Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem#1 AOAO Recommendation SMA-20-000076AR_RKonaReef SMA_202I COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION AOAO KONA REEF,INC. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 20-000076) Upon careful review of the applicant's request against the guidelines for granting of a Special Management Area Use Permit,the Planning Director recommends denial of the Special Management Area Use Permit to construct an approximately 220-foot-long Concrete- Rubble-Masonry (CRM) wall approximately 1-foot inland of the certified shoreline and situated within the Special Management Area by the Planning Commission. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit ofpublic testimony,the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this recommendation based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. This recommendation is based on the following findings: AOAO Kona Reef, Inc. proposes to build a continuous 220-foot-long concrete- rubble-masonry(CRM)wall within the 40-foot shoreline setback area.The structure would be located entirely above(mauka)of the Certified Shoreline approximately 12 to 18 inches wide at ground level and approximately 24 to 36 inches wide at the base, which would be anchored to the bedrock. The entire structure would have a length of approximately 220 linear feet and would roughly parallel the mauka side of the Certified Shoreline by a buffer of at least 12 inches. The structure would be embedded in the existing soil on both sides for about '/ of its length, and on approximately the northern 'A of its length the structure would be exposed on the makai side. Drainage would be a component of the design,so that water in the sub-grade is not retained and flow from the mauka side of the structure to the side would be allowed. The wall depth will vary with the subsurface depth of the bedrock and will include a drainage pipe that will run the length of the structure (mauka side) and daylight at the wall end for drainage. The project will include the removal and excavation ofsoil and rock to accommodate the finished face of the wall. The primary purpose of the wall is to prevent future erosion of the lawn area, and to mitigate the effects of the rare storm or tsunami surges that could cross the shoreline. Additionally, the applicant claims pedestrian foot traffic entering and exiting the shoreline is eroding the face of the lawn and fill area. The grounds for approving development within the Special Management Area SMA)are based on HRS,Chapter 205A-26(2)(Special Management Area guidelines)and Rule 9-11(e) of the Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure. Planning Commission Rule 9-11(e)states that the Authority(Planning Commission)may permit the proposed development only upon finding that: 1. The development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect except as such adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable and is clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interest. 2. The development is consistent with the objectives and policies and the Special Management Area guidelines as provided by Chapter 205A, HRS. 3. The development is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and other applicable ordinances. 4. The development will, to the extent feasible, reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist, including specific factual findings regarding: a.The identity and scope ofvalued cultural,historical, or natural resources in the petition area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the petition area. b.The extent to which those resources, including traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights,will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and c.The feasible action,if any,to be taken by the Authority to reasonably protect any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources, including any existing traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights. The proposed development may have an adverse environmental or ecological effect, and such adverse effect cannot be minimized to the extent practicable, and is not clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interest. In considering the significance of potential environmental effects,the Director shall consider the sum of those effects that adversely affect the quality of the environment and shall evaluate the overall and cumulative effects of the action. Such adverse effect shall include, but not be limited to,the potential cumulative impact of individual developments,each one 2- of which taken in itself might not have a substantial adverse effect, and elimination of planning options. A "substantial adverse effect" is determined by the specific circumstances of the proposed use, activity, or operation. In determining whether a proposal may have a substantial adverse effect on the environment, the Director shall consider every phase of a proposed action and expected consequences, either primary or secondary, or the cumulative as well as short or long-term effect ofthe proposal. The applicant indicates that the proposed structure will include an exposed rock face along the northern section of the proposed structure that will immediately act as a shoreline hardening element, even when constructed 1-foot mauka of the certified shoreline. Additionally, the applicant has admitted in the application that the entire structure will eventually become a seawall and create a permanently hardened shoreline: The intended purpose of the CRM structure is not to artificially fix the shoreline; that being said, it would be irrational and naïve to think that at some point in the future some areas, ifnot all, ofthe CRM wall will not serve in this capacity". On September 15, 2020, the Governor of Hawaii signed SB2060, (Act 16) which updates the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) guidance to prohibit construction of private shoreline hardening structures, including seawalls and revetments, at sites having sandy beaches and at sites where shoreline hardening structures interfere with existing recreational and waterline activities. From the applicants submitted erosion study: "sand deposits (fronting the Kona Reef)may be more extensive during summer months, and are depleted during winter, when storm surge waves are more common along the Kona coast." The applicant failed to incorporate the Hawaii Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report(2017)recommendations which evaluate sea level rise(SLR) exposure with regards to erosion control structures and shoreline hardening. According to the FIRM maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA),the project area is within Flood Zone AE which corresponds to locations where base flood elevations are provided. The elevation of the structure closest to the shoreline is 11 feet above sea level,with the base flood elevation of 10 feet above sea level. It is unclear how a wall,built to grade,will protect a structure that is built only 1-foot above the base flood elevation. Per letter dated November 10, 2020, the Department of Public 3- Works (DPW) stated that "all development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on site, and not directed towards any adjacent properties". The site plan indicates that drainage/stormwater collected from the lawn area and landward of the wall will be directly disposed of into the shoreline area and thus the ocean from pipes running along the length of the proposed structure. The