʻOhana Unity Council is formed by residen al and community representa ves and it drafts a setof proposed revisions to the 1978 EIS, popularly referred to as the "People's Plan." Park supporters
also petition for the Advisory Council, as called for in the EIS, to be formed. The informal plan is oneof two documents (the other is the 1985 plan) named by Section 6 of Act 15 (2009) to serve asinterim guiding plans until adoption of a Kahana master plan.

1979‐1981:$1.2m spent by the State through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget for
initial development of park facilities and infrastructure.





1984

Kahana Advisory Council (KAC) formed





1987

16

Construction of Orientation Center
Construction of comfort stations (3) and shelters
Parking lot at Coconut Grove
Entry road improvements
Advisory Council formed for Kahana, consisting of 120 representatives, with 8 committee chairs, 17board members, and 6 officers, from all Kahana families, all non‐governmental organizations withconnections to Kahana, and all government agencies at the County and State levels involving Kahana.
KAC produces a census (1985) of residents that affirms 24 families with tenure back to the State’s
acquisition of Kahana (and leading to the departure of 2 families without that tenure).
KAC also develops the Kahana State Park Development Plan (1985), the second of two documents(the other is the 1979 plan) named by Section 6 of Act 15 (2009) to serve as interim guiding plans
until adoption of a Kahana master plan.
Senate receives two status reports, as called for in the prior year's Senate Resolution, one by the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the other written privately by supporters of the park. Both call forestablishment of the Advisory Council. The Senate and House concurrently reaffirm theircommitment to the park, based on the ahupuaʻa concept.

Act 5 authorizes long‐term (65 years) residential leases at Kahana, sets out criteria for persons
given leases, exempts Kahana from subdivision and zoning requirements, and requires lessees toparticipate in the park interpretive program.

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 20181989

State hires “Park Manager.”

1992

Survey of residents by Beverly Rodrigues for interpretive program noted gap between interest
and performance.

1993

31 leases signed by State and Lessees.


35 lots, each around 10,000 square feet, subdivided.
Two residential areas created – Kahana Valley Road and Trout Farm Road.
Most lessees relocated from old house sites to new lot but a few on Trout Farm Road allowed toremain on existing house lot.

1995

Mortgages available and house construction begins.

1996

Interpretive hours commitment begins.

1999

Kahana Advisory Committee completed their recommendations for the Interpretive Program.

2001

AG’s opinion that DLNR had authority to issue new lease to replace defaulted lease.

2003‐5 Three leases forfeited and one leased auctioned due to foreclosure.
2003

State Parks accepts applications for new leases subject to applicant being qualified according toAct 5 and having the financing to construct a new house on a subdivided lot.

2005

BLNR adopts preference categories for new leases based on Act 5 qualifications (28 applicants ofwhich 12 were determined to qualify).

2008

AG advises DLNR that they do not have authority to issue new leases at Kahana




2009

June – DLNR notifies six families without permits or leases that they need to vacate and offers
transition assistance
October – Scheduled eviction stopped by DLNR due to public protests and to give families more time
to move
November – Stay on evictions and matter of new leases to be considered by 2009 legislature.

Act 15 enacted by State Legislature on July 15.


Two‐year moratorium on evictions
Authorized DLNR to issue long‐term residential leases
Establishes Kahana Planning Council to develop a master plan (meetings begin in October)

2010

Kahana Planning Council provides status report to Legislature.

2015

State Parks contracts with local planning company Townscape, Inc. to do an assessment of
current community issues and environmental conditions at Kahana, and to develop a SCOPE fora comprehensive MASTER PLAN for Ahupuaʻa O Kahana State Park. The final report identified“three critical, overarching issues for Kahana”: (1) the concept of the cultural “living park,” (2)the 65‐year leases, (3) the entity or entities that can best manage the residential leases and therecreational, cultural and natural resources of Kahana.

2016

State Parks contracts with Townscape, Inc. to develop alternative strategies and possible
solutions for the “three critical, overarching issues for Kahana.” This planning process was
designated as “Phase 1A,” with the deliverable defined as a “Progress Report” which would
serve as a basis for more definitive recommendations that would be developed in a “Phase 1B.”

‐ Prepared by State Parks 11/2008 and Updated 11/2016

Chapter 1

17

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

1.4 List of Kahana Documents
Documents in State Parks for Ahupua‘a ‘O Kahana State Park
(rev. 7-25-2012)
Report Covering the Proposed Park Development of Kahana Valley, John J. Hulten, March 17, 1965.
Preliminary Planning and Research for the Proposed Kahana Valley State Park, Tongg Associates, Inc.,
January 1970.
Archaeological Survey of Kahana Valley, Koʻolauloa District, Island of O‘ahu, Robert Hommon & William
Barrera, Jr., April 1971.
Sedimentology of Kahana Bay, Oʻahu, Hawai‘i, William Coulbourn, Hawai‘i Institute of Geophysics,
December 1971.
Diadromous Macrofauna and the Kahana Stream‐Estuary Ecosystem, John Maciolek, March 1972.
Preliminary Wildlife Management Plan for Kahana Valley Living State Park, Ron Walker, September 27,
1972.
Learning About Living, Kahana Valley Living State Park, An Educational Program plan prepared by the
DOE for DLNR, Div. of State Parks, November 1, 1972.
Trophic Ecology and Macrofauna of Kahana Estuary, Oʻahu, Amadeo Sembrano Timbol, December 1972.
Socio‐Cultural Research: Kahana Valley Living Park, Liliuokalani Trust, Queen Liliuokalani Children’sCenter, December 22, 1972.
Excavations in Kahana Valley, Oʻahu, 1972, Robert Hommon & Robert Bevacqua, Feb. 1973.
Kahana Valley Botanical Survey, William Theobald and Nengah Wirawan, Dept. of Botany, UH, March
1973.
Kahana Valley State Park, Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi, H. Mogi‐Planning and Research, Inc., 1974.
Culture and Education Committee (Misc. Reports), Hui o Kanani o Kahana
Soils Investigation Report Kahana Valley State Park Housing and Orientation Center, Fewell GeotechnicalEngineering, October 1978.
Revised EIS for H. Mogi‐Planning and Research, Inc., October 30, 1978.
An Assessment of Soils Erosion and Sedimentation Hazards and Recommended Temporary Erosion
Control Plan for Kahana Valley State Park Phase I and II at Kahana, Ko‘olauloa, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i;
TMK: 5‐2‐02, William Hee & Associates, Inc., March 1979.
The Living Park Plan of Kahana’s People, ‘Ohana Unity Council, 1979.
An Hawaiian Heritage Living‐Culture Plan for Kahana Valley State Park and the Tourist‐Oriented Plans of
the State of Hawaiʻi ‐‐ A Comparison‐‐, ‘Ohana Unity Council, May 1979.
Traffic Impact Assessment for Kahana Valley State Park, H. Mogi Planning and Research, Inc., June 1980.

18

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Biological Survey of Kahana Stream System, Kelly Archer, Amadeo Timbol, and James Parrish, September
1980.
Prestabilization Survey of Huilua Fishpond, The Oceanic Institute for DLNR, Sept. 10, 1980.
Draft Proposal for Historical, Environmental, and Cultural Interpretation/Education Programs, Kahana
Valley State Park Program Advisory Committee, August 27, 1981.
Environmental Features and Macrofauna of Kahana Estuary, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, J.A. Maciolek and A.S.
Timbol, Bulletin of Marine Science, 1981.
EIS for Kahana Valley Water Development Project, R.M. Towill Corporation, October 1981.
Revised EIS for Kahana “315” Reservoir Project, R.M. Towill Corporation, July 1983.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs Status Report on Kahana Valley State Park for the Twelfth Legislature, Regular
Session of 1984.
Report on Residents of Kahana Valley, Kahana Advisory Council, May 8, 1985.
Kahana Bay Navigation Improvements O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, Draft Detailed Project Report and EIS, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, September 1985.
Kahana State Park Development Plan, Kahana Advisory Council, Draft 7, Dec. 1985.
Land Tenure in Kahana, Hawai‘i, 1846 – 1920, Robert H. Stauffer, May 1990.
Soils Investigation Kahana Valley State Park Subdivision Kahana, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, Ernest K. Hirata &Associates, Inc. for Gray, Hong, Bills & Associates, Inc., July 25, 1990.
Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan for Huilua Fishpond, Carol Araki Wyban, November 5, 1990.
Kahana Valley, Hawai‘i, A Geomorphic Artifact: A Study of the Interrelationships Among Geomorphic
Structures, Natural Processes, and Ancient Hawaiian Technology, Land Use, and Settlement
Patterns, Patricia Price Beggerly, Dec. 1990.
Interpretive Plan for Huilua Fishpond, Kahana, O‘ahu, Carol Araki Wyban, July 22, 1991.
Archaeological Survey: Proposed Housing Areas in Kahana Valley State Park, Kahana, Ko‘olauloa, O‘ahu,
Aug. 1991 and June 1992.
Kahana Valley State Park Agricultural Feasibility, James Koshi, August 2, 1991.
Preliminary Report on Archaeological Investigations at Huilua Fishpond, Kahana Valley, Ko‘olauloa,O‘ahu, Draft, Martha Yent and Alan Carpenter, Div. of State Parks, 1992.
Prep Notice : Supplemental EIS for Kahana Valley State Park, April 1992.
Interpretive Materials for Huilua Fishpond, Kahana Valley State Park, Carol Araki Wyban for the Div. ofState Parks, May 20, 1992.
Kahana Valley Program Participation Report and Community Organization Surveys, Beverly D. Rodrigues,
June 1992.
Supplemental Draft EIS for Kahana Valley State Park, Div. of State Parks, July 1992.

Chapter 1

19

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Supplemental FEIS for Kahana Valley State Park, Bill Gorst, September 1992.
A Plan for the Renovation of the Mormon Chapel at Kahana Valley State Park, Kauahikaua &Chun,/Architects for the Div. of State Parks, May 25, 1993.
Archaeological Investigations at Huilua Fishpond, Kahana Valley, Ko‘olauloa, O‘ahu, TMK: 5‐2‐05: 21,
Alan Carpenter & Martha Yent, Dec. 1993.
Concerning the Construction of a Hale Kupuna in Kahana Valley and to Establish Rules and a Plan with
Kahana Valley Residents Regarding Their Participation in Ahupua‘a O Kahana, Prepared by theDiv. of State Parks in response to HCR No. 164, H.D.1, S.D.1, 1994 Session, November 1994.
EA and Restoration/Revitalization Plan for Huilua Fishpond, Kahana Valley State Park, Ko‘olauloa, O‘ahu,
Carol Araki Wyban, Dec. 1995.
Water Quality Monitoring in Support of the Restoration of Huilua Fishpond, Kahana Bay, State Park,O‘ahu, Final Report, Prepared for the Div. of State Parks by Richard Brock, Sept. 1997.
A Vision for Kahana Valley State Park for Review by the Kahana Advisory Committee, December 1997.
Oli O Kahana, Al Rogers, 1998.
Ahupua‘a ‘O Kahana: The Struggle Continues (1917 – 1997), Historical Accounts as Documented in the
Honolulu Advertiser and the Star‐Bulletin, Erline “Sunny” Alonzo Greer, 1998.
Ahupua‘a O Kahana, The study of the history, the people, the land and the administrative influences
towards the development of a cultural living park in Kahana Valley, Tracie Farias, Claude “Keek”
Hottendorf, Wayne Nojiri, and Janelle West, May 1998.
Restoration of Huilua Fishpond, Chie Takahashi, received May 11, 1999.
Kahana: What Was, What Is, What Can Be, Susan Jaworowski, Legislative Reference Bureau, December
2001.
Hau Workshop, Reference Materials, June 29, 2002.
Biological Assessment of Kahana Stream, Island of O‘ahu, Final Report, J. Michael Fitzsimons, James
Parham, Lori Benson, and Mark McRae for DAR and CWRM, September 2002.
Cultural Impact Assessment for the Kamehameha Highway, South Kahana Stream Bridge Replacement
Project, Kahana Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olauloa District, Island of O‘ahu, : TMK: (1) 5‐2‐05: 03 AND 5‐2‐02:
01, Aulii Mitchell and Hallett Hammatt, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i for Wilson Okamoto
Corporation, January 2006.
Section 6E‐8, HRS: Request for “Effect, with Proposed Mitigation” Determination and Concurrence toProceed with the Demolition of the Mormon Chapel; TMK: 5‐2‐02: por. 01, Memo from the Div.
of State Parks to State Historic Preservation Division, May 30, 2007.
Investigation on Kahana Wells, Prepared for DLNR by Marc Siah & Associates, Inc., Sept. 2009.
Na Mo‘o Akua O Kahana, The Legends Concerning the Gods of Kahana, Al Rogers, no date.
NOTE: This list was compiled from documents in the State Parks and Interpretive Branch Libraries.
20

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

1.5 State Board of Land and Natural Resources Conservation District
Use Permit Action

Chapter 1

21

Draft Progress Report – February 201822

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201823

Draft Progress Report – February 201824

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201825

Draft Progress Report – February 201826

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201827

Draft Progress Report – February 201828

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201829

Draft Progress Report – February 201830

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201831

Draft Progress Report – February 201832

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

1.6 Act 5

Chapter 1

33

Draft Progress Report – February 201834

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

1.7 Act 15

Chapter 1

35

Draft Progress Report – February 201836

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201837

Draft Progress Report – February 201838

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201839

Draft Progress Report – February 201840

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201841

Draft Progress Report – February 201842

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201843

Draft Progress Report – February 201844

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201845

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

1.8 DLNR Action on Six New Leases for Kahana

46

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201847

Draft Progress Report – February 201848

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201849

Draft Progress Report – February 201850

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201851

Draft Progress Report – February 201852

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201853

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

54

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201855

Draft Progress Report – February 201856

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201857

Draft Progress Report – February 201858

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

Draft Progress Report – February 201859

Draft Progress Report – February 201860

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

1.9 State Parks Data on Kahana Visitors and Activities[State Parks to provide]

Chapter 1

61

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

1.10 State Parks Data on Kahana Cultural Programs[State Parks to provide]

62

Chapter 1

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

2

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

RECENT PLANNING INITIATIVES FOR KAHANA

2.1 Master Plan Scoping: Townscape, Inc. Report
AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARKASSESSMENT: SCOPE, PROCESS AND COST FOR A MASTER PLAN
DELIVERABLE NO. 4: FINAL SCOPE
December 12, 2015

INTRODUCTION
This FINAL SCOPE is the fourth and final deliverable of our contract with DLNR for thedevelopment of “an ASSESSMENT of the SCOPE AND COST for a future MASTER PLAN for
AHUPUAʻA ‘O KAHANA STATE PARK,” as described in our fee proposal dated July 2, 2015.
This FINAL SCOPE is an edited and updated version of the DRAFT SCOPE, dated October 15,
2015. The FINAL SCOPE incorporates comments on the DRAFT SCOPE that we received fromState Parks staff and from Kahana Valley residents. The PRELIMINARY DRAFT SCOPE andthe DRAFT SCOPE were developed through a review of relevant reports and plans for Kahana,discussions with State Parks staff, and through interviews with Kahana families and “outside”
community members who have had extensive experience working with Kahana families andKahana issues.
We are submitting this FINAL SCOPE to the DLNR State Parks Division, the Kahana PlanningCouncil, the Kahana Community Association, and to Kahana Valley families for their follow-up
and action.
Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana State Park is unique: it is the only state park in Hawaiʻi that has long-term
residential leases with families who live within the park boundaries. Kahana is also the only
largely intact ahupuaʻa on the island of Oʻahu that is in public ownership.
Designated by the State Legislature as a “cultural living park,” Kahana and the Kahana
community have experienced many challenges and difficulties during the 46 years since theState of Hawaiʻi acquired the land. These challenges and difficulties are documented in a
number of studies on Kahana, including the report by the Hawaiʻi Legislative Reference Bureau
entitled “Kahana: What Was, What is, What Can Be” (Susan Jaworowski, 2001), and we will not
attempt to summarize these issues in this introduction to the Master Plan scope. However,given the unique nature of this state park and its resident population, it should be clear to

Chapter 2

63Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

State Parks personnel, to Kahana community leaders, and to the Kahana community that
Kahana needs more than a traditional Park Master Plan that focuses primarily on
physical resources and outdoor recreational facilities and activities.
Over the past 40+ years, there have been a number of “master plans” developed for Kahana.
Plans developed in the early to mid-1970s were commissioned by the state. From 1979 on,
there were a number of plans developed by Kahana residents. Some of these plans were moreor less traditional park plans that focused on physical resources and facilities; several plans also
addressed cultural resources and programs. None of these plans were approved by DLNR, andnone of these plans addressed the most critical issues that make this state park unique – andoften difficult to manage. These overarching critical issues are:
1. The CULTURAL LIVING PARK concept – How was this concept originally developed
and defined? How is this concept understood today – by State Parks and by Statelegislators? Is this concept still valid for Kahana and the Kahana community? If not, thenis there an alternate concept that would be the “right” overall concept for Kahana?
2. The 65-Year Leases that dictate the terms under which Kahana families are permitted
to live in the valley – some of the terms of these leases need to be reviewed and mayneed to be amended.
3. Overall MANAGEMENT of Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana – Is State Parks Division the best,
most appropriate MANAGER for this park and its resident community? If not State
Parks, then WHAT ENTITY OR ENTITIES could/should manage Kahana?
These issues are inter-related; no one issue is more important than the others. Our overall
conclusion in this “assessment” is that these three critical, overarching issues must be
addressed and must be resolved at least in principle BEFORE a meaningful physicalresources and facilities master plan can be developed and implemented. By agreement “inprinciple,” we mean that the Kahana community and State Parks will need to reach a consensus
on solutions to these three critical issues, but that implementing details for these three issues,
including action by the State Legislature and/or the development of appropriate Administrative
Rules, would still need to be worked out and finalized.
The SCOPE for a master plan for Kahana presented in this report therefore organizes theplanning process into TWO PHASES: PHASE 1 will focus on the three overarching criticalissues and PHASE 2 will develop the Management Plan for Kahana resources, facilities andprograms. This “2 Phases” approach will facilitate decision-making and funding for this plan.
Funding will potentially be provided through state Grants-in-Aid and/or through DLNR Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) funds.

