Laserfiche WebLink
(6) in itself has no significant adverse effect but <br /> cumulatively has considerable adverse effect upon <br /> the environment or involves a commitment for <br /> larger actions; <br /> (9) affects an environmentally sensitive area, such <br /> as flood plain, tsunami zone, erosion -prone area, <br /> geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water or <br /> coastal water; or <br /> (10) is contrary to the objectives and policies of the <br /> Coastal Zone Management Program and the Special <br /> Management Area Guidelines of Chapter 205A, <br /> HRS. <br /> ii. How the decision appealed from is clearly erroneous; or <br /> The Director's decision was clearly erroneous because film <br /> industry activities and land use is not a listed permitted use in <br /> the Agricultural zone and SMA permits can only authorize <br /> development consistent with the zoning and general plan. HRS <br /> §205A-26(2)(C). <br /> In. How the decision appealed from was arbitrary or capricious, or <br /> characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise <br /> of discretion. <br /> The Director decision was arbitrary because it failed to consider <br /> the relevant factual information by accepting the application <br /> when the plot plan failed to clearly disclose the property's <br /> seaward boundary certified by the state surveyor's office on July <br /> 14, 2025, and failed to include the SLU Agriculture and <br /> Conservation boundaries. <br /> d. Statement of any other relevant facts: <br /> No dedicated shoreline access was negotiated. <br /> Dated: April 24, 2026 Respectfully submitted, <br /> /s/Claudia Rohr <br /> Appellant pro se <br /> 4 <br />