2024-03-06 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Megan Lamson Testimony

Home

in addressing the social component of the proposed impact. If this is the case, why was no official public hearing or meeting conducted after the initial release of the DEIS? This in and of itself reflects a certain amount of hesitance from the developers to mediate any of the so-called "unresolved issues" with the community. In addition, the population densities listed did not include the surrounding towns of Waiohinu or Ocean View. Kids from these areas make up a large percentage of the student body population ofNa`alehu Elementary and Ka`u High in Pahala. In turn,their families often frequent the only accessible 2WD beach Punalu`u provides. Group 70's failure to include these groups in their analysis means that the entire community base was not represented. -- This leads directly into the very issue that was briefly touched upon in the DEIS (see 4-53). If the majority of Hawaii residents"feel that the island is ran for tourists at the expense of local people" (2005 Survey of Hawaii Resident Sentiments on Tourism by Hawaii Tourism Authority) -- then what is the introduction of two tourist resorts going to bring back to our community? What have the developers agreed to donate directly to the local school system (and not to individual community groups such as Ka`u Kakou, or through the introduction of additional construction and hotel jobs) if their money-making venture passes? -- Lastly, no preferred alternative is provided. Group 70 seems to issue a biased version of every other alternative than the current plan as it stands, and has obviously not analyzed the impacts of this development as an unbiased 3'd party representative. To reiterate, the DEIS presented for the Sea Mountain development at Punalu`u is inadequate and does injustice to the needs of the surrounding community and the myriads of natural and cultural resources that will be compromised if it is accepted as-is. As the person responsible for making the heavily contested decision of accepting or rejecting the DEIS, please reason that a more thorough analysis will shed additional light on the devastation of Punalu`u that this project will bring. Perhaps this may even inspire the developers to reconsider the massive scale and inappropriateness of their current proposal. Mahalo for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Meg R. Lamson CC: Sea Mountain Five, Office of Environmental Quality Control, Group 70 International, Inc., Ka'u Preservation, Ka`Ohana 0 Honu`apo