There's a growing number of 201H-38-related bills in-play in the 2023 Hawaii State Legislature. From a personal perspective, I classified them as BAD/OPPOSE and GOOD/SUPPORT. What do you think?
We can all participate in our State legislative process (track status of legislation, attend hearings, submit testimony): https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/home.aspx BAD/OPPOSE SB 763: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=763&year=2023 GOOD/SUPPORT SB 643: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=643&year=2023 SB 644: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=644&year=2023 SB 507: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=507&year=2023 SB 491: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=491&year=2023
0 Comments
Auwe! SB 763 would take away opportunity for public input on affordable housing projects statewide1/30/2023 Forwarding information below from Hawaii's Thousand Friends on a very bad Senate Bill (SB 763) which essentially takes away public input on affordable housing projects statewide:
BAD BILL Unfortunately, we begin the 2023 legislative session with a very bad bill that takes away the public’s opportunity to testify on affordable housing projects that are being developed under Hawaii Revised Statutes §201H-38 SB 763: RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING HEARING: Tuesday January 31 at 1:00 pm https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/HEARING_HOU_01-31-23_.HTM SB 763 RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING Signers on the bill: KANUHA, AQUINO, CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, MCKELVEY, RICHARDS, Dela Cruz, Kidani, Moriwaki, Wakai https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/bills/SB363_.htm SB 763 is a bad bill for two reasons: 1) The real purpose of SB736 is to delete all references to legislative body in HRS §201H-38 and replace it with the word county. A legislative body is a decision-making County Council or legislative body. This change means that each county's planning office, instead of County Council, will review and approve 201H-38 applications without any public due process. There will be NO public hearings before county councils, NO opportunities to submit testimony, and NO opportunities to make comments or ask questions. 2) The second reason it is a bad bill is that SB 736 inserts a section (b) on page 6 (see below) into Hawaii Revised Statute §201H-38, which is both unnecessary and duplicative since housing projects proposed under the statute are already exempt from all statutes, ordinances, charter provisions, and rules of any government agency relating to planning, zoning, construction standards for subdivisions, development and improvement of land, and the construction of dwelling units. In SB 736 the proposed section (b) temporarily exempts affordable housing projects by the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation from specific state and county fees and exactions related to discretionary approval or ministerial permitting, except application fees payable to the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation . . . Hawaii Revised Statutes §201H-38 already allows affordable housing projects to seek exemptions from a multitude of permits: *building permits, *plan review fees, *private storm drainage connection permit, *grading and grubbing permit fees, *payment of wastewater system facilities, *board of water supply water system facilities, *trenching fees, *storm water quality review fees, *plan review fees under disability and communication access board, *GET taxes, *Department of Health filing fee for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System fees, *and real property taxes. Those are thousands of dollars that, under the normal development application process, would have gone to various government agencies to help run our county, state and federal governments. Other exemptions include *increased height limit, *allowing apartments in residential zoning *and side yard setbacks. __________ To submit testimony on proposed bills and access information on the legislature, go to https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov. The website is self-explanatory and has labeled bars you can click on to "Participate" or "Submit Testimony," read hearing notices, track measures, find info on legislators, and contact the Public Access Room. For lists of Senators and Representatives and lists of House and Senate committee chairs and members, click the far-left bar on the first website page. To submit testimony on a proposed bill, click on the Participate bar on the first page of the website, or the Submit Testimony bar on the second website page. Then click a button at top right to register (if it's your first time on the website) or sign in (if you are already registered). Then fill in the bill number in the space provided and follow the instructions to submit testimony on it. Contact the Public Access Room at https://lrb.hawaii.gov/par/ if you need help or information. In its DEA public comment, respected environmental protection group, Hawaii's Thousand Friends, called for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Manoa Banyan Court project.
