Zoning & Planning - Regular Meeting

music music

Aloha and good morning, everyone. It's Thursday, August 27th, 2026, and the time is 9.02 a.m. Will the Committee on Zoning and Planning meeting please come to order? I would like to welcome the following committee members, Council Member Cordero, Council Member Okimoto, Council Member Topola. I understand Vice Chair Waters will be here shortly. Although remote verbal testimony is being permitted, this is a regular in-person meeting and not a remote meeting by Interactive Conference Technology under HR section 92-3.7. Therefore, the meeting will continue notwithstanding loss of audio-visual communication with remote testifiers or loss of the public broadcast at the meeting. Members of the public will be allowed to provide verbal testimony on 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 phones for the duration of this meeting. Thank you. Welcome, Vice Chair Waters. If anybody is having conversations in the audience, I would appreciate you going outside into the hallway. Thank you. Moving to agenda item number 1, extension of time only. Members, the first term on our agenda is to approve an extension of time only for Resolution 26-171. Verbal testimony will be limited to comments on the extension of time only, and we will not be discussing the substantive provisions of the resolution at today's meeting. Resolution 26-171. This resolution approves the conceptual plan for the 1588 Ala Moana Interim Plan Development Transit Project, which is mixed use development proposed by BSC Acquisitions, two LLC that includes hotel residential and commercial uses on a 187,174 square foot portion of 2,713,46 square feet of land consisting of 11 jointly developing zoning lots that comprise Ala Moana center and its associated private roads zone BMX three community business mix zone use district and within the Ala Moana Neighborhood Transit Orient Development Plan area. I will be recommending a 90-day extension of the deadline for Council action on this resolution to give the Committee more time to consider the measure. For your information, the written request for a 90-day extension of time is available online as Miscellaneous Communication 344-2026. 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 else in the council chamber who would like to testify on this item? Please come forward to the testifier podium and begin by stating your name.

Aloha, Chair, Council Members. My name is Ben Sadowski. I'm with Unite Here Local 5, and I'm just testifying in support of extending the time to consider this application. I think it's important for us all to have more time to look at this and to give the developer a chance to talk further with the community and hopefully deal with some of the concerns that folks have. So thank you very much for considering this.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Clerks, do we have any remote testifiers?

Chair, there are none.

For the administration?

Good morning, Chair Kea-Aina and committee members. I'm Elizabeth Krieger, the Land Use Permits Division Chief for the Department of Planning and Permitting, and we support the extension of time for this measure.

Thank you. Members, any questions for DPP? Seeing no questions, is there any discussion before I make my recommendation? Seeing none, the Chair notes that the time needed to consider Resolution 26-171 may exceed the current deadline for Council action. The Chair therefore recommends that the resolution be granted a 90-day extension of time pursuant to a request from the applicant's agent in Miscellaneous Communication 344-2026. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda item number two for action, resolution 26-150. This resolution directs the director of the Department of Planning and Permitting to process a council-initiated amendment to the land use ordinance, ROH Chapter 21, relating to large detached dwellings. Amendments to the land use ordinance proposed by the Council are processed by the Department of Planning and Permitting and reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Department's report and Commission's recommendations are then transmitted to the Council for action on the proposal. I will now defer to the introducer of the resolution, Council Chair Waters, for an explanation.

Thank you so much for having this on the agenda today. We talked about this a lot about monster homes, especially in District 4. And I introduced this measure because the size and bulk of monster homes continue to be a concern in residential neighborhoods in my district. So what happens is when they build these monster homes, they'll include these huge garages, three, four car garages, sometimes even more. And it's not included in calculating the FAR. So what this does, it says, okay, we'll give you a good size garage, 400 square feet. And that is not included in calculating the FAR. But anything beyond that has to be included. And what we know too, these guys, they'll build a garage, get the certificate of occupancy, and then turn the garage into a bedroom. And we don't want that either. But quick way to do it is, all right, you get two car garage, right? 400 square feet. And anything more is calculated in FAR because we passed this a few years ago. where if you have a certain FAR, you have to have a larger setback, right? So people are getting around that by building large garages. So anyway, this fixes that problem. So thank you so much for having me on today.

I thank you for taking the issue on. 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, there are none.

Are there any remote testifiers?

Chair, there are none.

Sure, can I call up the administration?

Good morning again, Elizabeth Krieger from the Department of Planning and Permitting. We've reviewed this resolution. We sent the letter explaining some of our concerns. If the resolution gets passed, we will review it during the time allotted under ROH Chapter 2, and then we'll return that report and recommendation through the Planning Commission back to the City Council. Thank you.

