COM 0438.033 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Christopher Yuen Page 2 April 30, 2004 aligning to approximate)} Sa acres of undeveloped properties owned under Bolton and CL&.D Six, LLC. The General Plan includes the Hienaloli-Kahalui road project as a connector from Palani Road to Hualalai Road, but it is still at the conceptual stage. The most recent official comment. Nm ember 2002, declared the project in need of additional evaluacon -there is current County confirmation that the project status has not changed and is still in need of additional evaluation. An actual solution to same of the Kailua-Kona congestion and overburdened Nani Kailua Driv e/Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway intersection would be to develop the road from [he proposed subdivision northbound to Palani Road -but that is not under consideration. There has been no environmental assessment or any other evaluation for the Hienaloli-Kahalui connector road project, north or south of the proposed subdivision: therefore, the applicant's connector road development proposal is not a valid considemtion. The Hienaloli Dminagevr'ac has had flooding problems in the past, and currently (with the recent rains) there has been a significant increase in water flow through the drainageway area. The developer has obtained a revised map from FEMA. Consideration of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Keopu-Hienaloli Feasibility Study is also necessary. The Stud} commenced in 2002 and is scheduled for completion sometime azoand Mazch of 2006 (2nd Qtr Federal FY2005). The Cotmty has committed Deer $500,000 in tax payer monies to [his sturh. which will ulcmateh close off the North Keopu Stream and divert that flow to the South Keopu Stream. which is part of the Keopu-Hienaloli watershed system and is bound to effect the Hienaloli Drainageway flood area. There has been no comment solicited from this federal agency to determine the effects of subdivision development on the flood control project. or to determine the effects of the altered stream system on the proposed subdivision. On the Connty level, the application for [he proposed subdivision includes a facomble recommendation from Planning Department although agency comments have expressed a number of reseryacons about the projeM. The County Planning Commission and the County Planning Committee have both provided negative recommendations. [t is appropriate to refer the approval process to the Land Use Commission to review the agency comments under the stricter criteria required for development approvals. One justification for the State LUC approval is that the actual land azea in question is over li-acres. While I appreciate your acknowledgement that Lots 1 and 6 may share common owners. you may have dismissed the main premise of the segmentation conclusion: the same owner has interest on all six lots, in cooperation with business associates as indicated by property transactions, in spite of the applicant's representative Apri12t1th "deny. deny, den" tactics. Since no activity has ye[ occurred on Lot 2. the relevance to development on that lot is limited to future accvih, which, according to Mr. Mocers, is inevitable. The Lot 2 ownership interest is evenly divided between [he Robert D. Triantos trust members: Robert D. Triantos. William L. Wong, and Gmnt Miller. Lot 3 currently has submitted the SLU Od-006/REZ O I-009 applications for a change from A-5a to RS-20. which will add another 12 homes in the same section. Lot 3 is listed under Gmjan Wilkemob Project. LLC, and the president and corporate agent of that compam's manager, WLW Development Methods. Inc., is William L. Wong. As a point of reference. both lots have ownership under the member names of the Robert D. Triantos Tnut. The common ownership of Lots 1 and 6 helps to illusvate the point I have attempted to make. The CL&D LLC entices are all manager-managed companies under the sole management of Nani Kona Aina LLC. as you no doubt have recognized. Nani Kona Aina, LLC is amember-managed compan}• whose sole member is Dan Bolton, and whose publicly listed corporate agent is Robert D. Triantos, of Carlsmith Ball. LLP. Your letter states that you have no information showing that the Weltons are involved in the ownership of any other lot than lot 1. That observacon, whatever the Wel[on's involvement may be, misses the point. Your letter mentions boundary adjustments as "the kind of thing that can occur between independent but cooperacng landowners." The boundary adjustment between Lot ~ and Lot which is interesting without an ownership transfer transaction, indicates a cooperative interest in the property development designated in the applications (SLU 02-007/REZ 02.017) submitted for TMK 7-~-I0:052.