2024-05-17 Bill 127 Elizabeth Dunn

Home

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.