HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0042.076 2004-2006 Claudia J. Rohr ""r
369 Nene St. ;lme_ -
Hilo HI 96720 ~J~-•-•----- - a
808-934-8040 • -
cell: 938-5446
Fax: 935-0940
February 1, 2005
Dear County Council Members, ~d. ~ ~ 4 3
Re: Amendment to remove Item B-2 from Proposed Draft 5 Land use Allocation Map
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me in private or chat on the phone to review
the facts concerning Item B-2, referenced above. I have two degrees in Landscape
Architectwe (University of Oregon), which included graduate level planning cowses, and
maps are my expertise.
At the January 21, 2005 hearing Chris Yuen stated that there was no industrial activity in
the area of B-2 so he didn't see a problem leaving B-2 on the LUPAG map and amending
the map later. The Planning Director was incorrect in his evaluation. HCPC's coal ash
solid waste facility is a state DOH permitted industrial activity located in B-2, in the
agricultural district. I have attached maps of the following for your review so may
confirm with this with yow own eyes: Exhibit "A"- aerial photo with TMK overlay;
Exhibit "B"-LUPAG Map with TMK overlay; and Exhibit "C"-Zoning Map with TMK
overlay. Note first on the aerial map that the roadway bows out at the location of the coal
ash pile, making it an identifiable element on each map.
As you remember I explained that I have spent four years trying to get the DOH Solid and
Hazardous Waste Branch ("SHWB") and the Planning Department to enforce the
conditions of their permits requiring that the coal ash be recycled because the stockpile sits
on top of two intermittent stream channels. The two intermittent streams have been
altered to avoid the coal ash stockpile as part of the facility improvements without State or
Federal permits. None the less there is a problem of storm water run-on and run-off which
causes perennial clean water violations.
I have been notified that the Army Corp of Engineers and DLNR Water Resowce
Management will be coming to East Hawaii this month to investigation and confirm the
issues of the illegally altered streams. I have attached an aerial photograph dating from
1972 (Exhibit "D") and marked the location of the coal ash pile on a Water Shed Map to
illustrate this point (Exhibit "E").
The Hilo Coast Power Company has been trying to get DOH and Planning Department
approval to mix the coal ash stockpile with stockpiled bagasse soil and spread it out forty
feet thick up stream from the current pile on fifteen acres in an attempt to avoid the LUC
approval process. HCPC plans to grow ornamental plants on top, and call it recycling in
place. This reuse proposal is a thinly disguised landfill which will disrupt the natwal
Comm. No: Z • ~O
Ref. To: Proie~M
R~: f. C?af^
stream courses causing washouts and perennial clean water violations and impacting and
degrading the off shore coral reefs, and fish habitats.
HCPC's solid waste facility was illegally established in the Agricultural District, without
County rezoning approval or a Special Use permit without the Planning Depaztments
knowledge in 1995. The State Water Code has been violated in two parts: 1) the streams
have bee~~,,,,a~~l~red without permit; and 2) the stream alterations aze improvements
associatedNndustrial activity illegally located on land in the agricultural district.
Item no. 1 above can be corrected with payment of a fine and proper permit application.
Item No. 2 above can only be corrected by amendment to the General Plan and a change
in zone. HRS 174C-49 states in part:
Conditions for a permit. (a) To obtain a permit pursuant to this part, the applicant
shall establish that the proposed use of water:
(5) Is consistent with state and county general plans and land use designations;
(6) Is consistent with county land use plans and policies;
It is most likely HCPC will ask the Planning Department for anon-significant zoning
change if Bill 163 draft 5 is approved as is. Industrial zoning slightly overlaps the coal ash
pile (see Exhibit "C" -Zoning Map). HCPC could possible litigate if the Planning
Department does not administrative approve the zoning change based on conformance
with the LUPAG Map.
It is most likely HCPC will oppose a County Council initiated interim amendment to
change B-2 from Industrial to Important Agriculture. HCPC could possibly litigate citing
the interim amendment a taking. In this event the agricultural land will be lost and the coal
ash solid waste facility will be legitimized without any participation by the public.
Approval of Item B-2, changing the land use element from Intensive and Extensive
Agriculture to Industrial, will also change the effect of 205A in the event HCPC applies
for a Special Management Use Permit to legitimize its facility. To clarify, HRS 205A-26
states in part:
(2) No development shall be approved unless the authority has first found:
(C) That the development is consistent with the county general plan and zoning.
Such a finding of consistency does not preclude concurrent processing where a
general plan or zoning amendment may also be required.
To summarize, by approving Draft 5 of the General Plan, as is and containing B-2, you aze
voting to:
1) "undo" a possible enforcement action by DLNR Commission on Water Resource
Management;
2) "approve in principle" issuance of DLNR Water Resource Management permits to
HCPC retroactively;
3) "approve in principle" final and permanent alteration the two streams;
4) "approve in principle" an administrative zoning change which wfll by pass the public
review process;
5) "approve in principle" that HCPC's coal ash pile qualifies for an SMA permit.
The stockpile has exceeded the capacity of the facility and has spilled into the Shoreline
Management Area (SMA) and is now less then five hundred feet from the shoreline. It is
time for the County Council to focus on protecting our water resources by opposing B-2
as an attempt to "back door" in approvals legitimizing a solid waste facility that is
inappropriately location. For this reason I am asking that the Council amend B-2,
changing it back to Intensive and Extensive Agriculture (its original land use element). I
am asking for the same favorable consideration you gave others when you amended the
General Plan by floor amendment on January 4, and 21, 2005.
Our Planning Director can then handle his "technical problem" of fine tuning the
agricultural land use element by amending the LUPAG map from Intensive and Extensive
Agriculture to Important Agriculture at his own timing without derailing any pending
State enforcement actions and without risk of back door zoning approval.
Sincerely,
Claudia Rohr