My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-05-06 Answering Brief Re Ainaola Development
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Court Documents
>
2003-2005
>
2005-05-06 Answering Brief Re Ainaola Development
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:41:01 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:38:12 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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).
View images
View plain text
Association supports the $1 million road donation, because it will "go towards the safety of it, <br /> which is what we wanted." CCTr, ROA-E at 117. <br /> The Planning Commission further found that the Hawaii County Council has resolved to <br /> complete the Puna Emergency Access Road ("PEAR")which includes Ainaloa Boulevard. <br /> Council member Gary Safarik testified to that, and that$2,000,000 already spent has provided <br /> only a"minimal amount of work, basically resurfacing the roadway that's already substandard <br /> and, and dangerous in some areas." CCTr, pp. 18-24, ROA-E at 105. Mr. Safarik has stated that <br /> PEAR, including Ainaloa Boulevard, "has become a critical escape route and alternate route for <br /> the people in the Puna region." CCTr., p. 19/100, ROA-E at 100. Whether Ainaloa Boulevard is <br /> a private or County road, road improvements are still a major safety concern and expense. <br /> ADC relied on Director of Public Works Bruce McClure's letter dated July 26, 2004 to <br /> say that with signs, striping and pavement markers, the road can now be made "reasonably safe." <br /> However, that letter addresses the Hawaiian Acres section of PEAR, not Ainaloa Boulevard. <br /> ROA-E at 63-64. <br /> Planning Department Exhibit 9 summarizes ADC's 1992 estimates of the costs of <br /> "upgrade Ainaloa Boulevard" as $6.1 million. ROA-A at p. 171. The loss of over $5 million <br /> (1992 dollars) in needed road improvements is obviously a serious setback to the community. <br /> FOF/COL, FOF No. 25, Opening Brief Appendix 1-9. <br /> Hearings Officer Colin Love observed during the contested case hearing to ADC <br /> representative, Mr. Fuke, "you said that the owner cannot afford the amenities that he—that were <br /> offered in the 1992. If that is to be a finding of fact I am to make, I have no evidence. You're <br /> not—you're not Ainaloa Development Corporation. . . . I don't think that your-you can testify <br /> as their financial adviser." CCTr, ROA-E at 155. ADC Attorney Sandra Song explained that <br /> Mr. Fuke's testimony could be based on hearsay discussions with Ainaloa representatives. <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.