HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0898.051 2020-2022 P/Gounci l
dill ISL!
i
C C11:'.
From: Mark Van Pernis
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2023 8:47 AM 2g73 FEB1 An 9: 59
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Inaba, Holeka; Mark Van Pernis
Subject:- Bill;. 194 as amended
Bill 194 as amended recently was passed 7 to 2,with Councilpersons Galimba and Kierkiewtz voting"no". There was no good
reason for the"no"votes. Bill 194 as amended is desperately needed to address West Hawaii's infrastructure and affordable
housing problems,for separation and balance of powers,and to move into the 21st century of land planning, have the
Council give priority to residents' need before private profit, and to end the practice of ignoring ordinances' requirement for
decades.
>This points out again the problem with the Council's procedure for minimizing public input limited to 3 minutes and no
questions, at the beginning of the hearing,with no rebuttal; while other participants, in this instance the Planning Director
and his assistant(PD),thereafter have unlimited time. This invites misrepresentations and omissions and the Council thus
being mislead. This occurred at this hearing. The true information the PD should have given is as follows.
>
>1.Although the PD has given itself the discretionary unilateral power to initiate the process to change zoning to whatever's
appropriate, including downzoning, in applicable ordinances when time limits are not complied with, this power has NEVER
BEEN USED, i.e. rezoned property has kept its zoning even when it has failed to timely meet its subdivision obligations. In
other words,the fear of downzoning is shibai.
>2.The great majority of obtainers of"land banked"subdivisions and public conditions(that become obsolete with delay)
that obtain lengthy free delays,are large corporate projects, (for instance Palamanui which was given delays from 2005 to
2025 without public infrastructure and affordable housing future reviews, and then sold to Nan. Inc.-expect more delay
requests from Nan).-"Small family"rezone/subdivision projects,which the PD referred to, which seek long delays are very
few.
>3.Although all the applicable ordinances require"reasons beyond the control"of the applicant (such as labor strikes,
flooding,court action),as a prerequisite to seeking delay,the PD NEVER requires that compliance with the ordinances, and
allows delay merely for he applicant's financial convenience or sale. Amended Bill 194 gives the Council opportunity to thus
enforce its ordinances and reasonable authority in that regard.
Big developers, like the great majority of"smalls•",should not apply for subdivision and rezoning, until they are reasonable
ready to develop.
>As to Ms.Galimba's concern about affordable housing: Bill 194 provides a good opportunity to INCREASE affordable housing
without delay. There are thousands of approved projects but delayed for 5 to 40 years,which include affordable housing
units which are likewise postponed,as well as being obsolete as to contemporary needs. Amended Bill 194 as written could
reduce the delays and/or require contemporary meeting of affordable housing,or cash contributions. The small "family"
projects requesting delay,which are few,could be assessed a cash contribution to affordable housing.
>Ms. Kerkiewitz said she was concerned about"another layer of bureaucracy". This shows a basic misunderstanding of the
bill or, more likely,a bias for developers and against the residents of West Hawaii.Transparency, more definiteness for
developers,the County, and residents would be promoted.The County and the public being taken advantage of for private
profit would be reduced. Would she ever support Bill 194, and put the people's needs in front of developer's and private
profit? Consider the following.
>A 20 acre rezone/subdivision ordinance,with school site,traffic improvements,affordable housing,and others impositions,
which would dump 1200 cars into the traffic jam on Queen Kaahumanu near Lako Street, (Mr.Cook's Puaa Dev. LLC, and
other entities of Mr.Cook and Mr.Schuler,via Mr. Fuke as representative.), expired in 2005 or thereafter,with the applicants
having done nothing. Mr. Fuke sought to revive it about 2020 and extend it at least until 2025 and reduce or eliminate some
1 Comm.No. 5� o 'S1
Ref.To: DI Oldhus
Ref.Date FEB 9 Z 21191
of the public impositions, so his clients could sell. It was also claimed that the project had gamed the system to avoid the
State Land Use Commission. The then PD(preceding Mr. Kern) recommended AGAINST the application.And the Leeward
Planning Commission (LPC) UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMEND'NO['. Then it went to Ms. Kierkiewitz's County Council Planning
Committee,where, in a showing of disrespect for the planners and planning process, she said words to the effect that"all
developers must be satisfied". The negative recommendation was reversed, and approval followed due to her efforts for Mr.
Fuke and the developer-sellers. A sale was completed shortly thereafter, and none of the impositions have appeared on the
ground. Expect the buyer to request further delays past 2025.
Mark Van Pernis
2