Honolulu Is Not ‘Neglecting’ Shoreline Development Issues
I鈥檇 like to clarify a few points in Sophie Cocke鈥檚 article, 鈥Honolulu Forgoes Federal Funds to Manage Coastal Development鈥 (Jan. 6, 2014), particularly her statement that the city鈥檚 鈥渋naction is part of a pattern of neglect when it comes to dealing with homes, businesses and infrastructure that are too close to the ocean.鈥
Although we do not receive federal funds for the Coastal Zone Management program, this does not mean that we are not monitoring or handling coastal zone issues; it just means that we鈥檙e doing it without federal funding. As I stated in the interview with Ms. Cocke, the Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) has staff dedicated to the CZM issues (i.e., coastal flooding, erosion, and sea level rise), and applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. To conclude that the city is neglecting these issues is not true and unfair to the DPP staff involved in the CZM.
The primary reason building and zoning codes exist is for the health and safety of our residents. We at the DPP review each application to ensure that proposed projects will not have a negative impact on the applicant, as well as the public. This is true for homes and properties along the coastal shorelines.
What makes Honolulu different from the other counties is Honolulu has a lot more developed shorelines than the less-populated neighbor islands. We have many more miles of coastline where homes and buildings are within close proximity to the shore. In other counties, you鈥檒l find large stretches of open coastline with no structures. So to implement a blanket shoreline setback policy (i.e., 100 feet) would be very difficult here on Oahu because our coastlines are already developed.
In 1990, the Department of Land Utilization (DLU), predecessor to the DPP, proposed to amend the setback to 100 feet, but that was met with strong opposition from shoreline property owners, including the North Shore community. The proposal received little support and died in a City Council committee. But in 1994, the DLU was successful in convincing the Council to adopt a compromise of 60 feet for new development along the shoreline, although we would have preferred a greater setback. In fact, the DPP often recommends to property owners a bigger setback than is allowed, but the property owners have always told us that they want to build as close to the shoreline as legally allowed, and we have no choice but to grant the permit.
The article also stated that while the DPP turned down federal funds, we also are asking for increases in many of our permitting fees. The two are totally unrelated. The CZM federal funds would go to the hiring of one, possibly two, CZM staff members. The funds could not be used for anything else. And again, we already have staff assigned to CZM matters. The DPP is seeking a rate increase, which would be the first in more than 10 years, because we felt that with inflation and the rising cost of government, an increase was necessary. Many of the department鈥檚 permit review and processing are now done free of charge. An example of this is when the DPP is the accepting agency for an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. The estimated revenue generated by the proposed fee increases is between $500,000 and $1 million and will go to the city鈥檚 general fund, not directly to the DPP.
While I appreciate Civil Beat鈥檚 interest in this matter, I also want to be sure that the facts are presented.
About the author: George Atta is the director of the city Department of Planning and Permitting.
Community Voices aims to encourage broad discussion on many topics of community interest. It’s kind of a cross between Letters to the Editor and op-eds. This is your space to talk about important issues or interesting people who are making a difference in our world. Columns generally run about 800 words (yes, they can be shorter or longer) and we need a photo of the author and a bio. We welcome video commentary and other multimedia formats. Send to news@civilbeat.com.