64

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

This Assessment was designed to develop the SCOPE and COST for a Kahana Master Plan. In
addition to scope and cost, however, the planning process will be of great importance. The
plans for Kahana in the early 1970s were developed by “experts” with little regard for Kahana
families and their ideas and needs. Going forward, what is needed is a community-basedplanning process, a process through which State decision-makers, State Parks staff, andtechnical consultants partner with the Kahana community to develop a Master Plan andimplementation program that are strongly grounded in community traditions, values and needs.
At the same time, the planning process must also respect and address the State’s commitment
and responsibility to provide public access and public recreational opportunities at Ahupuaʻa ʻO
Kahana State Park. Kahana Valley is state-owned land that is available for the use andenjoyment of the people of Hawaiʻi and our visitors.
Another set of events that may influence plans for Kahana Valley is the current process forelecting delegates to an ʻaha council that would establish the structure for a sovereign Hawaiian
nation.
The resolution of six new leases for house lots near Kahana Bay, consistent with therequirements of HRS Chapter 343 and with Act 15 (2009), will also be an important factor as theplanning work moves forward.
Given the above discussion on critical issues and on a community-based planning process, werecommend that the term “Master Plan” be replaced with the term “AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANAMANAGEMENT PLAN.” Our intent is that the term “MANAGEMENT PLAN” includes addressing
and resolving, at least in principle, the three overarching critical issues noted above.
Progress briefings and presentations to the Board of Land and Natural Resources willundoubtedly be required during this planning process. This scope of work does not specifically
identify when these briefings and presentations may be needed.
This FINAL SCOPE OF WORK includes a summary of planning deliverables and an estimate oftime and cost for each of the major elements of the planning process. Cost ranges are provided
here as it is difficult to define exact costs for many of these planning elements. Finally,
reviewers of this SCOPE OF WORK should understand that this document is intended to be aguide for future planning for Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana, but that, like all planning guides, this SCOPE
OF WORK is subject to future revisions and refinements as may be required.

Chapter 2

65

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA MANAGEMENT PLAN – SCOPE OF WORKNOTE: Planning tasks described in this Scope of Work are to be performed by the lead planningconsultant unless otherwise noted. The budget figures provided below do not include additionalcosts for a project website or for printing, travel and space rentals, hand-outs and refreshments
for large community meetings. An estimate for these additional costs is provided in the summaryof costs at the end of this FINAL SCOPE document.
PHASE 1: ADDRESS THE THREE OVERARCHING CRITICAL ISSUES FOR KAHANAWORK ELEMENT NO. 1.1: ORGANIZE THE PHASE 1 PLANNING PROCESS
1.1.1

The planning consultant will meet with State Parks staff, the Kahana Planning Council(KPC), the Kahana Community Association (KCA), and the general Kahana community
to confirm overall scope, process and schedule for Phase 1 of the Plan.

1.1.2

In consultation with State Parks and the Kahana community develop a draft plan for theparticipation of the Kahana community in the Phase 1 planning process, and for
consultation with the greater community at-large, including those outside Kahana whohave historical and cultural ties to the place. This community-based planning process
shall include consultation with KPC and KCA, meetings with individual Kahana families
as may be needed, and opportunities for Kahana families to comment on elements ofthe plan through informal talk story sessions with the planning team. The planning
process shall also include joint meetings involving representatives of State Parks andKahana community leaders. These joint meetings should be held at critical points in theplanning process, including at the beginning of the planning work.

1.1.3

Establish a website for the AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA MANAGEMENT PLAN. This website
will be used to provide ongoing project data and information to the public, and toannounce Kahana planning meetings and other related events.

1.1.4

Consult with the Department of the Attorney General, and contract with legal counsel
that will be needed to help address the complex legal issues of Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana
State Park, including the 65-Year Lease issues.

1.1.5

Develop an overall WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE for Phase 1 of the Ahupuaʻa ʻO
Kahana Management Plan and review the Work Plan and Schedule with State Parks
and the Kahana community.
Work Element No. 1.1 Deliverables: Work Plan & Schedule
Draft Community Participation Plan
Work Element No. 1.1 Time & Cost: 2 months; $15,000 to $20,000

66

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

WORK ELEMENT 1.2: ADDRESS THE 3 MOST CRITICAL ISSUES
1.2.1

Critical Issue #1: Is the “Cultural Living Park” concept still a valid concept for
Kahana? The definition of a “living park” was provided by Senate Resolution 264,
adopted by the 1977 State Legislature:“The purpose of a ‘living park’ in Hawaii is to nurture and foster native Hawaiian
culture and spread knowledge of its values and ways, and that in such a livingpark, the individuals living there shall participate in the purposes of the park byhelping in the education of the public and by incorporating into the structure of
their daily lives such values and ways.”
Discuss the pros and cons of this concept with State Parks, the KPC, the KCA, andKahana families and document the pros and cons of the “cultural living park” concept ina working paper of 5 to 10 pages. Include in the working paper a draft description of one
or more alternative overall concept(s) for Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana, together with an analysis
of how these alternative concepts might be more effective for both the Kahana
community and State Parks. Present this working paper to the Kahana community andto State Parks, and work towards reaching an agreement in principle on the preferred
overall concept for Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana.

1.2.2

Critical Issue #2: Evaluation of the Terms of the 65-Year Leases. Issues include:
extension beyond the 65-year term, the requirement of “25 hours per month ofinterpretive services” in lieu of lease rent for each lessee, inability of residents to sell or
mortgage their homes at fair market value or to rent or sublet their homes, and thepossibility of “ʻOhana units” or additional leases/residential lots to accommodate adultchildren of Kahana lessees. These and other lease issues will be analyzed by theplanner and by the consulting legal counsel, in consultation with State Parks staff andthe Kahana community. The work will include discussions with Kahana families to
identify lease terms that are especially difficult from the community point of view. The
planner/legal counsel team will develop a working paper of 20 to 30 pages documenting
the lease issues and potential policies and lease amendments that would address theseissues. The working paper will include an analysis of other relevant land tenure models
in Hawaiʻi.
The team will present and discuss this working paper with State Parks, the KPC, theKCA, and with the general Kahana community and will seek to reach a consensus on
amendments to the 65-Year Leases. All agreements to changes to the 65-Year Leaseterms will be documented in a revised/final working paper on this subject. Further
legislative action or official Administrative Rule-making will probably be needed to
finalize agreed upon changes to the 65-Year Leases.

Chapter 2

67

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

1.2.3

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Critical Issue #3: What Entity or Organization should manage Ahupuaʻa ʻO
Kahana, and what should they manage – the residential leases, the public
recreational resources, the natural resources? In consultation with State Parks, theKPC, the KCA, and the Kahana community, develop an analysis of the varied
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS that are required for managing Kahana – including themanagement of residential leases, public recreational facilities and natural and cultural
resources. Identify and develop a preliminary analysis of alternative managing entities
that might be able to provide at least some of the management expertise that Kahanarequires, including but not limited to: a special branch of State Parks, a special unit
within DLNR with personnel from State Parks, DOFAW, DAR, DOBOR and DOCARE,
the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL),
the Hawaiʻi Housing Finance Development Corporation (HHFDC), one or more existingstate public agencies, one or more existing non-profit organizations, a newly created
non-profit entity, a quasi-public single purpose entity. Analyze the pros and cons of thevarious alternative managing entities, including options for 2 or more entities managing
different elements of the ahupuaʻa (residential, public recreational, natural resources)and document this analysis in the form of a working paper of 15 to 20 pages.
Present initial findings on potential managing entities to State Parks, the KPC, the KCA,
and the general Kahana community and reach a preliminary consensus on the preferredmanaging entity or entities for Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana, including the relationship of the
managing entity with the Kahana community. This discussion will likely require multiple
meetings; these meetings will be facilitated by the planning consultant. Document
consensus reached on the preferred management entity or entities and outline steps
needed to implement the preferred management strategy in an updated working paper.

1.2.4

Summary of Consensus on the Three Critical Issues. The planning consultant willproduce a draft report summarizing the work performed to address the three most critical
Kahana issues, and presenting the conclusions that were reached on these issues. The
report will also describe the steps and actions, including action(s) by the State
Legislature, that will still be needed to implement and fund agreed upon changes to the
Living Park concept, the 65-Year Leases and the management structure.

1.2.5

Report to State Parks and to the Kahana Community. Present the draft report on the
3 critical issues to State Parks, the KPC, the KCA, and to the general Kahana
community and receive comments. In addition, do individual meetings with any Kahana
families that may be unable or unwilling to participate in the meetings with the KPC, the
KCA or the larger Kahana community. Based on these comments, revise and finalize thereport.

1.2.6

Report to the At-Large Community. Schedule, advertise, organize, facilitate andrecord a general meeting for the at-large community to present the report on the three
critical issues for Kahana and to hear their comments on these issues.

68

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Work Element 1.2 Deliverables: Working Paper – Overall Park Concept
Working Paper – 65-Year Leases
Working Paper – Management of Kahana
Report: Consensus on the 3 Critical Issues
Record: At-Large Community Meeting
Work Element 3 Time & Cost:
6 months; $150,000 to $180,000(including legal counsel)
NOTE: Follow-up Time and Cost to resolve detailed and definitive solutions to the 3 overarching
critical issues are not included in this estimate and may need to be under a separate contract.
NOTE: If a consensus cannot be reached on how to resolve the three overarching critical issues
for Kahana, further work on the Kahana Management Plan should be deferred or cancelled.

PHASE 2: DEVELOP THE AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA MANAGEMENT PLAN
Once agreements are reached in principle (see definition of “agreement in principle” in section
1.2.1 of this FINAL SCOPE) on the three most critical Kahana issues, including agreements on
how to implement meaningful changes for these critical issues, work on the Management Plan
can proceed at a more technical level. The Management Plan will include the entire ahupuaʻa ofKahana, including Kahana Bay.
The planning consultant will review background documents and data for Kahana Valley
resources and facilities. Some field reconnaissance will also be required at this time. Special
subconsultants may be needed in the areas of marine resources, stream resources, botany,
biology and archaeology.
HOWEVER, the scope for PHASE 2 of the Kahana Management Plan assumes that archival
and field research will be limited to a total of about 600 to 800 hours of professional time, andthat this research effort will NOT BE EXHAUSTIVE IN NATURE.
The assumption here is that the archival and field research will be sufficient to identify major
opportunities and constraints, and provide a foundation for a Management Plan that describes
general strategies and programs for the management of natural resources, physical facilities,
community programs and public recreational resources. The Management Plan will also include
a more detailed description of a near-term “Action Plan” that focuses on 3 to 5 priority projects.
The Management Plan will NOT attempt to provide exhaustive details on all projects andprograms, as the details for the various projects and programs should be developed through theactual organization and implementation of these projects and programs.

Chapter 2

69

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

WORK ELEMENT 2.1: ORGANIZE THE PHASE 2 PLANNING PROCESS
2.1.1

The planning consultant will meet with State Parks staff, the Kahana Planning Council(KPC), the Kahana Community Association (KCA), the staff of other management entity
or entities that may have been identified in Phase 1 as having a potential role in Kahana(hereinafter referred to as “other relevant management entity(ies)”) and the general
Kahana community to confirm overall scope, process and schedule for Phase 2 of the
Plan.

2.1.2

In consultation with State Parks, other relevant management entity(ies), KPC, and KCA,
update as needed the plan for the participation of the Kahana community in the Phase 2planning process.

2.1.3

Develop an overall WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE for Phase 2 of the Ahupuaʻa ʻO
Kahana Management Plan and review the Work Plan and Schedule with State Parks,
other relevant management entity(ies), KPC, and KCA.
Work Element No. 2.1 Deliverables: Work Plan & Schedule
Updated Community Participation
Plan
Work Element No. 2.1 Time & Cost: 1 month; $5,000 to $10,000

WORK ELEMENT 2.2: CONTINUED COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND REVIEW OFBACKGROUND MATERIAL
2.2.1

Review relevant reports, records of meetings, documents, etc. and summarize important
findings in a working paper of 15 to 20 pages. Pay particular attention to key earlier
planning documents, including The Living Park Plan of Kahana’s People (1979), Kahana
State Park Development Plan (Kahana Advisory Council 1985), and Kahana: What Was,
What Is, What Can Be (State Legislative Reference Bureau 2001).

2.2.2

Meet with State Parks, other relevant management entity(ies), the KPC, and the KCA to
discuss and confirm critical planning issues. Preliminarily discuss with each entity their
LONG-RANGE VISION for Kahana Valley and their OVERALL MISSION STATEMENT.

2.2.3

Meet individually with any Kahana families that may be unable or unwilling to participate
in the meetings with the KPC and the KCA. Begin a dialogue with the community that
focuses on the need to identify positive common goals for the future of Ahupuaʻa ʻO
Kahana and the Kahana community.

70

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

2.2.4

Identify a number of projects and/or programs that can be implemented while theplanning process is still ongoing, in order to create some credibility and positive energy
for the planning process, and proceed with the organization and implementation of theseprojects and programs. Potential near-term action projects include: work on Huilua
fishpond wall, clearing of hau from the streams, and start of the ʻulu orchard.

2.2.5

Schedule, advertise, organize, facilitate and record a general meeting for the at-large
community to present the scope and schedule for the Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana Management
Plan and to hear and record issues and concerns of the larger community.

2.2.6

Establish a “Kahana Planning Office” in the Orientation Building. The Planning Office will
be a place where community members can “stop by to talk story” with the planningconsultants about their concerns and ideas and about the evolving planning process.
Work Element No. 2.2 Deliverables: Summary of relevant background material
Summary of At-Large Community meeting
Work Element No. 2.2 Time & Cost: 3 months; $40,000 to $50,000

WORK ELEMENT 2.3: RESEARCH AND DOCUMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS,OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS: NATURAL RESOURCES, PHYSICALFACILITIES, COMMUNITY RESOURCES AND PROGRAMS, RECREATIONALRESOURCES
Research work shall include, but not be limited to the following:
2.3.1

Ocean Resources – including an assessment of the health of Kahana Bay, the feasibilityof restoring Kahana’s Konohiki fishery, the feasibility of establishing a community-based
subsistence fisheries management area, and the need to limit and control the use of
motorized water craft within the Bay.

2.3..2 Huilua Fishpond - including an assessment of work still needed to restore the fishpond toa productive status and development of guidelines for the long-term management of the
fishpond and equitable sharing of fish and other fishpond products.
2.3.3

Stream Systems – including a program for clearing hau and other plants from streams,
mitigation of flooding, and outline of an ongoing program for stream management andmaintenance.

2.3.4

ʻAuwai Systems – develop maps of the traditional ʻauwai and identify opportunities forrestoration and maintenance.

Chapter 2

71

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

2.3.5

Groundwater Systems – assess the amount of groundwater that is being drawn from theKahana Aquifer by the Board of Water Supply and by the Waiʻahole Ditch system, andaddress the impact that these withdrawals may be having on stream flows andnearshore water quality.

2.3.6

Opportunities for Farming – through analysis of NRCS soils maps, reference to the “kalomodel for Oʻahu” developed by the Nature Conservancy, and consultation with Kahana
people who have farming experience, develop a map and description of areas that could
be productive for various kinds of traditional and contemporary food crops.

2.3.7

Forest Resources and Management of Mauka Lands – through consultation withDOFAW personnel and knowledgeable Kahana people, identify and map importantbiocultural zones in the mauka lands and outline appropriate management programs,
including measures for the control of feral pigs and rats.

2.3.8

Historical and Cultural Structures, Sites and Resources – based on available
information, create a map that generally documents important historical and cultural
resources.

2.3.9

Community Facilities needs – inventory and document existing community facilities likethe Kam Mon Store “Visitor Center” and the “Orientation Center.” Identify and generally
describe other community facilities that community members have identified as needed,
like a community kitchen and a computer center.

2.3.10 Opportunities for Kahana families to generate income from sale of food or craft items –review the current system that requires families to obtain a revocable permit from State
Parks in order to sell food or craft items, and identify other systems, including possibly a
weekly farmers market that might provide families with more opportunities to earn some
supplementary income.
2.3.11 Opportunities for Kahana residents to be employed within the Ahupuaʻa – identify park
management and resource management jobs that could be done by Kahana residents,
and address programs for training and qualifying Kahana people to do these jobs.
2.3.12 Public Recreational Programs and Facilities – identify needed upgrades and additions topublic recreational programs and facilities at Kahana, including opportunities for
ecotourism and participation of visitors in farming and fishing, and in Kahana cultural
events.
2.3.13 Park Operations and Facilities – evaluate existing office space, baseyard, managementof green waste, bathrooms, wastewater disposal and identify needs for improvements
and upgrades.

72

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

The documentation of existing conditions will include consultation with State Parks personnel,
other relevant management entity(ies), Kahana Community members and various “outside”
resource experts. The analysis of existing conditions will be submitted to State Parks and toother relevant management entity(ies), the KPC, and the KCA in the form of a Resources Profile
Report not to exceed 50 pages. The Profile Report will later be included as one of the
Appendices to the Management Plan.
Work Element 2.3 Deliverables:
Work Element 2.3 Time & Cost:

Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana Resources Profile
Report (not to exceed 50 pages)
6 months, $100,000 to $120,000

WORK ELEMENT 2.4: AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA MANAGEMENT PLAN – PRELIMINARY
DRAFT
2.4.1

Meet with State Parks, other relevant management entity(ies), the KPC, and the KCA torevisit and discuss their thoughts on the overall VISION for Kahana Valley and theKahana community, the MISSION of each of these entities, and shard GOALS andOBJECTIVES for Kahana. Goals for Kahana should include the preservation andrestoration of the important cultural and natural resources of the ahupuaʻa. Document
the Vision, Mission(s), Goals and Objectives in draft form.

2.4.2

Using the Kahana Resources Profile report as the information base, develop a SET OF
PLANNING STRATEGIES, PROJECTS and PROGRAMS for the management of
Kahana’s natural, historical, cultural, community and recreational resources. This step inthe planning process will be the critical synthesizing step that will integrate Vision,
Mission, Goals, Objectives, Opportunities, Constraints, and Resources Data into a
PRELIMINARY DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Preliminary Draft Plan will include
information on WHAT needs to be done, by WHOM and at what COST.

2.4.3

Consult with State Parks, other relevant management entity(ies), the KPC, the KCA, andwith Kahana families throughout the development of the PLANNING STRATEGIES.
Consult with the Department of the Attorney General, as appropriate.

