HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0183.038 2020-2021 l
-ti x
From: Nancy Carr Smith
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2021 9:35 AM
To: Council Testimony -
Cc: Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Villegas, Rebecca; Lee Loy, Sue; Richards, Tim; Chung, Aaron; Inaba,
Holeka; David, Maile; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Kimball, Heather
Subject: May 4 - Communication 183
Attachments: Please share my concerns below with Commissioner Van Pernis; Van Pernis written
testimony.pdf, 2020-08-20 Minutes Leeward Exh C (AMEND REZ 2004-024 &AMEND REZ
2004-025).pdf
Aloha Council Chair David, Committee Chair Kierkiewicz, Council Members,
Please find attached email letter dated 10/9/2020 from myself to Mark Van Pernis,that was referenced in my testimony at
your Planning Committee April 6 meeting on this topic.
I was told by Corporation Counsel that I couldn't share the communication that showed Mr. Yoshimoto's email that confirmed
it was sent, due to the "attorney client privilege".
However J did confirm with me as Chair, and to you at the April 6 meeting,that he had sent it. Mr.Van Pernis says he didn't
receive it but I believe the email was sent to the
same email address that all Planning Commission business is sent to, so I am not sure how that could be.
As a reminder,this email was only one of many warnings to Mr.Van Pernis,which began at his first meeting,and was evident
at each subsequent meeting. Below I have outlined
the various reminders/warnings/reprimands that he received, as well as some of the questionable behavior that occurred at
most every meeting.
February 2020—Mark's first meeting with LPC
• Applicant Campbell—during discussion after a motion was made,the Commissioner asked to make an amendment to
the motion, and when that didn't happen, he abstained from voting.
• Applicant Konalani Yoga-Applicant stated that the Commissioner was acting hostile, and Corporation Counsel Malia
Hall reprimanded the Commissioner and reminded him that this is not an adversarial process and that if he cannot be
civil, he will be asked to leave. That was a warning at his first meeting.
• First hearing for Applicant Suffolk and Puaa-at which time Mark asked questions of the Developer such as "have you
filed bankruptcy?". He belittled the applicant and never mentioned the fact
that he had a potential conflict due to the fact that one of his previous clients had a case against same person
(applicant) in the past. He used the information from that previous case of his to question the applicant and make him
uncomfortable.The apparent conflict was not disclosed and we learned at a later date that he had a connection to the
applicant. Also,there was a motion to continue the agenda item,and Mr.Van Pernis voted against that, which is his
prerogative, but due to the potential conflict, his vote showed that he wanted these folks to be rejected vs. learn more
information like the rest of the commissioners. His inability to be civil and courteous was an issue.
March 2020—no meeting
April 2020—no meeting
Comm.
May 2020— no meeting
Ref. o:
Ref. Date
June 2020
• First"on line" meeting
• Second hearing far Applicant Suffolk and Puaa—stated that the LPC is not supposed to facilitate a sale of property. No
where in our rules does it state that decisions should be affected by whether or not a property is for sale. Several times
1
he asked questions of the staff and the applicant along with their consultants, that he already knew the answer to,
such as what street is Walmart on?etc. It's a pattern that he asks these questions full knowing the answer to see what
the answer will be so that he can dispute it. After staff repeatedly explained the situation with what Mark wanted to
be pau ordinances and pau permits, and that they weren't, he repeatedly pushed. He actually wanted to make
"arguments"as though he is in court.After much pushing and prodding of the applicant, the Commissioner
"abstained"from voting, while the rest of the commission voted to defer and asked the applicant to work with the
Planning Dept. More than once he stated that we are not here to assure that a developer can make a profit.This is an
inappropriate comment as it refers to lack of fairness. We are to consider applications, nor should we judge people
based on their income,against lack of fairness.This is an ethics issue and against the PC rules regarding being
courteous to all parties. Plus, if he intended to abstain from voting, he shouldn't have been a part of the conversation.
