Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-22 TNKOHALA CDP PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 22, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the NORTH KOHALA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANwas called to order at 3:23 p.m. in the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, Alii III Room, 69 275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Lani Bowman ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Takashi Domingo Rene’ Siracusa Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner Deanne Bugado, Planner, Kona Office Allen Salavea, Planner, Kona Office And nine people from the public in attendance. NORTH KOHALA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Review of the draft North Kohala Community Development Plan (CDP) submitted by the North Kohala CDP Steering Committee and its consultants, Townscape, Inc. WATANABE: We are on Agenda Item No. 5. This would be the North Kohala, second read of the North Kohala Community Development Plan. And we have with us today, Mr. Allen Salavea. And, I’m sorry, would you introduce -? SALAVEA: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Carolyn Lancaster from the North Kohala CDP Steering Committee, Carolyn Lancaster. And I can have her, well, you can, you want to swear both of us in? WATANABE: Okay, yeah, I think I better do that, yeah. So would you both raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission meeting? SALAVEA: We do. LANCASTER: Yes. EXHIBIT D 1 WATANABE: Thank you. And so if you’re going to provide testimony, Ms. Lancaster, you would have to state your full name and address before you begin testimony. And I’ll turn it over to you, Mr. Salavea. SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, it’s the second hearing on the North Kohala CDP, Steering Committee meeting. To date there, to my knowledge, have been no new testimony provided to the Planning Commission in regards to this or the CDP. And the only item left over from the previous hearing in North Kohala were the items or the issues brought up by Mr., or Commissioner Rell, and this had to do with two points. One on the agricultural lands and, I’m sorry -. WATANABE: The other one was open lands, I believe. SALAVEA: Yeah, I’m looking at the wrong sheet here, County permits and approvals for North Kohala, and then the other item was the North Kohala CDP enactment of a special land tax. At this time, I conferred with the Planning Director prior to this agenda item and at this time we did receive some language, revised language, from Bruce Tsuchida from Townscape Inc. But at this time the Planning Director would like additional opportunity to review that and, before passing that along to you folks. WATANABE: Oh, okay. So you have some proposed language but you’re not prepared to move that on now, or would you care to present that now? SALAVEA: That is correct. So we’re not prepared -. WATANABE: Oh, yeah, please go ahead then. SALAVEA: No, no, we’re not prepared at this time. WATANABE: Oh, you’re not ready yet. Okay, okay. I believe the third read is on th September 4, so I assume by then you would have something. And it was non-substantive anyway, right? SALAVEA: Right, right. WATANABE: So aside from the two changes, there’s a proposed wording from Mr. Tsuchida that the Director hasn’t yet had a chance to review. And upon determining that it’s th a non-substantive change it’ll more than likely be disclosed at the September 4 meeting? SALAVEA: Or prior to that, as soon as the Director has the opportunity review. WATANABE: Okay. Okay, thank you. Well, fellow Commissioners, do we have any further questions or concerns with regards to the North Kohala Community Development Plan? Yes, Ms. Bowman. EXHIBIT D 2 BOWMAN: Sorry, I just, I really, pardon me. We’re going to go over the testimony that has been provided then today and talk about that? WATANABE: We’re going to have the testifier come up. There’s one testifier that signed up but -. BOWMAN: And the written testimony we’ll talk about? We had some written in our, from Surety. WATANABE: Oh, from Surety. Oh, well, if you’d like to bring that up now I -. BOWMAN: We can bring it up later. But we will have time to discuss that? WATANABE: Yes. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further questions? Well, you’ve got an easy one then. Ms. Lancaster, do you have anything you’d like to add as a member of the Steering Committee? LANCASTER: I’m Carolyn Lancaster. I live at 54-630 Hao Road, Kapaau; and I testified at the first meeting that we had in Kohala. So I was just here to represent the Steering Committee today. Our Chair was unable to attend; so I’m here on behalf of the Steering Committee. And I didn’t have anything to say other than -. WATANABE: Please support it? LANCASTER: Which I said last time. WATANABE: Okay, okay, great. Then since we have no questions for either Mr. Salavea or Ms. Lancaster, then the both of you may be seated, and we will entertain public testimony on this CDP. I have one person signed up from the audience; and that would be Joe Carvalho, oh, so actually