Zoning & Planning - Regular Meeting

Aloha and good morning, everyone. It is Thursday, July 16th, 2026, and the time is 9.04 a.m. Will the Committee on Zoning and Planning meeting please come to order? I would like to welcome the following committee members, Committee Vice Chair Waters, Council Member Cordero, and Council Member Okimoto. Council Member Topola is excused from today's meeting. Although remote verbal testimony is being permitted, this is a regular in-person meeting and not a remote meeting by Interactive Conference Technology under HRS section 92-3.7. Therefore, the meeting will continue notwithstanding loss of audiovisual communication with remote testifiers or loss of the public broadcast of the meeting. Members of the public will be allowed to provide verbal testimony on all items on the agenda when each item is taken up in two ways. in person in the council chamber and remotely via video conference or phone. Before testifying, each person shall state their name for the record. Each speaker may not have anyone else read their statement and will be limited to a one-minute presentation per item. All persons who registered to testify in person will be called upon first. Persons who did not register will be given an opportunity to offer testimony after the registered testifiers. Once in-person testimony has concluded, I will proceed to the remote testifiers. When I call your name or the last three digits of your phone number, please follow the prompts to unmute. As both English and Hawaiian are official languages of the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Article 15, Section 4 of the Hawaii State Constitution and Section 113 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, members of the public may testify in either language. For verbal testimonies offered in Olelo, Hawaii, additional time, as may be necessary, will be allowed for the testifier to provide an English translation of their testimony. Written testimonies, including the testifier's address, email address, and phone number, will be available to the public as described in the posted agenda. As a courtesy, please turn off or silence all cell phones for the duration of this meeting. Thank you. Moving to agenda item number one for extension of time only. Members, the first item on our agenda is to approve an extension of time only for Bill 43-2026. Verbal testimony will be limited to comments on the extension of time only and we will not be discussing the substantive provisions of the bill at today's meeting. Bill 43-2026, this bill rezones 1.431 acres of land located on 69-099 Waialua Beach Road in Pa'ala'a Kai, Waialua, identified as tax map key 6601A-024 from the country district to the R5 residential district. I will be recommending a 120-day extension of the deadline for Council action on this bill to give the Committee more time to consider the measure. Members, for your information, the written request for a 100-day, 20-day extension of time is available online as Miscellaneous Communication 299-2026. I also wanted to acknowledge the presence of Council Members Weyer as well as Dos Santos Tam. Before I call up the administration, I would like to take public testimony. Proceeding first with in-person testimony in the council chamber. Clerks, do we have any in-person testifiers for this item?

Chair, there are none.

Is there anyone standing by remotely?

Chair, there are none.

Chair, before we go any further, can I just wish you a happy birthday? Your beautiful liaison, just hope you have a wonderful day today. Awesome.

Thank you. Let's see. No in-person or remote testifiers. For the administration, we have the Department of Planning and Permitting,

Good morning, Chair Akia Aina, Vice Chair Waters, and happy birthday to you. The department is in support of the 120-day extension. Sure.

Can you identify yourself?

Oh, apologies. Dina Wong, Chief Planner for DPP's Planning Division. Thank you.

Members, any questions for the department? If not, I'm going to move forward with our recommendation. The Chair notes that the time needed to consider Bill 43-2026 may exceed the current deadline for Council action. The Chair therefore recommends that the bill be granted a 120-day extension of time pursuant to request from the applicant's agent in Miscellaneous Communication 299-2026. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda item number two for action. Resolution 26-159. This resolution urges the State Board of Land and Natural Resources to direct the Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Aquatic Resources to adopt rules prohibiting the harvest of aquatic life from state of Hawaii marine waters for commercial aquarium purposes. In 2017, the Hawaii Supreme Court determined that permits for commercial aquarium fishing using fine meshed nets are invalid until the state completes an environmental review under HRS Chapter 343. The Department of Land and Natural Resources subsequently discontinued renewing or issuing new aquarium fishing permits pending environmental review. In 2018, the Board of Land and Natural Resources concluded that an environmental impact statement is required to evaluate impacts of the issuance of commercial aquarium permits. In 2021, the Board of Land and Natural Resources accepted an environmental impact statement for West Hawaii, commercial aquarium fishing permits, and the Department of Land and Natural Resources is proposing new administrative rules to resume issuing permits in West Hawaii. While a previous environmental impact statement for Oahu was rejected as insufficient, the environmental impact statement process for Oahu commercial aquarium fishing permits is restarting. In April 2026, the Hawaii First Circuit Environmental Court ruled that the Board of Land and Natural Resources has the legal authority to prohibit commercial aquarium collection statewide by administrative rule. Resolution 26-159, which we are hearing today, urges the Board to direct the Department of Land and Natural Resources to do this. Hawaii's public trust doctrine, which is found in the state constitution, establishes the state's responsibility to safeguard all public natural resources. It is therefore the state's responsibility to manage Hawaii's reef ecosystems for the benefit of future generations rather than for private profit. Healthy and thriving coral reefs are of the utmost importance as they support food security, native Hawaiian cultural practices, biodiversity, shoreline protection, and Hawaii's tourism economy. Before I call up the administration, I would like to take public testimony, proceeding first with in-person testimony in the council chamber. Clerks, do we have any in-person testifiers for this item?

Chair, we have a few standing by.

The first testifier is Drew Hara.

Aloha chair, council members, Drew Hara testifying on behalf of Earth Justice. We submitted written testimony on this resolution as well as the next one, 26-160 in strong support of both. As chair just recited, The Board of Land and Natural Resources has the legal authority to prohibit commercial aquarium collection, and the state has an affirmative duty under the public trust to protect and conserve our natural and culturally significant marine resources. The current climate reality is that Hawaii's reefs are already under threat, from coral bleaching, sedimentation, invasive species, and a number of other pressures. Commercial aquarium collection has been effectively banned throughout the state and no legal collection has taken place since 2021. DLNR's Division of Aquatic Resources is now proposing rules that would reopen this extractive trade for just seven potential permittees on Hawaii Island. Putting our near shore ecosystems under added pressure from extractive aquarium harvests for the benefit of just a handful of private collectors cuts against both common sense and public policy in Hawaii. For these reasons, please pass these resolutions, join other bodies such as the Kauai and Hawaii County Councils, as well as various neighborhood boards and community groups across Oahu to finally once and for all put an end to this extractive practice, mahalo.

Thank you so much. Members, do we have any questions for the testifier? And Drew, I just wanted to say that we are taking each measure up independently, so I will be calling you up for the second measure as well. The next testifier is Gail Grabowski.

Thank you, Chair and City Council members. It's my honor to testify today. My name is Gail Grabowski. I served for 20 years on Papahānaumokohea's Advisory Council as the Education Rep, and I'm the Dean of the School of Natural Sciences and Math at Chaminade. And I've been following this issue for 20 years, mostly because my sister aquacultures soft corals as a living. I am a zoologist and animal biologist by training. I would like to first say that this wasn't true 20 years ago, but these fish can be aquacultured now, which I'm very excited about. Because in captivity, they will breed. And we know how now. So we don't need to take them off the reef and put the reef at risk. Years ago, I surveyed all of the literature and have done research in Hanama Bay where we found that there were 10 times more of the most collected fish in Hanama Bay because they cannot be collected there. These fish are really important, they're mostly herbivores, so they provide room for food fish because they graze so that the other fish can, so that the coral can settle and become healthy coral and then we have more fish for food fish. These are not food fish. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Gail. Members, any questions? Just wanted to thank you and your sister for all that you do for our communities. The next testifier is Lena Alale.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee members. Lena Olale, Chief Advocate for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The office stands in strong support of this measure urging the BLNR to ban this practice. OHA actually adopted as part of its 2026 legislative package a similar measure urging the legislature to adopt a ban. Our natural, our healthy coral reefs are a keystone public trust resource. They provide free food and recreation to families. They are the building blocks of our beaches and coastlines and provide protection from storms. And they have for millennia supported Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices. In adopting this bill as part of its package, OHA heard from beneficiaries in those communities that have been targeted for collection and have borne the impact and seen the effect of collection over time on their resource, and it has affected them personally. And we also participated in the Association of Hawaiian Civic Convention, where there was a resolution adopted on behalf of the 4,000 members supporting a ban. In other words, this is a situation where public opinion mirrors what stewardship and the law and science would call for, which is leaving reef fish on the reef where they can be enjoyed by present and future generations. Mahalo.

Thank you so much. Members, any questions? They know, you know, there's a lot of going on publicly with the trustees. And I just want to say that the staff at OHA, including yourself are the bedrock of that organization. So I just want to say that we fully support all that you guys are doing. And don't let what is going on at the leadership level deter you from your kuleana.

There's too much work to get. Yes, absolutely. And you have our full support. Mahalo.

Is there anyone in person who would like to testify for this measure? Please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. If there's no one to testify in person, clerks, do we have any remote testifiers?

Chair, we have a few standing by.

The first testifier on this list is Ron Tubbs. Is Mr. Tubbs online? Yes, Chair. Mr. Tubbs, please proceed. If he's not available, I'm going to move on to the next testifier. And clerks, could you just let me know when he comes on? Chair, he's on. Mr. Tubbs, could you please proceed? You need to unmute your button. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, and Aloha, City Council members. Thank you for your valuable time on this topic. Pretty much all the decisions that have occurred in the past board and meeting members of neighborhood boards and even with OHA have not had any representation from the researchers, DAR, DLNR, and therefore you're seeing a one-sided opinion and approach to what you're you're seeing please reach out and educate yourselves regarding this topic before making a decision uh the opposition's very well known for not submitting the truth and i would highly recommend you to take all of their um information with a grain of salt. It is unconstitutional to ban any fishery or to eliminate one user group from another. Aquaculture has only been successful in a very small number of species. A majority of species used for the aquarium trade are not bred the aquaculture. Also, this group that's against us is actively shut down aquaculture facilities statewide, ones that I've collected for their brood stock with DAR permits, and cost the state millions in lost revenue due to aquaculture of marine fish, which is a travesty. I will send you that documented information that's even hit the news. One such facility was the yellow tang breeding facility on the Big Island. Whenever we collected the fish, we immediately met with resistance at the harbor and they didn't last very long over there due to the opposition. So aquaculture is not solution because the opposition doesn't want that either. They're saying they do just to try to get us banned. The science is clear. BLNR, state legislature for 20 years, and every scientist, every major scientist who studied this issue has supported the fishery. The state needs sustainable, highly renewable resource use to continue a sustainable future for the state of Hawaii. Nearsighted, blind, User conflict is inhibiting this pathway of sustainable use of our natural resources, our most renewable natural.

Could you please wrap up your testimony?

Please do not pass these resolutions. The county council, the city council of Honolulu has heard this subject before and they refused to pass it then. Four months of testimony through the legislature just recently in the 2026 legislature also led to a non-passage of any bill regarding this. Rightfully so. The science does not support it. The opposition is not founded in science. It's founded in misinformation campaigns from billionaires who want to control the oceans of Hawaii, eliminating Hawaiians and fisheries and Hawaiian fisheries. And those fisheries are next. They will be closed, all commercial fishing. Thank you, Mr. Tubbs.

First, I just want to let you know that the Department of Land and Natural Resources is just right outside Honolulu-Hawley. They know where we are. They are aware that these measures are being held. So communications is two ways. It's not my job to outreach to them. They know exactly what's going on. The four members, including myself, who introduced and co-introduced these measures, we did not need external parties to contact us. We are all personally opposed to commercial harvesting of Hawaii's marine life. Moving on, the next testifier is Mike Nakakachi.

Aloha, Mike Hakone. chair and fellow city council members. My name is Mike Nkachi. I represent Moana Ohana. I'm originally from Honolulu, was born and raised in the area of Ko'olaupoko and Waimanalo. And I come from a lineage of Kahu Manoa. And first and foremost, we come with aloha ʻāina to malama this ʻāina and restore ʻāina Momona. What we just heard was a lot of hot wind in Makani blown from Mr. Tubbs. But what I'm going to speak about is that, again, All of us have a fiduciary relationship to take care and malama our public trust resources. The aquarium fish trade has done absolutely nothing. All of it is privately earned. All of the benefits benefit the mainland. It does not benefit Aina at all. And so I urge this particular largest county to support this resolution, to urge the BLNR to ban the aquarium trade, along with other counties throughout the Paiʻāina that have done the same, Kauaʻi, Maui Nui, and Mokuʻokiawe. So I ask that you do the Kako thing and urge the BLNR to ban the aquarium trade. Thank you for your time.

