 Welcome back to ThinkTech. I'm Jay Fidel. We're going to talk about Kakaako. We call the series Catching Up on Kakaabo because in fact, over the years, ThinkTech has done so many shows about Kakaako from like 20 years. And so we're really happy to be able to talk about it with the executive director of the HCDA, the White Community Development Authority. We're talking about planning considerations for Kakaako and we're going to ask the executive director what's going on and what it's like over there. Right after this one moment. Great to have you on the show, Craig. Craig Nakamoto, it's wonderful to be able to revisit with you. Tell us a little about the Hawaii Community Development Authority and tell us why you're doing it and what kind of ratification you get out of that. Thanks, Jay, for having me on. Really appreciate the opportunity to talk about Kakaako and especially about Kakaako Makai. Hawaii Community Development Authority has a history. Back in 1976, when it was established by the legislature, the words that the enabling statute used were particularly strong. They used words like the area was underutilized, was deteriorating, and they even said it was blighted. Those are strong words to describe an area in 1976 that was really in the urban Honolulu core, but it was blighted, deteriorated, and underdeveloped, underutilized. Their aspiration- Let me add that in fact, it was a bit of a slum years ago. That's where people lived in slum-like houses in Kakaako Malka. And then of course, it was garbage dump. And it was a refuse area. And that makes it so interesting because it has, as you say, a really interesting history. Right, and it had the garbage dump. And then of course, my in-laws grew up in Kakaako and they remember swimming down by the waterfront. And hence, they used to call it garbage dump. And then of course, the surf spot down there is called flies for a reason. So- I didn't know that. Yeah, so it's an interesting history to be sure. And the vision that the legislature had for Kakaako was that NHCDA was that all of this community and planning and development would result in a community which served, and I'm kind of quoting from the statute now, the highest needs and aspirations of Hawaii's people. The highest needs and aspirations of Hawaii's people. Again, those are strong words to describe what they envisioned Kakaako to become. So- So they saw it as what it's been often referred to as the gem of the city because it's beautiful, it's green, it's on the water. It's really a fantastic place. And so, the legislature did that so they could handle it on a state level and they could help design it on a state level. Somebody like you with HDDA, they recognized the value of the land and the iconic nature of the land and the planning and urban planning possibilities for the land. So in their moments of creating HDDA, they were wise, I think. Yeah, I believe so and they were also looking at HDDA as the state entity that would really bring together city, state, federal, private interests to develop Kakaako and that's exactly what we've done since 1976, starting with Kakaako and then the legislature added other districts, Kalai Law, Heia and those districts as well. I mean, in the end, our mantra is we build communities. We build communities. That's our mission and that's our goal. And HDDA spent a fair amount of time and money back when after 1976 in creating infrastructure in creating that park, which I consider one of the most beautiful parks in the state and in setting it up for proper uses. And so, you know, HDDA has the mission of planning, the mission of assigning those uses, the mission of preserving, protecting and allowing this arranging for it to be developed in such a way so that it has a moment in the city. And while downtown has a certain role and function, Kakaako has a different role and function. It is unique, is it not? It's not just development. We're a redevelopment agency, but we're looking at plan development for our communities like Kakaako. It's plan development that takes into account what the community needs, the community input and trying to serve, you know, meet the highest needs and aspirations of the people of state of Hawaii. Yeah, well, I spent many hours at that park. I used to go there on a regular basis and I enjoyed it very much. And it does, you know, as a park, it really, it's magnetic to me. I think it's beautiful. The scenes and the views of the shoreline and the city and the green grass all around. But, you know, what was some of the previous planning efforts for Kakaako Makai? Because, you know, planning is like your middle name. But I know it's not the middle name between Craig and Nakamoto, but it is the middle name of HCDA. So tell us about the, you know, the planning aspirations around Kakaako, especially Kakaako Makai over the years. Yeah, the planning efforts for Kakaako Makai is definitely an interesting history. As you probably know, Kakaako Makai was added to our community development district after the Malka area was created in 1976. So this was in 1982. In 1985, we had created a master plan for Makai and it included residential development at that time. In the, and you know, planning is not a static process. It's an evolving process. So in 1990, the next revision of the master plan eliminated residential. And then in 2005, when we created the last latest version of the Makai area plan, residential was added back again. And then in 2005, the sort of the sort of the catalytic event that started a lot of the subsequent changes and developments in Kakaako Makai was the proposal to build a residential condominium in Kakaako Makai, the so-called Alexander and Baldwin project. Yeah, I remember that so well because that was the early days for Think Tech and we were doing radio at the time. And Alexander and Baldwin was gonna build multiple towers there, these mixed between fee and leasehold. They