the both of you may be seated, yeah. Mr. Carvalho, would you come up, please. Yeah, would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? CARVALHO: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. And would you state your name and address for the record, please. CARVALHO: My name is Joe Carvalho. My address is PO Box 776, Kapaau, 96755. WATANABE: Okay. You may begin your testimony. EXHIBIT D 3 CARVALHO: The reason I’m here is to urge the Commissioners to please adopt our Plan and pass our Plan because I worked as the community liaison that started the process two years ago. Chris Yuen had mandated us to, not mandated, but had us come up with a, the community to get involved in doing their own plans instead of having the government or the County do the plans for us. And gathering the information and providing, looking at all the old plans that Kohala had, I think that this Plan that we have sort of puts in all the ideas and desires of the community. And I really urge you guys to please accept the Plan. Thank you. WATANABE: Is that it? CARVALHO: That’s it. WATANABE: Do we have any questions for Mr. Carvalho? Okay, well, thank you for your testimony. CARVALHO: Okay. Thank you very much. WATANABE: Okay. I believe -. LUCE: Mr. Chairman, could I offer oral testimony? WATANABE: Sure. Would you have a seat, please. LUCE: Thank you. WATANABE: May I swear you in? LUCE: You sure can. WATANABE: Yeah, okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? LUCE: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. Could you state your name, sir, and your address. LUCE: Certainly. My name is Mike Luce. My address is Post Office Box 1299, Kapaau. I was fortunate enough to arrive in Kohala in 1972. I’ve been a landowner there since 1976. I participated to the extent possible for a member of the public in the CDP process. I was a member of the Focus Group. And first and foremost I have to applaud the Steering Committee, the consultant, Allen Salavea, the County. The number of hours that went into this Plan in the short duration allowed the planners was incredible. I only have oral testimony today. It’s hard for me to figure when to come and speak up, whether it’s the first PC meeting, second, third, the Planning Committee, the Council. But I come before you today just to give you some things to think about between now and your third hearing. EXHIBIT D 4 In March of this year I gave written testimony to the Steering Committee, asking that the right of landowners be adopted or recognized and captured in a policy for the Plan, to recognize and preserve the existing rights of landowners. I later modified that written testimony orally to just call for a balance between the needs and desires of the community and the rights of private property owners. The Steering Committee I think feels that the balance is achieved as a whole in the Plan even though it’s not captured in a policy. I would have rather seen a policy. But I just wanted to draw your attention to a couple things, not take too much time, come back to you maybe next meeting or to the Council. If I could please, I hope my pages are numbered the same as yours, page 41, Section 4.2.5, Strategy 2.5, I’d like to praise the public access committee. Mr. Carvalho was a big participant in that. If you just look at the short Strategy, 2.5, on page 41, it calls for, to, “Encourage and increase cooperation and coordination between the community and private landowners regarding public access to coastal and mauka lands.” That’s what I’ve been looking for, involve the private landowners. Certainly makes sense if you’re going to have access across someone’s land, you involve them. By contrast, if I could draw your attention then to Strategy 4.1.7, page 25, this now we’ve gone from the public access section of the Plan to the growth management section. I need to check my pagination here. WATANABE: Our numbering must be wrong. All right, I’m on the growth section. LUCE: Okay. Well, wait my numbering could be wrong. Just give me a moment, if you would. Boy, this growth management section you notice goes on and on. WATANABE: Well, what’s the heading on that growth management -? LUCE: I’ve got it here. It’s my page 37 and it’s Strategy 1.7, “Implement a Policy for a Cultural and Historical Preservation Community.” It’s important to me that you can find it, Strategy 1.7, my page 37. WATANABE: Okay. I believe that’s our page 36, LUCE: Okay. WATANABE: Bottom of page 36. LUCE: Yes, it begins at the bottom and then it continues into Action Steps. WATANABE: Yes. LUCE: On page 37, what needs to be done, the fourth bullet, “All steps should be done in consultation,” and this is a process whereby culturally significant items, be they archaeology or -. Again, one of the problems is how do you define culturally significant items. They’re different to everyone. But this encourages “Identify areas requiring additional protection.” That in and of itself is a problem. But the bottom one “All steps should be done in consultation with the community, scientists, natural resource managers and cultural experts.” EXHIBIT D 5 Missing is