2.4.4

Document the work described in sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.3 above in the form of a
PRELIMINARY DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN for Kahana, not to exceed 50 pages inlength. The Preliminary Draft will include sections on permit requirements, funding needs
and potential funding sources. This page limit is suggested in order to keep the Planclear and concise. Supplementary technical information, including the report on the three
Critical Elements and the Resources Profile Report, can be included as Appendices to
the Plan. Submit the Preliminary Draft to State Parks, the KPC, the KCA, and to Kahana
families for review and comment.

Chapter 2

73

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

The Preliminary Draft Plan will include the following sections:
1. Introduction
2. The Planning Process: Public Agencies, the Community, the Ahupuaʻa
3. Vision Statement for Kahana
4. Plan Goals and Objectives
5. Brief Summary of Past Plans and Studies
6. Summary of Existing Conditions
7. Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
8. Consensus on the three critical overarching issues
9. Projects, Programs and Strategies
10. Implementation Guidelines, Phasing and Funding
11. 5-Year Action Plan
APPENDICESWork Element 2.4 Deliverables:
Work Element 2.4 Time & Cost:

Ahupuaʻa ‘O Kahana Management
Plan – Preliminary Draft
4 months, $50,000 to $60,000.00

WORK ELEMENT 2.5: AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA MANAGEMENT PLAN – DRAFT
2.5.1

Receive and review comments on the Preliminary Draft Plan from State Parks, otherrelevant management entity(ies), the KPC, the KCA, and the Kahana community. Meetwith each of the reviewing entities to discuss major comments, as needed. Also meetwith any Kahana families that were not able to participate in the review meetings heldwith the KPC, the KCA, or the general Kahana community.

2.5.2

Do further archival research, field work and other studies, as may be needed, to respondto comments and concerns raised by the reviewing entities.

2.5.3

Revise the Preliminary Draft Management Plan and produce the “official” AHUPUAʻA ‘O
KAHANA DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Draft Plan will include an “Action Plan”
section that provides more details on 3 to 5 priority projects that can be organized andimplemented during the next 3 years. Other resource management projects will beorganized in phases to provide for incremental implementation. The Action Plan will
have to reflect the conclusions and recommendations for the “3 overarching issues” thatwere analyzed in Work Element 3 of this scope. The planning consultant will meet with
State Parks, other relevant management entity(ies), the KPC, the KCA, and with Kahana
families as needed during the revision process.

74

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

2.5.4

Meet with State Parks, other relevant management entity(ies), the KPC, and the KCA,
together or separately, and with the general Kahana community to present the Draft
Management Plan to them and to receive their initial comments. Consult with the
Department of the Attorney General, as appropriate. Coordinate with State Parks tohave the DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN posted on the DLNR website and on the project
website.

2.5.5

Schedule, advertise, organize, facilitate and record a general meeting for the at-large
community to present the DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN and to hear their comments on
the DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Work Element 2.5 Deliverables: Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana Management Plan - Draft
Record of Comments on the Draft Plan fromState Parks, other relevant management
entity(ies), the KPC, and the KCA
Record of Comments on the Draft Plan from thegeneral Kahana community
Record of Comments on the Draft Plan fromthe At-Large Community
Work Element 2.5 Time & Cost: 3 months, $30,000 to $40,000

WORK ELEMENT 2.6: AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA MANAGEMENT PLAN – FINAL
2.6.1

Review comments received from State Parks, other relevant management entity(ies),
the KPC, the KCA, and the Kahana community and revise the DRAFT MANAGEMENT
PLAN as needed.

2.6.2

Submit a “ready to print” MANAGEMENT PLAN to State Parks, other relevant
management entity(ies), the KPC, and the KCA for their final review.

2.6.3

Make any final edits to the MANAGEMENT PLAN and submit final electronic and hardcopies of the PLAN to State Parks, other relevant management entity(ies), the KPC, andthe KCA.

2.6.4

The final AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA MANAGEMENT PLAN will have to be formallyapproved by State Parks, other relevant management entity(ies), the Kahana PlanningCouncil and the Kahana Community Association. Approval by the Board of Land andNatural Resources may also be required.
Work Element 2.6 Deliverables:
Work Element 2.6 Time & Cost:

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ‘O KAHANA MANAGEMENT
PLAN
3 months, $20,000 to $30,000

75Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

SUMMARY OF TIME AND COST FOR THE AHUPUAʻA ‘O KAHANA MANAGEMENT PLAN
Plan Phase and Element

Time

Cost

PHASE 1: ADDRESS THE THREE OVERARCHING CRITICAL ISSUES FOR KAHANA
1.1 Organize the Phase 1 Planning Process

2 months$ 15,000 to $ 20,000

1.2. Address the Three Overarching Critical Issues

6 months$150,000 to $180,000

Design and maintain Project Website:months 1-8$ 10,000 to $ 15,000

Subtotal: Phase 1 Estimated Time & Cost: 8 months
Add: Budget for travel, printing for one At-Large Community Mtg:

$175,000 - $215,000$ 10,000

PHASE 1 ESTIMATED TIME & COST:$185,000 - $225,000

8 months

PHASE 2: DEVELOP THE AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA MANAGEMENT PLAN
2.1. Organize the Phase 2 Planning Process

1 month$5,000 to $10,000

2.2. Community Consultation, Review Background
Information

3 months$40,000 to $50,000

2.3. Document Existing Conditions

6 months$100,000 to $120,000

2.4 Preliminary Draft Management Plan

4 months$ 50,000 to $60,000

2.5 Draft Management Plan

3 months$ 30,000 to $40,000

2.6 Final Management Plan

3 months$ 20,000 to $30,000

Management of the Project Website:months 1-20 $ 20,000 to $30,000

Subtotal: Phase 2 Estimated Time & Cost: 20 months
Add: Budget for travel, printing for two At-Large Community Mtgs:
PHASE 2 ESTIMATED TIME & COST:

76

20 months$265,000 to $340,000$ 20,000$285,000 - $360,000

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

TOTAL ESTIMATED TIME AND COST PHASES 1 & 2: 28 MONTHS$470,000 - $585,000

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTThe use of state lands and state funds for the development of this Management Plan will“trigger” the need for an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). Given the complex and long-range nature of the Management Plan that is described inthis SCOPE outline, it seems likely that a PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT will be required.
The scope of work for a Programmatic EIS will generally have to follow the guidelines of thestate Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC). Our estimate for the time and cost of a
Programmatic EIS for the Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana Management Plan is: 18 to 24 months,$150,000 to $200,000. These costs are not included in the estimate above.

NOTE: This estimate of Time and Cost for the Management Plan does not include time and costfor the detailed resolution, including drafting and enactment of legislation and/or Administrative
Rules, of the three overarching issues for Kahana. The estimate of Time and Cost above also
does not include Time and Cost for permits that may be required to implement various elementsof the Management Plan, like Conservation District Use Permits (CDUP) or Special
Management Area Permits (SMP).

Chapter 2

77

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

2.2 Phase 1A Planning and Analysis Methods
The planning methodology for Phase 1A of the Kahana planning process focused on Kahana community
issues and problem‐solving – not on past plans and documents. The planning work thus included:
a. Meetings and discussions with State Parks staff, both as a group (eight meetings) andindividually (six meetings);
b. Meetings and discussions with Kahana community leaders (total of eight meetings);
c. Attendance and participation in meetings of the KAHANA PLANNING COUNCIL (five meetings)
and of the KAHANA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (four meetings);
d. In‐house planning sessions of the consultant team (approximately 20 working meetings);
e. Development of “ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES” for the three critical Kahana issues;f.

Summary and analysis of the SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE for Kahana lessees that was developed,
distributed and collected by State Parks;

g. “One on one” meetings and discussions with Kahana lessees (20 meetings);
h. Review of relevant documents, especially documents relating to the Kahana 65‐Year leases andleases for other State‐owned lands at Maunalaha, Miloliʻi, and Waiāhole.
i.

Development and submittal to State Parks of “Working Papers” on each of the three critical
Kahana issues. The “Working Papers” were intended to be progress memos summarizing
preliminary findings by the consultant on the three critical Kahana issues;j.

Discussions with the State Parks Administrator regarding a legislative strategy for Kahana for the2018 Session of the State Legislature;k. Consultation with the Office of the State Attorney General regarding certain clauses in the
Kahana leases;l.

Preparation for and participation in a KAHANA COMMUNITY MEETING, which was held on
Saturday morning, September 9, 2017;

m. Preparation of a DRAFT PROGRESS REPORT.
n. Provided material for a BRIEFING to the BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES.

78

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

2.3 Overview of Current Critical Issues
In the “Master Plan Scoping” process, the consultant identified three critical, overarching issues for
Kahana:1. The “Living Park” concept – How was this concept conceived, developed and defined? How
is this concept understood today – by State Parks, by Kahana residents, and by State
Legislators? Is this concept still valid for this State Park and for people residing in the Park?
Are there any alternative concepts that would be appropriate for Kahana today?
2. The 65‐Year Leases that dictate the terms under which Kahana families are permitted to livein the valley. Are these terms still appropriate today? Do some of these terms need to bereviewed and amended?
3. Overall management of Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana State Park – Is State Parks the appropriate
manager for this park and its resident community? What entity or entities would be more
appropriate?
Some other critical issues emerged during the planning process:Six Families and house lots without leases: There are six (6) house lots that are currently occupied by
Kahana families that do not have leases with State Parks. These six house lots are located in the coastal
flood zone. The six house lots and other Kahana coastal houses were scheduled to be abandoned in
1993 when long‐term leases were offered to Kahana families for residential lots outside of thefloodplain. Most of the Kahana families moved to the new residential lots, as they had agreed. However,some members of six families chose to remain in houses located in the floodplain. Upon pending
eviction action by DLNR, the six families obtained political support that led to the enactment of Act 15,
Session Laws of Hawaiʻi (SLH) 2009. Act 15 included a 2‐year moratorium on eviction of the six families.
Arrears of Interpretive Hours: The Kahana leases require lessees to contribute 25 hours per month ofservices related to scheduled interpretive programs in Kahana in lieu of monthly rent. Over 70% of theKahana lessees are currently in arrears of their required interpretive hours. As of September 2016, ananalysis by State Parks of the status of Kahana families’ conformance with the requirement of “(25)hours per month of services related to scheduled interpretive programs” showed that:

eight of the 28 families (28.6%) with leases had a small to significant + balance of hours (+35 to+482),



three families (10.7%) were in arrears by ‐375 to ‐635 hours (15 to 25.4 months in arrears), and

17 families (60.7%) were in arrears by 1150.5 to 4248.5 hours (46 to 170 months) in arrears.

Chapter 2

79

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

2.4 Alternative Strategies for the Three Critical Issues
During the period July through August 2016, the consultant met and talked with State Parks staff, theKahana Planning Council, the Kahana Community Association, Kahana Leaders and Kahana Young
Leaders. Based on these meetings and in‐house working sessions, the consultant developed a summaryof ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES relating to the three critical issues for Kahana.
The ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES that were developed are presented on the next two pages of thisProgress Report. The tabular format for these ALTERNATIVES includes an evaluation of the probable
impacts of each ALTERNATIVE for five important considerations:“FREES” State Parks from management of Residential Leases



EVICTIONS of families who are in default of lease terms (would be required)Kahana families would benefit FINANCIALLY

PUBLIC RECREATIONAL BENEFITS remain the same or are increased

Action by the HAWAIʻI STATE LEGISLATURE would be required

For each of the ALTERNATIVES/PROBABLE IMPACTS, the analysis provided a basic “score”: scores of“YES/NO/POSSIBLY” for four of the five IMPACTS, and scores of “DECREASE/SAME/INCREASE” for“PUBLIC RECREATIONAL BENEFITS.” The scores for the PROBABLE IMPACTS were discussed andeventually resolved through several planning team working sessions.
Each of the ALTERNATIVES was also given a score of “LOW” or “MODERATE” for “OVERALL POLITICALFEASIBILITY” of each Alternative Strategy. The planning team agreed that any alternative that would
require evictions of Kahana families would have a LOW Political Feasibility.

80

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Table 1 Alternative Strategies for the Future of Kahana Families and Kahana Natural, Cultural, and Recreational Resources

PROBABLE IMPACTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY

1.

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIESThe concept of the “Cultural Living Park”

2.

ALT 1A: Implement the “Living Park” concept, but
modify the leases to provide more flexibility and some
economic benefits for lessees
ALT 1B: Implement the “Living Park concept by
replacing families who are in violation of lease termswith new families that will engage in cultural practices
ALT 1C: Rescind the “Living Park” concept, but allow
families to continue to live in Kahana on land removed
from State Parks ownership.
The 65‐Year Leases
ALT 2A: Implement the “Living Park” concept, but
modify the residential leases to provide flexibility andeconomic opportunities for lessees.
ALT 2B: Implement the “Living Park” concept withheightened enforcement of the terms of the leases,
including replacing families who are in violation oflease terms, with new families that will engage in
Kahana cultural practices.
ALT 2C: Rescind the “Living Park” concept and offer toKahana families new affordable monetary leases oraffordable fee simple ownership of the residential lots.

Kahana families
would benefit
FINANCIALLY

PUBLICRECREATIONAL
BENEFITS remain
the same or are
increased

Action by the
HAWAIʻI STATELEGISLATURE
would berequired

OVERALL
POLITICALFEASIBILITY of
each
Alternative
Strategy*

NO

YES

SAME

NO

LOW

NO

YES

NO

INCREASENOLOWPOSSIBLYNO

POSSIBLY

INCREASE

YES

MODERATE

NO

NO

YES

SAME

NO

LOW

NO

YES

NO

INCREASENOLOWPOSSIBLYNO

YES

INCREASE

YES

MODERATE“FREES” State
Parks frommanagementof residential
leasesEVICTIONS offamilies whoare in defaultof leaseterms

NO*Any alternative that will require evictions of Kahana families is considered to have a LOW Political Feasibility.

Chapter 2

81

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Table 1: Alternative Strategies for the Future of Kahana Families and Kahana Natural, Cultural, and Recreational Resources (Continued)

PROBABLE IMPACTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY

3.

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIESManagement of Kahana mauka, makai, recreational,
and residential areas
ALT 3A: To implement Alts. 1A and 2A, State Parks
continues to manage all four areas of Kahana with
supplemental funds for qualified management staff.
ALT 3B: To implement Alts. 1B and 2B, State Parks
continues to manage Kahana mauka, makai, andrecreational areas, and contracts with a for‐profit or
non‐profit entity to manage the residential leases,
with supplemental funds.
ALT 3C: To implement Alts. 1C and 2C, State Parks
continues to manage Kahana mauka, makai, andrecreational areas, in partnership with other DLNR
Divisions, and converts residential area to affordable
monetary leases or affordable fee simple ownershipfor Kahana families.
ALT 3D: State Parks continues to manage Kahana
recreational areas, but relinquishes management of
the mauka, makai, and residential areas to one ormore other entities.**
ALT 3E: State Parks removes itself completely from
Kahana, and turns over leases to the management of
the four areas to one or more entities.**Kahana families
would benefit
FINANCIALLY

PUBLICRECREATIONAL
BENEFITS remain
the same or are
increased

Action by the
HAWAIʻI STATELEGISLATURE
would berequired*

OVERALL
POLITICALFEASIBILITY of
each
Alternative
Strategy

NO

POSSIBLY

SAME

NO

LOW

YES

POSSIBLYPOSSIBLY

INCREASE

NO

MODERATEPOSSIBLYNO

POSSIBLY

INCREASE

YES

MODERATE

YES

POSSIBLYPOSSIBLY

INCREASE

NO

LOW

YES

POSSIBLYPOSSIBLY

INCREASE

NO

LOW“FREES” State
Parks frommanagement ofResidential
LeasesEVICTIONS offamilies whoare in defaultof leaseterms

NO*Any alternative that will require evictions of Kahana families is considered to have a LOW Political Feasibility** State Parks could lease its Kahana recreational assets to a non‐profit entity, like in Heʻeia. There could then be an opportunity for community‐based management, perhaps a
KONOHIKI‐type system.

82

Chapter 2

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

2.5 State Parks Survey of Kahana LesseesState Parks staff determined that a survey of Kahana Lessees’ positions on critical issues and alternatives
for the future of Kahana was needed. The surveys were intended to provide initial responses of Kahana
Lessees, with “one on one” follow‐up interviews that would provide lessees an opportunity to discussthese issues in more detail. Two surveys were developed: one questionnaire (Figure 5) focused on thethree critical Kahana issues and was sent to all Kahana lessees and to the residents of the six unleased
house lots. The second questionnaire (Figure 6) was sent only to the residents of the six unleased house
lots and was focused on their willingness/ability to comply with current floodplain regulations andfunding of required improvements to their structures and lots.
There were 34 survey questionnaires mailed to the 28 Kahana lessees plus the six families who areawaiting leases. A total of 20 questionnaires were filled out or partially filled out and returned to State
Parks. All of the six families who are awaiting a Kahana lease filled out and returned the special
questionnaire.

Chapter 2

83

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Figure 5 Letter and Survey Form Sent to Kahana Lessees

84

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Figure 6: Letter and Survey Form Sent to Kahana Lessees (Continued)

Chapter 2

85

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Figure 6: Letter and Survey Form Sent to Kahana Lessees (Continued)

86

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

The following is a summary of the survey results:

1. “Do you still support the current 65‐year lease arrangement with the required 25 hours permonth interpretive hours?”
YES: 10
NO: 41a.

BLANK: 5

COULDN’T TELL: 1“Do you want other activities to be accepted for the required hours in addition toAppendix C?”
YES: 17
NO: 2
BLANK: 1

2. “Should new leases be issued to families with authentic ties to Kahana that are willing tocomply with the 25 hours/month requirement?”
YES: 14
NO: 5
BLANK: 1
2a.

