Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-19 Ka'ū CDP Meeting Packet County of Hawai‘i KAʻŪ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaiʻi 96720 (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Jesse Ke Ka’ohinani Mokuhali’i Leina’ala Enos Babette Morrow Jason Masters, Chair Pernell Hanoa, Vice-Chair Catherine Williams Kaweni Ibarra Vacant NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the following matters to be considered by the Kaʻū Action Committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 92-7, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS). This meeting will be held in-person at the location listed in this notice and by Interactive Conference Technology (ICT) through Zoom. DATE: Thursday, September 19, 2024 TIME: 5:00 P.M IN PERSON LOCATION: Kaʻū District Gym Muli-Purpose Room 96-1219 Kamani St. Pāhala, HI 96777 ONLINE/ZOOM: https://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJIscuqrqz8qG0mrNAm7EwWQYWAzkInjoTU NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC TESTIMONY: The public may provide oral testimony at the meeting by joining Zoom or attending in-person at the physical location listed above. Although not required, to register in advance for oral testimony please contact staff at cdp@hawaiicounty.gov or (808) 961-8288. Pursuant to § 92-3, HRS, interested persons who want to provide oral testimony may do so either at the time the committee takes public statements on the agenda, or at the time the specific agenda item is called. Please note that public testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes in length per agenda item. In addition, although not required, to ensure timely delivery of written testimony to committee members, it is requested that written testimony be submitted by 4:30 p.m. at least two business days prior to the meeting via email to cdp@hawaiicounty.gov or in person at the Hilo or Kona Planning Department. When submitting written testimony, please specify for which agenda item written testimony is being submitted. All written testimony will be a part of the public record. NOTICE REGARDING INTERACTIVE CONFERENCE TECHNOLOGY (ICT): A meeting held by ICT shall be automatically recessed for up to 30 minutes to restore communication when audiovisual communication cannot be maintained with all members participating in the meeting or with the in-person location identified in this notice. The meeting may reconvene when either audiovisual communication is restored, or audio-only communication is established after an unsuccessful attempt to restore audiovisual communication. If it is not possible to reconvene the meeting as provided in this subsection within 30 minutes after an interruption to communication, the meeting will be automatically terminated. AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL II. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON AGENDA ITEMS: Pursuant to § 92-3, HRS, interested persons who want to provide oral testimony may do so now, or at the time the specific agenda item is called. Public testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes in length per agenda item. III. BUSINESS: 1. Final Draft General Plan 2045 Presentation – Presentation and Q&A by Planning Department Staff regarding the Final Draft General Plan 2045. Please watch previous workshop recordings and review meeting packet materials as this item is intended to provide Kona specific information related to the CDP. o Final Draft General Plan 2045 Document: https://cohplanning.konveio.com/final-recommended-draft-general-plan- 2045?document=1. o Recordings: https://records.hawaiicounty.gov/WebLink/1/fol/138446/Row1.aspx 2. Letter to the Windward Planning Commission regarding the Black Sands Beach, LLC SMA application (PL-SMA-2023-000046) – Discussion and decision making on submitting the letter to the Windward Planning Commission. 3. Pāhala Water Bottling Facility Update – Discussion and potential decision making on findings regarding the Pāhala Water Bottling Facility. 4. Proposed Transient Accommodations Rental Code Amendment (TAR Bill) – Discussion and potential decision-making on providing testimony to County Council’s TAR Bill package (Bill 121, 122, and 123). IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Committee will consider approving the draft minutes from August 14, 2024. V. NEW BUSINESS: Action Committee members will discuss potential agenda items for the next meeting including revisiting topics from meetings that did not have a quorum. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: • The Department of Environmental Management has begun the process to Draft an Integrated Wastewater Management Plan. A recording of the first round of public meetings can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmR2EgTRQVI • The Planning Department is currently seeking applicants for the Kaʻū Action Committee and is requesting assistance to get the word out to interested community members. The application can be found on the Mayor’s office website at: https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/our-county/boards-commissions-application • Egress and Ingress at Green Sands Subdivision Permitted Interaction Group met on September 11, 2024 • Mahana Bay letter VII. ADJOURNMENT This agenda and all related documents are available in the Planning Department’s Kaʻū Community Development Plan Action Committee folder via the County of Hawaiʻi Public Documents Repository: https://records.hawaiicounty.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?dbid=1&startid=88959 These documents may also be requested from the Planning Department by calling (808) 961-8288 or emailing cdp@hawaiicounty.gov. NOTICE: The purpose of the public hearings is to afford all interested persons a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the above items. A person desiring to submit oral or written testimony shall indicate their name and whether the testimony is on their behalf or as a representative of an organization or individual. Written testimony can be submitted via email or hard copy. Hard copies should include an original and nine copies and be submitted no later than 4:30pm two business days prior to the meeting. Anyone who requires an auxiliary aid or service, other reasonable modification, or language interpretation to access this meeting please contact the Planning Department at (808) 961-8288 or cdp@hawaiicounty.gov as soon as possible, but no later than five business days prior to the meeting date, to arrange for accommodations. If a response is received after the five-business days deadline, we will try to obtain the auxiliary aid/service or accommodation, but we cannot guarantee that the request will be fulfilled. “Other reasonable modification” refers to communication methods or devices for people with disabilities who are mentally and/or physically challenged. Upon request, this notice is available in alternate formats such as large print, Braille, or electronic copy. If you are a lobbyist, you must register with the Hawai‘i County Clerk within five days of becoming a lobbyist. (Article 15, Section 2-91.3(b), Hawai‘i County Code). A lobbyist means, “any individual engaged for pay or other consideration who spends more than five hours in any month or $275 in any six-month period for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative or administrative action by communicating or urging others to communicate with public officials.” (Article 15, Section 2-91.3(a)(6), Hawai‘i County Code). Registration forms and expenditure report documents are available at the Office of the County Clerk-Council, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720. KAʻŪ CDP ACTION COMMITTEE KAʻŪ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 ACTION COMMITTEE 2 COUNTY OF HAWAIʻI 3 DRAFT MINUTES 4 August 14, 2024 5 CALL TO ORDER 6 Chair Masters called the Kaʻū Community Development Plan (CDP) Action Committee (AC) 7 meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. A quorum was established with seven members in attendance. This 8 meeting was held in person at the Naʻalehu Community Center and online via the Zoom platform. 9 The full YouTube video of this meeting can be found here: 10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bokLcIX0H0 11 ROLL CALL 12 Members Present (in person): Jason Masters (Chair), Pernell Hanoa (Vice Chair), Leinaʻala Enos, 13 Kaʻohinani Mokuhaliʻi, Jesse Ke, and Catherine Williams. 14 Members Present (via Zoom): Babette Morrow 15 Members Absent: Kaweni Ibarra 16 From the County (in person): Maryam Palma and Kawelo Kalili (Planning Department Staff); Jean 17 Campbell (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Committee) 18 There were approximately 20 members of the public in attendance (15 in person and 5 via Zoom). 19 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 20 Vice Chair Hanoa motioned to approve the minutes from the July 11, 2024 meeting. Committee 21 member Mokuhaliʻi seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 22 BUSINESS 23 1. Letter to the Windward Planning Commission regarding the Black Sands Beach, LLC 24 SMA application (PL-SMA-2023-000046) – Discussion and decision-making on submitting 25 the letter to the Windward Planning Commission. 26 This item was called to order at 5:08 p.m. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 5:14] 27 Public testimony by Land Use Planning Consultant Daryn Arai on behalf of Black Sands Beach 28 LLC in response to the committee’s letter to the Windward Planning Commission regarding the 29 Black Sand Beach, LLC Special Management Area (SMA) application (PL-SMA-2023-000046). 