COM 0349.159 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Y Position on Resolution 169-07: Purchase of Punalu'u Beach Park and Adjacent Lands. June 4, 2007 My name is George Atta and I represent Sea Mountain Five LLC, the development partnership proposing the redevelopment at Punalu'u. We aze opposed to Resolution 169-07 for many reasons: 1. If this resolution is adopted and the proposed lands at Punalu'u aze purchased it will effectively kill our project which we fell represents awin/win for the community and the developer. All the benefits we see: new jobs, more amenities, more business and entrepreneurial opportunities, a better quality of life for Kau residents, greater stewardship of the environment and a broad community benefits package will not be realized. 2. We think this is a waste of taxpayer money in that most of the critical coastal lands that this resolution intends to protect will be protected and the shoreline azea and access will be preserved. This will be done free of chazge, without payment buy the public as we have proposed about 56 acres of this azea for dedication as a County Pazk and a shoreline preservation azea. 3. The proposed alternative is not realistic, generates little that is positive and has no sustainable long-term plan, economically or environmentally. In essence we feel all the purpose statements in the resolution aze being met with a project and a development team that is working closely with the community. I would like to focus on the assumptions and purposes of the resolution because I feel there aze many mistaken, misleading or false assumptions underlying the resolution. I think there aze four (4) basic premises/purposes/assumptions behind the resolution. It starts with a premise of feaz; the lands at Punalu'u (Kau) aze in danger. The four premises aze: 1. What happens at Punalu'u impacts the whole of the Kau district. That the chazacter of Kau will be negatively impacted forever. 2. Public Access will be lost. The community will lose a traditional gathering place 3. This is a pristine landscape and endangered species aze threatened. 4. The alternative plan presented by Kau Preservation is better public policy. On Point One: All human activity has impact of some sort, including the plan by Kau Preservation. The issue is really what kind of impact and is it significant. While we agree that what is done in Punalu'u has the potential to economically and socially impact the entire district we disagree that it will not physically or environmentally impact the district in any significant way. The Kau District is huge. Our portion of the whole coast is miniscule. Much of the development will not be visible from any real distance. The impact is assumed to be negative but there in fact we assert that it would be positive for the district in terms of jobs, amenities, quality of life and even beach access, recreation and environmental stewazdship. Comm. No. 3y~. is9 Ref. To: Ref. Date Itlt~ 4 70 7