Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.

Hanauma Bay
project foes now
look toward appeal

Opponents of the city's
development plans lose their
bid for a contested case hearing

---

By Gordon Y.K. Pang
Star-Bulletin

The city has cleared a major hurdle in its quest to renovate Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve.

The state Board of Land and Natural Resources voted 5-1 last week to deny a request by project opponents to force the city's application for a conservation-district use permit into a quasi-judicial setting known as a contested case hearing.

The East Honolulu Community Coalition and Roy Benham and Beverly Palenapa, part-Hawaiian area residents, said yesterday that they are discussing the possibility of a judicial appeal.

The land board still must act on the city's actual permit request. Sam Lemmo, senior planner for the board, said his staff probably will need at least a month to analyze the project before issuing a recommendation to the board. That would mean no decision until spring, Lemmo said.

David Washino, East Honolulu Community Coalition spokesman, said he believes the permit application can still be derailed based on the opponents' concerns about the impact the project would have on open space, the likelihood of more visitors, and other issues.

City managing director Ben Lee, noting that the contract for the $11.7 million project has already been awarded to Hank Iida Construction, said the city is hoping work can begin within a month of approval by the board.

Plans include separate structures for a marine-education center/gift shop and snack bar on the upper portion of the bay. The bermed structures would be 10 to 18 feet high.

Proponents say the project would provide a covered and unobtrusive facility where the public would learn about the fragile nature of coral reefs.

Opponents sought standing for a contested case hearing before the Land Board, arguing that the structures would be obtrusive and detract from the natural beauty of Hanauma. Benham called the structures "not Hawaiian."

In issuing its decision, the board said the coalition's petition for a contested case hearing was "untimely and not in compliance with the administrative rules." It said the coalition "failed to show how its members will suffer actual or threatened injury by the city's improvements."

Instead, the board stated, the coalition asserted "a value preference which is not a legally protected right."

The board also said that Benham and Palenapa failed to show that their interest in the proceeding is distinguishable from the general public's, or even that they would be prevented from any religious practices they may have.