30 [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 5:40] 31 Public testimony by Savory Yarrow in opposition of the Black Sands Beach, LLC SMA 32 application (PL-SMA-2023-000046). [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 12:05] 33 Public testimony by Candace Kaʻawa in support of the Black Sands Beach, LLC SMA application 34 (PL-SMA-2023-000046). [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 15:35] 35 KAʻŪ CDP ACTION COMMITTEE Minutes of August 14, 2024 2 Chair Masters provided a brief recap on the purpose of discussing Communication No. 2024-04 36 Letter to the Windward Planning Commission regarding the Black Sands Beach, LLC SMA 37 application (PL-SMA-2023-000046). [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 21:00] 38 Committee member Morrow made a motion to approve Communication No. 2024-04 Letter to the 39 Windward Planning Commission regarding the Black Sands Beach, LLC SMA application (PL-40 SMA-2023-000046) as is. The motion was seconded by committee member Enos. 41 The Action Committee discussed whether to amend Communication No. 2024-04 to consider Land 42 Use Planning Consultant Daryn Arai’s written and verbal testimony. [SEE YOUTUBE 43 TIMESTAMP 23:37] 44 Daryn Arai provides a perspective on the Action Committee considering his rebuttal in their 45 testimony to the Windward Planning Commission. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 45:30] 46 The Action Committee continued discussing individual perspectives and determining the best 47 course of action for submitting the written testimony on behalf of the committee. [SEE YOUTUBE 48 TIMESTAMP 47:50] 49 Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell explained that the Planning Commission will consider 50 the AC’s testimony alongside other submissions before making a decision on whether to approve 51 or deny the SMA application. If the applicant anticipates that the Planning Commission might 52 deny their application based on testimony received, they may request a pause in the decision-53 making process to reconsider and adjust their proposal. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 58:23] 54 The committee took a roll call vote regarding the motion to approve Communication No. 2024-04 55 testimony regarding Black Sands Beach LLC application (PL-SMA-2023-000046) as is. 56 Committee member Hanoa voted nay. Committee member Mokuhaliʻi voted aye. Committee 57 member Enos voted aye. Committee member Williams voted nay. Committee member Ke voted 58 nay. Committee member Morrow voted aye. Chairman Masters voted aye. The motion did not pass 59 with 4 ayes and 3 nays. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 1:02] 60 Chairman Masters motioned for the committee to consider Mr. Arai’s response to the AC’s drafted 61 letter for further discussion and decision-making at the September 19th AC meeting. Committee 62 member Hanoa seconded the motion. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 1:05] 63 The committee reviewed communication protocols to ensure compliance with the Sunshine Law. 64 Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell provided guidance on permissible actions, noting that while 65 committee members may engage in individual discussions with those outside the committee, they 66 must avoid serial communication. She advised each member to independently review Mr. Arai’s 67 response letter and speak directly with him before the next meeting. Members can then bring their 68 findings and concerns to the September 19th meeting for discussion and resolution. [SEE 69 YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 1:06] 70 The committee took a roll call vote regarding the motion to consider Mr. Arai’s response to 71 Communication No. 2024-04 and to discuss concerns at the September 19th AC meeting. Vice 72 Chair Hanoa seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. [SEE YOUTUBE 73 TIMESTAMP 1:14] 74 This item closed at 6:18 p.m. 75 76 KAʻŪ CDP ACTION COMMITTEE Minutes of August 14, 2024 3 2. Egress and Ingress at Green Sands Subdivision Regarding Ka’ CDP policy 118, Section 77 5.7.2 – Discussion and decision-making on prioritizing Policy 118 regarding hazard mitigation 78 and evacuation routes. 79 This item was called to order at 6:18 p.m. 80 Committee member Morrow asked about the process for forming a Permitted Interaction Group 81 (PIG). Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell explained the PIG process. [SEE YOUTUBE 82 TIMESTAMP 1:16] 83 Committee member Williams moved to create a PIG to investigate Business Item #2. Chairman 84 Masters seconded the motion. The committee will include Chairman Masters, Vice Chair Hanoa, 85 Committee Member Williams and Committee Member Morrow. The goal is to meet with the Fire 86 Chiefs to address the evacuation and mitigation routes for Green Sands subdivision. The 87 committee took a roll call vote. The motion passed unanimously. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 88 1:18] 89 This item concluded at 6:25 p.m. 90 3. Pāhala Water Bottling Facility – Discussion and potential decision making on findings 91 regarding the Pāhala Water Bottling Facility. 92 This item was called to order at 6:25 p.m. 93 Committee member Morrow moved to discuss potential decision making for the Pāhala Water 94 Bottling Facility. The motion was seconded by Chairman Masters. 95 Chairman Masters suggested that the AC invite the property owner, the Department of Health 96 (DOH) and the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)to give an update on the 97 current status of the proposed development. 98 Public testimony by Gwen Sorensen regarding concerns of the committee’s actions on this 99 business item. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 1:31] 100 Planning staff Maryam Palma explained that the property is zoned for industrial use and does not 101 require a special permit, as it is already authorized for that purpose. She also recommended that 102 the committee reach out to the DOH and DLNR regarding water rights. 103 Committee member Morrow withdrew the initial motion, along with Chairman Masters’ second. 104 Committee member Enos moved to have Vice Chair Hanoa and committee member Williams 105 conduct fact finding regarding the Pahala Water Bottling Facility. This includes reaching out to 106 the DOH, DLNR, and the applicant to inquire about the status of the proposed development, as 107 well as taking other relevant actions related to the project. The motion was seconded by committee 108 member Mokuhali’i. The motion passed unanimously. 109 This item concluded at 6:49 p.m. 110 4. Ka Lae Coastline Access & Resources – Review and amend draft letter regarding protecting 111 cultural sites and natural resources in the greater Ka Lae area, particularly Mahana Bay. 112 This item was called to order at 6:49 p.m. 113 KAʻŪ CDP ACTION COMMITTEE Minutes of August 14, 2024 4 Public testimony from Paul Makuakane suggesting that the AC contact the planners at the 114 Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) for more information on the natural resources in 115 Ka Lae. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 1:46] 116 Public testimony from Dean Kaniho regarding issues with land management by DHHL in Ka Lae. 117 [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 1:51] 118 Committee member Morrow addressed the public’s concerns and shared that the committee put 119 together a letter to DHHL to develop vehicular roadways to manage access to Mahana Bay and 120 offered other recommendations. Communication No. 2024-05 will advise the Planning Director to 121 take actions on the proposed projects. 122 Public testimony from Tissy Kaniho on illegal activity happening in Ka Lae affecting Kaʻū youth 123 and the community. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 1:51] 124 Committee member Enos made a motion to forward Communication No. 2025-05, which 125 addresses concerns from the Kaʻū community about the protection of cultural sites and natural 126 resources in the greater Ka Lae area, particularly around Mahana Bay, to the Planning Director 127 with copies sent to all relevant agencies and departments. The motion was seconded by committee 128 member Williams. The motion passed unanimously. 129 This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. 130 5. Discussion of Action Committee Meeting Cadence – Discussion and decision-making 131 regarding the scheduling, logistics, and format of future meetings. 132 This item was called to order at 7:09 p.m. 133 The AC discussed meeting scheduling and logistics. All members agreed to meet every other 134 month rather than quarterly, given the volume of material that needs to be discussed by the 135 committee. Committee member Enos requested that the next meeting in September be at Naʻalehu 136 Community Center to accommodate for Ocean View residents. The committee agreed to start the 137 new cadence in October. They will plan to meet on Wednesdays in September, October and 138 December of this year. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 2:07] 139 This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. 140 AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING: 141 Public testimony by Gary Davis on the operating hours of local transfer stations, noting that every 142 district except Kaʻū has one open seven days a week. He urged that at least one Kaʻū transfer 143 station should operate daily to help reduce illegal dumping in the area. [SEE YOUTUBE 144 TIMESTAMP 2:16] 145 Public testimony by Wilmet Lorenzo regarding water accessibility on South Point Road, stating 146 that there have been no infrastructure updates in the past 30 years to improve residents’ access to 147 water. Lorenzo expressed concern about the ongoing lack of progress in this area. [SEE YOUTUBE 148 TIMESTAMP 2:20] 149 Committee member Enos motioned for Vice Chair Hanoa and Committee member Ke to conduct 150 fact finding for water accessibility for residents in South Point. The motion passed unanimously. 