COM 0674.042 2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hawaii County Council September 5, 2002 Page 2 We are vigorously objecting to this provision for the following reasons: 1. In our investigation of the property we acquired, including all of the other parcels located in Hienaloli 2"d, we reviewed the KEAHOLE TO KEAUHOU ROAD SYSTEMS & PROJECTS UPDATE (County of Hawaii Projects, Unless Otherwise Noted -Status as of August 2001) and reviewed the existing and planned arterial and collector roadways which were noted to be supported by recently completed traffic studies. Included in the proposed collector roads was the extension of Hienaloli Road connecting to Palani Road. There is no proposed collector or arterial road connecting Kakalina Street with Palani Road and certainly no east/west collector or arterial road planned within the Hienaloli 2"d parcel. 2. The subject parcels are located on the edge of a significant flood channel so that an arterial or collector road connecting Kakalina Street with Palani Road (or any other location across this flood channel) would require exorbitant engineering and construction costs. This condition would probably discourage any construction of a bridge road. 3. A mauka/makai interior road4vay from the subject property as noted in the conditions will almost certainly not be useful as a collector or arterial road to Kakalina Street because there already exists amauka/makai road (Aloha Kona Drive) less than a 100 yards from the subject property and from our property. Residents of the proposed subdivision will certainly not drive mauka to Kakalina to exit out of Nani Kailua onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway, which represents a full semi-circle from their origination point. They would take the more direct route of Kawena Street. Also, since there probably would be no half bridge built over the flood channel on Kakalina Street, running another County dedicable east/west road less than a 100 yards from an existing easUwest road would be superfluous. Residents from the subject property would not use this road to exit while residents from Kakalina Street would not use this exit. 4. An interior roadway intersecting with Kakalina Street on our property, which the condition implies, would virtually wipe out the lower portion of our property with 60' wide swaths of roadway and curbs leading nowhere, thereby causing us extreme hardship and economic damages. 5. Kona has been beset vrith teenage drinking problems cenkered at stubbed out roads. These roads tend to be located in remote and dark areas conducive to these activities. In our zealousness to impose future road requirements, we must be cogrji~ar~t ~f the ir~plicatidn~ ~f tf'~ese enn~itions.