Any questions for the director? I mean for the DPP? Seeing none, any discussion before I make my recommendation? The chair recommends that Resolution 26-150 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none.

Just reservations. Yes. Thank you.

I'm sorry. Reservations. Oh, with reservations. Okay. So noting the reservations of Councilmember Okamoto, it is so ordered. Moving to agenda item number three for action resolution 26-188. This resolution directs the Department of Planning and Permitting and the Planning Commission to process a council-initiated zone change for a portion of the former Cullahill Elementary School property which is a city-owned 10.038-acre vacant parcel located on Ileana Street in Kailua, so an R7.5 residential district and P1 restricted preservation district and identified as tax map key 44033018. By way of background, by adoption of Resolution 24-151 , the Council authorized conveyance of the property except for portions to be designated as roadways over which the City would retain its ownership to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Homelands to provide Native Hawaiians with single-family homesteads. The DHHL was required to conduct due diligence prior to conveyance of the property to determine the suitability of the site for proposed development, including the preparation of a preliminary engineering report detailing topography, soil conditions and other pertinent information. By Miscellaneous Communication 318-2026, the DHHL declined to accept conveyance of the property, indicating that after careful consideration and due diligence, it was determined that the extremely expansive soil conditions of the property make it unsuitable for homestead development. And as many of you know, this is a project that I was very excited about because I do believe in trying to create homestead opportunities all over the state of Hawaii and on Oahu. But having said that, if the soil conditions at the property are problematic for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to develop the property with homesteads for its native Hawaiian beneficiaries, to me it is logical that it would be problematic for the city and any developer to develop the property with residential housing. Therefore, the resolution directs the Director of Planning and Permitting and the Planning Commission to process a zone change bill which is attached to resolution as an exhibit to down zone the portion of the property that is zone R7.5 residential district to the P2 general preservation district. The small portion of the property that is zone P1 restricted preservation district will remain in the P1 district. After the rezone of the property, the types of land uses permitted in the P2 general preservation district include aquaculture, crop raising, forestry, minor animal raising, minor composting, public facility, park utilities, and nature-based recreation. I would also just like to add for my colleagues and those who've been following this issue is that it would have been very easy for me to do nothing. And I don't believe that that should be an option because this has been of concern to the community for a while. I felt that with new technology, there needed to be a updated assessment to see whether or not it was feasible. And so I would hate for this city council and the current administration to kick the can down the road and have another council member be in this situation years down the road. So before I call up the administration, I would like to take public testimony. Proceeding first with in-person testifiers. Clerks, do we have any in-person testifiers? Chair, there are none. Is there anyone in the council chamber who would like to testify? Please come forward to the podium and begin by stating your name.

Hey, good morning, Chair. My name is David Pound and I've been a 23 year resident of the Kalaheo Hillside and I'm speaking today on behalf of myself and also many members of the Kalaheo Hillside community in a local Hui that we have established. I want to say first and upfront that we support Resolution 26188 and I want to very much thank the chair for moving expeditiously and quickly on this to bring this to the committee. We want to say that our community has raised significant concerns about this hillside and the expansive soil conditions over the last two decades. So we're very happy to see this has moved to where it is. Despite all that, we also understand that P2 zoning is not enough and it has some potential concerns with it. Preservation zoning still permits certain development, including public facilities, some with no hearing or no notice provided to the adjacent community and on the ground that the geotechnical survey clearly has stated is not supportive of that. On this agenda, for instance, bills 42 and 43 carry binding conditions and we respectfully ask that this zoning carry binding conditions also limiting the parcel of passive open space zoning. Our written testimony provides the details. Finally, we respectfully ask that the geotechnical and preliminary engineering reports be released placed into the record and provided to the community as was assured us back in 2024. Chair, I thank you very much for your time and your commitment to this effort.

Thank you so much. Members, do anybody have any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to testify? Clerks, do we have any online testifiers?

Chair, there are none.

For the administration,

Good morning, Chair Kia-Aina, Chair Waters, members of the committee. My name is Dina Wong. I'm the Division Chief for GPP's Planning Division, and we are in receipt of Resolution 26-188, and we will be transmitting our letter acknowledging receipt and if we have any items or questions that we will need information on.

So thank you. Sure, thank you. I do have a question. What type of process is involved should this measure move forward and the Planning Commission and DPP send it back to us for down zoning? What type of process is involved at the city?

It's the same process.

No, I haven't finished my question. Apologies. Sorry. What type of process is involved at the city, a lessee of the property or the new owner if the city sells the property, seeks to pursue one of the land uses that are allowed in the P2 district that I previously delineated.

