HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0898.151 2020-2022 p/COunGiE
Iqu
ComPt. 3q8
From: Mark Van Pernis 4
tJ'
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 1:15 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Re: Bill 194 as amended - Override Mayor's Veto •
w ==
Mayor Roth's veto of Bill 194 as amended demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the bill, or
more likely a disrespect and bias against the Council,the public, (particularly West Hawaii), modern
land planning and accountable,transparent, democratic government;and a bias for concentration of
power and campaign contributions in his office, and in favor of developers, delay and private profit at
the expense of the Big Island and particularly West Hawaii residents. It should be noted that both
Planning Commissions endorsed the bill, and the Director was not against it.
Addressing Mayor Roth's"concerns":
1. The Mayor argues that the bill eliminates the Planning Commission's,the Council's and the Director's
authority to include as a condition to a rezoning and subdivision ordinance that the Director can
unilaterally grant a delay. FALSE! The bill allows for the Council to grant the Director that
authority. The effect of the bill is to have the applicants to be ready to develop in the foreseeable future
and to honestly state when development and the accompanying infrastructure and affordable housing
will take place, so the public can be assured and served, and the Council can do its job. All present such
ordinances have the REQUIREMENT that the applicants for delay show"good cause"for delay, such as
labor strikes,floods, litigation, in any application for delay. The Director ignores such REQUIREMENT,
and makes no additional imposition for the delay, and grants delay merely for the financial convenience
of the applicant without opportunity for public input, makingg the delays possibly illegal and.
Dieredtorvand?or Planning g Commissions,then the Council in legal limbo. This bill allows for the
Council to grant delay for any reason, and thus is easier on the applicants,than the illegally ignored
REQUIREMENT and also eliminates the limbo.
2.The bill changes Executive administrative convenience for private applicants/developers to
representative democracy far the constituency affected. Zonings and subdivisions are LEGISLATIVE
obligations of the Council. Changes to Council ordinances, with the opportunity for input by the
constituency affected, is also a LEGISLATIVE duty. It is the public that is affected by the missing
infrastructure and affordable housing resulting from the long delays given without public input. The bill
changes that for the better. The Council has this duty to the public,which the Executive/Director
ignores in favor of the private applicant/developer.
Comm. No v D 't51
1 Ref.To: V 10%041
Ref. Date APR 1 9 2023
3.The bill changes a long time system. This system doesn't work! The severe and ever increasing
infrastructure mess and affordable housing shortage in West Hawaii proves this:Standstill traffic jams
on Queen Kaahumanu Henry, Mamalahoa. Palani,Alii,soon on Hualalai above Queen Kaahumanu and
elsewhere, overcrowded schools, degradation of nearshore waters,trash and dump problems, Kona
hospital is so bad even the Mayor wouldn't go there, rampant zoning code violations.There's ten to
twenty thousand residential and commercial units, many with affordable housing requirements and all
with infrastructure impositions, with decades old approvals which don"t take in current conditions, and
delayed and recommended for delays by the Executive branch of the government for of 5 to 40
years. Much of your affordable housing and housing inventory is there.There's plenty to develop and
West Hawaii will always attract further development.
4. "Regulation." Regulation will decrease with the bill. Real developments with real time frames,
extended for any good reason at the Council's discretion representing the public will replace multiple
delays and recommended delays from the Executive's Director and the political mayor appointed
executive Planning Commission. The bill will replace this two step political executive system (Planning
Department and/or Commission)(and then the Council)with a one step straight to the Council.The
present system. Could terminate a project or add to its impositions administratively and without
certainty. The public would be more certainly served. The director should be honest:Although it is
theoretically possible under the present system, there has NEVER been a downzoning by a Director
following the expiration of an ordinance without initiation of developmen; And also, NEVER added
impositions accompanying delay, since that ordinance amending is a legislative function, (although
sometimes recommendations for lesseing of impositions, e.g. Puaa Development et al,).
The practice now is often applicants without any intent or capacity to develop, seek approvals that
produce contemporary impositions, knowing they can and actually do get multiple extensions. Then the
project is sold,with the buyer getting further extensions. In my experience on the Leeward Planning
Commission, questions about sale,when development and impositions will be done, and whether
further impositions are appropriate, are not answered. So the County is taken advantage of and the
public suffers. This practice is by the large (e.g. Palamanui,which the County has bent over backwards
for, promised to develop by 2005, got all their rezoning and permits long before then,got delays
currently to 2025,then sold to Nan, Inc. with more requests for delay expected), and small (eg. Sunshine
Holdings LLC, which has and is seeking more delays totaling 25 years+with no additional impositions
and a reduction of 1995 impositions, despite a 200% population increase in the neighborhood.
The current Director's background is privately representing developers. The Director has granted or
recommended approval of EVERY delay sought by a developer,without any additional imposition, and
for EVERY development. The prior director, under Mayor Kim, a professional and experienced planner,
had the courage to occasionally say"no"or impose adequate infrastructure. The current Director
appears to be looking forward to returning to representing developers before the County with the
addition of having been a former Director. He would follow former Director Mr, Fuke,who has been a
private representative for a long time a is responsible for many, many delay applications. In this veto,
the Mayor,who has no land planning background, is likely too dependent on the advice and
contributions of these types of people.
2
While the public is limited to 3 minutes of testimony and can't ask questions nor rebut,there are
testifiers such as the Director, applicants and their representativ have unlimited time. This can lead to
misrepresentations, mistakes, and "don't knows",which have often occurred. Big Island residents
deserve the truth and should have your first priority.
Overriding the veto is the right thing to do for the people and the Council. Lack and degradation of
infrastructure needs to be addressed. The Director and the recipient of his favorable recommendations
(Planning Commissions)are not doing any planning for the future. It is up to the Council with this bill to
insure timely, quality development with contemporary infrastructure and affordable
housing. Accountability,transparency, integrity, and respect should prevail.
Mark Van Pertnios
3