HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposed amendment PC Rule 8 & 9 S. McMichael Testimony 05.30.23From:
Simmy
To:
LPCtestimony; WPCtestimony
Subject:
Fwd: Oppose Shoreline 20 ft to 40 ft
Date:
Tuesday, May 30, 2023 1:03:11 PM Alii
Attachments:
Drive aerial of Hale 2022.webp Peach
House looking mauka.webp
Aloha Leeward Commission and Windward Planning Commission:
Please oppose this minimum 20 ft to 40 ft. setback rules, because the State Law is Already
minimum 40 feet!
If anything, you need to move it back further from the high tide.
Attached is the link to Sea Level Rise and the 40-set back State Law HRS 205A 0043.
This law was of September 15, 2020. ACT 16.
Attached are photos of Alii Drive where I have fought since 1986 "West Hawaii Surfing
Association."
SAVE OUR SURF FOR THE NOW AND NEXT GENERATION.
I recall in the battle of Banyans seawalls, Several shoreline surveys submitted was Rejected,
and the map indicated 1.064 acres are in the ocean of 2007.
DLNR at this time stated the real high tide marking was in the Middle of Ali'i Drive, Center
Line.
The sea level has already risen on Ali'i Drive., my photos say a 1000 words.
We need our Beaches Back of White Sand!
Look what is taking place now on the North Shores of Oahu, and Waikiki.
Waves and the Ocean Wahi Pana is of our Cultural and Natural Resources.
Mahalo,
Simmy McMichael
Kailua Kona
hM2s://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vo104_ChO201-0257/HRS0205A/HRS_0205A-
0043 htm
6
F m
.� 1 �t ••_ .'lid � At -y�h-
J 7
r`.
a' _-
�i
7 f y� • � •
fi
t ,
' �/ ".•- �:_�j/J Y .lam �� .• �' _ •'
PC i
�' � �_ �•• `�+, � �� - `tom '' T
26.
-fir / ��[�1 s�.. T1� --\�•'..l.;,d �a:^- -r J::
4
rj .�. ' , '�' _: �• .cif .� -.•.. �; _.
1 `! �,��+ -,fy., .j Yr err, �- f.•.ti•:�.
rI •! � ' 1 .. �... -�- � :2?f'r. -fa,r t� �'iti. .�j(� • '.t.�µ'�h ice' ��: �•.:�����•"a -x .•�% ti
I
M- �- �1'1
Aw.
WA FA
.40,00
no
46c
14
0
Ii 'it I
— ' `i;€ 4= i>, :' I j 1 y {I I spl {li '` IlI is t
- slEI kl II , s IIE !
II�Ifi • �'' I
i!I I'
I I
r
r•
ih
,
ri�� • ''F ,� !y. ' ! i I I: II 'II�l4n�, � i � it I� � . it
. W!'-i I I �€�'I• ` I. 1� IN I I- II:. �, , �' i Illt.l .,�{ i,�� �!
!;
_ i .p' -. •- � ..,rq :il � I k, ' ,'jI!+I!jl �Ir k�f,iF .t
- � � i 3 `jI►�jI{.l1lq�,': ,, � I, I III 'h. , I � II ••
q WU
At-,..�u• .r HI
.:r
�I
r j�j i •ill � �s �
''�' � ,II. I' urYt ii I , i { , • ? I �I_ i. i I. s � �I, .
� r
r 4
! �t
E
'r.
..da � .. I .� ! �` I ,�y 1, rll r ! °j �:. �� ' S; - I'; li �� 1 s • I _�
. ,. -._ . ... � _ q�,, •� ,�
i-y111�` f,u{'Nr1' E�j13�' E t—
��
. s E4�: FI ' �Ii'Irl.Il Ijl.} �- '{lr. _ I' �j • !
Irl'1lrl, i+ !i—
r-
9
fi
_
r!
- - ................ i'
............... ar
.. ..... ...,...
....... fi.Clm.i
- I' ri. �• ' -y" �� : �' f��V 11 - �r I' (y1�k_: I` .! �, ! f' � _ -
,j
is I
! 'flf' I i.
I ! '!
i -+i I E Eil, iY
213
I`'
{II
:f•r• -. r
I Ijjljl I
. S " • j- r .:i I!I! ]i]I{JJ{I����'' jjIII{{II IIErEr IIIIIIII II IIII{{IIII II IIIIiiIIIIIIk �.. II �{ lf�� 1 I
:..,�.':rs •, i�.�L��i F����sl i�l�l ! I!�l��I I, r it � I I li t ' _
I I I '
It i 10.1
r
..m
s +.1 . .>i1r i �! AAHj
M
N
LO
e-
l0
ro
6.
NmO4 �:
Integrated Shoreline Policy
Board of Land and
Natural Resources
beach, which is under the jurisdiction of the state, begins to sustain impacts in the form
of narrowing) and eventual demise.
1 Kll .► 1Vvr
Stabilized - beach preserved
beach lost
land preserved
Figure 3. Example of distinction between beach loss and coastal erosion.
Faced with chronic erosion and land loss, abutting owners feel their only relief is to
harden the shoreline. Unfortunately, this often results in yet another poor decision (this
time by the landowner) to construct an illegal seawall or revetment. The state becomes
Wived through enforcement actions further complicating the situation. This is the
vector of coastal erosion: flawed planning producing poor siting, development
?ned by erosion, construction of shoreline hardening leading to beach loss, loss of
resource (access as well as the beach environment) (Figure 3)
The present system is almost entirely reactionary and contentious. Because there has
been little .to no planning for long-term shoreline change, the response is always time-
,ritical and completely reactionary every time a property owner or agency encounters
erosion event and potential property damage is apparent,. Requests for permitted
ions such as shoreline hardening end up being decided on a case -by -case basis
"S new rules have experienced no legal challenge and the Planning Director reports satidfaction with
results.