Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunication No. 2025-07 Punalu'u Letter Memo to: Windward Planning Commission From: Kaʻū Community Development Action Committee Regarding Black Sand Beach SMA Application PL-SMA-2023 000046 Date: November 1, 2024 It is the role of the Action Committee to study the Kaʻū CDP and help guide compliance. The CDP was adopted after many years of work by the Kaʻū CDP Steering Committee and the County of Hawaiʻi, with extensive community involvement. The Action Committee has listened to the abundance of testimony given about this application at recent public hearings and at our own meetings held in May, July, August, September, and October 2024. Page 97 of the CDP states: “A large number of CDP objectives and strategies intersect at Punaluʻu, which has a rich ecological, historical, and cultural legacy and is dear to the hearts of most residents to this day. This section includes references to each of the policies, advocacy initiatives, and community-based, collaborative actions that pertain to Punaluʻu.” Our committee has looked at the policies and actions enumerated in the CDP regarding Punaluʻu and found that the SMA application meets the intent of many of these policies. However, there are three 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 Special Management Area (SMA) does not include any affordable housing. 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. We recommend that, if the Planning Commission approves this application, they require the applicant to pursue ways to provide units for attainable or affordable housing through some sort of deed restrictions or low-income housing assistance, particularly for workforce housing for existing Ka’u residents that are employed at the proposed development. Policy 28 states, “On lots that are at least partially within the Special Management Area (SMA) in the Kaʻū 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) Hawaiʻi 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. It appears from looking at Figure 4 in the application that new facilities and development are being proposed on parcels that abut the shore. Additionally, 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. It is not clear if the applicant has submitted a request to waive the required shoreline survey. Over the last 50 years there have been changes to the shoreline due to tsunamis, king tides, erosion, and storm surges. At a minimum, the applicant should be required to do an updated shoreline survey given the age of the current survey. 2) Public comment during review of the Draft CDP called for much deeper setbacks from the shoreline – a mile or more. The 2006 South Kona-Kaʻū 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. We recommend that a new shoreline setback be established. Policy 29 states, “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 description of the environmental setting and natural resources in the area, including an assessment of impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered species 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. 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 and they have not yet determined the best methods towards committing these lands towards preservation. However, this coastal management area ignores the fact that the Hawksbilll nesting areas in 2018 and 2023 were located within 50’ of the lifeguard station, not within the proposed coastal management area. 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. 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. We recommend that the applicant be required to create a protection plan by working with groups dedicated to protecting turtle habitats and historic nesting sites as well as those of other endangered species found at Punaluʻu, and not just a monitoring schedule. • “A description of valued cultural resources or historical sites in the area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the area.” We urge the applicant to work closely with kupuna in the area to determine the best course to protect the cultural and historic sites. A report should be presented to the Planning Commission at their next meeting on this application. • “An assessment of impacts on coastal scenic and open space resources and view planes, including those outlined in the General Plan, the Community Development Plan, and other adopted plans, as well as the line of sight toward the sea from the state highway nearest the coast and along the shoreline.” This is a very important issue to many in Kaʻū, particularly the line of sight to the sea, and we recommend that the applicant be required to submit these assessments. • “Identification and detailed information of existing public access to and along the shoreline to the specifications required by Nā Ala Hele and the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trails.” The application makes no mention of either the Nā Ala Hele nor the Ala Kahakai trails, and we recommend that the applicant be required to include this information. • “An assessment of impacts on hazard risk, including flooding, tsunami, and coastal erosion and/or sea level rise over the life of the development.” The Hawaiʻi County SMA Assessment Application also states that a Final Environmental Assessment or Final Environmental Impact Statement Study be required. 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. • “A description of the relationship of the proposed action to land use plans, policies, and control of the affected area, including the General Plan and Community Development Plan.” Policy 29 goes on to state: “Any development permitted, including those determined to be exempt from the definition of development in Planning Commission Rule 9 (pursuant to Planning Commission rule 9-10(e) & (g)), shall be subject to terms and conditions to achieve CZM and CDP objectives and policies, including conditions that protect natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources, preserve agricultural land, open space, and view planes; ensure access; mitigate impacts of coastal hazards, limit coastal development; and concentrate new development (particularly if it is not coastal dependent) on vacant land in town/village centers before converting agricultural land to residential uses), and discouraging speculative residential development. Conditions could include but not be limited setbacks, restrictions on artificial light, lateral and mauka-makai access requirements, dedication of conservation and trail corridor easements, cooperation with efforts to manage access and use of coastal resources minimizing the number of lots abutting or near the shoreline, and maximizing the use of land in the State Land Use Urban district and/or urban LUPAG categories.” Other: At the March 2024 Planning Commission meeting for this application, the Planning Director submitted conditions of approval including: “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. Sincerely, Jason Masters, Chair Kaʻū Community Development Plan Action Committee