HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL-CCI-2022-000002_PL-REZ-2022-000032 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
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
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