At the outset of this century economic times on Kaua‘i were favorable and developers were full of optimism for construction of facilities primarily for the transients coming to our island. In those early years the developers were warmly welcomed by
At the outset of this century economic times on Kaua‘i were favorable and developers were full of optimism for construction of facilities primarily for the transients coming to our island. In those early years the developers were warmly welcomed by our county Planning Department and Planning Commission. Applications and building and other permits were virtually never rejected. In the eyes of many of our citizens the Planning Department and Commission were typically considered as having become primarily “permitters” and not “planners.”
The Planning Commission calls those the multiple unit applications that come under their Subdivision Approval process S Projects and most of the rest are Z Projects which include resort, hotel and timeshare applications. In the years 2000 to 2007, according to a citizen observer, there were over 500 Z and S projects processed. There were 192 Z projects approved and two small projects denied. There were 377 S projects, all of which received “tentative approval” and only one was denied. About 30 of the tentative approvals did not proceed probably because of developer financial difficulties. The commission focused on the projects individually and did not recognize that in the aggregate it was approving transient units at several times the rate prescribed in the 2000 Kaua‘i General Plan.
Seeking to deal with this rush for urbanization of our island being orchestrated by the Planning Commission a citizens group, the Coalition for Responsible Growth, created and sponsored a Charter amendment to limit this mushrooming of transient accommodations. The measure was adopted by our citizens in 2008 with a resounding two to one vote. Essentially the amendment removed the Planning Commission as the authority to approve multiple transient accommodations and entrusted this function to the Kaua‘i County Council to act along General Plan guidelines unless and until it opted to return the authority to the Planning Commission subject to a limit of an average allowable growth rate for such accommodations at 1.5 percent per year.
In the about two-and-a-half years after the December 2008 effective date of the amendment while the approval authority resided with the council it has not had to act on any application for multiple transient accommodations. However, late last year Bill 2386 was introduced by a former council member purporting to transfer the approval process under the amendment back to the Planning Commission. Without any action by the council, the bill was promptly forwarded to the Planning Commission for its review and comments. Following a public hearing and a workshop session, the Planning Department staff prepared a proposed redraft of the bill. Creditably the redraft cleans up some obvious errors but two important flaws prevent it from being in conformance with the terms of the amendment.
As might be expected from the Planning Commission’s Helter Skelter pattern of processing approvals for developers, the commission does not have reliable data as to the current level of transient accommodation units. However, from state records it is estimated that about 9,200 such units presently exist. At the 1.5 percent rate allowable under the charter for Planning Commission annual approvals initially an average of about 140 new units per year would be permissible.
A grave consequence of the Planning Commission’s largesse in bestowing approvals for developer is that the Planning Department estimates that there are up to 4,000 transient units for which various approvals have been given but which have not been constructed. Bill 2386 proposes to exempt a major part of such units from the limits of the charter amendment. Clearly this would not be consistent with the terms of the amendment and it would be a huge variance from the control intended. Having up to 4,000 new units being allowed in addition to the 140 per year under the charter formula would make a mockery of the meaningful limitation approved by our voters.
Much of the responsibility of the unbuilt backlog falls to the Planning Commission which failed to conform to General Plan standards, failed to monitor systematically use of authority conferred and failed to establish a time for commencement of construction. Developers who claim they have done all that was required of them may have some equitable standing, but their cause is impeded by the absence of efforts for at least two-and-a-half years to seek any protection for any entitlement they may have from the County Council.
If the county believes that an owner who has been given some part of the approvals for his project and has incurred significant costs deserves some recognition, a more sensible and better legal answer would be for such owner to receive priority over new applicants instead of any exemption.
The redraft of Bill 2386 is also deficient in not recognizing that the timetable for the transient units allowance by the commission begins upon the enactment of the bill and not the effective date of the amendment.
Our government probably well understands that some of the terms of its proposed ordinance contain issues which are troublesome. Having the comments of the Planning Commission is a needed step for the bill which must then be returned to the council. For over a month now the bill has languished in the labyrinths of the commission without any signs of action.
Citizens of our county have an immense stake in seeing that any ordinance which restores Planning Commission authority over transient accommodations does so in compliance with the voter-approved charter language. Your interest in monitoring the progress of the bill and supporting the testimony of your neighbors in the Coalition for Responsible Government is vital.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly colum for The Garden Island.
