The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPL-REZ-2022-000017 E. DUNN TESTIMONY 11.14.2022Araujo, Jaclyn From: Elizabeth Dunn <elizabeth.dunn135@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 2:38 PM To: LPCtestimony Subject: Item #2 Testimony on PL-REZ-2022-000017 for Shawn Maile Nakoa, Esq. Attachments: 111422 Response Letter for 77-6632 A Kuakini.pdf Aloha LPC Planning Staff: Attached is my comment letter on 77-6632 A Kuakini Highway. Thanks very much for getting this letter to the LPC, and other interested parties. Mahalo. Elizabeth Dunn COMMENTS ON ITEM #2 REZONING AT 77-6632 A KUAKINI HIGHWAY, PL REZ-2022-000017 Aloha and Good Morning to the Chair and Members of the Leeward Planning Commission, staff, and audience members. =ceived a mailed notice about the oroposed rezonina at 77-6632 A Kuakini Highway, and am submitting the following comments about PL-REZ-2022-000017, a proposal to rezone a 5.29 parcel from A-5a (Agricultural, five acres per lot) to FA-1 a (Family Agricultural, one acre per lot), TMK 7-7-008:062. SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION I support the staff recommendation to restrict vehicular access to/from Kuakini. This state highway is too important of a vehicular roadway to allow access to or from this highly traveled roadway from any lot that may be created with this rezoning and related subdivision. 2. It's equally important that this project is required to connect to the sewer system, and not having septic systems for these potential lots. ISSUES OF CONCERN 3. 1'd ask that the existing easement that runs through the existing parcel be significantly reduced. If the Planning Department will not allow access to and from Kuakini Highway, as it is a state highway, there is no reason to retain the full width and shape of this easement. Reduction of the easement will also prevent a future applicant/developer to pursue using this easement for access to undeveloped land to the west/makai of the site. I'd ask that the Planning Department research Subdivision 5535, which is credited with the creation of this easement, and coordinate the reduction of the easement only for access to the proposed three lots from Pomaika'i Street upon the recordation of the Final Map (if this rezoning is approved by the County Council). Each resulting parcel would have that square footage of the former easement area added to the square footage of their lot. 4. No updated Cultural Survey, and related reports, have been prepared for this proposal. The proposal relies on an Archeological Report report from 1987, and takes into account a larger area of 32 acres and three parcels that were surveyed for potential archeological artifacts. Figure 3 (see Attachment 1) of this report illustrates that the majority of potential sites are on the parcels to the south and west of the subject property. Sites 27 - 29 in this report have been highlighted (by the applicant/proponent and for what purpose?); these sites are not near the proposed access point from Pomaika'i Street. The worksheet for the Court Order, Page 88 of the Planning Department's Background Report, (see Attachment 2) shows that an "approximate location of potential archeological 1 of 6 sites" on the largest proposed parcel; this potential archeological site straddles the easement area, and the largest proposed parcel, and is just south of the proposed access from Pomaika'i Street. There are three separate letters (dated 2/25/2022, 8/5/2022, and 10/31/2022) discussing the request by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) to prepare an Archeological Inventory Survey (AIS). In its February 2022 letter, SHPD states that the AIS does not meet the standards for this document as identified in the Hawaii Administrative Record (HAR) Section 13-267. In this letter, SHPD asks for a field investigation (FI) to be prepared and reviewed by SHPD. In the August 5, 2022 letter from SHPD, it discusses the FI it received and reviewed; the FI also indicates that an AIS is required. There is language in this letter that states that SHPD does not have, "sufficient information to determine the potential of the proposed project to impact historic properties" pursuant to HAR 13-284_ It's in the October 31, 2022 letter from SHPD to the County of Hawaii that the AIS would not be required now at the entitlement phase, and would be required at the building permit phase of the process. Here's direct quote from the Findings section of this October 31, 2022 letter: "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". Based on the information in these letters, and this discussion with SHPD, it seems contrary to the process that both the state and County of Hawaii Planning Department have routinely used to not require the AIS now. Pushing out the AIS until the building permit phase also denies the public and interested parties to review this report. If the AIS is allowed to be conducted later, how can the public review this report? How can the public review the Field Investigation (FI) that has been prepared and submitted to SHPD in May 2022? Any updated cultural survey and/or archeological report prepared to specifically address this potential site of archeological sites should also address: 1) access from Pomaika'i Street to the site and proximity to the potential archeological sites which are shown on Figure 3 of the 1987 Archeological Report that is included in the Background Report for this proposal; 2) what impact might occur from the installation of water meters for the potential lots; 3) the additional "necessary water improvements" from the Department of Water Supply; and 4) an exhibit that shows the possible locations of home sites for