Laserfiche WebLink
Kam, T~,..~ <br /> TESTIMONY <br /> Of The <br /> KONA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE <br /> Presented by <br /> Joel Gimpel <br /> Public Affairs Committee Chair <br /> 73-4686 Hina Lani Street <br /> Kailas-Kona, Hawaii <br /> Before The <br /> iV~i HAWAII COUNTY COUNCII. <br /> Y~_~_.~.. Regarding <br /> <br /> ~1me_-----T'~-y~~ - Bill 178 Draft 4 <br /> Dom--- a,~~N ~rod~ CLIFTO'S KONA COAST, LLC <br /> August 4, 2004 <br /> Good morning and aloha. Less than two weeks ago you took some important and <br /> meaningful actions regarding this bill. You agreed that the number of residences to be <br /> built should be fixed rather than stated as a "maximum," and accepted the developer's <br /> offers to construct 390 residential units, 20% of which must be on site and affordable <br /> within the meaning of the statute, reduce the number of hotel units by 150, and spend up <br /> to $750,000 to prepare wnstruction plans for Phase 2 of the Queen Ka ahumanu <br /> widening project. <br /> There remain, however, two major concerns for area, and indeed, Hawaii County <br /> residents. First and foremost, there is no assurance of "concurrency," or the need for <br /> adequate road infrastructure to serve the projected increase in traffic volume to be caused <br /> by this project. Of course, the on-site housing and location of the project will divert some <br /> traffic from the Kailua-Kona village core, but it is inevitable that many workers, patrons <br /> and visitors will be coming from and going to South Kona and Kau, and the only route <br /> available to them is Queen Ka' ahumanu Hwy, which is already at capacity. We should, <br /> as I suggested two weeks ago, seek a `vin-win" solution, but the absence of a <br /> concurrency requirement will result in a "lose" situation for the county and for Kona. We <br /> therefore urge that Bill 178 be amended to provide that construction may not begin until <br /> Phase 2 of the Queea Ka' ahumanu widening project is funded, and that occupancy not be <br /> permitted until Phase 2 is completed. <br /> Our second concern regards the possibility that, under the present wording of Condition <br /> F, the ordinance would permit construction of one huge, "big box" store of up to 392,000 <br /> square feet. That, we believe, is unacceptable for the area. We don't want to see another <br /> "Lowe's" debacle. We therefore urge that the bill be amended to limit the size of any <br /> single commercial space to 75,000 square feet, which is certainly sufficient for a <br /> Comm. No.~~o • 1Oq <br /> R.,f. To: t <br /> .:.f. E>ate~ <br /> <br />