2009-08-28 TDIRECTORLUPAG - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HARP: ÒLands further mauka should be restricted to density in order to preserve the integrity of the Park and protect its water resources.ÓÑ WATANABE: Mr. Harp, actually we have his letter, yeah? HARP: Yes. WATANABE: So, okay, I realize it is important to you, and the bulk of the te-, well, not the bulk, all of the testimony was for, yeah, so -. HARP: I think itÓs most important to Fred since he has spent over 30 years on this effort. WATANABE: Yeah, but can you summarize his thoughts? HARP: I guess in summary we support the plan and I hope you do too as well. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay, this concludes the public testimony. So we are now closed for the public testimony. Just for the record IÓd like to indicate that Commissioner Beaudet has rejoined the Commission; so he is not recused from this particular item. You are available to vote. Madam Director, you have some comments then? LEITHEAD TODD: I just wanted a couple of comments. This is initiated as a result of the settlement of a lawsuit, and the agreement on the settlement did not require me to support the amendment; it only required me to initiate. I could have chosen to remain neutral, I could have chosen to recommend denial, I could, in this case I chose to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. And in part itÓs because, you know, all of us have a history, and I have to fess up I was one of the original people back in Ó71 and Ó72 as a Hawaiian study student who came down to Kaloko-Honokhau to protest the proposal to develop this area into a hotel/resort area, and joined with many other residents throughout the island to ask that this be set up as a park and be preserved; so I have that history with the land. And also, in order to try and decide whether I would remain neutral or make a recommendation, I went to the land Î and I know this isnÓt like professional planning perspective, itÓs just that I wanted to walk the land and I wanted to have the land speak to me Î and I felt that this was consistent with the area, and that the earlier proposal to move it to Urban Expansion was premature, and that if there were a proposal by DLNR or DHHL to do industrial, commercial, you know, hotel types of activities in those areas, that they should be required to come with a full-blown proposal and go through the process of presenting that proposal to the County for any amendments. I have to admit I would generally be opposed to significant activity in the area, and part of that is because of the proximity not only to the National Park but also the proximity to the County sewage treatment facilities, which I donÓt think are compatible with heavy resort commercial types of activities that had been some of the proposals in the Jacoby. And I just felt that it was premature, and that reverting to the prior designation was the appropriate thing to do at this time. WATANABE: Ms. Bowman. EXHIBIT E 14