2010-06-04 TPUBLIC-REES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The fact that you folks in that particular application received the tree cut list the morning of the meeting, I found that procedurally, nothing wrong, nothing illegal, but somewhat problematic from really deliberating towards an involved decision that’s for the best of the community and not that you weren’t all trying your best; and you may have made that decision. But it was a controversial issue, and that information came from Planning Department. There was also much other information that came from the community and I hope you folks know, none of us huied together, that was the people that found out about the meeting from reading the Tribune Herald, I believe. That information, Commissioner Ishibashi brought up the issue of how removal of trees might actually affect the shoreline; and that was right to bring that up. That is absolutely what you folks should be looking into during an SMA Use Permit in beach areas. And for his benefit, right now the new shoreline, the shoreline pins are in every root, I mean they are in the roots of every single tree slated for destruction. So that’s definitely not an idle concern; and this is broken old weathered pahoehoe. So I don’t care how ginger you may be about removing that tree. Were these issues properly looked at, were possible mitigating efforts properly brought before this committee? One might be just leaving them alone and planting native species elsewhere or nearby. And when I was here that may have come up but I honestly didn’t hear it even though it looked like you were going down the right avenue. Again, back to public participation, there were, not just the trees, there were many aspects that were brought up. One of the key ones was the elevations. That is still extremely problematic on this beach park restoration. And you folks don’t get that unless your administrative assistants here bring that up to the Commission. However, I was already aware of those issues. There were areas that were marked in elevation. The highest tides out there of the year are generally 3.1 above mean low, low water. Now had you been given one of the construction sheets that showed the elevations as surveyed at the present time you reviewed the matter, there was areas that were shown mauka of the shoreline that had elevations of 0.4, 2.8, 1.4. So very clearly to anybody that understands simple elevation readings, this may have generated more interest from the Commission members, either to defer it to one more reading -. And if I haven’t said it yet, that’s really what I’m here about. I’m saying we call them special management areas. On the Big Island it’s almost more accentuated. And I speak particularly with public park areas or public use areas, such as County beach parks or State beach parks. And that, I request that you folks please try to consider at some point in the near future possibly going to a two-hearing system on those. That’s not to foment public agitation on sides. It’s really about, just so that the public can really bring forward information that you may or may not have in your files. And, you know, there were other problems – I’m not going to get into it. And I’d be willing to speak with any Commission Members if that’s appropriate about some of what I thought were procedural matters, not parliamentary ones. For instance, the sign. Many people on the beach park area were not even clued in. They didn’t catch the article in the Tribune Herald. Of course the Department or the applicant did everything according to law, they filed the public notices. We tend to miss those things. It’s easy not to -. But the actual notification of the sign at the beach park, your rule does say, for good reason, it says when an applicant withdraws an SMA Permit application they shall promptly remove the sign. Had they followed that rule appropriately there? I think the people that testified on that particular application brought forward good points that needed good consideration. I personally feel more than one hearing. But you folks did a good job and everybody who was there really has great faith in this Commission and feels that, you know, you listened to us. So please read 205A carefully and notice how much the State Legislature really wanted public participation. I think they identified it as one of the primary goals of Chapter 205A. So I’m trying to present, I think a simple way would be try to go two hearings on those, please. And that’s all I have to say. Thank you very much. 2 EXHIBITC