HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0687.028 2004-2006 Page 1 of 2
Murashige, Laura
From: KonaSteve [stevel@Islgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 9:38 AM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Cc: stevel@Islgroup.com; Pilago, K. Angel
Subject: Written Testimony - Hilu Hilu /Palamanui Public Hearing Set for April 26th
Re: Hilu Hilu /Palamanui Public Heazing Set for April 26th
Hawaii County Council,
You are scheduled to hear public testimony of the above referenced topic on the date indicated. I, quite
unfortunately am unable to attend but request you enter my below written testimony into the meeting -
record. Thank you.
I wish to convey my comments on the Bills and modifications to Ordinance 93-45.
First, as previously stated in earlier comment on this subject, I urge the Council to consider the
documented restrictions that are public record with regard to the proper use of Makalei Drive. It is clear
that this is a substandard road for purposes of being a mauka-makai corridor and there is repeated
supporting documentation by experts that it was neither designed nor intended to be used as such. It
does not meet the required standards of width and is overly steep for considerable length. There have
already been documented accidents and from my own vantage point I've seen routine near misses
involving vehicles, pedestrians, and children. Given the recent finding by the Hawaii Supreme Court, I
urge you to enforce the law with regard to the suitability of Makalei Drive and require it be used only as
the minor road as it was designed, designated and constructed. We have a wonderful opportunity to
achieve the need for amauka-makai connector should the Palamanui project be approved with the
condition of a legal, proper, and safe alternate road that is designed along all County and State
requirements for such use.
Second, as a concerned citizen for the legacy of safety and protection for the community, I am very
concerned over the language I see regazding "housekeeping" issues and deletions ofnon-required or
obsolete conditions of Ordinance 93-45.
I urge the Council to very carefully examine each detail in this language. We must avoid a blanket
decision that could very well come back to a grave mistake that may have severe liability and personal
injury ramifications.
Finally, in discussing approval for the Palamanui project, the single largest advantage that would interest
the public at large is the development of a university campus. Without that we must cazefully assess the
impact to an already insufficient infrastructure plaguing West Hawaii. Our local newspaper this week
cited the release of several million dollazs by Governor
Lingle to provide for drilling of water wells in the azea of Kealakehe. The funds carry a provision that
these wells have sufficient production and must be available to supply a future university campus in that
area. This should send a very clear
message to us all that regardless of what the developer and other interests may indicate about the
viability of Palamanui having a university campus, it remains a black cloud as to where, if anyplace, this
campus may rest. ~ •,L~
Comm No. N
Ref. To: ~raaee
4/24/2006 Re#. Date
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and having it become a part of the meeting
record.
Mahalo no,
Stephen D. Lopez
72-1167 Makalei Drive
Kailua-Kona, HI. 96740
808-325-1121
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVGAnti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.385 /Virus Database: 268.4.6/323 -Release Date: 4/24/2006
4/24/2006