HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunication No. 2018-13- Janice Palma-Glennie CDP AmendmentsCommunication No. 2018-13
Aloha Planners and KCDP AC members,
Mahalo to everyone who worked on these amendments, particularly the subcommittee, Roy
Takamoto, and Nancy Pisicchio. I implicitly trust the intentions and commitment of Nancy and
Roy and their continued desire to make the KCDP succeed, and I appreciate them taking the time
to attend the last AC meeting. It was especially enlightening to hear from Roy how certain
changes could be devastating to the community's desire to have infrastructure in place before
more development continues, and I'm grateful to see a reversal of that proposed change. It was
also inspiring to hear Nancy reiterate the idea of reaching out to community members for
assistance to help get parts of the plan implemented, as she's seen done successfully in places
like Oahu. I'm also very relieved to see that the "shall" related to maintaining 1000 foot
shoreline setbacks has been retained.
Encouraging for-profit development isn't AC's kuleana
It's not my fear, nor the fear of any of the people I've spoken to in the community over several
decades, that North and South Kona are lacking or will be lacking development. North Kona is a
deja vu mess of insufficient infrastructure. As has been noted in testimony and public comments,
our waste disposal situation is archaic and damaging our nearshore waters and reefs (i.e.,
damaging public health) at the same time that people sit in wasteful lines of traffic. This won't be
alleviated anytime soon, despite Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway being widened as the bottleneck
at the south end will continue in foreseeable future. If finishing the new stretch of Queen K
highway is used as an excuse to build more dwellings in North or South Kona, it will have been a
negative rather than a positive for our region.
Protect and create affordable housing
North Kona is already bursting at the seams. The only place where lack of development is a
concern is for truly affordable housing. As can be seen in recent Oahu headlines and used as a
lesson for our County, housing that reverts back to the general real estate pool in10, 20 or even
30 years in the future isn't sufficient to help the region's people survive and thrive in the longer
term when people continue to depend upon that housing for them and their Keoki. The affordable
housing crisis has been exacerbated by short term rentals in residential neighborhoods. That
growing situation can and is being addressed by the county council and mayor. Perhaps language
that supports a limit to vacation rentals in all but resort -zoned areas should be added to the
KCDP.
"Shall" vs "May" or "Should"
As much as some of the changes from "shall" to "should" or "may" make sense, others could
have damaging affect on the KCDP and our region in the long run. That includes limiting the
legal ability to grow our regions in a way that embodies the qualities of Smart Growth (i.e.,
protection of the land, culture, and social health of the North and South Kona regions) which the
community assumed would happen under the ordinance. For example, I have reservations
regarding these and other proposed amendments:
• Changes to Policy TRAN-1.2: proposes switching "shall" to "should" regarding Ane
Keohokalole being the main trunk road for transit. This would remove the Transit
Communication No. 2018-13
requirement which is at the heart of the KCDP.
• Policy TRAN-2.1 buries a change that would allow formerly banned gated communities
along the coast.
• Policy TRAN-3.8: Like the changes to Tran -1.2, the proposed removal of requiring
transit hubs in Transit Oriented Development means it is just Development.
• Policy TRAN-1.5: Frontage Road: The KCDP should be amended to exempt the Kaloko-
Honokohau National Park from being included in our roadway system. I suggest striking
" makai of Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway" from this section while retaining the ability of
the State to approve the use of the 300 -foot easement for a continuation of the frontage
road.
The use of the word "feasible" is interesting and potentially damaging to the ordinance's intent.
How could a legal challenge be mounted were a developer or landowner doing something
contrary to the KCDP if a claim is made by them, whether true or not, that doing the right thing
isn't "feasible"?
My biggest overall concern is if any of the new language allows growth to occur without
maintaining the strong protective language and "win-win" requirements currently embodied in
the plan. To support the Public Trust, that commitment and balance must be maintained even if
some development and/or developers are put off.
I look forward to these and other continued discussions meant to enhance the practicality and
viability of the KCDP.
Mahalo and sincerely,
Janice Palma-Glennie