2009-09-04 TPD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DOMINGO: And then the County was sued because of that action, was taken to Court. What was the CourtÓs rationale in ordering the County to initiate steps to bring that to the original designation of Open? What was the CourtÓs rationale? COTTLE: I donÓt believe it was the Court that ordered it. It was a settlement agreement; and part of the settlement agreement was for the Planning Director to initiate an amendment back to the 2005 layout, because it was felt that the Director at that time in 2006 when the Director initiated that interim amendment that the cultural and historic resources of th property and the nearby National Park were not considered when that change was made. Did that answer your question? DOMINGO: Yes. Thanks. WOODWARD: Any further questions? Okay. We do have four people from the public signed up to testify. If they could come up and have a seat, Kevin Moore, Geri Bell, Isaac Harp and Kaliko Chun. Okay, if I could swear you all in first. If youÓll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. I do. WOODWARD: Okay, very good. I would like to ask you keep your te minutes. And I know a lot of you have submitted volumes of thin read your testimony, just summarize for us. So, again, and please try to hold it down to five minutes. First thing, if youÓll give us your name and address then weÓll begin. Mr. Moore, you signed up first so -. MOORE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, counsel. My name is Kevin Moore. IÓm the District Land Agent for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Land Division based here in Hilo. The address of our office is 75 Aupuni Street, thatÓs Room 204 here in Hilo. And the DLNR basically wanted me to come here today to make sure that the ChairpersonÓs letters have been received; and I understand now that they have been, and especially the September 2, 2009 letter. And those letters state the ChairpersonÓs objections to the General Plan Amendment. The gist of the objection is that, you know, the amendment appears to be in response to a law suit to which the State was not a party. It was a law suit against the County. The State did not participate in the settlement negotiations or the proceedings. So the CountyÓs proposed action seems to place the burden of the amendment solely on DLNR without any consideration of DLNRÓs interests. Apart from that and despite the impact of the proposed action falling squarely on DLNR no notice of todayÓs hearing or last weekÓs hearing before the Leeward Planning Commission was sent to DLNR, either locally or through our central office in Honolulu. DLNR only learned of the hearings after receiving a letter from the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation. So DLNR objects to this process to the extent that the County fails to provide notice of proceedings directly to the State. ThatÓs the extent of my testimony. WOODWARD: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? 4 EXHIBIT B