HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-5-27 ROHR EXHIBIT 4_v1.pdfCLAUDIA ROHR
369 Nene St.
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
Phone: (808) 640-5976
crohr4@gmail.com
January 3, 2024
RE: Testimony WPC meeting January 4, 2024, agenda item Planning
Director's Report on SMA minor permits issued November 2023
Aloha E Windward Planning Commissioners -
My testimony concerns SMA minor permit No. PL-SMM 2023-000054
(hereinafter "SMM 23-54"). The SMA use permit assessment application (Papaikou
Landing), included here, admits that the landowner is segmenting his Project and
intends to obtaining separate SMA permits for three land uses and activities. The
three phases discussed by the landowner are:
(1) to subdivide parcel 118 into 2-4 lots;
(2) demolish the remnants of the old mill on Lot 2 which will
involve land disturbing activities and might require relocation of
the trail to the beach; and
(3) proposed eco-tourism and film industry uses. ("The Trust
reserves the right to use the trail, those privately owned areas of
the beach and river for its proposed eco - tourism and potential
film industry uses.")(Application, pg. 22).
The Planning department failed to assess the possible cumulative impacts of
the whole project, and all of the phases, in determining whether the project qualifies
for a SMA minor permit as opposed to a SMA major permit.
1
APPELLANT EXHIBIT 4, pg. 1 of 5
The SMA use permit assessment application did not qualify for processing
as a SMA minor permit under the definition of "SMA minor permit" in HRS
§205A-22 Definitions and the criteria for assessing potential effects and
significance of each specific circumstance of the use, activity or operation, according
to the criteria of significant adverse effect established by Planning Commission
Rules of Practice and Procedure ("PC Rules"), Rule 9-10(c) and (h) Criteria of
Significant Adverse Effect:
"Special management area minor permit" means an action by
the authority authorizing development the valuation of which is
not in excess of $500,000 and which has no substantial
adverse environmental or ecological effect, taking into
account potential cumulative effects. (emphasis added in
bold)
PC Rule 9-10 Assessment:
(c) The Director shall assess the proposed use, activity or operation
upon the applicant's compliance with Section 9-10B (sic) based on the
following criteria:
(1) The valuation of the proposed use, activity or operation.
(2) The potential effects and significance of each specific
circumstance of the use, activity or operation, according to the
criteria of significant adverse effect established by Section 9-10H
(sic).
(h) Criteria of Significant Adverse Effect
In considering the significance of potential environmental
effects, the Director shall consider the sum of those effects
that adversely affect the quality of the environment and
shall evaluate the overall and cumulative effects of the
action.
A 'significant adverse effect' is determined by the specific
circumstances of the proposed use, activity or operation. In
determining whether a proposal may have a significant adverse
2
APPELLANT EXHIBIT 4, pg. 2 of 5
effect on the environment, the Director shall consider every
phase of a proposed action and expected consequences, either
primary or secondary, or the cumulative as well as the short or
long term effect of the proposal. The Director should bear in
mind that in most instances, the following factors of a
proposal, although not limited to same, may constitute a
significant adverse effect on the environment when the
proposed use, activity or operation:
4) significantly affects the economic or social welfare
and activities of the community, County or State;
5) involves significant secondary impacts, such as
population changes and effects on public facilities;
6) in itself has no significant adverse effect but
cumulatively has considerable adverse effect upon
the environment or involves a commitment for larger
actions;
10) is contrary to the objectives and policies of the
Coastal Zone Management Program and the Special
Management Area Guidelines of Chapter 205A, HRS.
The applicant admits that he is not willing to provide a public access
easement for the existing trail to the beach. The applicant admits that the
subdivision without a shoreline access easement is inconsistent with the HCDP
(which cites to SMA guideline, HRS section 205A-26) (Application page 17). SMM
23-54 is clearly invalid under HRS section 205A-26(2)(C) because it is inconsistent
with the Community Plan and the zoning.
The SMA minor permit 23-54 is based on the misconception that all of the
conservation land is located within proposed Lot 1 when there is a 2002 SLU
Boundary Interpretation, included here, that establishes a three hundred foot deep
SLU conservation district within proposed Lots 1, 3, and 4.
3
APPELLANT EXHIBIT 4, pg. 3 of 5
Under HCC Chapter 34 Public Access, even a two -lot subdivision of parcel
118, on top of a previous four lot subdivision, reaches the six lots or more limit in
the definition of "Subdivision" requiring an easement for public access to the
shoreline at Papaikou Landing beach which is used by the public for recreation.
("Subdivision" for the purpose of this chapter, means any improved or unimproved
land or lands divided or proposed to be divided for the purpose of disposition into six
or more lots or parcels.)(Public Access Code, Section 34-3(a)(15)).
Even if the applicant comes back with a different subdivision plan, a SMA
minor permit would be invalid considering the possible damage to the resources of
the SMA from earth disturbing activities and eco-tourism and film industry
activities on the beach that the applicant erroneously believes is privately owned.
("The Director shall consider every phase of a proposed action and expected
consequences, either primary or secondary, or the cumulative as well as the short or
long term effect of the proposal.")(PC Rule 9-10(h) Criteria of Significant Adverse
Effect).
The Planning Department is statutorily mandated to give effect to the
policies, objectives and guidelines of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
reading HRS § 205A-2 and §205A-26 in conjunction with the Planning
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure and Hawaii County Code Chapter 34
Public Access, as well as in the context of the entire CZMA.
0
APPELLANT EXHIBIT 4, pg. 4 of 5
Please advise the Planning Department to process any further SMA use
permit assessment applications for parcel 118, (or amendments), as a major SMA
permit for the reasons above.
Thank you for your time and service.
Lk""� R�-'
APPELLANT EXHIBIT 4, pg. 5 of 5