HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0677.051 2022-2024Testimony from Jason Masters
County Council Bill 123 Draft 5
Hawai'i County Council Meeting of September 17, 2024
2nd & Final Reading & Decision Making on Bill 123
Dear esteemed Hawaii County Council members,
First, let me state that I do admire the intention and direction taken by the County
Council to address the complex problems of affordable and available housing on
our Hawai'i Island. The commitment and effort of the Council certainly deserves
applause.
Regarding Bill 123, however, I am opposed at this time for several reasons. Firstly, is
what is simply due to what I believe is a lack of notice particularly during an election
season. I wasn't made aware of this latest draft being on today's agenda until yesterday,
even though I am signed up for Council alerts. I still do not receive anything regarding
the County Council, while I do receive alerts from the various other Commissions that I
am signed up for. Unfortunately as a result, I have not had the opportunity to peruse the
latest draft in its entirety. However, based on my understanding of the proposed bill, I
believe it will actually result in just the opposite of what it hopes to accomplish.
I believe another significant issue that I have with this Bill is the lack of an opportunity
for Action Committees to both be directly made aware of and have an opportunity to
discuss this at any of the island wide action committees, prior to this coming to a
decision.
Some of the many unknown adverse effects of this Bill include:
Traffic and Circulation in general.
Turning much of the island into multi -family housing.
If I'm not mistaken the number of additional dwellings has been reduced from three to
two, but in many areas, this would still essentially triple the potential population without
accounting for general infrastructure, on and off -site parking, sewage which is a
significant issue in Ka'u of which we are awaiting resolution, water supply, energy, etc.
I don't see a minimum lot size, the parking requirements simply refer to the parking
section of the code which I believe will create confusion for the Planning Department in
how to apply this standard, I do see a 15' setback between buildings on the same site in
the RD District and that it simply has to meet required setbacks of whatever applicable
district.
Regardless, we're currently going through a County General Plan Amendment, so I'm
curious as to why this is being proposed as a separate item and why in my opinion,
again, it has been so poorly advertised when it probably has much more drastic,
immediate impacts.
Comm. No.-sL__
Ref. To:
Ref. note SEP 1 202
In almost 15 years as a City Planner I've written many laws regarding accessory
dwelling units, and they were never for more than one unit on one property for a
habitable use, and thus the term accessory; never for anything close to over 1,000 sq.
ft., but could also never exceed the existing dwelling size; never anything with a
functioning kitchen, wet bars were often questionable depending on the jurisdiction and
function; and definitely never anything that could be used as a less than long term
rental.
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to expand on this. Needless to say, anything less
than long term rental does not solve the affordability crisis. Building more houses, not
ADU's will only drive up land values as speculators come in to rent them out further
disenfranchising our future generations from their ability to purchase their own homes.
I believe that using the phrase accessory dwelling unit is wholly misleading, and I
believe that this law has the ability to change our rural and in fact island wide
landscape, particularly without it being given due consideration to the widespread
effects it will have. I didn't say potential, because they will occur, and they are not what I
believe residents of any district of this Island think is a good idea. I also noticed that the
proposed amendment removes all references for an application so I'm confused as to
how one would actually get one approved and how the County would track them.
In Palos Verdes right now, with the huge landslides and people and property and gas
and electric lines threatened, they have quite a bit of urgency, but changing the entire
island's character over night doesn't seem to be an urgent matter, and I'm really
confused as to why this Code Amendment is being so urgently rushed through.
I believe in finding solutions to affordable housing islandwide. But I believe that they
have to be varied and targeted solutions as appropriate. I work at the schools in Ka'a. I
want somewhere for these kids and heck for their parents right now to be able to live
affordably. It's bad enough that the Department of Hawaiian Homelands can't find a way
to place my neighbors, my uncles and aunties, on many of the available lots after 40
years of waiting. But I digress.
I do not believe that this bill is the solution without it going through the process and
actually allowing our Hawai'i Island -Wide Community Development Plan Action
Committees each the opportunity to discuss and if they see fit provide testimony as they
each feel appropriate. I for one know, that, given the opportunity, that the District of
Ka'Q's Community Development Plan Action Committee would certainly discuss and
provide testimony on this item. And while I am proud to be born and raised in Ka'a and I
am proud to be the Chairperson of our amazing Committee, my statements are that of
my own. I am also proud of my significant career as a City Planner, and I believe most
or all of my work on Accessory Dwelling Unit -Laws still stand.
Please delay action on this item until such time is given to allow the County's Action
Committees to act on this matter as I believe is consistent with County Law.
As I was unable to vocalize two weeks ago, I just don't understand what that urgency is
in this legislation. I have worked on many Urgency Ordinances, and they always were a
response to life threatening or at a bare minimum property threatening circumstances. I
really don't understand why this is being pushed through with such urgency and
particularly given the lack of Public Notice and opportunity for members the public to
provide testimony
Again, I have written numerous Accessory Dwelling Ordinances. Every single time, 950
sq. ft. with no kitchen was the absolute maximum, but most were much smaller at 750
sq. ft. maximum with no kitchen. This is not an accessory dwelling unit ordinance, it is
creating multifamily housing Island -Wide on essentially all lots. The result will be to
forever price out future generations of existing residents and lock them into being
forever -renters. Currently the Ka'G District has among the highest homeownership rates
in the state even with among the lowest income levels in the state. With this Bill, outside
inventors will come in and buy up cheap lots, and develop them for multifamily housing
rentals which will drive up land values, pricing out local families forever.
Having written many ADU ordinances over the years, what you're writing is both an
urgency ordinance for some reason, and again, essentially a multi -family housing
ordinance at the same time. An ADU as the term implies is accessory by nature, not
numerous additional single-family housing on one lot. So if the Council's efforts are to
create multifamily housing, then that's a different story but to go from Ohana to several
single family housing units it's just quite frankly misleading.
Accordingly, there is no rush on this bill. I agree there is a tremendous need for more
housing on the entire island but this is not the route. Allowing multi -family housing on
essentially every residential zone except for the plantation housing and perhaps some
other limited areas on the island is going to have drastic effects on the cultural, scenic,
ecological and socioeconomic landscape of both the Ka'Q District and the entire island.
I'm all for increased density, I used to live in downtown Los Angeles during Graduate
School. They've increased density by converting skyscrapers, old warehouses, and
factories and office buildings into apartments. But the result of proposed Bill 123 is to
literally encourage urban sprawl just like Los Angeles.
Please reconsider the far reaching implications of Bill 123 and either delay voting or
vote no at this time.
F-11 1561
Jason Masters