“Should the number of leases for these new lessees be limited to the existing 36
subdivided lots?”
YES: 6
NO: 13BLANK: 1

3. “Do you support the idea of the current lease arrangement being changed to a monthly
monetary rent at a rate to be determined and eliminate the 25 hours/month requirement?”
YES: 6
NO: 6
BLANK: 6“DEPENDS”: 2

4. “Do you want additional changes to the lease to allow you to benefit from improvements madeon the property?”
YES: 16

NO: 3

BLANK: 1

6. Are you satisfied with State Parks managing the residential leases?*
YES: 56a.

NO: 15BLANK: 0“If not satisfied, do you think the residential leases and residents should be managed byanother agency or entity?”
YES: 10
NO: 6
BLANK: 3“Depends”: 1

7. “If State Parks does not manage the residential lease lots, do you think State Parks should
continue to manage the recreational, environmental and cultural resources and activities in
Kahana?”
YES: 10
NO: 10BLANK: 0

8. “Do you support the management of the entire ahupuaʻa be managed by another en ty such asa non‐profit, or other non‐governmental entity?
YES: 13
NO: 6
BLANK: 1*Note: There was no question #5 in the survey.

Chapter 2

87

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

2.6 State Parks Survey of the Six Families Awaiting Leases
There were four questions in the special questionnaire that was sent to the six families who are awaiting
leases (Figure 6). As mentioned previously, all six families returned completed surveys. These questions,and a summary of the answers of the six families, are provided below:
Figure 6 Survey Form Sent to the Six Kahana Families Awaiting Leases

88

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

The following is a summary of the survey results:

1. With the possible, but still uncertain BLNR approval of both the EA/FOSI and CDUP, would you
comply with the following requirements: all structures and improvements are required tocomply with current City and County of Honolulu building codes and flood plain regulations; alltoilets, sinks, showers/bathing units, outdoor sinks will need to be connected to a sewer system;
upgrade water and wastewater systems to comply with EPA, State and CCH requirements
including Aerobic Treatment Unit (ATU) and pumps to treat and dispose of the wastewater;
monitoring and annual maintenance of the ATU by a certified water system operator; theincrease in electrical cost from the ATUs; the cost of water service provided by the Board of
Water Supply; and all utility costs must be paid by you. Renovation or new construction in its
current location will need to comply with current flood plain requirements, including raising thestructure above ground. Compliance of the above will be the responsibility of thelessee/occupant.
YES: 0

NO: 6

BLANK: 0

2. With BLNR approval of both the EA/FONSI and CDUP, would you have the ability to pay for thecompliance requirements described above? All costs will be the responsibility of thelessee/occupant.
YES: 0

NO: 6

BLANK: 0

3. Would you be able to finance the following: home renovations and new constructions that mustcomply with current building codes and regulations; sewer improvements must be approved by
CCH and DOH; home renovations and new construction will need to meet CCH flood plain
requirements such as raising the structures above ground; and new water lines. All costs will be
the responsibility of the lessee/occupant.
YES: 5

NO: 1

BLANK: 0

4. If the BLNR denies either the EA/FONSI or CDUP, or no action by the Board, and if house designand construction support was provided by the Habitat for Humanity or additional Legislative
funding was provided, would you consider an alternate lot in Kahana that does not incur theamount of all of the costs described above? A septic tank and leachfield system in these lots wasestimated to cost approximately $25,000 vs. $900,000 for a system in the current location.
YES: 0Chapter 2

NO: 1

BLANK: 589

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

2.7 Lessee Interviews by Townscape
The State Parks consultant met with Kahana lessees/Families from February 21, 2017 through March 7,
2017. Most of these meetings were with ONE lessee/family at their home. One of the meetings was with
one lessee plus three of the six families that are awaiting leases – a “joint meeting” at the request of
those families. Each of these “one on one” meetings lasted about one hour. From February 21, 2017
through March 7, 2017, the consultant interviewed a total of 15 of the current 28 lessees, plus five of
the six families who are awaiting a lease. On March 8, 2017, the consultant also met with a group of six
Kahana young people who are active in Kahana community programs.
In order of occurrence, the consultant interviewed the following Kahana individuals:
1. Ululani Beirne
2. May Au
3. Puanani Martinez
4. Anigan Kahala
5. Duke Kahala
6. Olepa Malepe (for Duchess Kahala)
7. Thoren Evans
8. Ron and Anita Johnson
9. Norman Shapiro
10. Sheila Sherman
11. Carol Soga
12. Kaipo Gorai
13. Blanch Soga
14. Brumell Gaceta
15. Charmaine Kahala
16. Sherri Johnson
17. Lena Soliven
18. Lisa and Vanny Kamakaʻala
19. Sunny Greer
20. Jim Anthony
The Kahana young adults that participated in the March 8, 2017 meeting were: Shaelene Kamaka’ala,
Kahiau Wallace, Kaipo Soares, Leelen Garvida, and Shaunny Keaweʻehu. Community worker Laulani
Teale also participated in this meeting.
Following is a summary of these Kahana lessee/family meetings. As the consultant had promised theKahana families, the thoughts in this summary are not attributed to specific individuals. This summary
has been organized by general TOPIC. These TOPICS generally relate to the QUESTIONS that were listed
in the recent SURVEY FORM that State Parks mailed and hand‐delivered to all Kahana families. However,these discussions with Kahana lessees/families were deliberately broader in nature, as compared to the“YES/NO” format of the Survey.

90

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

For the very important questions dealing with the “Living Park,” “25 hours vs. monetary lease rents” and“Should State Parks continue to manage Kahana?” the answers from the 20 interviews were generally as
follows:


The concept of the Living Park: The majority of the 20 people that were interviewed had no
specific thoughts on the “Living Park” concept. Several people said that they believed this was agood concept BUT that Kahana today is not at present a “Living Park” because most of theKahana residents are not interested in engaging in cultural practices or “interpretive services”
for the Park.



25 hours of interpretive services vs. monetary lease rents: nine people said the 25 hours permonth requirement was manageable; six people said it would be good for people to have theoption of either doing 25 hours or paying monetary lease rents; five people did not have an
opinion on this question.

Should State Parks continue to manage Kahana? Without exception, all 20 interviewees said
that State Parks has “never” done a good job of managing Kahana and that State Parks needs tohire qualified park personnel who know how to work with a rural community like Kahana. Seven
people basically said that State Parks was not a good manager but that they could not think ofan entity that could replace State Parks. Six people said NO, State Parks should not continue tomanage Kahana. However, only ONE of these people had a suggestion on an entity that
could/should manage Kahana. That person suggested that a SINGLE PURPOSE ENTITY like theKahoʻolawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC) should manage Kahana. The Kahana Young adults
group advocated for management of the Kahana Ahupuaʻa “by the Kahana community.”

The SCOPE OF WORK for Phase 1A of the Kahana planning process was organized to address the “THREECRITICAL, OVERARCHING ISSUES” for Kahana: (1) the Concept of the “Living Park,” (2) the 65‐Year
Leases, (3) Future Management of the Kahana Ahupuaʻa. This summary of the one on one mee ngs has
therefore been organized under these three general headings.

2.7.1

The Concept of the Living Park

Thoughts of the interviewed lessees on the subject of the “Living Park” included the following:The “living park” concept was valid at the time that it was adopted for Kahana; the kūpuna atthat time really did live and understand Hawaiian culture.

State Parks made a big mistake when they forced Kahana families to relocate to new lots awayfrom their traditional home sites, their ʻāina. The relocation of Kahana families destroyed any
hope for a viable “Living Park.”

There are a lot of opportunities to do interpretive programs at the Kam Mon Store, but atpresent there are only three people who are active at the Store.

State Parks wants us to participate in interpretive programs, but they don’t organize enoughcultural programs for us to participate in: 34 families X 25 hours per family each month = 850
hours per month of organized programs would be needed.

Chapter 2

91

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Why put a cap on the number of house lots? The LIVING PARK needs lots of residents to bealive!



There is A LOT OF WORK that could/should be done in Kahana, including keeping the riverclear/clean, clearing the trails, keeping the pig population under control, etc. etc. Maybe young
people over the age of 21 who are living with their parents or grandparents in Kahana should be
required to contribute 25 hours per month of ahupuaʻa maintenance work.

The “GARDEN” is a highlight area of Kahana that visitors enjoy.

Maybe have each family responsible for a specific area of Kahana – whether garden, loʻi,
fishpond or other – so that they had clear responsibilities, and also it would be easy to see ifthey are doing the needed work.



Could do away with the “living park” idea and just let people live here.

2.7.2

The Terms of the 65‐Year Leases

Thoughts on the leases included the following:92

The 65‐year leases gave Kahana families some longer‐term security, but these individual leases
destroyed the COMMUNAL SPIRIT of Kahana.

25 hours per month of interpretive services is easy to do – don’t understand why some Kahanafolks are complaining about this requirement.



The 25 hours per month is OK because this allows us to continue to live in Kahana.

State Parks never set up a system for cultural activities.



Our young people are putting in hours of interpretive services, but they don’t get those hours
recorded.



Monetary lease rents instead of the 25‐hour per month of interpretive services could be an
option.



Monetary lease rents probably better for kūpuna – who in their old age are having a hard time
doing 25 hours per month of interpretive services.



We should be able to accrue more than the 150 hours that is currently the limit. We could use
accrued hours if we get sick and can’t put in hours for a period of time, or if we need to take along trip or if we want to contribute some hours to a family that is having a hard time keeping
up with their required hours for some reason.

“I have 3000 recorded ‘volunteer hours’ but none of those hours can be used against my ‘hours
in arrears.’’’I am against monetary lease rents – that would negate the entire concept of Kahana families
participating in interpretive programs for the living park!

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

If the value of the interpretive services hours is at least $10/hour, then monetary lease rents of$250 per month (25 hours X $10/hour) would be reasonable.



Something like $600 per month lease rent would be fair.

Kahana families paid $60 per month for the earlier REVOCABLE PERMITS.



Monetary lease rents would open up Kahana to the general public.

Kahana lessees should have the right to obtain loans against the value of their on‐site
improvements and on the value of the remaining years of their lease.



The clause in the leases that says that Kahana lessees can only sell their house to the State, andthat the State will only pay $65,000 for a Kahana lessee’s house is totally unreasonable. The CityTax Department assesses my house at a value of $450,000! I should be able to sell my house atmarket value!

This requirement of “must sell back to the state” constitutes an ILLEGAL TAKING. We need awritten opinion from outside legal counsel on the legality of this requirement.



Lease to Fee conversion needs to be an option for Kahana lessees.



These leases would never hold up in court!



Many Kahana families are in arrears on their hours because the State Parks Coordinator has notbeen consistent in working with families to make up for their required hours.

Regarding Kahana families that are in arrears on their interpretive hours: may be best to “wipeout” the hours that are “owed” and start everybody fresh.



Alternate view: Kahana families that are in arrears on their interpretive hours should be evicted.
State Parks does not enforce the terms of the leases – and that is at the root of management
problems for Kahana.

Evictions could work – IF people and organizations outside Kahana were given facts about why
the evictions were necessary.



Would like to be able to rent out room(s) in our house. Related point of view: Kahana folks
should NOT be allowed to rent rooms to outsiders but OK to rent to family members.

What about allowing for ADUs – Accessory Dwelling Units – similar to the recently enacted City
ordinance?

Kahana senior citizens should be allowed to live here “rent free” – no required hours OR
monetary rents.

More leases should be considered – for young folks with children. But not sure that these young
folks will be able to afford mortgage loans, insurance, property taxes, utilities, maintenance, etc.

“Any changes to the leases requires the agreement of all Kahana lessees.” (Need to check if thisprovision is in the leases.)

The provisions of the Kahana leases should stay the same, and the leases should be extended
beyond the current lease term of 65 years.

Chapter 2

93

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNINGThe current leases are not perfect, but could be worse! Overall, the current leases are good for
Kahana folks.

We’re doing fine here – the State won’t evict any more people.



We should have about ½ acre lots so that there would be enough space for adult children withfamilies to build a house.

Members of our extended families should be allowed to camp on our lots from time to time.

Maybe we need to look at a different land tenure model – more like the “community contract”
and bylaws that were established back in the late 19th Century by the HUI that owned Kahana.

2.7.3

Future Management of the Kahana AhupuaʻaThoughts on the future management of Kahana included the following:94State Parks should suck it up and manage Kahana the way it should be managed!

State Parks has NEVER UNDERSTOOD how to manage Kahana. State Parks did not want to haveto manage Kahana from the start!

State Parks has never trained their people how to manage Kahana and Kahana families.

Managing Kahana is a tough job for anyone!

Kahana needs a Konohiki type manager who will work WITH Kahana families.



The right kind of manager could make things work for Kahana!

Need a Park Manager with really good PEOPLE SKILLS!

State Parks needs to find a person who has HUMAN RESOURCES (HR) MANAGEMENT experience– someone who is really qualified to work with people.



Need a park manager who lives nearby so they don’t have to “go home at 3:00 p.m.”The “9 to 5 – Monday thru Friday only” mentality DOES NOT WORK for a Kahana Park Manager –especially since most of the visitors to Kahana come on the weekends!



The current State Parks Manager for Kahana favors some individuals/families; does not likeothers – not a good way to manage.

State Parks not doing a good job managing Kahana. Look at all the junk cars and trash on someof the Kahana Valley Road lots! State Parks should enforce the rules – but they don’t.

State Parks doesn’t do anything about illegal campers or homeless people who are living in thebushes near the beach.

State Parks doesn’t manage the access roads and the grass, bushes and trees adjacent to theroads – yet won’t recognize the hours that Kahana residents devote to maintaining the roadcorridors.

State Parks should continue to be the manager for Kahana – but Kahana needs a manager
person who is both flexible and fair.

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

The Park Manager should be an ADVOCATE for Kahana families!



The Park Manager needs to be able to issue and enforce citations and fines to Kahana folks whoare violating the terms of their lease – junked cars and trash, etc.

State Parks should not be the landlord. (But when the interviewer asked: “Well – what agency orentity could or should manage Kahana?” all but one of the Kahana folks had no suggestions.)State Parks needs a Plan that will create JOBS for Kahana families. How about developing a
COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, a CULTURAL CENTER, a SOLAR FARM, a WINDFARM? These kinds ofprojects would provide management and maintenance jobs for us.



If State Parks decides to turn over the management of the leases to a private property
management company, would that company know how to manage the “25 hours of interpretive
services per month” requirement?

Management of the natural resources of Kahana is the key!

Kahana is not just “a public park” – this ahupuaʻa is a special resource that needs special
management.

What Kahana needs is a “single purpose entity” whose SOLE MISSION AND FUNCTION is to
manage the resources of the Kahana Ahupuaʻa with and for the people of Kahana and for the
benefit of the state of Hawaiʻi overall.



Things are NOT WORKING for Kahana families and for State Parks. State is always interfering in
our lives. It may be simplest to “excise” the residential lots from the State Park and just let
Kahana families go on with their lives – “get the State off of the people’s backs.”

Kahana needs a HEALING PROCESS.

2.7.4

Other Issues

Kahana folks just don’t understand the concept of COMPROMISE!

There should be more opportunities for outside groups and organizations to participate incultural programs and activities in Kahana.



The Kahana Community Association is not a functioning entity – there are only a few dues
paying members, and few people attend the meetings.



It has now been eight years since the passage of ACT 15, and there is STILL no progress on theissues that ACT 15 identified to be addressed.



The KPC has never clearly understood their function. They should be a CONDUIT for planningideas from the Kahana community, not the ORIGINATOR of a Plan for Kahana.

Regarding the stance of the six families who are still waiting for a lease: “This is OUR PLACE.
Other families chose to move. We do not choose to move.”The six families who are waiting for leases need a HOUSING FUND to help them to financeconstruction of new homes. Small homes would be ok.

Chapter 2

95

Draft Progress Report – February 201896

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNINGThe six families “just want what is fair.”

Wastewater treatment is a big issue: there is no way that the six families can afford theexpensive wastewater treatment system that the State says they would have to install tocontinue living in the flood zone.



If the flood zone is such a big problem, why did State Parks build the new Store in the flood
zone?



State Parks was supposed to knock down all of the old houses in the flood zone, but left somestanding. So then some people stayed in those houses. State Parks is responsible for thisproblem.

Former DLNR Chair William Aila, Jr. sent us a letter confirming that we would receive leases forour sites in the makai area of the Park.



There are night marchers in the makai area of the Park.



Any future planning for Kahana will have to look at KULEANA ISSUES – how to make things pono
for former kuleana land owners.



There used to be big prawns in the river but now the water is bad and the prawns are gone.

There have been many, many studies done for Kahana over the years, and ALL of this material
should be considered and incorporated into the Kahana Master Plan.

State Parks should report on Kahana at every LAND BOARD meeting.

State Parks should provide some maintenance tools, trash bags, etc. to Kahana families so thatthe families can help to maintain public areas of the Park.



There are more and more commercial kayakers using Kahana waters.



Kahana could participate in planning for the return of HŌKŪLEʻA later this year – this event
could bring people together.



Hōkūleʻa Visits – Kahana families were expected to provide food to the crew out of their own
pockets. Why won’t State Parks help with providing food?

Is there an Environmental Assessment on file for the planned new bridge?



The Kahana Pier is in terrible shape! Can’t DLNR do SOMETHING about this???



There have been a lot of conflicts within the Kahana community over the years, but even so
there are now a lot of families that work well together.



There is a new book coming out soon about the life of Mary Ward Foster.

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

2.8 Analysis: The “Living Park” Concept
Critical Issue #1: Is The “Cultural Living Park” Concept Still A Valid Concept For Kahana?
The State of Hawaiʻi completed acquisi on of the 5,249 acres of the Ahupuaʻa of Kahana in 1970. During
the 1970s and early 1980s, the State sponsored several “Master Plans” for Kahana which were focusedon large scale, costly plans for visitor attractions and which all included eviction of the long‐timeresidents of the ahupuaʻa. The Kahana residents appealed to the State Legislature and to then Governor
Burns for the right to continue living in Kahana. The “living park” concept was conceived as a means ofallowing families to continue living within the boundaries of a State Park. The resident families would, in
effect, become a cultural resource for the park and park visitors. Kahana is the only State Park in Hawaiʻiwhere families are permitted to live, by means of long‐term residential leases.
The definition of a “living park” was provided by Senate Resolution 264, adopted by the 1977 HawaiʻiState Legislature:“The purpose of a ‘living park’ in Hawaii is to nurture and foster native Hawaiian culture andspread knowledge of its values and ways, and that in such a living park, the individuals living
there shall participate in the purposes of the park by helping in the education of the public andby incorporating into the structure of their daily lives such values and ways.”
It should be noted that Senate Resolution 264 explicitly states “native Hawaiian culture.” Some Kahana
residents have said that the purpose of the “Kahana Living Park” is to express the many cultures that are
represented by Kahana families, including Samoan, Filipino, Chinese and Japanese. However, thelanguage of the 1977 Senate Resolution does not include this “multi‐cultural” concept.
An earlier document, a letter dated December 2, 1971, addressed to Mr. Alan Sanborn, Chairman,
Kahana Valley Task Force and signed by Sonia Faust, Deputy Attorney General, states that:“This is in response to your request for an opinion as to whether the creation of the Kahana
Valley living park would be legal.
We are of the opinion that the creation of such a park would be legal.
We understand the relevant facts to be the following: Kahana Valley has been condemned forpark purposes by the State. The Governor appointed your task force to plan the park. The task
force has determined to create a living park at Kahana. That is, the present residents, or some ofthem, comprising the approximately twenty‐three households in the valley, would continue toreside in the park in some form of employment with the State to preserve, portray andperpetuate the unique life style which exists in the valley.”

