|
LUCE: Mike Luce, Box 1299, Kapaau. It’s good to see you again. We
<br />met I believe it was at the Marriott hearing on the Kohala Community Development Plan.
<br />th
<br />I’ve asked staff to just pass out a testimony I submitted to the Steering Committee on 19
<br />March of this year. It basically suggested some policy language whereby the Steering
<br />Committee might adopt consideration of landowners rights and property values as a
<br />policy in the North Kohala Committee Development Plan. The Steering Committee
<br />should be praised for all the work it has done, as did Allen Salavea and staff. An
<br />enormous amount of work was done in a very short period of time. The Steering
<br />Committee feels that they have acknowledged the preservation of property owners rights
<br />and land values within the document itself as a whole, even though they didn’t give a
<br />Section 3.3 proposed key policy to it.
<br />I just, the reason I passed this out today is I kind of wondered if you folks ever saw this.
<br />And the reason I ask you that is I can’t find in the public file any correspondence, or
<br />testimony, or anything submitted by the public to the Steering Committee, or by the
<br />Steering Committee to the Steering Committee, or by the Steering Committee back to the
<br />public. I went over to the file to look for the recently adopted language, I couldn’t find it.
<br />There was a letter from Surety at the last meeting, I couldn’t find it. I can’t find any
<br />minutes of previous Planning Commission meetings on this CDP Plan. And I’m, this is
<br />why I passed this out. There’s a lot of good testimony that went in. And I listened to
<br />your previous agenda item, and you were all very concerned about letters that were
<br />received and getting them filed, and being available and in the public file; and this is
<br />called the Sunshine Law. And I want to go on record, and that’s why I’m here today, just
<br />expressing my concern that this process because it was rushed, not because of malicious
<br />intent on anybody’s part, the public record is grossly inadequate.
<br />Continuing on two things I’d like to see changed in the current draft CDP, one has to do
<br />with the Cultural Section 4.1.7 that you mentioned earlier, sir. On page 47, it begins, I
<br />believe, let’s see, I’ve got to make sure, excuse me, 4.1.7 is page 37, I do believe. All
<br />that I’d like to see added to 4.1.7, I don’t think it’s a substantive change, is just would
<br />you please include the landowners, in consultation with the landowners. And it’s in all
<br />the public access action steps. And I’m going to look up my own doc here, Page 37.
<br />4.1.7, “Action Steps, WHAT needs to be done - All steps should be done in consultation
<br />with the community, scientists, natural resource managers, and cultural experts.” What
<br />happened to the landowners? Wouldn’t it be nice to get their input, too, affected
<br />landowners? The Public Access Section of this CDP Plan has consultation with
<br />landowners in determining public access. I think the landowners should be consulted if
<br />something is going to be earmarked as a cultural, culturally relevant site and have a
<br />buffer around it. I think you need -. Anyway, that’s Change No. 1, small, just include
<br />“landowners” please.
<br />Another reason I’m concerned on this point is that as just was stated the question came to
<br />Fern, how, you know, who’s going to determine these things? The number two answer is
<br />- I don’t know if you picked up on it, the question was asked Fern, who we worked
<br />closely together on this, there’s no animosity or anything - it’s just that Fern’s answer
<br />was that’s the subcommittees of the action committees. Then someone else said you
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />5
<br />
<br />
|