2018-04-12 Hearing Transcript - Hamakua CDP

Home

to before the CDP because the Wailea-Hakalau community had started a planning process in 2008 and came up with vision statements. Speaking of the controversies, you know, the Steering Committee helped work through the sticky issues by bringing in additional facts and studying the issues, and that fact bases really helped the community move along. The recommended plan does take into account all of the research that was done and accurately reflects the community input. We've learned something from each other as, you know, residents along the Hamakua Coast, and among those things that we've learned is we realized that we've got to work together. I talked to my friends in Honoka`a about, gee, you know, we should work on signage, we should work together to foster some of, some of the goals in the community development plan, and those connections, I think, will be helpful for the entire district. We realize that we have to work together and actively protect the culture, the lifestyle, the environment, the historic sites, and our scenic views, and help support development that takes into account these other needs. The plan not only reflects our community feedback, it's our tool for moving forward. So, I thank you for listening to me and recommend that—move on it! Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you. Mr. Longacre. LONGACRE: Hello, my name is Dave Longacre. I'm also from Hakalau, and I'm a farmer and a forester up there. I'll dive directly into some specific sections of the CDP that trouble me. CDP Section 4.5 Preserve Scenic Areas and Viewsheds contains language that in my opinion kind of throws agriculture a little bit under the bus, and it sets a stage for unintended consequences and land disputes that pit farmers against the residential land users who move into these ag lands. Paragraph 4.5.4 calls for viewshed regulations which I feel opens the door for every view demanding landowner to cause harm to the adjacent farmer or forester whose windbreaks or trees block the view. The vagueness of the term "windsheds" in my humble opinion is going to be glommed onto by every residential landowner who bought ag-zoned land in order to demand that his viewshed take priority over the land uses of the farmer or the forester in front of him. I think this requirement should be eliminated since it will be a classic example of unintended consequences. Next, Paragraph 4.5.6 is a Community Action item. This calls for having the community "educate" residents on alternatives to tall vegetative windbreaks. This is inappropriate. Really? People with view estates are going to tell me, a farmer, how I should protect my crops? Please. Drop this paragraph. Certainly, neighbors should discuss areas of conflict, but it's incumbent upon homeowners and prospective buyers of ag land to do their due diligence. Their failure to do so shouldn't be rewarded in the CDP. The CDP repeatedly stresses protection of agriculture, but the paragraphs I cited directly conflict with other parts of the CDP that support ag. In fact, much of the EXHIBIT A 10