HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-17 Bill 127 Elizabeth Dunn From: Elizabeth Dunn
To: LPCtestimony
Subject: Comments on Item 3,PL-CCI-2024-000006
Date: Friday,May 17,2024 1:16:13 PM
Aloha Leeward Planning Commission. Below are my comments regarding Item 3,PL-CCI-
2024-000006.
1. Please clarify that on Page 4,under Planning Director's Recommendation,that the
"unfavorable recommendation of Bill No. 194" is a typo. This legislation was approved by the
County Council on April 19, 2023. The issue in question is Bill 127, a bill to establish time
limits on Conditions of Approval included in rezoning staff reports.
2. Within the past two years,the County Council has proposed or approved legislation for the
Planning Department to:
* prohibit administrative extensions of rezoning applications that request further time (to
construct the project). This is Bill 194.
* require a twice yearly status report of various projects to be prepared and submitted to the
County Council. This is proposed Bill 138.
* establish more specific background requirements for applications to the Leeward and
Windward Planning Commissions. This is proposed Bill 145.
Bill 127 is another attempt to create objective standards, specifically establishing time
limits for conditions of approval for rezoning proposals. It would be interesting to understand
how and why the inclusion of time limits for conditions of approval stopped, as discussed on
pages 2 and 3 of this staff report. It is unsettling to read, on the top of Page 3, that, "time
conditions were based on...the Planning Department's best estimate on how long the
development process or components would take". This statement infers that there was no
standard amount of time that was assigned to different types of projects. Additionally,most
public sector planners have an understanding of the various internal and external agencies that
need to review plans, but they cannot control the external review timeframe. Most public
sector planners do not have direct experience in developing land as those in the private sector,
and the various serious steps once a project has been approved by the County. A "best
estimate" is the equivalent of throwing a dart at a dart board and hoping it lands where you
want it to.
3. It appears that there is not only a philosophical disagreement between the County Council
and the Planning Director on establishing timelines,but that the current Planning Director
resents the reduction in his administrative authority with this Bill and Bill 194. Some of the
rationale and language used in this staff report for Bill 127 demonstrates there has been a
historical change on the inclusion of timed conditions that is troubling to the County Council.
It's still not clear to me why establishing a time limit is so unsettling to this Planning Director.
4. I am concerned when I see the following words in this staff report, such as "would usually"
(page 3), "arbitrary timing conditions" (page 4), "belief' (page 4). There is no qualitative
application of these words in the Zoning, Subdivision or Building Code. Certainty in the
development process is created when objective and reasoned standards are uniformly applied.
A time limit for the conditions of approval lets developers know there is an end date if diligent
work doesn't occur to construct a project.
5. I strongly disagree with this sentence on Page 4: "Furthermore,this will alleviate
unanticipated impediments to development of a project, and allow
applicants/owners/developers flexibility to develop a project as favorable conditions allow." I
don't see how a time limit is an unanticipated impediment to developing land. Public sector
Planners assist persons who want to develop their land; Planners and the Planning Department
should also convey community values to a perspective developer. The role of the public sector
Planner should not be to represent or be an advocate for the developer. I think this has been
the perspective of the Planning Department for years and this unchecked advocacy for the
developer is why the series of Council bills discussed above have been proposed.
6. The suggestions that the Planning Department/Director proposes to work through Bill 127
are meaningless, and misleading. There is no discussion of how standard performance
conditions will be enhanced. A tolling agreement is a useful tool for a development proposal;
however,this implies a level of sophistication of the developer and is often used for larger
projects, especially when a lawsuit is anticipated. I question how this tool would be used on a
regular basis here. Creating a timeframe matrix is a great idea, and will help citizen planners
understand how non-linear the land development process can be. Lastly,the examples of when
timing conditions don't work doesn't make sense. It's rare when a piece of property has two
zoning designations. Even if this were the case, a carefully crafted condition of approval can
address this situation.
I do not see any reasoned language in the staff report for Bill 127 that demonstrates why time
limits should not be proposed. I'm thinking of a few projects that are near where I live or have
commented on and they are rezoning projects that have been approved years ago (between 20-
50 years), and haven't been developed: 77-6565 Naniloa,the extension request for Kona
Vistas, and the project on Eho Street,north of the Kona Coast Shopping Center.
As a retired Planning Director/Manager, I do not enjoy providing negative comments on
Planning projects. I am not a NIMBY - I am against poorly analyzed/one-sided projects. I am
concerned by a Planning Department that seems to feel its responsibility is to accommodate
the development community rather than being the guardians of community values and
representing the public. Bill 127 is needed because the Planning Department and Director need
to be a more neutral County Agency. If Bill 127 is adopted, I would also recommend that an
audit of the practices and protocols of the Planning Department occur and the results need to
be made public.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Dunn