Long-time Manoa resident Stephanie Cook and her ohana weigh in against Manoa Banyan Court Draft EA1/23/2023 Here's what long-time Manoa resident Stephanie Cook and her ohana had to say about Manoa Banyan Court DEA: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOSuGc6nMy1Pi3274SuL43b7lAqBiS3N/view?usp=share_link
In his public comment to DPP, former LYCA Trustee Lance Luke questions whether Lin Yee Chung Association's Internal Revenue Service 501(c)(13) charitable organization standing allows LYCA to engage in operations outside of cemetery operations (such as development of Manoa Banyan Court):
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Lance Luke <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Charles Wong <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023, 05:04:26 PM HST Subject: DEA Manoa Banyan Court Response Gentlemen, Please refer to DEA Page 25 attached . Under the table there is a statement that reads "This Lin Yee Chung Association through its wholly owned subsidiary, Manoa Banyan Court Development Corporation 501(c)(3)....." When I last checked with IRS records, the named Corporation does not have the tax exempt status of 501(c)(3). Unless LYCA can prove that it does in fact have IRS approval, the DEA applicant should not be using the IRS charitable organization type. Furthermore, the current IRS status of LYCA is a 501(c)(13) charitable organization, which is designated for (and only for) cemetery operations. Notwithstanding, it is my opinion that LYCA does not have the proper standing to engage in operations outside of cemetery operations. Therefore, LYCA should not have submitted its request to DPP for any type of real estate development or construction project that is not cemetery related (such as the proposed Manoa Banyan Court Development). Additionally, DPP should request copies of the LYCA board meeting minutes and the corporate resolution that is evidence that the LYCA board approved the establishment of the Manoa Banyan Court Development Corporation. Lastly, DPP should request from LYCA, the IRS document(s) that proves official 501(c)(3) charitable organization tax exempt status. Please confirm receipt of this email. I look forward to your response. Thank you. -- Lance Luke, Principal Consultant Construction Management Inspection LLC www.hawaiibuildingexpert.com (808) 422-2132 A BIG MAHALO to STATE SENATOR CAROL FUKUNAGA who's been working hard on behalf of the Manoa community:
1. Senator Fukunaga's public comment to DPP on Manoa Banyan Court. 2. Senator Fukunaga introduced two Senate Bills (SB) that curtail 201H-38 exemptions sought by LYCA for its Manoa Banyan Court development:
3. Reminder: On Wed, 25 Jan, the full Honolulu City Council is poised to take action on two other controversial 201H-38 projects (Kealawau in Waipahu and Kuilei Place in McCully/Moiliili). Both projects were approved by Council Planning Committee chaired by Councilmember Calvin Say, disregarding neighborhood community opposition. Question: Will Manoa Banyan Court be next-in-line? Sharing public comment (below) of Dr. Jonathan Scheuer to DPP regarding the inadequacy of Manoa Banyan Court Draft EA under state law.
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Comment letter on Mānoa Banyan Court Affordable Elderly Rental Housing--Draft EA (AFNSI) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 15:30:24 -1000 From: Jonathan Scheuer <[email protected]> To: [email protected] CC: [email protected], [email protected] Aloha, My comment on the proposed project and the adequacy of the Environmental Assessment under HRS 343 are based on serving three years on the O`ahu Island Burial Council (OIBC), including during the controversies which ensued when Kawaiaha`o Church disinterred hundreds of human remains for a building project which they assumed was outside the boundaries of their historic cemetery. It is also informed by serving for eight years on the state Land Use Commission, four as Chair, where we had to regularly rule on the adequacy of environmental review documents. No matter how laudable the goal of any project may be, it is necessary for it to comply with state environmental review law. The conclusion of the document that there will not be any Significant Impact is unsupportable based on information in the document itself. On Page 98 the EA notes that "The cemetery lands had been used for burials prior to the society’s purchase of the land since the earliest known Chinese grave in Hawaii dates to 1835 in the area of the Mānoa Chinese Cemetery". This indicates there are burials without headstones or other markers and no records to indicate the geographical location of such burials. Yet the document also indicates that an AIS - an Archaeological Inventory Survey - may only be done "if needed" (p. 158:): "The Proposed Action supports the objectives and policies for protecting scenic, natural, and historic beauty of the Project Site and surrounding area. The proposed design is intended to maximize the preservation of site resources, especially trees and natural features. No historic properties or archaeological resources have been identified on-site, however an Archaeological Impact Survey (AIS} will be implemented for all ground disturbing activities if needed. The timing and nature of the AIS will be based on consultation with SHPD." (error in name of AIS and bracket in original). The fact that the proposed project is on a cemetery property is sufficient basis to require an AIS be completed prior to determination of significance. The potential disturbance of hundreds of remains - if Kawaiaha`o is a precedent - would be clearly seen as significant. I will also add that the statement on page 126 that burials are unlikely to be found is unsupportable based on experience. the EA states that "Because the Project Site was previously used for small farms and lo’i fields, (see photos in Figs. 3-2 and 3-3) and has been unused for decades, it is unlikely that human burials are to be found." Burials have been found across the Kona moku of O`ahu in histioric fishpond walls below buildings, below sidewalks, below roads, and below agricultural fields. There is no supportable basis for the statement, and significant practical experience that the statement is incorrect. Based on the above I believe that the accepting agency must determine that the EA is inadequate under state law. A new EA or EIS should be prepared, only after completion of an AIS in consultation with the OIBC. Sincerly, Jonathan Likeke Scheuer, Ph.D. -- Jonathan Likeke Scheuer, Ph.D. Kahālāwai Consulting LLC WCalls to reform Section 201H-38 are growing. Today (Sat/14 Jan 2023) Honolulu Star Advertiser Editorial Board weighed in against another controversial 201H-38 project in McCully/Moilili called Kuilei Place. Does this abuse of 201H-38 exemptions sound familiar (hint: Manoa Banyan Court)? Enough is enough.