July 2020—no meeting
August 2020
• Third hearing for Suffolk and Puaa—Mr. Van Pernis had sent testimony to the Commissioners via the Dept. (attached
Van Pernis written testimony) prior to the meeting, regarding his relations with Mr. Cook(Applicant)as well as him
going outside the scope of the PC rules and doing his own investigation by speaking directly with Mr. Ed Rapoza. I
brought up the letter prior to the item and asked the Commissioner if he could be fair and impartial and he said that he
could.
o J Yoshimoto confirmed that Mr. Van Pernis had asked him if he could email the testimony since we were in a
virtual setting—email stated that Commissioner had met with a member of the application. It was confirmed
by Corp Counsel that no commissioner should be going out and doing investigations of their own,which the
other commissioners don't have the benefit of the conversation. Suggested that that statement could be
removed from his testimony and it was voted on to remove mention of discussion with Mr. Rapoza.
o Mr. Vitousek questioned Mr. Van Pernis' past relationship with the applicant when his client went up against
him in a lawsuit, and that perhaps that could be a conflict of interest. Mark suggested that comment regarding
Mr. Cook be stricken from the testimony. It was voted onto remove this part from the testimony.This
seemed like a band aid to me.
o Mr. Newberg shared his concerns about this situation,that"I would hope that as we are a body together that
this doesn't happen again. It's imperative that the community at large that we hopefully serve the best of our
capacity,with a boundary of doubt that we are all on the same playing field here..."
o I as Chair told the Commissioner that I still felt he has a conflict of interest based upon his behavior and the
way he has conducted himself. 1 stated the Code of Ethics 2-83 Section a-3 all people shall be treated in a
courteous,fair and impartial manner, and that if he could not do that I will deal with it at that point. Another
warning...
o Applicant made a plea for fair and impartiality and for chair and/or counsel to keep the questions and
comments on track.Applicant stated they felt there is a personal bias by the Commissioner. Applicant objected
to line of questioning. Commissioner refers to testifiers as witnesses,this is not a court of law. Commissioner
proved he is not able to change hats.
o Mr. Van Pernis made an insulting comment to the applicant's consultant, stating that he should be ashamed of
himself for bringing the application forward. This was totally inappropriate, and another Commissioner said so.
This is not the way we should be treating our community members. Lack of courtesy.
o Questions on traffic study were unreasonable, consultant answered questions and he continued to ask over
and over. Commissioner Van Pernis was badgering the consultant because he didn't like the answers,which
were the facts of the application and presentation. Lack of courtesy and fairness.
o See attached Minutes from August agenda item
September 2020
• Applicant Hickey-first hearing
o Commissioner questioning testifiers and asking them questions that they shouldn't need to answer. He
repeatedly made the testifiers feel uncomfortable and they sometimes sounded afraid when questioned by
him. Again, asking questions that he already knows the answer to,just to see what the answer will be.
Inappropriate, nasty, not courteous behavior. Code of ethics,fair and courtesy...lack thereof.
2
o At the end of this meeting 1 was very uncomfortable and felt that I needed to reprimand the Commissioner for
his behavior.That's when the email was sent.
October 2020
• Puakea
• DPM deferred
• Palamanui postponed to Nov.
• The meeting felt somewhat normal, perhaps due to the warning letter??
November 2020
• Applicant Palamanui—request from applicant for Mark to recuse himself. Mark responded by letter and said that he
could be fair and impartial. Applicant then said they were okay with him staying on. Despite that, he still continued to
push and push.
o Commissioner Van Pernis made amendments to the conditions without sharing that he lives in the
neighborhood that would benefit by the amendments
o After making amendments, he then abstained from voting.This is inappropriate. If he was going to abstain
from voting, he shouldn't participate in the discussion, let alone make amendments.
o These meetings were totally exhausting and at the end of each meeting 1 said to myself"this cannot continue
to go on this way, month after month".