Mike, thank you so much. Members, any questions for the testifier? If not, we're gonna move to the next testifier, Kanin Kretz. Kretz. Testifier is not logged on. Is the next testifier, Klenchoy, logged on?

No, Chair.

How about Topher Dean? No, Chair. Lisa Bishop.

She's online. Good morning, Lisa. Good morning. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members. I'm Lisa Bishop with Friends of Honamu Bay. We were founded 36 years ago and are dedicated to the conservation of coastal and marine environments, emphasizing the stewardship of the natural resources of Honolulu Bay. Resolution 26 159 reflects a necessary evolution and public policy. We have decades of scientific research, court decisions, and lived community experience demonstrating the ecological and cultural costs of removing fish and invertebrates for export into the extractive aquarium collection industry. It is past time for DLNR to start protecting our marine wildlife as a public trust asset for current and future Hawaii residents. Instead of servicing the global aquarium pet trade, our marine wildlife have no voice. So we urge the Honolulu City Councils to speak for them, urging DLNR to enact a statewide ban on commercial aquarium collection. Please, mahalo for your strong support of Resolution 26159.

Thank you for your testimony, Lisa. The next testifier is Doug Federle.

Testifier is not logged on.

Next one is Jill Samso. Testifier is on. Good morning, Jill. Good morning, Chair. Happy birthday. Thank you.

I appreciate the You're welcome. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. My name is Jill Zamzow. I have a master's and PhD degree from the University of Hawaii at Manoa in zoology. I study coral reef fishes. I have been studying them for 30 years now. I also work for NOAA, taking the data that I would urge you to take a look at in my written testimony. I promise it's only one page and there's a big graph. What the data tells us, over the years, estimated abundance of the aquarium fish species proposed for collection on Oahu, many of them are decreasing. Many of them are statistically close to zero at this point. Of course, there are many threats to the health of our coral reefs. keeping herbivores on the reefs is a sensible way to go about reef health, in my opinion. I would just urge you to consider the data. I would urge you to look at my written testimony and see the graphs and judge for yourself. I appreciate the time.

Thank you so much for your testimony, Jill. The next testifier is Renee Umberger.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members. I'm Renee Umberger with For the Fishes, in strong support. I'd like to speak to the potential jobs lost if aquarium collecting is banned. The trade's most recent EIS includes reported sales by the 20 aquarium collectors seeking new permits. During the 18 years before the court-ordered shutdown, their annual sales on average were about $12,500 per collector. That's it. Thank you so much. This is important. Oh, sorry. I didn't mean that's it for me. I meant that's all they earned. Yeah. This is important. Yeah. It's important to know because our reefs face many threats and increasing signs of decline. Among the species historically targeted by the trade, nine identified in the EIS as capable of rapid recovery. with population doubling times of less than 15 months have instead declined in recent years, as Jill just mentioned. There are plenty of part-time jobs that pay as much or more and do not require the continued depletion of our reef wildlife. Let's choose those jobs instead. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you so much. The next testifier is Deja Ostrowski. Testifier is not logged on. Next testifier is Eric. Eric Koch. Is Eric online? Yes, Chair. Eric, please proceed.

Hello, hello, hello.

Good morning, Eric. Please proceed.

Okay. Happy birthday, Chair. Hold on. Let me put my notes up. Sorry. Aloha County Council. I'm reaching out to you today from the Big Island to urge you to not pass this resolution. This measure will harm many local families throughout Hawaii based upon misinformation. This issue has been in a long civic process for many years. It includes a HEPA 343 environmental impact statement requirement that was ordered by the Supreme Court. All of this started when animal rights activists who are anti-fishing sued the state demanding HEPA. Well, we've done all that. We have satisfied the Supreme Court order and the court has ruled this matter is officially resolved. The DLNR and DAR as the experts in managing this issue have time and time again on record stated this fishery is, quote, a model fishery and is low to no impact. They support the fishery as it is sustainable use that provides good jobs to local families. The interpretation of the recent court ruling about the board's ability to ban is not accurate or correct. All that ruling declared is that the BLNR can ban under extreme circumstances, not just on a whim. not for arbitrary reasons. That's never been refuted. The BLNR argued in that case that even if they could ban us, why would they? They want to manage and feel the fishery is sustainable. If the BLNR changed the rules to ban us, that would be illegal. If all these NGO activists giving testimony today are correct, why are the scientists and resource managers standing—why are they not standing with them? DAR has released an official position paper that is 92 pages that thoroughly examines the topic. I'm wondering if anyone here today has taken the time to read DAR's position paper, and if not, I would encourage you to do so. DAR concluded that this fishery is loaded... I'm wrapping it up.

Eric, thank you for your testimony. The next testifier is Drake Khalili.

Sure, testifier is not logged on. How about Elena Bryant? Testifier is logged on.

Elena, good morning. Need to unmute.

Sorry, I thought I did. Aloha, Chair. Aloha, committee members. My name is Elana Bryant, testifying in strong support of this resolution in my personal capacity as a cultural practitioner. I come from a long line of subsistence and commercial food fishers that feed communities, not fish tanks. My ohana has roots in Ko'olaupoko and Ko'olauloa spanning multiple generations. And I was raised with the understanding that our ocean is not simply a resource to be used, but a sacred place for which we carry our kuleana to care. We were taught to fish with restraint, to take only what was needed, and to leave enough for future generations. The commercial harvest of reef wildlife for ornamental purposes is fundamentally inconsistent with the traditional values of mālama ʻāina and pono stewardship that Maiohana was raised to uphold. Herbivores, like those targeted by the aquarium pet trade, are essential to healthy reefs. Their greatest value is not in private aquariums around the world, but on Hawaii's reefs, where they graze algae, promote coral recovery, and sustain the ecosystems that support our communities, culture, and future generations. This conviction is shared by communities throughout Hawaii. Organizations representing thousands of residents have adopted resolutions, submitted testimony, and consistently called for an end to commercial aquarium collection. I mahalo Honolulu City Council for standing with those communities and respectfully urge you to pass this resolution. In doing so, you will honor years of community advocacy, affirm our shared responsibility to steward Hawaii's public trust resources, and help ensure Hawaii's reef fish remain where they provide their greatest value, on Hawaii's reefs. Mahalo.