landowners; and when I brought that up I was told that the community is landowners. Now I don’t think I have to tell the Commission that the status of a landowner on whose property there is something someone has determined to be culturally significant is “clearly distinguishable from that of the general public,” which is the community. That’s your own rules for standing in contested cases. Where the public access embrace the landowners and value their input, the landowners are more or less ignored here. And I think they would be a great resource for cultural -. Who knows the land better than the one that owns it? But I’m afraid that it’s relegated to experts to the exclusion of private property owners. Another, I have two more. If you go back to Section 4.2.6 on page 41, please excuse me, I may have my page numbers, 4.2.6, yes, yes, Strategy 2.6. This is back in the public access section. It calls to implement a long-range plan for public access, opening of public accesses. If you look at the map on my page 50, it shows some trails, different color coding. And then having found the map, if you turn please to page 51, on pages 51 and 52 and 53, there is a whole list of desired long-term private property that’s earmarked for public access. Number 1, again, public access is encourage working with landowners but my problem is that you as Commissioners when you have to vote in adopting this you read the text and the list of trails and you can’t tell where they are. You don’t know, the map is not tied into the list of trails. My concern is that if, and maybe the Director could help me, once this is adopted by ordinance whether it has conditions that should be followed or shall be followed, whatever those are, are these not disclosable items by realtors? Do you not have to disclose if you’re going to sell a piece of property that it’s included, impacted by reference in this Community Development Plan? Isn’t that one of the strong items that comes with what you folks are doing here with an ordinance? That’s just a concern I have that if you can’t locate it how do you disclose it but yet a buyer should have known that public access was going to come through their property? I think it creates a whole lot of chaos. And my last one is the environment and cultural map on page 24. First, this map was going to, it was going to be in the Plan, and it wasn’t, now it is. My topic is designating things on private property without input and consent of the property owner. That’s what I’m trying to talk to you folks about today. And if you would look please at the map on page 25, it designates the Kohala field system and it classifies it as high density of cultural sites. And as you read through it it’s basically a, most likely for a preservation mode of the Kohala Field System, most of that land is, I believe, having lived right there, owned by Parker Ranch. And Parker Ranch as you all know is essentially ownership in years to the beneficiaries who are Parker School, Hawaii Community Foundation, the Hospital and HPA. And I don’t think Parker Ranch has agreed to this classification and it bothers me. You’ll see some of this in the South Kohala Plan too where things are categorized and there’s no concurrence with the landowners, there’s none. So I won’t take any more of your time. I just wanted to point out a few things that have been bothering me as I participated in this process. And I’m a little worried about the action committees being subject to Sunshine Law. I think they will be as the Steering Committees were. But I’m worried about all the subcommittees that this Plan calls for, whether they will be subject to Sunshine Law or not. We had some planning incidence that were, you know, it’s very difficult when a subcommittee meets and nobody knows they meet and they come back with a recommendation that -, you know. So, anyway, just sharing my concerns with you. I know a lot of work has been done here; and thank you for your time. EXHIBIT D 6 WATANABE: Well, I think we’d like to respond to your concerns, and the Director should probably correct me if I’m wrong. But with regard to some of the identified trails or targeted trails, you know, mauka/makai accesses, I don’t believe listing some of these trails within the CDP really establishes them as a specific public access. Obviously further negotiations, further action has to come about before, you know, easements can be arrived at. Yeah? So in that respect the private landowners would be addressed. And I do believe with regard to the historical sites, I believe it’s in reference again to when you’re attempting to, say, develop some land, you may have the development rights but you’re going to have to go in for plan approvals; and, typically, you know we do ask them to get clearances through the State as far as whatever historical sites that may need to be preserved. That is not to say that the land itself cannot be used at all. But I think this is something that possibly the Director could expand upon so that you recognize that the CDP in and of itself does not necessarily create all of these visions. There are more steps that need to occur that certainly will involve private landowners before any action is really finalized. But -. LUCE: And I believe you have to disclose it, that it’s on the books for future negotiations. If I sold a piece of property and didn’t tell you that this was targeted in this Plan, I don’t think you’d be very happy. WATANABE: Okay, I, that -. LUCE: And, also, just, with all due respect to you, I think you’ll find in this Plan that it calls for a creation of a subcommittee to determine what’s culturally significant. And, again, my concern about Sunshine Law for subcommittees and lack of input from the landowners, it’s a recipe for disaster, I think. But maybe there’s some light at the end of the tunnel, you know. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Well, I agree with your concerns but I think basically this list of trails is kind of a wish list. And if you look at the last sentence there on the first paragraph, “The trails and accesses listed here are based on community desires and recommendations and are not necessarily the accessways that have been negotiated by the County Planning Department in their permit requirements.” So while I appreciate your concerns and I think they are valid, a lot of these things in this CDP are essentially wish lists. There are things they would like to have done, but this doesn’t spell out that it has to be done. The problems that I have are only when it says “shall” because that will become ordinance. That will become mandate. That will have force of law. This is basically, well, we’d like to have this done, or we should do this, or something of that nature. So I don’t look upon this as anything that has any force of law. It’s merely guidance. And it will have to have Council action for any of these things to happen. So I don’t think as far as, you know, selling a piece of property when it’s on a wish list of the things that the North Kohala CDP wants would really be a big problem. That’s just my two cents worth on that. EXHIBIT D 7 LUCE: I understand your analysis. I can assure you that there are a lot of people in Kohala who feel that when something says “should” in here means that you’d better do it; and the legal side you could be right legally, but lose the battle on that one. There are also some short-term acquisitions that are called for, i.e. lands already designated for trails or owned by government or owned by private property. There’s a, how do I say this, there’s a long-term list that you’re talking about. There’s also a short-term list which definitely has to be disclosed. And I just, I wanted, I’m bringing up this disclosure issue cause it applies not just to a short-term list of trails or even a long-term list. But this whole Plan if adopted by ordinance realtors are going to have to know, I think, in any district that has a CDP, they’re going to have to disclose to their buyers if it’s you, what elements of it potentially bear on the value of the property. That to me is what disclosure is all about. But maybe the Director has a different thought. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, if I might just follow-up. Well, I would say this is pretty, this language is pretty mamby pamby and it doesn’t even say “should.” It says “The trails and accesses listed here are based on community desires and recommendations and are not necessarily the accessways that have been negotiated by the County Planning Department in their permit requirements.” So it doesn’t even say “should.” Certainly it doesn’t say “shall.” And it’s -. LUCE: Then why is it in there? WOODWARD: Well, that’s what they would -. LUCE: Just filler? WOODWARD: That’s what they -. There’s a lot of flops in these things -. LUCE: Okay. WOODWARD: You know. And that’s kind of what they would like to have done. But I don’t look upon this as being anything that would restrict anybody’s property rights at all, unless these specific things were enacted by Council. And that’s a long step down the road as far as I’m concerned. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. As Commissioner Woodward indicated unless it is adopted by the Council. I, you know, we’re at a serious juncture at this time with regards to considering of Development Plans. And it should be made clear as to what really would take to be involved and how this, how the Plan would be implemented in the community. Prior to the drafting of these Community Development Plans, other Community Development Plans have been adopted by resolutions and we’ve projected this idea into the community that this is a Community Development Plan that will be adopted by ordinance. And as we all know an ordinance has a cause and effect of law. Now if someone in the community is against an issue in the Plan and that this Plan would then go further on and that issue would be implemented, you know, the question is can he or she contest the decision of the authorities with regards to the EXHIBIT D 8 Plan. Because it has a cause and effect of law that’s a serious matter. Now whether it’s done or not is another question because we’ll find people who would advocate