Statement at Zoning Committee Meeting of the City Council, July 27, 1993, on Resolution 93-229 CD-1, Aloha Motors Site for Convention Center
You have our testimony given at the Public Hearing on July 14. Since then we have examined Sukamto's so-called Master Plan revised June 18, 1993 and found nothing in it that would lead us to change our previous testimony.
In addition, a few facts have come to light.
- The Unilateral Agreement of April, 1990, embodying the conditions of Resolution 90146, was evidently never recorded, and the current developer has not recognized its validity in any of his statement we have heard.
- Your Chair has indicated that this is in contrast to the usual procedure by which recordation of a Unilateral Agreement is required before approval of an application is given -- another example of the irregular processing we charged in our lawsuit.
- The Coalition of visitor industry interests has withdrawn its support of the Aloha Motors site because its development would be driven by the hotel, condo or other uses proposed on the site rather than by the needs of the convention center itself.
- The developer's June 18 Master Plan includes no indication or commitment as to the nature and extent of the non-convention center development intended. Indeed, he has stated that he wants an "open-ended" approval to build whatever market conditions may indicate. This is, of course, far from complying with the
requirements of the LUO's Section 3.160-2 and 3.160-3.5.
- The proposed Master Plan's floor area ratio of 6.37 is only 12% lower than the original PRU's 7.25, and is still 82% higher than the FAR 3.5 permitted in BMX-3. We can find nothing in either the DP or the PRU amendments enacted in the attempt to make this project legal, or in the PRU section of the LUO, which would permit so great an increase in density.
- At the July 14 public hearing a proponent of Resolution 93-229 CD-1 stated unequivocally that its approval would significantly increase the value of the site. We note that the value was pegged at $89 million three years ago, but that its acquisition cost by the State has been estimated at $200 million now.
- In May we urged you to rescind the 3-year old PRU approved in Resolution 90-146 in view of the developer's failure to proceed with the development and to fulfill the conditions listed in the approval. His failure to record the Unilateral Agreement, we believe, strengthens the case for such action.
In the light of all these factors, we again urge you not to approve Resolution 93-229 at this time, and if in the future you decide to go ahead with this site, to insist that the proposal comply with the underlying zoning with particular reference to height, bulk, and parking facilities.