02-26-2010, 05:46 PM
Last post on this for now ...[
] it is mostly quotes from the 1998 proposal that I linked above. It's a long document so this is all out of context for reasons of brevity, but here is the link again for context:
http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared%20Docu...LDINGS.pdf
These are the assurances made by Ellis re the the activities that would be conducted and impact. You will note that some lines repeat the same thing. I repeat them to show how many different times they said there would be little to no traffic, noise, or impact on neighbors.
I fully grant that the concept of helping troubled youth here is creative, innovative, and beneficial. The letters from the supporters are impressive. The document preparation is impressively written and thorough.
However, throughout this application, it states that the entire concept is to provide classes for children so that they can perform in other venues. It is all about children, not adults.
There will be no performances. The noise will be restricted to regular business hours. The traffic will be negligible; in fact, many students will come on bicycles or a school van. There will be on site parking for all visitors.
There won't be any impact on adjacent properties. That is a crucial aspect of getting the permit. No significant impact.
Far from what we hear now about people moving to Seaview because of what SPACE offers, they emphasize that the project will not attract growth, nor will it attract visitors from other communities.
S.P.A.C.E. got the permit by promising to make no impact on its neighbors! That is a commitment. How can I respect an organization that ignores the commitment it makes on its application once it gets what it wants?
They applied to add some facilities for their school. The school is not at risk. Their supposed mission is not threatened. Why shouldn't they be held to the conditions they stated? They wrote fifty plus pages of proposal to sell a specific activity. Doesn't that mean anything to people?
I would not be shocked by all of this if S.P.Å.C.E. had developed as an entirely alternative communal project in the relatively unregulated remoteness of Puna, which never entered into the legal process. OK, a bunch of hippies, I would think, and support their getting their act together now that times have changed.
What bothers me is that they are sophisticated grant and proposal writers who have terrific organizational skills, who proved they know how to negotiate the legal requirements, who got what they wanted based on promises and then reneged.
Chris Yuen was their original attorney and now he's the Planning Director, so if they still retain his support they certainly have big guns from the establishment on their side.
] it is mostly quotes from the 1998 proposal that I linked above. It's a long document so this is all out of context for reasons of brevity, but here is the link again for context:http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared%20Docu...LDINGS.pdf
These are the assurances made by Ellis re the the activities that would be conducted and impact. You will note that some lines repeat the same thing. I repeat them to show how many different times they said there would be little to no traffic, noise, or impact on neighbors.
quote:(note, the nearest neighbors for this application were the Village Green/Belly Acres, so it stating that the only neighbors were fully supportive, they were referring to themselves.)
An administrative building and facilities for on-site training is essential for us to maintain and develop our programs.
We plan to use the 4 acres to provide a headquarters for HVCs education programs. Facilities would include cindered access roads, an administrative building/pavilion for rehearsals and training, a caretakers cabin, and approximately 12 small (12*xl6') student/staff bunkhouses.
Numbers using the facilities would vary during the year. Regular weekly classes, workshops and rehearsals would involve about 25 people entering and leaving the land, perhaps six times a week between the hours of 10 am - 9 p.m.
The traffic would be light since most of the students would be transported in our company vans, some would arrive on foot or by bicycle and a few in cars. The maximum number of people using the facility at one time would be during the annual winter and summer camps with about 40 students and ten staff attending for a period of two weeks in the winters and four weeks in the summers.
It is not our intention to hold public performances in this facility. Our project will have very little environmental impact since the facilities to be built will not be visible from any existing public roads nor any existing residences.
The parking area will be sufficient to accommodate the number of cars expected.
3.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics
The proposed action will not involve any relocation of residents apart from a caretaker, nor will the action induce or inhibit population growth. The proposed facility is intended to service the existing and future population of the area. Although governed by existing zoning and County land use policies the proposed action is also not expected to significantly affect surrounding land values.
The anticipated traffic should not be significant.
B. The desired use shall not adversely affect surrounding properties. The Board of Directors of Kalapana Seaview Estates representing the subdivision Residents affected by the facility have expressed their absolute support for the desired use.
Similarly the owners of the only other occupied adjacent property, the Village Green Society, have also expressed their support for this project. The potential impacts to the surrounding properties, if any, could be noise and traffic. However, the volume of traffic to be generated by staff and students at the facility should be very low. Any noise associated with the proposed use should also be quite minimal and within normal working hours. That factor, combined withthe fact that homes in the immediate area are quite sparse, should not make the requested use an adverse one to the surrounding properties.
No added school facilities demand should be necessary, as the requested use is a service orientated one. It is a use that services the existing population and not one that serves as a catalyst for more people to reside in the area
The requested use would not interfere with any of the existing surrounding uses. Its noise and vehicular impacts will be negligible.
The requested use is not part of any larger project or phased development. It is intended to service the needs of the existing population. It is not a growth-inducive type of use
The requested use will not involve extensive on-site improvements.
Environmental impacts (noise air etc.) should be negligible.
The proposed project will not detrimentally affect air or water quality or ambient noise level.
The only discernible air quality impacts associated with the facility would be from the vehicular traffic. The frequency and volume of traffic, however, due to the limited number of days the programs will be held would be too small to create any appreciable impact.
I fully grant that the concept of helping troubled youth here is creative, innovative, and beneficial. The letters from the supporters are impressive. The document preparation is impressively written and thorough.
However, throughout this application, it states that the entire concept is to provide classes for children so that they can perform in other venues. It is all about children, not adults.
There will be no performances. The noise will be restricted to regular business hours. The traffic will be negligible; in fact, many students will come on bicycles or a school van. There will be on site parking for all visitors.
There won't be any impact on adjacent properties. That is a crucial aspect of getting the permit. No significant impact.
Far from what we hear now about people moving to Seaview because of what SPACE offers, they emphasize that the project will not attract growth, nor will it attract visitors from other communities.
S.P.A.C.E. got the permit by promising to make no impact on its neighbors! That is a commitment. How can I respect an organization that ignores the commitment it makes on its application once it gets what it wants?
They applied to add some facilities for their school. The school is not at risk. Their supposed mission is not threatened. Why shouldn't they be held to the conditions they stated? They wrote fifty plus pages of proposal to sell a specific activity. Doesn't that mean anything to people?
I would not be shocked by all of this if S.P.Å.C.E. had developed as an entirely alternative communal project in the relatively unregulated remoteness of Puna, which never entered into the legal process. OK, a bunch of hippies, I would think, and support their getting their act together now that times have changed.
What bothers me is that they are sophisticated grant and proposal writers who have terrific organizational skills, who proved they know how to negotiate the legal requirements, who got what they wanted based on promises and then reneged.
Chris Yuen was their original attorney and now he's the Planning Director, so if they still retain his support they certainly have big guns from the establishment on their side.