Thank you, Elena. The next testifier is Kimiona Kane.

Aloha mai kākou, kimi o nā kāne. Good morning. Kupo wānau o Manalo. Aloha Chair. Happy birthday. I'm here in my personal capacity as a kia iloko, as one that practices within the Native Hawaiian Fish Ponds, to support this very, very strongly. This resolution ushers in an opportunity for us to really re-clarify the kuleana of all of us who have a stewardship agreement and responsibility in kuleana to the ocean and its resources. And so, I strongly support this effort here. In addition, my role as the chair of the Waimanalo Neighborhood Board, I am privileged to and honored to bring that our board supports the efforts that allow us to protect the integrity of these ecosystems for perpetuity. And I offer those comments this morning.

Thank you so much, Kimiona. The next testifier standing by online, I don't see phone number, it just says iPhone. Anybody standing on line whose name tag I see? Sir, yes. Please proceed.

Aloha. I'm sorry. I am iPhone 4. Can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

Okay, thank you. My name is Topher Dean. I don't know why you called earlier and you couldn't see me. But anyways, I am on behalf of my organization, Clean the Pacific from North Gujala, Hawaii. And I'm in strong support of this measure. I stand on my written testimony, but I would also like to add that we are in the middle of a mass extinction event globally. There are 70% of all of the base load of all the life forms, all the animals that existed in 1970 are gone. 96% of all the mammals on Earth are humans and are livestock. I have seen with my own eyes over the last 40 years in North O'Halla the devastation of our reefs, not just from global warming and all kinds of other impacts, but from the aquarium trade. The last thing we need now is for impacts on our coral reefs just for entertainment values. We are in a critical crisis right now on many fronts on this planet. And we as a species need to all come together and do everything we can to restore the beauty and the sanctity of our natural world. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Topher. The next testifier standing by online is Nick. Nick, are you there?

Yes. Please proceed. Aloha, Honolulu City Council. I'm testifying today because I'm opposed to this resolution. I've worked in the aquarium fishing fishery for most of my adult life. And I've been out of work for a number of years because one person decided to create an EIS lawsuit and hold us to a higher standard than every other person who lives in this state. My family has lived on the Big Island here for generations. I feel it's really unfair for that one business to sue the state but the fishery has told everyone and the dlnr was aware that this fishery has been sustainable throughout its entire um existence in the state of hawaii and we completed the eis and the dlnr now has that document saying that this fishery is sustainable and so I don't believe that this resolution serves a purpose of conservation when the documents and the research over years from the DLNR shows that the opposite. So the only reason for this resolution is because, again, people disagree with what is being done, what is the use of the land and the fishery. But I want to say that even ancient cultures in Europe had caught fish and held them captive before modern times. Nick, I'm going to have to have you wrap up.

Nick, could you provide your last name for the record, please? Nick?

I want to say that everything that Ron Tubbs said in his testimony was true, and it was not hot air. I think that comment, you know, was unfair to Ron Tubbs and the rest of us who are fishermen. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Nick. Okay. Is there anyone else standing by? Chair, there are nine. Okay. Do we have anyone for the administration? I know this was council initiated. Do we have anyone from the administration here? Okay. You sure you don't want to be on record in your personal capacity? Okay. Members, we are in discussion. Vice Chair Waters.

Thank you so much. I know there's at least one lawyer in the audience, maybe can explain this a little bit more for the public. In our second paragraph on page two, it says based on various court proceedings, the State Board of Land and Natural Resources is planning to resume issuing permits to commercially harvest aquatic life for aquariums. And the next paragraph says the DLNR and DAR has proposed new administrative rules to reopen commercial harvesting of aquatic life. Can someone address that?

I'd like to call up Drew. Drew, if you could answer the Vice Chair's questions.

Yeah, so the question is sort of what is the state of the proposed rules before the, yeah, so walking it back to 2023, a client coalition represented by Earthjustice proposed a rulemaking petition to actually prohibit commercial aquarium collection statewide. That, petition was unanimously approved by the board, but the board then received some legal advice that they did not have the authority to promulgate a full ban. As a result of that, the Division of Aquatic Resources has run in the opposite direction and proposed a rule package that would actually reopen the commercial trade, allowing for permitting on Hawaii Island. In April of this year, we got a declaratory ruling from the First Circuit Court that actually confirms that BLNR does have the legal authority to ban this practice. And so our understanding is that sometime later this year, the board will be taking up both that original petition for rulemaking to promulgate a ban rule, which would be consistent with the resolution before you, as well as the proposed rules that DAR is currently pushing forward to reopen the trade on Hawaii Island.

So there are actually rules that are allowing it before DLNR today?

So the status is that these rules have gone out. They've gone through the public hearing process. There was an online hearing, an in-person hearing on Hawaii Island earlier this year. They went before the Small Business Review Board. I think they'll need to go back before that board before ultimately returning to the Board of Land and Natural Resources. But yes, there is a rules package that has been moving through the procedural steps that would allow Again, the limited number of people who were party to the West Hawaii EIS. to be issued permits by DAR. And just on the EIS point, because it did come up in other testimony, I would just clarify that an EIS is simply an informational document. Approval of an EIS does not in any way guarantee permitting or approval of the actual underlying action. And when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the West Hawaii EIS was adequate as an informational document, it explicitly did not adopt any of the substantive findings made in that EIS.

Thank you. Any other questions? Council Member Weyer.

I just wanted to confirm the timeline. So how long has the closure been in effect?

So the Umberger decision in 2017, and then following that there was some further decisions. So basically since 2021, we've seen a statewide closure. So 2017, Hawaii Island, West Hawaii specifically, and then since 2021, there's been a closure. So it's been half a decade, five years with no legal collection.

