HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0694.014 2022-2024i! I IV
Comm. (gq
From: Mark Van Pernis
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2024 10:08 AM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Baez, Wendy; Kona Letters
Subject: Applicants must state completion date for rezonings and subdivisions, delays re. same.
The purpose of the legislation is for delays to be given only by the Council as original approver of the project with
needed public benefits requirements, and then years later obtain extensive delays for itself and subsequent buyers,
without providing required community benefits. Thus an immediate big markup from the County for the private
applicant and empty promises for the community. Delays by the PD, the LPC and the Council on the recommendation of
the PD are commonly 5 to 40 years. The community benefits, determined at the time of the application and thus become
obsolete its the extensive delays, are NOT revied and updated to accommodate contemporary needs. Affordable
housing is one required benefit, assessed on the obsolete date (before extensive delays).. There are ten to to twelve
thousand approved but unbuilt residential and commercial units, many with affordable housing requirements. That
problem would be far better if those applicants timely met their obligations.
Thus the County and its people, including those needing affordable housing. as infrastructure users and taxpayers, suffer,
while profits for the applicants and their successors soar,with the Council, LPC, and PD acting as fools for the applicants
and contrary to the best interests of their constituency. The recent ordinance requiring applicants for delay to get
approval for delay from the council, with the possibility of review and updating conditions relating to extensive delay.
Goes a long and beneficial way towards ending this problem and abuse. Bill 127's requirement that th applicant and PD
agree on a completion date brings 21st century planning to our community, and would end applicants taking unfair
advantage of our community and our government.
The community, and you ads its representatives, need to make this long over due policy change. Times are different
now, and off site infrastructure and affordable housing much worse. Kona will always attract developers.
Not too long ago, under a previous and qualified PD, a large proposed subdivision near Lako street of residential and
commercial units first approved in the 1990s, sought another 10 year extension, including meeting its affordable housing
requirements, and deleting other conditions, with no significant traffic improvement. Kuakini and Lako, from Kailua town
up into Kainaliu had become seriouslyjammed in the time since that original approval, with lots of development in the
area. The proposed development by its own admission would dump about 1200 more vehicles daily into that jam. All
neighbors and nearby subdivision associations were against it. The applicant, through its representative Mr. Fuke ,
presented a traffic study that entirely omitted mauka and makai Henry Street on the representation that it did not
contribute significant traffic going south towards Lako Street, when in fact Henry jammed Henry Street is the largest
source of such traffic! Also citing the applicant's improper avoidance of the State Land Use Commnission, the PD
recommended "no" and the LPC UNANIMOUSLY said "no". It then went to the Council, where Nr. Fuke, wit he
assistance of Ms. Kierkewitz, turned the "no" into a "yes" with delays. The applicant then sold to another developer,
expect additional requests for delays.
This wouldn't be and shouldn't be happening with passage of the bill 127.
Mark Van Pernis
40 year Kona resident Iuvj�,—
Former LPC and Kailua Village Design Commission member Comm, N 1�
Ref. To:
Ref. Date - 4 2024