Okay, the process for the zone change will be the standard process. It will go to Planning Commission and then be transmitted to the City Council for three readings and adoption by ordinance. Um, the unilateral agreement with conditions is it runs with the land it's binding. It goes from owner to owner. So whoever, if the city were to sell it, it would be the conditions will be upon the new owner.

And for the unilateral agreement, can that be determined later? Or would that have to be part of this resolution?

The director's report will contain recommendations on conditions. The planning commission could add conditions, could make comments on it, and then of course the council has the final say.

So based on Mr. Pound's testimony, there will be ample opportunity throughout this process of down zoning for the public to be able to make recommendations as conditions for the unilateral agreement. Is that correct?

Yes, we will send out a request for comments. The general public can certainly write in.

Okay, and going back to my original question, I actually wasn't talking about the process of this resolution. I was talking about a process in the event that it was already down zone and I wanted to just understand the process whether you, a lessee, or a new owner of the property should the city sell it to someone, what would they do to have to achieve any of the delineated uses that I mentioned earlier for P2? That's what I want to know.

They will be allowed to do what's permitted in that zoning district and they would have to abide by whatever conditions are

Yes, but please be more specific. I'm asking about the application process. Sometimes you have to have a conditional use permit, right? Do they just have an application to you and

Aloha Chair and committee members, Elizabeth Krieger. The land use permits division would take over from that point if the proposed use required a conditional use permit. For example, nature-based recreation would require a conditional use permit. We would have to review any unilateral agreement conditions that were placed on the site before any conditional use permit could be approved. And the conditional use permit would fully evaluate what the proposal was and whether it met the criteria for approval. And the criteria for approval include evaluations of impacts to the surrounding community and benefits to the immediate neighborhood and the greater community.

Okay, and who is the initial trigger for the unilateral agreement, for the parameters of the unilateral agreement?

That would happen during the zone change. Yes, but I need a body. Is it DPP? Is it the Planning Commission? Who? The City Council adopts the unilateral agreement as part of the ordinance that changes the zoning map.

And since you guys are the owner, you guys are going to trigger that. I guess I'm trying to find out who's going to trigger that.

Who develops the unilateral agreement? Because the city is the owner of the property right now.

Yes.

I think that during the, I mean, this I could hand back to Dina, but during the zone change evaluation, they would determine what was appropriate.

Yeah. That's all. I mean, because we want to know who. I think all of us want to know who, because it's not going to be us on our own, the city council.

When we do our evaluation, we take into account agency comments, comments from the community, and we'll put forth recommended conditions in the director's report. OK. Planning Commission also is time for the public to weigh in. They can add in, recommend deletion of conditions, and then ultimately It goes before this committee.

Okay, and then so the skeletal structure that comprises the unilateral agreement will look in and take into account all of the comments by the the Planning Commission Yourselves as well as the public. Yeah, but you would make recommendations by the time it gets to Council Okay. Okay. I got it members Any other questions?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Who is the adjoining property owner, the P2 adjoining property owner?

I'm sorry, I don't have an answer to that. Alexander and Baldwin. Mocha of it. Yeah mocha and then they have the church in one time and actually I know a mr.

Pound is on the other side right and there's several landowners Makai I see I mean we just sold land yesterday or approved the selling of land in Isla committee yesterday in my mind the only Person or group that would be interested in purchasing this down the line would be the joining landowner right so It's your district.

Yes, and there are several, right? So you have the property like this, and then you have A and B, you have Mr. Pound, you have the church, and then you have several landowners on this site.

Right, right. So I guess it makes sense to put in some sort of...

