Flachsbart, P.

Miller, J.

Rappa, P.

ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa

University of Hawaii at ManoaEnvironmental CenterCrawford 317. 2550 Campus ROBdHonolulu. Hawaii 96822TI!lephone IAOO} 9.u\-?361RP: 0071Shoreline Management Permit ApplicationRaiser Development Company's Golf Course 5 and 6 projectHawaii Ka1, Oahustatement forCity CouncilPublic Hearing - April I, 1987ByJacquelin Miller, Environmental CenterPeter Flachsbart, Urban Regional PlanningPeter Rappa, Sea GrantIn response to a request from councilInan Gill's office to evaluate theenvironmental impact of the proposed galf ~rse 5 and 6 development, theEnv.5ronmental center has reviewed the fact sheets provided. Our statementdoes not represent an institutional position of the University of Hawaii.The project proposad ronsists of the development of approximately 211cne and two story houses directly across from Wawamalu Beam Park and sandyBeach Park and will be built an filled land raised about 10-20 feet aboveI<alanianaol.e Highway. The site is within the Shoreline Ma.nagement Area.In reviewing the material provided by your office the following pointshave come to our attention:The height of the projectJ 30-40 feet. above Kalanianaole Highway, willhave a s:ignificant impact. an the view plains both mauka and makai. It willimpaC± the Makapuu-mauka view from the beach parks and the blOW-holevisitor attraction lookout. Depending on the design and location of theduster houses, ocean views from houses mauka of the project will be lost.Such loss of views is in direct conflict with HRS 20SA- 2 (c) (3) andspecific conditions under HRS 205A-26 (1) ,(2), and (3). Furthermore, weunderstand that the Department of land utilization is currently conductingThe Coastal View study which is intended to inventory and identifysignificant coastal views. It would seem highly appropriate to deferdecision making on projects directly affecting coastal views until theresults of this stUdy are completed.The intersection of Kealahou street and Kalanianaole Highway maypresent significant safety problems particularly because of the height ofthe makai comers on either side of the entrance to l<alanianaole Highway.AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYERIt ,,'_:,4 _I' '.1_.&. __ n .~ '-- ~-~_.,,-,.. -_.~Page 2Traffic congestion, particularly on the weekends, is currentlyexcessive. Mitigation measures such as a signal at Kealahou street andKalanianaole Highway will be needed to provide a safe exit for th~increased traffic load.We understand that the project area is not in the Federal FloodInsurance P:ro;:]Iam 100 year boundary for floods. However, it shoUld benoted that tsunami run-up during the April I, 1946 tsunami ranged from 31to 23 to 15 feet from the blow hole to the area commonly referred to asAlan Davis Beach and that most of the project area lies in the tsunamiinundation area as indic:ated on paqe 30A of the 1987 telephone directory.We. were unable to evaluate the ability of the Sewage Treatment Plant tohandle the increased flow as no pertinent information was provided in thefact sheets supplied.The Environmental center reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA)preparEd in August 1985 for this project and provided comments to theDepartment of Land t.Jt.iJl.zation in February 1986. A copy of this earlierreviaw is attached for yoor infomation. At that time, we called attentionto a number of deficiencies in the EA and suggested that an expanded EA orEnvironmental Impact statement should be prepared. No response to ourreview was received and according to the Office of Environmental QualityControL no follow up expanded assessment or EIS has been submitted. Basedon infonnation provided in recent telephone