151 ADJOURNMENT: 152 KAʻŪ CDP ACTION COMMITTEE Minutes of August 14, 2024 5 Chairman Masters adjourned this meeting at 7:33 p.m. 153 These minutes and all related documents are available in the Planning Department’s Kaʻū 154 Community Development Plan Action Committee folder via the County of Hawaiʻi Public 155 Documents Repository. These documents may also be requested from the Planning Department 156 by calling (808) 961-8288 or emailing cdp@hawaiicounty.gov. 157 Hawaiʻi County General Plan Comprehensive Review Process Fact Sheet Organization County of Hawaiʻi, Planning Department Purpose The General Plan sets forth the County’s long-range policy for the comprehensive physical, economic, environmental, and sociocultural well-being of the County. •As a sustainability strategy, it presents a vision for the future and addresses the layers of healthy and livable communities. •The General Plan is a planning tool that guides all development patterns, directs future opportunities, and determines public investments. Scope The General Plan guides policy on various elements that speak to key themes. Collaborative Biocultural Stewardship •Biodiversity & native habitats •Watershed health •Conservation efforts •Historic/scenic character & open space Addressing Climate Change for Island-Wide Health •Climate mitigation & adaptation •Renewable energy & energy efficiency •Collaboration & coordination •Equity Sustainable Development & Resilient Communities •Land use compatibility •Transportation systems •Public utilities & facilities •Health & safety •Housing •Integrated systems Thriving, Diverse, and Regenerative Economy •Economic diversification •Innovation & technology •Collaboration & coordination •Regenerative practices •Food security •Visitor industry & community connection Relationship to Other Plans & Processes The General Plan serves as the overarching framework of the County’s planning system. It is designed to be broad in scope, encompassing the entire island and focusing on long-term goals, rather than addressing specific development or regional needs. The General Plan is intended to adapt and evolve alongside the growth of our communities. For More Information Planning Department website: www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/general-plan-community-planning/gp/ Email: GeneralPlan@hawaiicounty.gov The General Plan is not •A detailed plan for development •A master plan or regional plan •A fixed or inflexible document Communication No. 2024-07 Page 1 of 9 General Plan Policy Rationale Kaʻū CDP Related Excerpts The policies outlined in this document are derived from the General Plan Policy Rationale linked here: General Plan Policy Rationale Collaborative Biocultural Stewardship Objective 4 The historic integrity, character, scenic assets, and open space of our communities are protected, restored, and treated as unique assets with significant social and economic value and managed in perpetuity. Policies 4.11 Identify outstanding natural or cultural features, such as water courses, fine groves of trees, heiau, and historical sites and structures, on subdivision preliminary plat maps. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 12: Outstanding natural or cultural features, such as scenic spots, water courses, fine groves of trees, heiaus, and historical sites and structures, shall be preserved during subdivision. (HCC 23-26) Land Use Objective 9 Maintain community character and land use compatibility. Policies 9.1 The development of commercial facilities should be designed to reflect the character of the community while providing desired services and mitigating impacts on the surrounding environment. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 73: The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. (GP 14.3.3(f)) 9.2 In those cases where provisions of the zoning and subdivision code are inconsistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, variances or Planned Unit Developments (PUD) that maintain consistent village/town character should be encouraged. Communication No. 2024-08 Page 2 of 9 Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 72: In the “Low Density Urban” (LDU) and “Medium Density Urban” Land Use Policy Map categories, in those cases where provisions of the zoning and subdivision codes are inconsistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, variances or PUDs that maintain consistent village/town character should be encouraged. 9.6 In the review of discretionary permits, consider land use compatibility to ensure proximate compatible and complementary uses and appropriate mitigation measures. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 10: The Director of Planning shall offer a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commissions, subject to appropriate conditions, only for those proposed zoning code amendments that would further the intent and ensure consistency with the objectives and policies of the Ka‘ū CDP. (HCC 25-2-42(c)(1) and 25-2-44) Objective 10 Increase the integration of natural systems planning. Policies 10.2 During discretionary permit applications, the Planning Director may require a pedestrian, equestrian, and/or bicycle path when it is possible and safe to connect to existing or future open space, drainage, or active living corridors. Ka‘ū Community Development Plan Policy 84: Where a subdivision is traversed by a natural water course, drainage way, channel, or stream, the Planning Director should require a pedestrian, equestrian, and/or bicycle path when the opportunity exists to connect to existing or future drainage or trail corridors. (HCC 23-30) 10.4 Identify outstanding natural or cultural features, such as water courses, fine groves of trees, heiau, and historical sites and structures on subdivision preliminary plat maps. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 12: Outstanding natural or cultural features, such as scenic spots, water courses, fine groves of trees, heiaus, and historical sites and structures, shall be preserved during subdivision. (HCC 23-26) Objective 11 Increase equitable planning and decision-making processes. Policies 11.2 Ensure affordable housing requirements that meet the demand created by the development 2005 General Plan 2.4.9.2 Kaʻū Courses of Action: Page 3 of 9 (a) Balance development with the social and physical environment of the area. Provisions for orderly development, housing, and pollution controls shall be implemented. (c) Recognize the natural beauty of the area as a major economic and social asset. Protect this resource through appropriate review processes when development is proposed. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 6: The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development should complement the character of the area; protect the environment and natural beauty; respect existing lifestyles, cultural practices, and cultural resources; provide shoreline public access; and provide affordable housing to meet demand created by the development. (GP 2.4.9.2(a & c), 9.3(g), 14.7.2(c), 14.7.3(i), 14.7.5.9.2(a)) Objective 12 Reduce the threat to life and property from natural hazards and disasters. Policies 12.8 Encourage the development and implementation of Community Wildfire Protection Plans, Firewise Community Certification, and public education programs for communities with high wildfire risk. Ka‘ū Community Development Plan Policy 119: Implement the Ka‘ū Community Wildfire Protection Plan Objective 13 Increase the use of Smart Growth principles to focus development within designated urban centers. Policies 13.2 Prioritize increase in density, rehabilitation, and redevelopment within existing zoned urban areas already served by basic infrastructure, or close to such areas. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 1: Rehabilitate and develop within existing zoned urban areas already served by basic infrastructure, or close to such areas, instead of scattered development. (GP 14.1.3(b) and 14.1.3(j)) Commercial 13.19 Encourage the concentration of commercial uses within and surrounding a central core area adequately served by transportation, utilities, and other essential infrastructure. 2005 General Plan 14.3.5.9.2 Kaʻū Courses of Action: Page 4 of 9 (a) Centralization of commercial activity in the communities of Pahala, Naalehu and Ocean View and the area of the Volcanoes National Park shall be encouraged. ( b) Do not allow strip or spot commercial development on the highway outside of the designated urban areas. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 2: Concentrate commercial uses within and surrounding central core areas in Pāhala, Nāʻālehu, and Ocean View and do not allow strip or spot commercial development outside of the designated urban areas. (GP 14.3.3 (e), 14.3.5.9.2 (a, b)) 13.20 Infrastructure and design elements shall be incorporated into the review of commercial developments. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 73: The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. (GP 14.3.3(f)) 13.24 Discourage strip or spot commercial development on the highway outside of the UGAs. 2005 General Plan 14.3.5.9.2 Ka‘ū Courses of Action (b): Do not allow strip or spot commercial development on the highway outside of the designated urban areas. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 2: Concentrate commercial uses within and surrounding central core areas in Pāhala, Nāʻālehu, and Ocean View and do not allow strip or spot commercial development outside of the designated urban areas. (GP 14.3.3(e), 14.3.5.9.2(a, b)) Resort 13.42 Promote and prioritize the rehabilitation and the optimum utilization of resort areas that are presently serviced by basic facilities and utilities before allowing new resorts. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 5: Rehabilitate and optimize the utilization of designated resort areas that are presently serviced by basic facilities and utilities and before new resorts are allowed in undeveloped coastal areas. (GP 14.7.3(b & c)) 2019 Draft General Plan Policy 547: Prioritize the rehabilitation and utilization of designated resort areas that are presently serviced by basic facilities and utilities before allowing new resorts in undeveloped coastal areas. [Rationale: Based on General Plan Policy 14.7.3 (c) and Ka‘ū CDP Policy 5.] 13.44 The development or designation of new resort areas should complement the character of the area; protect the environment and natural beauty; respect existing lifestyles, cultural practices, and cultural resources; and provide shoreline public access Page 5 of 9 2005 General Plan 2.4.9.2 Ka‘ū Courses of Action (a): Balance development with the social and physical environment of the area. Provisions for orderly development, housing, and pollution controls shall be implemented. 2005 General Plan 2.4.9.2 Ka‘ū Courses of Action (c): Recognize the natural beauty of the area as a major economic and social asset. Protect this resource through appropriate review processes when development is proposed. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 6: The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development should complement the character of the area; protect the environment and natural beauty; respect existing lifestyles, cultural practices, and cultural resources; provide shoreline public access; and provide affordable housing to meet demand created by the development. (GP 2.4.9.2(a & c), 9.3(g), 14.7.2(c), 14.7.3(i), 14.7.5.9.2(a)) 13.48 Retreat Resort uses may be permitted outside UGAs through Special Permits only when there is a clear community benefit or consistent with County, State, and Federal sustainability objectives. 2005 General Plan 14.7.5.9.2 Ka‘ū Courses of Action (b): Encourage the development of small family or "bed and breakfast" type visitor accommodations. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 149: Encourage the development of small family or “bed and breakfast” type visitor accommodations. (GP 14.7.5.9.2(b)) Objective 14 Maximize the use of Rural designated lands to preserve rural character and lifestyle. Policies 14.5 Support the development of small-scale visitor accommodations with heritage, agriculture, wellness, or similar themes in rural areas and near points of interest. 2005 General Plan 14.7.5.9.2 Kaʻū Courses of Action (b): Encourage the development of small family or "bed and breakfast" type visitor accommodations Objective 15 Support the active use of Productive Agricultural lands. Policies 15.1 Development in Productive Agriculture and Extensive Agriculture areas should include agricultural uses, related economic infrastructure and cottage industries, compatible renewable energy, open area recreational uses, community facilities, and compatible agriculture worker housing. Page 6 of 9 Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 38: To reinforce existing protections, the official Ka‘ū CDP Land Use Policy Map designates agricultural lands in Ka‘ū as areas to be preserved for agriculture and open space. Development and construction in “Important Agricultural Land” and “Extensive Agriculture” areas shall be limited to agriculture, related economic infrastructure and cottage industries, renewable energy, open area recreational uses, and community facilities unless otherwise permitted by law. 15.5 Support the development of small-scale visitor accommodations that directly promote the agriculture industry, health and wellness industry directly related to agriculture, or are near points of interest that support agriculture. 2005 General Plan 14.7.5.9.2 (b) Kaʻū Courses of Action (b): Encourage the development of small family or "bed and breakfast" type visitor accommodations. 15.8 Encourage the use of agriculture, ranch, and forestry land preservation programs. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Community Action 3: Encourage the use of agriculture, ranch, and forestry land preservation programs. Transportation Access and Mobility Objective 20 Achieve a transportation system that employs all modes of transportation at a community scale. Policies 20.1 Encourage the application of the County of Hawaiʻi Street Design Manual when necessary to preserve the character of an area while maintaining a pedestrian and bicycle friendly design and desired landscaping solutions Ka‘ū Community Development Plan: Policy 74: As appropriate to maintain community character while also accommodating drainage, walkability, maintenance, and other site-specific needs when improving existing roads in Pāhala, Nā’ālehu, and Wai‘ōhinu, retain the current road design, including pavement width and lack of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or paved shoulders and swales. Policy 75: As appropriate to maintain community character while also accommodating drainage, walkability, maintenance, and other site-specific needs, new roads (both public and private) in the Ka’ū CDP planning area may be constructed without curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or paved shoulders and swales. (HCC 23-41, 86, 87, & 91) Policy 77: Adopt and implement street design standards that accommodate, where appropriate, flexibility in the design of streets to preserve the rural character of an Page 7 of 9 area, including pavement width, unpaved shoulders/swales, rock walls, lighting, and landscaping featuring native plants. (GP 13.2.3(l); North Kohala CDP Strategy 4.8) 20.2 In planning, designing, and constructing new roadways or modernizing improvements, transportation agencies should balance the conservation of the area’s natural, historic, and scenic qualities with transportation safety objectives for traffic speed, safety, and traffic calming. Ka‘ū Community Development Plan: Policy 74: As appropriate to maintain community character while also accommodating drainage, walkability, maintenance, and other site-specific needs when improving existing roads in Pāhala, Nāʻālehu, and Wai‘ōhinu, retain the current road design, including pavement width and lack of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or paved shoulders and swales. Policy 75: As appropriate to maintain community character while also accommodating drainage, walkability, maintenance, and other site-specific needs, new roads (both public and private) in the Ka‘ū CDP planning area may be constructed without curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or paved shoulders and swales. (HCC 23-41, 86, 87, & 91) Policy 77: Adopt and implement street design standards that accommodate, where appropriate, flexibility in the design of streets to preserve the rural character of an area, including pavement width, unpaved shoulders/swales, rock walls, lighting, and landscaping featuring native plants. (GP 13.2.3(l); North Kohala CDP Strategy 4.8) Objective 21 Incorporate green infrastructure to reduce stormwater runoff. Policies 21.2 Prioritize roadway drainage improvements in flood-prone areas. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 95: Install culverts and construct drainage channels and other related improvements as necessary to prevent flooding of roadways and other areas. (GP 13.2.5.9.2(b)) Objective 23 Adequately maintain public transportation systems. Policies 23.4 Design new bridges and bridge improvements to accommodate and not negatively impede identified scenic resources. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 12: Outstanding natural or cultural features, such as scenic spots, water courses, fine groves of trees, heiaus, and historical sites and structures, shall be preserved during subdivision. (HCC 23-26) Page 8 of 9 Public Utilities Objective 26 Increase the protection of existing and potential sources of drinking water. Policies 26.6 Encourage the design of large development projects (200+ units) in the North Kohala, South Kohala, North Kona, South Kona, and Kaʻū Districts to be as water neutral as reasonably possible through water conservation, recharge, and reuse measures to reduce the water footprint. Objective 29 Strive towards energy self-sufficiency. Policies 29.3 The County shall remove barriers to energy systems that improve independence and resiliency, such as microgrids, combined heat and power (CHP), backup generation and storage, and other decentralized electricity systems. Kaʻū Community Development Plan: Policy 142: Encourage the development of alternate energy resources, providing they complement existing agricultural uses and preserve ecologically and culturally significant areas. (General Plan 3.3 (a, b, e, k, l), 14.2.3(u)) Community-Based Collaborative Action 6.4.5 Action 25: Develop local, renewable, distributed energy networks. Objective 32 Protect the health and well-being of residents and visitors. Policies Emergency Facilities and Communication Systems 32.29 Partner with government, private and nonprofit agencies, communities, and other stakeholders to assess and plan for alternative routes and possible relocation of coastal roads. Kaʻū Community Development Plan 5.4.1 Objective 8: Establish a rural transportation network, including roadway alternatives to Highway 11, a regional trail system, and an interconnected transit system. Visitor Industry Objective 48 Page 9 of 9 Support the visitor industry investment in its connection with communities, the ʻāina, and our historic and multicultural heritage. Policies 48.1 Continue to monitor and adopt trends and standards for regenerative tourism. Ka‘ū Community Development Plan Policy 146: Encourage the development of a visitor industry that is in harmony with the character of the area and environmental and social goals of residents. (GP 2.3(c), 14.7.5.9.2(a)) 48.3 Prioritize the maintenance of County properties and establish appropriate protocols for the protection of wahi pana. Kaʻū Community Development Plan Policy 90: Implement protocols for receiving community input at meetings in Ka‘ū during capital project siting and design. Consult with and solicit input from community members with generational knowledge to minimize the impact of proposed changes to the use of land on cultural practices, cultural sites, and culturally significant areas, including burials. 