I do know that there has been an expressed interest by agents of certain landowners to purchase easements. borderlining their properties so that they could help in taking care. You know, everyone's always worried about a wildfire risk. And so that's something that I'm sure will come out during the future hearings. Any other questions by the members? The chair then recommends that resolution 26-188 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda item number four, resolution 26-168. This resolution grants a special management area major permit to Chu Xin and Sun Ai Xin to allow for the construction of a new two-story commercial building that includes a caretaker unit, a parking lot, and associated improvements on a 19,737 square foot non-shoreline loan zone B1 neighborhood business district located at 87-1818 Farrington Highway in Nanakuli. We have posted on the agenda a CD1 version of the resolution. For your information, a summary of the amendments is listed on the agenda. I would like to propose a verbal amendment to Condition B of the CD1 version of the resolution relating to traffic impact to amend Condition B2 to read as follows. Prior to the issuance of any demolition permits or building permits for major construction work, the applicant shall submit to the DPP Traffic Review Branch for its review and approval. a construction management plan that address potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood during project construction, including impacts from construction vehicles and construction related activities, and an updated traffic assessment report that reflects the current project scope and existing traffic operations. The caretaker unit is an accessory use that is allowed in the B1 district. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, but was previously used for a gas station. No hazardous materials from the gas station use are known to exist on the site, and the State Department of Health database on Hawaii underground storage tanks indicate that the site's four gas tanks were closed and removed in September 1990. In March 2026, the Department of Planning and Permitting issued a finding of no significant impact on the project's environmental assessment. Kealapona Archaeological Consulting prepared a literature review and field inspection and ka'apa'akai analysis for the project site. No historic resources, cultural practices, or cultural resources have been identified within this project site. Special management area major permits are designed to protect coastal resources. So when the council is considering approval and estimate major permit, the area of consideration is focused on this primary purpose and whether the project application meets the policies and objectives of applicable laws related to protecting coastal resources. Among the policies and objectives listed in the state coastal zone management laws is to manage development in the coastal zone and the proposed CD1 includes a condition addressing traffic impacts of the project. The project is not expected to significantly impact peak hour traffic operations. In response to requests from the State Department of Transportation, the applicant prepared avoidance and minimization measures related to traffic impacts, which were incorporated into the project's final environmental assessment. The proposed CD1 requires the applicant to implement these traffic impact avoidance and minimization measures. The applicant prepared a traffic assessment report as part of the March 2026 final environmental assessment. So the report is recent. However, the Department of Planning and Permitting Traffic Review Branch requested that the report be updated. So my proposed verbal amendment would add to this condition, would add this condition. The proposed CD1 also includes a condition requiring the applicant to submit a construction management plan prior to the issuance of any demolition permit or building permit for the project. which was recommended by the Department of Planning and Permitting. The project is a corner zoning lot at the intersection of Farrington Highway, which is a busy four-lane highway, and Mohehe Street, which is a narrow two-way street. Project access will be from Mohehe Street, but it appears there is an existing former access driveway from Farrington Highway. The condition is meant to mitigate possible safety hazards from heavy construction vehicles during project construction. Joining us in the chamber is Jim Hayes from Planning Solutions, Inc., who will be providing a brief presentation. For your information, the presentation is available online as Miscellaneous Communication 363-2026.

Thank you, Chair. Jim Hayes with Planning Solutions. We've prepared a environmental assessment for this project and then the SMA application. It's a small commercial building in Nanakuli located at the site exhibited here. it's zoned b1 is a small area of b1 zoning along farrington highway it's on the mauka side of the highway this aerial photograph illustrates that the site is undeveloped currently and it has been undeveloped since the gas station was removed in the early 90s there are Other across Mohehe Street, there are other commercial properties and they're developed with commercial enterprises similar to the one proposed on this site. This looks at the sea level rise exposure area related to the area. And as you can see, the sea level rise exposure area extends, uh, over Farrington highway, uh, but does not advance onto the subject site. The subject site is outside of the erosion hazard zones as well. This is a schematic of the proposed development. And as the chair mentioned, the Department of Transportation has required certain setbacks and conditions related to the development. And one of those is that there is a 15 foot setback from Farrington Highway. Normally there would only be a 10 foot setback, but because of the DOT's insistence that there be a 15 foot setback. We've incorporated that into the project. The existing traffic report was actually prepared in the year 2000, I believe. So it's a little dated. And so it's understandable that DOT would request an update of that report. And the applicant is currently working to have that report updated to comply with the condition. And I think the applicant won't have any issue complying with the oral condition.

update to the cd1 so we're in acceptance of those conditions available for any questions thank you i'll just ask one question before i turn it over with regard to the businesses or types of businesses do you have an idea of what the owner was thinking of putting in this building

I don't know exactly, but in similar developments on the west side, you often see small commercial enterprises on the ground floor and then things like small office uses on the second floor. You mentioned earlier that there's a caretakers unit on the second level. That's roughly the size of an ADU. So it's I think around 800 square feet. So it's not a large residential enterprise. But there was some concern raised at the neighborhood board related to illicit businesses occupying the premises. And having the caretakers unit there is one of the measures that the owner is employing to dissuade there from being illicit businesses in that development. And they're interested in input from the community. And one of the things we heard from the neighborhood board was that there was a need for a laundromat in the area. And so that's one of the enterprises that certainly would be entertained there.

Okay.