Chapter 2

97

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

According to Robert Stauffer, author of the book “Kahana – How the Land was Lost,” the original “Living
Park” concept envisioned by the State Legislature was a Pacific version of the “historic” village ofWilliamsburg, Virginia, where tourists can view homes and farms designed in the style of American
Colonial times, staffed by people dressed in 18th Century costumes.
Documents describing the traditional cultural activities of Kahana families during the early years of theKahana “living park” – 1970s and 1980s – (see “Ahupuaʻa O Kahana: The Struggle Con nues (1917‐1997)– Historical Accounts as Documented in the Honolulu Advertiser & the Star Bulletin” by Erline “Sunny”
Alonzo Greer) suggest that traditional Hawaiian culture and customs were indeed being “lived” by someKahana individuals and families in the 1970’s. However, during the nearly 40 years since the 1977 Senate
Resolution was passed, both State Parks and the Kahana community have experienced many difficulties
in their efforts to make the “living park” concept a reality. Impediments to the success of the “livingpark” concept have included:98Generational changes – with the loss, through the years, of Hawaiian kūpuna who had
knowledge of Hawaiian cultural practices that they could share with visitors. Today, none of theoriginal group of kūpuna are still living.

Gradual changing of the cultural backgrounds of Kahana families during the past 40 years,
through the loss of kūpuna and through marriages, such that families with strong native
Hawaiian cultural knowledge are today a minority of the 34 families living in Kahana;The requirement for each family to provide “for in‐kind payment of the lease rent…twenty‐five(25) hours per month of services related to scheduled interpretive programs” per the terms of
the 65‐year leases that were put into effect starting in 1993;



Ongoing disagreements and tensions between Kahana families and park managers regarding“eligible” activities that are included in the list of approved “scheduled interpretive programs,’
and disagreements regarding recording of cultural activities hours, accrual of hours and related
details of this key lease requirement;Resentment on the part of some Kahana residents that they are REQUIRED to practice and/or
demonstrate their culture rather than just being allowed to live their culture in a natural way.



Reluctance on the part of State Parks to enforce the terms of the 65‐Year leases by evicting
families that are in serious default on the terms of their lease. This lack of enforcement by State
Parks has resulted in an attitude of indifference to lease requirements on the part of many
Kahana residents.

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

2.8.1

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Current Status of the “Living Park” Concept

Based on the State Parks consultant’s recent (July 2016 through February 2017) discussions with Kahana
residents and with the State Parks Manager for cultural programs at Kahana, there are still a number ofKahana people who are actively pursuing Hawaiian cultural activities, including cultivation of kalo andother traditional food crops, restoration of Huilua Fishpond, and developing community‐based
management protocols for the fisheries of Kahana Bay. However, these cultural practitioners –reportedly fewer than a dozen in number ‐ are a small minority of the Kahana population, which today
numbers 34 families (28 families that hold 65‐Year Leases plus 6 families that have requested leases)
and about 300 people. According to the State Parks Manager and several long‐time residents, themajority of current Kahana families have neither the knowledge nor the interest to participate in ordemonstrate Hawaiian cultural practices.
As of September 2016, an analysis by State Parks of the status of Kahana families’ conformance with therequirement of “(25) hours per month of services related to scheduled interpretive programs” showedthat eight of the 28 families (28.6%) with leases had a small to significant + balance of hours (+35 to+482), three families (10.7%) were in arrears by ‐375 to ‐635 hours (15 to 25.4 months in arrears), and
17 families (60.7%) were in arrears by 1150.5 to 4248.5 hours (46 to 170 months) in arrears.
Based on these numbers, as well as the long history of friction between the Kahana community andState Parks staff, the State Parks Administrator has concluded that the “living park” concept for Kahana
as defined in the 1977 Resolution of the Hawai’i State Legislature is a “broken” concept. The question
then might be: “Can this broken concept be repaired?”

2.8.2

Recent Interviews with Kahana Families

In 2015, the State Parks consultant conducted “one on one” interviews with 25 of the 28 Kahana
families with leases and three of the six families that have requested new residential leases. The
consultant also interviewed a number of individuals who had worked for many years with the Kahana
community. In 2016 and early 2017, the consultant completed follow‐up interviews with 20 Kahana
families as well as interviews with State Parks staff. Based on these interviews, the consultant found thatthe attitude of Kahana families relative to the “cultural hours requirement” varied from indifference to“that’s a small price to pay for the right to live in this beautiful valley” to “yes, it’s important to me to beable to practice and share my culture.” However, this last, positive kind of statement was only expressedby three individuals.
It should be noted that the Kahana‐based non‐profit organization Hoʻāla ʻĀina Kūpono has been actively
engaged in several Hawaiian cultural programs during the last 3 to 4 years. Hoʻāla is currently the"curator" of the Kam Mon Store. They are the lead entity for the restoration and care of Huilua, thehistoric fishpond at Kahana. Hoʻāla has also created the “Kahana Kilo Kai” program – a grass‐roots ocean
monitoring program that has an “Adopt‐A‐Harbor” agreement with the DLNR Division of Boating andOcean Recreation (DOBOR) to take care of and provide maintenance for the Kahana boat ramp and pier,among other things. Hoʻāla also organizes and sponsors annual Lawaiʻa ʻOhana summer camps to help
build community and provide a space to pass on traditional fishing and resource knowledge from

Chapter 299

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

kūpuna to mākua and keiki. The non‐profit organization “Friends of Kahana” is also involved in theongoing maintenance work at Huilua.

2.8.3

General Conclusions and Alternative Strategies

Based on all of the above information, the State Parks consultant’s conclusion is that the “living park”
concept is no longer a valid overall concept for Ahupuaʻa O Kahana State Park.
IF THE “LIVING PARK” CONCEPT IS NO LONGER VALID FOR KAHANA, THEN WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVE
CONCEPTS FOR AHUPUAʻA O KAHANA STATE PARK? The Alterna ves to the “living park” concept for
Kahana appear to be:

ALTERNATIVE A: ATTEMPT TO REVALIDATE AND REINVIGORATE THE LIVING PARK CONCEPT byevicting families that are in violation of the terms of their leases and bringing in new families
who have ancestral ties to Kahana and who will make a firm commitment to fulfilling the“cultural hours requirement” of the 65‐year leases.



ALTERNATIVE B: RESCIND THE LIVING PARK CONCEPT but allow Kahana families to continue tolive in Kahana under the terms of modified 65‐Year Leases that will: (1) require nominal
monetary lease rent payments instead of the 25 “cultural hours” per month – “nominal” being
no more than $400 per annum; (2) allow lessees more economic flexibility than do the existing
leases, including the right to sell food products that are grown on their lots and crafts items thatthey may make with their own skills. The lease clause that restricts Kahana lessees’ ability to sell
their homes also needs to be revised.

Our analysis of ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES for the three critical Kahana issues included a preliminary
analysis of the overall “political feasibility” of each alternative (see Table 1 Alternative Strategies for
the Future of Kahana Families and Kahana Natural, Cultural, and Recreational Resources).
ALTERNATIVE A was rated “LOW” for political feasibility, because this Alternative would require theeviction of some Kahana families. Even though eviction of some families may be legally justified due totheir non‐compliance with the terms of their leases, past experience with attempted evictions of several
Kahana families has shown that such actions by State Parks would almost certainly result in politicalprotests, demonstrations and possibly worse by “activists.”
ALTERNATIVE B was rated “MODERATE” for political feasibility, as this alternative would NOT requireeviction of non‐complying Kahana families. ALTERNATIVE B was not rated “HIGH” for political feasibility
for a number of reasons, including:100

In a letter dated August 20, 1986, addressed to then Chairperson of the Board of Land andNatural Resources Susumu Ono, and signed by Dona L. Hanaike, Deputy Attorney General, Ms.
Hanaike wrote that: “The valley residents are allowed to live in Kahana only because they will be
an integral part of the interpretive programs. The residents have no vested rights to the park. Ifthey are not a part of the interpretive programs, they cannot reside in the park.”

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Given the language contained in the above‐referenced legal opinion by Deputy Attorney General
Hanaike, implementation of Alternative B would require action by the Hawaiʻi State Legislaturethat would allow Kahana families to continue to live in the park even if the families will nolonger be “an integral part of the interpretive programs.” The new action by the Legislature
could include a provision whereby Kahana families can participate in “interpretive programs” ona voluntary basis.

It may be that some individuals – including possibly some State Legislators – will insist that the
DLNR continue to adhere to the August 20, 1986 opinion of Deputy Attorney General Hanaike,
and who will maintain that deleting the “25 hours of cultural activities” requirement from
Kahana leases will mean that Kahana families “cannot reside in the park.”

Chapter 2

101

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

2.9 Analysis: The 65‐Year Leases
2.9.1

Brief Background of the Kahana Residential Leases

The State of Hawaiʻi completed acquisi on of the Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana in 1970. The residen al leases
that are currently in force for 28 Kahana families were issued in 1993 – 23 years = one generation after
the acquisition process was finalized.
The process/history by which these 65‐year leases were created is a complex story that can be only
briefly summarize here. In the years following acquisition of Kahana by the State, master plan(s) weredeveloped that envisioned the transformation of Kahana into a major destination for visitors. These
plans recommended the relocation of Kahana families who had been living in the ahupuaʻa under short‐term license agreements with the former private land owner, together with the small number of Kahana
families who had owned Kahana land but had lost their land by 1970 through eminent domain action by
the State. The Kahana families appealed to then Governor Burns to be allowed to continue living in
Kahana. Through a complex negotiation process, it was determined that it would be legal for families tolive within the boundaries of a state park; that the families could continue to live in Kahana if they
participated in “interpretive activities” in a “living park;” and that long‐term, 65‐year leases should be
issued to Kahana families.
The State offered the 65‐year leases to Kahana families on the condition that many of the families agree
to move from their traditional home sites near the coast to two new subdivisions that the State would
create: on Trout Farm Road and on Kahana Valley Road. The kūpuna of each of the affected Kahana
families agreed that their ʻohana would move to the new loca ons. The State provided funds for theconstruction of roads and utilities for the two new subdivisions, and also provided low‐interest $50,000
mortgage loans to each family to purchase materials for construction of their new houses.

2.9.2

The Provisions of the 65‐Year Leases

It is instructive to review the provisions of the Kahana 65‐Year leases in some detail, and to compare
those provisions with other residential leases for State‐owned lands in several other areas, namely
MAUNALAHA and WAIĀHOLE on Oʻahu and MILOLIʻI on Hawaiʻi Island.
2.9.2.1 Kahana Leases – Table of Contents
The TABLE OF CONTENTS for the Kahana leases is as follows (See Appendix A for full copy of the lease):

102

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

TERM OF LEASEAUTHORITY
ANNUAL RENTAL
I.
RESERVATIONS:
1. Mineral and waters
2. Prehistoric and historic remains
II.
AGREEMENTS AND COVENANTS BETWEEN PARTIES:
1. Performance of rental obligation
2. Taxes, assessments, etc.
3. Utility services
4. Covenant against discrimination
5. Sanitation, etc.
6. Waste and unlawful, improper or offensive use of premises
7. Compliance with laws
8. Inspection of premises
9. Improvements
10. Repairs to improvements
11. Liens
12. Character of use
13. Dwelling restriction
14. Assignments; restrictions
15. Lessor’s right to purchase
16. Successorship
17. Subletting
18. Indemnity
19. Costs of Litigation
20. Liability insurance
21. Mortgage
22. Breach
23. Bond performance
24. Condemnation
25. Right to enter
26. Performance of rental obligation not a waiver
27. Waiver, modification, reimposition of bond and liability insurance provision
28. Quiet enjoyment
29. Surrender
30. Non‐warranty
31. Withdrawal
32. Fire and extended coverage insurance
33. Building requirement
34. Amendment to lease

Chapter 2

103

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

III.

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
1. Plan of operation
2. Dispute resolutions
3. Misrepresentation
4. Commercial operations
5. Garbage, refuse and abandoned vehicles
6. Ingress and egress
7. Use of park by general public
8. Fires, etc.
9. Cutting of trees, etc.
10. Dangerous animals
11. Prevention and control of exotic plants
DEFINITIONSSIGNATURE PAGE
ACKOWLEDGMENT PAGE
EXHIBITS A THROUGH D
2.9.2.2 Other State Leases of Interest
The State Parks consultant’s research included an analysis of selected leases that are in effect between
the State of Hawaiʻi and other communi es, including the leases for:


Maunalaha (DLNR Land Division)

Miloliʻi (DLNR Land Division)Waiāhole Valley Residential and Agricultural Lots (Hawaiʻi Housing Finance Development
Corporation ‐ HHFDC)

Most of the lease terms in the Maunalaha and Miloliʻi leases are standard DLNR Land Division
requirements. Provided below a summary of some of the relevant provisions of these leases, as follows:
Maunalaha Leases
The Maunalaha Community story in brief, from the Introduction to the “Maunalaha Community Center –HUD Environmental Report,” Spring 2000, by the UH Mānoa Department of Urban and Regional
Planning “Community Planning” class:“Maunalaha Valley encompasses approximately 2000 acres and is surrounded by Manoa Valley
on the east and Pacific Heights Ridge on the west. Its upper boundary approaches the summit of
the Koolau Mountains, while the makai boundaries lie adjacent to the Makiki Heights and Lower
Tantalus residential communities.
The community of Maunalaha is comprised of approximately thirty lots that house from 100 to
120 residents. The valley’s community is a historic one settled several generations ago, and has

104

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

been mostly untouched by development since that time. Because of this, the community shares
close ties with one another and a true sense of community spirit.
While the valley is designated a Conservation District by the State, residents in the valley were
granted long‐term leases in 1981 by the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) as
they were descendants of the original settlers of the valley. For example, the current Community
Association President is a 6th generation descendant in the valley.”
Maunalaha Lease Terms that may be of interest to State Parks and to Kahana lessees:Authority: Act 225 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1981 and Act 40 of the Session Laws of Hawaii,
1982.



Lease Term: 65 years, “commencing on the 1st day of December, 1983, up to and including the30th day of November, 2048.”



Lease Payments: “For the first twenty‐five (25) years, the sum of SIXTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS($60.00) every six months, for a total of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS($120.00) per year.”

Reopen annual rent amount “at the expiration of the twenty‐fifth (25th) and forty‐fifth (45th)years.

Reserved to the Lessor: Minerals and waters, prehistoric and historic remains.

Lessee to pay taxes, assessments and utility services.



Any improvements on the premises require prior approval of the Chairman or his authorized
representative.

One dwelling unit may be constructed on premises; a second family dwelling unit may beconstructed with approval of the Board

Transfer or assignment of the lease only permitted to descendant or heir

Subletting or renting of the premises not permitted.

Lessee shall procure homeowner’s liability insurance.

Lessee may mortgage the premises, but only with the approval of the Board.

Miloliʻi Leases
Miloliʻi is an unincorporated coastal community located on State lands in the District of South Kona,
Island of Hawaiʻi, about 33 miles south of Kailua‐Kona. The village site is where the 1926 lava flow from
Mauna Loa volcano entered the ocean. Sometimes referred to as “the last Hawaiian fishing village,”
Miloliʻi has no electrical power lines or County water. Families here provide for their own electricity withsolar panels and for their water with catchment systems.

Chapter 2

105

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Miloliʻi Lease Terms that may be of interest to State Parks and to Kahana lessees:Authority: Act 362 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1987, as amended by Act 68, Session Laws of
Hawaii 1989, and Act 86, Session Laws of Hawaii 1991.

Lease Term: 65 years, “commencing on the 1st day of June, 1992, up to and including the 31st
day of May, 2057.”



Lease Payments: “For the first twenty‐five (25) years, the sum of SIXTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS($60.00) every six months, for a total of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY‐TWO AND NO/100 DOLLARS($132.00) per year.”

Reopen annual rent amount “at the expiration of the twenty‐fifth (25th) and forty‐fifth (45th)years of the term.



Reserved to the Lessor: Minerals and waters, prehistoric and historic remains.

Lessee to pay taxes, assessments and utility services.



Any improvements on the premises require prior approval of the Board.

One dwelling unit may be constructed on premises; a second family dwelling unit may beconstructed with approval of the Board

Transfer or assignment of the lease only permitted to descendant or heir

Subletting or renting of the premises not permitted.

Lessee shall procure homeowner’s liability insurance.

Lessee may mortgage the lease, but only with the approval of the Board.

Lease shall be subject to the applicable conditions of the Conservation District Use Application(“CDUA”) HA‐1/12/84‐1653.

Waiāhole Residential Leases
In the 1970s, small tenant farmers in Waikāne and Waiāhole Valleys were engaged in a community
effort to prevent the development of these agricultural valleys for subdivisions and golf courses. The
fight against development ended in 1977, when the state purchased the land from Elizabeth Marks, heir
to the McCandless Estate. The state paid $6 million to Marks for 600 acres where the state planned todevelop the Waiāhole Agricultural Park.
The initial funds for acquisition came from the Hawai’i Housing Agency (HHA), now known as the Hawaiʻi
Housing Financing and Development Corporation (HHFDC). For this reason, HHA and, later, HHFDC, took
the lead in planning for the ag park, negotiating long term leases with the Waiāhole‐Waikāne
Community Association, which represents most of the farmers in the valley, and developing theinfrastructure required to support the farm lots and residential lots.
As of June 2016, there were 62 Residential Lots in Waiāhole Valley totaling 38.18 acres. There were also
42 Agricultural Lots totaling 354.14 acres. The structure and terms of the Waiāhole Valley Residential

106

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Leases differ from the terms of the Maunalaha and Miloliʻi leases because HHA, the original lessor, had
their own format for leases.
Waiāhole Valley Residential Lease Terms that may be of interest to State Parks and Kahana Lessees:

Lease Years 1‐15, lease rent is $500.00 each year for up to 7,500 Square Feet of land plus
additional $0.035 per year for each Square Foot over 7,500 Square Feet;

Lease Years 16‐25, lease rent is $600.00 each year for up to 7,500 Square Feet of land plus
$0.035 per year for each Square Foot over 7,500 Square Feet;

Rent amounts reopen at the end of the 25th year of the Lease and at the end of the 40th year of
the lease.

