Monday, July 28, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 8 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Lawmakers consider more condo towers in Kakaako makai

By Andrew Gomes

LAST UPDATED: 03:40 p.m. HST, Apr 24, 2014

Residential towers would be permitted to rise on six blocks instead of three in Kakaako makai of Ala Moana Boulevard under an amendment proposed to a bill Thursday afternoon at the Legislature.

The suggested revision to Senate Bill 3122 was made in a conference committee of House and Senate leaders charged with settling differences on the bill intended to give the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs the right to develop high-rise housing on some land it received two years ago to settle a debt with the state over ceded-land revenues.

Most drafts of the bill passed by Senate and House committees in recent months limited residential development to three OHA parcels and doubled the height limit to about 400 feet on two lots.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, conference committee members talked about making relatively minor revisions to the bill. Then after reconvening Thursday, the committee chairwoman representing the House, Rep. Cindy Evans, suggested redrawing the area that would allow residential use.

Evans suggested that a more uniformly defined area for residences in Kakaako-makai would be created by allowing high-rise housing on all blocks between Ilalo Street and Ala Moana, and doubling the height limit to about 400 feet for the new zone.

The change would cut out one OHA parcel -- a piano-shaped block just makai of Ilalo -- from the residential zone, while bestowing residential zoning on four other blocks -- all of which are owned by Kamehameha Schools.

OHA Trustee Peter Apo said it was good that OHA would at least retain two parcels for residential development under the proposed change, though he also expressed apprehension because the additional blocks for residential towers would exacerbate opponents of SB 3122 who want all of Kakaako-makai to keep its existing zoning limited to commercial buildings up to 200 feet.

Michelle Matson, a member of the group Save Our Kakaako opposing SB 3122, called the proposed change appalling.

"It's worse than before," she said of the bill. "We're not going to be able to see the mountains from the shoreline."

Senators on the committee are mulling over the proposal and are scheduled to return at 6 p.m. to reconvene conference committee discussions.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 8 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
kekelaward wrote:
Evidently, everyone is getting paid off, except the taxpayers.
on April 24,2014 | 03:45PM
Pali_Hwy wrote:
Disgusting. No shame in the Senate!
on April 24,2014 | 04:37PM
Wazdat wrote:
A bunch of crooks and sell outs.
on April 24,2014 | 06:36PM
dlg808 wrote:
Don't complain , you got what (who) you voted for.... Wake up when its time to cast your vote. Hold them accountable for their actions...they are suppose to work for us, not themselves.
on April 24,2014 | 06:36PM
bumba wrote:
on April 24,2014 | 07:34PM
Anonymous wrote:
While I oppose condos in Kakaako Makai, if you think about it from a policy standpoint, this actually makes a lot of sense. The issue shouldn't be whether OHA should be allowed to develop condos in Kakaako Makai. It should be whether it's good public policy for there to be condos in Kakaako Makai. If the legislature decides that there should be condos in KM, why should there be specific zoning for just parcels owned by OHA? What happens if the law is changed for just the OHA parcels and they go ahead and sell the land to A&B? Suddenly, it's not OHA developing condos anymore, it's A&B who was flatly rejected from developing condos on the same parcel a few years ago. If the law is passed to be parcel specific depending on who owns the land, the law would probably fall flat on its face in a legal challenge.
on April 24,2014 | 06:55PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Unbelievable. Re-draw the boundaries of Kaka'ako so that the makai lands are now in the mauka area.

Zoning by racial entitlement.

on April 24,2014 | 07:20PM
islandsun wrote:
Sad, very sad. Gotta get these prostitutes voted out.
on April 24,2014 | 07:32PM
Breaking News
Political Radar
`My side’

Political Radar
‘He reminds me of me’

Bionic Reporter
Needing a new knee

Warrior Beat
Monday musings

Small Talk
Burning money

Political Radar
On policy

Warrior Beat
Apple fallout