This exhibit contains the full, original public comments submitted by Petitioner Rebecca Melendez during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) comment period, including multi-page letters with scientific research, endangered species documentation, cultural impact evidence, impaired water-quality findings, and legal citations. It includes all confirmation emails from G70 showing receipt of her comments, and its shows the over six thousand signatures (at the time of the draft comment period) opposing Kamehameha Schools luxry bungalow resort development that were all completely ignored in their FEIS.

This exhibit also contains a screenshot showing the official DEIS comment period ran from June 23 to August 7, confirming Petitioner Melendez’s submissions were timely under HAR §11-200.1-18(c) and were required to be fully reproduced and addressed.

Despite receiving extensive, well-supported comments, Kamehameha Schools (KS) and G70 materially misrepresented her DEIS submission in the Final EIS. Respondents reduced her multi-page comments to only six bullet points, omitted more than 95% of her content, and inserted statements she never made — including falsely claiming she “did not understand the educational point,” portraying her as confused or uneducated. They also failed to use her last name, referring to her simply as “Rebecca,” which reflects carelessness and a lack of proper documentation.

KS/G70 omitted Petitioner’s evidence on:

Endangered Hawaiian monk seals, green sea turtles, hawksbill turtles, manta rays, and native coral species.

Keauhou Bay’s federal listing as an EPA Clean Water Act 303(d) “Impaired Water Body” (AU ID: HI713293)

Cultural practices in Keauhou Bay (canoes, fishing, funerals, baptisms, shoreline access)

Scientific articles proving development-caused coral death, pollution, plankton decline, and marine ecosystem harm

Traffic, infrastructure limitations, drought impacts, water supply problems, sewage risks, and power instability.

Constitutional and statutory protections for public trust resources and Hawaiian traditional and customary rights

This exhibit also includes email correspondence from Hawai‘i County Planner Alex Roy confirming that both the Hawai‘i County Planning Department and Kamehameha Schools were aware of the public petition containing thousands of signatures opposing the proposed Keauhou Bay resort development as early as January 17, 2023 — opposition that was never acknowledged, disclosed, or addressed anywhere in the DEIS or FEIS.

Despite this knowledge, Respondents failed to disclose, acknowledge, or include this opposition in either the DEIS or FEIS.

These omissions, misrepresentations, and inaccuracies violate:

HRS Chapter 343 (Full disclosure, truthfulness, identification of impacts. Exhibit P)

HRS §343-7(c) (Agency actions based on a defective EIS are invalid and challengeable within 60 days. Exhibit P)

HAR §11-200.1-18(c) (Full, accurate reproduction of DEIS comments. Exhibit R)

HAR §11-200.1-19 (Required substantive, good-faith responses. Exhibit R)

Hawai‘i Constitution Article XI (Public Trust Doctrine) (Protection of natural resources, including water, marine life, shoreline)

Hawai‘i Constitution Article XII Section 7

(Protection of Native Hawaiian traditional & customary practices)

HRS Chapter 344 — Hawai‘i State Environmental Policy

Including but not limited to:

HRS 344-3(1): Resource protection and preservation

HRS 344-3(2): Water-quality preservation

HRS 344-4(3) & (5): Requirement for truthful, complete environmental information

HRS 344-4(6): Cumulative and long-term impact analysis

HRS 344-4(10): Use of the best available scientific information

HRS 344-4(11): Full public participation and transparency

KS/G70’s incorrect and misleading reference to “IR State Impaired Water” instead of the correct EPA Clean Water Act 303(d) listing for Keauhou Bay is an additional violation of HRS 343, HRS 344, HAR rules, and constitutional duties, and materially misleads decision-makers and the public.

For these reasons, Exhibit Q demonstrates that the FEIS is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, and legally invalid, and therefore cannot support any permit, approval, SMA action, or agency reliance. All agency actions relying on the FEIS must be declared unlawful under HRS §343-7(c).