2008-01-11 TPDKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The problem with that area, that particular area, is that development above it has impacted the ocean in a very negative way. And if you decide to let this development go with that amount of homes, the density would definitely destroy that particular area and further. I’ve heard that there has been mentioning, someone mentioned taking, taking pertaining to this private individual or developer. Well, let me read something to you; and this is based on the public trust doctrine in my, you know, my own opinion. When the public loses its source of food, cultural identify, spiritual renewal and recreation, this is a taking. It is a taking when the public rights by way of actual use, custom, or prescription are compromised by development. And this development will compromise the public. And I think it’s overdue that the Commission start looking at it from a different point of view instead of just the private single entity and look at how it affects long- term, short-term, the public. Mr. Yuen’s request to downzone it is correct. To put that amount of homes there is not. And I ask the Commission to support Mr. Yuen in his initiative. Mahalo. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Isaacs. Do we have any questions for Mr. Isaacs, Fellow Commissioners? Seeing none, thank you. Gail? BYRNE: Yeah, thanks. I know it has been a long day. I appreciate everyone’s time. The testimony I’m submitting and that we submitted in August and December meetings is on behalf of six Kohala organizations that present about 400 families. And as stated previously we urge the Planning Commission to support the Planning Director’s initiatives. We’re also asking for more, similar to what Mike just alluded to. We’re asking for a minimum of a rezoning to Ag-20a, which is completely aligned with that stack of papers you saw there, State Plans, Joint Resolutions by the State Legislature, past Community Development Plans. It’s absolutely aligned with the work that’s coming out of the current Community Development Plan. And most significantly this applicant does not meet the conditions for time extension. You know, the circumstances and the context under which this initial application was granted have changed; and the testimony outlines just a couple of examples. You know, there is very compelling documentation that the development construction activities up slope of this area is already significantly degraded the water quality, it has killed off all the coral right in front of this site. And there’s a couple of, three photos, I think, attached with the testimony that has been submitted today. All the invertebrates in that area have been killed. The sediment was measured to be at least 15 inches or more just 15 feet off shore, up to 60 feet off shore. There’s a significant impact there. You have to take that into consideration. Additional development of any kind will contribute to this problem. There’s not a BMP on the planet that’s going to stop this development from contributing to that problem. That’s just a fact. I’m a civil engineer, worked for 8 years on watershed issues. I guarantee you there’s going to be more contribution from that project to that reef. In the scale of damage to this area that we’re talking about makai, directly makai of this project, its magnitude is greater than what precipitated the EPA investigation and fines against Hokulia. It’s significant, the damage that’s already there. You know, there’s even a greater body of evidence and support that the proposed project is not at all aligned with what the community has consistently expressed with regard to preserving the EXHIBIT C 6