2024-05-17 Bill 127 Elizabeth Dunn

Home

5. I strongly disagree with this sentence on Page 4: "Furthermore,this will alleviate unanticipated impediments to development of a project, and allow applicants/owners/developers flexibility to develop a project as favorable conditions allow." I don't see how a time limit is an unanticipated impediment to developing land. Public sector Planners assist persons who want to develop their land; Planners and the Planning Department should also convey community values to a perspective developer. The role of the public sector Planner should not be to represent or be an advocate for the developer. I think this has been the perspective of the Planning Department for years and this unchecked advocacy for the developer is why the series of Council bills discussed above have been proposed. 6. The suggestions that the Planning Department/Director proposes to work through Bill 127 are meaningless, and misleading. There is no discussion of how standard performance conditions will be enhanced. A tolling agreement is a useful tool for a development proposal; however,this implies a level of sophistication of the developer and is often used for larger projects, especially when a lawsuit is anticipated. I question how this tool would be used on a regular basis here. Creating a timeframe matrix is a great idea, and will help citizen planners understand how non-linear the land development process can be. Lastly,the examples of when timing conditions don't work doesn't make sense. It's rare when a piece of property has two zoning designations. Even if this were the case, a carefully crafted condition of approval can address this situation. I do not see any reasoned language in the staff report for Bill 127 that demonstrates why time limits should not be proposed. I'm thinking of a few projects that are near where I live or have commented on and they are rezoning projects that have been approved years ago (between 20- 50 years), and haven't been developed: 77-6565 Naniloa,the extension request for Kona Vistas, and the project on Eho Street,north of the Kona Coast Shopping Center. As a retired Planning Director/Manager, I do not enjoy providing negative comments on Planning projects. I am not a NIMBY - I am against poorly analyzed/one-sided projects. I am concerned by a Planning Department that seems to feel its responsibility is to accommodate the development community rather than being the guardians of community values and representing the public. Bill 127 is needed because the Planning Department and Director need to be a more neutral County Agency. If Bill 127 is adopted, I would also recommend that an audit of the practices and protocols of the Planning Department occur and the results need to be made public. Thank you. Elizabeth Dunn