City followed law in issuing Hao Street development permit

The proposal by a private landowner to build two single-family homes on a portion of a 9.53-acre site on Hao Street in Aina Haina has generated some controversy in the neighborhood. It has also led to misinformation and many rumors being circulated.

We would like to clarify many of these misstatements.

In 1999, the city’s capital improvement budget included $5 million to purchase 94.7 acres of undeveloped land at the end of Hao Street. The appropriation was in response to the residents’ opposition to a plan to build a cemetery on the land.

In July 2000, the city acquired the 85.2-acre portion that was zoned preservation, but did not buy the remaining 9.53 acres that were — and still are — zoned for residential use. The owner of the smaller parcel retained the right to build up to eight single-family homes on the land. By purchasing the larger parcel, however, the city ensured that no large-scale development could be built.

In January 2013, the city Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) issued building and grading permits for two homes on a 14,540-square-foot portion of the 9.53-acre residential parcel. We did not approve a permit to develop the entire lot.

Building and grading permits are ministerial, meaning the city cannot lawfully deny them if the plans meet applicable codes. Residents may object to new homes being built in their neighborhood, but the owner is allowed by right to do so under the law.

For example, assume your lifetime dream is to build a family home. You then purchase a property zoned for residential use; however, your neighbors object and demand that the city prevent you from building on this property after you have expended money, time and resources. By law, we must treat every property owner equally and cannot deny one’s rights, while allowing the same rights to others.

A recent letter to the editor ("Project raises many questions," Star-Advertiser, Feb. 20) accused DPP of denying requests for information until after the permits were approved. Unlike discretionary permits, where public input is openly sought from the beginning, building and grading permit applications are ministerial and there is no requirement of prior public notification.

Under the Uniform Information Practices Act and DPP’s rules, the public is entitled to all department documents and records, excluding those that would frustrate a legitimate function of government. Those excluded documents include all ministerial application submittals under current review, such as plans and supporting engineering studies.

Completed permits, application forms, historical documents and records associated with the project, however, are immediately available to the public.

The concerns over the stability of the residentially zoned land where the houses will be built were addressed in separate soil and drainage studies that were conducted by licensed private engineers who determined that the construction would not adversely impact the stability of the area, nor would it change any drainage pattern.

Regarding access to the trail, DPP has informed the developer that the trail cannot be blocked and the owner is not to install a gate and fence that was planned. Any alternative gate and fence design would be subject to review by the city.

Subsequent reports also expressed concerns about the placement of "No trespassing, private property" signs. We understand that while members of the public use the trail for access to the public lands behind the parcel, the subject land is private property and such signs are not disallowed. This issue is being investigated further to confirm the status of easements, trails and property titles.

We understand the concerns of residents near the development, but we can assure them that the health and safety of the public, along with private property rights, are our top priority when we review and approve building permit applications.