49.1 Integrate ‘āina- and place-based values into Hawaiʻi Island’s identity. Ka‘ū Community Development Plan Community Action 28: Develop a regional hoʻokipa network – a placebased approach to community tourism. Review and comment on the Final Recommended Draft General Plan using this link: Comment Here Access the General Plan Land Use (GPLU) Map using this link: General Plan Land Use (GPLU) Map Access the Change Map using this link: Change Map (This map highlights all areas with proposed land use changes). Download a PDF copy of the Final Draft using this link: Final Recommended Draft General Plan 2045_July2024 Download a PDF copy of the Policy Rationale: General Plan 2045 Policy Rationale_July2024 FINAL RECOMMENDED DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2045 ONLINE RESOURCES WHAT TO EXPECT NEXT? Communication No. 2024-09 1 Memo to the Ka’ū CDP Action Committee Members From Babette Morrow Re: Black Sand Beach SMA application PL-SMA-2023-000046 September 19, 2024 This is a follow-up to our August 14, 2024 meeting where we discussed previous memos and new input from Daryn Arai. Our responsibilities as an Action Committee are to evaluate development, projects, proposals, etc. for compliance with the CDP goals and policies and to be advisory to the Planning Director, Planning Commission, and County Council. We are not supporting or opposing the SMA application; we are reviewing it for compliance with the CDP. Many members of the Action Committee were involved in community meetings over the ten- year period of formation of the CDP. And we have all listened to the testimony from the community about the SMA application over two days of Planning Commission meetings and three Action Committee meetings. Our proposed testimony to the Planning Commission was written with input from Ron Whitmore, who had the official capacity as County Planner and who also attended many years of CDP meetings with the public. Ron gave a thorough analysis of the CDP as it relates to Punalu’u, and this is what we should be transmitting to the Planning Commission -- input from County Planning and from hundreds of residents of Ka’ū. Our goal is to evaluate the SMA application for compliance with the policies of the CDP so that we can give more information to the Planning Commission for them to make their decision. We have already acknowledged many CDP policies that the application complies with, and I am not discussing them again. This memo is to discuss those policies that we feel have not been adequately addressed in the application; these three policies of concern are Policy 6, Policy 28, and Policy 29. Policy 6 states “The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development should complement the character of the area; protect the environment and natural beauty; respect existing lifestyles, cultural practices, and cultural resources; provide shoreline public access; and provide affordable housing to meet demand created by the development.” The SMA does not include any affordable housing. The applicant’s response to the Action Committee dated August 12 states that the purpose of an SMA is to preserve, protect, and where possible, restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of Hawaii. He concluded, therefore, because affordable housing is not a coastal natural resource concern then it is not subject to review and protection under the guidelines of an SMA. The subject SMA application is proposing new development of 225 residential and short stay dwelling units and assorted retail space. We believe that the intent of Policy 6 applies to all application types, not just SMAs, and by developing more visitor accommodations and resort amenities, affordable housing for local residents and workers becomes more necessary. Communication No. 2024-10 2 Policy 28 states: “On lots that are at least partially within the SMA in the Ka’ū CDP Planning Area, establish shoreline setbacks at the earliest stages of the land use planning and development process at a minimum of 1,320 feet (1/4 mile); however the applicant may request that the setback be reduced by providing information to the Department, including information required for SMA review, which would allow for an assessment of the proposed activity’s impacts and in consideration of the physical limitations of the property.” (1) Hawaii County SMA Assessment Application requires the following: A shoreline survey of the subject property, as certified by the Chairman of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, when the subject property abuts the shoreline. A request to waive the need to prepare a certified survey may be submitted in writing to the Planning Director. Circumstances that may warrant the issuance of a waiver include cases where the entire shoreline fronting the subject property is “fixed” by a man-made structure such as a seawall or revetment or when the proposed development will be situated at a considerable distance from the shoreline. Note that the Planning Department Rule 11-4 states that no determination of a shoreline shall be valid for a period longer than 12 months. The current shoreline survey is over fifty years old. The applicant has requested in the SMA application that the need for a certified shoreline survey to support this application be waived since no new improvements or uses are contemplated “anywhere near the shoreline”, yet this is not consistent with the plan proposed in Figure 4 of the application. The application states that they are proposing restoration of the former restaurant site despite issues related to the shoreline setback requirements, proximity to anchialine ponds, and coastal flood requirements. Over the last 50 years there have been changes to the shoreline due to tsunamis, king tides, erosion, and storm surges. The applicant’s request does not meet the circumstances for a waiver found in the County code. At a minimum, the applicant should be required to do an updated shoreline survey given the age of the current survey. (2) As previously noted, public comment during review of the Draft CDP called for much deeper setbacks from the shoreline – a mile or more. The 2006 South Kona-Ka’ū Coastal Conservation Task Force recommended establishing a 1.5 “no development” shoreline setback. The SMA application includes facilities on parcels that abut the shore, so a new shoreline setback should have been established early in the process. The SMA application does not clearly establish a shoreline setback for renovated and proposed new buildings. The applicant states that proposed new buildings are located at least ¼ mile from the shoreline, but it appears that the new building housing public restrooms, open market, fish market and seafood restaurant is approximately 600’ from the shoreline. Without an updated shoreline survey, it is not possible to establish an accurate shoreline setback. Policy 29: No development, including subdivision, shall be approved in the SMA unless the development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect. In order for the Planning Director to accurately evaluate whether the proposed action will have a 3 substantial adverse effect, the Director shall require that SMA Use Permit Assessment and Use Permit applications include all of the information necessary to assess the proposed activity’s impacts on the Special Management Area, including but not limited to: a) An assessment of impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered species (such as the local green sea and hawksbill turtles and the Hawaiian hoary bat) or their habitat and on fresh and coastal water quality. The current flora and fauna assessment in the SMA application did not include coastal surveys because: “as it is the intention of the applicant to avoid coastal development or to change of use along the coastal portions of the project area”. The Planning Department’s report to the Planning Commission makes no mention of requiring protections for green sea or hawksbill turtles or hoary bats. The applicant submitted a Biological Survey of 2022 which did not include marine biota. The applicant’s response is that they propose to set aside 29.52 acres for conservation and coastal management activities on lands situated to the west of County- operated Black Sand Beach park complex. They have not yet determined the best methods