for various issues in the Plan and there would be those who would contest issues in the Plan. And I think Mr. Luce has a suggestion that in any event then these issues, I think realtors should take this very seriously when they sell properties. Because unless they disclose to the buyer that the land that they’re buying may be subjected to something that’s within the Plan, and then if there’s a certain issue that’s involved with that particular property and if the community further pursue the implementation or the implementation of part of the Plan on that property, and this having a cause and effect of law, it may cause some legal problems. And in deference to the remarks made by these two gentlemen, you know -. Mr. Luce has been a member of the Planning Commission for many years and, in fact, he has been the Chairman of the previous Planning Commission and has taken a wide part, participation in the island’s growth. And with regards to his suggestion, his suggestion, I take it seriously because I know, I think he has gone through some of these issues, well, experiences that were his. So I know might be our Corp. Counsel can shed more light on that or the Planning Director. But -. WATANABE: I kind of questioned Mr. Torigoe earlier and he was a little reluctant to provide legal advice in this area. That said I don’t believe there’s any legal penalty for over disclosing as a real estate agent, although there may be some marketable penalty. But I don’t, you know, if you chose as a real estate agent to disclose that this may be subject to some proposed public access, like trail, either mauka or makai, you know, I don’t think that there’s any, you would certainly be -. LUCE: My point, sir, is it’s too vague in here. I don’t know. Unless every purchase contract has attached this Plan, I don’t know from this map and I don’t know where these things are, I don’t know if any property I may own in the future may be impacted by it. That’s -. And maybe Commissioner Woodward is it as simple as if it says “should” in here then you have to disclose it? Excuse me, if it says “shall” you have to disclose it and if it says “should” you don’t? I think that’s headed for a law suit maybe. WOODWARD: Well, yeah, I think “shall,” “shall” means it’s going to happen. That does have the power of law. You know, but, well, see we’ve -. LUCE: But “should”, you don’t have to disclose? I don’t know if Corp. Counsel would agree with that. But -. WOODWARD: We’ve been, we’ve been dealing with this through all of the CDPs that we’ve gone through. And the guidance that we’ve gotten is that there are mandates and there are guidelines. The mandates are the ones that say you shall do this, the county shall do that. That becomes power of law. The ones that say “should” or we’d like to see or recommend, which is what this one says, “recommend,” I mean that’s as, like I say, mamby pamby as you can get. LUCE: Not in North Kohala, sir. WOODWARD: Okay. But that is a guideline. Now I’m not saying that it doesn’t have some impact but it certainly doesn’t have the impact of saying, you know, we shall acquire these EXHIBIT D 9 easements for these trails. If that was in there then that would have the force of law. What would you recommend that’d be substituted for what they have in this, on those couple pages? LUCE: I’m not an attorney, sir, but -. WOODWARD: Well, I’m not either, thank God. LUCE: I foresee, I don’t see a simple answer to that question because this is not a simple, you know, list something that realtors have to disclose, I guess. I’m, like I said I’m just th trying to point out some concerns to you folks. You have another meeting September 4, you have other CDPs. I imagine the problems are the same. But the, and maybe the Director knows what the impacts are on the real estate industry. WATANABE: That’s about the fourth time you asked for the Director and he has been raising his hand a couple of times so why don’t we give him a chance to respond. YUEN: The question of what is the legal effect of the CDP is pretty complicated and I did write something on it because I think it is very much misunderstood, it’s, even the “shall” parts. Let me give an example of what the CDP is not. The Council passed a law a couple of months ago that said you can’t smoke in a parking lot of a County park, basically you can’t smoke in any county facilities. All right? And like that is what I would call a direct regulation on somebody’s conduct. It’s a law and so it has a penalty attached to it. And if a police officer sees somebody smoking where they’re not supposed to smoke the police officer can cite them for that violation. And the person says, well, what is making, what makes what I’m doing illegal? The police officer points to that ordinance and says this makes it illegal. There is nothing in the CDPs or the General Plan, which is also passed by an ordinance, which is a direct regulation in that sense. You cannot go out and cite somebody for violating a provision of the CDP. There has to be something else. The CDP is primarily a guide to future action. It’s a guide to actions like those taken by the