Laserfiche WebLink
Communication 633 <br /> <br /> Bill 164 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> because it does not have the necessary water units and if Increment II is not completed, no <br /> affordable housing requirement will apply to this application. Director Yuen noted he <br /> understood the issue of the affordable housing requirement and stated it is a valid point. He <br /> explained that the 3 units were intended to cover the entire project of 34 lots and the 10% <br /> requirement was translated to 3 units. Mr. Yuen stated that the point made that if there is no <br /> second increment there will not be an affordable requirement is accepted as criticism as to what <br /> happened. <br /> Council Member Jacobson stated he could not understand why approvals were given to a project <br /> in the first place 10 yeazs ago, when it had inadequate water units. He stated it's somewhat <br /> odious that if the Council wants the affordable housing this request has to be approved. Mr. <br /> Jacobson's concerns were that approval without water units in the first place was wrong and to <br /> be placed in a position that we're not going to get affordable housing on this at all without <br /> approving a time extension for the second phase is also utterly wrong. <br /> Council Member Ford's concern was how applicant intended to secure the necessary water units. <br /> Mr. Ashikawa stated they aze now working with Wainani 42 LLC, developers of the Wainani <br /> project in the Kalaoa area and they have some water units they won't need for their project. <br /> These aze the units applicant is counting on for Phase II of their project. <br /> Director Yuen explained with regazd to the 2004 agreement for 3 affordable units, at that time <br /> the affordable housing ordinance did permit a developer in this situation to come to the council <br /> and essentially buy out of the affordable housing requirement for payment of $4,720 for each <br /> affordable unit. Mr. Yuen noted that virtually all developers chose this in lieu option and bought <br /> their way out, the prior wuncil voting to allow buying out "in lieu." <br /> Council Chair Hoffmann noted that the amendment Mr. Pilago is suggesting would return the <br /> wording of condition K to its original wording and would be a little bit more appropriate under <br /> these conditions. <br /> Council Member Yagong stated in order to answer the question as to why this project was <br /> approved without having the water commitments one would need to look at the time frame of <br /> things back in 1997 when we were dying for any kind of projects to happen. He said it's just one <br /> of those things which came down to economic development. There was very little happening at <br /> that point in time and affordable housing percentages were changed to try to stimulate these <br /> kinds of developments. Mr. Yagong noted that while everyone else was opting out by paying in- <br /> lieu fees, this applicant chose to do affordable housing and should be credited for that. Mr. <br /> Yagong concluded he preferred not to penalize the applicant and move forward with applicant's <br /> time extension with the hope that all these requirements will be adhered to once the water units <br /> were obtained. <br /> Council Chair Hoffmann noted that with regard to obtaining water commitments for Increment <br /> II, there are specific conditions that state improvements would include but not be limited to <br /> additional source development and inquired how applicant would comply with this requirement. <br /> Applicant stated that due to the size of their project they are not physically constructing water <br /> PC Report No. 45 <br /> <br />