HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0896.102 2022-2024 _P /Council
Sill ((
COLiN.!.Y CLERK COW.8%
COUNTY OF 11AZA,11
TESTIMONY AGAINST THE TIME EXTE O IRREbu fl: 20
FOR ROYAL VISTAS/KONA THREE -JULY 10, 2024
I am here to testify against granting the time extension for the Royal Vistas/Kona Three, LLC
project.
It is the preference that the land where the proposed Royal Vistas project is intended to be built
remains undeveloped, that the time extension be denied, and that the land formally revert to
Open Space(0) or Agricultural (A-5).
It is also the preference that the Public Open Space and Natural Resource Preservation
Committee (PONC) acquire the property, create significant buffers and natural on-site features
to address on-site flooding, restore cultural sites such as food terraces, re-establish on-site
trails and zones that educate visitors to the site yet limit access to culturally sensitive areas,
and preserve its inherent beauty and cultural value in perpetuity. The Council has received a
letter, dated July 17, 2023, from Aaron J. Spielman, Chair of the Cultural Resources
Commission to Barbara De Franco, Chair of the Leeward Planning Commission, regarding the
reasons to keep this land undeveloped.
Reversion or rezoning requires a formal action of the County Council OR direction by the
County Council to the Planning Director or Deputy Planning Director to pursue reversion and
bring this matter to the County Council for action. '
If the County Council does not approve the time extension, it is recommended that the Council
direct the Planning Department to start the process to revert the zoning and bring the matter to
the Leeward Planning Department by September 2024, and schedule the matter before the
County Council by the end of the 2024 calendar year.
There are many overriding considerations for keeping the land undeveloped:
• Significant on-site.cultural issues on the two parcels of @68 acres, for example the 5-
acre area at the southeast portion of one of the parcels. This is where a lava tube
with human remains, and a railroad berm that parallels the Royal Vistas
eastern property boundary have been identified. Food terraces have been located; Na
Ala Hele has indicated that two separate trails on or through the property. The origin of
these trails may predate the historic period and may be viewed as government-owned
public trails, per the Highways Act of 1892.
• Significant volume-to-capacity issues related to traffic on local and state routes if the
project is developed.
• A truck traffic route and construction plan has not been prepared that identifies the
routes to and from the site, the number and amount of trucks to and from the site,
where dirt and rock spoils would be driven to, the duration of truck traffic in terms of
hours during the day, and how many weeks or months this truck traffic would occur.
• Part of the truck traffic route construction plan shall be information about whether local
streets, specifically Liholiho Place, were built to handle to the weight of trucks hauling
dirt and rock spoils.
If dirt will be hauled off-site, there is no information from the property owner or
applicant about how many truck trips will be needed to haul off the dirt and rock debris,
or the truck route that will be used to haul this debris.
• The property owner or applicant have not disclosed that the new access road that
connects to Queen Ka`ahumanu will have both right and left turns onto this state route.
There is no information in the staff report or any pf the supporting documents that the
State Department has been contacted about this issue, has reviewed it, or has I rl 9
Comm. i• �i . `V L
Ref. To:
Ref. Dote 'L 1 0 LA
comments about this proposal. I find that troubling. It's more troubling that this issue
hasn't been disclosed by the developer or his applicant.
" Significant on-and-off site flooding issues if the project is developed.
• Significant impacts to an existing underperforming wastewater treatment plant, and an
infrastructure facility that is dealing with a lawsuit filed against it and the County of
Hawaii.
• Significant on-site impacts to endangered and threatened species if the project is
developed.
• Insufficient percentage of units (on-and-off-site) made available to low and moderate
income households if the project is developed.
• No clarity about what happens to the 22 units of affordable housing that still need to be
provided (that are from the 1983 State Land Use Decision) is the Royal Vistas time
extension is not approved.
• The property owner/applicant has not discussed or disclosed what type of on-site
grading will occur(cut and fill, balance on-site, will the building site be built up), and
where the dirt will be hauled. There is no discussion where construction debris will be
hauled to, and no discussion about any expansion of or creation of another landfill as
the one island wide landfill, on the west-side, is rapidly filling up.
• The property owner has not clearly identified that financing is in place for this project.
• This property owner has a history of land banking and does not develop land; many are
concerned that if the time extension is granted, the property will be sold, giving the
property owner a significant financial reward, and leaving the Kona community with
another paper project to address in the future. This is the ultimate kicking the can down
the road.
• Decades-long poor management by the Planning Department in failing to follow
Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code and their own conditions of approval to take action
against projects that do not implement said conditions. Citizen planners should not
have to do the job of the professional Planners. Additionally, the professional Planners
should understand and respect the values of the community instead of fighting them.
Again, it is the preference that:
no time extension be granted or approved
• the land be reverted to Open or A-5; and
• PONC acquire this land.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Elizabeth Dunn