• Letter to the citizens of Kaua‘i Letter to the citizens of Kaua‘i After reading William Ivison’s letter (“Voice of reason,” Letters, Jan. 5), I felt compelled to write this letter as it does not appear that he is as
• Letter to the citizens of Kaua‘i
Letter to the citizens of Kaua‘i
After reading William Ivison’s letter (“Voice of reason,” Letters, Jan. 5), I felt compelled to write this letter as it does not appear that he is as informed as he could or should be before drawing such unwarranted conclusions.
The Public Works Committee meeting of Jan. 4 was a very enlightening one. At the very least, it confirmed what has been suspected for a long time that some deep-rooted problems exist that have resulted in project inefficiencies overseen by our Public Works and Planning Departments. Not just with the bike path project, but with other matters as well.
To address Mr. Ivison’s concerns, I will solely focus on the reporting and testimony presented at the Jan. 4, meeting regarding the illegal pavilions.
Did the newspaper print that the administration initially denied any wrongdoing with the construction of the rest stations? Did the newspaper print that Councilmember Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho asked to halt the project before incurring additional costs for errors, and requested that the administration provide proof of compliance with the laws? Did the newspaper print that the administration refused to halt the project, proceeded with further illegal construction, and halted it after a demand was made for written proof of legal permits and they were unable to provide it because it did not exist? Did the newspaper print that we had asked months ago for legal documentation for proof of notice to adjacent landowners that is required by law, and the administration has failed to do so? Did they then do a thorough review of the project to see if there existed any other illegal actions?
No.
In fact, they claimed that the six rest stations were the only illegal structures. However, after numerous meetings later, on Jan. 4, it was admitted by our Planning Director that in fact, some of the other pavilions are also in violation, as there were substantive changes done without obtaining the necessary amended permits.
In addition to these disturbing revelations, the Planning Director further admitted that the shoreline certification of November 2002 was never updated; however, a building permit was applied for in January 2006, approved in March 2006 and construction took place soon afterwards. This, in my humble opinion, is clearly a violation that makes all construction dependent on the 2002 shoreline certification, a violation.
Under the law, anytime there is development near the beach, the applicant needs to obtain a valid shoreline certification to assure that construction occurs far enough to not destroy the natural shoreline processes and cause erosion. Furthermore, state law, HRS Chapter 205A-42, provides that a shoreline certification is valid for only one year and, the Planning Department Shoreline Setback rules require under Section 6 that the shoreline certification shall be valid within six months prior to application for any construction.
A simple math would expose that the shoreline certification was valid until November 2003 and was not valid in July 2006, when a construction permit was applied for, thus the law clearly supports the conclusion that the issuance of the building permits are illegal.
The purpose of our shoreline setback rules provides the framework those applications for construction near the ocean should be conservatively granted. In Section 2 it states: “Concrete masses along the shoreline are contrary to the policy for the preservation of the natural shoreline and the open space.”
Did the newspaper print that the administration was seeking after the fact permits to justify their illegal actions? Did the newspaper print that this was sought, even after the council had passed a resolution in August, urging “zero tolerance” for illegal construction near our beaches and even after Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura and I had drafted a bill for increased setbacks for developments near the ocean? Did the newspaper print that despite the authority of the Planning Department to seek penalties (state law also says under HRS Chapter 205A-32, that any person who violates shall be liable for a fine not to exceed $100,000 or the cost of returning the affected environment or ecology to the condition existing before the violation. It also provides that any fine may be imposed by the circuit court or by the Planning Department) that our Planning Director has admitted that he has never utilized this law to deter violators?
Subscribers should require more professionalism in journalism and demand that reporters provide complete, objective and correct information because incomplete information is probably as worthless as inaccurate information. If this cannot be accomplished, our public access TV, Ho‘ike, provides verbatim taping that allows one to form his/her opinion based on accurate information. (Editor’s note: Mind you, only the county’s version of accurate information.)
In closing let me state that it is extremely important to remind our community in which we serve, that despite Mr. Ivison’s suggestion to ignore the illegal acts of the county, all of us as councilmembers take an oath before taking office and are bound to faithfully abide, fairly execute and ensure lawful compliance with the United States Constitution, Hawaii Constitution and all the state and county laws. Remember that the ends never justify the means. Like you, we are all supportive of the bike and pedestrian path as it can offer numerous benefits however, more importantly is that it be developed legally and comply with smart growth and sustainability principles.
Mel Rapozo
Chair, Public Works Committee
Kaua‘i County Council
Lihu‘eLihu‘e