Any questions? Council Member Topolo. Thank you. Aloha, Mr. Hayes. Thanks for being here. Yeah, it's definitely sat foul for so long. I've never seen anything on this lot before. I lived in Hawaii 16 years, so I'm kind of excited that there's going to be movement. I think the owners have done a good job at really mitigating any type of illegal activity or camping, so that we really haven't had any problems. And there's a lot of homes down the street of Mohiihi. My first question is the inlet, the driveway, I believe, like kind of midway through the drawing, is that across the driveway from the other shopping center? Is that why that was chosen as the driveway to enter?

That's right, try to line it up. And also DOT doesn't wanna have a driveway off Farrington Highway. So the only opportunity for access is from Mohiihi Street.

No, it's good. I mean, just because sometimes cars pile up on that street. And so having the driveway as far down as you can is probably the best entrance location. And then along Farrington Highway, I don't understand like kind of the darker lines. What is that? I know it says the DOT setback, but the word like up is above it. Is that a wall?

There are along the Farrington Highway side, there is bicycle parking and there's also like an enclosure for a trash receptacle.

Oh, I see.

So those kind of, especially the trash receptacle, there's a LUO requirement that it be surrounded at least on three sides by a six foot high wall or some kind of buffering. That's what that is.

Yeah, I think the hardest part for any of the commercial businesses in that area, especially across the street, is that because the commercial businesses aren't facing Farrington, no one knows it's there. So we've kind of cycled in different tenants every year across the street at Miley Commercial. And they struggle. Some of them park their cars out towards the front of Farrington to put their signs up so you can kind of see it. I do think if it was something as useful as a laundromat, then that could be, I mean, the closest one we have is all the way down across Army Street in Waianae. So this could be, that could be good. So when you say a caretaker dwelling, what you mean is like a property manager? Is that what you mean? That's correct. Oh, interesting. I thought it was actually going to be caretaking, like for elderly people. So just one person on property.

I believe it's a one bedroom unit, but it could be a small family. It's just like a property manager, someone to watch over security, things like that.

Very interesting. I don't think one commercial building in my whole district has somebody living on site, but good luck to them. Stay up all night and make sure everything's safe. Thank you very much.

Any other questions? Clerks, do we have any in-person testifiers?

Chair, there are none.

Is there anyone who would like to testify? Is there any standing by online?

Chair, there are none.

Okay. We're in discussion. Members, any? Okay. So let's see. For the administration. Looking for.

Aloha chair and committee members. Elizabeth Krieger with the Land Use Permits Division of Department of Planning and Permitting. We support the CD1 as further verbally amended, and we thank you for that amendment.

Chair, just one point of discussion. Yes. Not for you, Ms. Krieger, thank you. Just for clarification, I don't mean to be stickler on this, but it's actually not in Nanakuli. So Mohehe Street is outside of Nanakuli Valley, which is called Lualuale. So I know everyone just likes to call everything in that area before you hit Wai'anae and Nanakuli, but technically you guys are in Lululele Valley. Thank you.