were very tall towers. Linda Lingle and Ted Liu were behind it at the time. And there was a lot of opposition from SOS, the Stavos Surfers Group, Stavos Surf and the community in general. And it really showed you how people felt about residential development in Kakaako Makai. So one day Craig, I get a call from Stan Kuriyama and who was the CEO of Alexander and Baldwin which was a national big board company, you know. And there he was, on the phone with me, he says, I want to come down to Think Tech I have an announcement to make. I want to give you a scoop, he said. Okay, all right, you're Stan Kuriyama, you can come down. And he came down that very afternoon at 5 p.m. right there. I forget the exact month, but, and he said, Jay, I want to tell you that Alexander and Baldwin, after considering the views of the community and all the planning considerations, we are not gonna build that project. We are terminating that project. I want everybody to know, wow, what a guy, what a company, I was so pleased and proud that they were sensitive to community sensibilities like that. And it was not just opposition, it was significant community opposition to that Alexander and Baldwin plan and proposal that really started the grassroots community input and meetings that followed that with the CPAC group. And then 2006 was another watershed year. That's when the legislature, after actually passing several resolutions about residential development and Makai, passed the law that prohibited residential development in all of Kaka'a or Makai. But the planning efforts for CPAC and that group was a five year, almost a five year effort, over 40 public meetings, consultations, studies, analysis and workshops that really, I mean, the community voices were heard loud and clear. Yeah, you bet. And so what does CPAC stand for? The Kaka'a Community Planning Advisory Council. This is very important because it was the grassroots and very important to hear from them. Very important that the powers that be were sensitive as A and B was to the voices of the public. And what were the considerations? Can you tell us what the considerations were for the passage of that bill that prohibited residential development in Makai? Well, I think the voice of the community looked at view Kaka'a or Makai as being a place for the people, place where people could surf, fish, access the ocean, access the parks and recreate there. And of course it was some of that group was the same or surf as you mentioned, but the friends of Kiwalo were active in CPAC, that in CPAC, but I think it was that notion and that idea that Kaka'a or Makai was really a place for the people. It was a place where access to fishing, ocean sports, the park was very important. The park, as you mentioned, the waterfront park. Yeah, very important. So, okay, since then lots has happened since that OHA made some kind of deal, I don't know if we know all the terms of the discussions, but some kind of deal with Neil Avokromby in the last years, well, he didn't serve that long, but in the course of his administration where debts due to OHA from the state from the seat of the lands were traded for that land. Can you talk about that? Oh, you know, I wasn't at HCDA. I think when the land transfer occurred, it was in 2012. So I wasn't at OHA, I mean at HCDA, but you're right, it was a settlement of the past debts owed to OHA by the state preceded lands and it involved parcels in Kaka'a or Makai. OHA got this in consideration for the past debts owed to OHA by the state. The general terms of this land transfer and conveyance was that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was taking or accepting the parcel sort of as is, where is, is not uncommon in land transfers and they were taking the properties subject to, subject to the zoning laws conditions of the Hawaii Community Development Authority. And that statute you mentioned, they took it subject to that statute that said you cannot build residential in Kaka'a or Makai, right? Yeah, correct, because the statute was, as I mentioned it, enacted in 2006 and the land transfer occurred in 2012. So they were taking the property subject to the statute and specifically the settlement said that they were taking subject to the zoning rules and laws and conditions of HCDA. So, but OHA didn't do anything with that land for several years and now we find that in the state legislature there's some bills that would attempt to repeal the statute from what, 2005 or six, restricting private residence construction there. Can you talk about that? Sure, I think from 2012, OHA has done some things would put some use to the properties in Makai, but I don't think anything significant. I believe that their plans for Kaka'a or Makai are a lot more significant. They've undergone, I believe, a planning effort. I was invited to one of their community meetings that was put on by their consultant. So they do plan to, there's several bills that currently in the legislature that would repeal the residential restriction on either a few of their parcels or more of their parcel. But what do they hope to do with this land? Why are they putting these bills in? What do they hope to achieve? Well, I don't know what their specific plan is, but I think what they hope to achieve with the proposal to repeal the residential plan is probably build residential condominiums. And big ones too, right? They also have a hill increasing the height limit of any condo in the area to, I guess it's right 400 feet. 100 feet. And I think, Jay, on the residential issue, as I've mentioned, I mean, the will of the community has spoken. Right now, the law is that residential development is prohibited in the Makai area. That is the law and that is what ACDA will follow until that law is repealed. And there's no, am I right? There's no plan that would permit this kind of construction condominium use in Ako Makai. There is no plan