HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0896.245 2022-2024November 19, 2024
County of Hawai'i
County Council
25 Aupuni St n
Hilo HI 96720
Re: Opposition to Bill 169, Draft 3; Opposition to Communication 0896-215
Aloha Madam Chair and members of the county council,
The Sierra Club of Hawai'i, Hawai'i Island Group (HIG) reiterates its opposition to Bill 169,
draft 3 (Bill).
In addition, HIG opposes Communication 0896-215 (Communication) and any motion to
postpone decision -making on the Bill. Countless hours of time have been expended by the
Leeward Planning Commission, the Cultural Resources Commission, the general public, and this
county council. This council, not the next, has made a site visit and has the prerequisite
knowledge, experience, and expertise to make the most optimal, informed decision on the Bill.
HIG opposes the Bill to grant an extension of time for this rezoning for the following reasons:
Violations by Previous Owner -Developers
The state Land Use Commission (LUC) had amended the state land use district from Agriculture
to Urban in the mid-1980s to allow for the construction of a housing project in two Increments.
Increment One was for a mixed single-family, multiple -family development. Increment Two
was for single-family development only.
The county council then passed Ordinance 84-23 that required Increment One to be built before
Increment Two. For as yet unknown reasons, the county Planning Director at the time allowed
the owner -developer to build Increment Two with 215 single-family dwellings before Increment
One.
In the early 2000s, Increment One had been purchased for approximately $1,045,000 by another
owner -developer, which then received plan approval from the Planning Director to proceed.
However, that owner -developer did not proceed and sold the property to Kona Three LLC for
$600,000, a 57% discounted price. Please note that, according to Hawai'i Life Real Estate
Brokers' online 2023 Year -End Marketing Report, the median price of homes sold on the
Hawai'i island was $510,000 or about the same amount as Kona Three LLC paid for the 68 acres
involved in the Bill.
HIG asks that the council prevent further real estate speculation on this environmentally and
culturally sensitive property by ending further extensions of time.
P 1>:fx i 1,27 G-lih.!-IV 96771-11,37 1 hawaiiislandsierrad b@gm_a..H.Com
General Plans and Kona Community Development Plan
Since the state LUC and county council approved the state land use boundary amendment and
rezoning, respectively, in the mid- 1980s, there has been massive growth and change in the
ahupua'a of Holualoa 1&2, as well as the surrounding ahupua'a. The current conditions
surrounding this property bear no resemblance whatsoever to those that existed 40 years ago.
Since 1984, new General Plans were adopted in 1989 and then again in 2005. While the General
Plan has been updated to adjust for changes over time, this 40-year-old rezoning has not.
For instance, the current General Plan states:
"5.5.7.2 Courses of Action
(a) Drainage systems for the Keopu/Hienaloli, Waiaha, Kaumalumalu and the Holualoa/
Horseshoe Bend drainageways shall be studied and remapped to determine the
actions necessary to mitigate negative impacts.
(b) Establish and maintain appropriate vegetative cover in high rainfall, sediment and
debris producing areas.
(c) Encourage the mapping of the floodways in North Kona to develop more effective
flood control programs.
(d) Encourage the use of natural drainageways as greenways in the development of
the region.
(e) Maintain and re-establish forest cover in mauka areas to improve the capacity of
the ground to absorb heavy rainfall."
The Kona Soil and Water Conservation District supported these Courses of Action in their
following testimony on the Bill:
"The Kona Soil and Water Conservation District have reviewed TMK (3) 7- 6- 021: 016 & 017,
and it is our continued recommendation that these parcels are acquired for public acquisition and
designed to protect our community watersheds, coastal water, and reef habitats.
These parcels are traversed by flood corridors across both the northern and southern portions of
the property and currently function to infiltrate stormwater, thus recharging aquifers, reducing
sedimentation of reefs and pollution of coastal water. These are just some of the ecological
benefits this land can offer, benefits that will disappear forever if the land is developed."
