Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0183.016 2020-2022 P/PC COMH.153 From: Chuck Flaherty Sent: Monday, April 05, 2021 11:59 AM COUNTY CLERK To: Council Testimony COUNTY OF HAWAI'I Subject: Communication 183 testimony RECEIVED Time 11:5110..A, By d April 5, 2021 Date : APR 0 5 2021 Planning Committee Hawai'i County Council 101 Aupuni St, Ste 3 Hilo HI 96720 Re: Communication 183 Aloha Madame Chair and members of the Planning Committee, I am testifying against Communication 183. Mayor Roth's request to remove Mark Van Pernis from the Leeward Planning Commission is simply outrageous. It is truly shocking that the mayor, a former prosecuting attorney, is asking this committee to support his request without having provided any specific examples. Even if such examples were provided, they would have to be considered within the proper context. As you will see later in my testimony, context is all important. Mr. Van Pernis is the only legal expert on the Leeward Planning Commission. All too often, he finds himself having to correct, clarify, or point out errors during the course of LPC meetings. One only has to watch the LPC meetings to see the operating environment in which Mr. Van Pernis is serving is consistently dysfunctional, which is frustrating to all involved. If fingers are going to be pointed, there are many causes for the dysfunction, including insufficient support and sometimes inappropriate interference from corporation counsel and the Planning Department. People who have served on the LPC have shared this common complaint with me. Comm. No. ( 0�1 0 Ref.To: PIP tJ 1 Ref. APR - Fi 20211 Just watch one LPC meeting and it is apparent Mr. Van Pernis is the sole legal expert. He is not badgering, disrespectful, mistreating, nor conducting a "cross-examination". He is conducting himself as a commissioner should with valid and appropriate points. The inconsistent level of knowledge and experience on the LPC combined with the lack of appropriate support from corporation counsel and the Planning Department makes serving on the LPC more difficult than it should be. For instance, I will refer to the December 17, 2020 LPC meeting and the agenda item in which an applicant was requesting an amendment of a Special Management Area permit to extend the time to complete construction, which is in itself a current hot button,issue. • A public testifier revealed the applicant was registered in Nevada, but their business registration had been inactive for 10Y ears. She alleged the application to amend Condition No. 2 of SMA permit No. 388 is therefore not being made by a legal entity and should not have been accepted by the Planning Department or placed on the LPC agenda. Another public testifier pointed out the applicant is proposing additional development. The original plan was for a condominium development but is now being proposed as a higher impact time-share development. The testifier said this should have triggered the requirement for a new SMA permit by the Planning Department. They also pointed out a new SMA permit should be required given four prior extensions had been granted and there have been many changes over the past two decades. The applicant's consultant, Mr. Sidney Fuke, acknowledged the issue of the applicant's business being inactive and said would respect LPC decision on this matter, if they took it up. One of the commissioners asked a question. When no one provided an answer, Van Pernis then attempted to provide a response, but the chair would not recognize Mr. Van Pernis or allow him to respond until after he insisted being recognized because he had the answer. During Mr. Van Pernis's initial comments on the agenda item, Mr. Van Pernis, who was speaking from the Kona Planning Office, was suddenly cutoff because the county office had issues with his microphone. The LPC moved forward without Mr. Van Pernis being able to complete his comments. When Mr. Van Pernis was finally able to continue, he said, "thank you" and continued with his questions. He asked the Planning Department if it made a determination as to whether the applicant was a legally registered entity at the time the application was made. The Planning Department did not understand the question and it was clear the LPC chair did not understand the question when she attempted to clarify the question. After further explanation by Mr. Van Pernis, the Planning Department admitted this was not an issue that they "looked into". If an applicant is not a legal entity, then the application is not valid and all further action by the LPC and Planning Department should have ceased. Despite the essential critical importance of this fact, no action was taken by the LPC, corporation counsel, or the Planning Department to address this issue. 2 Mr. Van Pernis then pointed out the SMA had expired since the time the application was submitted and that traffic had changed over the past 22 years. He asked the applicant and the Planning Department had a performed a new traffic study, especially given the plans for a time-share would place more vehicles on the roads than the original plan for a condominium development. Mr. Van Pernis's audio connection with the Kona office was again interrupted. When he was able to speak again, he was very patient and pointedly polite, saying "thank you". Towards the end of the meeting Corporation Counsel gave a presentation to the LPC on prejudice and bias. They took the position that if a commissioner comes into a meeting with a prejudgment on an agenda items before a commissioner had heard all the testimony and received all information, then the commissioner should recuse themselves. Mr. Van Pernis pointed out all commissioners come before the commission with inherent biases. Mr. Van Pernis challenged corporation counsel's legal interpretation, pointing out that the review of information prior to a meeting could cause bias, for instance, if a legal defect was discovered. - It was another commissioner, not Mr. Van Pernis, who then pointed out the definitions provided by corporation counsel were for criminal law, not civil law, and so they were comparing apples and oranges. Is the mayor also considering requesting this commissioner's removal? In another example, Mr. Van Pernis has attempted to put a draft rule before the LPC for three straight meetings to deal with repeated extensions of time for county approvals. This effort has been frustrated, so Mr. Van Pernis's frustration at the end of the third meeting is completely understandable. In summary, Mr. Van Pernis has been dealing with county planning legal issues for decades. He has the most experience and knowledge of any of the LPC members. Sadly, watching the LPC meetings, one can see certain commissioners have been disrespectful to Mr. Van Pernis. It is in fact Mr. Van Pernis who is has being mistreated and disrespected by the mayor's administration. Despite this attack, I hope Mr. Van Pernis will continue to volunteer his knowledge and expertise and having the patience, fortitude, and determination to remain on the LPC advocating for the citizens, laws, rules, and regulations of this county, especially when all-too-often he is doing the job others are being paid to do. The mayor's action is having the effect of silencing rightful criticism of the Planning Department, corporation counsel, and his administration. I hope this committee makes it clear this is unacceptable and this committee encourages all commissioners to take the tough positions that are sometimes necessary to make sure right and pono decisions are made by the LPC. I hope this committee will thank Mr. Van Pernis, ask him to stay the course and encourage him to keep up his good work. 3 Sincerely, Chuck Flaherty 4