COM 0330.008 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a3a,~, b 6s k~ _ t-IZ Rb'15S June 18, 1.997 n I . r To: Hawaii County Council $e: Kahua 1st project by Gentry Pacific Good morning. I am Lesle Patton from Halawa. I speak for myself and my family, but I am also a co-c a r of Hui hikai our N. Kohala Coastal Preservation Group. I am 8rateful Gentry Pacific has scaled down the project, but that does not satisfy the many objections I. have to it. A few of these are... First, the people of N. Kohala have repeatedly, through many forums, called for a moratorium on all shoreline development in our district until a comprehensive State Plan can be developed and implemented to protect the rich scenic, historic, archae- ological, and recreational resources of that area. Lacking that, I must urge you to withhoSd approval of this project until that plan ie in place and this project has been redesigned to comply with it. Second, Gentry's claim that the project will not substantially "interfere with or detract from the line of sight toward the sea" just isn't so, no matter how many times they say it. There is no amount of "mitigation" that can hide fifty expensive homes on that 39 acres of very up-and-down hilly land: and the more landscaping is used to camoflauge, the more the project will stand out like a sore thumb in that barren land, especially roadside landscaping that will completely block the view. What this project will do to this viewplane is TOTALLY alter it forever. Third, Gentry's claim that the project would help ease the current housing strain is seductive and false. Hy their own description, Yhese homes will be "high-enfl", "seasonal"; "second" homes in a gated community. We already have a GLUT of such, properties right there in this area and elsewhere in N. Kohala. What we really need is decent, low-cost housing, in existing communities, 'f or current-. residents. This type of subdivision only attracts newcomers who historically have not been community- oriented, have not bothered to learn about or respect the area they moved into or its history, have not integrated into the existing community, have not seemed to notice or care about the negative effects their arrival has had on that community, nor have they often invested Lhemselves in the future success of that pre-existing community. This is no answer to our needs, just a further impositdon. Fourth, Gentry's claim that the project will encourage economic growth is unfounded. Typically these homes are not built by resident builders, but by imported or relo- cated contractors. And the :3imited maintenance opportunities" they offer-.are an insult in exchange for the permanent loss of this open land to someone else's profit motive. I am disturbed that Gentry believes that septic tanks are sufficient mitigation to prevent sewage pollution of the adjoining coastal waters. State-of-the-art, expen- sive treatment plants didn't accomplish this at the hotels to the south; why here? And why not require solar hot water and maximum energy efficiency design features and buried electric and phone cables? Gentry's insensitivity to this project's effect on our policing situation is also disturbing. Already any call for police, major or minor, at the southern end of our district strips the rest of us of our entire coverage for the entire event plus travel time. This is not acceptable to us. In summary, this type of development is not needed by or beneficial to the exist it,g community, and the price to that community is too high. I strongly urge you to deny this zoning change until we have a State plan for the coastline and the project can 'oe adjusted accordingly, even if that means no development there. Thank you for listening. Comm. No. ~ •D~