Transcript Tools for Self Determination

Tools for
Self-Determination
Special Management Area
Boundary Study
January 9, 2008
Outline of Presentation
• Purpose of the SMA
– HRS 205A
– SMA Guidelines
• Intent of permitting
system
– Regulatory control
– Local input and
participation
• Boundary setting
– Historical context
– Present use &
enforcement
• Study
– Methods
– Analysis
– Results
• Ecological gradients
– Site specific
recommendations
– Next steps
• Implementation
Considerations
The Planning Framework
County
State Constitution
Hawaii State
Planning Act
(Ch 226, HRS)
General Plan &
Community Plans
(Ch 2.80B, MCC)
Charter
2002
Land Use Commission
(Ch 205, HRS)
District
Boundary
Amendment
Zoning
(Title 19, MCC)
Special
Management
Area Rules
Interim
Zoning
Comprehensive
Zoning
(Ch 19.02, MCC)
(Ch 19.04, MCC)
>15 acres
LUC
Molokai Community Plan
MoPC REVIEW:
Community Plan
Amendments (CPA)
Coastal Zone
Management
(Ch 205A, HRS)
Shoreline
Setback
Rules
(Ch 12-302, MoPC) (Ch 12-303, MoPC)
yes
General Plan
1990
MoPC
Zoning
(Ch 46, HRS)
Special
Use Permits
State
no
MoPC REVIEW:
<15 acres (DBA)
Special Use Permit
(SUP1 & 2)
MoPC REVIEW:
Change in Zoning (CIZ)
Conditional Permit (CP)
County Special Use Permit (CUP)
Planned Developments (PD1-3)
Project Districts (PH1-2)
Accessory Use Permit (ACC)
Bed & Breakfast (BB2-3)
Country Town Business CTB)
Off-Site Parking (OSP)
MoPC REVIEW:
SMA Permit
(SM1 & SM6)
SS Variances (SSV)
Environmental
Impact
Statements
(Ch 343, HRS)
MoPC REVIEW:
EA Docs
EIS Docs
Purpose of the SMA
HRS 205A - CZMA
– Actions and activities within the SMA must be
consistent with the law
SMA Guidelines
– Assures that allowable uses are designed and
carried out in conformance with CZMA
Nexus
Ex: FEMA standards allow a structure to withstand
flood water inundation, but do not mitigate the impact
of that structure on coastal resources or protect them
septic wastewater or chlorinated pool water <>
fishpond and aquatic species
Intent of the Permitting System
Regulatory Control
– Applies to ‘Developments’ or those activities
with the potential to have an adverse impact
on specified coastal resources (i.e. nexus)
– Development may occur when adverse
impacts are avoided, minimized, mitigated or
outweighed by a compelling public interest
– Local decision making and public participation
Boundary Setting
Historical context
– 1975 interim boundary, 1977 final boundary
– 1979 subdivision ordinance passed (Papohaku dune)
In response to tremendous growth in oceanfront homes and
resorts, the SMA permit was viewed as the first locally-based
regulatory tool.
Present
Situations exist where there is no clear nexus or connection
between the proposed action or activity and its impact on coastal
resources
Ex: conditions requiring sidewalks for commercial establishments
Other situations exist where proposed actions which potentially
impact coastal resources are not well-regulated
Ex: agricultural use of an invasive plant species near Papohaku Dune
Boundary Review
Impetus for SMA Boundary Study
– Community Plan expresses community’s
desire to study boundary delineation
– Impacts on fishponds
– Desire for greater self-determination and local
regulatory control
– Lack of on-island enforcement personnel
– Lack of financial support for enforcement
efforts (transit, time, equipment)
SMA Boundary Study, Phase I
Methods
• Described measures that are indicative of HRS 205A Objectives and
Policies, SMA Guidelines and NOAA Performance Measures
• Reviewed all Moloka’i SMA files from the TMK project folders
Analysis
• Related the conditions imposed to the above coastal resource
policies
• Recognized those conditions which avoided, mitigated, or minimized
adverse impacts to coastal resources
Results
• In general conditions did not have a connection to coastal resources
• For example Take’s Store was greatly enhanced by conditions
related to architectural design
– Kaunakakai is subject to Country Town Business District Design Standards
– Thus such a standard could be imposed through a Community Plan
determination
SMA Boundary Study, Phase II
Map Study
– Acquired maps of
• Flood zone, tsunami inundation, wetlands, fishponds,
Conservation Areas, underlying State Land Use Area,
beaches, dunes, roads, streams and drainages.
– Identified SMA boundaries > 300 ft from shoreline
Field Study
– Determined if the boundary incorporated the
ecological resources described above
Results
– Site specific expansion and/or contraction
recommendations based on field observation, nexus
with identified coastal resources, and Phase I results
Recommendations - Papohaku Dunes
Protect scenic vista of pu’u
Kepuhi Bay
Papohaku Beach
Kahaiawa Pt
Recommendations - Kaunakakai
Kaunakakai
Kamiloloa
Recommendations – East End
Kamiloloa
Ali‘i Fishpond
Kawela
Kanukunukauawa
Recommendations – East End Fishponds
Mapulehu
‘Ualapu‘e
Kamalo
Ecological Gradients
Site specific recommendations
– Expand at Papohaku Dunes
– Contact rural land mauka of Kawakiu Bay
– Contract Kaunakakai Town
– Expand where flood zone exceeds current SMA
boundary (ex. East End)
– Ensure land mauka of fishponds are protected
Recommended next steps
– Geo-referenced maps from Long Range Division
– Updated flood inundation areas from FEMA
– Overlays with SMA Boundary
Implementation Considerations
Enforcement
Existing laws regarding grading, stream alteration and
building should be fully implemented
Regulatory Control
General and Community Plan updates have force of
law, require infrastructure concurrency, incorporate
financial and budgetary considerations and apply to
the island as a whole. As such, it is an innovative
mechanism for self-determination of growth on
Moloka’i