Okay, let's see. So any other questions before I make my recommendations? The Chair recommends that Resolution 26-168 be amended to the post at CD1, as further amended as we discussed to amend Condition B-2 to read as follows, prior to the issuance of any demolition permits or building permits for major construction work, The applicant shall submit to the DPP traffic review branch for its review and approval, a construction management plan that addresses potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood during project construction, including impacts from construction vehicles and construction related activities, and an updated traffic assessment report that reflects the current project scope and existing traffic operations. Any discussions, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the resolution has been amended to a CD1. The chair then recommends that resolution 26-168, CD1 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda items number five, six, and seven for action. Bills 37, 38, and 39, 2026. The next three bills relate to implementation of the East Kapolei Neighborhood Board Transit Oriented Development Plan, which was adopted by the council by resolution 20-222 CD1. The three skyline station areas in East Kapolei are Kualakai, Koneai, and Honouliuli. The transit-oriented development special district will be a single district along the skyline corridor. The Department of Planning and Permitting has been gradually adding TOD plan areas to the TOD special district. As TOD plan areas are added, the Department updates appropriate sections in the land use ordinance, including the TUD regulations that apply to projects within the TUD special district and initiates a rezone of the TUD plan area. Currently, the TUD special district includes three TUD plan areas, the Waipahu neighborhood TUD plan area, the IAL Pearl City neighborhood TUD plan area, and the airport TUD plan area. The three bills we are considering today relate to the East Kapolei TOD plan area. All three bills were reviewed by the Planning Commission, which was unanimously voted to approve the Director of Planning and Permitting's recommendations on the bills. We will be considering and taking testimony on three bills together, but we will be voting on each bill separately. The first bill is Bill 37-2026. This bill proposes a state land use district boundary amendment to the Schofield Barracks and Ewa Quadrangles to reclassify approximately 14.83.7 acres of land from the state land use agricultural district to the state land use urban district. I will refer to this area as the petition area. While this is a state land use district boundary amendment, HRS section 205-3.1 allows the county land use decision-making authority to determine district boundary amendments involving land areas of 15 acres or less, so long as the land is not located in the state land use conservation district and is not designated as important agricultural lands. The Oahu General Plan designates EVA as the location for a secondary urban center in the Kapolei area. The East Kapolei TOD Plan envisions compact mixed-use development surrounding the skyline stations, including residential and commercial uses, which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the State Land Use Urban District, and will allow for zoning districts that are consistent with these mixed uses. The petition area includes seven non-contiguous parcels, primarily within Farrington Highway and Kualakai Parkway. The petition area also includes a border water supply pump station and a former old Fort Weaver Road right-of-way alignment that provides utility access. Prior boundary amendments in the area reclassified approximately 1,300 acres in 1999. and approximately 1,526 acres in 2022 from the State Land Use Agricultural District to State Land Use Urban District, but resulted in remnant lands in the State Land Use Agricultural District that are primarily located within existing and former rights-of-way. These remnant lands have undergone great disturbance and are not feasible for agricultural use. They are included in the petition area because they may have development potential if incorporated with adjacent property already within the state land use urban district. Consistent with the standards and criteria for the approval of state land use district boundary amendment under ROH section 23-1.6, the proposed boundary amendment will contribute to the general welfare and prosperity of all residents by allowing for transit-oriented development with mixed uses in the vicinity of the skyline rail transit system. It will help diversify Oahu's transportation system by reducing an over-reliance on automobile usage through transit-oriented development that provides convenient access to residential, business, recreation, and educational amenities in close proximity to the skyline stations, and is consistent with the Hawaii State Plan, Oahu General Plan, Ewa Development Plan, East Kapolei Neighborhood TOD Plan, and the purpose and intent of the State Land Use Urban District. In compliance with HRS Section 205 3.5, the bill includes conditions of approval that prohibit interference with farming operations on adjacent or contiguous land within the state land use agricultural district and require notice to all prospective developers or purchasers of land in the proposal area. and lessees or tenants that farming operations on adjacent or contiguous land within the State Land Use Agricultural District are protected under the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. The second bill is Bill 38-2026. This bill amends the land use