2008-08-22 TNKOHALA CDP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Missing is landowners; and when I brought that up I was told that the community is landowners. Now I don’t think I have to tell the Commission that the status of a landowner on whose property there is something someone has determined to be culturally significant is “clearly distinguishable from that of the general public,” which is the community. That’s your own rules for standing in contested cases. Where the public access embrace the landowners and value their input, the landowners are more or less ignored here. And I think they would be a great resource for cultural -. Who knows the land better than the one that owns it? But I’m afraid that it’s relegated to experts to the exclusion of private property owners. Another, I have two more. If you go back to Section 4.2.6 on page 41, please excuse me, I may have my page numbers, 4.2.6, yes, yes, Strategy 2.6. This is back in the public access section. It calls to implement a long-range plan for public access, opening of public accesses. If you look at the map on my page 50, it shows some trails, different color coding. And then having found the map, if you turn please to page 51, on pages 51 and 52 and 53, there is a whole list of desired long-term private property that’s earmarked for public access. Number 1, again, public access is encourage working with landowners but my problem is that you as Commissioners when you have to vote in adopting this you read the text and the list of trails and you can’t tell where they are. You don’t know, the map is not tied into the list of trails. My concern is that if, and maybe the Director could help me, once this is adopted by ordinance whether it has conditions that should be followed or shall be followed, whatever those are, are these not disclosable items by realtors? Do you not have to disclose if you’re going to sell a piece of property that it’s included, impacted by reference in this Community Development Plan? Isn’t that one of the strong items that comes with what you folks are doing here with an ordinance? That’s just a concern I have that if you can’t locate it how do you disclose it but yet a buyer should have known that public access was going to come through their property? I think it creates a whole lot of chaos. And my last one is the environment and cultural map on page 24. First, this map was going to, it was going to be in the Plan, and it wasn’t, now it is. My topic is designating things on private property without input and consent of the property owner. That’s what I’m trying to talk to you folks about today. And if you would look please at the map on page 25, it designates the Kohala field system and it classifies it as high density of cultural sites. And as you read through it it’s basically a, most likely for a preservation mode of the Kohala Field System, most of that land is, I believe, having lived right there, owned by Parker Ranch. And Parker Ranch as you all know is essentially ownership in years to the beneficiaries who are Parker School, Hawaii Community Foundation, the Hospital and HPA. And I don’t think Parker Ranch has agreed to this classification and it bothers me. You’ll see some of this in the South Kohala Plan too where things are categorized and there’s no concurrence with the landowners, there’s none. So I won’t take any more of your time. I just wanted to point out a few things that have been bothering me as I participated in this process. And I’m a little worried about the action committees being subject to Sunshine Law. I think they will be as the Steering Committees were. But I’m worried about all the subcommittees that this Plan calls for, whether they will be subject to Sunshine Law or not. We had some planning incidence that were, you know, it’s very difficult when a subcommittee meets and nobody knows they meet and they come back with a recommendation that -, you know. So, anyway, just sharing my concerns with you. I know a lot of work has been done here; and thank you for your time. EXHIBIT D 6