A developer has recast long-delayed plans to build affordable high-rise rental apartments on state land in Kakaako, but the new vision for the project called 690 Pohukaina isn’t being shared publicly.

The board of the Hawaii Community Development Authority, a state agency that solicited competitive development proposals for the 690 Pohukaina site in 2012, met privately with state attorneys for about an hour Wednesday to review and discuss new terms proposed by Forest City Realty Trust.

HCDA’s board considered whether to approve the terms at a public portion of Wednesday’s meeting, but deferred action “due to legal reasons,” according to board member Mary Pat Waterhouse.

Forest City submitted what is called a term sheet that lays out general provisions of the company’s proposal. It would then be refined through negotiations with HCDA’s executive director and presented to the board for consideration of detailed final terms.

The agency isn’t publicly sharing term sheet provisions because they involve specifics of a pending real estate transaction that can be exempted from state open-meeting rules.

John Whalen, HCDA’s board chairman, generally described Forest City’s plan as “scaled back.”

Jon Wallenstrom, president of the Hawaii affiliate of Ohio-based Forest City, declined to share what the company is proposing now because it is subject to further negotiation. But he said the plan adheres to HCDA’s initial request for proposals to develop the 2-acre site next to Mother Waldron Park.

“It’ll stay within the broad parameters of the original proposal,” he said, adding that the number of apartment units and the renderings the company originally submitted no longer fairly represent the project.

Wallenstrom also said that an elementary school, which was not part of the original proposal but was later requested by the state Department of Education and then rejected by HCDA in March, is not necessarily excluded.

Whatever it looks like, the new vision for 690 Pohukaina is the latest twist in what has been a somewhat tortured development process that HCDA kicked off five years ago with an introduction by then-Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

Abercrombie in October 2011 announced 690 Pohukaina as a public-private partnership to produce affordable housing, market-rate homes and civic space in the tallest building in Hawaii.

“This is housing for our people,” he said at a public unveiling of the opportunity to create badly needed affordable homes near the city’s planned rail line.

Abercrombie proposed that the tower rise 650 feet, or 250 feet higher than HCDA rules permitted at the time. HCDA issued a formal request for competitive proposals in 2012.

Two developers responded: Forest City and Australia-based Lend Lease. Both companies said their plans would be viable with a 400-foot or 650-foot height limit.

Lend Lease proposed 1,002 for-sale condos, but HCDA selected Forest City’s $293 million plan for 804 rental apartments subject to agreement on details including financial terms of a land lease.

Forest City’s bid called for 390 rental apartments for tenants earning no more than 120 percent of Honolulu’s median income, 390 units for tenants earning up to 140 percent of the median income and 24 luxury penthouse units.

Other pieces of Forest City’s bid included 35,000 square feet of civic space for state offices and library facilities, 4,400 square feet of community space and 30,000 square feet of commercial space for a restaurant, a small market, offices and other uses.

At the time, Forest City anticipated it could finalize terms, sign a development agreement and open an initial phase this year. But negotiations moved slowly and hit an impasse. The Legislature also passed a law in 2014 to freeze Kakaako’s building height limit at 418 feet. And then last year DOE began discussions about the school.

In February, DOE and Forest City revealed revised conceptual plans with one tower containing 400 mostly moderately priced rental apartments next to a four-story elementary school. However, after a legal review, HCDA’s board voted 8-0 in March to reject that plan because it was significantly out of line with what was offered to private developers through competitive bidding.