December 2020
• Applicant DPM
o Commissioner Van Pernis was repeatedly repetitious, questions asked and answered, and continued to press
on certain topics after already being discussed. Chair tried to get him to stop
this and he wouldn't. Chair had to mute him two times during this agenda item just to keep the process
moving forward. Other commissioners then had an opportunity to speak and be a part of the conversation
instead of sitting by idly waiting for Mark to finish his multitude of questions. Doesn't make conducting
business productive. Doesn't allow for equity among Commissioners.
• Chair felt the need to apologize to Commissioners, Planning Dept staff and the Applicants,for Commissioners behavior,
and for having to mute him multiple times. It is not the way it should be and it is embarrassing, inappropriate and
unfortunate. Reminder to all to give the Chair or Vice Chair,whoever is running the meeting, respect and listen to
them when they ask you to move along with questions,when to limit comments,when to focus on the merits of the
application,when to be nice, courteous and fair. Another ethics warning...
January 2021—no meeting
February 2021
• Applicant Kona Reef
• This meeting was without issue. New Chair, Commissioner was on good behavior with just the one agenda item.
March 2021
• At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Van Pernis started talking about things that were not on the Agenda after a
motion had been made to adjourn.
Chair Vitousek had to mute him.
• This was prior to County Council discussion regarding Mayor's request for removal.
April 2021
• Hickey
o Commissioner Van Pernis made rude and unnecessary comments to the applicant by stating that "we are here
to watch out for the people of Kona, NOT the Hickeys".This is to imply that
the applicants are not a part of the Kona community, which is not fair treatment.
o There was special treatment for Mark based upon the suggestion by County Council members that Mr. Van
Pernis has a disability, and needs special accommodations.To my knowledge Mr. Van Pernis has never stated
at LPC that he has a disability, nor that he had any special needs that required attention. Yes he has what may
be called a speech impediment, but he is always able to articulate himself, and we are able to understand him.
3
The special treatment that was required for this meeting took up a lot of time by having the staff read his
questions, and then he would verbally follow up, and he would continue to ask questions, all with no verbal
challenge. He made motions and had discussion all without the help of staff, and seemed to do fine.This
proved to me that the speech and ability to speak was not the issue. It's the content of what he says and how
he says it.
I hope that this serves as an outline of the bad behavior and what we attempted to do about it. February 2020 he was warned
by Corp Counsel. The next meeting in June 2020 he violated Planning Commission rules and the Code of Ethics. At the meeting
following that in August 2020, he was accused of having a conflict of interest, and was warned by the Chair about his conduct.
September 2020 meeting showed more bad behavior which prompted the warning email to Mr.Van Pernis.The October 2020
meeting was somewhat normal. November 2020 involved the applicant asking the Commissioner to recuse himself. Much to
do about this and hindsight showed me that he should have since he lived in the neighborhood that he was protecting, and
then abstained. December 2020 the chair had to repeatedly mute the Commissioner because he would not follow instruction.
Chair then had to apologize for the need to do so. That was the end of my tenure as Chair.At the April 2021 meeting, even
after being giving warning and a second chance, Mr. Van Pernis was rude and inappropriate to the applicant. Ethics violation
and abuse of Planning Commission rules occurred again.
It is my understanding that if a Commission plans to abstain from voting yes or no, they should not be a part of the discussion,
let alone be allowed to make amendments on agenda items.
Please support the removal of Mr. Van Pernis from the Planning Commission so that the body can continue to do the work that
they are charged to do.This is a volunteer commission and its decisions are important. LPC needs to be able to carry on its
work without the distraction of bad behavior, constant interruptions, and without Code of Ethics and Planning Commission
Rules violations.