approved by ACDA or any agency that would permit that, right? We have not, we haven't, since 2006 we have not reviewed or approved any plans for residential development in Kaka Ako Makai. And as long as that law is still valid, in effect, we will not approve any residential review or approve any residential development in Kaka Ako Makai. So, I don't know if you see yourself this way, but I do, I see you as the steward of this land. I mean, I think that's probably an apt term for HDDA for you. As the steward of the land, can you tell us about what this land is like right now? We know that years ago it was rubbish. We know that it's on the shoreline. We know from the science and all the people at the university in Southwest that there will be climate change changes in the shoreline, sea level rise for sure, coming soon. We've already seen indications of that. So what is this land like? And is a 40 story condo an appropriate use for the land as you embrace it? So, Jay, we are a redevelopment agency that's charged with plan development. When you have a plan development, plan development require planning, research, study. To arrive at the 2005 Makai area plan and rules required a lot of resources, time to study them. To come up with the current height limits, the current density in Makai, it was studied and that's how it was determined. Now, who now suggests that the density or the height limits should be changed from 200 to 400. I believe it's not something that should be changed or changed by the legislature. This is should be a planning review that takes into account, can the area support this? Is there enough sewer infrastructure, electrical water, and any developer, Jay, whether it's O-Ha or someone they choose is gonna have to take a look, they have to consider the condition of the soil as it relates to the foundation. As you mentioned, much of the Kaka'a Makai area is a result of landfill from the incinerator that was a former Kyoto's Museum. There was the former building. So, it's gonna have to take into account all of that. Also, the realities of sea level rise and how it's gonna impact development in Makai and other areas that are affected by sea level rise are gonna have to be taken into account by any developer, not just O-Ha, but any developer that's subject to sea level rise. Talked about the soil. The soil is a result of landfill and even a casual walk around the park shows you these methane relief types, which suggests there's something toxic in that soil. What do we know about that and how would that affect any development? How would it affect the plan, whatever planning is done? I think any developer will have to look at the environmental aspect of any development. What's underneath the surface of the underneath the surface and decide what kind of remediation efforts. Yeah. Well, I mean, all of these factors actually affect not only Kakaako Makai, but they affect the water table as it goes up into Kakaako Malka and all those other projects up there. This is a planning process that would have to look at the whole comprehensive and see whatever is contemplated for Kakaako Makai has a connection, it's a community that's bigger than just the immediate community that is under consideration. Am I right? I think just looking at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs proposal to increase building heights to certain height limits to 400 feet. Under the 2005 Makai area plan and rules, the planners at that time contemplated at the shoreline of Makai, like a 45 to 65 foot height limit, they kind of transition into a 100 foot height limit or surrounding the parks and then transition into 200 feet near Alamona Boulevard and then across this Alamona Boulevard, 400 feet. I believe that the vision that the planners had at that time and the urban form they were trying to create was one where it kind of a stepped up kind of view where at the waterfront, it was a lower building height that kind of stepped up and pierced into, you know, 400 feet across the way. It's the consideration of 400 feet. J is not a question of equity or parity between Maoka and Makai. It's more of a question of planning and the planning process that needs to go into establishing 400 feet versus 200 feet. It requires planning, it requires study, analysis and more importantly, more importantly as the history of Kakaako Makai shows, a lot of community engagement. What does a community want to see an additional 200 feet on these buildings? When you use the word like 200 feet versus or 200 versus 400 feet, what does it really mean? What does it really mean? What it means is if buildings that are created, you're gonna have a lot more use. You're gonna have people. If residential is allowed, you're gonna have people in there. That's a lot more people, a lot more activity in those buildings. And can Kakaako Makai in the infrastructure handle that? What are the traffic impacts, traffic impacts of that kind of increased height and density? Those all have to be studied? Yeah, there are all kinds of oceanic and scientific issues here. We talked to one expert and he said, well, in Makai, you run the risk of having big waves, king size waves and even tsunamis. And so you have to build any building with room for that water to flow under the building. And that leads to the question of what kind of special specifications could be assigned to building permits. This is not an ordinary building because of the extraordinary physical characteristics of the area. And that means money, costly modifications through the ordinary specifications for building permits. And then of course, that means that the project is more expensive and the result is the units, if there are units, are also more expensive. And what we are talking about, Craig, I think is, it sounds to me like not only community meetings, such as took place 20 years ago, but also a whole EIS project. And my understanding is that