2021-07-15 Leeward Exh E (Comm 183)

Home

off timewise, but—Mr. Vitousek's characterizations of all of the events I've participated in were not correct. You'll note that most of them were long before I was schooled, as referred to in section VIII of my letter, you folks know me from my activities on the Planning Commission, and so you know since then I've been reasonable and rational in every aspect. For instance, Mr. Vitousek raises the issue of a recent meeting where he interrupted me—and let me reference transcript that he hasn't produced. I was discussing in the arguments or same as such that I was supporting for a particular subdivision, and that was going to use Ka`iminani and Mamalahoa as the source for traffic, and I brought up in my discussions, I said[Note: The quote is not verbatim from the original transcript], "There is no question that this subdivision will add traffic to Mamalahoa and Ka`iminani. There is a certain time of the day there is no question that the traffic on those two roads is terrible and dangerous, and there have been fatalities. Now, why is that? That's because the Planning Commission, have approved up to 25 delays to the bypass road, that Palamanui was supposed to build by 2005, which would alleviate,"that's when Mr. Vitousek interrupted me and called for an executive session. After the executive session, he allowed me to continue to indicate that the traffic improvements that were added—stop sign, mirror, speed bumps were all favorable—and I was going to vote in favor of it. The point I was trying to make was that Mamalahoa and Ka`iminani was congested, and Palamanui had agreed to build a road to relieve that condition, and this is a, then they asked for a deferral to do that 25a deferral I did not oppose but that meant the pressure on Mamalahoa and Ka`iminani would continue, and that would increase the problems for small developer applicants who relied on those promises for their developments. And I think Mr. Vitousek misunderstood my point and thought I was trying to bring up the Palamanui road deferral, which I did not oppose when it was heard. So I'd say that there was nothing wrong with that; I was trying to make a point. In regards to the Board of Ethics' letter, I've been before the Board of Ethics, and they found no, no conflict of interest, and they have not made any decision that's adversary at this point. The complaint brought before the Board of Ethics by Ms. Hickey, the unsuccessful applicant, was a motion; I made a motion to reject her prior request, and apparently, she took that to the Board of Ethics to try to reverse it. And let me say, this is what she objected to, this is the testimony in the transcript—and Ms. Hickey, by the way, withdrew her complaint for conflict of interest—this is what I said[Note: The quote is not verbatim from the original transcript], "And the other neighbors bought agricultural rural land and the peace and the quiet that goes along with it. What about them? You go a little bit here, sometimes here, a little bit commercial there, on ag land, and pretty soon it's gone. Isn't this a bad precedent? More and more Special Permits overcoming zoning is a bad precedent, will the, we are here, the commission is here, to represent West Hawaii, not the Hickeys. And we need to consider all of West Hawaii, not just the Hickeys." So I did refer to Ms. Hickey as part of West Hawaii. I think it's unfair to say that I was out of order; I was raising a valid point. By the way, even Ms.well, Ms. Carr Smith and I often voted the same way, but we didn't vote the same on that issue. So you folks know me, you see me act on this commission. The key thing is section VIII. The County Council voted to defer the matter and not accept the mayor's letter. Since this matter rose many months ago, mostly 2020, I've been schooled by Deputy Corporation Counsel Yamamoto [sic-Yoshimoto], by Planner Jackson, and been provided with some disability assistance by the county's person in charge of such things, and studied Robert's Rules of Order. 12 EXHIBIT E