Thank you,
Nancy Carr Smith
4
Mori, Ashle
From: Sauer, Noriko
Sent;: Tuesday, August 04, 2020 3:30 PM
To: Mori,Ashley
Subje€t: Fw:Applications of Suffolk Development LLC and Puaa Development LLC, REZs 04-24
and 04-25
From
Sent: Monday,August 3,2020 9`28 A
To:Sauer, Noriko
Cc:Yee,Michael; Kay,Christian
ubiect. Re:Applications of Suffolk Development LLC and Puaa Development LLC,REZs 04-24 and 04-25
On Jul 31, 2020, at 10:52 AM,
Memorandum to Commissioners of Leeward Planning Commission
Re. Applications of Suffolk Development LLC and Puaa Development LLC, REZs 04-24 and 04-25
From: Commissioner Mark Van Pernis
Date:July 31st, 2020
{Some Commissioners may wonder why I sought bankruptcy information from the applicant's
Mr. Cook at the February meeting of the Commission. Some time ago, I as an attorney
conducted a sworn deposition of Mr. Cook concerning a long standi ►g foreclosure judgment of
my client had against Mr Cook. He testified under oath that he had no money other than
Social Security income,that he had no interest in the various entities where his name appeared
(being several, including those of the present applications),that they were Mr. Schuler's
entities, who paid all their costs, and Mr. Cook was named in them as a "front"for Mr. Schuler,
that he was dependent on Mr. Schuler if and when any related income,appeared, and he lived
in Mr.Schuler's Kana residence. This contradicts what he testified to at the Commission's
February hearing. He also testifiedin that deposition that his bankruptcy was of a date more
recent than what he testified to at the Commission's February hearing. Mr. Cook thus escaped
paying the judgement, and my client has since passed away. This raises a serious issue of Mr,
Cook's credibility.)
..14943
m_ _ EIGHT REASONS WHY THE APPLICATIONS OF SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC ANIS PUAA
INVESTMENT LLC SHOULD BE REJECTED, ---- -
I.THE DIRECTOR'S AND STAFFS NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. Many good reasons have
been stated for the negative Recommendation, including the intentional violations by the
applicants of the subject ordinances and Hawaii State law. Also included is the applicants' 2004
and 2005 ordinances becoming obsolete because of their abandonment for 15 years while
other approved parts of the Pualani development were successfully and profitably completed,
contributing to the severe traffic problem in the area. The Leeward Planning Commission rust
support and give weight to the Recommendation,as it does with other recommendations., and
support the Director and Department, particularly when the applicants, as here, are at
fault. The Planning Commission's job is to represent the people of West Hawaii and address
their current problems, not to "find a way" to allow developers 15 years later, and seeking
another 10 or 15 years, to increase their profits in a sale now to others, without accountability
and responsibility to and to the detriment of the community.
.THE APPLICANTS ARE NOTTHE REAL APPLICANTS. Following receipt of Edward J. Rapoza`s
undated letter supporting the project's zoning, etc., i contacted Mr. .Rapoza, a reputable local
Realtor and developer, by phone. He confirmed that Mr. Schuler is the real person in interest in
a pending sale of the proposed project to Spring Development. Spring wants all the waivers,
and extensions for 10 to 15 years without further public review that the applications contain as
conditions of Spring's purchase. Thus the applications are not for development, but to facilitate
a sale for huge private profits,and eliminating 2005 conditions, not dealing with contemporary
community issues, nor any issues relating to the 10 year plus delay also sought, all to the
detriment of our community. The real developer should apply when development is to actually
take place, and address conditions existing then. Nate that opposition is not to the type of
zoning the applicants or their successors have or want- but instead support having the real
developer apply and address the current conditions and problems when development is
actually to actually take place, Facibiating a more profitable private sale now for a condition-
free.development 15 years later, and eliminating necessary but expired conditions of 10 years
before, ignoring the community for 25 years,is not at all appropriate. Also nate that Mr.
Rapoza stated to me that as a Realtor and developer he is generally in favor of all
developments if affordable housing is included,that Mr. Fuke asked him to generate the letter,
and that he did so because he wanted to see the affordable housing requirement of the 2005
ordinances take place as a community benefit. HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE APPLICANT'S
RFQUEST'FOR WAIVER OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT!
. NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR'FAIR SHARE. The Applicants, on behalf of Spring, seek to
delete the 15 year old affordable housing and fair share requirements, despite that the need
that has grown during the past 15 years and the greater need that will develop in the next 10
to 15 years without public review that is sought.. Affordable housing is supposed to be built
and integrated into a development with the market and upscale housing of a
development; The developer here rejects that concept, proposing to CONSTRUCT NO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, leaving that to the cash pour County. (To my knowledge, Mr,Schuler
has NOT CONSTRUCTED any affordable housing in any of his many developments, but has used
in a prior different development in the area the questionable tactic of"double density condo-
2
vision" to double the number of units the County provided for in its subdivision
approval Substituting land for affordable housing requirements is unacceptable as defeating
the construction of integrated housing and also defeats the County. This practice must
stop[ "Donation"of land that could be anywhere on the island at the deveoper's discretion, is
neither integration nor construction, The land would have the developer's over-inflated value,
land fluctuates in value, and the County is not a purchaser of land. The land would not have
suitable zoning for housing, nor have proximity to amenities, as it would if integrated. The
affordable housing requirement is to CONSTRUCT integrated housing, not in the indefinite
future have the County maybe construct a poor person's ghetto. The applicants, on behalf of
Mr. Schuler and Spring, say they "cannot commit" to the stale 15 year old affordable
requirements and want to delete the same. Not only would this greatly increase the profits off
the private sale price at and save the developer a great deal of money all at the expense of the
County, it would break a promise made 15 years ago for valuable consideration and to deal wth
the necessary conditions existing then.
4. CONTRIBUTING TO THE SCHOOL PROBLEM BUT NOT CONTRIBUTING TO ANY SOLUTIONS.
Massive numbers of students (and related traffic)coming from the proposed development will
be dumped into the local school system by the proposed future development, where there is
no present capacity. The applicants, on behalf of future developers, propose to delete any
contribution so they can have 5 more acres of land to privately develop, despite the burden
that places on the school system and the applicants, breaking a 15 year old promise they made
in exchange:for valuable zoning and permits, The State, recognizing the overcrowding NOW
resulting from 15 years plus of past development, including that of Mr. Scuuler at Pualani, has
announced its expansion of 0 Kealakehe School by, hopefully, 2025.The applicants and their
future development have offered nothing in that regard. Considering the students the project
will generate, what is their fair share contribution? Whomever the developer may then be,
application should be made at the actual proposed future construction date, so conditions then
can be considered.
S. BROKEN PROMISES AND "ROBBING"THE COUNTY AT THE EXPENSE OF KONA. 15 years agcy,
Mr Schuler promised and agreed with the County and its people for millions of dollars in
benefits in exchange for many more millions of dollars worth of zoning upgrades and permits
from the County, being codified in Ordinances 05-113 and 05-115, being their conditions B
through 2 and BB. At the same time Mr. Schuler was given such benefits and permits for
his Pualani development and subdivision..The latter was immediately built out and was hugely
successful, although it contributed mightily to the persent below referred to severe traffic
problem, The former was abandoned for 15 years. Now the Applicants want to eliminate or
severely decrease the conditions of the abandoned ordinances, i.e permanently break their
millions of dollars in promises intentionally not kept for 15 years,while the developer keeps all
of the millions in benefits received 15 years ago and extend them another 10 or 15 years wth
no compensation, benefit, or give-back to the County or the people,just so a private sale to
Spring can be had now at a much higher price. In representing the County and its people, who
would agree to such a one-sided deal {?l}where only the County loses permanently and badly,
and despite•ever increasing growth problems over the past 15 years and future 10 to 15 years,
caused in part by the developer? This practice of developers promising big public benefits to
the County in exchange for millions in zoning upgrades and then routinely seeking deferral of
and then withdrawing and breaking those insincere promises,with no give back,just so the
developer can increase profits at the expense of the County and its people, must
3
stop! Promises made must be TIMELY kept and enforced, or the developer should return to
Planning at the,actual time of development,with the prior conditions (promises)expiring, and
apply again to address the contemporary conditions. This is particularly true when the
applicant has only itself to bame for the delay, and isn't even the real developer. It is not a
question of down zoning when the promisers are broken. The zoning can be generally
accommodated or preserved, if the prior conditions are redone to accommodate the
contemporary issues.
