Residential towers in Kakaako makai of Ala Moana Boulevard would be permitted to rise on eight large parcels — or just two — under competing proposed amendments to one of the most controversial bills at the Legislature this year.

The suggested revisions were made Thursday to Senate Bill 3122 by a conference committee of House and Senate leaders considering the bill that set out to allow the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs to develop high-rise housing on some of the land it received two years ago to settle a debt over ceded-land revenues owed by the state.

Under a draft amendment offered by committee members from the House, eight large parcels including four owned by Kamehameha Schools, two owned by OHA and two owned by the state would be approved for residential towers up to about 400 feet, which is twice the current height limit.

State Rep. Cindy Evans, the committee chairwoman representing the House, said the change would create a more uniformly defined residential area in Kakaako makai bordered by Ilalo Street.

State Sen. Maile Shimabukuro, committee chairwoman for the Senate, countered with a proposal to limit 400-foot residential towers to a pair of OHA parcels fronting Ala Moana Boulevard.

Both proposals are less favorable to OHA as well as organizations that oppose SB3122. Those organizations want the Legislature to uphold a law passed in 2006 that banned residential development from Kakaako makai.

For most of this legislative session, SB 3122 proposed allowing residential towers on three OHA parcels, including the two along Ala Moana Boulevard and one shaped like a piano makai of Ilalo and a block inland from the ocean and Kewalo Basin.

The change suggested Thursday by Evans was dramatic, especially considering that at conference committee meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday, only relatively minor revisions were offered on the bill backed by Shimabukuro and other Senate committee members.

Shimabukuro, who has often donned a red hat supporting OHA in the committee meetings, said she was concerned that the proposal by Evans won’t be palatable to other lawmakers and the public.

"We just are concerned whether that’s going to fly," Shimabukuro told Evans. "I think it’s going to be a tough thing to swallow for other legislators and the public."

Shimabukuro also noted that the public hasn’t been able to testify on such a major change.

Evans said that lawmakers know that opponents of SB 3122 don’t want housing in Kaka-ako makai. "I think that’s clear," she said. "I understand, it’s controversial."

Evans acknowledged that some of the bill’s opponents will be more opposed to her recommended change. But she said landowners currently can build commercial towers up to 200 feet in the same area. "It already could be a wall of concrete," she said.

Michelle Matson, a member of the group Save Our Kaka’ako opposing SB3122, called the proposed change from Evans 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."

OHA Trustee Peter Apo said it was good that OHA would at least retain two parcels for residential development under either change being considered. However, he also expressed apprehension because additional blocks for residential towers would exacerbate the opposition that wants no housing in Kakaako makai.

Consideration of the competing drafts follows demonstrations from both bill supporters and opponents in recent weeks.

OHA supporters demonstrated at the Capitol on Tuesday. Two weeks earlier Save Our Kaka’ako members rallied at the Capitol and received encouragement from House Majority Leader Scott Saiki (D, Downtown-Kakaako-McCully), who said he did not think SB 3122 would become law. Saiki predicted there would be irreconcilable differences in conference committee.

OHA sought SB 3122 because residential development can produce more income for its programs and services benefiting Native Hawaiians. The agency insists that development on its land will be done in a way that balances commerce and culture without inhibiting public access to the shoreline.

SB 3122 opponents argue that OHA shouldn’t be seeking additional income because it accepted the Kakaako land — 31 acres spread among nine parcels including several waterfront sites — as an asset valued at roughly $200 million and limited to commercial development.

The conference committee is scheduled to resume negotiations Friday at 9:30 a.m.