2020-06-18 Leeward Exh D (AMEND REZ 2004-024 & AMEND REZ 2004-025)

Home

with the exception of two specific Conditions for the Suffolk property and one for the Puaa property, the other requested amendments are essentially the same. So in the case of the Suffolk property, those two Conditions are related to rental housing and affordable housing. First is Condition D, which currently requires the project to be used for rental housing for a period of 20 years as what was represented by the applicant at that time of the original change of zone; so the applicant in this case is asking to delete that Condition entirely. Second is Condition X, and the applicant is requesting to amend that, which, again as represented by the applicant at the time of the original change of zone, would have, would require a minimum of 20 percent of their rental units with the Suffolk property to be rented at 80 percent or less than the median income level and the remainder to be rented at a 120 percent or less in the area median income level; in this case the applicant is requesting relief from these requirements to be replaced with standard affordable housing language. And then next is for Puaa Development, and again in that case the applicant is requesting to delete Condition Y, which currently requires the project to include housing. The Condition goes on to require that at least 50 residential units be under actual construction with completion assured by surety bond before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for any commercial structures. In addition, that Condition requires an additional 50 units of housing would be built under those same conditions, if any commercial uses exceeds 60,000 square feet of gross floor area; so in this case they are asking for relief from that requirement. And again, other than those, the rest of the conditions that they are asking for amendment remain the same, or are essentially the same. The applicant's stated reasons for request are basically due to the economic, the global economic meltdown that occurred in 2008, over a decade ago; they had difficulty securing the required financing to initiate and complete the project as represented, as a funding was too difficult to obtain, and thus they decided to prioritize exploring alternative uses for the properties, including sale of the properties, and exploring sources for construction financing. The applicant believes that the current economic outlook is amenable; however, time is still needed for the applicant to address the various conditions of approval, to incorporate and finalize plans, and to secure the required financing. Again, I'll just note that the economic outlook being amenable was pre-COVID. According to the applicant, they have worked on compliance for several conditions, including the conveyance of a five-acre site for a future school as required by the ordinances, but it ultimately did not get approved because that was tied to a subdivision of the property that never occurred, and then the school relocating to a different area. Lastly, although there has been no physical construction that has occurred, the applicant states that they have expended a considerable amount of soft funds, including nearly a million dollars spent for more detailed land use planning and the preparation of infrastructure construction plans for the projects. So the zoning for the subject properties are as follows: Again, for reference, we have Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway running in the middle of the slide here north-south, and Kuakini Highway running toward the bottom, and again, Puaa Development is a Neighborhood Commercial-20,000 feet as indicated in the pink color, and for Suffolk Investment we've got Multiple-Family Residential-2,500 square feet. Other zonings in the area are a mix of Single- and Multiple-Family Residential, some Agricultural and some Neighborhood Commercial closer to Kuakini Highway. The State Land Use designation for the subject parcels is a State Land Use Urban as is indicated by the pink colors. The other designations that we see here, Agriculture as is indicated by the green color. It should be noted that in conjunction with the change of zone ordinances granted in 2005, the 4 EXHIBIT D