conv~rsations with councilrepresentatives, major changes in the project are now proposed that differsignificantly from the plans presented in the 1985 EA. If this is indeedthe case, then there is an even more compe.lling reason to require thepreparation of an expanded EA or Environmental Inq:>act statement. Given thesiqn1ficanoe of the project in terms of its affect on mauka-makai views,cx:mtribut.ian to already excessive traffic conditions, cummulative impactsw.fr:h ether anqoing developments, and the history of sewage treatment plantfailures, the preparation of an assessment, or an EIS, that adequatelyexa.mines the current plans would seem essential for decision makers withregard to the issuance of a shoreline management permit.AttachlQant--- ,University of Hawaii at ManoaEovironmeOlol Cr.n"~,Crow ford 317. Z;'!IO Cnlllpll:; 1l1l;1l1Honolulu, Hawaii !Jl:Jl:!:lTclcphon(~ (HUll I !l';U·j:lljlFebruary 14, 1986RN:0139Mr. John WhalenDepartment of Land UtilizationCity and County of Honolulu650 South King Street, 7th FloorHonolulu, Hawaii 96813Dear Mr. Whalen:Negative 1)ecll\rotionHawaii J{ai Clustcr Developmentlill wRii }{ai, OAhuThe propos(!d cluster development project i!\ locotcd on the ,"auks side ofKalanianaole Highway within the shoreline lTIanngemcnt flreo tlnd will accommodateapproximately 225 single family dwellings on golf COUI'SC liites 5 nnd 6 constituting a totalof 31 acres.The primary concerns with regard to the proposed project relate to potentialimpacts to archaeological resources, water ovailabilily, ne!\rshore coastal environmentsand recreatlonol resources Illld the rclationship of this project to other developmentswithin the Hawaii Kal eres.Our review was prepared with the A!;~ist[\T\ee of ney TRbato, Sea Grant; MatthewSpriggs, Anthropologyj and Martha Disz, Environmental Center.Archaeological/Historical ResourcesThe envlronmentltl asses.l\ment (p. 23) cite" UlIlt 11 "topographic field survey," of theproject site ha.s been conducted, however, it is Ilot ~le"lr whelher this survey encompassedan archaeological reconnaissance al; well. If not, tile stl1temc:nt (EA., p. 2) that lIthere isno evidence of archocological !-;i tes ;n the p/'lI'cel ll ~€!e inS UIISUppMteu and sUbsurfacetestIng should be required to assess the likelihood of blll'illis ar other prellistoric remainswhich may be affected during development. This rnuy be pnrticularly important in themakai areas closest to the highway where eX~8valion for the prop{)Sed 30" water line wHlbe required.AN P:OIJAI. ()I\POwrtrNITY I:MPI nVI:~Mr. John Wh&1en -~- February 14, 1986VegetationNative plant communities, rurely cncCluntered on Oahu, are (ound just makai ofKalanlanaole Highway•.~ and beach nn.upaka are the dominant species. An array otbota.nically and culturally interesting nQtive HawAiian striHHi planl.' such a.~; the hinahina,nehe. pauohilakia end Hawaiian cotton (mao), as well as the beach takoko are supported bythese species. Although no endangered vegetation has hcen identified within the projectarea, it should be recognized that the proposed developmellt is likely to lead to secondaryimpacts in terms of increased foot traffic on the nearby fragile dune system. Theimportance of this dune system has been recognized in the Queen.