My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0060.001 2000-2002
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2000-2002
>
COM 0060.001 2000-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2008 2:59:31 PM
Creation date
5/10/2008 2:25:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2000-2002
Communication
0060
Point
001
Author
Edward J. Andrade, District Supervisor, East Hawaii District Office, State Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands
Communications - Referred To
PC
Comments
Close file - 1/22/03
Communications - File Code
ZNG/HI
Document Relationships
AGE PC 01/22/2003 2002-2004
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2002-2004\Planning Committee (PC)
BIL 017 Draft 01 2000-2002
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2000-2002
COM 0060.000 2000-2002
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2000-2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> Tuesday, April 3, 2001 <br /> Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead -Todd -Chairperson <br /> County Council Committee on Planning <br /> Milo, Hawaii 96720 <br /> RE: Matsuno Enterprises, Ltd. / RS-10 to CG20 <br /> ®ear Ms. Leithead-Todd and Council Members, <br /> A blanket approval of the Matsuno Enterprises, Ltd. project is a very irresponsible <br /> move for the following reasons: <br /> 1) As I have stated in my earlier written tes#irnony, there is a major flood problem <br /> on both parcels with the larger one having a very serious flood problem. Mr. <br /> Fuke is relying on out-dated, 1988 FEMA studies, which therefore must be <br /> updated due to the recent flooding in November 2000. <br /> 2) This rezoning affects two parcels and each parcel should therefore be <br /> analyzed separately. It is my understanding that the larger parcel is entirely <br /> located in the flood zone and should not even be considered for approval at <br /> this time. The smaller parcel however could be approved provided that the <br /> developer gain access to the project from the highway and not from Puainako <br /> Street. <br /> 3) The rezoning relies on a very faulty document called the General Plan that <br /> does not have a current Community Re-development Plan to address the more <br /> specific areas. It is my understanding that the General Plan is very "general" <br /> and it uses very "general" and ambiguous language. For example, in the <br /> Economic Element, it says that the project will "provide residents with <br /> opportunities to improve their quality of life:' This statement has so many <br /> different meanings. C7oes it mean that it will provide another place for folks to <br /> spend their money? Is this what improving the quality of life is about? As you <br /> can see, there are many ways in which developers can use this plan to confuse <br /> us and to benefit #hemselves. <br /> ~4) Common sense tells us that we should be planning for the long run and not for <br /> t short-run. The county might benefit from some added tax revenues and <br /> s rye ro wa improvements, but in the long-run, what will the real cost of this <br /> d ~ elo ment ' e to th county in terms of congestion and flooding??? <br /> . <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.