applicant did not provide any indication of the amounts, type, or reason for this direct ocean discharge. In reviewing the proposed development against the factors that may constitute a substantial adverse effect as listed under Planning Commission Rule 9-10(H)(1-10), it has been determined that the proposed project to construct a 200-foot-long wall approximately 1 foot landward of the certified shoreline will have a significant adverse environmental or ecological effect upon the Special Management Area. This determination is based on the following: The proposed development is not consistent with the County General Plan and Zoning Code and other applicable ordinances.The 2005 General Plan provides a mix of goals and policies to balance the requirements to protect public spaces and private property. Flooding and Other Natural Hazards Goals 5.2,Policy 5.3 and Natural Resources and Shoreline Policies 8.3 emphasize the need to prevent inundation damage to the shoreline and man-made improvements, and to preserve the public access to the shoreline, in part by protecting the shoreline from further encroachment from man-made structures. Additionally, the General Plan calls for regulating land use in areas vulnerable to severe wave action and developing an integrated shoreline erosion management plan that considers methods such as beach nourishment or managed retreat.The 2019 Draft General Plan Update extends the demands on hazard mitigation planning by calling for the use of up-to-date, accurate, and the most conservative scientific models along with local and regional climate change monitoring programs to define hazard areas, adopt natural hazard overlay zones, set conditions for land use and siting,and to incorporate mitigation methods in to planning practices. The Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP) calls for the use of 'best management planning practices for any land-based endeavor by balancing public and private rights and taking advantage of an ever-evolving and ever-improving knowledge of a- resource management and natural processes. Additionally, the KCDP requires exploration of alternatives to ensure an open and continuous lateral shoreline access along the shoreline.The applicant did not provide any up-to-date or scientifically backed alternatives to the proposed project. The direction of the county plans noted above is clearly moving away from shoreline hardening techniques, such as seawalls and revetments. The proposed project is not consistent with the objectives and policies as provided by Chapter 205A,HRS,and Special Management Area guidelines contained in Rule No. 9 of the Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure. The purpose of Chapter 205A,Hawai'i Revised Statutes(HRS),and Special Management Area Rules and Regulations ofthe County of Hawai'i,is to preserve,protect,and where possible, to restore the natural resources of the coastal zone areas. Therefore, special controls on development within an area along the shoreline are necessary to avoid permanent loss of valuable resources and the foreclosure of management options. Recreational Resources: The project site is located adjacent to the Hawaii County Wai`aha Beach Park at Honl's Beach which includes access to surfing and other waterline activities in the area. The applicant failed to discuss the potential impacts to the beach park with regards to lateral sand transport, flanking of the structure which exacerbates erosion, and overtopping of the structure which could undermine the entire structure and impact public access. We believe the proposed project may impact the coastline or other areas utilized for public recreational activities in the adjacent park area, as well as potentially impede or hinder the public's ability to access the shoreline. Beach Protection: As previously stated, sufficient evidence has not been provided by the applicant to show that the proposed project will not adversely affect the sandy beach just south of the subject property at Honl's Beach. Historic and Cultural Resources: As mentioned previously, the SHPD has requested that the applicant submit for review and recommendation an AIS of the project site. One (l) site was observed at the project parcel, so it is unclear if other cultural resources are present in the project area. SHPD should be given the opportunity to review the AIS and recommend mitigation methods or BMPs to protect undiscovered cultural and 5- historical resources. Scenic and Open Space Resources: The proposed structure will be immediately recognizable as a seawall and will be an apparent man-made structure located right at the shoreline which detracts from the natural beauty and natural processes at the shoreline.The public will be required to climb down the wall to reach the shoreline in some locations which could influence or impact the public's access to a public trust resource. After careful consideration ofall the project details and components,the Director's interpretation of the proposed project is that this is a shoreline hardening structure and that neither the effectiveness, nor its potential impacts to adjacent coastal resources has been adequately presented to the Department. Because of the lack of relevant information, the Director is unable to determine the long-term (i.e., cumulative) effects, or review other potential alternatives that could alleviate supposed impacts to the lawn area. The State has determined that shoreline hardening structures have been shown to influence coastal processes, diminish beach accretion, and disrupt other coastal resources and activities; these effects must be determined for all coastal development projects. The applicant was unable to sufficiently detail the project's potential impact on the shoreline or that the erosion potential at this site was considerable. No research or discussion on the potential for flanking, over-topping of the structure, wall failure or effects on sand deposits especially at the County's Beach Park at Honl's Beach located adjacent and just south of the project site. Based upon the above information,the proposed development is not consistent with all ofthe objectives and policies of Chapter 205A, HRS. The development will not, to the extent feasible, reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist. In view of the Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa`akai 0 Ka`Aina"decisions,the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site. The hardening of Hawaii's shorelines continues to impede native Hawaiian access 6- to the natural conditions where gathering and similar activities are conducted. Shoreline dependent resources could be impacted by the failure of the wall,cumulative impacts from flanking,or even changing conditions of sand transport and other beach materials. After review, it has been determined that the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives and policies listed under Chapter 205A,HRS,which includes protecting and preserving recreational resources,historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, economic uses, coastal hazards, beach protection, marine resources, as well as understanding impacts due to sea level rise and changing climate conditions. Based on the preceding findings, the proposed development will have substantial adverse impacts on the environment, and its approval would be contrary to the objectives and policies of Chapter 205A, HRS, Coastal Zone Management and Rule No. 9 of the Planning Commission relating to the Special Management Area.