HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0465.006 2006-2008 1
Murashige, Laura
From: michael matsukawa [kapulu@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:29 AM
To: counciltestimony@co. hawaii. hi. us
Cc: phoffman@co.hawaii.hi.us; Ikeda, Donald; kpilago@co.hawaii.hi.us; Yagong, Dominic; Higa,
Stacy; Ford, Brenda; jjacobson@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Corrected Testimony (Bill 112)
Attachments: Bill 112 Testimony.doc
Bill 112
stimony.doc (25 KB;
Attached is my corrected testimony on Bill 112. The reference to "four"
should be "five" on page 2 relating to a subdivision. Five (5) is the "trigger." I
apologize for the error. Thank you.
Michael J. Matsukawa
L
r_-
r-
i-+
c
Comm. No. TVS. ~i
Ref. To: "ryas?ar GNAti/
1 Ref. Dote IIII 10 2fl9T
Michael J. Matsukawa
75-5751 Kuakini Highway
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
Telephone 329-1385
July 10, 2007
Chairman Hoffman
and Members of the Council
County of Hawaii
Hilo, Hawaii _
CORRECTED
Re: Bill 112 (Amending Chapter 11)
Hearing Date -July 10, 2007
Statement in Opposition to Bill 112
Dear Chairman Hoffman
and Members of the Council:
I am writing in OPPOSITION to Bill 112 in its present form. Although the
outcome of Bill 112 is laudable, Bill 112 is incomplete and does not articulate in
sufficient detail the council's rationale to impose mandatory affordable housing
conditions on lands that were rezoned prior to 1998. No doubt, owners of such
{ands may appear to be "getting a free ride" if they were to put their lands to the
described uses today (subdivision and CPR to lots or units less than 5 acres in
area or plan approval for residential uses). However, State and county
governments were aware of the housing "crisis" long before 1998 and, as a
matter of direct public policy, allowed such lands to be rezoned without housing
conditions at the time.
As drafted, Section 1 of Bill 112 declares that "it is necessary" to take the
proposed action at this time because it is "typical" for municipalities to do so.
However, the declaration does not consider or articulate the fact that every
municipality develops its housing program in accordance with the constitutional
and statutory requirements and facts applicable and relevant to the exercise of its
land use powers.
In the case of Hawaii County, in 1998, the council amended the Zoning
Code (but not the Subdivision Code) and authorized the council to attach
specific conditions of approval that are linked to the desired land use action in
question. The council also adopted Chapter 11 to impose affordable housing
conditions that are linked to that land use action as well. In both instances, the
~ As early as 1959, the State recognized the need for housing and acknowledged that public lands
should be used to establish housing on as widespread a basis as possible. Statehood Act, Section 5(f). In
1978, the State again established a State policy on housing. HRS Section 226-19.
council limited the foregoing action to a discrete list of activity resulting from NEW
zoning actions.
Seven years later, in 2005, the council amended the General Plan
ordinance to emphasize the need for more "work force" housing, i.e., the location
of affordable housing in or near employment centers. At the same time, the
council amended Chapter 11 to strengthen the affordable housing requirements
on specified NEW zoning actions.
Today, under Bill 112, the council proposes to extend the affordable
housing requirements of Chapter 11 to lands that the council previously rezoned
but without affordable housing conditions. If State and county governments
granted such prior rezonings in the past "free" of housing conditions, that action
was grounded on direct government policy, not because of an oversight or
inadvertent omission. As drafted, Bill 112 asks the affected landowners to make
up for that oversight or omission and without explanation, other than the
generalized statement that other municipalities use inclusionary zoning
techniques (based on the laws and facts relevant to those municipalities).
Furthermore, in the absence of a sound rationale to drive the proposed
action, Bill 112 may lead to unintended consequences. For example, assume
that a landowner has land that was rezoned prior to 1998 as residential or
agricultural 1-acre and without a housing condition. Assume, further, that the
landowner now wants to subdivide his land into five lots, one for each of his four
children (or grandchildren) to meet their housing needs. Under Bill 112, that
landowner must also satisfy the housing needs of others, at his expense and,
more importantly, without a sound explanation.
Finally, several communities are now in the process of recommending that
the council adopt regionally-directed and regionally-administered community
development plans that are intended to address housing needs through various
"smart growth" techniques. The recommended actions address the appropriate
utilization of lands that that were rezoned prior to 1998 on a regional basis. Bill
112 may have the unintended consequence of nullifying these community-driven
initiatives.
In closing, I recommend that the council defer action on Bill 112 and
develop a sound rationale for the suggestion of extending Chapter 11 to
previously-zoned lands in whole or in part. This would help insulate any eventual
legislation against constitutional or other challenges that may operate to prevent
the county from achieving its housing goals.
Respectfully,
/s/M. J. Matsukawa
Michael J. Matsukawa