ordinance, ROH Chapter 21, to add the three skyline station areas that are within the East Kapolei neighborhood TOD plan area to the TOD special district and incorporate land use development standards and guidelines for these areas. The bill amends the TOD special district regulations in Article 9 of the land use ordinance to expand the TOD special district to include the Kualakai, Keonei, and Honolulu Station areas. The bill also modifies existing regulations that apply to the entire DOD Special District and adds certain provisions applicable only to the East Kapolei Station areas. Specifically, the bill first adds the three Kapolei Station areas to the DOD Special District, includes an exhibit depicting the station areas and sets forth the primary design objectives for each of these areas. Second, within the three East Kapolei stations includes a height exemption of up to 200 feet to accommodate safety nets and poles that are necessary to recreation facilities, including a compact golf entertainment venue provided that the project site is 2,000 feet or farther from a station area. It modifies the TOD special district permit requirements for sites of one acre or more to require a minor special district permit for major modifications, major additions, or new construction and provides an exemption from obtaining a TOD special district permit for minor additions to existing structures or construction of new accessory structures. This change is intended to streamline permitting without promising necessary project reviews. Finally, provides an exemption from obtaining a 2D special district permit for projects subject to the plan review use approvals, such as hospitals, prisons, airports, and universities. Bill 39, 2026. This bill rezones approximately 1,381 acres of land within the East Kapolei neighborhood TOT plan area, encompassing 128 parcels and 30 streets surrounding the Kualakai, Keonei, and Honolulu skyline stations. from the A2 medium density apartment, AG1 restricted agricultural, AMX2 medium density apartment mix use, B1 neighborhood business, B2 community business, BMX3 community business mix use, IMX industrial commercial mix use, P2 general preservation, R3.5 residential, and R5 residential zoning districts to the A2 medium density apartment, AG 1 restricted agricultural, AMX 2 medium density apartment mix use, B1 neighborhood business, B2 community business, BMX 3 community business mix use, IMX 1 industrial commercial mix use, P2 general preservation, and R3.5 residential zoning districts. We have posted on the agenda a CD1 version of the resolution which I submitted and which incorporates the amendments requested by the Department of Planning and Permitting and Departmental Communication 5-2-2026. For your information, a summary of the amendments is listed on the agenda and I will be discussing amendments a little later. The zone changes are intended to create compact, mixed-use neighborhoods as envisioned in the East Kapolei TOD plan by designating apartment mixed-use and business mixed-use on most properties within one-half mile of the skyline stations. For example, the proposed zone changes around the Keonei Skyline Station incorporates the AMX 2 and BMX 3 districts. The bill also rezones a linear area along the skyline guideway to the P2 General Preservation District to accommodate a recreational greenway underneath the skyline guideway that connects the three skyline station areas. A few housekeeping zone changes are also included, such as updating street zoning designations to reflect the zoning of adjacent zoning lots that extend out to the street center line. Many of the zone changes to the agricultural, residential, and business districts are also housekeeping measures to align with zoning lot boundaries. Zone changes on certain Department of Hawaiian homelands parcels around the Kuala Ka'i Station reflector plans for mixed use, multifamily housing, even though these parcels are not currently subject to city zoning. East Kapolei is unique among the TOD plan areas because it is in the process of urbanizing entirely from largely undeveloped land. The proposed zone change areas are within the community growth boundary of the AVA development plan. There are four unilateral agreements that were attached to prior zone change ordinance for master plan developments, which include conditions of approval that developers required to comply with. These four unilateral agreements are for the UH West O'ahu, which covers approximately 500 acres located within and outside of the zone change area near the Keonei Station, the Kroc Center, which covers approximately 15 acres located within the zone change near the Koalakai Station, Koaloaula, which covers approximately 18 acres within the zone change area near the Kualakai Station and Hoʻopili, which covers approximately 1,289 acres located within and outside of the zone change area near the Honoʻuluʻuli Station. None of the unilateral conditions conflict with the zone changes for the East Kapolei TOD plan area, so none of the conditions are recommended for deletion. However, some of the master plans for these areas need to be updated to align with the Kapolei TOD plan and applicable TOD special district regulations, which will occur through the existing unilateral agreement process. The CD1 version of the bill primarily describes the zone change area as approximately 1,374.4 acres of land. It replaces exhibits A through C with new exhibits. And it replaces exhibit D with an updated exhibit that lists the tax map key numbers and streets. Joining us in the council chamber is, I believe, is Liz Krieger.

