Highlights of December 6, 2006 HCDA Meeting & Public Hearing

Following is a summary of actions taken and informational items presented at the December 6, 2006 meeting of the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA).

Public Hearing on Proposed Modifications of View Corridor Setbacks for the Keola La‘i Project

The Authority conducted a public hearing on A&B Kakaako LLC’s request for a modification of the Kaka‘ako Mauka Area rules’ view corridor requirement for its Keola La‘i Project.  A&B Kakaako LLC is developing this residential/commercial high-rise complex at 600 Queen Street.  The complex would include 352 residential units (including 63 reserved units), 10,890 square feet of commercial space and 697 parking spaces.  The developer is requesting the modification to allow the project to have four minor inadvertent encroachments into the view corridor: one along the Queen Street view corridor on the fifth level, and three encroachments along the South Street view corridor on the fourth and fifth levels.

At the hearing, A&B Properties, Inc. Vice-President of Development Rick Stack, Jr., said that the proposed modifications would have no impact on views or on adjacent uses or properties.  There was no other public testimony given at the hearing.

Revisions to HCDA’s Reserved Housing Rules

The Authority authorized the HCDA Executive Director to expend, subject to the Governor’s approval, up to $100,000 to hire a consultant to complete the revisions to HCDA’s reserved housing rules.  The Authority’s Housing Task Force (HTF) last month recommended that the Authority’s reserved housing rules be updated.   The HTF preliminarily recommended that HCDA should focus on “gap group” or “workforce” rather than affordable housing (targeted to people earning under 80 percent of median income).  The Task Force also recommended that: current buyback provisions should be retained; a preference for units over in-lieu fees should be established; incentive bonuses should be offered on a selective basis and public-private joint ventures should be pursued; and the Mauka and Makai Area Rules as it relates to reserved housing should be merged.

The consultant will review and analyze the Task Force’s recommendations, conduct interviews with industry professionals and collect input from the Hawaii Housing Finance & Development Corporation and other housing entities, stakeholders, private developers and professionals, and asses the existing Mauka Area Reserved Housing Program (RHP) for its effectiveness. The consultant will develop possible strategies and options needed to meet the RHP objectives, and make recommendations to the Authority on revision the RHP and associated rules.

In this process of developing new reserved housing rules, HCDA will be holding community meetings to gather input from the community.

University of Hawaii Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, John A. Burns School of Medicine Phase II, Regional Biosafety Laboratory, and Other Related Projects

Dr. Gary Ostrander, UH Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Education, presented the Authority with an update on the progress of the Cancer Research Center of Hawaii (CRCH) and other UH initiatives in the Kaka‘ako Makai Area.  Since 2002, HCDA and the University of Hawaii (UH) have been discussing the possibility of leasing a 5.5-acre parcel immediately ‘Ewa of the John A. Burns School of Medicine (JABSOM) for development of the CRCH.  The site for the proposed center is currently being used as a parking lot by JABSOM.  The UH has prepared a master plan for developing the CRCH, the second phase of JABSOM, and permanent parking.  UH also reported on its plans to construct the Regional Biosafety Laboratory (RBL) as part of JABSOM’s second phase.

The UH Master Plan presents two development schemes or alternatives currently under consideration by the University.  Both schemes include the development of a new comprehensive cancer center which would include the CRCH of approximately 238,000 square feet; the Hawaii Cancer Institute of 89,000 square feet; and approximately 1,700 parking stalls for research staff and visitors.  The most significant difference between the two schemes is the size and location of JASOM Phase II and its associated parking.  In Scheme 1, the JABSOM Phase II would be about 160,000 square feet in two buildings, including a freestanding RBL of approximately 40,000 square feet on site.  Scheme 2 does not include a RBL facility and the JABSOM Phase II of up to 160,000 square feet in size would be constructed above a parking structure at a future time.  Parking associated with the Cancer Center would remain on the Cancer Center site.  Dr. Ostrander explained that the inclusion of a RBL in the project would depend on an upcoming National Institute of Health review and necessary funding.