HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0225.010 2004-2006 .Mary .r~nn x ~o~fif"WalCer
73 4z8o .xeokeo Street, .xailua xmza, .~falvaii 96740 ysoo, Phone ~8o8~3zs3183
Corrected June 1, 2005 Council Testimony, RE: Resolution 84-05,
Condemnation of Matsumoto Road, Road Lot B, TMK 7-3-005-11 1.
I am testifying today in hope the County Council will consider deferring Resolution 84-US until the
ownership interests in Road Lot A, TMK 7-3-005-101 and safety concerns are resolved, (rather than
promised to be addressed). This second road lot is essential in responsibly completing the connection of
Holu and Keokeo as a through street. Both road parcels should be addressed together just as was done in
Resolution 83-OS for the Ahiahi Kauhale connector, Proceeding with just the County's 75% interest in
road parcel 101 is not a responsible decision.
It is my understanding that one of the main reasons we have building codes, is to ensure public safety. To
expedite completion of some the connectors, Public Works plans to build or expand already substandard
roads and they will still not be up to code. I heard several council members ask both Public Works and
Corp. Counsel if the County would be in good stead on a number of issues related to the connectors. As a
lay person, it seems obvious that not following the County's own guidelines to ensure public safety is not
keeping the County in good stead, but putting al I the people who will use the substandard connectors at
risk. 'That equates to County liability to me. If you're going to do this, do it right. Complete the
connectors to County standards.
As I watched the broadcast of the committee meeting and l~' council reading it was understandingly
obvious that some council members were confused because they are not familiar with the area. Several
inaccurate statements and implications were also made. I'd like to clear up some misconceptions that I
noticed on the video broadcasts. Please read t/iis before you vote if
you haven'/ had a chance !o alreudy.
Some of wha[ you mqv have understood is not correct.
I . The road maintenance agreement for parcel 1 1 I, does not address parcel 101's 25% private
ownership interest, which is also needed to complete the Holu Keokeo connector.
2. Mr. Takase stated that he had been in contact with the owners of parcel 101. This is not exactly
true. I initiated the contact on npril 26°' or 27°' after seeing resolution 84-OS on the 5/3/05
committee agenda and told him I would let the others know what was going on. !last spoke with
Mr. Takase April 29'x' regarding the documents 1 would be sending over, he assured me it would
be okay if 1 pouched Chem over, and have heard nothing frorn him since then.
Comm. No. Z ZS
Page 1 of4 Ref. To: Prea.~.r
,z~ os~. Jl1N 1
Mary Ann Todd-Waller RE: Resolution 84-OS
Corrected 6/1/05 Testimony
3. Bruce McClure mistakenly indicated the connectors would relieve traffic on Queen Kaahumanu
Highway. I'm certain he meant to say Mamalahoa Highway, because there will be no relief to
Queen Kaahumanu, only a quicker route to get there.
4. Mr. Pilago said the all the connectors dump onto Kaiminani so he gets the cumulative effect of all
this traffic passing right in front of his house. Some of the council misunderstood this to mean
that Mr. Pilago was going to be in the middle of this increased traffic. Mr. Pilago's home is
located below the makai most Holoholo connector and therefore he will not experience any more
traffic that he does now.
5. Another council member spoke of these connectors putting less traffic on the arterials. "These
connector roads will relieve some of the traffic on the steeper upper portion of Kaiminani Drive
during the morning and evening rush hours and relieve approximately ahalf--mile of grid-lock on
Mamalahoa Highway, however the traflic will still be dumping onto Kaiminani to get to Queen
Kaahumanu Highway; the ultimate destination of most of the motorists using the connectors in
the morning, and will do nothing to relieve traflic on the killer Queen Kaahumanu Highway.
6. Marni Herkes testified that the Kona Traffic Safety Committee approved all 4 connectors, there
were over a 100 people at the meeting, you will never have a connector road that you will not
have opposition too, and nobody that lives on a connector wants it open. I suggest the council
contact the committee to verify the following items a, b, c and d, especially since some council
members' votes are heavily inFluenced by the local traffic committee's recommendations.
a. The meeting took place on February 24, 2004 and only 3 connectors were discussed at the
meeting. The County is now considering 5 connectors of which 1 is already open.
b. 'T'here were approximately 50 people present at the meeting. (Joel Gimpel recalls between 40
and 60 J
c. There was never a letter written to the council nor was one planned because Bruce McClure
was at the meeting and it was assumed he absorbed it all.
Page 2 of 4
Mary Ann Todd-Waller RE: Resolution 84-OS
Corrected 6/1/05 Testimony
d. The recommendation of this committee that all 3 connectors be open at the same time was
based solely upon ashow-of- hands vote and direct result of more Coastview and
Wonderview residents being present at the meeting, because some of the residents on that
side of the barricade successfully alerted their neighbors desperately seeking a shorter route
to and from Qucen Kaahumanu of the meeting in a shore. period of time.
e.
While 1 agree, nobody that lives on a connector road wants their road open, there are at least 90 letters and
a petition with 65 signatures from people who do not live on Holu or Keokeo Street in the County
building's basement from 1995 and 1996, who objected to this connector being opened due to safety
concerns and their understanding from public meetings held prior to the Matsumoto Subdivision approval
that this connector would not be open until amauka-makai connector was open north of Kaiminani Drive.
This mauka-makai connector has yet to be built.
A traffic safety study has never been done by the Kona Traffic Safety Committee on the Kalaoa connector
roads. (Confirmed w/Gimpel 5/28/05.) Their recommendation was based solely on a popularity vote.
The safety committee was against opening only I connector, but Public Works opened it a half hour after
the dedication was approved by the Council on April 20°i, disregarding public safety and the impact it
would have on the residents of Holoholo and Nana Street. The substandard part of the road on Nana
Street was inspected a week after the connector was opened. Shoulder widening needs to be done there,
however it will still be sub-standard road. One would think in the County's best interest, Public Works
could have expeditiously taken care of this before it was open. This move was definitely not looking out
for the County's best interest or keeping the County in good stead and at best a pacifying quick fix.
Congratulations are in order to the designer of the Iliili Kiekie connector for having the foresight of
incorporating traffic calming devices into this connector road. (A complete stop is required in both
directions before reaching Kaiminani or Ahikawa Street, which will also serve as a deterrent to using this
connector.) In light of this, it is imperative traffic calming devices (speed humps) be installed on the I lolu
Keokeo connector before it is open.
Page 3 of 4
Mary Ann Todd-Waller RE: Resolution 84-OS
Corrected 6/1/05 Testimony
t strongly agree with Mr. Pilago that this Holu Keokeo connector issue must be settled once an for all. 1
therefore recommend the resolution be shelved until all the concerns are resolved, put in writing, and the
County Council has the opportunity to weigh thn benefits versus the costs, public safety and County's
liability of each of the unopened planned connectors. Once again, 1 am duty-bound to stress, if you're
going to do this, do the responsible thing; do it i fight.
Page 4 of 4