Laserfiche WebLink
comes in for an SMA Permit and the CDP says, oh, we really ought to have a public access <br />through that property, well, that’s a guidance to the Planning Commission to put that in the SMA <br />Permit. Or if they come in for a subdivision, which is not done by the Commission it’s done by <br />the Director, that’s a guidance to the Director that the Director, if the other laws permit the <br />Planning Director to attach that to the subdivision. This is the guidance and will of the <br />community that this is where the public access should go. So this is how the Plan functions. <br />I really can’t say too much on what you have to disclose, as I’m not completely familiar with real <br />estate law. I don’t think that the existence of a desired trail on something like a Community <br />Development Plan is something that you have to disclose. I could mention something very <br />similar. The General Plan has a roadway facilities map that shows the alignments, not the <br />alignments but the general alignments of future roads. I would be very surprised if people who <br />own those properties have disclosed that over the years. And, you know, there are many of these <br />alignments, many of these roads have never, of course, been built, but that’s a very comparable <br />kind of situation. And plans like the CDP or like the General Plan have implications for what <br />you can do with your property. I don’t think that it’s typical, for example, for a realtor, I believe <br />they disclose zoning. I don’t believe they typically disclose what is the General Plan LUPAG <br />Map designation of a piece of property even though that’s, you know, it’s something that could <br />affect its value and is something that’s a matter of an ordinance. <br />And then the other question again, the same thing with historic sites. The marking of the historic <br />sites is something that is a red flag if a development comes in that, for example, a rezoning that <br />is on land that has these sites shown. And certainly it alerts the Department, the Planning <br />Commission, the County Council in the future that watch out they’re important historic sites on <br />the property. In itself it doesn’t create a protection for those sites. <br />LUCE: Thank you. <br />WATANABE: Does that answer most of your questions? <br />LUCE: And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time is up. With respect to <br />historic sites what concerns me is sites that are identified now the owners know they’re buyer <br />beware. What this Plan would do apparently would be to increase and add significant sites to <br />existing properties. And whether you, you know, in some cases that’s an asset, in some cases it’s <br />a devaluation. Same with the trail, if there’s a potential for a trail to come through one’s <br />property, and this takes me full circle back to my first comment, that we need to protect the <br />values and rights of landowners, that sometimes a public trail that goes right through a prime <br />building site, if there’s the slightest potential for that to happen, whether it’s -. It sounds like the <br />Director, would your Department look at this long-term list of trails when you get a zoning or <br />subdivision application and pull the long-term list and look at it for an application review? I <br />think probably you would. <br />YUEN: The subdivision yes. A building no. <br />LUCE: Yeah. Okay. Well, anyway, what I’m trying to say is there are potentials <br />in here to devalue property, and that’s not a balance. I don’t think in fairness, I don’t think you <br />EXHIBIT D <br />11 <br /> <br />