Neighbors contest HCDA on high-rise

A state development permit granted last month for a high-rise condominium on a former Comp­USA store site in Kakaako is being challenged by condo owners in a neighboring tower who say that land is reserved primarily for commercial use.

The association of owners at One Waterfront Towers petitioned the Hawaii Community Development Authority, which regulates development in Kakaako, to hold a quasi-judicial review contesting the agency’s approval of the proj­ect called The Collection.

One Waterfront owners retained local attorney Linda Paul to file the action Friday.

Also joining in the effort is a newly formed nonprofit, Kaka­‘ako United, which One Waterfront’s association said is made up of Kaka­ako residents and supporters. The organization’s address is listed as a One Waterfront unit owned by Galen Fox, a former state legislator and critic of HCDA and the Collection proj­ect.

The petition claims the Comp­USA site is supposed to be used for "predominantly commercial" purposes based on zoning and HCDA rules. The Collection is mostly residential.

The challenge seeks to invalidate HCDA’s approval of the Collection, a 467-unit proj­ect by local developer Alexander & Baldwin Inc., and could affect other high-rise proj­ects that HCDA has approved or will consider for approval.

HCDA spokeswoman Lindsey Doi said agency officials could not comment on the petition Monday because it needs to be assessed. A&B, which began selling units in the Collection last month, declined to comment on specifics of the petition because it is still being reviewed, but said One Waterfront residents are misinterpreting HCDA rules or citing rules that don’t apply.

"We believe our proj­ect and the minor variances approved by the HCDA board comply completely with the applicable HCDA rules and regulations," Rick Stack, an A&B senior vice president, said in an email response.

Stack also said A&B officials met with One Waterfront representatives multiple times before the proj­ect was approved, and discussed the issues at hand.

One Waterfront’s petition is seeking a contested-case hearing and challenges the Collection project on several grounds, including the amount of housing allowed under HCDA zoning rules for the lot.

The site is zoned for mixed use with a commercial emphasis intended to help regulate the density of Kaka­ako’s population. HCDA rules state that the "primary emphasis" for this MUZ-C zoning shall be to develop a "predominantly commercial" area that provides employment opportunities for Kaka­ako residents.

The petition claims that "predominantly" means more than half a building’s floor area.

About 97 percent of the Collection is residential, and 3 percent is commercial.

During last month’s public hearing on the proj­ect, One Waterfront representatives made the same argument. HCDA in response pointed to a section in its applicable rules stating that commercial space is limited to no more than 60 percent under MUZ-C zoning, and said no minimum amount of commercial space is required.

The zoning issue potentially could affect other proj­ects because all blocks where no towers exist between South and Piikoi streets on the mauka side of Ala Moana Boulevard are zoned MUZ-C under two master plans approved by HCDA.

One master plan covers 29 acres owned by Kame­ha­meha Schools that include the Collection site, which A&B is buying, and four other planned towers along Ala Moana.

The other master plan covers 60 acres owned by Howard Hughes Corp. and includes land under Ward Warehouse and Ward Centre along Ala Moana where one of six envisioned residential towers has been approved by HCDA.

One Waterfront’s petition also argues that HCDA’s approval of the Collection should be invalidated for several other reasons, some of which potentially could affect other planned towers.

The petition claims that HCDA did not apply a hardship test to a request by A&B to build its parking garage higher than rules permit. The request was granted by HCDA.

The petition also suggested that allowing the parking garage to rise 65 feet instead of the 45-foot limit governing the Kame­ha­meha Schools master plan is a significant change that should require a supplemental environmental impact statement.

Other assertions made by petitioners claim that the Collection proj­ect doesn’t comply with HCDA requirements for moderate-priced housing, open space, tower spacing and ensuring that adequate sewer lines and other infrastructure exists.

HCDA has previously said that the Collection proj­ect complies in these areas.