6.THE TRAFFIC.STUDY IS INADEQUATE, MISLEADING,AND SUPPORTS A NEGATIVE
RECOMMENDATION. All local resident testifiers describe the PRESENT area traffic as
"horrendous",gridlocked, dangerous and incapable of having the propsed d'evelopment's
another 1000 vehicles added wth no infrastructure improvements. It is already a`CLOS D and
E` (intolerable and unacceptable). This area is presently the worst traffic jam in Kona (non-
pandemic) all morning and all afternoon, from the Henry Street-Queen
Kaahumanu Highway intersection past Malulani (traffic lighted), Mani Kailua (lighted), Hualalai
Road (both mauka and makai intersections with Queen K), Puapuaanui (lighted), Lako Street
(lighted),Sunset Drive,Seaview Circle (lighted), Laaloa (lighted),Akina, and Kamehameha III
intersections with Queen K., as well as Kuakini from Kailua Kona and at its intersection with
Queen K, and Hualalai Road as it comes dawn from Mamalahoa to Puapuaanui and
beyond, including its intersection with Queen KO. (Note that the local resident testifiers
indicate that Hualalai Read from Mamalahoa down past Puapuaanui to Queen 0 K would be
negatively impacted by the proposed development,).The traffic study ignores mostly all of
these impacted intersections, and limits itself to Puapuaanui, a nearly irrelevant private gated
street, Nakakui Drive, servicing a nearby relatively new subdivision.the Hualalai makai
intersection with Queen K, ignoring the mauka intersection of Hualalai, and the Kuakini -
Queen K intersection miles away. ( See pages 6 and 7 of the study.)The study ignored the eight
plus intersections impacted, where the "horrendous"traffic jam is, instead isolating
Puapuaanui. The Study's use of the Palani Road Queen 0D9099 0 0 0 0000 K intersections is
particularly DECEPTIVE. Traffic coming down Palani Road going Queen K south towards
and across the subject area (and going back up Palani from Queen K south)turns onto HENRY
STREET on two left turn lanes at the Palani-Henry lighted intersection to go to Queen K south.
severely congesting Henry. The Ane Keohokalole Highway (a major arterial highway from the
north) also stops at this intersection, putting all off its southbound and makai traffic onto Henry
Street. Thus virtually NO QUEEN K TRAFFIC GOES DOWNPALANI PAST HENRY TO THE PALANI -
QUEEN K INTERSECTION, making the study deceptive and irrelevant without a study of the
three Henry Street intersections. That Palani-Queen K intersection,which the study uses,
contributes none of the heavy Palani traffic to Queen K south to and past the site where
the Some motorists even try to use Malulani as a "bypass" of some of the Henry Street traffic
and one of its lights to try to get to Queen K south to and past the subject sight.The many
lighted presently overly congested Henry Street is the source of the traffic from Palani and One
Keohokalole and wh jam begins. Henry Street users even try to use Malulani as a "bypass"to
Queen K south to get around part of congested Henry Street and one of its lights, I myself have
4
often been caught in this Henry Street and Queen K jam,waiting through light chanes to get
in Queen K south then into the gridlocked jam on Queen K south past the many lighted
intersections, including particularly Papaanui and Lako, waiting through several light changes.
up to Karn lll,taking an hour to get to Kealakekua. Queen K north contributes some traffic
Queen K south at Palani, but this only increases the janm going south past Puapuaanui.
The study,which is not regional,states mostly speculations and assumptions
("expectations")for only a couple of these intersections, ignoring the other jammed
intersections, and trips generated by school traffic, employees, new residents, and others.The
study uses a low all-of-Hawaii federal 1.7%growth rate for the 10 to 15 years of before the real
developer moves, instead of the State's proven growth rate of 6% annual average. This skews
the study, and results realistically in hundreds and hundreds of more vehicles than the study
predicts in the area before the developers moved in 10 plus years. (See page 11 of the study.).
Even so,the highly questionable study admits that when the project is "fully built out" the
traffic In the area will be 0"worse than acceptable". (Page 32 of the study.)This is in addition to
the study admitting that the makai Hualalai - Queen K intersection, D(but not referring to the
mauka intersection), also being an unacceptable LAS E. (Page 18 of the study.). To try to save
this uncertain future project and its uncertain developer,the study speculatively depends upon
the government"widening of Queen D Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway (Route
11) and/or the construction of the proposed Alii Parkway." (Page 32 of the study,)This
speculative double assumption CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS TO "IF"' OR "WHEN"! Thus the
study admits that a decline to LO OS E will occur if the Project is approved now for 10 to 15 years
from now without public review and without the unlikely occurrence of these uncertain
assumptions This supports a negative recommendation now; and an invitation for the real
developer to apply if and when these assumptions come true.
71ACK OF TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEMANDS NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. Of course,
all contemporary information is that the present situation is terribly problematic, (non-
pandemic), and the present application would make the situation much worse. Thus the
project must be rejected now and deferred until after additional infrastructure solves this
serious present problem. The current severe traffic jams are the result of North and South
Kona's and Ka'u's average 6% annual growth during the last 15 years since the 2005 ordinances,
from Pu lani 0 Makai and the many, many approved and built-out subdivisions in the 15 years
since the ordinances, from Hualalai to Queen K and makai, serviced by Lako and Papuaanui
Streets, combined wth a couple of two lane bottllenecks from Puapuaanui's and
Lako's intersections with Queen K south through the Lako, Seaview Circle, Sunset Drive, and
Laaloa intersections and on towards Kam III Road, (this two lane bottleneck also doesn't have
shoulders), and the bottleneck north from Lako and Puapaanui to Henry Street and
beyond'. These old two lavers, with traffic lights, includes the area for widening and new
highway construction that the study dreams about to address the current problem and
accommodate the 1000 additional vehicles it proposes to add to the problem in the
5
future. The present severe traffic jam continues north past both Hualalai mauka and makai
intersections and the Henry Street intersection.Note that the traffic study IGNORED THE TWO
LANE BOTTLENECKS AND THE HENRY STREET, MALULANI, KUAKINI, LAKO, SEAVEW CIRCLE,
SUNSET DRIVE,AND LAALOAA AND HUALALAI MAUKA INTERSECTONS AND THEIR STREET
LIGHTS, as well as Kuakini going makai to Kailua Kona town, and the massive traffic the project
would dump onto Queen K and those intersections, and the huge detriment the understated'
numbers of vehicles from the project would bring. (Pages 33 thru 37 of the study.). Note that
instead,the study discusses only a few relatively new four and three lanes intersections, a
nonexistent street (spine road), and a private, gated short street.The ignored and neglected
intersections-and particularly the very problematic Henry Street and Lako Street intersections
- are for the most part closer to the Puapuaanui intersection with Queen K and take more
Puapuaanui traffic than the Hualalai rnakai intersection the study does refer to, So too the
existing jams are ignored. The present severe infrastructure problem must be more adequately
addressed, as well as the future 10 to 15 year growth Spring wants without public review or
contemporary conditions.