this is state land, what you preside over is state land and OHA is a state agency. And so there's no question at all that the state requirements for an EIS, I mean, a significant EIS, EIS with a lot of issues, meetings, experts and analytics have to be conducted. Am I right? I think you're right, Jay. If we're gonna, if HDD is gonna look at 400 feet versus 200 feet, a density of six versus 2.5, we're looking at a possible rule amendment. And with that possible rule amendment, I believe that we will have to undergo another environmental assessment as will OHA because they're a state agency and maybe using state funds as well. So those are both triggers for possible EIS. Yeah, what's ironic is that the EIS, my knowledge, my understanding is that there has not been an EIS and they would have to be an EIS. It's not a matter of updating an old one. It's a matter of starting fresh with all these various considerations and special characteristics. And it's not dissimilar from positions that OHA has taken in the past for other properties where it has required an EIS, perhaps with the notion of trying to stop a project. And now the table's a turn, no? Yeah, I think for HD, from HDD's perspective, I mean, OHA is likely to have to do an EIS for whatever project they decide to do on our part on HDD's part. I think we've already done an environmental assessment on Makai. And so if we're going to change the rules to allow 400 feet and increase density, I believe we're going to have to update or supplement our environmental assessment that we did with EIS. And I want to note, Jay, that I want to note that I understand where the Office of Wine Affairs is right now and their desire to create revenues to support their beneficiaries, I do. I believe that if their vision uses that are not residential right now, not residential, like a cultural place, a commercial or retail shops, shops that are maybe open to local businesses, they can develop that right now. They can develop that right now. Well, that goes to the views of ordinary people who like to walk their dogs through the park, like me. And I see Akako Makai as a green field, a park, a place to come and enjoy the outdoors, the elements, have a picnic with my family, not be obstructed from seeing the ocean, not being obstructed from seeing the mountains, a very special place. And that's really important considering that it's downtown, near downtown. And it's a very, what did I say before? It's the gem of the whole area. So aside from all the other planning considerations, the technical, environmental, EIS construction issues, it seems to me that the part of this conversation is a conversation about allowing people to relate to nature. Do we need more shops? Do we need more high rises in the center of the city? The answer for me and a lot of other people would be no. What's your sense of that? What's your sense of the community view of this? I think the community view of Makai is sort of well established in the years of community planning and engagement that has already taken place, which is not to say that the community view is still the same, but I believe the community vision for Makai is reflected in the Kakako Makai conceptual master plan that was developed by the CPAC working group. That was the culmination of their work. And I also believe, Jay, that like you, I think the vision of Kakako Makai with a lower sort of height limit at the ocean, stepping up to a little bit higher at Almona Boulevard is what is described, or that's the vision of the 2005 Makai area plan right now. Yeah, well, yeah, I think I agree with you about how people feel. Everybody I know feels that way. One of the point I'd like to ask you about and you said that this according to Oha would enable Oha to raise the money for the benefit of its beneficiaries. But what you didn't say is that this would allow Oha to provide housing for native Hawaiian people. And it doesn't seem from what I know that it would. It would provide funds, because anybody who brings in a developer builds a big building, 20 stories, 40 stories, walks away with a big check and the actual units are not owned by either that organization or its beneficiaries. It's owned, those units are owned by people from far away because they would involve huge prices, especially for units along the water. Am I right to see it that way? That it really would not help native Hawaiians with affordable housing so much as provide Oha with funding which they would use to help native Hawaiians in other ways. No? You know, Jay, since Oha's planning efforts have begun were started, I've really tried to focus on what is HCDA's role in any kind of development by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, like any major landowner in the Kakaako district. I really spent less time focusing on what kind of residential units they wanna build or produce, whether it's gonna be how many market units or affordable units or whether they're gonna have some set aside for native Hawaiians. I've really kind of not focused that much on it because there's enough to focus on. In earlier this year, I invited the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to present to our board, our Kakaako board to just for information, to let the board inform the board on what their plans were. And after considering it, they decided not to present at the board. So I'm not sure what exactly they have in mind in their plans. So the environmental analysis that would have to be done here to clear this legally and in terms of urban planning, HCDA would be involved, wouldn't it? You would be organizing at least parts of it, you would be present, you would have a, I suppose, a stay or you would hear people who have a stay. What would your role be in that? Yeah, I think an environmental assessment or EIS is sort of a disclosure document at its very base. It's gonna disclose the various environmental impacts, it's