Planning Commission. Now when would it be mandatory? Now if the CDP said the Planning Commission shall not grant a special permit for any, let’s say an SMA Permit, for any development that causes the destruction of a heiau. All right? That’s mandatory language. And so you have an SMA Permit that comes in front of you and that involves, well, we’re going to do this wonderful project but we’ve got to destroy a heiau to do it, you would violate the CDP by granting that SMA Permit. That’s an example of a mandatory effect of the SMA Permit. If it said that you should avoid destroying historic sites then that’s not mandatory. It’s a policy that you should follow. It’s important, and plans are important for that kind of thing but it’s not any kind of mandate. So turning to the specifics of what Mike has been talking about, the trails, this is actually a point that I discussed in the process, is that, to make clear that many of these are not public accesses now. They’re public accesses that people would like to have, and you have to go through a process of getting them. Just putting it in the CDP, if it’s not public now putting it in the CDP and saying it ought to be public or even we think it’s public doesn’t make it public. It’s simply, it’s useful. So, for example, like sometimes we have SMA Permits where we have questions about public access to the shore. If the CDP has a public, if a person who owns that property EXHIBIT D 10 comes in for an SMA Permit and the CDP says, oh, we really ought to have a public access through that property, well, that’s a guidance to the Planning Commission to put that in the SMA Permit. Or if they come in for a subdivision, which is not done by the Commission it’s done by the Director, that’s a guidance to the Director that the Director, if the other laws permit the Planning Director to attach that to the subdivision. This is the guidance and will of the community that this is where the public access should go. So this is how the Plan functions. I really can’t say too much on what you have to disclose, as I’m not completely familiar with real estate law. I don’t think that the existence of a desired trail on something like a Community Development Plan is something that you have to disclose. I could mention something very similar. The General Plan has a roadway facilities map that shows the alignments, not the alignments but the general alignments of future roads. I would be very surprised if people who own those properties have disclosed that over the years. And, you know, there are many of these alignments, many of these roads have never, of course, been built, but that’s a very comparable kind of situation. And plans like the CDP or like the General Plan have implications for what you can do with your property. I don’t think that it’s typical, for example, for a realtor, I believe they disclose zoning. I don’t believe they typically disclose what is the General Plan LUPAG Map designation of a piece of property even though that’s, you know, it’s something that could affect its value and is something that’s a matter of an ordinance. And then the other question again, the same thing with historic sites. The marking of the historic sites is something that is a red flag if a development comes in that, for example, a rezoning that is on land that has these sites shown. And certainly it alerts the Department, the Planning Commission, the County Council in the future that watch out they’re important historic sites on the property. In itself it doesn’t create a protection for those sites. LUCE: Thank you. WATANABE: Does that answer most of your questions? LUCE: And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time is up. With respect to historic sites what concerns me is sites that are identified now the owners know they’re buyer beware. What this Plan would do apparently would be to increase and add significant sites to existing properties. And whether you, you know, in some cases that’s an asset, in some cases it’s a devaluation. Same with the trail, if there’s a potential for a trail to come through one’s property, and this takes me full circle back to my first comment, that we need to protect the values and rights of landowners, that sometimes a public trail that goes right through a prime building site, if there’s the slightest potential for that to happen, whether it’s -. It sounds like the Director, would your Department look at this long-term list of trails when you get a zoning or subdivision application and pull the long-term list and look at it for an application review? I think probably you would. YUEN: The subdivision yes. A building no. LUCE: Yeah. Okay. Well, anyway, what I’m trying to say is there are potentials in here to devalue property, and that’s not a balance. I don’t think in fairness, I don’t think you EXHIBIT D 11 want to devalue anyone’s property; and I just ask you to consider that. We’ll see you th September 4. Thank you all for your time, Commissioners. WATANABE: Okay, great. Thank you for your testimony. Well, at this time maybe I should ask -. Is there anyone else from the public that would