Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0694.010 2022-2024 PIPPwo • 01• • - DRAM 604 rr,[-) t O L: rF.? "11: Mark Van Peoria Gom August 29,2924,Bill 127,setting deadlines for amp of zone ordinance to mitigate.impacts August 19,2024 at 716 Pm 71:t1 p11 1,‘:1‘:;2 q,,gov Mark Van Pernis cc 173 requires rezoning/subdiivision applications to have deadlines for completion,This helps the developer to be honest in its promises to the public. The old system allowed the Director in the writing of the applicable ordinance the Panning Director(with no apparent legal authority)the discretion for delay atter delay switch no pubic input or accountability on how conditions could be adversely and the public affected by delay and how the delay would benefit the applicant. Any ordinance for reZening/Subdivisicn would have been issued by the Council,and thus ONLY the Council can Change the ordinance as to time for performance and required conditions,including affordable housing,This is now law,but needs the deadlines specified, The old system,when the community was small and didn't have the infrastructure/affordable housing problems and hugely increasing population it has now,may have worked,But it is now very obsolete, and possibly illegal as to Planning Director delays,and wrecking the community. Neither the Planning Commisloners nor the current Planning Director have any formal education or training In community planning,and traffic committees. And it shows:lack of Commission site visits;lack of considering off site impacts;no consultation with neighbors or others affected;no consultation with police (re accidents. Dept of Transportation or Dept of Public Works(future roads,etc):and recommended approvals by the Director of virtually every developer application for approval or delay°, The Leeward Planning Commission and the Council haves often been playe,for fools when applications for development are made WITHTHOUT ANY INTENTION OR CAPACITY TO CARRY OUT THE PROJECT. Instead they want an open ended approval so they can evenuaoy sell the project. They get this with a wink and a nod from Planning which had 5 year extensions available,an reccommendations for longer extensions available thereafter, The public gets nothing but more infastructure and housing woes. If some subsequent buyer ever does develop,absent the new ordinance on delays emanating from the Council,the public would only get ob solute an i8nadequale benefits determined don needs decades. There are ten to twelve THOUSAND residential and commercial units approved years cage but officially delayed,many with affordable housing conditions. Those applicants are wailing for buyers and not carrying out theft obligations to the County. There obsolete approvals should be terminated or brought up to date with a sunset requirement. The Council should move into the 21st century as to planning. 1.Palamatri,promised'to complete by 2005-delayed to 20r5-sold lo Nan, Inc. 2.Sunshine Holdings LL,a and or 3rd buyer,to be completed by 2005,not broken ground,want further 5 to 10 year delay. 3. Diamond Acquisitions,LLC,partially built abandoned cement structure on Alii Drive where mini-putt used to be, through another entity wants another ten years-original application promised construction in 1985, wants different project now-time share hotel. 4, Alil8 Drivde- Keohou.Condo project,first approved 30 years ago, recently got another 10 year delay,nothing new added to 30 year old conditions/housing. Attached is a West Hawaii Today article and a letter supporting the successful override of Mayor Roth's veto of the underlying ordinance. , which are more explanatory.A complete overhaul is necessary for the Commissions,the qualifications and training of its members,and the Planning Director too.Good planning for the future of our special place. Is too important for to be left to-Hose now involved. Mark Van Pemis 40 year Kona resident,former Leeward. Planning Commissioner and Kailua Village Design Commissioner Comm. No. 1111'. Ref. To: Ref. Date AUG 2 0 2 024 _ . .... _ MY TURN 1 MARK .. _ . . The Planning Department also admits that t:,<e k it does not have set definitions or standards fnr deleting'beyond the control"Instead,It' , 1 ,. accepts all applications for delay,even if the ordinance has long since expired,and does 1 not ask for any evidettce of circumstances of ' 'beyond the control."This results in favorable . , : . , ; nn„E„..114 Ian , reconunendations for lengthy delaYs with no „ 1 a, '''' proof of"beyond the control"and no additional infrastructure ch surely and from the ' 4: ,41,," 1;;;;.17..„,; •;";``.1• on the Queen ' 111 lengthy delays.For instance the traffic,i Katthumattu enry Street and the 1VIamalaboa Highway,near Makalei and in to tawn,degradation of waters -, off Drive from cesspool nitwit etc. n ' - 'Ilse solution is a sunset clause in all .. modern d mu as a I t development onlinanons azi permits,land If a planning retrunres. developer IS not prepared to apply,just timely proced,it sh.. .114't The Hawaii County Planning 1,. .,"- to take advantage of the county for needs to imodemize and do-better-kw vest a big payday and a.setting of*infrastructure ; Ha.vvaii,giving developers and the ,n. gnna will c requirements that quickly become obsolete definite guidelines,emphasize proper The archaic practioe Attractive always attract deve1ope . authority in the County Coma, done Hilo based guy the public eon a..,.. oe and aspect for the giving out time extensions thout pu consid for West Hawaii land planning process,and level the playing infrastructure should wiblic eration for new needed field where it often appears that applicant- . should repla developers are fiwored over the public. end,ancreturns ce that.The set provisio Planning ntpartment's „nnin.to Specific examples ofrecent appli . and its director's jot.:would be easier bemuse then Planning Department and the Leeward Planning Commission are available, they smith:lift have to decide on giving utulateral Favorable -..ni. ....,,.ons from the time extensions zone change(although r.. Planning Department usually include a know of no refusal to give an extension or a negative down zoning/and the dog of dernattds requirement that the app,.. for lengthy time extensions before the Leeward project,Meludleg public infrastructure'be completed in a specifictir0,e.g.five Yeirs-, Planning Conunission and the County Council would be alleviate&Developers wrnild have more certainty.And the pub/ic and would have more certainty and confidence in the land eot thatThat s it requirement etiiapplicant-developerve usu a11Yerem ez n t sincludes e a 'et.a th a t ePth er°v I s: planning process,and not alwa. ..ys be"holdhig the bag"for additional needed intrastructure. mdiscr:Iztlindoon aKern.the PAftiauer'gtnat„dlreLfulr°4 currently.,. . porat Counsel h are available via the Leeward DePntY Corion Micael' Schhteter has Tined that it is exclusively tire Leeward Plenums COnnnission's kuleana o:, recoCommissiminenodatin andon titofethCoe punianniiigty Coun.c!.witli„;,,,e4 evizthe if the prior approval has long sinceigpmed give del anis or ookfinnenees for scheduled commission agenda items,despite the planning withoutany nomPllanee,and without adegam past pi considanation of public infrastracture pivKze3 cinectar's and department's actice of oing so.So too should be the which have develTed-during the de*In improperly d past in hpractiing cc of the dhector and department and out onlinancetitne extensios. comynmsexPerion.eliThcIdelaangla:43.1:82u5a) arsettburttYamiu A modern sunset clause is needed. an a apSaphppolicanirdn't4evelltethenlle.QuElyoperaudastatute43:11frage !wbichz:s(U:batagl:a..rredu'e they member and Kona resident an oralinarve for rezoning an. subdivision for development-within a.. enrxclusively Zany+ the pow:Ann:44v"-.', ' "'t'''" debrizu, tI3 non-i-t4r:*1.74, abenan the contror of the developer-appli'dInt.Ugh'definition of "beyond the control'are such things as floods and labor strikes.The Planning Depturtment has used'family deaths or illnesses,natural disasters,pandemics,global or national recessions'But the department also accepts and favorably processes extensions when the applicant merely seeks a delay because it completely failed to meet time matiirprewro.. • From: Mark Van Pernis mvpvv@hawail.rr.com .i4t4 Suteect: bill 194 as ameded,mayor's veto,override.:DRAFT Datr.e April 6,2023 at 6:19 PM To: deebiehecteegrnail cci „, Cc: mark Van Pernis riwpw@havveli maim, had deb&'gmail.Corn Dear Mr.Inaba and Wendy: this is just a draft of public written te imony. Reese review it and feel free to comment,add, detract,etc.When and where should the final go? Mayor Roth's veto of bill 194 as amended,demonstrates either a profound lack of understanding,or, more likely, a disrespect and bias against the Council,the public, (particularly West Hawaii),modem 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. Aderessing Mayor Roth's"concerns": 1. The Mayor