And no businesses doing that. Right, yeah. Legally. Legally. I appreciate that. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you. If there are no other questions or discussion, the chair recommends that Resolution 26-159 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda item number three for action, Resolution 26-160. This resolution urges the Hawaii State Legislature to enact legislation that prohibits the harvest of aquatic life from state of Hawaii marine waters for commercial aquarium purposes. As previously discussed, the Department of Land and Natural Resources is proposing new administrative rules to resume issuing commercial aquarium fishing permits in West Hawaii, and the environmental impact statement process for Oahu commercial aquarium fishing permits is restarting. Multiple organizations supported various bills during the 2026 legislative session that proposed to curtail or ban the commercial harvesting of aquarium fish, including the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Earthjustice, the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club of Hawaii, the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, and For the Fishes. No final action was taken on any of the proposed bills. On January 23rd, 2026, the Hawaii County Council adopted resolution 422-25, urging the state legislature to prohibit the harvest of aquatic life from state marine waters for commercial aquarium purposes. On March 6th, the Maui County Council passed a similar measure, And on July 8th, the Kauai County Council adopted its own resolution, which calls on the state legislature to end commercial crayonfish collection in state waters. The city and county of Honolulu is the only county that has not yet passed such a measure. Council Members Weyer and Dos Santos Tam, as co-introducers of this resolution, do you have any further comments?

Council Member Weyer. Just briefly, Chair. I think it is important to stand in solidarity with all the counties on such an important policy issue. And just from the discussion today, I won't have any discussion later, but just wanted to note, given that the closure has been in effect, I think it is important to be mindful that we're not killing any existing businesses or jobs and really understanding the stress that our reefs are under. just from bleaching and overheating our heat waves and disease and invasive species. I think this really is action within our control in terms of a policy making body. And then of course we're encouraging the legislature to take further action to ensure that we have a thriving marine ecosystem that supports cultural activities, the food resources that we need. And of course I think we owe it to our youth in particular the next generation in protecting these resources. So mahalo for your leadership as well, Chair.

Thank you so much. And thank you for both yourself as well as Council Member Dos Santos-Tam for introducing this measure. Before I call up the administration, I would like to take public testimony. Proceeding first with in-person testimony. Clerks, do we have any in-person testifiers? Chair, we have a few standing by. The first testifier is Drew Hara.

Hello again, Chair, and happy birthday. Sorry, I didn't mention that my first two times at the podium. Drew Hara with Earth Justice, again, in strong support of this measure. And I'll stand largely on my prior testimony and the written testimony that we submitted, but I do wanna just touch on three things really quickly. One, in some testimony on the prior resolution, there was a question about the constitutionality of this resolution or a bill. There's no constitutional issue here. The Circuit Court has, affirmatively stated, declared that the state has the authority to ban commercial aquarium collections statewide and further that such a ban would actually be consistent with our bedrock environmental constitutional protections. The second thing that I would say is just bring your attention to that there was a legislative bill that made it through in this year's session. It made it all the way to conference. And then as many bills do, just sort of died with a whimper in conference committee without a hearing. But there was plenty of support. And finally, as it pertains to Oahu, I think this resolution is really important. During that brief interim period when we saw collection close in West Hawaii, but before the prohibition went into effect statewide, there was a concentration of collection on Oahu specifically that really hit our Oahu marine resources, particularly in the Ko'olapoko area, but across the island. Mahalo.

Exactly. Including Kaneohe Bay, okay? That's why I'm doing this. Can I ask you a question with regard to, so post legislative session, you know, all of the counties will be on record. Do you think we have a good shot in the upcoming legislative session?

I certainly hope so. I think having all of the counties on board as well as the number of neighborhood boards and smaller bodies that have come together, as other testifiers have mentioned, there's overwhelming public support and sentiment in support of a ban. And contrary to what some of the opposition has said, there's also lots of scientific background and support as well.

Sure. Well, first things first, we need to get this out of this committee and to the full council before the Board of Land and Natural Resources considers any rule. And I hope collectively we can all be there standing in unity.

Absolutely, Chair. And just before it even gets to the legislature, to your point, the board will have opportunity to address this should the prior measure pass. Yes. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Gail.

Aloha again, Chair, and thank you, and council members. I'm not going to repeat my testimony. You have another constituent that's in support of this that you may not know about. It's the United Nations. You guys may know that Hawaii has one of 32 United Nations Sustainability Training Centers right here in Honolulu. It's housed at Chaminade University, but we work throughout the state. The Sustainable Development Goals, there's 17 of them, and number 14 is Life Below Water. Each of the goals have targets that the United Nations try to achieve. You are helping to achieve those if you support this resolution because each of them have targets. And Target 14.2 says that one of the targets is to sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, which this will help by keeping the fish that protect the reef on the reef that are not food fish, and this includes strengthening the resilience of the reef and taking action for their restoration. The science is there. This is also, of course, a very moral argument. The business opportunities are there, and I forgot to say I'm the executive director of Seafall Honolulu, so I am steeped in UN, and I will report this at our meeting each month, and I will say, if it's passed, that both resolutions were passed by the Honolulu City Council, and they'll be very happy to. so you have a far reach today. Okay. Thank you.

Terrific. Well, make sure that they are on record at BLNR and the State Legislature, okay? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. The next testifier is Layna Ala. Lay.

Mahalo, Chair. I'll also stand on my prior testimony, and I do want to emphasize same as Council Member Weyer and the previous testifier, that this is a status quo. There's urgency because of the proposed reopening, but this has been the status quo for the past five to 10 years, depending on what island. So there are no immediately affected businesses. We are simply making sure that we can continue to protect our resources. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to testify on this item? Yes.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Mahesh Cleveland. I'm also with Earth Justice. I just wanted to add a couple points. We heard people talk about animal rights activists and billionaires, and frankly, if there were billionaires opposing a commercial aquarium collection, I haven't heard about them yet, and I've been working on this for about 10 years. I also wanted to point out that our client, Hui, has included folks from Mule Lee and other parts of Hawaii Island. I mean, we're talking... old school traditional Hawaiian fishers who want to protect this resource for future generations. Also here on Oahu, our folks out in Koolaukoko have spoken strongly against commercial aquarium collection. So I just wanted to point that out. This is a community driven effort. There have been NGOs involved, but this is largely community driven. And in fact, polls taken on Hawaii Island and on Oahu have shown that almost 90% of people strongly oppose commercial aquarium collection. So I just wanted to add those points. Thank you very much.

