Honolulu Council asks DPP to void Kamananui agribusiness CUP, citing unmet conditions and cultural, safety concerns

The Honolulu City Council on Nov. 5 adopted a hand‑carried resolution asking the Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) to declare null and void, or to deny modifications to, a 2019 conditional‑use permit (CUP) for the Kamananui agribusiness project on the slopes of Mount Kaʻala.

The council’s action follows an extended public‑testimony period in which dozens of residents, landowners and community leaders said the developer failed to meet conditions tied to the original CUP and that the proposal’s scale and tourism elements (including a proposed gondola) are inconsistent with the parcel’s agricultural and cultural setting.

Why it matters: The resolution requests that DPP use authority in the 2019 Decision and Order to terminate uses authorized by the CUP if permit conditions are unmet. Testimony detailed conditions that speakers said were not satisfied — including multi‑year forestry plantings, specified acreage in crop cultivation and the phased establishment of fenced pastures and cattle — and raised concerns about cultural impacts, erosion and military training hazards on the adjacent US Army training lands.

Neighbors and community leaders described Kamananui as failing the permit’s agricultural and stewardship expectations. Mike Peach, owner of neighboring Kala Ranch, told the council, “I respectfully urge the council, and the county, to revoke the 2019 conditional‑use permit issued to Kamananui.” Peach said he and other neighbors had observed the removal of proposed forestry and agroforestry commitments that had been conditions of approval.

Community advocates and native‑rights representatives framed the matter as both local stewardship and cultural protection. Denise Antolini of the SafeSharks Cove Coalition said she was “encouraged by the administration’s progress in closing a deal with the landowner” but argued the project still lacked adequate cultural and environmental safeguards. Several testifiers pointed to a U.S. Army Garrison‑Hawaii communication raising safety and training concerns tied to adjacent military operations; DPP staff confirmed receipt of that Army input and said it was included in the agency’s review.

DPP said it will analyze written and oral testimony, the original CUP record and the requested minor modification before issuing a decision. Elizabeth Krieger of DPP told the council that the agency received a large volume of public comment and that, “we felt that any adverse impacts even related to the swimming pool could be mitigated,” while also noting she could not pre‑judge the pending administrative decision. DPP staff indicated they expected to complete their analysis within weeks and reiterated that their review must follow statutory standards and the record before the agency.

Council action: The council amended and adopted Resolution 25‑305 FD1, including a waiver of the 48‑hour notice requirement for the hand‑carried amendment. The final resolution asks DPP to (1) declare the prior CUP null and void or (2) deny the requested minor modification, and it summarizes the community’s allegations that the developer did not meet the original conditions of approval.

What the resolution does and does not do: The council’s resolution is a formal request to DPP and does not itself cancel or alter the CUP; only DPP has the administrative authority to terminate or revoke the permit under the decision and findings that accompanied the 2019 approval. If DPP revokes the CUP or denies the requested modification, the developer would need to seek whatever approvals the law permits under the current code and DPP’s findings.

Community concerns raised at the hearing included: - Alleged failure to plant required forestry acreage and agroforestry and to establish the phased fenced pastures and cattle counts specified in the 2019 decision; - Inadequate documentation of crop cultivation and of measures promised in the 2019 findings and decision; - Cultural and historic resource impacts on Mount Kaʻala and nearby wahi kūpuna; - Public‑safety and environmental risks tied to erosion, stormwater/runoff and proximity to military training areas (unexploded ordnance and shrapnel hazards were cited by speakers and by Army correspondence); - Lack of direct, sustained community engagement by the applicant and use of accessory agritourism as a pathway to a tourism‑oriented development.

What’s next: DPP will complete its administrative review of the pending minor modification and the underlying record and issue a decision under applicable statutes and departmental rules. The council’s resolution asks DPP to treat the petition as a request for revocation if the permit conditions are not met; DPP staff said they are considering all submitted materials, including the Army’s comments and thousands of public‑portal filings. This council action signals strong community opposition and will be part of the administrative record if DPP reconsiders or moves to revoke the CUP.

Limitation: The council’s resolution does not itself impose zoning changes or a permit revocation; those actions are administrative processes that DPP must complete under law.