Laserfiche WebLink
Letter Supporting Item No. 4, Bill No. 194 (PL-CCI-2022-00002), <br />Conditions on Change of Zone Actions <br />Aloha Leeward Planning Commission: <br />Thank you for the opportunity to comment on and support Bill No 194, PL-CCI-2022-00002, <br />the legislation proposed by Councilperson Inaba to have the County Council approve an <br />extension of time for a previously approved rezoning application, as well as the conditions of <br />approval, and not have this approval occur at the staff level. <br />I live on the Leeward side, and see the signs for development proposals all around me when <br />I'm driving past projects that are proposed. I am concerned about the approved, but not yet <br />implemented projects, that I know have been or will be considered by the Leeward Planning <br />Commission: Royal Vistas (450 units north of Lako Street), 77-6565 Naniloa (62 units on one <br />parcel; an adjacent makai parcel would be phase 2 of development with an equal amount of <br />units); Sunstone Kona, 289 multi -family units approved by the Leeward Planning Commission <br />in June 2018; and Puaa Development, a mixed use project including 100 multi -family units that <br />was approved by the County Council in December 2020. 1 know there are more, but without a <br />current list of projects that is prepared by the Planning Department, it is impossible to know <br />how many projects have been previously approved, and many units could be constructed. <br />These languishing projects do nothing for the local residents except add to the anxiety about <br />when and if these sites will be developed. If these projects get approved, and building permits <br />are issued, then the outcome is congested roads, greater competition for water availability, <br />more pressure for an enlarged or new wastewater treatment plant, and desecration of lands <br />where Native Hawaiian (pre -contact) artifacts exist. More workforce housing is needed - not <br />more housing that is unattainable to existing families, and bought up as investment vehicles. <br />I am not against development. I am against poor development, poorly planned development, <br />and the impression that the development community has more importance that the property <br />owners and residents of this County. I am also concerned about the uncomfortable and <br />growing perception that there is an all too cozy relationship between some in the Planning <br />Department and the larger development community. As an example, former senior Planning <br />staff who've left the public sector are now the proponents and consultants to private property <br />owners and developers who want to maximize their profits on their investment on vacant (and <br />speculative) land. This comes at the expense of the neighbors who must live with the <br />uncertainty that vacant land - that has previously been approved but no development has <br />started - will be developed, creating a level of disruption to their daily lives and the multi -year <br />process this development takes. <br />I'd ask the Leeward Planning Commission also consider these enhancements to Bill 194: <br />Formally establish time limits within the conditions of approval, and Zoning Code, for <br />rezoning applications. This way, the public has a clear understanding of how long an <br />approved rezoning application is valid. Section 25-2-7 of the Zoning Code establishes <br />that Planning applications, except for rezoning requests, are valid for two years. I have <br />not been able to locate language in the Zoning Code that establishes a time limit for <br />rezoning applications. Additionally, I have not seen similar language in the conditions of <br />approval for rezoning applications. <br />2. I'd like to better understand Section 25-2-44(b), and this language: Requests to change <br />or alter the conditions of any change of zone ordinance shall be processed in the same <br />