2015-09-17 Leeward Exh B (SMA 15-060)

Home

The Planning Commission has received the background report from the Planning Director, but at this time the recommendation has not been issued mainly because of several unresolved issues. And I’ll try to touch upon several of these issues. The first issue and primary is the location of the shoreline. This is primary because without the determination of where the shoreline is, we don’t have a definite idea of where State versus County jurisdictions occur. These issues include the location of legal public access, the need for a Shoreline Setback Variance that is issued through the County Planning Commission, and the need for Conservation District Use Permits, which are issued through the State. If I can refer to several comment letters that have brought this issue to light. Our first one is under Planning Department Exhibit 16; this is from the Department of Land and Natural Resources Land Division. I’m going to read an excerpt from this comment letter; “We have reviewed the subject SMA application and have concerns regarding the shoreline boundary and restricted public access to public shoreline areas. The preliminary DLNR shoreline survey indicates a much larger area of shoreline than the SMA Permit Application concept site plan maps suggest. The third component of the project improvements listed on page 19 proposes to conduct landscape restoration and historic site preservation activities to areas ‘located inland of the shoreline boundary,’ but does not identify which shoreline boundary is being referred to. These public shoreline areas cannot be accurately delineated without a certified shoreline …. The prevention of shoreline transit constitutes and infringement upon the fundamental right of free movement in public space and access to and use of coastal recreational areas. Clarification of the ‘shoreline’ is necessary in order to evaluate the impacts of the project covered within the application.” Lastly, they say, “The issuance of an SMA permit to allow further development should not be granted until the existing shoreline boundary encroachments are resolved.” Additionally, we received a comment letter from the Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands; this is Exhibit 18 within the Planning Department background. They briefly state, we have “reviewed the subject application and note Figure 14 entitled Public Access Management Plan indicates where public lateral shoreline access will be permitted. The Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 115, provides for the right of access to and along Hawai‘i’s shorelines. Please ensure that these rights are upheld.” Next is Planning Department Exhibit No. 20 from the Office of Planning. They state, “The applicant shall meet 60-foot and 40-foot shoreline setback requirements as stated on page 3 of the subject application …. Hawai‘i Revised Statues” – let’s see – “Pursuant to Shoreline Setbacks, Part III of Hawai‘i Revised Statues (HRS) Chapter 205A, structures including seawalls and their extensions shall be prohibited within the shoreline area without a setback variance. 2. We note that the subject project will result in a change to the public shoreline access provided through the resort property. The subject application page 91 states that the applicant would dedicate a perpetual public easement to the County, but would retain ownership of the access way, and manage the right-of-way. Pursuant to the SMA guidelines, HRS 205A-26, the requirements of SMA use for the proposed project should ensure adequate access, by dedication or other means, to publicly owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves is provided to the extent consistent with conservation principles.” This is Exhibit 21; this is from the Cultural Resources Commission, and we are looking at, they had four issues that they had brought out within their comment letter, and I’m referring to Number 2, which states, “Public access as it relates to the proposed ‘safe school zone’ should be clarified, and a safe route for shoreline public access within the northern portion of the property should be further 4 EXHIBIT B