HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL-CCI-2022-000002 E. DUNN TESTIMONY 10.4.2022Rc'd at 10/4/22 by CM
Dist'd 10/6/22 Read
FILE COPY
WPCtestimony
From: Elizabeth Dunn <elizabeth.dunn135@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2022 2:33 PM
To: WPCtestimony
Subject: Comment Letter on Item #2 - Bill No. 194
Attachments: 100422 Letter to WPC - Bill No 194.pdf
Hello Planning Staff:
Please forward my comment letter to the Winward Planning Commission on Item #2, Bill No. 194, at its October 6, 2022
meeting.
Many thanks.
Elizabeth Dunn
1
Letter Supporting Item No. 2, Bill No. 194 (PL-CCI-2022-00002),
Conditions on Change of Zone Actions
Aloha Winward Planning Commission:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on and support Bill No 194, PL-CCI-2022-00002,
the bill proposed by Councilperson Inaba to have the County Council approve an extension of
time for a previously approved rezoning application, as well as the conditions of approval of
this approval, and not have this approval occur at the staff level.
I live on the leeward side, and see the signs for development proposals all around me, as well
as drive past projects that have recently broken ground for development. I am concerned
about the approved, but not yet implemented projects, that I know have been or will be
considered by the Leeward Planning Commission: Royal Vistas (450 units north of Lako Street),
77-6565 Naniloa (62 units on one parcel; an adjacent makai parcel would be phase 2 of
development with an equal amount of units); Sunstone Kona, 289 multi -family units approved
by the Leeward Planning Commission in June 2018; and Puaa Development, a mixed use
project including 100 multi -family units that was approved by the County Council in December
2020. There may be more, but these are the projects I am aware of.
These languishing projects do nothing for the local residents except add to the already
congested roads, exacerbate water availability, create more pressure for an enlarged or new
wastewater treatment plant, and desecrate lands where Native Hawaiian (pre -contact) artifacts
exist. More workforce housing is needed - not more housing that is unattainable to existing
families, and bought up as investment vehicles for in -or -out-of-state investors.
I am not against development. I am against poor development, and poorly planned
development. I am also concerned about the uncomfortable feeling that there is an all too cozy
relationship with some in the Planning Department and the larger development community. In
the past six years, there have been at least three Planning Directors - this doesn't foster
continuity within the Planning Department; former Planning staff who've left the public sector
are now the proponents and consultants to private property owners and developers who want
to maximize their profits on their investment on vacant (and speculative) land. This comes at
the expense of the neighbors who must live with the uncertainty that vacant land - that has
previously been approved but no development has started - will be developed, and the multi-
year process this development takes.
I'd ask the Winward Planning Commission also consider these enhancements to Bill 194:
Formally establish time limits within the conditions of approval, and Zoning Code, for
rezoning applications. This way, the public has a clear understanding of how long an
approved rezoning application is valid. Section 25-2-7 of the Zoning Code establishes
that Planning applications, except fro rezoning requests, are valid for two years. I have
not been able to locate language in the Zoning Code that establishes a time limit for
rezoning applications. Additionally, I have not seen similar language in the conditions of
approval for rezoning applications.
2. If Bill 194 is approved by the County Council, establish that the time extension is a one-
time extension, and valid for a specific time period - say two years. Once the time
extension has run its course, and no further action has been taken by the developer to
secure a grading or building permit to vest the project, the project should be deemed
abandoned, and invalid. No subsequent time extensions should be allowed.
3. For any time extension request where an updated environmental review has been
prepared, have this document peer reviewed by a third party that the developer pays
for. When the private developers prepare these documents, it feels as if the fox is
watching the hen house. You can't have the entity who's requesting a rezoning also
prepare the environmental document for the project. There's no appearance of
neutrality, and of any kind of checks and balance approach.
It would be helpful for the public to understand how many applications there are that have
been approved and not built, and approved, and where an extension has been requested and
approved - whether by one of the Planning Commissions or County Council. Such a list would
provide a more comprehensive understanding of the scale of development that could occur on
the island and the impacts to the road system, water, wastewater, electric generation, natural
habitats, and potential loss of pre -contact Native Hawaiian artifacts. This list would be a
significant tool for the County Council to have as it contemplates Bill No. 194.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this much needed legislation. I will also provide a
similar letter to the Leeward Planning Commission when this item goes before this hearing
body.
Mahalo.
Elizabeth Dunn