Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> I <br /> Communication 997 <br /> Bill 235 <br /> Page 6 of 8 <br /> <br /> Council Member Higa's concerns were if the amendment passed would it alter time frame and <br /> construction costs, and whether the proposed amendments could jeopardize the test. Mr. Sumada <br /> stated that the amendments would not jeopardize the test, just prolongs it. <br /> <br /> Council Member Yagong felt that this was a local issue and that the people really affected are the <br /> people from Ka`u, Oceanview, South Kona and North Kona. Those are the people who have to <br /> live with what the Council decides today which, from what he's hearing, is unacceptable. <br /> Mr. Yagong stated that if Hokulia is going to take three to four years to build the road, another <br /> 18 months for the Department to put in the mitigation measures, do we really want to wait <br /> six years before we do a test. Mr. McClure stated Hokulia only has three years to complete the <br /> Toad and that the mitigation is to be done simultaneously and not incrementally. <br /> Director Yuen stated that the basic purpose behind the initiative was to give some significant <br /> traffic relief in a reasonable short period of time. Mr. Yuen recalls that Public Works feels that <br /> just about all of the mitigation can be done within six months, except for the signal at Kaleiopapa <br /> Road and the crosswalk signal of which these two items add a substantial amount of time to <br /> complete. <br /> <br /> Council Member Ikeda stated these problems can be solved by not opening the road at all. If the <br /> road has to be completed in three years and all the mitigation measures are going to take just as <br /> long, then what the Council needs to do is defeat the bill. <br /> <br /> In an attempt at resolving any impasse, Council Member Pilago proposed withdrawing his <br /> amendment and having the Department embed the mitigation measures within the Traffic Code. <br /> However, Mr. Pilago said he would do so on the condition that there needs to be some kind of an <br /> agreement that the Departments would continue to work with the Council to ensure that the <br /> intent and purpose of the proposed amendments are not lost. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sumada stated that the Department's presentation to the communities included a short-term <br /> time frame of six to eight months and a long-term time frame of one to three years. He said the <br /> only concern is if the Council is going to impose and add to the short term list, then the <br /> Department would request additional time to re-evaluate how long it would take, especially in <br /> light of the sunset clause. <br /> <br /> There was further discussion of Mr. Pilago withdrawing his proposed amendment and Council <br /> Member Ford's objection to the withdrawal. It was noted that if Mr. Pilago's withdrawal was <br /> accepted, then Council Member Ford could not introduce her proposed floor amendment. <br /> Mr. Yagong encouraged Mr. Pilago not to make the withdrawal and allow the Department to <br /> come back at the next meeting and provide a time frame that the Council could determine <br /> whether or not it's acceptable. Following a discussion with the County Clerk, the proposed <br /> amendment submitted by Council Member Pilago was approved. Council Member Ford then <br /> moved to amend Bill 235, as amended by Mr. Pilago, with her proposed floor amendment. <br /> <br /> During discussions of Ms. Ford's proposed amendments, certain minor secondary amendments <br /> were discussed. Also discussed was whether the amendments from Council Member Pilago and <br /> <br /> JC-PWIRC, PC, & FC Report No. 7 <br />