My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
PL-REZ-2022-000033 RENEE & DEREK INABA TESTIMONY 12.12.2022
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Board Packets
>
2022
>
2022-12-15 Leeward
>
Item #1 Kona Three, LLC (PL-REZ-2022-000033)
>
2022-12-15 LPC Board Packet
>
PL-REZ-2022-000033 RENEE & DEREK INABA TESTIMONY 12.12.2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/13/2022 7:03:42 AM
Creation date
5/7/2024 8:35:58 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
agencies,departments, and all parties all around the ahupua'a can be fully addressed. You may all be familiar with the <br /> major flooding that happens just below these areas on Kuakini. There's a lot of concern that any changes or alterations in <br /> contouring the land could create destructive outcomes if done improperly or alter a properly working watersheds or <br /> streams,i.e., similar concerns to the major flooding on Kauai which caused massive flooding resulting in property <br /> damage,casualties and fatalities due to contouring work done without proper consideration of the entire area even miles <br /> away. These are important issues and it is believed that the environmental impact studies and other studies done were <br /> incomplete and those can leave big but important gaps in real consequences of development,contouring,changing the <br /> land. <br /> Back to our taxpayers and the County of Hawai'i and others being stuck with the bill,very big bills,once the builder is <br /> long gone. These will be the major infrastructure components that really need to be addressed before any permits should <br /> be allowed or any equipment would ever be allowed to move on to the property assuming all the other issues had been <br /> addressed in a transparent and community-based manner. By the time,our County and our taxpayers realize how much <br /> additional infrastructure this whole project will take these builders will be long gone counting their cash while our <br /> taxpayers and our County have to foot the bill. <br /> We just simply don't have the infrastructure in the area to deal with the transportation flow with this many more people in <br /> the area. Some of the roads were not even constructed properly and cannot handle additional flow. An example is <br /> Puapuaanui,too steep a grade,blind spot curvatures in the road that make this particular road which is already very busy <br /> very dangerous without any additional overload of traffic. There have been numerous meetings with the state and county <br /> highway and safety committee on this. It is a known problem. (Note when the developers conducted traffic studies it <br /> seems those were done during covid times when traffic was,to say the least,rather light. That is not the case now <br /> and clearly not what we would anticipate in the future.) Roads would likely have to be reconfigured,expanded and or <br /> merge lanes, lights,etc. Movement of huge amounts of traffic through residential communities poses a whole lot of other <br /> issues and risks that are in many ways untenable. Additionally,the extra traffic loaded on to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway <br /> just north of Puapuaanui and south past Lako would not be helpful or popular with our commuters and public. If you have <br /> not travelled these areas during peak and even non-peak times to "experience"this significant congestion you may not be <br /> as aware as this as our Kona community. <br /> Infrastructure issues continue with other concerns. Schools do not have the capacity at this point to handle additional <br /> students,we think you already are aware of this issue. Water taps,water pressure, and water supply (wells and aquifers) <br /> has been an issue in our communities and Kona in general. Many other services from both public and private resources <br /> and vendors would also be greatly strained. <br /> Do we really have the capacity to handle all this extra infrastructure cost?These are just a few of the issues that would <br /> arise by granting these permits or any extensions. Is that the legacy that this commission wants? <br /> The best decision, a good choice here would be to make sure that this application is paused and deferred until: <br /> 1)An actual COMPLETE archaeological study is done of the whole property in question. There is considerable evidence <br /> that rather significant Hawaiian archaeological and perhaps cultural materials are on this property. <br /> 2)A proper query to add layers of real transparency about this whole development and who the developers are and who <br /> they've had contact with needs to be better known by decision makers and stakeholders. This would hopefully avoid the <br /> actual or perceived conflicts of interest that some have expressed concern. County officials and other county decision <br /> making parties that are involved with this process should probably certify that they have never done business with nor had <br /> any financial interest with any of these developers in the past or this consortium of investors. This would be important to <br /> give the public ease and assurance about the parties and the process. <br /> 3)The public and all key stakeholders have a proper opportunity to in a transparent way vet and understand these issues <br /> and share their concerns as well as their mana'o on these matters. This is important in that if this is to go forward and there <br /> is to be an additional cost to the community and to the County,we need to do that with some consciousness and full <br /> awareness of why this would be moving forward given the history. (Let's also understanding that some stakeholders are <br /> say creatures or the aina itself and not human beings and we citizens and interested stewards will have to speak on their <br /> behalf.) <br /> 4)A full rigorous assessment of infrastructure risk and potential costs downstream needs to be done in earnest.Not to do <br /> so would seem reckless of the power you currently hold and of the positions and responsibility that our County <br /> administration has for being good stewards of the resources and the planning decisions. Given that the costs are likely to <br /> be quite large due to highway and road concerns,due to lost endangered and protected species habitats,expansions to our <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.