Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunication No. 2024-10 B. Morrow Memo1 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.