Senate Bill 3202, which would require counties to allow for denser building throughout state-designated “urban” land-use districts, is scheduled for an omnibus hearing by three House committees Monday. With widespread confusion over exactly what this would entail for — or impose on — county planning and permitting operations, and growing public consternation over the potential for detrimental effects on neighborhoods, it’s best to table the bill until counties have more opportunity to consider its value and collaborate with the state on shaping its requirements.
For the sake of community buy-in, and because this will impose changes statewide, it’s also advisable that the prescriptions included in a one-size-fits-all bill such as this be presented to communities. Residents — property owners as well as those in need of housing — must be heard, not only with legislative hearings at the state Capitol, but with presentations that offer opportunity for two-way conversation throughout the state.
It’s true, as SB 3202 states, that Hawaii has not attained “efficient urbanization,” and development restrictions within state-designated urban land use districts certainly play a part. However, tracts that the state qualifies as “urban” encompass a wide variety of communities — including high property-value neighborhoods such as Manoa and Kailua, already dense and congested neighborhoods such as Palolo and Kalihi, and areas with mixed uses and types of housing such as Moiliili.
Once layered over the city and counties’ individual zoning and permitting rules, sorting out how SB 3202 would affect the state’s disparate neighborhoods becomes a complex process. Hawaii has the most regulated housing market in the country — as the Legislature also acknowledges in the bill itself — but this bill does not strip away that regulation. It must be understood in tandem with current county and state zoning restrictions, no easy matter.
What SB 3202 would do is invalidate current county rules on density. Its actual language states, “Notwithstanding any law, ordinance, or building code or standard to the contrary, a residential lot within an urban district … shall be allowed additional residential units. … Each county: Shall allow for at least two additional dwelling units, which shall be considered accessory.”
The bill’s current draft states counties “may” continue to apply existing location, height, bulk and setback rules, and reject a proposal that would overburden infrastructure. There’s room here for lawyers’ interest in what “may” means — does that mean counties “may” optionally decide to waive those rules? The bill also says counties “may” restrict short-term rentals (STRs) — meaning if a county doesn’t prohibit it, this law could actually be used to develop more STRs.
Initial drafts of SB 3202 and a companion bill, now stalled, required allowing a minimum of four homes on a lot as small as 1,200 square feet. That earlier proposal has generated the most reaction, and now has been scaled back — but should it have been? Perhaps tailoring the bill to allow more generous residential development in some truly “urban” tracts, compatible with area infrastructure and transportation patterns, needs fuller discussion. The process of re-evaluating SB 3202 must include more public involvement.
Meanwhile, Hawaii’s housing crisis continues. In the state, less than one-third of households can afford a median-priced, single-family home.
Allowing for these additional homes and multifamily units will “reduce the cost of housing, urban sprawl, infrastructure costs, traffic congestion, and carbon emissions,” the bill proclaims. Absolutely worthy aims, which should be pursued by the state and counties. But nothing in this bill requires that the added development actually reduce housing or infrastructure costs, or even traffic congestion, which could be worsened in areas where this additional housing proliferates.
Consequences could include increased interest in the purchase of current single-family lots by profit-seeking developers who replace current, degraded housing with structures that max out size under the law, yet offer little cost savings to buyers. The state should carefully consider this possibility, and opportunities to craft legislation that will encourage development, yet discourage cost drift.
It’s telling that the Honolulu City Council moved with uncharacteristic speed to register opposition to SB 3202, as this reflects energetic opposition to the measure within Council members’ districts around Oahu.
“The current one-size-fits-all approach to single-family zoning does not reflect the needs of Hawaii’s people,” the Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice stated, in written testimony favoring this bill. Agreed. However, a one-size-fits-all change in Hawaii law also fails to serve the public interest in the most desirable way, in that it ignores specific circumstances of diverse residential neighborhoods. SB 3202 needs more work.