care to testify on this topic? Seeing none, Ms. Bowman, you wanted to discuss the written testimony provided by Surety Kohala Corporation? th BOWMAN: I have a comment and I think I made this comment in the August 7 meeting. And I think Mr. Kanuha says it very well in that, I underlined it, that the reference to, it’s on the second page and he’s talking about public access, “The reference to ‘public’ in what is more appropriately a ‘community access’ issue….” And I just want to comment on this because I think a lot of these trails and roads are from the old plantation days, and back then everybody could go up mauka and could go to the beach. And I think a lot of long-time residents acknowledged this and see this as public access. My concern, again, that I said is that public means anyone from anywhere, and especially if you have vehicular access. You know, I just can’t imagine what’s the landowner’s, you know, liability which is what this letter refers to. So I’d like, you know, us to, in the community, to really look at what kind of access is realistic for the community. And I think if we, you know, we go back to the drawing board or the Steering Committees when this comes about to really look at this. Are we opening a big can of worms or do we just want the access to go pick opihi, to these kinds of community activities that we have? So I would, you know, really pay attention to that because we don’t want to open a can of worms, and as this letter states, you know, a lot of the taking questions and acquisition and the private landowners. And don’t take me wrong, I really want more access. I run a program for kids, we have a hard time hiking anywhere because of our insurance policy and the landowner’s. So I hope that there can be this even balance worked out. Thank you. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to put in my 3 ½ cents, I guess, about this issue, and that is, you know, as far as -. To me the big picture where the Community Development Plan lies and the value to North Kohala and the other communities is that this discussion can take place and it’s a vehicle.I guess with the adoption of the action committee legislation, and there will be a continuous process through the action committees to give life to the various concerns that are raised both as Mr. Luce raised in his testimony, as raised by Surety in terms of what the owner’s rights are, and balance that with the community, what the community, in this case North Kohala community, would like to see in terms of building. In my mind, I think everybody -- whether they’re a private landowner, a large private landowner, or a homeowner and the other members in the community -- that they all have an interest in building a vibrant community, both economically and otherwise. And so, you know, I see this whole process, I look at it as a process, you know. And the various concerns that are brought up by the different parts of the community, I think the most important thing is that persons like Mr. Luce, you know, and Commissioner Bowman and others in North Kohala can continue to participate with the action committee and give life to the Community Development Plan, and in the end or EXHIBIT D 12 work towards the end, to make North Kohala basically the best community that you want it to be and not what the Planning Commission or the County Council tells you what it should be. Because to me it will be a much better way to achieve the optimum community that you want in North Kohala. And, you know, coming from Hilo I, hopefully, some day soon will have one or two Community Development Plans through our area and we can use that process, you know, for Hilo; and that’s how I view it. So I really appreciate, I want to acknowledge and encourage Mr. Luce and others in the North Kohala community to continue to come out, to continue to participate and make this process work. Because if this becomes, if this, the North Kohala Community Development Plan, becomes another piece of paper like the Community Development Plan we have for Hilo, basically it sits on the shelf. It gets referenced in our applications now in Hilo for, you know, zoning changes and so forth, and basically it’s given short drift. You know, it was done more than 20 years ago, all these other stuff has happened in between, and it’s not really given any credence because there’s no vehicle for updating it and making it work. With Community Development Plans and the action committee legislation that’s going through now that, you know, that that in my mind hopefully makes it a living working document around which the community can, you know, make itself better. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Thank you. Any further questions, comments? Okay, as I had indicated earlier, we’re not going to make a decision now. This is the second read so the decision will be th made on September 4 in Hilo. Yeah? And so that would conclude the discussion on this Agenda Item No. 5. The discussion ended at 4:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary A T T E S T: Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT D 13