The Kauai County Council's planning
committee will resume hammering and polishing the shoreline setback
bill today — which means they still have a chance to transform it
from a developers' bill into one that serves the public.
Two big questions remain unanswered.
First, why is the Council making it easier to build along rocky coastlines,
if not to give developers an unearned prize?
Especially when it remains unclear just
how much of the coastline, particularly seabird habitat, will be
impacted. Or how that exemption will play out with actual buildings
on the ground.
Second, shouldn't all lots that abut the
shoreline follow the same set of regulations? Particularly in this
era of increasing coastal hazards due to erosion and climate change.
The primary sticking point is Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura's so-called “bright line" exemption, which excuses landowners from seeking a shoreline determination on land that's 30 feet above sea level and adjacent to a rocky shoreline.
As you can see from this graphic, much of the coastline potentially could qualify for this exemption:
As you can see from this graphic, much of the coastline potentially could qualify for this exemption:
Overall,
it is unclear how a structure would be cited on a property if the
application meets criteria in (1) and (2). This may not provide safe
setback for other serious hazards such as failure of rocky bluffs.
Sam
isn't the only one voicing objections. The Council received 49 pieces of testimony in opposition to some aspect of the bill, primarily the "bright line" exemption. Just
three were submitted in support. They came from the Kauai Chamber of
Commerce, the Westin and the Land Use Research Foundation, a
developer advocacy group.
The
Chamber wrote, in endorsing the “bright line” exemption:
The
Shoreline Setback Ordinance should only be used for its intended
purpose, which is to protect life, property and coastal resources
from coastal hazards. It should not be misused for the purpose of
creating buffers along the shoreline to establish recreational,
access, view plane and aesthetic setbacks. Matters relating to view
planes should instead be addressed by the SMA Permit process or by
the application of the provisions in the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance relating to the establishment of scenic corridors.
But
from Sam's letter, it's clear his agency is indeed concerned the exemption won't adequately protect life, property and resources from coastal hazards.
The circumstances that drove the
original shoreline setback bill are no less relevant today than
they were in 1971:
Growing population and expanding
population have brought about numerous cases of encroachment of
structures upon the shoreline. Many of these structures have
disturbed the natural shorelines processes and caused erosion of the
shoreline. Concrete masses along the shoreline are contrary to the
policy for the preservation of the natural shoreline and the open
space.
So why do anything to weaken that bill, when the only thing that's changed is it's more hazardous than ever to develop along the coast?
Which leads to another question: Why delete “activities” from the bill? Shouldn't activities
within the shoreline setback area be subject to regulations under the
Coastal Zone Management law? We've seen time and again that people
are always trying to push the envelope. We need to ensure that
mechanisms exist for dealing with whatever sketchy stuff folks dream
up.
This isn't the best time to act on such an important bill, what with two
Councilmen getting the boot and two others celebrating big
wins. But it seems the Council is bound and determined to move this
bill out of committee today, so it can be approved by the full
Council next week.
Which means that now, today, is
the time to remove that “bright line” exemption entirely. There's
absolutely no justification for that arbitrary exemption other than
to please developers. And they really don't need any special treatment, especially when it comes at the public's
expense.
Posts
11 comments:
Why on earth would the council even be considering an exemption to the shoreline setback ordinance for some owners?
Bad idea, hope the council is smart enough to reject the exemption.
Setbacks set by the County should be only for safety. The feds and state will come with their environmental fiascos later.
Most of the shoreline is cliffs, let 'em build. Hooser, Chock and JoAnn don't want no farmin' on this mostly Ag zoned lands, anyway.
I agree with this triage of No Ag council members. Stop Big Ag and let the Big Land owners develop. They could even do long term leases to keep the lands in their corporate families.
Beautiful, enormous hundreds of Ag Units can be built all over the cliffs. Agriculture will be a component. Of course, only organic products of banana, rambutan, kale and a cute little Goat dairy will be part of the Homeowners Association expenses. The cliff top Homes will only be a seen by people on boat cruises, anyway. The "farm' will satisfy Hooser and JoAnn's anti-Big land anti-Ag infatuation. Big Ag will be gone, the goats will be fine and all lived happily forever and ever.
JoAnn what are you thinking? Here is another fine example of why I no longer support you.
Testimony from north shore 2491ers shouldn't be given much weight. What do they know?
Golf courses need to be back from the rocky edge. And there should be a ban on fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides from a rocky shore. I see no problem with water and plants, but the rest impacts reef, opihi, pipi, pupu etc. plants need to encouraged. Napaka, ilima kaha Kai, hala, etc should be planted.
For the first time in my voting life I did NOT vote for Joanne. She created the whole shoreline thing, and then sets about making exemptions, that will thrill the Californians, who evidently think that this is Malibu Beach or something, and we can have million dollar homes on a "Rocky shoreline!". I personally have had it up to here with Joanne manipulating every piece of legislation, amending it to death,k and exempting all kinds of situations for no apparent reason.
Her legislation makes no sense. It was her fault that 2491 was weakened with the fatal line flaw of adding in her stupid "no crop buffer zones!", for FFFFS!!!
ARGH!!!
Think we all need to "love bomb" the next council meeting, holy hell!!
I cannot understand her wishy washy, flip flopping all over the place like this!!
I will never vote for her again. let us hope that her "sabbatical" next term will last a long time, at least on the council level. Enough is enough!!
That self serving blatant look at me and what I have done letter was an embarrassment! What ever happened to the humble Joanne we all knew and loved, the champion of the people, protector of the environment! Shoreline setbacks were her thing! She practically wrote the book on it! Now she is folding, spinning, and mutilating it to death.
Watch. The shore line setback will be totally weakened, never hold up in court and be declared illegal, because Joann is gonna exempt and addendum it to death!
ARGH!!!!
Whew I feel better now!
It would be easier to say, "all sandy beach shorelines have no exemptions" and all else is fair game. Double ARGH !!!
The "Best and the Brightest are not found running our local government.
Grin and Bare it. Get over it it.
The Elections are over....and its business as usual. Have a beer and relax. Watch the circus.
Its not what you know but who you know and are related to and...gives you the most financial support for your election.
Dr Shibai
She doesn't care what we think.
But hopefully she does care about the coastlines of Kauai.
Dyeing to hear what happened? Passed? Exemption removed?
Post a Comment