towards committing these lands towards preservation, but are considering a conservation easement with “proper coastal resource management”. However, this coastal management area ignores the fact that the Hawksbilll nesting area in 2018 and 2023 were located within 50’ of the lifeguard station, not within the proposed coastal management area. How will these historic nesting sites be protected? Also note that Hawksbill turtles are drawn to bright lights, and the proposed reuse of the existing abandoned restaurant is very close to these nesting areas thus disturbing the turtles. On page 41 of the application it states: “as no new improvements or activities (are proposed within the project site which will be limited to those specific areas previously improved and removed from close coastal proximity, adverse impacts to the Federally protected Hawaiian Green Sea Turtle (Honu) or Hawksbill Turtle (Honu’ea) that frequent the black sand beach area is not anticipated.” It’s clear that the turtles who call this area home will be negatively impacted by the proposed development and activities. Neither the Planning Department’s report nor the applicant’s response provide any details as to how the endangered species or their habitat will be protected from impacts of this project. b) A description of valued cultural resources or historical sites in the area. A Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) was done in 2006 and updated in 2023. Planning Director recommended that preservation and Burial Treatment Plans are needed to properly care for identified archeological features for preservation and we concur. Additionally, an Archeological Inventory Survey (AIS) was done in 2005 and an Addendum added in 2023. Planning Department submitted the addendum to the State Historic Preservation Division in 2023 and is awaiting response. We urge the Planning Commission to make acceptance of the AIS a condition of approval of this application. c) An assessment of impacts on coastal scenic and open space resources and view plans. d) Identification and detailed information of existing public access to and along the shoreline to the specifications required by Na Ala Hele and the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trails. No mention of either of these trails in the application. e) Assessment of impacts on hazard risk, including flooding, tsunami, and coastal erosion and/or sea level rise. 4 f) A description of the relationship of the proposed action to land use plans, policies, and control of the affected area, including potential impacts on traffic and circulation and required highway improvements. Has there been a traffic study to determine any required highway improvements, or will one be required during the application process? The Hawaii County SMA Assessment Application also states that a Final Environmental Assessment or Final Environmental Impact Statement which has been declared adequate under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)or under Chapter 343, HRS, may constitute a valid filing. A Cultural Assessment was done in 2006 to compliment the Draft 2006 EIS for Sea Mountain, and an update was done in 2023. This Draft EIS was never finalized. The SMA application proposed that the project components do not trigger and EA or EIS, and Planning Director concurred. Due to the impacts of work being done with this application, and the number of people in the community who have raised concerns about this, we are recommending that an EIS be submitted in support of this application. The Planning Department conditions of approval for the submittal to the Planning Commission at their March 2024 meeting include: “8. The applicant will submit to the Planning Department for review and approval the following plans: 1) Water Quality and Marine Life Monitoring Plan, 2) Pond Management Plan, 3) Cultural Resources Management Plan, and 4) Shoreline and Preservation Area Management Plan. These plans shall be submitted prior to any development activities in this permit.” We urge the Planning Commission to add these conditions should they approve the application. In conclusion, I recommend that the Action Committee forward this written testimony to the Planning Commission. We’ve all heard how important these environmental, cultural, and historical issues are to the public, both during CDP meetings and SMA public hearings, and we recommend that the Planning Commission require that adequate plans, studies, and policies are carried out. 1 Lahip, Jessica From:Ellen LaPenna Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2024 11:49 AM To:Planning CDP Subject:Ka'u CDP Action Committee Testimony, Proposed Development at Punalu'u Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Ka’u CDP Action Committee Testimony, Proposed Development at Punalu'u and your letter to the Windward Planning Commission, Ellen LaPenna, Na’alehu Thank you for the time and energy put forth by your committee to evaluate the proposed development at Punalu'u and how it does or does not align with the CDP. I’m a turtle volunteer with Malama Pono Punalu’u and also work with friends to look for Hawksbill turtle tracks during nesting season. After the outpouring of community testimony in opposition to the development, I hope you will move forward and send your well-researched letter to the Planning Committee, showing that the CDP prohibits a development such as this at Punalu'u. During the first CDP meeting in Pahala, virtually all who testified, testified against this development. 1.The Ka’u Community Development Plan’s (CDP) #1 objective is to encourage future development patterns that are safe, sustainable, and connected. They should protect people and community facilities from natural hazards, and they should honor the best of Ka’u’s historic precedents, which includes limiting the development on the shorelines. A. The proposed Market Place is approximately 50 yards away from the sand and beach itself. This puts the development and all who visit in harm’s way of a potential tsunami, hurricane and flooding. It would be irresponsible and a potentially a libelous decision to approve plans as they stand. There is no disaster mitigation plan. B. The proposed Market Place also goes against the objective of limiting the development on the shorelines. The CDP recommends development setback be 1320’ (1/4 mile) from the shoreline. There has been no new shoreline assessment in 50 years. C. Policy #26 (p.52 of CDP): Encourage those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in land areas. The Market Place is a not coastal dependent project. Also, Policy #23 (p.52): Protect the Shoreline from encroachment of man-made improvements and structures. 2 D. Policy #6 (p.39): The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development should complement the character of the area: protect the environment and natural beauty: respect existing lifestyles, cultural practices and cultural resources: provide shoreline public access; and provide affordable housing to meet the demand created by the development. E. Policy #29: No development shall be approved in the SMA unless the development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological affect. There has not been a completed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) since 1988. There is no burial treatment plan and no plan for affordable housing. 2. Infrastructure in very poor repair: A. The million-gallon water tank is leaking in two areas, cannot be filled to capacity. B. The sewage treatment plant is barely functioning and currently operating manually. There is no sewage treatment plan. C. Of the 18 fire hydrants, eight of them do not work. With the annual fires we have at Punalu’u, this is a “Lahaina Fire” just waiting to happen. The County Fire Department, Colony One Condo Residents and Punalu’u Mauka (Kalana Estates), have asked that this issue addressed, but in three years of Black Sand Beach, LLC ownership, these are fire hydrants are still inoperable. (Back in 2021-2022, at local meetings, the developer promised to make repairs. In March 2022, a SMA minor repairs permit was issued and when none of the repairs to sewer lines, fire hydrants, potable water lines, roadway and irrigation repairs were made, a new SMA was submitted.) 3. Core Values p.8: The KCDP Steering Committee identified Ka’u’s three Core Values and one of them is Country or Rural Style Living. This is defined as quiet, lifestyle, country, agriculture, isolation, little traffic, culture, uncrowned, history, freedom, pace. Although this development proposal says it is doing this to help the community, it ignores one of Ka’u’s major values. 3 4. Straight from the Ka’u CDP: 1.3.2 Values and Vision Statement p.10: Importantly, though economic development was clearly the community’s highest priority for the future, the five additional priority areas focused on areas related to quality of life and place – recreation, education, healthcare, ‘āina, and public services. Though greater economic opportunity is critical, the people of Ka‘ū do not want to sacrifice their other values and priorities for the sake of the economy. Importantly, many of the same themes resonate when the people share what they love about Ka‘u and what hopes they have for its future:  Preserve our lifestyle rooted in the unity of land, community, and livelihood.  Building a future on what already is, as opposed to what someone else would make it. 5. The Ka’u CDP took over 10 pain-staking years to complete and is one of the most honest and true depiction of the People, Land, Culture and History of Ka’u. Many people donated countless hours, work and effort to bring this Award Winning CDP to fruition. For the County to approve the SMA application put forth by Black Sand Beach, LLC is a demonstration of disrespect to the people of Ka’u, a derelict of duty, and is a dis-service to Ka’u and the Island of Hawaii. 6. From the Special Management Area Guidelines: No development shall be approved unless the authority has first found: A. That the development will not have any significant adverse environmental or ecological effect, except as any adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable and clearly outweighed by public health, safety or compelling public interest. https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol04_Ch0201-0257/HRS0205A/HRS_0205A-0026.htm Mahalo for reading, Ellen LaPenna 1 Lahip, Jessica From:Daryn Arai Sent:Wednesday, September 18, 2024 2:34 PM To:Planning CDP Subject:Applicant Black Sand Beach, LLC Response to Committee member Morrow's memo dated September 19, 2024 Attachments:Black Sand Beach LLC Response to Memo from Committee Member Morrow dated September 19, 2024.pdf Aloha, Please find attached a communication from Applicant Black Sand Beach, LLC, speaking to Agenda Item IV(1) and that draft Letter to the Windward Planning Commission regarding the Black Sands Beach, LLC SMA application (PL-SMA-2023-000046) that will be discussed before the Ka'u Community Development Plan Action Committee at its meeting of September 19, 2024. Please let me know if you have any questions. Daryn Daryn Arai Land Use Planning Consultant 1 Memo to the Ka’ū CDP Action Committee Members From Babette Morrow Re: Black Sand Beach SMA application PL-SMA-2023-000046 September 19, 2024 This is a follow-up to our August 14, 2024 meeting where we discussed previous memos and new input from Daryn Arai. Applicant Black Sand Beach, LLC hereby responds to this memo from Committee member Morrow by embedding its responses within the memo and highlighting such responses in RED, to help facilitate a comparison review. Our responsibilities as an Action Committee are to evaluate development, projects, proposals, etc. for compliance with the CDP goals and policies and to be advisory to the Planning Director, Planning Commission, and County Council. We are not supporting or opposing the SMA application; we are reviewing it for compliance with the CDP. Many members of the Action Committee were involved in community meetings over the ten- year period of formation of the CDP. And we have all listened to the testimony from the community about the SMA application over two days of Planning Commission meetings and three Action Committee meetings. Our proposed testimony to the Planning Commission was written with input from Ron Whitmore, who had the official capacity as County Planner and who also attended many years of CDP meetings with the public. Ron gave a thorough analysis of the CDP as it relates to Punalu’u, and this is what we should be transmitting to the Planning Commission -- input from County Planning and from hundreds of residents of Ka’ū. Our goal is to evaluate the SMA application for compliance with the policies of the CDP so that we can give more information to the Planning Commission for them to make their decision. We have already acknowledged many CDP policies that the application complies with, and I am not discussing them again. This memo is to discuss those policies that we feel have not been adequately addressed in the application; these three policies of concern are Policy 6, Policy 28, and Policy 29. Policy 6 states “The development of visitor accommodations and any resort development should complement the character of the area; protect the environment and natural beauty; respect existing lifestyles, cultural practices, and cultural resources; provide shoreline public access; and provide affordable housing to meet demand created by the development.” The SMA does not include any affordable housing. The applicant’s response to the Action Committee dated August 12 states that the purpose of an SMA is to preserve, protect, and where possible, restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of Hawaii. He concluded, therefore, because affordable housing is not a coastal natural resource concern then it is not subject to review and protection under the guidelines of an SMA. The subject SMA application is proposing new development of 225 residential and short stay dwelling units and assorted retail space. We believe that the intent of Policy 6 applies to all application types, not just SMAs, and by developing more visitor accommodations and resort amenities, affordable housing for local residents and workers becomes more necessary. 2 Applicant’s response: The fact is that the Applicant is only applying for an SMA Permit. The guidelines for review must be limited to those expressed by Chapter 205A, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes and the Planning Commission Rule No. 9 regarding the Special Management Area. There have been court decisions regarding the limits of review, such as Topliss v. Hawaii County Planning Commission, where the Commission’s actions must have a reasonable relationship to the SMA objective and policies. The Committee will soon decide whether to submit testimony regarding the SMA application currently before the Windward Planning Commission, and it should speak directly and only to the SMA objectives and policies. The Applicant sees no direct relationship between affordable housing and these SMA objectives and policies. Policy 28 states: “On lots that are at least partially within the SMA in the Ka’ū CDP Planning Area, establish shoreline setbacks at the earliest stages of the land use planning and development process at a minimum of 1,320 feet (1/4 mile); however the applicant may request that the setback be reduced by providing information to the Department, including information required for SMA review, which would allow for an assessment of the proposed activity’s impacts and in consideration of the physical limitations of the property.” (1) Hawaii County SMA Assessment Application requires the following: A shoreline survey of the subject property, as certified by the Chairman of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, when the subject property abuts the shoreline. A request to waive the need to prepare a certified survey may be submitted in writing to the Planning Director. Circumstances that may warrant the issuance of a waiver include cases where the entire shoreline fronting the subject property is “fixed” by a man-made structure such as a seawall or revetment or when the proposed development will be situated at a considerable distance from the shoreline. Note that the Planning Department Rule 11-4 states that no determination of a shoreline shall be valid for a period longer than 12 months. The current shoreline survey is over fifty years old. The applicant has requested in the SMA application that the need for a certified shoreline survey to support this application be waived since no new improvements or uses are contemplated “anywhere near the shoreline”, yet this is not consistent with the plan proposed in Figure 4 of the application. The application states that they are proposing restoration of the former restaurant site despite issues related to the shoreline setback requirements, proximity to anchialine ponds, and coastal flood requirements. Over the last 50 years there have been changes to the shoreline due to tsunamis, king tides, erosion, and storm surges. The applicant’s request does not meet the circumstances for a waiver found in the County code. At a minimum, the applicant should be required to do an updated shoreline survey given the age of the current survey. (2) As previously noted, public comment during review of the Draft CDP called for much deeper setbacks from the shoreline – a mile or more. The 2006 South Kona-Ka’ū Coastal Conservation Task Force recommended establishing a 1.5 “no development” shoreline setback. The SMA application includes facilities on parcels that abut the shore, so a new shoreline setback should have been established early in the process. The SMA application does not clearly establish a 3 shoreline setback for renovated and proposed new buildings. The applicant states that proposed new buildings are located at least ¼ mile from the shoreline, but it appears that the new building housing public restrooms, open market, fish market and seafood restaurant is approximately 600’ from the shoreline. Without an updated shoreline survey, it is not possible to establish an accurate shoreline setback. Applicant’s response: Planning Commission Rule 9-10(b)(9) states the following: “A current certified shoreline survey when the parcel abuts the shoreline, except that the Director may waive the submission of the survey when the proposed development is clearly and unmistakably located on a shoreline parcel at a considerable distance from the shoreline.” (emphasis added) The specific areas proposed for development do not “abut” the shoreline. That is the qualifying requirement for a certified shoreline survey. The draft testimony is misrepresenting the certified shoreline survey as a “requirement” for the scope of the proposed project as presented within the SMA application, and we find that such as survey is not required. This has been confirmed by the Planning Department in its acceptance of the SMA application as complete. The Applicant will defer to its August 12, 2024 response regarding the draft testimony as it pertains to Policy 28. Policy 29: No development, including subdivision, shall be approved in the SMA unless the