JUDGES RULES HAWAII COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIOLATED HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAW FOR 801 SOUTH STREET PROJECT PHASE II PERMIT Honolulu, Hawaii -In a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction brought by against the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA), First Circuit Court Judge Karl K. Sakamoto ruled that the HCDA did not follow state historic preservation law and granted a motion for preliminary injunction ordering HCDA to complete the processes of historic preservation before the project can continue. The court directed plaintiffs attorney to prepare an order issuing a preliminary injunction stopping work until the historic preservation process is complete. Plaintiffs in the case, owners of Royal Capitol Plaza which is next door the project, brought suit against HCDA alleging HCDA did not comply with state law by completing the historic preservation process and archeological inventory before it accepted the permit application. Plaintiff have alleged HCDA not only violated historic preservation law, but ignored its own rules and granted the developer a number of modifications to its Mauka Area Rules HCDA does not have authority to grant. The owners argue that they were not properly notified that the project would contain two towers at the time the first tower was approved and that the project should have been treated as a large lot development, subject to more limitations. By splitting it into two towers, they HCDA allowed the developer to avoid concessions to the community and create a more dense, noisy, congested development that will obscure views the occupants have enjoyed since 1987 with two 46 story towers and two 10 story parking garages. Plaintiffs raised a variety of health and safety concerns, including adding 1,700 parking spaces to an already congested corner and allowing the development to proceed as affordable work force housing based on faulty analysis and superseded regulations. HCDAs refusal to consider their concerns or provide them a forum to formally oppose the permit in what is called a contested case hearing. HCDA first took the position that no contested case hearing was available, but after plaintiffs filed suit, argued that the plaintiffs were too late, because the time for a contested case appeal had passed. Throughout the permitting process, the RCP owners and others in the Kaka`ako community have tried to have voices and positions heard, but, although they permitted to speak at public hearings, their voices and voices at SHPD were ignored, said plaintiffs attorney, Carl Varady. HCDA is a virtual state and some community members feel they are being bullied by an agency that doesnt respect the law or their right to be hear. They believe HCDA sees its mission to forge ahead with development, no matter what and they have worked very hard to stop HCDAs wild-west approach to development in Kaka`ako. This is not a case of NIMBY; its a case where plaintiff understand and accept development will occur. All they asked the court to do was make HCDA play by the rules, rather than approve everything merely because they can. The courts ruling today assures that HCDA no longer can ignore historic preservation law on this and future projects. HCDA can explain why it allowed so much damage to be done and forced these community members to go to court to stop any more destruction. Hawaiis historic preservation laws are not just pieces of paper; they are the policy of a state with a rich historic heritage. HCDA cannot run roughshod over the community, ignoring those laws or will of the community, said Varady.
Posted on: Sat, 31 May 2014 03:40:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015