Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0200.029 2006-2008 Murashige, Laura From: Margaret Wille [margaretwille@mac.com] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 1:34 PM To: cou nciltesti mony @co. hawai i. hi. us Cc: Copman, Linda ~rp 1 4 Subject: Testim re: Bill 156 for 4/18 CC hearing t ; Attachments: Bill 156-4-18 hearing.doc ,r., . Bill 156-4-18 hearing.doc (33 Please submit this testimony to the County Council members for consideration regarding Bill 156. Thanks you Margaret wille Comm. IVo. Z 0O •1 1 Ref. To: Preaemt~l Ref. Date ~ To: Hawaii County Council: Testimony for 4/18/07 Hearing Fr: Margaret Wille Re: Bill # 156: Affordable Housing Requirements for Industrial Enterprises Date: April 15, 2007 Testimony on behalf of: I am submitting this testimony on behalf of myself as a concerned citizen and not as the representative of any other party. Also, I am on the steering committee for the South Kohala Development Community Plan, however these views are my own and do not represent those of the South Kohala Steering Committee. GENERAL POSITION: SUPPORT --with some suggested changes to simplify and improve the drafting, and to provide for a fairer application of these requirements. I support the Council's efforts to impose an affordable housing requirement on industrial developments. This legislation is important given the crisis in affordable housing that has resulted in large part from the impact of industrial developments that are located in areas where there is inadequate affordable housing. My Comments/Suggestions for changes are as follows: 1.Re "Home improvement center" exemption: sec 11-4(a): Delete the words: "except for home improvement centers" Rationale: Why should there be an exemption for "home improvement centers"? There is no meaningful justification for this exception. It is simply a favor to one segment of industrial developers, and unfair to all others. The County needs to establish level playing fields, and not grant exceptions to certain industrial developers. 2 Re' allowing an exemption to previously approved industrial developments where there is a specific agreement for affordable housing. Sec 4-11(d): This provision, relating to previously agreed upon terms for affordable housing requirements should be tightened. For example: from current draft. which states: "...or to which the County has agreed previously as to the specific means of satisfying the requirements." to this proposed redraft: "...or to which the County has agreed previously as to the specific means of satisfying the requirements and the development is in, and remains in, full compliance with the written terms of the agreed upon means of satisfying the affordable housing requirements. Otherwise the requirements of this article apply. In the event that the agreed upon means of satisfying these affordable housing requirements do not specify a timetable for completion of the specific requirements then a period of 5 years from the date of the written agreement shall be assumed to be the period within which there must be full compliance with the previously agreed upon affordable housing requirements Rationale: This exception should not provide an unfair loophole for an industrial rezoning that is not in full compliance with the agreed upon means of satisfying the housing requirements. On the other hand it is not fair to subject a developer who is in compliance with an agreed upon affordable housing plan, to now be subject to some other standard. 3 Re' Basing the amount of affordable housing credits required on the equivalent of a certain number of employees on a full-time iob equivalent basis Section 11-5(A) (B) and (C): I suggest that instead base this calculation on the number of employees as well as on the number of persons paid on a contractual basis for work performed primarily on site, and without regard to whether those employees or contracted persons are full time or part-time. Rationale: The determination of affordable housing requirements should be based simply on the number of employees and contract workers --all of whom need housing whether they are full are part-time. There should not be a distinction made between persons designated as employees or paid on a contract basis where both are working primarily on site. Making that distinction further encourages business enterprises to hire people on a contract basis rather than on an employment basis---encouraging a less stable labor market. 4 Re' Triggering the application of these requirements on 100 full time emplovee equivalent units: I object to the use of this single point trigger for determining whether there is an affordable housing requirement, furthermore this single point trigger seems exceedingly high. The trigger point of "Individual industrial enterprises generating more than one hundred employees on a full- time equivalent basis' should be revised to a sliding scale for all industrial developments, and as stated above, without regard to whether the person is hired as an employee or on contract and without regard to whether on full time or part-time status. Instead, consider applying the requirement of affordable housing on a sliding scale to all industrial enterprises with more than 4 employees including both full and part-time employees as well as persons paid on a contractual basis for work primarily pertormed on the site. Rationale: If a sliding scale were used, each industrial enterprise would contribute to the affordable housing shortage on a proportionate basis on its level of impact and not have a single trigger point determination. Single trigger points work to artificially determine the size of an enterprise because the developer/employer will make a point to set up this enterprise so as to stay below that trigger regardless of whether doing so makes good business sense otherwise. It does not make sense to exempt out all industrial enterprises because they are not one of the "superbigboys" so to speak. There is an affordable housing crisis on this island, and either the County Council takes that crisis seriously or it does not. 5. Re' Section 2 "Credits Required": The organization of this "Credits Required" section is confusing and so are the subparts (i),(ii), and(iii) to subsection (B). It is not clear how sections (A) and (B) correspond. Section (A) designates the requirement for a type of development, that is "Individual industrial enterprises generating etc". Is there some other type of development that needs to be referenced as well, e,g. "multiple individual developments' or is that really what subpart (B) is talking about. It appears that (B) instead has to do with the TIMING of an approval of an industrial use --i.e. rezonings or plan approvals etc. This section should be redrafted for parallel construction. Suggest that section 11-4(d) be reorganized as follows with subheadings: along these lines: (d) Requirements for Industrial uses. (1) Affected industrial uses: The industrial uses that must...etc (2) Calculation of affordable housing credits for industrial enterprises Individual industrial enterprises and all other developments that include one or more individual industrial enterprises. must earn one affordable housing credit for every 4 lobs created (or for whatever number of jobs you want to designate). (3) Timing of the Calculation of affordable housing credits: (i) At the time of the initial rezoning When the calculation of affordable housing credits is made at the time of the initial rezoning then the potential to generate iobs shall be assumed to be one emplovee for each 1000 square feet of floor space for whatever calculation you decide upon but it sure would be great if you kept that method of calculation simplel (ii) At the time of any plan approval whether for a tentative subdivision PUD (planned unit development) or for a variance or otherwise the potential iob designation shall be assumed to be one emplovee for each 1000 sauare feet of floor space. 6 Re' Determining affordable housing at the stage of final subdivision review secition 11- 4 d 2 iii ELIMINATE this provision relating to satisfying the affordable housing requirement at the stage of final subdivision approval. All conditions for subdivision approval should be determined at the tentativelpreliminary review stage. Final subdivision approval is supposed to be simply a ministerial exercise of reviewing compliance with the conditions imposed at the stage of preliminary approval. Revisions made to the subdivision code last July did confuse the distinction between tentative and final subdivision review but don't add to that confusion. So that you understand, once a subdivision receives tentative subdivision approval, the developer can proceed with design and review of the construction plans. Once those construction plans are approved, then the developer can proceed with ALL infrastructure construction. Final subdivision approval is what allows the developer to start to sell the units. 7 Re' Districts where there is existing substantial affordable housing. Exempt this affordable housing requirement in those districts where there is existing substantial affordable housing available. Proposed language: "Every five years the planning director shall recommend to the County Council which districts have substantial affordable housing available. As of the effective date of this ordinance, the districts of Hilo and Puna are determined to have substantial affordable housing available. " Rationale: reasonable not to include this requirement in districts where affordable housing is not needed. Question: which districts currently have substantial affordable housing available --Puna? Hilo? any others?