HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0018.006 1998-2000 1~a
•,4
Stephen K. Yamashiro • t Richard Wurdeman
IrlayOr Corporation Coxnul
i'• t~
ei'Mx
C~Cnnnf~r >a~ ~~f~ttii
OFFICE OF THE COItlPORATION COUNSEL
101 Aupun{ Street, Bulte 325 • Hilo, Hatwi'i 96720.4262 • (808) 961$211 • Faz (8081 961•S(r~2 ~
On 3
May 24, 1999 Z O ~
~z rn fTi
(1
° m
_ ~ ~
Dm Tr;
Councilman Dominic Yagong ~ ~ L;
Chairman, Committee on Public Works & Pazks ro
Hawaii County Council ~
25 Aupuni Stteet
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Councilman Yagong:
Re: Chapter 10 Amendments
We have reviewed the changes requested by the Kona Soil and Water Conservation
District and make the following comments.
Suggestion 1 states that conservation plans shall not be excluded from the permit
requirements of Chapter 10. It is our opinion that such a provision is in direct contradiction to
Section 180C-2(b)(4), HRS, which states: "The ordinance for erosion and sediment control shall
include but not be limited to the following:... (4) Include a provision whereby standazds shall be
deemed met if it can be shown that the land is being managed in accordance with soil
conservation practices acceptable to the applicable soil and water conservation district directors,
and that a comprehensive conservation program is being actively pursued." The statutory
language specifically states that standazds aze met if the plot is managed in accordance with a soil
conservation program. The very reasons that aze complained of by Kona Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, as concerns like increased liability and increased workload, aze the very
same problems that the Department of Public Works would face with the adoption of such a
provision.
Suggestion 2 is based on the hope that modifications to a plan would require a licensed
engineer to review the plans. While this may be a good suggestion, it is our opinion that if this is
what the soil and water conservation districts want, then they should change their own guidelines
to take caze of these concerns. Soil and Water Conservation Districts should have a
comprehensive plan for a whole azea, rather than individual lots, which is what you have with a
grading permit. It is much better to look at grading/drainage improvements with respect to
fa7e.a~. N~ ~ $ .006_
ilfte I3e.,,,,,, l~CC EI~O
Ad. 4b~.~w
Itstr, D,ra MAY
Councilman Dominic Yagong
Page -2-
May 24, 1999
overall drainage rather than individual lots. We fail to see what improvements the suggested
language would provide over the current language.
With respect to suggestions 3, 4, 5 & 6, we have no opinion and these changes can be
made.
Suggestion 7, suggests the removal of "underground" to broaden the powers of the chief
engineer. However it is our opinion that the exact opposite will take place. The inclusion of
"underground" specifically allows the chief engineer to take action for underground drainage,
which would be questioned if that word were removed. It is our opinion that subsections (a) and
(b) adequately address the chief engineer's authority with regard to surface water drainage.
Sincerely,
RICHARD D. WURDEMAN
Corporation Counsel
By
D TAKASE
Deputy Corporation Counsel
GT:de
a: \dpwUconasoillh.wpd