~ Bench Park FeasibilityStudy that recommends expansion of the present boundaries of the Shoreline ManagementArea (SMA) to include all the area makei of the pl'oposed project and KalanianaoleHighway (Department of Parks and 'Recreation. City And County of Honolulu, December1984; see attached).Sewage Treatment PlantIt is our understanding that the proposed project will require expansion of theexisting sewage treatment plant to provide sufrieie It capaci ty for all planned newdevelopments. Under present discharge volume~l conta.mination of the coastline 8t Sa.ndyBea.ch is usually (but not always) avoided due to the strong currents which help to diluteand disperse wastes. A mor~ extensive discllssion oC the ~)(pan::>ion plans for the presentoutfall Is needed so as to adequately cvnlltulc 1I1e t'rrecls of the proposed additionaldischarge.InfrastructureWater SupplyThe (EA p. 4) slates that existing reservoir capaci ty is a.dequate to service theadditional cluster developments. However, ill order to provide "loop service l Jl thedeveloper will have to extend the exist iog 30 inch line along Kalan!flnaole Highway. What[s meant by loop service? Based on current water sI10rtagcs experienced is\undwide. whatimpacts on instream now will oc~ur if water sources !).re transported from Windward Oahuto (acilitate continued urban development in Hawaii Kat?Drainage/RunoffThe Hawaii Kal area is dry and erosion during development poses significantimpacts. Special eare in grading and scheduling of land clearing operations will berequired to avoid major sediment impacts to the nearshore beach and reet environment.The established mangrove forest in the low. rnaklli areA provides evidence of sedimentdeposition (rom runoff mauka. of the project. Mitigative measures will need to beimplemented to avoid excess sediment lORd to the coastul marine environment. Will thedeveloper utilize siltation ponds'? It so, the E.A I'hould include map~ identifying theirproposed locations and drainage outlets.RecreationAlthough the EA cites an abundAnce of rccreat ionnl opl>ortunities uVAllable in thearea. it fai1~ to mention thAt mnny or these rC50UrCCI', such os llanoumA DAy and MakapuuBeach Pa.rk t are already approaching their C!apaclty. Much of the Sandy Beach area isbasically unsMe for swimming and many of the areflS Hre also minima.lly useable becauseof the rugged topography. A further discussion of recreational resources seemswarranted.. ,.Mr. John Whalen -3-Cummulntive Impact,>February 14, 1986The cummulative impacts of present and futUl'c planned developments in Hawaii Y{aiand their increased dema.nds on resources and infrAstructure should be addressed. It wouldappear that either an expanded EA J or nn ElS J Sl10uld be [)repared to consider theseseconda.ry and cummultltive impl1cN.We U1ank you for the opportunity to offer our comment~ and hope you find themhelpful in ev&1ua ting the needs of this project..~ours lruly,i) /.> '"VI ·1-/.~/t1v...-"",_,'- ~'"/.,? ~.a. - <: -I / /' / '/(fllC~~~llnN. MillerActing Associate DirectorAttachmentcc: OEQCPatrick Takahashi,Acting Director, Environmental CenterRay TabataMatthew SpriggsMartha DiuATTACHMENTMokopu"u, POlnfFIGURE 11-31EXISTING ANnPROPOSED SMABOUNDARIES ATTHE STUDY AREA(September 1984)---~-~---'.'- -:>-:- ~:-::.:.-~.'~:;;;. -----. ,-,' ~~,"::---'-"-c se / !.~ I '", " ). /.(Q \ I _..... ~ _ /'''' (--....~ Makapu'lJ ~, , , I~ ',\" Head /,/' \l, .i PECIA~ ~AN~~'E''r''~~"e . A~E tyJ/ {/ !!~'\ '\ Iff 1·'\;; . ,, ! II rf/""'. , .'v II •I.~~ '... . \ 'i \\ .I".f1/ ~. , ~,.' (~~ \ ""'~ \ '. ,\, I~ ", \\, JJ ~ "\ \ ~~ g/\ 0 \\. 11:,'./ ~......--// 1\' ilr~'~/ /\ .~ I '\ I \ II V , I\j '" '---/ /) 1\\ ",', l EXISTING SPECIA~ :/i ~y,"( MANAGEMENT AR~~ J,l.~t,,! I!BOUNDARY~~,~~ /:~~ 'u~' 0 400 100~~K~nu.u ./ ----.Je! 1/ C)~. v /_____ GRAPHIC SCALEic;---4ft :'-J'"41. -1:\ Kapaliakamaa~KahO'OhOlhOI InletlI-55

Shoreline Management Permit Application Kaiser Development Company's Golf Course 5 and 6 Project Hawaii Kai, Oahu

http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/23947/1/RP0071.pdf

Shoreline Management Permit Application Kaiser Development Company's Golf Course 5 and 6 Project Hawaii Kai, Oahu

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa