Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Communication 762 <br /> Bill 246 <br /> Page 2 <br /> There were 9 people in Kona who presented testimony in opposition to Bill No. 246. The testifiers <br /> were Susan Golden, Joel Gimpel (representing Kona Traffic Safety Committee), Larry Ford, Charles <br /> Flaherty, Mazian Wilkins, Janice Palma-Glennie, Kauwila Duall, Gordana Leonard and Shannon <br /> Rudolph In addition, the Kona Council office received written testimonies in opposition to Bill No. <br /> 246 from the following five people: Debby Datkowitz, W.H. & L.A. Kelley, Alicia Starsong, Clazence <br /> Ching and Kanani Aton. <br /> Kale Gumapak, representing Hui Pa`a (a coalition of Hawaiian organizations on the Big Island) <br /> presented opposition testimony at the Hilo Council office and Ron Self of Ka`u, presented testimony <br /> requesting a "quiet period" for approving any development until the Ka`u Coastal Preservation task <br /> force completes its study. <br /> Planning Director Chris Yuen explained the intent of the amendments suggested in Bill No. 246 and <br /> stated that public testimony seemed based upon a misunderstanding of what is happening now and <br /> what has happened over the past 30 years. He went on to explain that what the bill does is change what <br /> has to be included in the subdivision application and, if a mistake is made in providing such <br /> information or if something is omitted, the Planning Director could with processing. In the Ki`ilai case <br /> it said that when an initial plat is filed, it must contain enough information regarding roads, water, etc.. <br /> However, in actual practice, this information is required after approval. Mr. Yuen stated what the <br /> public really needs to know is still included later within the subdivision process. The amendment <br /> basically allows applicant to defer construction drawings to a future date. Mr. Yuen concluded at the <br /> present time, there are a whole group of applications missing information that would be at risk. <br /> Committee Vice Chair Pete Hoffmann expressed concern over elimination of section 23-50 regarding <br /> grades and curves. Vice Chair Hoffmann did not see anything within the Supreme Court decision in <br /> Leslie v. Board of Appeals that would have required the Planning Director to make that particulaz <br /> change. Planning Director Yuen explained that the Department requested the change since "curves" <br /> appeaz to be a function of speed and that, from an engineer's perspective, is not sound engineering <br /> practice. <br /> Council Vice Chair Virginia Isbell stated that based on public concerns, the proposed amendments <br /> looked pretty extensive to be referred to as a "tidy-up" and that she believes more information and <br /> communication is needed early on. <br /> PC REPORT NO. 62 <br /> <br />