The East Honolulu Community Coalition
The East Honolulu Community Coalition (EHCC) is of the position
cannot endorse the FEIS as it is written. Until the Carrying
is completed, and the educational program and fiscal management
fully defined, we cannot support any new construction at Hanauma
These are some of our objections:
We prefer to see the Carrying Capacity study completed (June
we commit to building an Education Center, so the Center can be
planned and sized appropriately. This project should be based on
report and data has to recommend, otherwise, why did we
commission such an
expensive study and why are the results being down-played now?
date of study versus the Dec. deadline to spend the possible
$13.5 million of
We believe and insist that only the absolute essentials should be
in the "Nature Preserve". A vision and definition of
Nature Preserve needs to
No Hawaiians or Hawaiian groups were included in the planning or
Many concerns have been raised on several issues regarding the
It is clear that the people who truly represent the our community
many questions and concerns on the financials, the design,
flow, population limitation measures and new management plans.
still many important details left undefined (ie. education
Many members on the Task Force where not in agreement with
and recommendations. Additionally, most members feel that their
concerns and input where not considered or even recorded in the
Meeting Minutes on purpose. Consensus was reached on a majority
recommendations because of the number of people voting who have a
interest or relationship to the project (ie. Architects,
the Bay, City & County officials, ect.).
Additionally, we have found conflicts, inaccuracies and false
in testimonies given to City Council and the Public (ie. News
by the above mentioned.
The plans do not accurately describe the project and give a false
of the true design. The color drawings are misleading and
confusing. They do
not show elements like: the large gravel roofs on top of both the
berms, concrete walkways and plazas, 6 foot fences everywhere,
road, ramps, tables and chairs at the Snack Bar.
We prefer more time and community input to come up with a
design that will be creative, inexpensive, minimal in its impact
environment and local access, effective in its message to
delay, and more in the "Aloha spirit". A design
competition should/could have
The proposed improvements will cost over $10.4 million in CIP
over $17.5 million to taxpayers), and will burden the bay with an
annual debt service of over 1.2 million per year for the next 25
Bays 1999 revenue was $2,523,000.00 and cost $2,421,000.00 to
run. A surplus
of only $102,000. Where will over a million dollar a year
How did a project that originally was advertised to cost $13.5
yet was cut back by half, end up with a cost estimate of over
dollars? This estimate was given in Sept. 99 and what was it
based on? Many
details and sizes have changed. A final estimate will be higher
additional $500,000 architectural design contingency.
The plan has changed considerably since the FEIS was released
Education Center with Snack Bar included was to be 7,000-7,500
sq. ft. but
new estimates are well over 13,000 sq. ft. for both [pg.3-7
amendment(s) to the FEIS is needed addressing all changes and
prior to any more council approval.
The FEIS never mentions the excavation needed for the buildings
or a gift
shop that will now be located along the cliff over-looking the
meeting rooms with convenience kitchens have been added.
There has never been a financial or economic plan on how much it
cost to run and maintain the Bay after the improvements.
and operating costs will exceed the current revenue for the Bay.
this money come from? An audit and other financial concerns need
addressed accurately and immediately. "Article 51" and
how the monies at the
Bay are prioritized and accounted for is not being followed now
nor will it
in the future. Is this legal and how can they plan contrary to
We believe that if "Article 51" is changed, and if the
rent/permit money goes back to the Bay Fund; that the Bay could
self-sufficient and pay for its improvement projects in steps
CIP money now. Future left-over monies would go to a Parks
According to the Bishop estate deed, all money generated on the
land must be spent on the deeded land. This goes against the past
having the concession rent/permit money (approx. $1 million per
year) go to
the City and County General Fund.
The current plan involves the removal of the existing Upper Bay
that were built less than 5 years ago, yet we will still be
paying a large
debt service for over the next 16 years. This project is being
cannot afford to make another costly mistake. Rushing a project
of this size
and type only increases the likelihood of making mistakes and
We feel that such a large Education Center (11,000+ sq. ft.)
excessive for the proposed 5-minute educational video.
We question the need and use of a video. Will it achieve its
how? This facility is depending on what this video hopefully
Teaching the visitors the 5-7 habits they want to avoid while
the Bay can be done in a very easy, inexpensive, low-impact, and
fashion with Aloha. There are alternate solutions that need to be
The video is suppose to last 5 minutes and accommodate 125 people
time, 6 times an hour (every 10 minutes) or 750 people per hour.
Occasionally, over a thousand people per hour can enter the Bay.
How can they
handle the people deficit........tell them to wait again (after
in the ticket line)? The line for the trolley would be a third
We believe that the traffic flow patterns and time rates for
will create delays and long lines resulting in an unpleasant
will reflect bad on the Bay and Hawaii (just another tourist
people will lose interest in visiting because of the
inconveniences that will
be associated the Bay
Why was the development of the education program considered last
started). "Educating the Visitor" was what this
building was to be for and
what is suppose to help save the Bay.
