PL-SPP-2022-000016 E. Utyro Testimony 01.03.23

Home

1) we don't believe that proposed "holistic education" and agricultural activities will represent even 25% of the revenue for this operation given the primary revenue sources are most likely and will most likely continue to be lodging & food services (ie that potion of food-related service not related to the agricultural products grown on the property). No meaningful quantitative effort has been provided to support any of the claims, particularly the economic claims, of the applicant. The County cannot and should not give preference to this operation over that of B&B's, vacation rentals and other tourism related activities without a very clear and compelling reason. The predecessor at this TMK, Lolia Eco Village, regularly offered monthly rentals of units. It seems this was done without an STVR and potentially even long term. How will that be stopped? Can nudity be imposed on people seeking rental housing? PL-SPP-2022-000016 fails the test of rigor of its economic claims in many regards but what is noteworthy is Kalani arguably neighbors it and may be even further distressed if this permit is granted. There was no analysis of the negative impacts on such similar operations, the costs of furnishing Medicaid and Food stamps and other public assistance benefits to "volunteers." The 75% of revenue generated will in effect support a bad neighbor, a bad community member and an entity not deserving of the various inherent and significant economic benefits that come with a Special Use Permit. Please note we don't think there is an established precedent for Tantra and Conscious Sensuality to be recognized by the state or County as truly eco-tourism or "holistic education" but would be happy to know if its PD's position if that is the case. 2) We are, and we believe the vast majority of the Red Road community, is concerned that many of the illegal and bothersome historical (during ownership of the applicant) uses of the property (many documented) will continue after the issuance of a Special Use permit but on a larger scale. Given that the Applicant has been the central figure in those operations, and has not fully represented the nature of all historical activities and is largely concealing those historical activities in his application, we do not believe this application should proceed and especially not without significant County investigation as to whether the activities on the property conform to various laws governing public sex and nudity. While some neighbors have no objection to nudity under certain circumstances, it is absolutely necessary that the County address the issues of public sexual contact and nudity to the satisfaction of the community as there are serious concerns as this relates to cultural appropriateness and whether this is truly something envisioned in eco- tourism. Given the applicant's expertise and history we find it impossible to believe that he would operate in a manner contrary to how he has historically. We hope the Planning Commission will carefully consider that.