HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0092.025 2004-2006 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
this enhanced the rural lifestyle of East Hawaii. I do not think the "rural lifestyle" was limited to those living in rural
communities but generally available to those with transportation (including the Hawaii Consolidated Railroad tourist train).
The questions I would appreciate the answers to, from each of your perspective experiences in matters before
the Planning Commission and County Council, are:
1) What happens when a new landowner seeks to bar the public's customary use of recreational opportunities on his land
when such customary use of his land had satisfied the requirements of HRS 205A and HCPC Rule 9 in previously issued
SMAs, and a rezoning ordinance?
2) What happens when the new landowner attempts to overlap a new SMA permit and rezoning application on a portion of
land covered by existing SMA permits and a rezoning ordinance? In the case of proposing development on open space?
3) What is the proper procedure for considering a new SMA permit and rezoning ordinance when they affect the
previous SMA permits and rezoning ordinance? Isn't the correct application one for an amendment to the previous SMAs
and rezoning ordinance? Can the previous land use permits be ignored and left unamended? In the case where the
industrial activity still exists and official Closure is required?
4) Would the new landowner be in violation of the existing SMA permits and HRS 205A and HCPC Rule 9 if he attempted
to discourage the public and bar customary use of the shoreline area on his property?
"5) Would it be a violation of the Sunshine law to amend SMA 221, as amended, and REZ 477 and the
corresponding ordinance in part with a new SMA permit and rezoning ordinance without clearly providing notice and an
agenda stating so?
6) Doesn't the Department of Health Clean water branch and solid waste branch have to provide certain closure
conditions to convert HCPC's industrial complex (including a coal pile and NPDES permitted ouffalls) into residential lots?
Thank you for your time in advising me on these matters. There are a lot of confusing issues at hand.
Sincerely,
Claudia Rohr
369 Nene St. Hilo, HI 96720
934-8040
fax 935-0940
z