Laserfiche WebLink
Murashige, Laura <br /> From: Carolyn Wong [cIw023@hotmail.com] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:10 PM <br /> <br /> To: Pete H offman n @ hawai i. rr. com <br /> Cc: oldsaltp@yahoo.com; CooksHl@aol.com; rsmith@parkerranch.com; Holschuh, Fred; Ikeda, <br /> Donald; Arakaki, James; Higa, Stacy; Safarik, Gary; Jacobson, Bob; Isbell, Virginia; Pilago, K <br /> Angel; Hoffmann, Pete <br /> Subject: Final comments from Public Hearing on Bill 162 <br /> map.jpg <br /> Aloha, <br /> By the end of the testimonies last night, I was haunted by the question of <br /> <br /> WHY we would even consider putting more people in an obvious problem area? <br /> Mr. Elarionoff said it when he said the Kamuela Highlands subdivision was <br /> considered a joke when it was first being developed. Every person from that <br /> subdivision last night testified to the problems with the flooding in that <br /> area, and we want to allow eight more lots = at least 8 more families to <br /> build and live there. That will be 8 more families, in addition to the 174 <br /> existing lots/families in the existing subdivisions demanding that the <br /> county solve the flooding problem in that area. In addition, the county <br /> will be trying to come up with a solution with 40 less acres of undeveloped <br /> land with which to work with. To rely on Public Works to guide this <br /> development might not be the best solution. As was pointed out last night, <br /> somehow, the County allowed three "storm drains" to be filled and built upon <br /> in the neighboring subdivision. The flooding situation in this area is not <br /> well understood, but it IS known to EXIST. <br /> I am of the opinion that we currenlty have approximately 50 acres of flat, <br /> undeveloped land within which some kind of solution COULD be installed (see <br /> attached map). That 50 acres crosses 8 privately owned parcels. That area <br /> is. right now, an existing ponding area, aka floodwater retention structure, <br /> albeit a natural one. Is it especially effective? not really. Could it be <br /> improved and enhanced? yes, but not if there are people living in it. Will <br /> all 50 acres be necessary? Possibly not, but we cannot kneev that without a <br /> flood study of that area. If the Inabas still plan on cutting up their 40 <br /> acres as they had originally proposed (into S square 5 acre lots), <br /> approximately 4 of those lots will likely be in the area that could be used <br /> for a floodwater retention structure of some sort. Is it unfair to ask the <br /> Inabas to solve this problem? Yes definitely. Is it unfair to ask the <br /> Inaba's to wait till a study is conducted? If you only consider their <br /> circumstance, I'd say its "inconvenient" but not unfair. If you consider <br /> the people who could benefit from some sort of flood protection structure in <br /> that area - i think they deserve this consideration and effort and hopefully <br /> someday -action. Who is the county responsible to? One family? one <br /> landowner? or the community? Is it unfair to inconvience one landowner a <br /> little bit for the possible benefit of the whole? <br /> As mentioned last night, I would be happy to share with the Council or the <br /> planning department, whoever, whatever information i can. We could discuss <br /> the "Schulte Lake" project and other ideas if you like. <br /> Mahalo, <br /> Comm. No. • ~0 <br /> Carolyn Wong Ref. Tc~r~ QMa'1 <br /> REf. L%afe. <br /> t <br /> <br />