HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0493.010 2004-2006 Murashige, Laura
From: Carolyn Wong [cIw023@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:10 PM
To: Pete H offman n @ hawai i. rr. com
Cc: oldsaltp@yahoo.com; CooksHl@aol.com; rsmith@parkerranch.com; Holschuh, Fred; Ikeda,
Donald; Arakaki, James; Higa, Stacy; Safarik, Gary; Jacobson, Bob; Isbell, Virginia; Pilago, K
Angel; Hoffmann, Pete
Subject: Final comments from Public Hearing on Bill 162
map.jpg
Aloha,
By the end of the testimonies last night, I was haunted by the question of
WHY we would even consider putting more people in an obvious problem area?
Mr. Elarionoff said it when he said the Kamuela Highlands subdivision was
considered a joke when it was first being developed. Every person from that
subdivision last night testified to the problems with the flooding in that
area, and we want to allow eight more lots = at least 8 more families to
build and live there. That will be 8 more families, in addition to the 174
existing lots/families in the existing subdivisions demanding that the
county solve the flooding problem in that area. In addition, the county
will be trying to come up with a solution with 40 less acres of undeveloped
land with which to work with. To rely on Public Works to guide this
development might not be the best solution. As was pointed out last night,
somehow, the County allowed three "storm drains" to be filled and built upon
in the neighboring subdivision. The flooding situation in this area is not
well understood, but it IS known to EXIST.
I am of the opinion that we currenlty have approximately 50 acres of flat,
undeveloped land within which some kind of solution COULD be installed (see
attached map). That 50 acres crosses 8 privately owned parcels. That area
is. right now, an existing ponding area, aka floodwater retention structure,
albeit a natural one. Is it especially effective? not really. Could it be
improved and enhanced? yes, but not if there are people living in it. Will
all 50 acres be necessary? Possibly not, but we cannot kneev that without a
flood study of that area. If the Inabas still plan on cutting up their 40
acres as they had originally proposed (into S square 5 acre lots),
approximately 4 of those lots will likely be in the area that could be used
for a floodwater retention structure of some sort. Is it unfair to ask the
Inabas to solve this problem? Yes definitely. Is it unfair to ask the
Inaba's to wait till a study is conducted? If you only consider their
circumstance, I'd say its "inconvenient" but not unfair. If you consider
the people who could benefit from some sort of flood protection structure in
that area - i think they deserve this consideration and effort and hopefully
someday -action. Who is the county responsible to? One family? one
landowner? or the community? Is it unfair to inconvience one landowner a
little bit for the possible benefit of the whole?
As mentioned last night, I would be happy to share with the Council or the
planning department, whoever, whatever information i can. We could discuss
the "Schulte Lake" project and other ideas if you like.
Mahalo,
Comm. No. • ~0
Carolyn Wong Ref. Tc~r~ QMa'1
REf. L%afe.
t
r
1
Legend k~ fGG""..t~l ,j
Ohaba parcel ~ Ir ~ I f j (,_~L/~~
'
ThAK ~ 1 ~ ~'t'°sxr
~POterrtiel area ror nooNv~ater retention structure
Y ~ s
r ~
1. ~ Y
~ _
~2 r .i' ~ ~.`r ~ ~i
t ~ 9
~ r.', ~ i ,~a, i
Lr. ~ ~J .,rM1 itr RV ~a
• ,
M1,. ~ ~ pY. • ~ . .
~ ~ r lv ~
1
4 Y l', ~ ~ r ~ ~1 ( 1
4::' ~ r~ yy . ~ n r1
r t ` ~3~~ L.~ j f i
f
'.ia . ~ ~11=*_ / 'Alin l _ ~ t
t 5 /,t
r ~ ~e~ / i 15 1~ A ~3 k l.
r ~ .
r ~ l - ~ ~ r' - _ _ ~ _ ~ l _ ~ ~ ~
~i~? ~ ~ ~ y.~
sr~Ua r ~ _~c
i t i~ ~ ~ r-
_ :r
~~r lM~'' ` 4 ~
~
~ ~
y
- - - - - ~ , ~ ~ T -
waunea
~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~at~a~
~ ~ I~i ~
1 mch equals 1 ,500 feet