Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />County presently owns the road and that the State will have to assume title to the road before the <br />project can proceed. Mr. Schulze suggested that the Committee should urge the County to retain <br />control over the road until a complete assessment of the impact of the proposal on South Kohala <br />District can be made. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schulze then discussed the State plan to charge non-residents for access to Hapuna <br />Beach State Park. He said that the State contemplates contracting with a private party which would <br />manage parking at the Park by issuing parking permits that are to be displayed on vehicles in the <br />Park. This is to be a one year pilot program and then the State will analyze the results and make <br />such modifications as it deems desirable for purposes of enacting a five year program. He added <br />that there is no plan to install a gate on Old Puako Road until the one year pilot program is <br />completed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schulze expressed the opinion that the use of a gate limiting access to Old Puako Road <br />is an unnecessarily extreme approach to resolving the issues that exist, such as the dumping of <br />waste and unlawful camping. He added that there is an agency in place already having <br />responsibility for dealing with unlawful camping at the location and stated that the gating of Old <br />Puako Road will unreasonably prevent surfers and fishermen from accessing the area lawfully. <br />Although the South Kohala CDP calls for the use of a gate to limit access to the area, Mr. Schulze <br />was of the opinion that the gate was provided for in the CDP in contemplation of a new road and the <br />initiation of super ferry service which would further burden the area, but the new road and the super <br />ferry are not likely to become a reality in the near future. He urged that the County retain control of <br />Old Puako Road until there is better information available concerning other alternatives that might <br />resolve the issues without restricting lawful access to the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hoover then addressed the issue and stated that it is his understanding that the gate will <br />be contracted in the very near future and before completion of the one year program. He added that <br />the inclusion in the CDP of provision for a gate on Old Puako Road reflected significant input from <br />the community and the steering committee and the focus groups that drafted the CDP. Mr. Hoover <br />also indicated that a part of the area accessed through Old Puako Road is in a “no fish” zone and <br />thus access by fishermen is not an issue in that regard. Mr. Hoover also stated that the community in <br />Puako clearly supports the installation of a gate to limit access, as evidenced by correspondence <br />sent to the County Mayor by community representatives in July 2012. He said it is his <br />understanding that there will be community meetings to decide on how the logistics would work, <br />such as whether a ticket booth for access would be utilized. He added that he understood that the <br />State has requested transfer of Old Puako Road from the County and that he believed the County <br />intended to proceed with the transfer, contrary to what Mr. Schulze has been informed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Dunlap agreed to find out whether the County was proceeding with the transfer to the <br />State of title to Old Puako Road and would report to the Committee concerning that point at the <br />next meeting. <br /> <br /> The Committee then discussed the request that had been sent to the Office of Corporation <br />Counsel for an opinion regarding certain aspects of the operations of the Committee. A copy of the <br />request had previously been sent to all Committee members. Mr. Schulze moved that the <br />Committee ratify and authorize the request and adopt it as an action of the Committee. The motion <br />was seconded by Ms. Inaba and discussion followed. Mr. Hoover expressed his dissatisfaction with <br />the manner in which the affairs of the Committee have been administered by the Planning <br />Department. Ms. Tanimoto indicated that she did not want the result of the request to limit the <br />ability of the Committee to achieve its goals in the future. The question was then called and the <br />motion was unanimously approved. <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />