HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0601.032 2020-2022 plcpaa
j �6f lA�
COMM,CIO Il
From: test
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 1:26 PM
To: Council Testimony {
Cc: maile.david@hawaii.rr.com
Subject: public written testimony from Mark Van Pernis AMENDED BILLS 115 AND 112, March 22 &
23 County Council meeting
A huge time share development denigrates the West Hawaii community and the subject resort without adequate affordable housing.
Note that the representatives who voted against it were the representatives whose constituency is most affected. If the East Hawaii
council persons must approve this grotesque large development,the ordinance and amendments thereto being drawn by the
developer's representative serving the developer, instead of the councilpersons serving the public-(is our Planning Department and
County Attorney's office unable or incompetent in this regard ?)- consider, act upon, and incorporate the conditions stated below
into the ordinance.
1,The Leeward Planning Commission (PC)and Planning Department (PD) and the County Council are responsible for the traffic jam
on Mamalahoa Highway and down Palani Road to Henry street and on Henry Street because they approved a 20+year delay from
2005 for Palamanui to provide a connector road from Mamalahoa to the Ane K and Queen K highways that in part was to relieve
that Mamalahoa congestion, without considering or ignorant of the traffic increase and needs during that 20 years..and thereafter
made the situation worse by approving other subdivisions using Mamalahoa and Kai Imi Nani (which was constructed as only a
minor road). 2.The PC, PD and Council will be responsible for the accidents and traffic jams that will develop on Hualaliai Road
(substandard, blind curves, no shoulders) because of approval of a major development using an intersection with Hualalai without
shoulders or stacking/turn lanes on Hualalai.
3,The Council is responsible for the worst and longest traffic jam, including gridlock and emergency vehicles stymied,from Henry
Street, past Lako to. Kam III and further mauka on Queen K,due to poor present and future planning as to all the traffic to be
generated by the myriad of commercal and residential developments in the area built since since 2005. This problem is seriously
exacerbated by the dead (as of 2015)developments proposed by two LLCs fronted by Brian Cook but controlled by James Schuler.
The proposed developments were unanimously REJECTED by the PD and the PC. But the rejection, after a lengthy presentation by its
representative Mr. Fuke ,(which in my opinion contained some misrepresentation)was turned into an approval by the Council,
sheparded by Ms. Kerkiewicz. The project was sold to the Mainland's Big Spring Derveloment immediately after the approval and is
further delayed for five years or more.
The intersection of Queen K and the resort will be a serious problem as a result of this huge time share development and other
development,AND THE RAPID GROWTH OF THE WEST HAWAII POPULATION over the long, long period of time the developer/its
buyers says development may occur, (no sunset provision). In the "2019 Hawaii Infrastructure Report Card" by the American Society
of Civil Engineers •(ASCE) Hawaii's roads and. Intersections are given a D+ ! How much worse it will be after the 5 to 40 years the
applicant says it will take to build out!
Condition O of the proposed ordinance must be modified to add SPECIFIC REFERENCE to this "off site" intersection and to provide
for ITS mandatory improvement BEFORE ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED FOR ANY OF THE TIMESHARE
CONDOMINIUMS(which is probably a long long way off) pursuant to aTRAFFIC STUDY OF THAT INTERSECTION SHALL BE
COMPLETED INCLUDING AS TO FUTURE TRAFFIC,AND ALL NECESSARY AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO TWO LEFT TURN/STACKING LANES ON QUEEN KAAHUMAMU HIGHWAY ORTHERLY, ONE IN THAT HIGHWAY SOUTHERLY,
TURN LANES OR LANES ONTO THAT HIGHWAY FROM WAIKALOA ROAD,AND APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE AND SIGNALIZATION.
Will your legacy be creating a dangerous traffic clog that the public must pay for one way or another at an intersection primarily for
for the benefit of the developer and its huge and hugely profitable future project you are giving now? Is the negligence of the past
of not looking at the future to be repeated? Who do you represent?
Also,the letter of Vice President Mr. Head in "The Waikaloa Foundation"contains the language "as represented by the applicant"
Not only is this less than accurate (it was suggested by and negotiated by the County), it is self serving,trying to give credit where it
isn't due, and unnecessary surplusage. Importantly,the words "represented by the applicant" leaves legal maneuvering room for
further or different representations later that could result in an escape from this condition.
Comm.No
i Ref.To:
Ref.Cate p
Also, importantly the phrase"gross sales proceeds derived ," (line 4 of the proposed condition®) is objectionable. It gives the
developer the right to defer payment for the timeshares that sell on a contract. Timeshares often sell on such contracts. Since they
are not a good deal,they are often foreclosed upon before fully payment,or go back to the seller, without ber-in which cases the
developer can claim it didn't get the"gross sales proceeds"and thus no payment is due to the foundation or the County!This
problematic ®"wiggle room for the present developer and/or its buyers/successors can b easily resolved by substituting• ""from
the gross price, regardless of any deferred payment or payment on terms, and promptly upon closing on the...), etc.for the
phrase"gross sales proceeds derived".This was/is your intent. Don't let vague and contrary language from Mr. Head lead you or the
Foundation astray.
2