COM 0092.025 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 ! ~ t.~~J I'C;. Vii.. 11 From: Claudia Rohr [cloud@hilo.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:57 AM To: Higa, Stacy; Safarik, Gary; counciltestimony@co.haw ~i.us Subject: Re: Bill 356 and 355 please attach to my other email xe~i~y Original Message From: Claudia Rohr <mailto:claud(a~hilo.net> To: iacobs(a)hgea orq <mailto iacobs(a~hgea orq> ; CYUEN(a~co hawaii hi us <mallto:CYUEN(a~co.hawaii.hi.us> Cc: Jerry Rothstein <mailto posh hawaii(a)turguoise net> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 2:13 PM Subject: RE: SMA 03-009 and REZ 03-014 Dear Councilman Jacobs and Mr.Yuen, I would like to write to the two of you regarding your communications in the Continental Pacific, LLC files. My comments and questions are concerning existing public access and recreational opportunities and SMA Permit No. 221, as amended. These comments should be placed in the SMA 03-009 and REZ 03-014 files. There were five previously approved or exempted applications for land use permits for the Hilo Coast Power Company plant complex on former TMK 3/2-8-7-53: 1) Sub 3562 (1975 consolidation/resubdivision creating parcel 53) ,and 2) related SMM 76074 (1976; minor permits are in TMK files); 3) REZ 477 -Ord. 84-46 (1984 rezoning ordinance to rezone from ag to industrial for production of ethanol), and 4) related SMA 208; 5) SMA 221 (1986 to allow the burning of coal with bagasse); and 6) SMA 221 as amended (1995 to raise the stacks to burn coal full time for power production). Chapter 34 Public Access was not adopted until 1996 (Ord. No. 96-17). Before 1996 it appears that the planning department would review an application for a SMA permit for compliance with HRS 205A and HCPC Rule 9 and provide confirmation of setbacks of the proposed development and any determination of adverse affects on the coastal resources, among other things, in their recommendations. An example of how this is expressed in final permit form using SMA Permit No. 208, as an example, is: "The Commission, also voted to approve your SMA Use permit application, Special Management Area Permit No. 208, based on the following: ...The proposed development is not expected to have any significant adverse effects on the coastal resources, nor adversely affect any existing access to the shoreline. Based on the above, it is determined that the approval of the proposed project will not result in the loss of valuable natural, cultural, or recreational resources of the shoreline and coastal area." After reading the files listed above and the permit recommendations in particular, and having asked John Cross, field manager and President of Mauna Kea Agribusiness, how BEI and MKA fulfilled the requirements of SMA 221, and visiting Pepeekeo Landing area myself on occasion and hearing testimony of other residents using Pepeekeo Landing area on a regular basis, I have come to the conclusion that since the landowners "just left the gates open" so people could enjoy a Sunday drive and go fishing down at Pepeekeo Landing or along the pali, the landowners were deemed in compliance with the State and County requirements to provide recreational opportunities along the shoreline area at the time the SMA permits were approved. It is my belief that the absence of a "condition" on an SMA permit predating passage of Ord. 1996-17 and establishment of HCC Chapter 34 in the County of Hawaii is most likely evidence that recreational opportunities and convenient public access were in place and the proposed development or activity was not likely to adversely affect the public's continued use. It is my belief that the presence of a "condition" on these pre-1996 SMA permits to provide [formal] public access might evidence a concern that public access to customary recreational opportunities might be adversely affected by the proposed activity or development and a "condition" might be an attempt at minimizing the impact. I believe that certain statements exist in the two previous General Plans, in the rezoning that took place to create Kula'imano Subdivision and other documents (studies and history) I have read that indicate that the sugar companies provided open space and recreational opportunities along the shoreline enjoyed by all peoplfl and i~ Comm. o. 1 Ref. To: Pf°s°nt