An Ohio-based developer is a state agency’s unanimous choice for building a housing skyscraper on state land in Kakaako, but questions about its height and other issues remain unresolved. Public involvement has been slight and is needed in the homestretch to help decide whether the building should be far taller than the 400-foot limit and the highest in Hawaii, as first proposed by the winning bidder.
The Hawaii Community Development Authority’s directors have chosen Forest City Enterprises Inc. to build a $293 million tower with 804 rental apartments in Kakaako, instead of a for-sale condominium model proposed by Australian-based company Lend Lease. At this stage, that choice is a sound one to provide housing for individuals and families that are in no situation to buy a home.
The idea for this development, dubbed 690 Pohukai-na, was suggested last year by Gov. Neil Abercrombie as a way to end urban sprawl and turn Kakaako into "the ideal laboratory for the project."
The Forest City proposal outscored its competitor in all criteria — experience, concept, financing plan and state benefit.
Still, questions remain, beginning at the top — 650 feet high, as proposed by Forest City in its proposal for a single tower to include 804 rental units, 780 of which would be affordable to people earning below 140 percent of Honolulu’s median income. Alternatively, the developer broached those same number of rentals for two towers within the existing 400-foot limit on the 2-acre site bordered by Keawe Street, Pohukaina Street and Mother Waldron Park.
The monthly rent in the "affordable" range, as defined under federal guidelines, would range from $1,736 for a studio to $2,580 for a three-bedroom unit for those with incomes up to $69,470 for a single person and $99,240 for a family of four.
The height remains an issue, as the HCDA has yet to propose or approve allowing 650-foot buildings. Indeed, four state legislators and a City Council member expressed concern during Thursday’s decision-making meeting about the agency’s "big departure" from height limits, and The Outdoor Circle opposed it as "an unwelcome, unnecessary infringe- ment upon the viewpoint of hundreds of thousands of people."
"This is a small island," Waikiki resident Herbert Rothouse summarized the concern in writing. "Must you see to it that it becomes a copy of midtown Manhattan?"
Such concerns should not be taken lightly as details of this project emerge and are discussed.
Under the proposal, Forest City would pay $14 million to the state for leasing the land for 65 years but is asking for exemption from the state’s general excise tax — from construction spending — estimated at $10.6 million. This immunity needs more exploration and justification, as do other costs to the state.
In the cost-versus-benefit analysis, the state also stands to incur pre-development and permit costs estimated up to $10.2 million; a $6.3 million cost to buy civic space in the tower; and essentially, affordable housing credits valued at $40.4 million that Forest City gains for producing affordable units beyond HCDA requirements.
It’s all complicated business, involving a fair amount of wheeling and dealing of tangibles and intangibles toward the state’s development policy goals. Full public disclosure of these various aspects is vital, and now is the time for concerned citizens to immerse themselves in the discussion — not after the deals have been inked.
The HCDA still must complete an environmental impact statement and finish drafting new rules to allow the 690 Pohukaina plan to go forward, and public hearings should be used to the maximum.