B.THE APPLICATIONS ARE INAPPROPRIATE AND INCOMPLETE AND SHOULD. BE DENTE,Hawaii
is and should bein the forefront of land use planning. These applications are contrary to goad
land use planning in every respect.They seek waiver of conditions found necessary 1.5 years
ago, with no new conditions to address obvious present and future severe problems; they
propose no`give back"to the County for waiver of the condition they promised in exchange for
the millions of dollars in benefits they received, including 5 more acres to develop (the school
lot); they seek approval now for massive commercial and residential development 10 to 15
years from now without pubic review contemporary to that future development, they propose
to ignore present serious lack of infrastructure problems and to ignore their growth in the
future before actual development; not being the actual developer,they ask the Commission to
promote and enhance the private profit a for Spring's benefit now without future public review
of a future development; at the inception of the project 15 years ago and now they "skirted"
County and State law for their own benefit. All of this is at the expense and to the huge
detriment of the people and area the Commission serves, as well as good land use planning. All
local residents are vigorously opposed to the project right now, commenting on the present
"horrendous"traffic problems, (much less 10 out 15 years in the future) and the need for more
infrastructure. The residential/commercial development may make sense, as it did 15 years
ago, although it was abandoned ands ignored for that 15 years while its ordinances
expired, Now, or 10 to 15 years from now, is not the time for this project,without significant
infrastructure improvements needed in the area by the public, which the State/County
currently recognizes, and the applications and traffic study appears to concede, THE
COMMISSION HAS NO OBLIGATION TO INSURE OR ENHANCE AN APPLICANT'S OR A
DEVELOPER'S PROFITS NOW OR IN THE FUTURE. A return for approval with appropriate
conditions when development is to actually take place, preserving or designating appropriate
zoning, is proper and necessary. But these applications for extension and waiver of conditions
of defunct ordinances should be denied now, as recommended by the Director, for the people
of Kona,'
6
From: Nancy Carr Smith
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2021 2:04 PM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Kierkiewicz, Ashley;Villegas, Rebecca; Lee Loy, Sue; Richards, Tim; Chung, Aaron; Inaba,
Holeka; David, Maile; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Kimball, Heather
Subject: RE: May 4 - Communication 183
Aloha,
I notice that my email warning letter to Mr. Van Pernis is not a part of the public record, at least it didn't make it to the file
with my testimony provided this morning. In case it was due to the format of the attachment, I have copy and pasted the
content of the warning below,so that it can be shared and entered into the record.
Mahalo,
Nancy
10/9/2020
Aloha Mark,
As a Commission, it is our job to read and listen to the Planning Department presentation, read and listen to the Applicants
position and request, read and listen to the testimony from the public, and then apply the rules of the Commission, and make
a decision. We are not there to make any person or party feel inferior,we are not there to make people feel like we have
already made up our minds, and we are not there to be mean or condescending to anyone. When I have to scold a
Commissioner for bad behavior,which I have had to do a every meeting that we have had since February, I feel the need to
bring this to the attention of the Planning Department, and Corp. Counsel because it's just not right, and I think something has
to change so that this does not continue.
1. Line of questioning is sometimes not appropriate.
a. Asking testifiers questions and causing them to feel uncomfortable because they don't know the answer to the
question is inappropriate and made me uncomfortable. While we encourage all Commissioners to ask
questions,this must be done with proper courtesy and respect.
b. The way that questions are asked is disheartening. It makes you sound mean, and the applicant and testifiers
felt this and commented. I don't like having that happen, it's just not right and that is why I cut you off. I don't
feel good about having to do that, but I will as Chairperson because it is my duty to maintain order and
decorum during our meetings.
c. During the September 21, 2020 meeting when the presentation and applicant went long,and we had many
testifiers,we needed to stay on point, ask questions that we really need to know the answer to in order to help
us make an informed decision, and not waste valuable time.
2. Interrupting people that you are questioning,and myself;was done several times, and then I have correct you,which is
ridiculous, but I insist on maintaining order,and kindness throughout the process. Not to mention the nightmare it
creates for the person that needs to write the transcripts of the meeting.
I understand that your background as an attorney gives you a different perspective. But if you cannot leave that perspective at
home and come to the meetings with your Community hat on, having an open mind and heart, then I am not sure what else to
say. We are all volunteering our valuable time to sit on this Commission in order to support the County government, and the
Community at the same time. If we cannot be fair and impartial then we should reconsider our position on the Commission.
I hope that going forward,questioning and etiquette can improve so that we don't have to spend time disciplining, and so that
our applicants are not uncomfortable. We need to respect all parties involved.
Thanks for your understanding,
1