Resolution 20-174 Testimony - MISC. COM. 280 ZP
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Resolution 20-174
Testimony
MISC. COM. 280
ZP1 UNITE HERE!
LYLOCAL 5 HAWAII
Eric W. Gill, Financial SecretaryTreosurer Gemma C. Weinstein, President Godfrey Moeshiro, Senior Vice President
April 21, 2021
Committee on Zoning and P1anrirg, Honolulu City Council
Brandon Eefante, Chair
Esther Kiaãina, Vice Chair
Testimony in opposition to Resolution 20-174 regarding the KCR Development/1667 Kapiolani
project
Chair EleFante, Vice Chair, Vice Chair Kia’aina and Members of the Committee:
UNITE HERE Local S represents hotel, health care and food service workers across the state, We remain
concerned about the proposed KCR Development / 1667 Kapiolani project. We are not in favor of
approving this project, for several reasons:
Over the past several years, an increasing number of Hawaii residents have become concerned about
the negative aspects of overtourism on our lives and our environment. It has also become clear,
especially over the past 13 months, that Hawaii needs greater economic diversity. Beyond any
discussion of what community benefits are needed to justify the variances and exceptions the
developer is seeking for this project, we as a community should be asking if and how the benefits
of this and all other proposed developments outweigh the impacts on our communities.
While we appreciate that this project does have an affordable housing increment, we believe that the
community’s needs and this developer’s responsibilities to meet those needs are greater than what
has been offered so far, given the modifications to LUO and draft TOD rules being contemplated. In
this case, in addition to a maximum FAR of 10.0 and a 400-foot height (plus appurtenances), this
resolution contemplates variances from rules or guidance about building separation, setbacks,
orientation and loading sDaces, among other things. All of the affordable housing should be built
or-ste.
• The parking increment oroposed for :nis project would be 50°/s of the requirement under the Land Use
Ordinance based on the original craft of Resolution 20-174, or 500 spaces under the proposed
CDI. To the extent reducing parking spaces might indirectly discourage people from driving cars
and resu!t in some envirormental benefits, the goai s one we support. However, the developer is
seeking an FAR of 10.Ox even witr the reduced parking, meaning the porton cf FAR that would
have been needed for parking can be used instead for other revenue-generating purposes in the
project. This represents a beneft to the developer, and should be taken into account,
• This resolution would allow for a significantly reduced number of bicycle parking spaces from LUG
requirements. According to the DPP’s calculations from its June 30, 2020 Findings of Fact about
this project, the development would require 249 short-term and 82 long-term spaces (given the
number of units that were being contemplated at that time, which has since changed). This
resolution would require 51 short-term and 127 long-term spaces, which is roughly 54°/o of that
amount in total (although again, the LUG requirements based on the current proposal will bedifferent from the DPP’s earlier calculations), If reducing the number of required car parking spaces
is anticipated to have the indirect effect of discouraging people from driving cars, then what is the
impact of reducing the amount of bicycle parking spots?
• We are not in favor of condotel development. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, raises questions
about how condotel properties can develop cleaning and hygiene standards, protocols for suspected
positive cases, contact tracing procedures, testing regimes, training standards, etc. that apply to
an entire property in which some rooms are managed and serviced by any number of third party
companies.
• With this and every other development in the Ala Moana and Kaka’ako areas, we feel the respective
developers’ studies of the incremental impacts of those developments do not add up to an
understanding of how these projects as a group impact our infrastructure and our communities.
Each developer may conclude that their particular development will have a minimal impact on
traffic, schools, water, wastewater, emergency response, etc., but this leads to a “rounding down”
of non-zero impacts that are in fact adding up to unknown amounts. This will lead to problems that
will ultimately become the burden of the City to solve with taxpayer money.
• This resolution would give the developer five years to obtain building permits significantly more than
—
other recently approved developments such as 1500 Kapiolani (the Heald College site
redevelopment), Sky Ala Moana, Manaolana Place (the adjacent parcel) and Hawaii Ocean Plaza. As
with those others, the timeline could be further extended with DPP and/or Council approval. We
believe it is important for Council to retain the discretionary ability to approve or deny extensions
of time. Extending the timeline in this case creates a bad precedent and will make city planning
increasingly difficult as questions about whether and when each of these developments might be
constructed make prospects for the area increasingly murky. Meanwhile, any or all of the smafl
businesses on these parcels may be closed; at the very least, business owners will have little
incentive to improve their businesses and owners of the buildings currently on these parcels will
have ittle incentive to make capital expenditures. Another way to look at this issue is that the
extension of the timeline in effect shifts risk from the developer to the City. The benefits to the City
of approving this project should be balanced against that risk.
• We have been and remain concerned about the expansion of lodging developments in the Ala Moana
Transit Oriented Development area, In particular, we are concerned about projects being approved
based on rules of a draft plan that the City has not finalized and may still amend prior to finalizing.
It does not allow for appropriate planning. Once these developments are approved, the Council’s
ability to change the draft plan is frustrated by the fact that any changes may render post
approval, pre-construction developments non-conforming to the area plan, but with no real remedy
for the City. If, in the alternative, the Council were to limit itself to modifying the draft plan only in
ways that do not conflict with developments that are already approved (assuming again that those
approved developments get built), then every development the Council approves may limit and
modify that TOD plan. For example, the most recently proposed amendments to Resolution 19-238
(the draft Ala Moana TOD plan) would limit hotel development to a subdistrict within the TOD zone,
but several hotel and condotel developments have already been approved outside of that area. If
the City intends for the plan to be meaningful, it would be very difficult to operate under rules and
assumptions that do not match the reality on the ground from the start.
