2023-02-28 Letter from John Pipan (Response to CCH Petitions)

Home

proposed mitigations to block views of the site combined with the site's remoteness from public roads should be adequate to address this concern. • "Big trucks will damage bad roads (single entrance to property)" Aside from a short term increase in traffic to the site to install the required equipment, traffic impacts from the project are very modest and will not cause excessive wear on public roads. Periodic maintenance and safety check visits performed by ASIAA staff would utilize common passenger vehicles. Regarding the Petition submitted by Ms. Sandra Reha three points are made: • "This experiment is inappropriate for agricultural zone." This statement draws no connection between Ms. Reha and the project. It simply states an opinion of the project. • "Realtors assured that the value of property will diminish and affect the ability to maintain long term renter." This argument relates to the previous proposed site on the Mizuno property adjacent to Ms. Reha's. Given that the presently proposed site is over 9,200 feet(straight line) from Ms. Reha's property (Exhibit A), there is no reasonable expectation that the project would affect her property value or ability to maintain a long-term renter. • "Will damage security, safety, and sanctity. I recommend ASIAA find another location in Ka`u: in open acreage area." Ms. Reha's property is located over 9,000 feet from the proposed Special Permit area and will not be visible from the nearest public road, over 1,300 feet from the project site. Given the remoteness and inconspicuous nature of the project no impacts to area security, safety and sanctity is anticipated. Ms. Reha recommends ASIAA find another location for the project in"open acreage area." That is precisely what we have done for the current application since withdrawing the previous application to use a portion of the Mizuno property (nearby the Petitioner's property). The project site would be buffered by a surrounding 130+ acre property also owned by Olson Trust and another 115+ acre property owned by Mr. Whitney Coffman, who we have worked closely with to mitigate any potential impacts. We would respectfully point out that each of these petitions was submitted previously for the withdrawn Special Permit application that proposed to use a portion of the Mizuno property nearby the Petitioners' properties. Their arguments supporting standing would make more sense in that case where the project was proposed close by. In this case given the remoteness of the proposed Special Permit area from the Petitioner's properties, how is their position relating to the project different from the general public? Where is the actual or threatened injury in fact?