COM 0687.028 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 1 of 2 Murashige, Laura From: KonaSteve [stevel@Islgroup.com] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 9:38 AM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Cc: stevel@Islgroup.com; Pilago, K. Angel Subject: Written Testimony - Hilu Hilu /Palamanui Public Hearing Set for April 26th Re: Hilu Hilu /Palamanui Public Heazing Set for April 26th Hawaii County Council, You are scheduled to hear public testimony of the above referenced topic on the date indicated. I, quite unfortunately am unable to attend but request you enter my below written testimony into the meeting - record. Thank you. I wish to convey my comments on the Bills and modifications to Ordinance 93-45. First, as previously stated in earlier comment on this subject, I urge the Council to consider the documented restrictions that are public record with regard to the proper use of Makalei Drive. It is clear that this is a substandard road for purposes of being a mauka-makai corridor and there is repeated supporting documentation by experts that it was neither designed nor intended to be used as such. It does not meet the required standards of width and is overly steep for considerable length. There have already been documented accidents and from my own vantage point I've seen routine near misses involving vehicles, pedestrians, and children. Given the recent finding by the Hawaii Supreme Court, I urge you to enforce the law with regard to the suitability of Makalei Drive and require it be used only as the minor road as it was designed, designated and constructed. We have a wonderful opportunity to achieve the need for amauka-makai connector should the Palamanui project be approved with the condition of a legal, proper, and safe alternate road that is designed along all County and State requirements for such use. Second, as a concerned citizen for the legacy of safety and protection for the community, I am very concerned over the language I see regazding "housekeeping" issues and deletions ofnon-required or obsolete conditions of Ordinance 93-45. I urge the Council to very carefully examine each detail in this language. We must avoid a blanket decision that could very well come back to a grave mistake that may have severe liability and personal injury ramifications. Finally, in discussing approval for the Palamanui project, the single largest advantage that would interest the public at large is the development of a university campus. Without that we must cazefully assess the impact to an already insufficient infrastructure plaguing West Hawaii. Our local newspaper this week cited the release of several million dollazs by Governor Lingle to provide for drilling of water wells in the azea of Kealakehe. The funds carry a provision that these wells have sufficient production and must be available to supply a future university campus in that area. This should send a very clear message to us all that regardless of what the developer and other interests may indicate about the viability of Palamanui having a university campus, it remains a black cloud as to where, if anyplace, this campus may rest. ~ •,L~ Comm No. N Ref. To: ~raaee 4/24/2006 Re#. Date