HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0050.030 2022-2024 P/Counci
bill 12.
COMH..x0
From: janet Matlock
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 5:55 PM
To: Kimball, Heather; Kagiwada, Jennifer; Lee Loy, Sue; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; K lealii k--
.
I. Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.;Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; vans
Cynthia F.W.; Strance, Elizabeth; Council Testimony N _c
Subject: Precedent concerns on Bill 12, PL-REZ-2022-017 ""'
Aloha Chairwoman Kimball, Council Members, and Corporation Counsel Strance,
00 We appreciate this opportunity to voice concerns regarding the potential precedents that may be set by the passage of Bill
12, (PL-REZ-2022-017).
Unfortunately and painfully, opposition to this Bill has been painted as an attempt to keep lineal descendants off of their
land. This is not the case.
There are concerns for the County regarding setting precedent. There may be unintended consequences of giving
exemptions to one landowner, without carefully and specifically outlining how other owners of other parcels (regardless of
ancestry)will not be eligible for and_entitled to similar privileges.
These concerns regarding precedent include (but are not limited to):
• deferring SHPD/SMA requirements, including archeological survey and mapping of prior habituation and pre-
and post-contact agricultural use (1),
• dividing parcels in a subdivision in the SMA to a size where bulldozing is easily done without grubbing and
grading permits. Once subdivided, only"minor" SMA approval for each divided parcel would be required. (2)
• avoiding legally required wastewater connection in favor of cheaper and more environmentally harmful septic
systems, based on applicant's stated financial hardship (3)
• allowing a Court's "encouragement"for the division of ownership to be characterized as a Court's"order"to the
County by the applicant's representative (4),
• permitting access from a state highway, contradicting the State's discouragement of this access due to safety and
other considerations (5).
With all due respect to this family trying to settle financial and legal differences among themselves,and with great empathy to those
family members wanting to live on the land of their childhood and ancestors,we strongly urge the Council to consider the potential
long-term consequences of approving this particular subdivision without guardrails to codify that this is a one-time exemption,
specific to this parcel consideration.
Additionally,please insert specific language to ensure that when the families do develop their parcels,safeguards are in place with
all County departments that ensure that appropriate AIS and other requirements are maintained,especially should any of the
subdivided lot owners sell to others who might have little to no appreciation or concern for the history and mana contained in this
ahupua'a and surrounding area.
Mahalo for your time and consideration,
janet and Peter Matlock
Kailua Kona
All quotations are from the PD BACKGROUND REPORT (PL-REZ-2022-017).
•
(1) Multiple letters were exchanged with SHPD, with the necessity of updated surveys being repeatedly requested by
SHPD on February 25, 2022 and August 5, 2022. The August 5, 2022 letter noted that some documentation submitted
"did not include the current project area."
Comm. No. `' .'��
1 Ref.To: I Lo-un ti`
Ref. Dote FEB 2 2 202 .
In SHPD's letter of October 31, 2022, the AIS request was changed, noting, "Subsequently, during a teleconference
meeting conducted on September 22,2022, (Susan Lebo[SHPDJ, Sean Naleimaile(SHPD],Jeff Darrow(County of Hawaii
Planning Department],Shawn Nakoa[Rush Moore, LLP], and Jeanie Aver!!!Clement[landowner])it was determined that
the requested AIS would be conducted during subsequent permitting process and not as a requirement for the current
rezone application. SHPD also conducted a brief field inspection to a portion of the project area on October 28, 2022.
During the field inspection, remnants of State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) Site#50-10-37-25757(complex)
Features 28(terrace) and 29 (platform) were Observed.Additionally, SHPD personnel observed potential terraces and
a platform that were not previously identified. Thus, it is likely that the current project parcel may contain more
sites/features that have yet to be identified."
"SHPD requests the opportunity to review future permits for this subject parcel which current data indicates potential
exists for development activities to adversely affect historic properties, including but not limited to portions of Site
#50-10-37-25757 as well as the potential terraces and platform features observed during SHPD's site visit." (emphasis
added)
(2)Application Page 16, F: "As noted earlier, other permits would still be required. First, a Special Management Area
Use Permit(minor) would have to be granted and will be submitted following this application. Other permits would be of
the "ministerial"variety, such as, Building Permits, etc." (emphasis added)
(3) Page 3 of Exhibit A, Findings of Fact: "3. Plaintiff has requested that this Court order the subdivision of the Property
into three parcels and Plaintiff has stated her willingness and capability to advance the costs of the subdivision."
Page 8 Exhibit A: "The subdivision costs for the Property will be advanced by Plaintiff, subject to ultimate allocation by the
Court consistent with the parties'fractional interests, pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. §668- 17, whereupon the costs and fees
incurred by the parties in this matter will be determined by further motion before this Court. Reimbursement for the costs
advanced by Plaintiff to pursue the subdivision shall be secured by the Property."
(4) Page 8,#7 Exhibit A: "The County of Hawaii Planning Department, Department of Public Works and all other relevant
governmental agencies are encouraged to facilitate the Commissioner's efforts to subdivide the Property in the manner
set forth in this Order." (emphasis added)
(5) Application page 23, VII.A.: "Access to the project would be from Pomaika'i Street. ... Secondary access to the
property would be from Kuakini Highway approximately 0.25-miles from its intersection with Kamehameha IIi Road."
State of Hawaii Dept. of Transportation letter dated March 24, 2022, "Every driveway represents potential conflict points
between motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.An increased number of these conflict points and reduced distance
between them compromise the safety performance of the roadway. The project's proposed agricultural/residential use is
unlikely to generate traffic thatwould impact traffic conditions;however, State Route 11 is a principal arterial roadway
intended for through traffic, and new driveways introduce conflict points. Consider instead to only access the parcels
directly from Pomaikai Street"(emphasis added)
2