2005-05-06 Answering Brief Re Ainaola Development

Home

only a"minimal amount of work, basically resurfacing the roadway that's already substandard and, and dangerous in some areas." CCTr, ROA-E at 105. Mr. Safarik has stated that PEAR, including Ainaola Boulevard, "has become a critical escape route and alternate route for the people in the Puna region." CCTr, ROA-E at 100. Whether Ainaloa Boulevard is a private or County road, road improvements are still a major safety concern and expense. Planning Department Exhibit 9 summarizes ADC's 1992 estimates of the costs of "upgrade Ainaloa Boulevard" as $6.1 million. The loss of over $5 million (1992 dollars)in needed road improvements is obviously a serious setback to the community. FOF/COL,FOF No. 25., Opening Brief Appendix 1-9. The Commission's findings regarding the continuing need for Ainaloa Boulevard road improvements and payments such as those under Condition No. 7 are not clearly erroneous. ADC does not specifically discuss other allegedly erroneous fact findings. To summarily respond to these: 1. ADC erroneously claims that FOF/COL, FOF No. 14 finds that the Use Permit was granted in 1992 "solely upon agreements made by Ainaloa . . . rather than upon the standards for granting a use permit." Opening Brief, p. 10, item No. 1. FOF/COL, FOF No. 14 does not say that, but only addresses the relevance of the road commitments made by ADC in context of the use permit standards. 2. Contrary to ADC's claims, FOF/COL, FOF No. 19 does not claim that the County does not have funds to make PEAR safe; it only summarizes Councilman Safarik's testimony regarding the need for costly road improvements for PEAR. 3. ADC claims no evidence of the effects of inflation on the value of the proposed $1 million dollar donation, compared to the $6.1 million 1992 commitment. However, agencies may take notice of judicially recognizable facts. HRS Section 23