Further, the Bill also does not appear to comply with the current General Plan Section 5,
"Flooding and Other Natural Hazards":
"5.4 STANDARDS
(a) "Storm Drainage Standards," County of Hawaii, October, 1910, and as revised.
(b) Applicable standards and regulations of Chapter 27, "Flood Control," of the
Hawaii County Code.
(c) Applicable standards and regulations of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
(d) Applicable standards and regulations of Chapter 10, "Erosion and Sedimentation
Control," of the Hawaii County Code.
K
(e) Applicable standards and regulations of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts."
With regard to the Kona Community Development Plan (Kona CDP), after performing a due
diligence review of the Bill, the Kona CDP Action Committee (AC) has submitted testimony in
opposition.
Among the sections of the Kona CDP the Action Committee considered were:
1) ENV-1.7c: Identify corridors to be recommended for public open space pursuant to
Policy ENV-2.2 Open Space Network Program (PD, DPW, 3-5), and
2) Policy CR-1.1, "Cultural Resources Commission (CRC): "Cultural Resources
Commission (CRC). The Action Committee should work closely with the County of
Hawaii Cultural Resources Commission to implement the Kona CDP's goals, policies,
and actions for Kona, along with the General Plan..."
The county is currently working to develop its Open Space Network program, which is ignored
in the Bill, and the county Cultural Resources Commission determined the Bill does not
sufficiently address preservation and protection of cultural resources.
Housing
Bill 169, draft 2 will not add to the affordable housing unit housing inventory. Even there is a
commitment to 20% affordable housing units, this would only provide the number of affordable
housing units required for this residential development alone. The excerpt below from a study
completed by Keyser -Marston Associates for the City and County of Honolulu proves this
statement.
From the table below, 20% inclusionary affordable housing units will only supply the number of
affordable units needed to accommodate the 80% market rate homes (1 of every 5 homes built).
Cumulative Inclusionary Percentage to Mitigate Increased Affordable Housing Need
Single Family
Low -Rise
Mid -Rise
High -Rise
Rental
Townhomes
Condo
Condo (PUQ
Apartment
Extr. Low
3.8%
3.5% 3.1 %
4.1 %
3.1 %
(up to 30%
AMI)
Very Low
10.5%
9.5% 8.8%
11.1 %
8.7%
(up to 50%
AMI)
Low (up to
16.5%
15.1% 14.0%
17.4%
13.8%
80% AMI)
Moderate
19.8%
18.2% 16.9%
20.9%
16.7%
(up to 120%
AMI)
140% Tier
20.5%
18.9% 17.6%
21.7%
17.3%
(up to 140%
AMI)
3
With the year-end 2023 home price in Hawai'i at $510,000 and sssuming a 6.5%, 30-year
mortgage with 20% down with mortgage and associated costs being 30% of the purchaser's
annual income, the household income would have to be approximately $135,000 per year. This
would bring approximately $375,000 (70% x $135,000 x 4 housing units) in discretionary
income directly into the local economy. That money will create a demand for additional
services, such transportation, food, healthcare, home and yard maintenance, etc. The demand
for additional services creates the need for additional jobs. The people getting those new lower
paying service jobs would need affordable housing. That is why one affordable unit must be
built in each residential development for every 4 market rate units built.
To summarize the housing issue, a residential development being sold at market rate would need
to supply 20% affordable homes to handle the additional demand for services to those new
market rate households. Therefore, Kona/Royal Visas does not provide net additional housing
units for our county's affordable housing unit inventory.
Conclusion
Please note there is no condition prohibiting Kona Three LLC from taking this discretionary
value-added approval and "flipping" the property the next day for a substantial profit. If, despite
united community opposition to the Bill, the rezoning is approved, then the value of that
rezoning will be "baked" into any future sales price, whether it is to a private or public entity.
Bottom line, it is not in the public's highest and best interest for this Bill or Communication to be
approved.
For reasons presented in this testimony, HIG urges the county council to vote against the
postponement requested in Communication 0896-215 and against approval of Bill 169, draft 3.
Mahalo for this opportunity to testify.
11