Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL-REZ-2022-000032_PL-CCI-2022-000002 E. DUNN TESTIMONY 10.17.2022Araujo, Jaclyn From: Elizabeth Dunn <elizabeth.dunn135@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 1:18 PM To: LPCtestimony Subject: Two Comment Letters for the October 20, 2022 Leeward Planning Commission Attachments: 10202022 Letter to LPC Kaloko Extension.pdf, 102022 Letter to LPC - Bill No 194.pdf Hello Planning Staff: I am submitting two separate comments letter for the Kaloko time extension request, and Bill 194 for the October 20, 2022 Leeward Planning Commission meeting. Mahalo for your time. Elizabeth Dunn Comments on Item #2, Sunshine Holdings, LLC, File PL-REZ-2022-00032, 73-1735 Kaloko Drive Aloha Leeward Planning Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the extension request for project PL-REZ-2022-000032 at 73-1735 Kaloko Drive, TMK 7-3-25:12. Until the County Council has taken action on Bill 194, I'd ask that the Leeward Planning Commission not consider or recommend any decision on this, or any proposal, where an extension of time is requested. This "blank check" approach to Planning applications, and decision making has to stop. While this is a small project, it is a proposal that is 14 years old, requests the revisions of many conditions of approval, and where no implementation or conclusion of the project has taken place. It is surprising to read that the Planning Consultant is also requesting that the extension be retroactive to August 2008 in the May 26, 2022 letter of application to the Planning Director (page 13 of the staff report). I'd love to go back and be 27 again, but that isn't the way time works. Based upon the information in the staff report, in August 2020, the previous Planning Director sent a letter to the previous applicant for the subdivision indicating that the County had withdrawn the subdivision application for lack of action (pages 59 and 60 of the staff report). It was nearly two years before the current application for this four lot subdivision was submitted to the Planning Department. How can a time extension request be seriously requested when the County already indicated it has withdrawn the application for lack of action, and the informal ten year approach (five years to complete the project, and one approved extension of vie years) has lapsed? There should be time limits on development applications. There should be clear language within each condition of approval about the term of the condition. There should also be more appropriate language in the findings that the Planning staff makes about nonperformance of an application. There should not be any STVR on agricultural lands. There should be a list of the outstanding Planning applications that have been approved and not completed. I'd ask that the Planning staff create this list; this list should be included in a summary staff report to the County Council about the number of projects, and units for projects that have languished and should be withdrawn by the County as part of the background for Bill 194. When Planning consultants spend years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare updated environmental documentation in order to submit an extension request, the sunk costs should not be part of the decision making process to approve such extensions requests. The victims are neighbors who must endure the multi -year construction timeline, and the constant erosion of trust in the public decision making process. When money is the reason to constantly approve development projects, the decision making process is broken, and new leaders are needed. Thank you for your time. Elizabeth Dunn Letter Supporting Item No. 4, Bill No. 194 (PL-CCI-2022-00002), Conditions on Change of Zone Actions Aloha Leeward Planning Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on and support Bill No 194, PL-CCI-2022-00002, the legislation 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, 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 when I'm driving past projects that are proposed. 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. 1 know there are more, but without a current list of projects that is prepared by the Planning Department, it is impossible to know how many projects have been previously approved, and many units could be constructed. These languishing projects do nothing for the local residents except add to the anxiety about when and if these sites will be developed. If these projects get approved, and building permits are issued, then the outcome is congested roads, greater competition for water availability, more pressure for an enlarged or new wastewater treatment plant, and desecration of 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. I am not against development. I am against poor development, poorly planned development, and the impression that the development community has more importance that the property owners and residents of this County. I am also concerned about the uncomfortable and growing perception that there is an all too cozy relationship between some in the Planning Department and the larger development community. As an example, former senior 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, creating a level of disruption to their daily lives and the multi -year process this development takes. I'd ask the Leeward 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 for 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. I'd like to better understand Section 25-2-44(b), and this language: Requests to change or alter the conditions of any change of zone ordinance shall be processed in the same manner as a zone change, "unless the council authorizes the changes or alterations to be made by the director". What circumstances might exist where the County Council would pre -authorize the Planning Director to allow a time extension? If the intent of this section is to authorize the Planning Director to approve a time extension on a case -by - case basis, it would be helpful to know what this criteria is. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this section, but that's how this language reads to me. 3. 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. Additionally, I'd like to offer that language within Section 25-2-44(d) be modified to reflect that the "County Council direct (emphasis added) the Planning Director to initiate the process for enactment of an an Ordinance reverting the affected property back to its original zoning designation or a more appropriate zoning designation in accordance with Section 25.2.43". This way, there is no confusion about which entity within the County is pursuing a zoning ordinance revision, and clearly directs the Planning Director to take this action. 4. 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 also doesn't appear that there is any independent analysis by the Planning staff of the environmental document. It would be helpful for the public to understand how many applications have been approved and not built, and approved 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. Mahalo. Elizabeth Dunn 2