Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL-REZ-2022-000033 E. DUNN TESTIMONY TESTIMONY 12.13.2022From: Elizabeth Dunn <elizabeth.dunn135Mgmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:14 AM To: LPCtestimony Subject: Additional Comment Letter - Royal Vistas Attachments: 121322 Royal Vista Opposition Letter.pdf Hello Planning Department: Please Include this additional letter to the LPC about the Royal Vistas project. Many thanks. Elizabeth Dunn Letter of Opposition Regarding the Royal Vistas project December 13, 2022 1 am submitting an additional letter opposing the Royal Vistas project. The reasons to not recommend approval to the County Council are provided below: 1. Traffic. The addition of 450 units will choke this busy area and intersection in Kona. In his November 15, 2022 letter to Jeff Darrow regarding comments from state and county agencies and this proposal, the Applicant's Consultant says that, "While the construction of Ali'i Highway will have some beneficial effect to traffic volumes alone Hwy 11, the Applicant feels that such effect will be limited because there is no good way to get drivers along the Ali'i Highway back to the Hwy 11 north of the congested area extending from Henry Street to the north and Kamehameha III Road to the south. If the "Ali'i Highway" is the Ali'i Parkway or Kahului'u/Keauhou Highway or other name for the paper road to nowhere that parallels and east of Ali'i Drive, then please stop referencing a non-existent road. At the October 2022 Leeward Planning Commission, Deputy Director Darrow provided an update about this paper road. Today's cost now puts the construction cost for this roadway between $200,000,000 and 250,000,000 dollars. There is no way this road will be built. For evacuation purposes, more makai- mauka roads need to be constructed. A road that would destroy significant burial grounds and other important cultural artifacts should not be pursued. 2. The near capacity of our infrastructure - such as roads, schools, hospital and medical facilities, police and fire stations, sewer treatment plant - will only be exacerbated by this proposal. Unless this developer, and all developers pay a more appropriate development impact fee to address the expansion of roads, schools, and the sewer treatment plant, no development should be allowed. 3. The lack of an identified site for affordable housing that is required from this proposal, and the Kona Vista development. It's pathetic that the affordable housing requirement for Kona Vistas has been allowed to languish for 15 plus years; now there's no land identified for the affordable housing for the Royal Vistas proposal. This issue should be decided upon, and not be a bargaining chip. In his November 15, 2022 letter to Jeff Darrow, Daryn Arai states that affordable housing is the more important issue versus the undergrouding of utilities. Both are important, and both should be included as part of the project, and not an either/or situation. Please provide the Affordable Housing Agreement between the County and Developer so the Public can review this document. Why is a manager's unit needed for the "for sale" housing? Please state if the developer is subsidizing this unit for the manager or if the manager will be paying the market price for this unit. 4. Another time extension. Imagine that. If a project was approved and never built, whether or not it received a time extension or extensions, the application is invalid. End of story. The July 2022 version of the applicant's submittal had a request for a twenty (20) year time extension. How and why did this change in the submittal document? 5. No Short Term Rentals should be allowed here. The CC&Rs should be created or amended to preclude STVR for the Royal Vistas proposal. Language like this exists in CC&Rs as a standard provision. Please be more responsible about this issue other that to say that the Applicant doesn't want to make a decision for the future residents. 6. The various cultural and archeological surveys, and the list of similar surveys in the area, is great information. This report is the most thorough set of surveys I've reviewed since following local development applications. However, I continue to believe that development on sites with significant archeological artifacts should be more significantly restricted. 7. The staff report includes language about the$170,000,000 dollar construction cost for this proposal. This is an interesting statistic but shouldn't be used as financial blackmail for the appointed and elected decision makers for this or any project. As speculative land developers, there is a sunk cost for all of the hired professionals and their work before any approval and/or ground breaking for such a project. Including the construction cost implies that a project like this should be approved because of its financial impact to the community. I argue that a project like this has more permanent, negative impacts to the larger Kona community than limited positive financial impacts for a few on the development team. Please don't include this information in future applications, whether this is for large or small projects. It's not subtle, fair or impartial. Thank you. Elizabeth Dunn