development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect. In order for the Planning Director to accurately evaluate whether the proposed action will have a substantial adverse effect, the Director shall require that SMA Use Permit Assessment and Use Permit applications include all of the information necessary to assess the proposed activity’s impacts on the Special Management Area, including but not limited to: a) An assessment of impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered species (such as the local green sea and hawksbill turtles and the Hawaiian hoary bat) or their habitat and on fresh and coastal water quality. The current flora and fauna assessment in the SMA application did not include coastal surveys because: “as it is the intention of the applicant to avoid coastal development or to change of use along the coastal portions of the project area”. The Planning Department’s report to the Planning Commission makes no mention of requiring protections for green sea or hawksbill turtles or hoary bats. The applicant submitted a Biological Survey of 2022 which did not include marine biota. The applicant’s response is that they propose to set aside 29.52 acres for conservation and coastal management activities on lands situated to the west of County- operated Black Sand Beach park complex. They have not yet determined the best methods towards committing these lands towards preservation, but are considering a conservation easement with “proper coastal resource management”. However, this coastal management area ignores the fact that the Hawksbilll nesting area in 2018 and 2023 were located within 50’ of the lifeguard station, not within the proposed coastal management area. How will these historic nesting sites be protected? Also note that Hawksbill turtles are drawn to bright lights, 4 and the proposed reuse of the existing abandoned restaurant is very close to these nesting areas thus disturbing the turtles. On page 41 of the application it states: “as no new improvements or activities (are proposed within the project site which will be limited to those specific areas previously improved and removed from close coastal proximity, adverse impacts to the Federally protected Hawaiian Green Sea Turtle (Honu) or Hawksbill Turtle (Honu’ea) that frequent the black sand beach area is not anticipated.” It’s clear that the turtles who call this area home will be negatively impacted by the proposed development and activities. Neither the Planning Department’s report nor the applicant’s response provide any details as to how the endangered species or their habitat will be protected from impacts of this project. Applicant’s Response: The Applicant commits to setting aside most of the coastal shoreline frontage along the Ninole, Wailau and Punaluʻu as a resource conservation area speaks volumes! Depending on whether the Windward Planning Commission approves the project in whole, in part, or is denied will determine the shape, form and need for any further detailed plans regarding the protection of the Honu and Honuʻea. If the project is allowed to proceed forward, the Planning Director has recommended that a Pond Management Plan, Cultural Resources Management Plan, Shoreline and Preservation Area Management Plan all be prepared for the department’s review and approval. As we stated in our August 12, 2024 response, we are presenting decisive actions to clean up the area and provide active management along the coastal area. There is currently no oversight or active management of this coastal area and its resources, but criticism that the Applicant has not presented a “plan” for the protection of the endangered sea turtles. The “plan” is setting aside the coastal area as a shoreline management area, moving the bulk of the project mauka and away from this shoreline area, upgrading wastewater systems to improve the area and hopefully provide opportunities where existing septic systems can be accommodated within the upgraded sewerage system, managing the traffic and activities and so many other opportunities to finally take an active role in managing these lands. b) A description of valued cultural resources or historical sites in the area. A Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) was done in 2006 and updated in 2023. Planning Director recommended that preservation and Burial Treatment Plans are needed to properly care for identified archeological features for preservation and we concur. Additionally, an Archeological Inventory Survey (AIS) was done in 2005 and an Addendum added in 2023. Planning Department submitted the addendum to the State Historic Preservation Division in 2023 and is awaiting response. We urge the Planning Commission to make acceptance of the AIS a condition of approval of this application. Applicant’s Response: We can defer to the Planning Department to respond to this, but we have no objection to making acceptance of the AIS a condition of approval of the SMA Use Permit. c) An assessment of impacts on coastal scenic and open space resources and view plans. d) Identification and detailed information of existing public access to and along the shoreline to the specifications required by Na Ala Hele and the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trails. No mention of either of these trails in the application. Applicant’s Response: There is no compromise of access to and along the shoreline by the proposed project. The Applicant has allowed the public to utilize the privately-owned and maintained Ninole Loop Road to access 5 the county beach park facilities, as well as the boat ramp and black sand beach from Highway 11. Designation of the entire shoreline area as a management area will allow for continued lateral access along the shoreline. We ask that the Committee not simply look at words, but look for the actual function of what the Applicant is proposing. e) Assessment of impacts on hazard risk, including flooding, tsunami, and coastal erosion and/or sea level rise. f) A description of the relationship of the proposed action to land use plans, policies, and control of the affected area, including potential impacts on traffic and circulation and required highway improvements. Has there been a traffic study to determine any required highway improvements, or will one be required during the application process? Applicant’s Response: The Applicant is requesting an SMA Permit, and no traffic study is required as it is not a concurrency requirement for processing of SMA Permit applications. We once again remind the Committee of the Topliss v. Hawaii County Planning Commission decision that was discussed earlier. An assessment of hazard risks was included in the SMA application as well as the Planning Director’s Recommendation Report. The Hawaii County SMA Assessment Application also states that a Final Environmental Assessment or Final Environmental Impact Statement which has been declared adequate under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)or under Chapter 343, HRS, may constitute a valid filing. A Cultural Assessment was done in 2006 to compliment the Draft 2006 EIS for Sea Mountain, and an update was done in 2023. This Draft EIS was never finalized. The SMA application proposed that the project components do not trigger and EA or EIS, and Planning Director concurred. Due to the impacts of work being done with this application, and the number of people in the community who have raised concerns about this, we are recommending that an EIS be submitted in support of this application. Applicant’s Response: As we have previously stated, the proposed project does not involve the use of lands or introduces a type of use that warrants the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 343, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes. The Planning Director, in its Background Report regarding the SMA application, stated that “Based on a review of the project components within the SMA area, there are no triggers that would require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).” We find it interesting that Committee member Morrow’s memo attempts to speak solely and directly to compliance with the Kaʻū CDP, but then goes beyond the scope of the CDP into the regulatory requirements for an EIS, which is embodied in State Statute and not the CDP. We find this insincere. The Planning Department conditions of approval for the submittal to the Planning Commission at their March 2024 meeting include: “8. The applicant will submit to the Planning Department for review and approval the following plans: 1) Water Quality and Marine Life Monitoring Plan, 2) Pond Management Plan, 3) Cultural Resources Management Plan, and 4) Shoreline and Preservation Area Management Plan. These plans shall be submitted prior to any development 6 activities in this permit.” We urge the Planning Commission to add these conditions should they approve the application. Applicant’s Response: The Applicant generally concurs, but requests some flexibility to allow for the prompt repair of existing facilities such as the infrastructure systems, repair of the golf course clubhouse and Aspen Center, as examples. Maybe focus such condition on proceeding with the major project elements, such as the Village Center and Colony II. In conclusion, I recommend that the Action Committee forward this written testimony to the Planning Commission. We’ve all heard how important these environmental, cultural, and historical issues are to the public, both during CDP meetings and SMA public hearings, and we recommend that the Planning Commission require that adequate plans, studies, and policies are carried out.