COM 0349.938 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

there. In fact, Open Space in it self was dumb-founded and questions the Resolution themselves. Minutes from May 14, 2007 page 6 Mr. Yada mentions his concerns was whether the Resolution accurately described some of the assumptions that went in to the Resolution. If some of the statements and assumptions in there were not correct, advising the commission to make comments if they wanted to Mr. Yada mentions that he noted the Commission's recommendations had "various coastal azeas," and Mr. Jacobson's resolution had specific TMK's. Whether the TMK's reflected what the intent of the Commission was when they said "coastal areas" he has no idea The reason for his concern as to insuring that it truly reflected what the Commission intended in their recommendations to the Mayor with regards to Punalu'u. Mr. Yada stated that he would hate to see the Commission's recommendations interpreted in different ways to suit someone else's purpose. He wanted to make sure that the Commission's intents are accurately described in these actions On June 12, 2007 on page 4 Ms. Self states "it goes way beyond what this Commission recommended. Also, Ms Springer says the same thing adding - it really took on a life of its own. Mr. Yada mentions his concerns on the "Whereas...."is a stating fact. It gave the impression that this represented the Commission's recommendations. He also mentions how the facts stated, it eluded that was the recommendation of the Commission's intent. He encouraged the Commission to say something. Another point that bothered Mr. Yada was the Mayor's recommendation to the Council centered on the County Park and the resolution goes farther than that. How it becomes questionable when it starts stretching beyond the intent of the Commission and the Mayor. On August 14, 2006 page 6 Mr. Yuen asked the commission what the goal was, to buy land to move development back from the beach or to make sure the County has a long term use of the beach park that exist. Mr. Replogle stated it was to move development back a certain distance so that the beach and the whole area would be protected and never over run. Mr. Replogle stated the concem is to protect Punalu'u and not allow it to fall into the developers hands. _On that very page it mentions a report that Ka'u Preservation did, in the month of April they counted how much people went to the beach and it mentions 32,000 people. There are NO credentials proving this to be accurate or true. And yet on March 6, 2007 it is the same Punalu'u Survey Report that Danny Miller by request via Mr. Jacobson sent via e- mail to Ann Stewart (our friend and Mazie Hirono's leg director so they can get monies to buy Punalu'u A S A P!!!!!!!! It really troubles me to see tactics used for gain by NOTICALBE people like these, all the while accusing the other side of wrong doing, when in fact the other side is only trying to figure out what the heck happened that they missed something that big.