Lessee to pay taxes, liability insurance and fire insurance for all buildings constructed on the lotOnly one residential dwelling permitted on the premises



Diversified agricultural activities are permitted

After 50 years, the lease may be extended for a term of 20 years or such other period of timethat the parties shall agree toLessee may assign the lease to another partyLessee may mortgage the lease, with the approval of HHFDCLessee waives the right to purchase Fee Simple interest in the premises



HHFDC may terminate the lease if lessee fails to pay rent or violates other terms of the lease.

2.9.3

Comparison of the Kahana Leases with Other State Leases

A “side by side” comparison of the Kahana leases with the leases for Maunalaha, Miloliʻi and Waiāhole
shows that most of the provisions of the four leases are nearly identical, more or less “standard
language” for State leases except for the provisions relating to Lease Rents, Mortgage Loans and sale ofimprovements. These differences may be summarized as follows:

The Kahana leases are, of course, the only example within the State of Hawaiʻi of residen alleases within a State Park.



Lease Rents ‐ Of the four types of leases summarized in this Working Paper, the Kahana leases
are the only leases that require “In lieu of monetary rent, Lessee shall contribute in‐kind services
to the Department by participating in the interpretive programs at the Park, in the amount of 25hours per month…” The monetary lease amounts for Maunalaha, Miloliʻi and Waiāhole are small
amounts that would generally be considered “nominal lease rents.”Mortgage Loans ‐ The other three leases allow the lessee to obtain loans against both the valueof their leases and the improvements on their residential lots, subject to the approval of thelessor. The Kahana leases allow the lessee to “pledge the premises or any portion thereof of thislease or any interest therein,” but only with the “written approval of the Chairperson” and “mayonly assign this lease to the Housing Finance and Development Corporation.”

Chapter 2

107

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Sale of Improvements ‐ Clause #15 in the Kahana leases “Lessor’s right to purchase” does notappear in the other three leases. This clause states as follows:
15. Lessor’s right to purchase. If Lessee wishes to transfer its leasehold interest in the premises,
Lessor shall purchase the leasehold interest except where the Lessor consents to the transfer to aqualified assignee or successor.
The purchase price of Lessee’s interest in the premises shall be the value of Lessee’s interest in
the premises derived below, less the outstanding mortgage loan amount:(i)
The cost to Lessee of the initial improvements to the premises which have been approvedand certified by Lessor;(ii)“Sweat” equity in the form of labor contributions during the development period to beestablished and agreed to by the Lessor upon completion of the dwelling unit in an
amount not to exceed FIFTEEN THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($15,000.00) and(iii)
The cost of any subsequent improvements, which have been approved and certified by
Lessor (excluding labor), added to the premises by Lessee.

It should be noted that this “Lessors right to purchase” clause has been specifically criticized by anumber of the interviewed Kahana lessees. The interpretation of this clause by these lessees is that, if
they desire to sell their house they must sell it to the State, and that the State will only pay them anamount equal to the original mortgage loan from the State ($50,000.00) plus “sweat” equity of$15,000.00 = a maximum amount of $65,000.00 – WHEREAS, as several lessees have pointed out, theirhouses are taxed by the City and County of Honolulu at an assessed value that is much higher than
$65,000.00 – a value of $450,000 according to one lessee.
However, this criticism of this particular lease clause notwithstanding, it should be pointed out thatparagraph iii above includes “the cost of any subsequent improvements, which have been approved andcertified by Lessor (excluding labor), added to the premises by Lessee.” Thus, for example, if a Kahana
lessee used the original $50,000 loan provided by the State to construct a portion of their house, andsubsequently spent personal funds or other loan funds to complete construction of their house, andthose additional improvements were “approved and certified” by the State, then this additional amount– “excluding labor” – would be added to the value of the improvements. Based on our interviews with
Kahana lessees, however, it appears that the lessees are not aware of this clause, and we have notheard of any lessee that has attempted to apply this clause to their improvements. It should also be
noted that this clause does NOT address the issue of appreciation of the value of the improvements
which, especially for a high value real estate market like Oʻahu, is a significant “wealth building” factor
for families.
The Kahana leases are substantially similar to the leases examined for Maunalaha and Miloliʻi when it
comes to the control of selling/transferring the leases. For Maunalaha and Miloliʻi, lessees may sell (i.e.,transfer or assign) their lease, with apparently no control on the transfer/sale price, but thistransfer/sale right is limited to lessee descendants or heirs, and must have been approved by the Land
Board, with certain additional restrictions.

108

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

For Kahana, the lease may be transferred/sold, but such transfer or sale must be approved by the Land
Board and the recipient must be a descendant or other member of the lessee's family; no limit seems to
be set on the sale price.

2.9.4

Amending the Kahana Residential Leases

There are several alternatives to amending the existing 65‐Year Leases for Kahana families, including:a) Amend the existing leases by deleting the “25 hours per month of interpretive activities”
requirement and replacing that requirement with “nominal lease rents” similar to the nominal
monetary lease rents currently being paid by Maunalaha and Miloliʻi residents. Also amend theleases to allow Kahana families to apply for loans against the value of their houses, and to beable to sell their houses to the State at a more favorable price. Some other amendments andadditions could be made, including provisions to permit Kahana families to sell food products orcraft items that they may produce.
b) Design completely new leases if/when a different entity assumes responsibility for managing theresidential areas of Kahana – e.g., a new non‐profit entity (as has been previously proposed), oran existing non‐profit entity, or a different public agency, or a private sector managementcompany that would manage residential leases under a services contract with State Parks ordirectly with DLNR.
The design of amended or entirely new leases may require action by the State Legislature.
It should be noted that an opinion of Deputy Attorney General Dona L. Hanaʻike, in a letter dated August
20, 1986 addressed to the Honorable Susumu Ono, Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural
Resources, stated that: “The valley residents are allowed to live in Kahana only because they will be an
integral part of the interpretive programs. The residents have no vested rights to the park. If they are
not part of the interpretive programs, they cannot reside in the park.”
This legal opinion clearly links the participation of Kahana families in “interpretive activities” for the“living park” to the right of these families to continue to live in Kahana. By this legal logic, if the State
were to implement a “nominal monetary rent” provision for Kahana leases and cease to require eachKahana family to provide “25 hours of interpretive activities per month” in lieu of monetary lease rents,
Kahana families would NO LONGER BE PERMITTED TO RESIDE WITHIN THE PARK. However, it would befeasible for the State Legislature to in effect negate this legal opinion by enacting legislation thatprovides for MONETARY LEASE RENTS for the Kahana residential lots. Such legislation may also need to“separate out” the residential lands from the State Park, as the residential lots would have no function
within or for the State Park.

Chapter 2

109

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

A “LEASE TO FEE” alternative was discussed during the early months of this current planning effort.
However, the Lease to Fee alternative raises a number of difficult questions, including:
1. There is a general State policy that the State will NOT sell State land;
2. According to DLNR Land Division staff, State land can only be sold with a “super majority” voteof 2/3 of the members of both the State Senate and the State Legislature, and therefore “theState can sell State land, but doesn’t.” (Note: this 2/3 vote rule does not apply to “remnant
parcels” that have no public value – for example, a portion of an irrigation ditch that is owned by
the State but that is part of the irrigation system for a privately owned farm.)
3. If the Kahana residential lots were allowed to be sold to lessees at MARKET VALUE – whichmight be in the range of $200,000 to $400,000 for these 10,000 square foot rural residential
lots, there would be very few of the lessees who would have the financial means to purchasethe lots.
4. If the lots were valued according to the monetary value of the required 25 hours per month ofinterpretive activities = 300 hours per annum, and those activities were valued at $10 to $20 per
hour = a monetary value of $3,000 to $6,000 per annum, the remaining 42+ years of the leases
would be valued at $126,000+ to $252,000+ – which again very few of the lessees could afford,
and this lease‐rent value would need to be added to the underlying adjusted value of the land,
making for even higher and more unaffordable purchase costs.
5. Fee simple sale of even a few of the Kahana residential lots would, of course, require a new setof rules regarding qualifications of the buyers, as the State would in all probability NOT allow
the lots to be sold on the open market.
6. Fee simple sale of even one of the Kahana residential lots would also require legislative action
regarding the earlier Deputy Attorney General’s position that families MUST provide interpretive
services in order to live within the Park.
One of the current Kahana lessees is adament that HRS 516 provides the basis for lease to fee
conversion of the Kahana residential lots. This lessees thoughts on this key issue are provided in the next
section of this report.
Thus, based on analysis work to date, there appears to be a consensus within the Kahana community
regarding the 65‐Year Leases that:
1. The 65 Year term of the leases should be extended;
2. Provisions of the leases that limit the ability of Kahana families to benefit from the economic
value of their houses should be changed.
There is at this time NO CONSENSUS on the concept of possibly replacing the “25 hours of interpretive
programs” with monetary lease rents.

110

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 20182.10 HRS 516
Below is a listing of the sections in Hawaiʻi Revised Statues (HRS) 516. Due to its length, the entire
statute is not provided here. Instead, only those sections that are referenced in the analysis in Section
2.11 Analysis: Applicability of HRS 516, and bolded in the list below, are presented.
CHAPTER 516
RESIDENTIAL LEASEHOLDSPart I. General Provisions
Section516-1 Definitions
516-2 Applicability
516-3 No estoppel or waiver516-4 Trusts and estates
516-5 Penalty
516-6 Administration of chapter
516-7 Corporation's duties, generally
516-8 Interested members, officers, or employees
516-9 Quitclaim deeds
Part II. Condemnation of Development Tract516-21 Applicability
516-22 Designation of leased fee interest in all or part ofdevelopment tract for acquisition
516-23 Exercise of power of eminent domain
516-24 Compensation
516-24.5 Exchanges
516-25 Interest acquired
516-26 Interest in compensation paid by the corporation
516-27 Compulsory or involuntary conversion
516-28 Disposition, generally
516-29 Notice of disposition
516-30 Purchase of leased fee interest
516-31 Disposition by lease516-32 Not for profit
516-33 Qualification for purchase516-33.5 Deposits by lessees
516-34 Mortgages, agreements of sale, other instruments
516-35 Restrictions on sale and use of residential lots
516-35.1 Foreclosure and sale by mortgagees
516-36 to 39 Repealed
516-40 Bonds as legal investments
516-41 Exemption from taxation and assessments
516-42 Investment of reserves
516-43 Security for funds deposited
516-44 Repealed
516-45 General obligation bonds
516-51 Preliminary negotiation required
516-52 to 55 Repealed

Chapter 2111

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

516-56 Eminent domain trial
Part III. Rights of Lessees
516-61 Applicability
516-62 Discrimination
516-63 Free assignability
516-64 Forfeiture516-65 Extension
516-66 Lease rental
516-67 Zoning changes
516-68 Rights to self-organization; remedies
516-69 Sale of fee by lessor
516-70 Reversion of improvements
516-71 Residential lease; disclosure516-72 Civil penalty
516-73 Suggested form of standardized summary of leaseprovisions
Part IV. Judicial Declaration
516-81 Repealed
516-82 Severability
516-83 Legislative findings and declaration of necessity;
purposePart V. Fee Title Acquisition Loan Program
516-91 Definitions
516-95 Rules; eligible loans
516-101 Revenue bonds; authorization
516-102 Revenue bonds; payment and security516-103 Revenue bonds; interest rate, price, and sale516-104 Revenue bonds; investment of proceeds and redemption
516-107 Trustee; designation, duties
516-108 Trust indenture516-111 Revenue bonds; special funds
516-121 Acquisition loan programs; procedures and requirements
516-122 Acquisition loan programs; general powers
516-123 Acquisition loan programs; self supporting
516-124 Acquisition loan programs; fees
516-125 Acquisition loan programs; evidence of eligible loan
516-131 Loans to lenders program
516-132 Loan to lenders program; collateral security516-141 Purchase of existing loans program
516-151 Advance commitments program
516-161 Eligible loan funding program
516-171 Loans; service and custody516-172 Loans; sale, pledge, or assignment
516-173 Loans; insurance and guarantees
516-174 Loans; default
516-181 Interest acquired
516-182 Restrictions on sale and use of residential lots
acquired from proceeds of eligible loan
516-186 Construction

112

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Part VI.

Sustainable Affordable Developments
or Leases
516-201 Exemption for sustainable affordable developments
516-202 Certification
516-203 Recordkeeping
516-204 University of Hawaii at Manoa
Law Journals and Reviews
Extending Land Reform to Leasehold Condominiums in Hawai‘i. 14 UH
L. Rev. 681.
The Constitutionality of a Naked Transfer: Mandatory Lease-to-Fee
Conversion's Failure To Satisfy a Requisite Public Purpose in Hawai‘i
Condominiums. 25 UH L. Rev. 561.
The Moon Court, Land Use, and Property: A Survey of Hawai‘i Case
Law 1993-2010. 33 UH L. Rev. 635 (2011).
Case Notes
Chapter did not preempt ordinance relating to residential
condominium leasehold conversion. 76 H. 46, 868 P.2d 1193.
Chapter only authorizes housing finance and development corporation
to institute single condemnation proceeding of a specificallydesignated portion of a development tract and does not allow thatproceeding to be judicially divided into multiple condemnations ofindividual lots. 82 H. 172, 921 P.2d 92.
Constitutionality.
Chapter did not violate "public use" requirement of Fifth Amendment
to U.S. Constitution. 467 U.S. 229.
Hawaii Land Reform Act violates public use limitation of Fifth andFourteenth Amendments of U.S. Constitution. 702 F.2d 788.
Given system of landholding in Hawaii, legislature could, underpolice power, conclude that general welfare was served by condemningland of large landholder-lessors and allow lessees to purchase land
from State. 483 F. Supp. 63.
Legislature's determinations of what land is subject to condemnation
and who is entitled to repurchase from State are not arbitrary or
capricious. 483 F. Supp. 63.
Condemnation of leased fee interests in residential houselots
continued to satisfy "public use" prerequisite of Fifth Amendment toU.S. Constitution and article I, §20 of Hawai‘i constitution. 79 H.
64, 898 P.2d 576.
---------------

Chapter 2113

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING§516-2 Applicability. This chapter applies to all lands leased as
residential lots which are owned or held privately or owned by theState or its political subdivisions, except Hawaiian home lands which
are subject to Article XII of the Constitution of the State and lands
owned or held by the federal government. This chapter is not meant tosupersede or preclude any other remedy at law available to residential
leasehold lessees or the State, including those available underchapter 480. [L 1967, c 307, §3; HRS §516-2; am L 1969, c 203, §1; am
L 1975, c 184, §2(2)]--------------§516-6 Administration of chapter. The Hawaii housing finance anddevelopment corporation shall administer this chapter. [L 1967, c 307,
§7; HRS §516-6; am L 1987, c 337, §16; am L 1988, c 104, §2; am L
1997, c 350, §14; am L 2005, c 196, §26(b); am L 2006, c 180, §16]--------------§516-35 Restrictions on sale and use of residential
lots. (a) If state moneys are used for the purchase of the owner'sbasis, then for a period of ten years after the purchase from thecorporation of the leased fee interest in a residential lot, thepurchaser shall not transfer any interest in the property unless thepurchaser has first notified the corporation in writing of thepurchaser's intention to do so.
The notice shall specify the purchaser's address and upon receiptof the notice, the corporation shall have the first option to purchasethe land at the original purchase price of the leased fee from thecorporation plus ten per cent a year from the date of said original
purchase up to the time of repurchase or the fair market value at thetime of repurchase, whichever is lower, plus the fair market value ofthe improvements; provided that title to a dwelling unit and theproperty or lease may pass to a family member by devise or through thelaws of descent, notwithstanding any qualifications set forth insection 516-33 or the rules and regulations established by the
corporation.
At the time of the repurchase, the fair market value of the land
and the improvements shall be determined by a qualified appraiser,
selected by the purchaser from a list of three appraisers provided by
the corporation, whose services shall be paid for by the corporation;
provided that the appraisal is subject to review by the corporation
prior to acceptance. If the purchaser disagrees with the value, thepurchaser may appoint the purchaser's own appraiser at the purchaser's
own cost and any further disagreement on the value may be resolved bynegotiation or otherwise.

