HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0349.159 2006-2008
Y
Position on Resolution 169-07: Purchase of Punalu'u Beach Park and Adjacent
Lands. June 4, 2007
My name is George Atta and I represent Sea Mountain Five LLC, the development
partnership proposing the redevelopment at Punalu'u.
We aze opposed to Resolution 169-07 for many reasons:
1. If this resolution is adopted and the proposed lands at Punalu'u aze purchased
it will effectively kill our project which we fell represents awin/win for the
community and the developer. All the benefits we see: new jobs, more
amenities, more business and entrepreneurial opportunities, a better quality of
life for Kau residents, greater stewardship of the environment and a broad
community benefits package will not be realized.
2. We think this is a waste of taxpayer money in that most of the critical coastal
lands that this resolution intends to protect will be protected and the shoreline
azea and access will be preserved. This will be done free of chazge, without
payment buy the public as we have proposed about 56 acres of this azea for
dedication as a County Pazk and a shoreline preservation azea.
3. The proposed alternative is not realistic, generates little that is positive and
has no sustainable long-term plan, economically or environmentally.
In essence we feel all the purpose statements in the resolution aze being met with a
project and a development team that is working closely with the community.
I would like to focus on the assumptions and purposes of the resolution because I feel
there aze many mistaken, misleading or false assumptions underlying the resolution. I
think there aze four (4) basic premises/purposes/assumptions behind the resolution. It
starts with a premise of feaz; the lands at Punalu'u (Kau) aze in danger. The four
premises aze:
1. What happens at Punalu'u impacts the whole of the Kau district. That the
chazacter of Kau will be negatively impacted forever.
2. Public Access will be lost. The community will lose a traditional gathering
place
3. This is a pristine landscape and endangered species aze threatened.
4. The alternative plan presented by Kau Preservation is better public policy.
On Point One: All human activity has impact of some sort, including the plan by Kau
Preservation. The issue is really what kind of impact and is it significant. While we
agree that what is done in Punalu'u has the potential to economically and socially impact
the entire district we disagree that it will not physically or environmentally impact the
district in any significant way. The Kau District is huge. Our portion of the whole coast
is miniscule. Much of the development will not be visible from any real distance. The
impact is assumed to be negative but there in fact we assert that it would be positive for
the district in terms of jobs, amenities, quality of life and even beach access, recreation
and environmental stewazdship. Comm. No. 3y~. is9
Ref. To:
Ref. Date Itlt~ 4 70 7
On Point two: We think our shoreline plan increases public access and provides the
community with a better place and facilities for community activities. We aze expanding
the current beach pazk from 7 acres to 17 acres and will be dedicating it to the county
free. We aze creating Two new pazking areas, improving two existing pazking azeas and
expanding the pazking at the existing pazk. We aze providing a continuous coastal
pedestrian pathway with the intention of making it ADA accessible if possible and adding
two-three new public restroom facilities. We have offered to improve existing pazk
facilities and to work with the County and potential land trusts in maintaining these
facilities. We think these plans will create a public shoreline that will enhance
recreational activities and improve public shoreline access. This is only possible if there
is a viable project generating the resources needed to actively manage the shoreline azea.
On Point Three: The Sea Mountain site is not pristine. The site is part of a partially
developed resort master plan and our plans aze consistent with this intention. The
General Plan still designates the site for resort, commercial and residential development.
The zoning is in place. There are existing homes, a golf course and an aging
infrastructure. This point of view is also false from a historic perspective because Kau
has been a place of settlement from pre-contact times. For neazly a hundred years it was
also hope to commercial and industrial activities related ranching and the sugaz industry.
The raikoad trestle track, the wazehouse and pier foundation and other remnants of this
era are still visible on site.
Our plan will not threaten pristine, coastal ecosystems or the endangered native species in
it into extinction. The increasing human activities that threaten the azea will continue
whether this project is approved or not. While the land is beautiful much of this is an
illusion of endemism because 80-90% of the landscape is already covered with invasive
alien vegetation. Punalu'u is not the last bastion of protection for these species. It is not
like old growth forests protecting the spotted owl or the giant sequoias in Mariposa
Grove. While there is much of value to be protected and some may not like to heaz it, it
is not even the best habitat for many of these species. It is a degraded habitat with
invasions like salvina molests filling the ponds.
Finally, we think we will actually improve the environment and environmental
stewazdship in many ways. Our shoreline zone will be protected and managed for long-
term sustainability. Resources will be placed to monitor and manage the resources. We
have partnered with Jean Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures group to provide guidance on
these issues and prepaze educational programs related to the environment. In the long run
it will be an educated public that will protect the resources more than any preservation
plan and we feel we aze well along this path. As human populations increase, pure
preservation becomes more burdensome and impractical. Active stewazdship is the really
sustainable way and stewazdship takes understanding, commitment, and resources. We
will work cooperatively with respected and trusted organizations to protect the resource.
While some may disagree, we too wish to protect the environment.
Point Four: We do not think the alternative presented is viable or unique. We think
the claim that a unique outdoor classroom will be lost is false. With Ocean Futures and
the trends in the travel industry outdoor education will be highlighted in our project. Our
protection and active management of the resources will make the opportunities for
outdoor education more accessible to more people. We think we will provide neazly
everything promised in the alternative plan on a lazger and more realistic scale. Our plan
is viable because it operates within a larger economic framework with a necessary critical
mass of people and jobs to sustain these efforts at education and preservation. We too
recognize the value of the environment and have a love and desire to protect it for both
economic and personal reasons.
The alternative presented requires funding from many disparate sources, which aze not
guazanteed. It will require more public funds to implement and maintain. It too requires
a shoreline management permit and conservation district use permit and we do not know
what conditions will be imposed for it. As far as we know there is no economic
modeUbusiness plan. Kau Preservation has no track record for managing such a resource.
In conclusion: We ask the council to reject Resolution 169-07