A 2,300 sq. ft. snack bar is unnecessary and will be located in
inconvenient and unspoiled natural area where it is very windy
We believe that Group 70 has not had enough time to accurately
specify all the details in order to give the contractors enough
information to fairly bid the project. This is one design
solution done in
haste. We want simple, low-cost, low-impact alternatives
Large earthen Berms and amount of concrete and use of fences is
natural or flexible and will forever change how we see and
so-called Nature Preserve. Why were residents concerns and ideas
considered in the design process? They consistently asked for low
cost, simple, timely, environmentally sensitive solutions in a
Style. How was this representative of those request? How did this
evolve into the exact opposite? Large, expensive, complex,
poorly planned, environmentally insensitive and in the Tourist
Management issues also need to be addressed to aid in the
changes needed at the park to enhance the visitors experience
to maintain and protect it.
We feel that the real vision and project mission has been grossly
misinterpreted. What constitutes a "Nature Preserve"?
We need to "Preserve
and Protect" the Bay from over-development. The man-made
unnatural looking and do not reflect the parks natural beauty.
How will this project effect the people of Hawaii and our right
access guarantee by law? How will the issues of a timely access
pedestrian traffic flow be addressed? How will the way the locals
and enjoy the Bay change?
Finally, we object to the process and misinformation of community
involvement on this project. From the beginning, the community
was left out
of the planning process and only a select few took part in the
final plans. Furthermore, after participation by many residents
in the Task
Force, many feel that their participation and input was extensive
ideas and concerns failed to be recognized and recorded in the
Minutes. Most of their ideas and concerns were ignored or never
the final designs or plans. The meetings and designs were
controlled by a
select few and alternative designs were never considered or
The communications between the local government and the community
projects needs to be improved. We are willing to go back to the
table to help
solve some of these important issues. We share a common goal for
the bay and
believe that informing visitors is paramount and some
necessary to enhance the management of the Bay. Please, No more
planning and wasting of time and money.
JOB CORP SITE
We agree with the part of the plan that removes the buildings at
Job Corps Site and restore the area for future planning and use
District Park. Consult the new master plan being developed by
Group 70 for
the District Park and Job Corps Site.
LOWER BAY (BEACH)
We agree with most of INK ARCHITECTS plans that deal with the
The improvements to the Beach Access Road are both necessary and
justifiable. There are many questions about the
"under-grounding" of the
electric, water and sewage lines underneath the complex and
($180,000) access road where it would be very costly to access
while creating a traffic/pedestrian hazard. We recommend that
only be upgraded and routed though the same area and method as
Additionally, there are concerns about the drainage plan for the
Bay. No provisions have been made to correct silt from possibly
bay after a lengthy rainstorm. This could cause more harm to the
than could the combined human impact over years. The drainage
diverted to a retention basin along the cliff where Nau Paka
could be planted
and would be a barrier so visitors would not set-up underneath
The issue on planting too many palm trees has been pointed out
times. They are both a costly maintenance and safety liability.
EHCC is a grass-roots coalition made up of a wide range of local
We formed EHCC in response to the mayors overly ambitious project
convinced him to withdraw his proposal in favor of "a clean
slate in which
the community will be involved". Many residents took this
offer serious and
participated over the last 5 months on the "Hanauma Bay
Force". Unfortunately, the result was a tightly controlled
agenda by a small
core group of the mayors appointees, where by the ideas and
community were never considered and many questions and details
still need to
be addressed. These new plans do not fairly acknowledge the
wishes and needs
of the "people of Hawaii" and will reflect negatively
on the tourist
industry. We only want what is right for one of Hawaii's most
precious jewels, so that All the people of Hawaii and the World
can enjoy it
without harming it. We agree that some improvements to enhance
the Bay while
helping to preserve and protect a "Nature Preserve" and
a form of "educating
the people of the 5 to 7 habits they want to avoid while visiting
the Bay is
necessary in order to help preserve and protect the Bay".
disagree with a large $17.5 million dollar disguised office
facility with a
forced education program resulting in many different lines and
delays to visitors before entering the Bay. Locals are one step
losing what little access we have to the Bay, to a project that
caters to the
administrators of the Bay and a "Tourist theme park".
It goes for a final
approval vote in front of the full City Council on Nov. 10th.
at 373-2556 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. and feel free to
pass on this
information. Time is short and we need your help.
MAHALO & ALOHA,
p.s. We will be having a sign waving this Friday 4-6pm on
across from Roys restaurant in Hawaii Kai. Please come and bring
a sign or
make one with us at 3:30.
Please join us for our EHCC meeting on Monday (11-8-99) @ 7:00pm
Head District Park- Meeting/Lounge room.