HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0704.014 1998-2000 ~ J;ii^
Law Offices Of ,
STEVEN D. STRAUSS ? ~ ~ ,
P.O. Box 11517, Hilo, Hawaii 96721 ~ ~
Telephone (808) 969-6684/Facsimile (808) 934-8898
May 1, 2000
Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd
Chair, Committee on Planning
Hawai' i County Council
Curtis Tyler
Vice Chair, Committee on Planning
Hawaii County Council
Re: Bridge Puako
Dear Mrs. Leithead-Todd and Mr.Tyler:
I represent Protect Puako, which joins the Puako Community Association, Mauna
Kea Community Association and Mauna Lani Resort Association in opposing a
proposed resolution permitting time share use by Bridge Puako, LLC. Protect
Puako comprises Puako homeowners and recreational users of the Puako
shoreline who claim that the proposed project threatens their quality of life and the
health of the Puako reef and nearshore marine environment.
In addition to the arguments raised by the Puako Community Association, please
be advised that the time share resolution is part of a project which proposes use of
a State highway. Under its permit and rezoning conditions, the developer is
required to install channelized lanes intersecting with the Akoni-Pule Highway.
Passage of the proposed resolution is premature because no environmental
assessment has been conducted as required by Hawaii Revised Statutes § 343-5.
HRS s 343-5(a) states in pertinent part:
Applicability and requirements. (a) Except as otherwise provided, an
environmental assessment shall be required for actions which:
(1) Propose the use of state ...lands ~b , t
Comm. No. T
File Na.,~
Ref. 7'0.,_~.~..'~.
Ref. Date MAY 0 1 2000
May 1, 2000
Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd
Curtis Tyler
Page 2
In Kahana Sunset Owners Association v. County of Maui, 86 Hawaii 66 (1997),
the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a proposed development to install a 36-inch
drainage line beneath Napilihau Street, connecting to an existing 24-inch culvert
beneath Lower Honoapi'ilani Highway indisputably "constitutes 'use of state or
county lands,' which is within the class of actions that triggers HEPA. An
environmental assessment was held mandatory, unless the project fell within an
exemption. Id. at 71, 947 P.2d at 383.
In Citizens for Protection of North Kohala Coastline v. County of Hawaii, 91
Hawaii 94, (Hawai'i 1999) ,the Hawaii Supreme Court held that construction of
two underpasses under a state highway constitutes use of state lands for purposes
of HRS § 343-5(a)(1).
The spirit and intent of Hawai'i's Environmental Protection Act is to "establish a
system of environmental review which will ensure that environmental concerns
are given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and
technical considerations [and] alert decision makers to significant
environmental effects which may result from the implementation of certain
actions." H.R.S. § 343-1 (1993).
Based on the above authorities, the Hawaii County Council may not approve the
proposed resolution without first requiring the developer to proceed with the
environmental review process mandated by Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised
Statutes. To do otherwise would unnecessarily embroil the County in a legal
challenge which would divert scarce County legal resources for no good purpose.
The County should no longer waste time and money by joining in developers'
attempts to end run Hawai'i's environmental review laws.
Thank you for your consideration of this submission.
V trul rs,
Steven trau