PL-REZ-2022-000032_PL-CCI-2022-000002 E. DUNN TESTIMONY 10.17.2022

Home

Comments on Item #2, Sunshine Holdings, LLC, File PL-REZ-2022-00032, 73-1735 Kaloko Drive Aloha Leeward Planning Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the extension request for project PL-REZ-2022-000032 at 73-1735 Kaloko Drive, TMK 7-3-25:12. Until the County Council has taken action on Bill 194, I'd ask that the Leeward Planning Commission not consider or recommend any decision on this, or any proposal, where an extension of time is requested. This "blank check" approach to Planning applications, and decision making has to stop. While this is a small project, it is a proposal that is 14 years old, requests the revisions of many conditions of approval, and where no implementation or conclusion of the project has taken place. It is surprising to read that the Planning Consultant is also requesting that the extension be retroactive to August 2008 in the May 26, 2022 letter of application to the Planning Director (page 13 of the staff report). I'd love to go back and be 27 again, but that isn't the way time works. Based upon the information in the staff report, in August 2020, the previous Planning Director sent a letter to the previous applicant for the subdivision indicating that the County had withdrawn the subdivision application for lack of action (pages 59 and 60 of the staff report). It was nearly two years before the current application for this four lot subdivision was submitted to the Planning Department. How can a time extension request be seriously requested when the County already indicated it has withdrawn the application for lack of action, and the informal ten year approach (five years to complete the project, and one approved extension of vie years) has lapsed? There should be time limits on development applications. There should be clear language within each condition of approval about the term of the condition. There should also be more appropriate language in the findings that the Planning staff makes about nonperformance of an application. There should not be any STVR on agricultural lands. There should be a list of the outstanding Planning applications that have been approved and not completed. I'd ask that the Planning staff create this list; this list should be included in a summary staff report to the County Council about the number of projects, and units for projects that have languished and should be withdrawn by the County as part of the background for Bill 194. When Planning consultants spend years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare updated environmental documentation in order to submit an extension request, the sunk costs should not be part of the decision making process to approve such extensions requests. The victims are neighbors who must endure the multi -year construction timeline, and the constant erosion of trust in the public decision making process. When money is the reason to constantly approve development projects, the decision making process is broken, and new leaders are needed. Thank you for your time. Elizabeth Dunn