By the way, both Manoa Banyan Court and Kuilei Place are located in City Council District 5 (represented by Councilmember Calvin Say). As Chair of the City Council Zoning Committee, Calvin Say voted in favor of Kuilei Place, disregarding a unanimous resolution against Kuilei Place by the McCully/Moiliili Neighborhood Board. Will Calvin do the same in the case of Manoa Banyan Court? We need to hold Calvin accountable for his actions. Editorial: Kuilei Place variances Honolulu Star - Advertiser; Honolulu, Hawaii, 14 Jan 2023. Full Text: The developer of Kuilei Place moved a step forward on its path to build a 43-story, $619 million condo tower in Moiliili last week, when the Honolulu City Council’s Zoning Committee approved of its plan. If given the go-ahead by the full City Council, Kuilei Place will receive upwards of $40 million in value by being allowed to build much higher and denser than the area’s zoning allows. The Zoning Committee also signed off on another $12 million in tax breaks and fee waivers. These variances are granted for building “affordable” housing under the state’s 201-H affordable-housing law, as interpreted under the current policies of the state’s Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corp. (HHFDC). But the HHFDC’s decision to grant valuable zoning breaks based on the inclusion of units costing upward of $800,000 — for “high-moderate income” households earning upward of $182,000 annually — is not taking the city where it needs to go. Lax classification of projects as affordable, in combination with policies that allow homes to lapse out of affordability requirements too quickly, can lead to continuing evaporation of units from the affordable-housing pool. That’s an unacceptable result, and one that is readily visible when it comes to Kuilei Place, where affordability would be required for only 10 years. Of Kuilei’s 1,005 units, 603 are classified as affordable to households with moderate and high-moderate incomes, at prices ranging from $371,800 to $813,300. Once monthly fees and utilities are added to this cost, low-income families could not hope to gain entry. At this site, 141 low-rise, low-income apartment units will be torn down to build the new condos. To remove this housing without a mechanism for replacing it, either on the project’s footprint, or nearby, is shortsighted and adds to Oahu’s problems. Without question, the cost of housing in Honolulu has reached unattainable levels for many, such as a theoretical teacher-and-firefighter household, and it’s valid to support housing for local essential workers. But the city and state need to keep focus on desired outcomes, as well. With a new state administration in place, HHFDC needs to revisit its requirements for 201-H qualification. Considering the average cost of housing in Honolulu, it’s supportable to include a measure of moderate-income affordability in projects that qualify for waivers and tax breaks — but the framework needs better calibration. As Tim Streitz, chair of the McCully-Moiliili Neighborhood Board, stated, “The ‘affordable’ units are not adequately serving lower-income residents and, therefore, do not merit the generous exemptions in exchange.” This project now goes before the full City Council for approval on Jan. 25. As the draft Council Resolution 22-298 states, this would require waiving city affordable housing requirements, which are more stringent than the state’s. In 2021, the city Department of Planning and Permitting found the project did not include enough truly affordably priced condos to qualify. The City Council should press the issue. |
Stay Informed! Updates to be posted here.Archives
March 2023
Categories |