all three lots. This level of review would add to the discussion of this proposal, and is the type of work that should be performed for ALL development proposals that would intend to build on lands with known (and to be known) cultural artifacts. Lastly, there are highlighted areas (by the applicant/proponent?) on page 214 of the background report for the 1987 Archeological Survey; these two phrases - "Preservation of the agricultural features is therefore not recommended", and 2 of 6 `'None the above sites is (sic) recommended for preservation and is considered for its research potential alone" - are further examples of a declarative statement without any current information to support such statements. While the applicant/proponent is pointing out existing lanquaoe. the habit of making statements without supporting documents is nothing more than stating an opinion, and not fact; this should not be supported or endorsed by the County of Hawaii in documents that are submitted for land use entitlement requests. 5. This proposal should go before the Cultural Resources Commission in order to have this hearing body review this proposal. Development applications that are proposed on lands where cultural and archeological artifacts exist should go before this Commission as a standing and routine review of development proposals. 6. Damage of existing graves due to "bulldozing" in 2018. Why do we continue to read of damage to properties where development is proposed, and before any development proposal is heard by the elected or appointed hearing bodies? If an activity like grubbing or minor grading is required on a site, the Planning or Public Works Department should be requiring a permit for this work, and conducting a site visit to ensure the appropriate level and type of work occurs. This kind of site destruction, where cultural artifacts exist, continues to indicate that the County should create a Code Enforcement program so concerned citizens can report unpermitted site work. Additionally, this "hands off" approach to destruction of archeological artifacts of the County seems to imply this loss of cultural artifacts, through site destruction, is acceptable. This tone deaf attitude would not be tolerated by Native American tribes on the mainland, and it shouldn't be tolerated here. We know this isn't the only site where this has happened (the Naniloa site, and Kahului'u area, for example). 7. Page 3 of the background report indicates that no floral or faunal surveys were prepared, and this statement in #17 on Page 3 of this report does not feel appropriate or neutral for this proposal: "the applicant does not believe (emphasis added) that any rare or endangered flora or faunal resources are likely to be found on the property due to the previous development on the property, and the suburban nature of the surrounding area". This is simply speculation on the part of the applicant of this proposal. The Hawaiian Hawk (lb), Hawaiian Owl (Pueo), and Hawaiian Hoary Bat have all been observed hunting on and around this property and the surrounding areas. Without a survey to independently and conclusively determine these species are or are not living in the area, it is unprofessional to not have this kind of survey prepared for this proposal. & A Special Management Application, and at the major level, is needed now, not later, and after any public hearing. Not requiring the SMA application now, and having this application be at the minor level (should this proposal be approved by the County Council) is completely opposite of the practice of the Planning Department. It also feels like this is preferential treatment of this application. 3 of 6 Tea >cninc -nv mni•,ision uoae wnere the riannina Department/Director has the authority to reduce the type of SMA application and how it is processed. 9. There's no sign at the site, either from Pomaikai Street (see Attachment 3), or Kuakini Highway. Why? And how did this oversight happen? 3U. lne araae or the laraer DroDosed Darcei or z+ acres is Steep from Pomaika"I Street and mauka to Kuakini Highway (see Attachment 3). It would be helpful to know of the grade of the existing parcel, for the proposed three parcels, and what Code - County or State - which clearly states the maximum grade for access to this site for emergency and service (garbage, utility) vehicles. . Please remove the ianauaae about an extension for this Droposai. As both Planning Commissions heard Bill 194 (which, if approved by the Council, takes back the authority of the Council for this decision), and recommend its intent and language for approval by the Council, it is disingenuous to continue to include this language in this, and future, planning recommendation reports. i understand and aDDreciate that this rezone and subdivision reauest is different from many other proposals the Leeward Planning Commission reviews. The parcel is owned by four people - one of whom has passed away; there is a Court Order to facilitate (not require) this proposal. However. there still are reauirements. industry standards. and Planning practices that should be adhered to, whether this is a sophisticated developer or a family dealing with subdividing land. The process is the process, and should be applied to all development proponents. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal in my neighborhood. Elizabeth Dunn 4of6 ig nJ N H3 ! I S ° q ka 'r y 4 CL -x pY J 1 wiy lag �B t v - � Q-1 n a E a E� i� W V 1' .. .......... - -Tayyy VIM W O - 14� Z# Y 01 ATTACHMENT 3 Site of Development Proposal from Pomaika'i Street Photo taken November 14, 2022 5 of 6 Rhoto of Proposed Parcel 3, 2+1- acre parcel Photo taken February 24, 2022 6 of 6