1516 South King Street, Honolulu Hawaii 96826-I912 808-941-2141 www.un/tehere5.orgThis is, unfortunately, already the case. The current draft plan recommends an aggregate bufldout
of 400,000 square feet of hotel usage for the entire Ala Moana TOD area. In the past six years, the
City has approved projects totaling more than that. This project alone as described in its IPD-T
permit application would have over 513,000 square feet of hotel space. What changes to its own
assumptions will the City have to make to account for this? Will those changes require further
breach of the TOD plan?
Additionally, permitting projects based on the current draft of a changing plan makes public
participation more difficult. How will future generations understand how the projects permitted
under draft plans were allowed? Unless they can access each old version of the draft TOD plan and
match it to the developments approved under that draft, understanding and enforcing project
approvals and imitations may be difficult. Even for the future owners of these properties, it may be
difficult to enforce their rights and responsibilities if they were never encoded into law in the first
p [ace.
• One additional note regarding variances. The Honolulu Charter specifically states that the director
should only grant variances on the grounds of unnecessary hardship. In particular, it states:
“Section 6-1517. Zoning Variances “The director shall hear and determine petitions for varying
--
the application of the zoning code with respect to a specific parcel of land and may grant such a
variance upon the ground of unnecessary hardship if the record shows that (1) the applicant would
be deprived of the reasonable use of such land or building if the provisions of the zoning code were
strictly applicable; (2) the request of the applicant is due to unique circumstances and not the
general conditions in the neighborhood, so that the reasonableness of the neighborhood zoning is
not drawn into question; and (3) the request, if approved, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood nor be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Prior to the
granting of any variance, the director shall hold a public hearing thereon. The director shall specify
the particular evidence which supports the granting of a variance. (Reso, 83-357; 1992 General
Election Charter Amendment Question No. 5; 1998 General Election Charter Amendment Question
No. 1011))”
We feel that the first two conditions are not met.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed Hawaii’s need to diversify our economy. Prior to and during the last
few months of the pandemic, the question of how much tourism is too much has been raised again and
again in some form. Alongside that is the question: At what point are the costs of growing the number of
tourists to Hawaii greater than the benefits? It is time to start demanding more for our communities in
return for allowing this industry to grow further.
At this time, we do not support this project.
Thank you.
1516 South King Street, Honolulu Hawaii 96826-1912’ 808-941-2141 www.unitehere5.or911111111 j IMONI [ [OIJ’N[111 OF 1J111{PENThIIS
April 22, 2021
The Honolulu City Council
Committee on Zoning and Planning
The Honorable Brandon J.C Elefante, Chair
The Honorable Esther Kia’ãina, Vice Chair
530 South King Street, Room 200
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Statement of the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters — Support for Resolution 70-174
The Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters supports Resolution 20-174, which would approve a
conceptual plan for an Interim Planned Development-Transit Project to redevelop 56,250 square
Feet of land v,ith a mixed-use residential and commercial project in the Ala Moana neighborhood on
land zoned BMX-3 located along Kapiolani Boulevard and Kona Street. We also support the
proposed amendments provided by the applicant.
The project is a mixed-use hotel, condo-hotel, apartment, and commercial development, which will
produce a significant number of construction jobs at this time of great economic uncertainty.
Additionally, ongoing retail, management, and service activities on site will generate 400
permanent full-time jobs.
We are pleased that the project will be required to produce at minimum 169 affordable rental units
dedicated to those earning 80%AMI or less. As you know, HRCC has been extremely concerned
about the chronic deficiency of rental apartment housing across the state, and have supported
meaningful measures to incentivize and increase production of rental housing for local families at
the Council and the Legislature.
In line with our longstanding support for affordable rental initiatives, we respectfully urge the
Council to approved modified Condition Li, to allow some units to he produced offsite within five
miles of the Ala Moana area. Fexibii-ty in siting the reinainng units may allow for .ower rents, more
units, and allow the units to utilize other incentive programs.
Furthermore, at a time when many neighborhoods around the island are challenged by the
nrohiferation of short-term vacation rentals and Airbnb operations, the addition of 315 hotel units
and 529 condominium-hotel units will keep visitors within the urban core, closer to amenities, and
: waking distance of tne Convention Center, Waikiki, and the Ala Moana Center.
Thank you for the opportunity to support this worthwhile project. We respectfully request your
support for Resolution 20-174 and the proposed amendments provided by the applicant.
sflTi: IIE.111Q1 \lliEBS BUSINESS OFFICES
(((lit.: 1311 ll,niuI,Iailir,rHI ill ,,nul,, lu li,n.,,,i’)6n 17—2712 • ‘I,. )BnBO(17—.5761 I-.’xI$lliI) Ili—9n;a
lIlulumu:: 323 kilaw—a .—\vriui,-, burr, 2113.11,1,,. lIrLiul 9672(1—311311 II,. 8081933—)I373 Fix Iall(I,’xIn—l1376
KONI lIml:r: 73—126 nil—Il .,, I. Kalu.,—k’.r,a. lI,,I 967111—21(16 • Ph. lliI)8l 320—7:03 lx (lOIn 326 ‘(.176
‘181(11111).: ru) lfr’,rk,Iu Sue-I. \\_,rlnk,,. Mi,,, 96703.1.1(9 • ‘Ii. (8)8) 2-12—6891 F,lx{iiIWi) 212—3961
k-il l nun F: ku),,’ l,—rlr,-jI CIF Bldg .3—32)3 kIn,’ IIwx. S,niI,’ 2(11.1 nI,,ir. kurw 96766—1(1111 • Ph. BOOi 213—8511 h;x (1)11(1) 2-13—891 IYou can also read
