2003-12-04 TCLIFTO120403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

notwithstanding that, the, you are still dealing with the same owners. And, so, the Applicant and the landowner of the makai side did submit a letter to the Planning Director, and I do have copies, which essentially stated that there would be like an interim coastal access management program for the makai property. And the way that the makai area would be managed would be generally similar to the way that the Kohanaiki property has currently been managed in terms of access use, maintenance responsibility, who foots the bills, so on and so forth. And thereÓs also discussion relative to the possible installation of a gate, provided that thereÓll be, you know, community approval, you know, so that thereÓll be more control, you know, at the mauka end and having people then get access on the, to the NELHA entrance, you know, for more control purposes. ThereÓs discussion along those lines, too. It was recently sent to the Director, I believe, like within the last 10 days I think, Chris, yeah? I do have a copy of that, but this is regardless of whatever happens in the mauka side. There is a generalized commitment in how the makai coastal property will be managed, at least during the interim. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:So those discussions focused on the makai portion below the Kaahumanu Highway, not the portion closest to the Kaahumanu Highway? FUKE:Correct. Yeah. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, hearing no further questions, there are three individuals who have signed up to testify. I would like to call upon them. Irving Kawashima, Karen Eoff and Maile David, please come forward? Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GALDONES:Could you speak into the mike and please state your nam residence address. We shall begin with, maÓam, you on the end o DAVID:Aloha and good morning. My name is Maile David. My address is 78-6894 Mamalahoa Highway, Holualoa, Hawaii. My testimony th basically what I see of this application, the process, and how the SMA law requires, among other things, satisfaction of the 10 objectives and the 10 policies of Chapter 205. Potential impacts must be identified upfront to make sure that these impacts are adequately addressed in this process. My concerns are the jeep trail, the mauka-makai access, and the 1847 Mamalahoa Trail. The application recommendation provides that except for the jeep trail, the 1847 Mamalahoa Trail shall not be breached without State approval. My question is, has the proposed breach approval been obtained from the 17