gonna allow public input and discourse into what the impacts are, and people are gonna be allowed to do that. So I think that's a good thing to do. And people are gonna be allowed to comment on it through a public comment period. If the white community development authority is gonna amend its own rules, we will definitely be involved in that. And if we have to do an environmental impact statement, we will be involved in that. I'm gonna assume that if OHA is gonna develop that they're gonna have to do an assessment as well. And I think we'll have a say in it as a stakeholder in the community. Yeah, one of the things I always, I wonder about it is that this is not city land. And I wonder what the role of OHA, or sorry, what the role of ACDA as opposed, ACDA as opposed to the Department of Planning and Permanent Aging is, in terms of setting standards for construction for the issuance of building permits on new construction as opposed to construction elsewhere in the city. In other words, is ACDA the organization that would make those rules, or is it DPP at the city, or is it both? So because of ACDA's, because the legislature established the White Community Development Authority, we are the zoning and land use agency for Kakako. So before any development occurs in Kakako, Makai, whether it's by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or another land owner, they would have to come to ACDA and we would have to review a development permit for that. And so the project would have to be aligned with and be consistent with our land use rules. The city's role in it would be DPP would approve a building permit after plans are submitted as they do with every construction project in Kakako. So it's both. That's interesting. That might take a while, get that all straightened out. And here's the question I would ask you. Let's assume that takes a while. Let's assume that the EIS takes a while that any changes in the specifications of building permits, for example, to account for the special characteristics of the land and the special implications of any construction on Makai. So let's assume that takes years. What happens in the interim? Big question Craig. What's your view? What's your vision? What's your path, so to speak, in the interim? So let me go back to one thing you mentioned. I think this, I didn't wanna make you think that this sort of HCDA and our land use authority and zoning authority versus the city DPP is something new. This is a established practice. I mean, not practice, but this is the process that is used for every development. We approve a development for land use, zoning. And then the developer has to go into the city DPP to approve a building permit. In the interim, while the, while if environmental assessment and reviews are necessary, I think we would just be the sort of the status quo. I mean, we, whatever land use or laws and rules are in effect for HCDA, that's what we would follow. And in the absence of appropriate proceedings and permits, how would you like to see in your mind's eye? I remember Dan Janell, remember him? He was your predecessor, a couple of executives ago. He, and you were in Dick 77, Alamoana, and he looked out the window and he stood next to Ed Cadman, who was the Dean of the John A. Burns School of Medicine and all the founder of it. And they looked out the window together and they had a vision of how Kakaako, particularly Kakaako Mackay was gonna be in the future. And they were able to describe their vision. Their vision was to keep it a green grass thing, except Ed Cadman wanted to have big pharma in the medical school and that would have changed the construction of the medical school. But, but query, how do you see it? If you look out your window, how do you see it in your mind's eye, the optimal condition of this land? Yeah, you know, I still see it Mackay as a place where it kind of a gathering place where people can come and, you know, recreate in the parks, walk around. I think there's more, you know, development that needs to occur in Mackay, honestly, you know, from what it is now. I also believe that, you know, any kind of any development, if OHA wants to develop, you know, we're open to engaging in that dialogue with them that and consult with them like we do with many other landowners in Kakaako. Yeah, that's interesting though. We've been talking about OHA, but in fact, there are other landowners in Kakaako Mackay and if, you know, they managed to get some project authorized, despite all these hurdles they're gonna have to go through, that means that other landowners, fair as fair, would wanna do the same and would be able to do the same theoretically. And so now it's not just one landowner, it's not just one project, it's more than that. Where does it stop? Well, and, you know, there are a lot of examples of, you know, development in Mackay, there's, you know, there's Japsum, there's a Cancer Research Center, I think we've also envisioned it as a sort of a technology center, you know, the Sandbox, the Entrepreneur's Sandbox is a good example of a collaboration between ACDA and a developer to build that Entrepreneur's Sandbox. So I think there's a lot of, besides the park and a gathering place, there's technology that's possible in Kakaako Mackay. That's how I would, if I was looking out my window at 677 Alamoana, I would look at it that way. Are there any 40 story condos in your vision? Residential? Yeah. Not right now, not where the law is in place. Okay. So I told you, you know, as long as the residential, as long as the law is in place, we're obliged to follow it. Amen. All right, thank you Craig. Craig Nakamoto, the Executive Director of Hawaii Community Development Authority, which covers Kakaako Mackay, and especially these days, Kakaako Mackay. Thank you so much for talking with us. Thank you, Jay. Nice talking to you. The same. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.