HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOR-17-110713, EMAIL FEEDBACK FROM ALBERT NAKAJI & JACK LOCKWOODDomian, Jesse
1517 MPS! ' P^ 90
From: Albert Nakaji <waltz@hawaiiantel.net>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 2:55 PM
To:Planning Internet Mail
Subject: Message For Director Yee
Director Yee,
It was my pleasure to meet you at the meeting held at the Papaikou Community Center on March
17th. Thank you for the opportunity to receive our input and to share your thoughts as well.
I am forwarding you this email from Jack Lockwood, a retired USGS geologist and now consulting
geologist in private practice. He was responding to my question and concern regarding the language
contained within the Hamakua CDP relating to setback for cliffs. While I realize it is already 11:59 before
the adoption of the CDP, I wanted to make one last attempt at making the language more meaningful and
appropriate. I will also be meeting with Council Chair Poindexter to discuss this matter.
As a bit of background, I expressed concern over the language stating that a "licensed engineer" be
required for determining whether a cliff was stable, and further suggested that this leaves open the
possibility of any licensed engineer, including those completely unqualified and in an unrelated field (E.G.,
nuclear engineer, electrical engineer, systems engineers, bio-engineers, chemical engineers, etc), to serve
as the "qualified" person. My concern was met with response from staff saying that they would not be
qualified to determine who might be a qualified licensed engineer, so it was left unspecified. My thinking
was that it is staff's responsibility to determine which qualifications (I.E., what kind of licensed engineer)
was appropriate and necessary. To leave such determination unspecified would allow for too much of a
loop hole" and represents, essentially, dereliction of their duties.
To be clear, this is not meant to be criticism, but a sincere attempt to make this specific section effective
for the intent.
I ask your consideration and appropriate action.
Thank you.
Never tell me "No can", only tell me how can.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
When going through hell, keep going. If you stop, you'll be stuck there"
Some minds are like concrete. Thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
There is an incredible number of people who are especially adept at the impossible. They can tell you a
million and one reason why something cannot, or should not, be done. Then, there are a few who will tell
you how something can possibly be done. Would you prefer to live your life believing only impossibilities,
or to live a life of possibilities?
Albert A. Nakaji 1107 13
27-319 Kaieie Road
Papaikou, HI 96781
Original Message
Subject:Shoreline setbacks
Date:2017-04-03 12:34
From:Jack & Marti Lockwood<halepuhau@twc.com>
To:Albert Nakaji <waltz@hawaiiantel.net>
Cc:esther.imamura@hawaiicounty.gov,bethany.morrison@hawaiicounty.gov
Albert:
Thanks for alerting me to that proposed "Rule 11" change. Here is my reaction to this poorly worded
and ambiguous proposed change about shoreline setbacks-(below) - use as you wish with County
officials.
4.2.4 County Action Policy 19 Amend Planning Department Rule 11 to establish shoreline setbacks for the
Hamakua CDP Planning Area at the earliest stages of the land use planning and development process. The
minimum shoreline setback from the top of cliff shall be either: a) No less than the height of the slope
cliff, or pall) (1:1 horizontal to vertical). In cases where the height of the slope is less than 40 feet, a
minimum 40-foot setback shall apply; or, b) A minimum of 40 feet, plus a safety buffer determined by a
coastal erosion study conducted by a licensed engineer, including a cliff stability analysis and/or a
geological analysis.
First and of most importance: No one has ever defined what "cliff" means - nor where the "top of cliff"
lies. Where there's 200' vertical cliff face (90 degree) with sharp dropoff that point is obvious - but what
about a cliff with a 80 degree slope? 45 degree slope? 20 degree slope? Most "cliff" faces I have seen
with 45 degree slopes or less are inherently stable, and 40' setbacks are more than enough - 20' adequate
for 70 yr time spans envisioned. Trying to relate setbacks to "cliff height" alone is wrong - does that
mean a relatively gentle, stable, vegetated slope with no signs of instability, that begins 300 feet above
sea level should have a 300' setback? Safe setbacks at the 20' State minimum probably OK for that
situation in most cases
Setbacks have to reflect the danger of mass failure of a cliff face - but "not all cliffs are created
equal". Geologic factors affecting stability vary greatly, and must include assessment of evidence for
recent cliff failure or of pre-collapse dangerous erosion.
So far as having slope stability conducted by a "licensed engineer", that is unfortunate. Only
Engineering Geologists" would be the sorts of engineers who might be qualified to make
judgements. Geologists are not "licensed engineers" but with proper experience and geologist license
would be better prepared than engineers for such determinations.
I hope these brief words are of use. I strongly feel that the proposed change to defining setbacks is
inappropriate.
2
Jack
J. P. Lockwood
3