Absolutely. Thank you. And I just wanted to make a point that When we introduce or co-sponsor measures, we do that of our own free will. I don't know of anybody in this body who just introduces measures because somebody tells them to do so. They have to personally align with the belief of what they're being asked. I just wanted to make that clear that there are a lot of individual legislators and council members throughout the state who believe that as well. If there's no one else in person would like to testify, we're going to go to remote testimony. Clerks, do we have any remote testifiers? Chair, we have a few standing by. The first that we have listed is Ron Tubbs.

Aloha, Chair. Aloha, City Council members. Yes, one very important topic that you guys need to understand legally The state of Hawaii was the first state to require any ocean use permits to require an environmental review. It continues to be the only state in the United States to do so. Based on misinformation given to the courts, fought diligently by the state of Hawaii to protect other fish, to protect other ocean use permits. Currently, the Kanapali and the CML lawsuits are in play. Your decision today will impact those. We are looking at the closure of all ocean use permits if a lawsuit is filed. By law, they are required to do an environmental review. Let's see them for 10 years and $600,000 do an environmental review. You are exempting the most impactful ocean use permits to the environment while picking on the only one that's been proven to be sustainable. The misinformation given by the Earth justice lawyers is significantly going to affect this state. I warn you guys, it's coming. And your decision today will impact that.

Thank you. The next testifier is Glen Choi.

Chair, testifier is not logged on. Topher Dean.

Hi, Topher.

Hi. I don't know if you can

Topher, you're going in and out. We can't hear you. You need to unmute your button. Topher, can you? Yes. Yeah, there you go.

Okay, now we can hear you. All right. I don't know if you can see.

Yes, we can see you.

Can you see out the window?

You're making us dizzy, but we can see you.

I'm in New York City right now. I'm in New York City right now, and it's basically inundated with smoke from the fires in Canada. The world is literally on fire right now. And I'm just, I know that your guys' hearts are in the right place and you are going to do the right thing on this site. I know because we need all hands on deck right now. And I would just say that being an activist is not a pejorative. I am an activist and I'm proud of it. I do a lot of research. I read a lot of scientific journals about a lot of different issues that I care deeply about. And so I would encourage the Council to pass both of these measures. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Tilfer. The next is Lisa Bishop. Is Lisa online? Yes, Chair.

Yes, aloha again, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm Lisa Bishop with Friends of Honolulu Bay.

You have to unmute, Lisa.

Okay, great. Lisa Bishop with Friends of Hanama Bay in strong support. As you heard, in 2023, BLNR unanimously passed a strongly supported community-led proposal to permanently ban commercial aquarium collection, but nothing happened. In April 2026, the Hawaii Environmental Court ruled that DLNR has the legal authority to enact a complete statewide ban on commercial aquarium collection. Instead, DLNR has allowed DAR to begin a process to reopen West Hawaii to the aquarium collection trade, which has triggered a process to reopen the industry on Oahu, which decimated our herbivore population before. 84% of O'ahu residents do not want the aquarium trade reopened, so we urge the Honolulu City Council to support O'ahu residents who have spoken clearly on this issue. Please support Resolution 26160 and join Hawaii Island, Maui, and Kauai, urging our state legislature to ban the aquarium trade statewide. Mahalo.

Thank you so much, Lisa. The next testifier is Jill Zamzow. Is Jill online? Yes, Chair. Hi, Jill.

Can you hear me? Hi. I stand on my former testimony. The only thing that I would add is that I've heard people saying the data says this, the data says that. I'm the one with the half million rows of data that I have been crunching for the last year about aquarium fish. So if anybody wants that, I'm willing to provide it. Yes, especially around Oahu. Fish populations going down some locations south of Kauai High to the westernmost point there. Those places are in trouble. It's all in my written testimony. Feel free to reach out and I'm happy to provide numbers. I'm a numbers person. I'm not the one hugging the aquarium fish. I am the numbers person.

Thank you, Jill. And we will make sure to look at the data. we will make sure to look at the data that you have provided, okay? Thank you. The next- Okay, appreciate you. The next testifier is Renee Umberger. Clerk, is Renee on?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, aloha, thank you, Chair. Vice Chair and committee members, first and foremost, I want to, it's Renee Hamburger for the Fishers. I want to thank you so much for introducing these resolutions. And really, I just want to stand on my prior testimony and my written testimony and let other people have more time. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Renee.

The next is Deja Ostrowski. Chair Dezafer is not logged on. What about Dre Khalili?

Not logged on. Elena Bryant. Online.

Aloha. Ilana Bryant testifying in strong support of this resolution as well. There's one fact that should unite us all. Hawai'i's herbivore populations, and particularly Oahu's herbivore populations, are in critical decline. DAR agrees. Independent Scientist agrees. If we agree these populations are in crisis, the responsible course is to reduce unnecessary human pressure, not reopen a defunct commercial fishery that removes the very species our reefs depend on. This resolution is narrowly tailored. It applies only to commercial aquarium collection permits. It does not affect food fishing or other commercial fisheries. The only parties asking for environmental review of all ocean use permits are the collectors themselves. In a lawsuit they filed over a year ago and let languish for the sole purpose of being able to raise this sky is falling claim. Our reefs are telling us they need relief. I also sit on the Kaneohe Bay Regional Council and the Kaneohe Neighborhood Board. And after the closure of the trade in 2017, collectors were collecting through a loophole. And in 2019 and 2020, collection pressure was targeted in Kaneohe Bay. Collection rates drastically increased, and our windward Oahu communities from Ko'olaloa to Waimanalo took swift action to call for a ban on this extractive and destructive trade. I respectfully urge you to support this resolution and stand on the side of precaution, science, and the long-term health of Hawaii's coral reefs.

Mahalo. Thank you, Elena. I did have a question for you. so you talked about the commercial collection so if a local family i wanted to collect some fish for their home aquarium they would be allowed still yet correct yes this is only for commercial collection thank you for this yeah thank you for that clarification uh the next testifier is kimiona kane

I'm Kimiona. I'm a loko'i'a practitioner. I serve our oceans and our Waimanalo community. And, you know, while we might not be talking about the interconnectedness in layman's terms, I just want to highlight that, that the reef fish that we're talking about do have a kuleana to all the other species that we are subsistently fishing as well. So it's an important relationship that has to be acknowledged as well. So mahalo nui for that. And in addition, again, my kuleana as the chair of the Waimanalo Neighborhood Board allows me the privilege to bring that voice here in support of this measure as well, and to support our larger collective of folks that want to see this particular practice ended.

mahalo for the time and open to any questions if needed thank you for taking your time to be here today is there any is there any other uh any other testifier standing by online who would like to testify please raise your hand or press the star nine button Okay, if not, let me see if there's anyone in the administration who would like to speak. If not, we are in discussion. Councilmember DeSantis-Tam.

Thank you, Chair. I really appreciate your leadership in putting forward these two resolutions and really the strategy of both going to BLNR and to the state legislature because we really do need to escalate this and join with the neighbor island counties. Back in 2021, as chair of the Democratic Party, at the time I wrote an op-ed in the Star Advertiser with Jessica Woolley, who's been very vocal on this issue. And so this is something that, you know, I really care about. You know, I see the fish at Honolulu Harbor. If you ever poke your head over the wall there, you can see these beautiful reef fish there. I mean, it would just really be such a shame if our reef fish continued to be poached and sent elsewhere. They deserve to be here for everyone to enjoy.

Thank you so much. Any members have any questions? I also appreciate any of the members whose attire is the color of the ocean or has fishes on your attire. Thank you very much. It was quite noticed, so greatly appreciate it. If there's no further discussion, the chair recommends that resolution 26-160 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. And thank you so much for all of the stakeholders who have come here today. We hope to be seeing you as we move forward at full console, as well as to, you know, follow up with the roles that we need to play both with regard to BLNR and the state legislature. Thank you so much. Moving to agenda item number four for action. Resolution 26-165, this resolution grants a special management area major permit to Starfish Infrastructure Inc. and Humuhumu Services LLC to allow for the cable landing of three new trans-Pacific subsea fiber optic telecommunication cables and installation of six cable landing pipes via horizontal directional drilling within Barbers Point Beach Park and the shoreline setback By the way, thank you, both of you, for being here today and for your introduction of the measure. As I said, within Barbers Point Beach Park and the shoreline setback on an approximately 7.39-acre shoreline lot zone P2, General Preservation District, located at 91121 Ola'i Street in Kapolei, Oahu. We have distributed a hand-carried CD1 version of the resolution, OCS 2026455. For your information, a summary of the amendment is attached to the CD1. I will be discussing the amendments a little later. Except for still beach manhole covers which are flushed to the ground, the horizontal directional drilling involves no surface disruption of land. The boring will begin approximately three feet deep at a temporary staging area in the park, continue toward the shoreline at approximately 30 feet below the surface, and continue seaward to a depth of approximately 100 feet below the ocean floor, exiting at punch-out points approximately 4,300 to 5,300 feet offshore in ocean waters at a depth of 50 to 75 feet. The park parcel is the only zoning lot affected by the project within the shoreline management area. When the subsea cable leaves the park site in an inland direction, it will continue underground within existing public road rights of way for approximately 5.3 miles to a cable landing station located on the University of Hawaii West O'ahu campus. And September 2025, the Department of Land and Natural Resources issued a finding of no significant impact on the project's environmental assessment. In October 2025, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a verification letter that the project is authorized under nationwide permit 57, which is required because project activities involve navigable waters of the United States. In April 2026, the project obtained Board of Land and Natural Resources approval of a conservation district use application, since a majority of the project involves submerged lands within the state land use conservation district. The project represents the applicant's contribution to the Hawaii Connect CoCo Initiative, which is a state program to ensure communities within the state have reliable and affordable access to high-speed internet service. The resolution includes conditions of approval relating to minimizing impacts to archaeological, historic, and cultural resources, protection of endangered, threatened, or protected species, minimizing the spread of invasive species, and requiring the applicant to obtain a shoreline setback variance. In addition to copies of the project's architectural reconnaissance level survey and archeological inventory survey, the proposed hand-carried CD1 requires the applicant to submit to the Department of Planning and Permitting a copy of the State Historic Preservation Division's written acceptance of the project's archeological monitoring plan. which was recommended in the Archaeological Inventory Survey. The proposed CD1 also includes a standard condition requiring project-related activities to stop if a Hawaiian monk seal, green sea turtle or hawksbill sea turtle is present to land within 150 feet of the work area and requires the removal from the work area of any project-related debris that may pose an entanglement threat to monk seals or sea turtles. Both of these proposed CD1 amendments were discussed in the Department of Planning and Permitting's report, but were inadvertently not included in the resolution. Joining us in the council chamber is Jojo Acebo from Google LLC, who will be providing a brief presentation. For your information, the presentation is available online as Miscellaneous Communication 313-2026. Good morning.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, AND THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR RECEIVING OUR PROJECT HERE. AND MY NAME IS JOJO ACEBO. I'M THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT HUMUHUMU SERVICES AS WELL AS STARFISH INFRASTRUCTURE. ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO THANK CCHDPP DIRECTOR DON AND HER STAFF STEVE AND for endorsing this report and the proposed resolution. I'm here to provide the summary of the proposed project and development in this SMA. Apologies.

Jojo, since we all have copies as well, so if you could keep your presentation to less than five minutes, please.

Yes, definitely. So let's jump in directly to the proposed, the purpose of the project and public benefit. That will be slide three. As you can see in the diagram there, the proposed project is part of the Pacific Connect, wherein we will be building a, how do you do that? We will be building a mesh fiber network infrastructure within the Pacific, connecting Americas, Asia, and of course, the Pacific Islands. The primary benefit here is to make sure that we have a resilient and diverse fiber infrastructure within the Pacific. Further, this will heavily complement the proposed Connect Kakao, as the Chair has mentioned earlier, wherein the international connectivity for this inter-island fiber will be connected to our infrastructure. Zooming in on the proposed development in Oahu, where we will be building an infrastructure that can support six cables and an inland infrastructure of duct system underground that will extend to the proposed telecommunication facility in the University of Hawaii, West Oahu campus. The proposed development right now will initially receive three cables next year. Zooming in on the SMA as well as the shoreline setback area, the proposed development there will include the six pipes. facing seaward and punching out around 14,000 feet to 5,000 feet in seabed, wherein the development there will be using a HDD technology to ensure that we will minimize any disturbance in the project area. Further, we will be having a beach manhole infrastructure to receive the cables, as well as OGB for the grounding of the cable. During the activity, the shoreline access will be maintained. We will ensure that we will avoid and minimize any impact during the construction and best manage practice as well as permit compliance will be adhered to. Cultural and archeological resources will be addressed through our SHIFTI coordination and making sure that we comply with applicable or provided mitigation plans with SHIFTI. The current permit status, which the chair has already summarized here, shows that we already obtained most of the state permitting. The only thing that I want to highlight here is that we are now in the process of expecting our AIS concurrence in the next few weeks. Also, we are in the process of submitting our archaeological monitoring plan this week. Further, we are in engagement with the city for the easement agreement on the use of the property for this development. And of course, the proposed community benefit package for the beautification of the park after we have done our construction. Lastly here, we just want to show where we are right now. We're anticipating all the permits will be received in time. We are targeting to start our construction by September or October this year, and looking forward for the first international subsea cable to be landed first half of next year. That is all for our presentation, and happy birthday, Chair.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Jojo. You know, I'm looking at your map. So first of all, you know, I appreciate the fact that apart from just trying to help strengthen capacity here in Hawaii, I do appreciate the bigger picture outreach throughout the Pacific. uh especially uh to both um french polynesia fiji guam in the marianas and and um and australia and japan i i think it's necessary because there are other others out there but i think that your capacity might even help to bring us all together and strengthen the region can i ask uh will you be contemplating um Also, maybe outreaching to Melanesia? Because they're the only ones left out, right? Because you've touched Polynesia and Micronesia, but what about Melanesia?

I have to double-check. There's a number of branch in smaller islands in the Pacific. I'll take that one and make sure.

Yeah, could you? And the reason is, you know, in Oceania, we all like to look after each other. So Oceania includes the three Nesias, right? And I feel like in Melanesia, they're often overlooked. They have great challenges socially and economically, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands. So we like to all look after each other. So when we talk about strengthening our capacity in the region with regard to connectivity, we need to ensure our brothers and sisters out there are not forgotten. So just take a look. Okay, I have two other questions before I turn it over. Regarding the cables landing station at UH West O'ahu, I know it's outside of the special management area, but what is the, remind me, what is the floor area of the telecommunications facility?

The lease area for the development is four acres. The actual usable space, the building itself, is two acres.

Thank you so much. And with regard to what type of operations and equipment the telecommunications include. I'm interested in that. And as I may have mentioned, but I just want it on the record because there's a lot of concerns about mega data centers. So is the data center that will accommodate servers to process and store vast amounts to, is it a data center to store vast amounts of digital data?

No, the facility is mainly a telecommunication facility focusing on transport for the subsea cable.

Yes, so there's no long-term planning of ever having a big data center there, correct?

No, the facility is just two acres. It cannot support such heavy data centers.

Okay, just want to make sure. Okay, members, any questions?

Yes, Council Member Cadero. Thank you, Chair Kia-Aina. Thank you for your presentation. I was just wondering about the temporary construction staging area. Normally, we see that it's buffered by the fencing, which is also going to be constructed, but I was wondering why we are constructing as opposed to just creating that buffer point.

Yes. Our infrastructure will start at the back of the park. That is intentional so that we will not be intrusive on the parking as well as the facility there and access by the public to the beach itself.

Okay. Thank you for that explanation. I really appreciate it. Anything the project that you've presented, it was very specific, including with all the information in the actual application. So that was very helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Members, any other questions for? Okay. Thank you so much. For the administration?

Good morning and happy birthday, Chair. Donna Puna, DPP. We're supportive of the resolution and I have staff here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Members, any questions? Vice Chair Waters.

Thank you so much. As Jojo mentioned, there's currently negotiations with the city for a community benefit package. Who negotiates that on behalf of the city?

I'll answer that one. So for the package, we are engaging with the budget and fiscal services, wherein we have gone through proper assessment of the involved use of the property.

I see.

And we are also in the process of endorsing the project through the Budget Committee next month.

Oh, okay. So we'll have a chance to talk to Budget and Fiscal Services when it comes to the Budget Committee. I'm just curious where the money goes, what we can use it for. I know there's a benefit package for the community park and that area, which is great. But okay, so we can talk about it at a later time. Thank you so much. Appreciate you guys being here today. Thank you, Chair.

Members, any other questions or discussion on this matter? If not, the chair recommends that resolution 26-165 be amended to the hand-carried CD1. Oh, I'm sorry. I haven't asked for testimony. Is there anyone, clerks, are there any in-person or remote testifiers?

Chair, we have one standing by remotely.

Remotely. Yes, I see. Kimiwana Kane, please proceed.

Mahalo, Chair, mahalo, members, and mahalo to the presenter. I just—Kimeona kane of Waimanalo. I want to share two comments that refer to the process of archaeological monitoring. In our community of Waimanalo, we are really striving to ensure that archaeological monitoring includes a cultural monitor, not just an archaeologist, but somebody who can be onsite preferably from the community. While it might not be mandated by law at this point in time, it is a very, very beautiful relationship of creation that we think and are striving for, is—think is important in these kinds of works. The other is also to note that, just on record, that while we have archaeological monitoring taking place, that there is a risk to iwi kupuna and the various things. And so I wanted to complement the the Council for all the different processes and layers of processes that have been created to ensure that we treat our iwi kupuna and our cultural and natural resources with the highest degree of care. And so I was really appreciative of seeing all of those written out as whereases, and I just wanted to complement the effort to ensure that while we are striving to build better communities, that these things are still recommended to be at the highest level of calibre. So thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Kimiona. Members, do you have any questions for Kimiona? And duly noted, Kimiona, so we will talk with the applicant. If there are no, there's no further questions or discussion, The Chair recommends that Resolution 26-165 be amended to the hand-carried CD1, OCS 2026-455. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the resolution has been amended to a CD1. The Chair then recommends that Resolution 26-165 CD1 be reported out for adoption. any discussion any objections or reservations hearing none so ordered mahalo everyone for being here today there being no further business this meeting is adjourned