Hawaii lawmakers last year gave the state agency regulating development in Kakaako an involuntary makeover. Now further changes are proposed in a new salvo of bills aimed at the Hawaii Community Development Authority.

More than a dozen bills have been introduced this year by state legislators seeking to impose new regulations on the agency tasked with transforming Kakaako from what used to be a largely decaying industrial area into a mixed-use community increasingly filled with residential towers.

Objectives of the bills include rezoning land, curtailing HCDA power to lease state land and letting the public contest development permits after an initial public hearing.

HCDA staff is supportive of just one bill, while some critics of the agency — including some Kakaako condominium tower residents who stand to lose views from recently approved towers — are backing several bills.

"In 2014 the Legislature made meaningful progress in returning Kakaako to the people and reining in the lawless HCDA," Lynne Matusow, a downtown Honolulu resident, said in written testimony on one of the new bills. "Unfortunately the Legislature must impose standards because the HCDA is blind to the needs of the people."

Most of the bills have yet to be heard by House or Senate committees.

One of the more potentially upheaving measures would set aside land makai of Ala Moana Boulevard in Kakaako for park use.

Senate Bill 1203 would require that certain parcels, including one identified for a prospective Barack Obama presidential library and the site of the restaurant and wedding venue 53 by the Sea, be "set aside" as parkland and future park expansion.

The bill, introduced by Sens. Suzanne Chun Oakland, Will Espero and Breene Harimoto, also suggests generally that existing long-term land leases be rescinded because they are "not in the best interest of the fragile makai shoreline conditions."

The intent of the bill is to address a conceptual master plan for Kakaako makai that HCDA adopted in 2011 but has not executed.

The master plan, which was crafted with the help of a roughly 50-member community advisory council, envisioned largely noncommercial development — including expanded shoreline parks, museums, a performing arts center, a community center and a parking structure — on 36.5 acres of mostly undeveloped land then owned by HCDA.

HCDA’s plan, however, left considerable doubt as to whether money could be found to pay for the improvements, estimated to cost between $250 million and $350 million. Another major kink was introduced in 2012 when lawmakers approved giving the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs ownership of much of the area as payment for a debt.

SB 1203 would affect some of OHA’s land.

HCDA staff opposes the bill as a form of spot zoning that the agency said is a bad and unwieldly practice. The first hearing for this bill was scheduled for Wednesday, but instead the bill got deferred.

Another bill seeking to override existing HCDA rules is Senate Bill 1205, which would prohibit the agency from issuing 65-year land leases and instead restrict such leases to 30 years. The bill also would force the agency to use a sealed-bid process to lease land. Currently the agency can issue requests for sealed proposals or negotiate exclusively with developers that present proposals.

Agency staff opposes this bill, noting that real estate development isn’t subject to state procurement law in part because a highest or lowest bid may not be in the best interest of the state. SB 1205 has yet to be scheduled for a hearing.

One bill generating contentious debate would alter HCDA’s contested-case process and impose new requirements for approving development projects.

This measure introduced by Chun Oakland, Senate Bill 906, would give the public more time to organize a challenge to a project using expert testimony and cross-examination of developer experts.

Currently, the public must petition to intervene in a contested case within 20 days of an announced public hearing on a proposed project. Critics of this timetable say it provides insufficient time to review a project application and mount a challenge.

Kakaako resident Sharon Moriwaki petitioned to intervene in one project last year and said HCDA scheduled a hearing to approve or reject the petition on the same day the developer began its argument in favor of the project.

"These requirements place community members at an extreme disadvantage as developers have their staff and attorneys, and are ready to present their case while residents lack the expertise, legal and professional resources to prepare a proper case within such a short period," she said in written testimony on the bill.

Howard Hughes Corp., a major developer in Kakaako, said in written testimony that the current process allows the public ample time to review an application and intervene.

HCDA said allowing an intervenor to contest an application after a developer has made its arguments at an initial public hearing upsets due process and could jeopardize a deadline that automatically approves permits if decisions aren’t made within 120 to 180 days.

Most testimony in support of SB 906 related to the contested-case issue. However, another part of the bill pertaining to criteria for approving or rejecting projects elicited considerable opposition from HCDA and landowners.

This part of the bill would require that a project address resident concerns and have no negative impact on things including employment opportunities, community amenities and valued historical resources.

HCDA said evaluating negative impacts is subjective and could be an impossible standard to meet.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs added that the bill does not define what constitutes addressing a concern. "This language is ambiguous," OHA said in written testimony. "In cases where the interests of groups within the community irreconcilably conflict, addressing community concerns becomes an impossible task."

The Senate Committee on Human Services and Housing passed the bill with amendments Tuesday.

Another bill passed Tuesday by the same committee would require developers to produce some homes that are affordable to lower-income residents under HCDA’s affordable-housing rules. The agency said this bill introduced by Chun Oakland and four colleagues, Senate Bill 916, largely mirrors a report produced by an HCDA board committee that seeks to produce lower-priced homes.

In past years lawmakers have introduced bills to abolish HCDA. While there is no such bill this year, one bill would effectively idle the agency. This bill, Senate Bill 1189, would ax HCDA’s ability to fund itself by repealing its three special funds. The funds contain revenue generated by HCDA and allow the agency to operate. The bill was passed with amendments Wednesday by the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Technology.