114

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018(b) Within sixty days after the receipt of the notice thecorporation shall in writing notify the purchaser at the address so
specified whether it elects to exercise its option. The date ofelection to purchase shall constitute the date of valuation for
repurchase. Nonpayment of the purchase price by the corporation
within ninety days from the date of election shall constitute adefault and shall void the election and terminate the right toexercise the option by the corporation. If the corporation refuses,
or fails within the sixty-day period to reply to the offer, thepurchaser may sell the fee simple interest in the property, or lease
the property for a period not to exceed one year, to any person, freefrom any price restrictions; provided that if the purchaser leases theproperty, the purchaser shall, upon expiration of the term of thelease, again comply with the requirements of subsection (a) whenever
the expiration date of the term of the lease is within the ten-year
period stated in subsection (a); further provided that if thepurchaser notifies the corporation of the purchaser's intention tosell the property, but does not sell or lease the property within two
years after the date the notice was received by the corporation, thepurchaser must again comply with the requirements of subsection (a) if
the ten-year period stated in subsection (a) has not expired.
(c) The corporation may lease, rent, or resell, any lot andimprovements purchased by it under this part.
(d) Any original lease, deed, agreement of sale, mortgage, andother instruments of conveyance issued by the corporation under thispart shall expressly contain the restriction on sale and use of theresidential lot as prescribed by this section. [L 1967, c 307, §24;
HRS §516-35; am L 1975, c 184, §2(15); am L 1976, c 242, §3; gen ch
1985; am L 1987, c 337, §16; am L 1988, c 104, §2; am L 2005, c 196,
§26(b); am L 2006, c 180, §16]--------------§516-61 Applicability. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
this part applies to all leases of residential lots existing and inforce on June 24, 1967, and to all leases of residential lots executed
thereafter.
Notwithstanding any term, condition, or provision in any lease to
the contrary, the lessee of a residential lot shall have all of therights enumerated in this part. [L 1967, c 307, §34; HRS §516-61; am L
1968, c 46, §2j]---------------

Chapter 2

115

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING[§516-83] Legislative findings and declaration of necessity;
purpose. (a) The legislature finds that:(1) There is a concentration of land ownership in the State in
the hands of a few landowners who have refused to sell the fee simple
titles to their lands and who have instead engaged in the practice ofleasing their lands under long-term leases;(2) The refusal of such landowners to sell the fee simple titles
to their lands and the proliferation of such practice of leasing
rather than selling land has resulted in a serious shortage of fee
simple residential land and in an artificial inflation of residential
land values in the State;(3) Due to such shortage of fee simple residential land and such
artificial inflation of residential land values, the people of theState have been deprived of a choice to own or take a lease of theland on which their homes are situated and have been required insteadto accept long-term leases of such land which contain terms andconditions that are financially disadvantageous, that restrict theirfreedom to fully enjoy such land and that are weighted heavily infavor of the few landowners of such land;(4) The economy of the State and the public interest, health,welfare, security, and happiness of the people of the State areadversely affected by such shortage of fee simple residential land andartificial inflation of residential land values and by suchdeprivation of the people of the State of the choice to own or take alease of the land on which their homes are situated and the required
acceptance of such long-term leases of such lands;(5) The acquisition of residential land in fee simple, absoluteor otherwise, at fair and reasonable prices by people who are lessees
under long-term leases of such land and on which such land their homes
are situated and the ability of such people to fully enjoy such landthrough ownership of such land in fee simple will alleviate these
conditions and will promote the economy of the State and public
interest, health, welfare, security, and happiness of the people of
the State;(6) The cost of living in Hawaii is and has been high. In
recent years inflation has drastically increased the cost of living in
the State. The spiraling cost of living affects all people througherosion of the purchasing power of whatever monetary resources they
command. For a growing proportion of Hawaii's population, quitepossibly a majority, the high cost of living is denying them suchbasic necessities as sufficient nutritional intake, safe and healthy
housing accommodations, clothing, and adequate preventive and curative
health services. A substantive and significant contributing factor tothe high and rising cost of living is the high cost of land whether
leasehold or fee. Stabilizing the costs of land or, at least, slowing

116

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018the artificial inflation of land values would curb the rising cost ofliving in Hawaii and, ultimately, contribute to the welfare of all
people of the State by improving their standard of living;(7) The Constitution of the State of Hawaii provides the Statethe power to provide assistance for persons unable to maintain astandard of living compatible with decency and health. The risingcost of land tied to other cost of living increases is swelling theranks of those persons unable to maintain a decent and healthfulstandard of life. If the inflationary trend of land continues
unchecked, the resultant inflationary total cost of living could
create such a large population of persons deprived of decent andhealthful standards of life that the consequent disruptions in lawfulsocial behavior could irreparably rend the social fabric which now
protectively covers the life and safety of all Hawaii's people. The
threat posed by this possibility is sufficiently real and imminent towarrant state action to redistribute land as a means of curbing
continuing inflationary rises in land values;(8) The right to own land is not an irrevocable grant of a
special privilege where it operates against the general welfare of themany for the particular benefit of the few;
(9) Land, in common with other natural resources, is of finite
quantity; a fact particularly obvious in Hawaii. In recent decades
there has been growing general agreement that the wise conservation,
preservation, use and management of exhaustible natural resources suchas land are matters mandating an active governmental role. There isan intimate relationship between the monetary values accorded land in
Hawaii and the stability and strength of the State's economy as awhole. Land values, artificially inflated by the high concentrationof ownership, skew the state economy toward unnecessarily highlevels. The pervasive and substantial contribution made to inflation
by high land values creates a potential for economic instability anddisruption. Economic inflation, instability and disruptions have realand potential damaging consequences for all members of an affectedsociety. Checking inflation, improving the stability of the economy,and forestalling disadvantageous economic disruptions all are
productive of general benefit to all members of the Hawaiiansociety. The sound and wise conservation, preservation, use andmanagement of land cannot be separated from the subject of patterns ofland ownership. To accomplish the public purposes of wisely
conserving, preserving, using, and managing the land in the Staterequires changing present patterns of land ownership. Public laws,
expenditures, programs, and policies which contribute to therealization of these public purposes serve a public use since theyultimately benefit the entire community. Changing present patterns ofland ownership by allowing lessees under long-term leases ofresidential land to purchase in fee simple, absolute or otherwise, theland on which their homes are situated, through governmental
intervention including exercise of the power of eminent domain to

Chapter 2

117

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

acquire fee simple title to such land and public financing of such
purchase and such condemnation and payment through the issuance ofbonds, the expenditure of general revenue funds, and the use ofprivate funds which are at the disposal of the State, will help
satisfy the pressing public necessity for a secure, strong and stableeconomy;(10) The State's acquisition of residential lands held in fee
simple, through the exercise of the power of eminent domain, for the
purposes of this chapter is for the public use and purpose ofprotecting the public safety, health and welfare of all people in
Hawaii;(11) Inflation lessens the quality of life of all members of thisafflicted society and is particularly invidious in its impact on theninety plus per cent of the population who are in the poverty, and low
through middle income groups. The State has limited abilities to curb
inflation and, perhaps, the only useful means available is the State's
power to control land values. There is a pressing public necessity
for the State to do whatever it can to curb inflation and to keep thecost of living at a level where it is possible and manageable toprovide all citizens a decent and healthful standard of life. The
public use and purpose of providing all citizens a decent andhealthful standard of life will be directly and substantiallyfurthered by the State's acquisition of residential lands held in fee
simple, through the exercise of the power of eminent domain, for the
purposes of this chapter;(12) The use of the power of eminent domain to condemn the fee
simple title to residential land and the payment of just compensation
therefor for the purpose of making the fee simple title thereto andthe use thereof available for acquisition by people who are lessees
under long-term leases of such land and on which such land their homes
are situated is for a public use and purpose;(13) Legislation providing to people who are lessees under longterm leases of residential land on which their homes are situated theability to fully enjoy such land through ownership of such land in fee
simple, absolute or otherwise, is for a public purpose.
(b) It is therefore declared to be necessary and it is the
purpose of this chapter to alleviate the conditions found in
subsection (a) of this section by providing for the right of any
person who is a lessee under a long-term lease of residential land in
the State to purchase at a fair and reasonable price the fee simple
title to such land, by providing for the condemnation of the fee
simple title to such land and the payment of just compensation
therefor by the State through the use of the power of eminent domain
and by providing for the public financing of such purchase and suchcondemnation and payment through the issuance of bonds, the118

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

expenditure of general revenue funds, and the use of private funds
which are at the disposal of the State. [L 1975, c 186, §2]
Law Journals and Reviews
Extending Land Reform to Leasehold Condominiums in Hawai`i.
L. Rev. 681.

14 UH

Case Notes
Determination of whether taking is for public purpose is limited towhether there is a denial of substantive due process. Statute isconstitutional if: (1) any possible rationale for the statute,
expressed or not, is within state police power; and (2) statute is notarbitrary or product of legislative bad faith. 483 F. Supp. 63.
Discussed: 79 H. 64, 898 P.2d 576.
Mentioned: 471 F. Supp. 871; 74 H. 294, 845 P.2d 1186.

Chapter 2

119Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

2.11 Analysis: Applicability of HRS 516
By: Jim Anthony, PhD (February 20, 2018)

THE CONVERSION TO FEE SIMPLE OPTION: KAHANAHRS 516: Its relevance to long term residential leases within the confines of public land (as defined in
the Hawaii State Constitution, Article X1, §5), Kahana Valley State Park.

2.11.1Abbreviated Background: WHY THIS SUBMITTALSOME TWO YEARS ago, local consulting firm, Townscape, Inc. was retained by the Division of State Parks
to do a study of three critical issues related to 28 leases within the confines of Kahana Valley State Park,
public land owned by the State.
The first—and most important of the three issues ‐‐ was the terminal 65‐year residential lease issued in
1993 to the 31 lessee families then living in Kahana. At this writing 1993 is 25 years ago. That meansthat 40 years remain on the lease. For those of us who pay attention to the passage of time andunderstand anything about leases this is a frightening, stress inducing statistic.
That part of Townscape’s study (the matter of the lease) was designed to inquire, without apparent,
specific restriction, into the terms of the lease and how, if it was found to be necessary, to make suchchanges considering the record of the past approximately 25 years which had elapsed since the leases
were entered into in 1993.
The preliminary scoping study which Townscape did identified the 3 critical issues which, they said, had
to be addressed first before any Master Planning process might begin. The scoping study found that thecultural living park (ill‐defined to begin with) was “broken”. The so called “cultural living park” had, invery large part, failed to materialize. By 2017 some 70% of the remaining 28 lessees, were in default of
their leases—in particular, with respect to that provision which required lessees to do 25 hours of worka month in lieu of paying a monetary lease rent. Some 50,000 hours of work were owed to the State.
The scoping report erred on the side of caution: it did not quite say that the cultural living park was
irretrievably broken. In the wash of the scoping report the 1993 lease was identified as the mostimportant of the three critical issues2 on which the second Townscape study was supposed to focus.
There were (and continue to be) other indices of failure: several of the 28 lessees were also in default of
their HHFDC mortgages; several of the 28 homes had not been completed and were falling into disrepair
and others, although completed, were also falling into disrepair from lack of maintenance. A PlanningCouncil appointed under the terms of Act 15 (2009) had had around 50 meetings over 7 years to write a
Master Plan but had failed to produce a single sentence of planning text.3 Another index of failure: on
2

The other two issues were: a. the cultural living park, and b. who should continue to be the responsible agency tomanage the broken cultural living park if it was going to be mended and continued.
3

Act 15 was a poisoned gift. The Legislature passed a law over then Governor Lingle’s veto, but provided no staff,
no operational funding to hire staff, provided no office space or equipment of any kind and made no arrangement

120

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018average, in the course of 7 years and at least 50 meetings, an average of about five lessees (including
the 3 on the Council) ever attended those meetings. At this writing the Council has not met for close to,or more than, six months.
In August 2017 Townscape completed a DRAFT report on the 3 critical issues and offered it to lessees in
Kahana, as well as other stakeholders, for their comments. In the 7 months since August 2017 I havewritten a wide range of comments on the Draft report and also have had a series of discussions with Mr.
Bruce Tsuchida, the head of Townscape and its planning team. I have also made representations to Mr.
Curt Cottrell, Director of the Division of State Parks. My main concern has been about the lease, thetreatment of which in the DRAFT report I found to be seriously lacking in substance. For example, HRS
516 is barely mentioned; in my view a very serious omission. Much (but not all) of what I set out in thissubmission has already been communicated in writing to both Mr. Tsuchida as well as to Mr. Cottrell.
Both Mr. Tsuchida and Mr. Cottrell invited me to frame my thoughts on the lease to fee conversion issue(which I consider to be at the heart of the long festering Kahana ‘problem’) in a submission which would
be included as an Appendix to an abbreviated report to the Board of the DLNR. The process for this isthat Mr. Tsuchida would write a new summary of his August 2017 DRAFT which would draw onsuggested changes along with his own revised thoughts and this submission would be attached to it as
one of several Appendices. Mr. Tsuchida’s work product with the Appendices) would then be submitted
to Mr. Cottrell to be transmitted to the Board intact or ‘tweaked’ in such a way as Mr. Cottrell might
decide either unilaterally or in further consultation with Mr. Tsuchida and stakeholders. All stakeholders,Mr. Tsuchida, Mr. Cottrell and perhaps others would then appear before the Board at a duly noticed
public hearing or briefing to address members of the Board and answer such questions as members of
the Board might have.
There is one important, but delicate process issue that I should mention here. There has been, what I
consider to be, improper interference by at least one member of the senior staff of DSP in the direction
and design of the Townscape “final” Progress Report. There have been meetings behind closed doors
between Townscape representatives and some senior, and not so senior DSP staff members, including
Mr. Cottrell. When this project was launched there was an understanding that all meetings would be
open to all three parties: stakeholders, Townscape and DSP. There was a reason for this. And that was
the same reasoning why parties in a lawsuit, when asked by a Judge to meet in Chambers, invariably
have both sides appear together. And the principal reason for this is simple: by having both parties
present each can make and rebut arguments being advanced in their interaction with a Judge. This ispart of the reasoning that prohibits ex parte communication with a Judge. There has been pressure
aplenty on Mr. Tsuchida to write the final version of his ‘progress’ report as a ‘research paper’ confining
him to reporting what he has found and NOT offering opinions or evaluations of his own. This has been
sufficiently troubling that at a recent meeting with Mr. Cottrell it became necessary to ask him to ‘rein’

for providing legal advice. The Division of State Parks had a representative on the Council but, though hardworking, she quickly became a part of the problem and became ineffective. State Parks finally brought Townscapein as a consultant contractor to do what the Planning Council had failed to do—and was, in fact, incapable ofdoing.

Chapter 2

121

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNINGin the senior DSP staff member who was trying to dictate the design of Mr. Tsuchida’s work product. Forme, a very salient, troubling issue.
I have always maintained from as far back as the mid‐nineties when I first became involved in Kahana
issues that the State (meaning DSP, as an agent of the DLNR and therefore of “the State”, was in over its
head. In fact DSP, from the very beginning (i.e. after the signing of the leases in 1993) treated thecultural living park program as an unwanted child. In time that became more apparent. Lessees saw—
and resented—how they were treated by the State and its agents. The State, in turn, resented being
saddled with a project in which they saw themselves as having no expertise. DSP, as one senior DSP
official put it on several occasions, runs parks, not housing estates. The point here is this: pointing thefinger only at the lessees for having failed to do their part to make the cultural living park work, is only
one part of the explanation. Failure on the part of DSP to do its part is no less substantial. DSP wantsout but it has been averse to invoking the provisions of HRS 516 as a possible way out. Its position is
beginning to shift. Inviting me to write this submittal on HRS 516 is a pin point of light in what has beena dark room for a very long time.

2.11.2

The Law on Lease/Fee Conversions: for long term leased residentiallots

HRS 516 – some of its most relevant provisions:
1. “§516‐2 Applicability. This chapter applies to all lands leased as residential lots which are
owned or held privately or owned by the State or its political subdivisions. “[Emphasis added.]
2. “§516‐3.
No Estoppel or waiver. No rights granted to lessees by this chapter shall beeffective, notwithstanding any provision, term, condition, or contract to the contrary…. Any
provision in any lease or contract contrary to the intent or purpose of this chapter is void. [L1967, c. 307, Section 4; HRS 516 Section 516‐3, gen ch 1985].”
3. §516‐6. Administration of chapter. The Hawaii housing finance and development (“HHFDC”)
corporation (sic, lower case in the original) shall administer this chapter.
4. §516‐35. Restriction and use of residential lots. (a) through (d).
The reader is invited to read the entire section.
5. “§516‐61. [PART III. RIGHTS OF LESSEES]
Applicability. Except as expressly otherwise provided, this part applies to all lessees ofresidential lots existing and in force on June 24, 1967, and to all leases of residential lots
executed thereafter.
Notwithstanding any term, condition or provision in any lease to the contrary, the lessee of aresidential lot shall have all the rights enumerated in this part. [L1967 c307, Section 34; HRS
516‐62; am L1976, c 159, Section 8; gen ch 1985]”

122

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

6. “[§516‐83] Legislative findings and declaration of necessity; purpose.
(a) (5) The acquisition of residential land in fee simple, absolute or otherwise, at fair andreasonable prices by people who are lessees under long‐term leases of such land and on whichsuch land their homes are situated and the ability of such people to fully enjoy such landthrough ownership of such land in fee simple will alleviate these conditions and will promote
the economy of the State and public interest, health welfare, security, and happiness of thepeople of the State.” [Emphasis added]
This entire section, 516‐83 from (a) (1) through (13) (b) is worthy of particular note. Sub‐sections 12
and 13 are particularly relevant to Kahana even though it is public land within the meaning of the
Hawai’i State constitution, Article Xl, Section 5. Note particularly that the State may use its power ofeminent domain to provide “for the public financing of such purchase and such condemnation andpayment through the issuance of bonds, the expenditure of general revenue funds, and the use ofprivate funds which are at the disposal of the State.” [Emphasis added.] [L 1975, c 186, Section 2]”

2.11.3A.

The August 2017 Townscape Draft Report on the Lease to Fee
Conversion Issue: Argument, Rebuttal, Comments

My first duty in this section is to refer the reader to the relevant section in the August 2017
Townscape Draft Report which addresses the “Lease to Fee” issue. This is to be found on p.19 of
the report, midway on the page. It is divided into in 5 parts (a through e). I will take each in turn inthe same sequence as it is to be found in the report. For emphasis the exact language of eachsection is reproduced here in italics. My comments are not in italics.
a.