argues that 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 alllows 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 andto 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 existing zoning/subdivision,including those incessantly delayed,have a legal REQUIREMENT to show reasons"beyond the control',such as labor strikes,floods,litigation, etc. in any application for delay. The director ignores this REQUIREMENT and without opportunity for public input instead grants arid recommends delays merely for the financial convenience of applicants Thus such delays are in legal limbo. .However this bill allows bill allows for the Council to grant delay for ANY reason,and thus is easier on the applicants,than the illegally ignored REQUIREMENT! The bill would also eliminate the limbo. 0 2.Does the bill change Executive administrative convenience for private developers to representative democracy for 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 developer 3. Does the bill change a system that's been around for a long time? The old system doesn't workl And the system of illegally ignoring the REQUIREMENT also doesn't work.The severe and ever increasing infrastructure mess and severe lack of affordable housing in West Hawaii proves this. Dangerous standstill traffic jams on Queen Kaahumanu Henry, Mamalahoa. Palani, Alii, and elsewhere,overcrowded schools,degradation of nearshore waters,trash and dump problems, Kona hospital is so bad even the Mayor would"nt go there when needing medical attention,rampant zoning Code violations.There's ten to twenty thousand residential and commercial units,many with affordable housing requirements and all with infrastructure impositions,APPROVED BUT UNBUILT,repetitively delayed and recommended for delays by the Executive branch of the government, delays of 5 to 40 years. There's plenty to develop and West Hawaii will always attract more development! There's much of your affordable housing and other housing inventory 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, which could terminate a project or add to its impositions administratively and without certainty. The public would be more certainly serviced. Although it is theoretically possible in the present systeM,there has NEVER been a downzoning by the Director following the expiration of an ordinance without initiation of development. And also NEVER added impositions as part of the multiple delays,and sometimes a lessening,(e.g.Puaa Development LLC et al. The Directo9r should be honest about that. 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 been over backwards for,promised to develop by 2005,got all their rezoning and permits long before then,but instead 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 despite a 200%population increase in the neighborhood. The current Director's background is privately representing developers. The Director has granted or recommended annrnval nf PVPRY(-Way ant Inht by a riavaInnar witt )i a any additional imnnaitinn and for VFRY davalnrmant Tha , ...„..„.. _„ ___-_� ' . ~ ^ _-` ��d��o — impose adequate infrastructure. The curr, ed anner,had the courage deve(OPerS before the County wth the additional credential of having been a former Directo to occasionally say'no-or applications. In this veto,the Mayor.who has n 1,sentative for a long time and is responsible r. He would follow former c,land planning background. is likel)�,Ioa dependent on the advice and contributions of these for many, many delay rebut. Other testifies.types Off People, While the Public is limited to 3 minutes of testimony, such as the Director and applicants and their representatives,have u can't ask questions, nor lead to misrepresentations,mistakes and"don't Rn ntimited time,and this dbn residents deserve the Ows', which have occ truth and should have first priority, urr-d more often than You may know, Big Island Overriding the veto is the right thing to do for the People and the Council. The degradation needs be addressed-with needed infrastructure, Nobody,not the unqualified Director nor the recipient of his favorable recommendations, Commissions)are doing any future Planning for residents, It is uPto the Council with (Planning integrity,and respect should prevail. this bill to insure timely,quality development with contemporary infrastructure and affordable housing. Accountability,transparency,future Planning,and .nt Director appear.-to be looking forward to returning to representing � m ' ^ ' � � * ^ '