2021-07-15 Leeward Exh D (Amend SMA 286)

Home

VITOUSEK: Right. So, the trail is a linear historic property, and we've got a circle of a small area there. Is that including the entire portion of the trail? Looks to be much bigger on the map. KAY: Sure. It was a trail segment, at least according to the AIS in 1980, and the AIS is the subsequent studies done after that were not able to identify on the ground any physical remnants of the trail section because of bulldozing of the property. But my understanding is, from Na Ala Hele's request or information, the underlying land area is still that kind of unencumbered state land. And so that was my understanding in reading through the record and the indications from the AIS, as well as SHPD's responses VITOUSEK: Got you. Looking at the Hammatt and Folk 1980 site location map, it's hard to, there's so many lines on there, it's hard to figure out what is the parcel that we are looking at. KAY: Yeah. VITOUSEK: But it appears as thoughI mean, hard to say, it's either a small section or a larger section. But in any case, you know, I'm—have you made any efforts to figure out whether or not this is or isn't state land? KAY: Is that a question for the department? VITOUSEK: The applicant, yep. FUSE: I think, you know, Mr. Chair, to answer your question, the so-called oblong circle is kind of like the generous designation of where the trail could be, the remnants of the trail could be, you know. Obviously, the archeologist could not find it on the ground, but based on this condition that the staff is proposing and the applicant has accepted, it will be then they are going to have to make a concerted effort to at some point in time delineate something, you know, on that area and have it described a metes and bounds, you know, in metes and bounds. And if in the process it turns out that they have to secure its acquisition or easement from the state, then that will have to be done. VITOUSEK: So what I'm saying is that I think it—you know, that is fine, the conditions are fine—what I'm saying is that the determination that this is state property is not complete yet. Na Ala Hele is saying its ours, but they don't have the legal authority to determine property right, right? Maybe it, maybe there is no indication that it is in fact Highway's Act and subject to taxes and government and actually is a property, rather than just being a trail alignment that was privately utilized in historic times. So there are factors that are, go above and beyond Na Ala Hele's claim that this is state property, and I was just wondering if the applicant had ever researched and done any work to determine within a court that this is state land or it isn't state land. FUKE: I don't believe the applicant, or the archaeologist, has taken it to that level. I kind of like suggest that if that is an issue, you know, the applicant would welcome any amended condition to that effect. 22 EXHIBIT D