“It is our understanding that State policy is that to NOT sell State land.
[sic].
The language is deceptive. “Our understanding” based on what? Is the policy written down
anywhere? State or any other “policy” not based on law or that is in conflict with existing law is very
likely to be found to be illegal. Had the Townscape team done its homework? Did it look at HRS §516‐
2? Did it read HRS §516‐83? Did the Townscape team look at HRS 516 at all? In as much as the socalled “policy” plainly conflicts with HRS §516‐2 it is plainly wrong, inaccurateb. “According to State Land Division staff ….”
Was this a legal opinion from an attorney or more than one attorney in the State Land Division or was
this a shoot from the hip opinion from a couple of bureaucrats? “…State land can only be sold …..
Really? Again, what about HRS 516—particularly the sections cited in Section II above? Again thissection of the Townscape DRAFT report of August 2017 is wrong. Designed to mislead or, to put it
diplomatically, just slippage??
c. “…there would be very few of the lessees who would have the financial means to purchase thelots.”The Townscape DRAFT report does not provide a single piece of financial information that it elicitedfrom lessees. On what basis did the author/s of the report reach this conclusion? We know that Mr.
Tsuchida did not get a formal reversionary interest appraisal done. So where do the “$200,000 to

Chapter 2

123

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING“$400,000” figures come from? Mr. Tsuchida apparently (nor did any member of his team) look at anyof the financing provisions in HRS 516. More slippage?
d. “If the lots were valued according to the monetary value of the required 25 hours of interpretive
activities (i.e. 300 hours per annum), and those activities were valued at $10 to $20 per hours (i.e., amonetary value of $3,000 to $6,000 per annum, the remaining 42+ years of the leases would bevalued at about $126,000 to $252,000 – which very few of the lessees could afford.” [Emphasis
added}
Without any income or other financial data from lessees how does Mr. Tsuchida know what “veryfew lessees [can] afford?’ Further comments: it is all well and good for Mr. Tsuchida to use figures like
$126,000 to $252,000 but not to mention that the fee simple value of these lots would likely be inexcess of $500,000 is misleading. The more relevant question is, therefore, can lessees NOT afford tobuy these lots (with government assistance provided for in HRS 516) at a time when there are still 40
odd years left on the leases? These lessees need an urgent education in financial planning.
I am also obliged to mention here that the second set of figures ($126,000 to $252,000) and theapparent methodology used to get to them are not unreasonable. I know—because I have had somevery expensive research done for us on this issue.
e. To the extent that I understand this, my comment is as follows: Again, HRS 516 is relevant
here. “… would, of course, require a new set of rules ….”
There are plenty of rules and protective provisions in HRS 516. Since it appears that the Townscapeteam did not look at HRS 516 and did not consult with legal counsel much of what is set out in thissection is either overstated or is simply inaccurate.
The second paragraph of e. beginning with the words “Fee simple sale of even one of the Kahana
residential lots …. This (what is also known as the Hanaike caveat) ‐‐ could be made to run with thetitle. I have already pointed this out to both Mr. Tsuchida and Mr. Cottrell in writing.
B. Any lease, particularly one that is terminal, condemns the lessee/s to economic death row. But thatis not all. A lease condemns future generations of the original lessee’s family to economic deathrow, too; to intergenerational permanent poverty. Any reading of the language in §516‐83 makes
clear the foundational reasons which the Legislature had in mind when it enacted this statute aslong ago as 1968. One of those reasons was the ‘condemnation to poverty’ reason.
Long term leases of residential lots were NOT in the public interest in the 60s. They were “financiallydisadvantageous” [§516‐83 (3)] to lessees in a way “that restrict[ed] their freedom …. “[§516‐83 (3)].
Variations of this reasoning are repeated in §516‐83 (3), (5), (6), (7), (9), (12) and (13). This same
reasoning is no less true today.
HRS 516 has been subjected to hostile scrutiny at the highest levels of our country’s judicial system andit has withstood that scrutiny. The Democratic Party which fought tooth and nail to enact this legislationin the 60s (the party of Jack Burns, Dan Inouye, Tom Gill, Vince Esposito, Alvin Shim, Nelson Doi, Patsy

124

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

Mink and others) is still the party in power in today’s Legislature. There has been no wavering of supportfor HRS 516. What was true of leases in 1968 is no less true today.

2.11.4

Ancillary Argumentsa.

The law as it stands provides for lease to fee conversions of long term residential leased lots
owned by the State or its political subdivisions.

b.

There are now 28 long term, residential leased lots in Kahana Valley State Park. All of theselots are owned by the State. All of them are subject to lease to fee conversion.

c.

All of the 28 leases now still in effect were entered into after June 24, 1967. This is a relevant
qualifying factor. All lessees in Kahana meet that criterion.

d.

There are several aspects of the Kahana. lease related to lease to fee conversion that are
not addressed in the Townscape draft report of August 2017. They need not be addressed
point by point in this section at this time. If the need should arise at some time in the future
these matters might be addressed then.

e.

Throughout the Townscape planning process, the Division of State Parks failed to inform akindred agency of State government (HHFDC) that lessees in Kahana might be interested inacquiring the fee interest in their long term, leased residential lots. This would have been amatter of good governance, of good administrative practice in the public interest. It may
well be a safe bet that DSP knew little to nothing about HRS 516. Why? For one simple
reason: they had not done their homework.

f.

Neither the Townscape consultants nor the Division of State Parks took any steps tocommission a reversionary interest appraisal the purpose of which would be to give Kahana
lessees some firm indication what the cost was likely to be if they chose to petition HHFDC
to purchase the fee interest in their long terms residential leased lots.

g.

The position espoused by DSP and at least one recent, former Head of DLNR was that State
land was “not for sale”, in apparent violation of the clearly stated intent of HRS §516‐2 andthe foundational related reasoning in §516‐83, Legislative findings and declaration ofnecessity; purpose.

h.

Key players in DSP and the titular head of DLNR appear to cling tenaciously to old myths
and stubbornly refuse to face present realities as well as landmark law duly establishedalmost a half century ago. The present Governor, facing a difficult election for a second
term, has shown no proactive leadership in the handling of this issue. Indeed, he has
become a part of this enduring problem: he has apparently issued instructions that the lid
is to be kept on the Kahana ‘issue’ until after the 2018 elections.
I raise these issues because, as the Governor dawdles, and DSP struggles against the tide,
lessees’ equity gets whittled away, one day at a time. Think about it this way: when one is amere lessee of a residential lot on which one’s home rests, one’s equity in one’s property
consists of two principal parts: (1) one’s home, the on‐site improvement, and (2) the
number of years left on the lease. There are two principal factors that determine what iscalled the reversionary interest—that figure which the lessee will have to pay if her/his/theirlease is converted to fee simple. Those factors are: the number of years left on the lease andthe amount of lease rent specified in the lease. Depending on the threshold date that you

Chapter 2

125Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

take, lessees in Kahana have lost 20 years of equity value if you take one date, or, if you takeanother, say from 2010 (a year after Act 15 became law after Governor Lingle’s veto of it
and the subsequent override by the Legislature). Here is the crucial issue: every day that
goes by all lessees without exception lose value. Its like watching your pension fund get
whittled away as each day, each, week, each month, each year goes by.
Remember now, the Kahana lease is unlike any other long term lease of a residential lot that I know ofin the recent history of Hawai’i: lessees cannot sell their property (the equity interest they have in thenumber of years left on the lease and the fair market value of their home). As things stand now, andas things have stood since 1993 when the Kahana leases were signed, lessees have been on economic
death row watching their equity getting eaten away.4
The Legislative findings and declaration of necessity in HRS§516‐83 was crafted with great care andfocused on the strongest of legal arguments: “the public interest”. It did not use a metaphor like“death row.” I suggest, with great respect, that if those who penned the 1968 language that wasgrafted on to HRS §516 were in my place today my metaphor would be an apt one.

2.11.5Conclusion

FINALLY, let me remind you of that time in history and the circumstances under which HRS §516 wasresearched, written and finally adopted by the Legislature. The year 1968 was a mere 9 years after
Statehood. Most of the sons (and they were mostly sons) who crafted the legislation and who
relentlessly fought for it were veterans who had served their country in the battlefields of World War II.
When all is said and done, in whatever history’s final reckoning might be, we might justifiably say ofthem that this was their finest hour. Lease to fee legislation was at the very top of the agenda of arevitalized Democratic Party which had replaced the long dominant Republican majority and their big
money, big landowners, plantocrats and captains of interlocking directorate supporters.
What finally became HRS §516 was a major plank in the platform of the Democratic Party to makeHawaii less of an uneven playing field than it had long been.
For the 28 lessees in Kahana this is unfinished business. Most of the Kahana lessees are, to the best of
my knowledge, not informed about HRS 516. I had hoped that Mr. Tsuchida would talk about it. It
seemed very natural to me that he would because the lease issue was preeminent among the three
critical issues that his report was supposed to be about. But, in large part, that did not happen. I havebeen talking about HRS 516 since shortly after the failed Kahana Planning Council came into existence in2009. I have also sent an avalanche of further representations on the HRS 516 lease to fee conversion
option to both Mr. Tsuchida as well as Mr. Cottrell. They finally asked me to write this paper to be
forwarded to the Board as what will eventually be a Staff/Townscape Submittal for the Board’s
consideration.

4

See the accompanying Appendix—The Anthony ‘Ohana: Our Story.

126

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

The law is still where it was put in place 50 years ago; still “on the books.” What is called for now is thewill to do what America has long been about: the search for justice, to do the right thing. That is all that
I ask in the name of this and future generations. My wife, Grace, an immigrant like I am, also a mother,
grandmother, great grandmother, joins me in making the case set out here for a process to beestablished for the lease to fee conversion option under HRS 516 to be fully considered.
Every proverbial journey of a thousand miles begins with the proverbial first foot forward. As
Townscape proceeds with its report, a crucial part of which has to do with the existing leases in Kahana,that first foot forward has not quite been taken yet. For a start, no effort has been made to enhance thecorpus of each lessee’s information base about the lease to fee conversion option. This means that eachlessee is entitled to be informed as fully as possible about the intricacies of HRS 516. Until this is done,
along with a reversionary interest appraisal by a qualified appraiser, lessees will not be in a position to
make a rational decision about whether or not they wish to exercise their option to purchase their lots
in fee simple. This information enhancement ought to have been the consultant’s job but it did not get
done. This is the time to get that job done. No community, particularly one such as you have in Kahana,
can weigh the pros and cons of making a decision on an issue as complex and as important as this one is,without being educated about it ‘Education’ means enriching these lessees with pertinent knowledge
and information about the lease/fee conversion process in general, including as full and comprehensive
an explanation of what is in HRS 516.
The Townscape team was retained by the State at considerable taxpayer expense to comprehensively
examine and report on 3 critical issues related to Kahana. First among those issues was the 65‐year,
terminal lease. In this case Townscape’s job—and its duty—was to both report and tender advice to theDivision of State Parks in the form of a comprehensive bottom/up report. Townscape’s report, once
completed, was supposed to be given to the Division of State Parks to inform policy recommendations
that it would in turn formulate and then submit to the Board of Land and Natural Resources for review
in a duly noticed public meeting—an informal wide‐ranging briefing first to be followed by one orseveral decision‐making makings at which further public testimony would be offered. The briefing has
been vetoed by the Chair of the Board without any apparent consultation with its members: anunfortunate decision which should be reversed.
Townscape’s consulting services were not retained for it to merely be a potted plant. Townscape’s job
was to be proactive: collect relevant information, report what it found and use its independentjudgment to make recommendations that in its view were based on reason, were defensible, prudent
and consistent with relevant law. In my view the Townscape work product submitted for review inAugust 2017 (29 pages of text, 150 pages of unannotated miscellaneous appendices) fell short of what
its report should have been. Townscape’s one‐half page treatment of the lease to fee conversion issue
on page 19 of its 29 page report has been submitted to searching analysis and criticism in this submittal.
Townscape and the Division of State Parks invited me to address the lease to fee issue in a formal
written submittal and I have done so here. I have found the August 2017 Townscape report to beseriously flawed and have said as much in an avalanche of correspondence sent to Mr. Tsuchida and Mr.
Cottrell. The section on lease to fee conversion set out on p.19 of the Townscape August 2017 draft
report I find to be fatally flawed and must be extensively re‐written.

Chapter 2

127Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

The time has come to move this issue along. There is work aplenty to be done on the lease to fee
conversion issue by inviting representatives of all of the relevant players to the table: stakeholders(assisted by experienced counsel), Townscape, DSP, the BLNR, HHFDC, the AG’s office, representativesof the Legislature and the Governor’s office. While ‘educating stakeholders’ about the complexities oflease to fee conversion is important, that alone will not get the job done.
This submittal, like any other act of publication, is only as good as it withstands hostile scrutiny. I invitethat and look forward to it. ‘Hostile scrutiny’, in my view, derived from my long experience, is the gold
standard. Hostile scrutiny is the ultimate test of accountability and the worth of whatever it is that we
put into words “on paper.”128

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 20182.12 Analysis: Future Management of Kahana – Options
Alternative management strategies for Kahana were presented in Section 2.4 of this Progress Report.
The management alternatives were:
Alternative 3A: State Parks continues to manage all four areas of Kahana with supplemental funds
for qualified management staff.
Alternative 3B: State Parks continues to manage Kahana mauka, makai and recreational resources,
and contracts with a for‐profit or non‐profit entity to manage the residential leases, with
supplemental funds.
Alternative 3C: State Parks continues to manage Kahana mauka, makai and recreational areas, inpartnership with other DLNR Divisions, and converts residential areas to affordable monetary leases
or to affordable fee simple ownership for Kahana families.
Alternative 3D: State Parks continues to manage Kahana recreational areas but relinquishes
management of the mauka, makai and residential areas to one or more other entities.
Alternative 3E: State Parks removes itself completely from Kahana and turns over or leases out the
management of the four areas to one or more entities.
The pros and cons of each of the above‐outlined five (“A” through “E”) management scenarios for
Kahana could be discussed at some length. However, State Parks currently favors “Alternative 3C.”
Also, the conversion of “residential areas to affordable monetary leases” would entail a number ofcomplicating management factors. These complicating factors include:
1. The need to “separate out” the residences (particularly the two residential areas of the Trout
Farm Road and Kahana Valley Road subdivisions) from the State Park such that the residential
areas are no longer a part of the State Park. If this “separating out” action were not
implemented, and the Kahana families were paying monetary lease rents instead of providing 25
hours per month of interpretive services, the families would be in violation of the 1986 Deputy
Attorney General’s finding that: “The residents have no vested rights in the park. If they are not apart of the interpretive programs, they cannot reside in the park.” Alternatively, it may bepossible to enact new legislation that would permit Kahana families to “reside in the park” even
if they are “not a part of the interpretive programs.” However, a physical “separating out” of theresidential areas from the Park may be the cleaner solution.
2. The current 65‐Year Leases would need to be amended, with a provision for monetary leaserents taking the place of the “25 hours per month of interpretive services.”

Chapter 2

129

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

3. There would still be the need for SOME ENTITY to manage the monetary lease rents. If theresidential lots are no longer a part of Kahana State Park, the managing entity would not have to
be State Parks. The managing entity could be the DLNR Land Management Division (LM). DLNRLM already manages many state leases, including the leases for the Maunalaha, Oʻahu andMiloliʻi, Hawaiʻi County residen al lots. Alterna vely, DLNR LM could contract with a property
management entity to manage the Kahana residential leases.
4. The monthly lease rents would need to be set at a nominal amount, as there are Kahana families
who have very little income. Nominal lease rents in 2018 would be approximately $60/monthfor a state lease for a 10,000 square foot residential lot. This very low monthly lease rent would
inevitably attract some criticism from parties who would assert that Kahana families should pay“market rents” – which would probably be in the range of $500 to $1,000 per month for a
10,000 square foot lot located near the coast in the District of Koʻolau Loa. On the other hand,nominal lease rents seem to have worked out for Maunalaha and Miloliʻi.
5. The management entity – DLNR LM or other – would need to enforce the terms of the newleases, including actions to ensure that lots are kept clean and free of trash, junked cars, etc.,
and appropriate action is taken to resolve any delinquencies for payment of rents – including
possibly working out agreements with other family members to pay overdue rents oragreements with charitable organizations to pay overdue rents. Clearly, eviction actions should
be avoided if at all possible.
6. Some Kahana families may not agree with a process that will “separate out” the residential
areas from the Park. Some families may interpret this management move as the State’s way ofsevering ties between Kahana people and the Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana. State Parks would need tofind a means of alleviating this fear. The legislation that “separates” the two residential areasfrom the Park could include a provision for the formation of a Kahana community‐based entitythat would have an ongoing role in the management and interpretation of the natural andcultural resources of the ahupuaʻa.

130

Chapter 4

AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Draft Progress Report – February 20182.13 Summary of Actions Needed in the Near Term
2.13.1Natural and Cultural Resources Management

State Parks should continue to work with Kahana families on important natural and cultural resource
management programs, including the restoration of Huilua Fishpond, community‐based management of
the ocean resources of Kahana Bay, restoration of loʻi and ʻauwai, and restora on of the free flow of
Kahana Stream. In the longer term, State Parks and the Kahana community need to work together
toward a comprehensive program for the ongoing management and stewardship of the natural andcultural resources of this 5,249‐acre ahupuaʻa.

2.13.2

Property Management

State Parks plans to create a position for a full‐time property manager for Kahana – as distinct from thecurrent part‐time cultural programs manager position. As Kahana lessees have clearly and repeatedly
stated, Kahana does NOT need an unsympathetic and heavy‐handed manager. It will be essential for
the Kahana property manager to have strong and proven “people skills,” and to have the ability to workwith Kahana lessees and families to help them to address and solve community and family problems,large and small.

2.13.3

Leases for the Six Families Awaiting Leases

State Parks plans to continue to work with the six families that are awaiting Kahana leases. State Parks
first needs to obtain funding and Department of Health approval for the construction of wastewater
vaults for the six house sites. State Parks will also need to work with the Board of Land and Natural
Resources (BLNR) to amend the 1979 Conservation District Use Permit. The application for that permit,
dated June 8, 1979, stated that: “No dwelling units will be constructed in hazard (flooding, tsunami)prone areas.” However, the six families that are awaiting Kahana leases plan to live in houses that arewithin the coastal flood plain. Once these actions have been completed, leases for the six Kahana
families can be executed. Note: These six leases should include revisions to Kahana leases that may bemade to further the economic well‐being of Kahana lessees.

2.13.4

Amending the Kahana Leases

State Parks plans to work with Kahana lessees to revise and amend the Kahana leases in order toprovide more economic flexibility and potential economic benefits to lessees. Changes to the terms of
the Kahana leases may include an option of nominal monetary lease rents in lieu of the currently
required 25 hours per month of participation in cultural programs for each Kahana family. This leaseamendment process will also further explore the possibility of lease to fee conversion as an option for
Kahana lessees. State Parks will retain expert legal counsel to assist with this lease amendment process.

Chapter 2

131

Draft Progress Report – February 2018

2.13.5AHUPUAʻA ʻO KAHANA STATE PARK PHASE IA PLANNING

Changes State Land Use Designation “Conservation” to State Land Use“Agricultural”

The existing residential and small‐scale agricultural uses within Ahupuaʻa ʻO Kahana State Park are notpermitted uses within the State “Conservation” District. Technically, such residential and agriculturaluses require a Conservation District Use Permit before these uses can be implemented. State Parks is
considering the submittal of an application to the State Land Use Commission to change the Kahana
residential and small‐scale agricultural areas from “Conservation” lands to “Agricultural.”132

Chapter 4