Laserfiche WebLink
The EA should in detail describe fully what is being requested in the application <br />Amendment to the Special Permit as it is integral to the proposed actions associated <br />with the lease of State land, in fact much of what is being requested to be included in <br />the Amended Special Use permit would occur on the State land parcel (including <br />buildings construction and use). <br />Lastly, the major concerns to surrounding residents is from increased noise and <br />traffic arising from activities proposed in the Amended Special Use permit. <br />Separating the two actions is essentially piecemealing the process and removes <br />public review and opportunity for comment from the true entire proposal. This is <br />counter to the intent of HRS 343, specifically §343 -1 Findings and purpose, whereby <br />"...The legislature further finds that the process of reviewing environmental effects <br />is desirable because environmental consciousness is enhanced, cooperation and <br />coordination are encouraged, and public participation during the review process <br />benefits all parties involved and society as a whole." <br />3.) Contains Outdated Information <br />The EA makes several references to a 1998 EA for a similar lease request and <br />includes references to and copies of agencies notified and letters received on the <br />1998 proposal. information, surveys, and the finding of no significant impact <br />(FONSI) issued in 1998 should be considered outdated and irrelevent in 2012, <br />except as background information. The FONSI should be invalidated as conditions i <br />the area have changed, especially the population of KSVE (including homes located <br />in very close proximity to SPACE) has greatly increased since 1998. Given that 15 <br />years has elapsed during which major changes in population, infrastructure, and <br />community characteristics of the area surrounding SPACE have occurred, in order to <br />accurately portray the current condition and determine impacts from SPACE's <br />proposed actions the EA must be brought up to date and information from 1997/8 <br />should be deemed no longer relevant. <br />Also in Section 4: Relationship to Plans, Policies and Controls the EA states that "the <br />Board of Director's of KSVE representing the residents affected by these proposed <br />activities have expressed their absolute support for the desired use ". I asked the <br />Board about this at the KSVE February 13, 2012, Board of Director's meeting and <br />was told (by the Board) that the current Board did not do express their support and <br />does not have that opinion. This same section of the EA also states that the Village <br />Green Society, as a neighbor, supports the project; however, the Village Green <br />Society is the same entity and owner as SPACE, the applicant: and this is therefore <br />irrelevant. The actual neighbors of SPACE which may be affected are residents of <br />KSVE. <br />In addition, botanical and biological surveys done in October 1997 may no longer be <br />accurate and should be repeated as conditions may have changed in the past 15 <br />years. The botanical surveyor noted the presence of a USFwS species of special <br />concern, the ko 'oko 'olau (Bidens hawaiiensis) fifteen years ago and its presence or <br />3 <br />