2024-09-26 PL-INT-2024-008840 GP 2045 Draft Comments - E. Dunn

Home

Regulations, Fourth bullet: Same comment about working to amend the State involvement in County land use Planning and plans. Is there political will among the neighbor islands to dissolve this board, and other language and state processes that rightfully belong at the County level? Sixth bullet: Has a TDR program been used successfully in the State? If so, where? It would be grateful to know how this process has worked, and what issues there were with the process. It's an old case from the 1970's, but the one significant TDR program I remember studying was in New York City with the air rights above Grand Central Station. I'm not sure what other cities, and States have used a TDR successfully, and especially for preserving open space. More specifics need to be understood about how such a program would work here. Market Conditions - Sixth Bullet. I find this statement to be an excuse. This happens in Planning. Development applications are submitted, reviewed, processed, and most often, approved. This timeline doesn't always, and rarely meets the market for getting the product - housing commercial space, etc. - online at a time that meets developers expectations. What I find to be very confusing here on this island is projects that are approved, and not built. They stay on the books for a long time, and may or may not ever get built. Why go through the time, money, effort, and public engagement process to secure a land approval entitlement, and not build. The fault lies with the developer, not the Planning staff or the County. Please reconsider revising this statement, as I believe this statement puts blame on the wrong party. It's a risk to develop land. If the developer can't deliver, then that's not the right developer for the project or the neighborhood. I'd like to see some language in this section of the draft General Plan that prohibits or penalizes "land or entitlement" banking. That's a huge issue for this island, and it's not mentioned anywhere in this document. I know the County Council has passed or intends to pass several Ordinances to understand how many previously approved projects are still on the books and have not been built. That's an issue since the land is held by an entity that has secured a Planning approval, the Planning approval doesn't have real teeth regarding any expiration, and the land can't be built on. Let's be honest with this situation, and call for changes to the Planning process with Conditions of Approval that have real deadlines, Project Approvals that have real deadlines, and Developers that are paper jockeys and don't intend to develop. They hold the land hostage, and the community suffers. Please see my comments on scanned Pages 78-82. 4.1.3 Overview of Land Use Designations and Maps The last sentence under Interpretation - is the decision by the Planning Director appealable? If not, it should be. And a fee for this appeal should be established. Objective 13: Really good. Page 89, Resort. Please consider stronger language for 13.44, 13.46 and use "shall' instead of "should". 13.45 would be stronger if "Prohibit" were used instead of "do not allow". 13.48 - What is a clear community benefit? It should be more than money... If it's money, there should be a program that's created on how this money is used to benefit the community, and the community should be able to direct how this money is used. 13.50 would be stronger if encourage was replaced with "require". Page 90. 13e. Why is the size of 15 acres used for a TOD? It would be great to understand why.