Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Pricing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority approves reserved‑unit pricing for Kaʻulu Increment 4

Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority · June 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority voted 9–0 on June 3 to approve reserved‑unit pricing and related findings for Increment 4 of Kaʻulu by Gentry, allowing the developer to market nine completed reserved units with maximum prices set between $610,000 and $685,000 and a two‑year affordability restriction.

The Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority voted 9–0 on June 3 to approve reserved‑unit pricing and accompanying findings for Increment 4 of Kaʻulu by Gentry, clearing the way for the developer to offer nine completed reserved housing units for sale in the Kailua Community Development District.

Ryan Tam, the Authority’s director of planning and development, said the staff report recommends maximum prices ranging from $610,000 for a two‑bedroom, two‑bath reserved unit to $685,000 for a three‑bedroom, two‑bath unit and noted those levels are roughly 124.3% of area median income. Tam told board members the pricing submittal was filed in March and that the units in this increment are constructed and have certificates of occupancy.

Andrew, a Gentry representative, told the board the project has closed 173 homes to date — 100 multifamily and 73 single‑family — and that 23 of the multifamily homes sold so far were reserved units. "These are beautiful homes that are built with the most care and quality," Andrew said, and he said the applicant hopes to begin sales for the nine completed reserved units this summer.

Board members asked detailed questions about affordability mechanics, monthly reserve estimates and the Authority's shared‑equity figures. Member Gortner noted example monthly reserves and maintenance fee estimates in Exhibit B and asked why the combined monthly calculation is higher than the HOA‑only fee; the applicant said the illustration includes HOA dues plus property taxes and an assumed mortgage‑insurance amount, which raises the total. On whether the reserved‑unit prices could remain unchanged despite higher construction and financing costs, the applicant cited slower‑than‑expected sales, an amended permit that shortens the regulated term to two years, and hopes that project maturation will aid market momentum.

The board also pressed staff and the applicant on the Authority’s shared‑equity mechanism. The staff and applicant said the shared‑equity amount cited in the report — approximately $50,000 per unit for this increment — is the typical figure realized at sale, though a secondary shared‑equity formula could yield a larger Authority share only if future appraisals rose substantially from current levels.

One person provided public testimony opposing the item, calling the development "continuous desecration and overbuilding of a sacred area" and saying the prices are unaffordable for households at 60–80% AMI. Chair Sterling Higa responded during board discussion by distinguishing workforce housing (roughly 80–140% AMI) from affordable housing (80% and below) and arguing that new construction targeted at workforce bands can free up older housing stock and benefit lower AMI households over time. Higa said he supported the approval.

Following discussion, Vice Chair Ishii moved the measure; after a roll‑call vote the Authority approved the decision in order dated Jan. 7, 2026 for application KAL25‑010 by a vote of 9 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions (one member excused). The chair announced the motion passed.

The meeting then proceeded to a brief executive‑director report and adjourned at 11:46 a.m.