|
they need a time extension, they come in for a time extension,they should have the same
<br />standards and requirements that people coming in for zoningtoday have, including, and
<br />this is a very important issue for us in the County, including having a portion of their
<br />property at least being priced at an affordable level so that people in the community can
<br />get some place to live in West Hawai i. So thats our policyof doing that.
<br />However, there is an affordable housing condition in the current ordinance. In 1994,
<br />there were these letters written that said that there was no affordable housing requirement
<br />because this is an agricultural rezoning. However, the ordinance was re-enacted in 1995
<br />with a condition that they have to comply with affordable housing requirements. And
<br />this had an effect of saying that if there were any affordable housing requirements
<br />enacted subsequently, that they would have to apply for them. There are conditions that
<br />are non-specific like this as to what their requirements are. And the affordable housing
<br />policy has changed over time; and, currently, it does require, we are requiring affordable
<br />housingfortheseagriculturalone-acretyperezonings.Thecurrentpolicyhasan
<br />affordable housing requirement for anything under 5 acres. So we will, our
<br />recommendation is to stick to this condition, and were quite definite. And on the
<br />Administration side that we will, that we are not interested in extending this time
<br />condition, which we dont have to do, without adding affordable housing condition. Its
<br />one or the other as far as were concerned.
<br />The 300 acres, you can read the MOU it covers the affordable housing requirement for
<br />,
<br />the beach resort portion, the Waikoloa Beach Resort portion of the project. It does not
<br />cover like any affordable housing for Waikoloa Highlands.
<br />Finally, again, as a matter of policy, when you have these old zonings that dont have a
<br />fair share requirement, we are adding that in, for the same reasons that I discussed earlier
<br />on time extensions. The Applicant is correct to this extent, though, some of the
<br />improvements that they made would be credited against fair share at the time when the
<br />fair share is due. Under the wording of this ordinance, though, which is the way that the
<br />Council has asked that this be worded, we would have to take that to the Council and say,
<br />look, this should credit against fair share. Its not, under the prior ordinances, I, as the
<br />Planning Director, could just decide to credit improvements in fair share. What will be
<br />credited are things that have regional benefit that go beyond whats necessary for their
<br />project itself. So to the extent that their project itself didnt need a signal light, for
<br />example, but the development of the whole area, the development of the area as a whole
<br />needs a signal light, that would be creditable against fair share, or the recreational
<br />facilities could potentially be credited against fair share. So thats a point that is covered
<br />under the current wording of Condition I, and thats the last paragraph on Page 8. And,
<br />as I said though, that is subject, at this point, with the way its worded, to the Council
<br />approval.
<br />GALDONES:Ms. Springer?
<br />SPRINGER:With regard to the housing discussion, I want to make sure that Im
<br />looking at the right condition of the 1995 ordinance. Is that found on Page 3? I think its
<br />12
<br />
<br />
|