Good morning chair and committee members. Thank you for that summary. You pretty much took care of my entire presentation, but we'll have a couple of visuals to describe what you just described in words. So like you said, Today, we're reviewing bills 37, 38, and 39, 2026 for the state land use district boundary amendment, which I'll call a SLUBDA, an LUO amendment to add the special district to the land use ordinance, which is Chapter 21 of the revised ordinances of Honolulu, and Bill 39, which is the corresponding zone change. Our presentation is available on the Honolulu Records Collection website as departmental communication number D0542 for anybody who would like to look at this information because there's a lot packed into each of these slides. So as you'll recall, the proposed rail alignment has 21 stations. 19 of them are in city and county jurisdiction. This shows how there are eight neighborhood TOD plans. Three of them, all eight have been adopted. as the plan itself has been adopted by the city council. Three of them have been incorporated into the TOD special district. Then what we're looking at today is the three stations in the East Kapolei TOD neighborhood plan. Those stations are Honouliuli at Ho'opili, Keonei at UH West Oahu, and Kualakai at East Kapolei. Those names in the plans originally had been Hoʻopili, UH West Oʻahu, and East Kapolei. In subsequent years, the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation updated the names, so we have them also reflected in the maps. The TOD vision is listed on this. On this slide, to create sustainable compact mixed-use development in areas surrounding the rail, connected with convenient rail transit access to downtown Honolulu, structured in pedestrian-friendly environment with numerous housing, employment, educational, and recreational opportunities, and they provide for unique development opportunities and identity around each station area. This next slide summarizes all of the public participation that occurred during both the East Kapolei TOD neighborhood plan as well as these proposed zone changes and TOD special district LUO amendment. It was a lot and for anybody who would like to know more about each of these identified public interactions, we have records for all of that as well. So to talk about the SLBDA, again, the State Land Use District Boundary Amendment, as Chair summarized, the proposed amendment is for 14.8 acres. It is primarily looking at remnant lots, and it will be pulling them into the urban district to make them more consistent with the neighborhood plan, as well as the subsequent zone changes. Then our proposed map changes. This is under Bill 39. The area is 1,374.4 acres. Mostly it's in the apartment mixed use and business mixed use zoning districts. And it also specifies where height bonus options are available. Now we have three slides showing the zone change itself. And that is because the zone change itself is very complicated. So this first slide shows all of the lots that are over five acres, five acres and over. So what you'll see is the little circle numbers on the map itself. And then kind of on the right hand lower side, you see the list of those numbers, the corresponding numbers and what the zone change is. The panel on the left is the same on all three slides and it also indicates some really good information. It explains how to read this map and then it shows what percentage of this overall zone change area is currently in these zoning districts and will be in those zoning districts once the zone change has occurred. This next map, it shows the same areas as the first one, but all of the circles and the corresponding list on the right hand side represent zoning lots that are less than five acres. So to explain what the colors show you, the red colors are related to business mixed use and business zoning districts. If it's a cross hatched, like a lighter red, that means that the zoning is already there, but the height or the bonus height is changing. The kind of brownish khaki colors are apartment mixed use and apartment districts. Same situation, if it's cross-hatched, it's showing that the height limit is changing. The purple is industrial mixed use district, and then the lighter green is the P2 general preservation district. This third zone change map is really showing remnant and housekeeping changes that are related, that are nearby the TOD special district, and they're related to the overlapping master plan. So that's mostly just cleanup work. Because those three zoning maps were so complicated, we do have available an interactive GIS map online that has a sliding tool so that you can slide and see the existing and proposed zoning. And that is really useful. You can zoom way in and look at unique individual lots. And now we get to the TOD Special District. So this is the amendment to the Land Use Ordinance. And this slide gives a general overview of what the TOD Special District does. It basically has development standards that are designed to make sure that The zoning lots in proximity to the station areas are designed to be pedestrian friendly, multimodal friendly, and prioritize community benefits whenever height and density bonuses are sought by the developer. In this In this proposal, there are only a couple of minor changes. Every time we introduce new TOD station or new station areas to the special district, we define the goals and objectives of that TOD neighborhood plan. And then we also always include the map of the station area that also shows the key streets for those three station areas. And then in this case, we're seeking the additional amendments related to project classification as in what kind of permits are required on lots greater than an acre that would allow minor additions being exempt and major modifications, major additions to be a minor permit. We've been administering this TOD special districts since 2017. We have found during that time that major permit is not necessarily needed to address all of the concerns we have. We find that we can do that through a minor special district permit, and that also creates a more succinct and streamlined process for the developer, while still maintaining our ability to fully review and incorporate community comments. Finally, there is a proposal, as the chair described, to allow safety nets that are related to recreational facilities to exceed the height limit. And then this final slide shows you what the new station area exhibit will look like in the TOD Special District for the land use ordinance. This will be in Article 9. And you can see that the key streets are highlighted in gray so that indicates where additional development standards are for projects fronting those streets. So I'm available for any questions and I thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Thank you, Liz. First of all, I wanted to, I know I deal with your department a lot and deal with a lot of you individually, but this was a lot of work for all three bills. So I just wanted to thank all of you for all the hard work that you put into this, not just into the development of the recommendations, but also interfacing with the community. So I'm gonna start off the questions and then I'm gonna turn to my colleagues. The State Department of Education submitted written testimony stating that the department is planning a new elementary school and a new high school within the Honouli Station area. The department indicated that public school campuses have operational safety and security requirements that differ and potentially conflict with the TOD development standards intended for commercial, residential, and mixed-use developments. The department has requested the following amendments to exclude the proposed public high school site from the TUD special district boundary, add as a design objective the coordination between the city and the Department of Public Schools within the Honiuliuli Station area, and to provide flexibility for TOD development standards relating to building placement and setback, surface parking location, bus loading and unloading facilities, student drop-off and pickup areas, campus access and circulation, and security fencing and related safety measures. Does the Department of Planning and Permitting have any responses or comments addressing the Department of Education's request?

Yes, I do have some comments and responses. So firstly, I think that the reason that the high school lot, which is the upper large kind of khaki zoning lot on the image right now, originally they wanted to be included in part because they were looking at some urban, like kind of newer urban design elements that might go vertical, might seek additional height, potentially density. So that was one reason that they were included in the plan, in the TOD neighborhood plan. And then also what we understand is that some of the Funding mechanisms that the state legislature is looking at are targeted at those zoning lots in TOD areas. So they may want to consider whether they want to be in the special district for that reason. But we are willing to interact with the DOE relating to this particular request between now and the second reading and then the next time it comes to committee. Because it's on the periphery of the special district, I think that we can continue to interact about that. The elementary school is more in the middle of the special district. I know that they're looking for flexibility. The LUO currently has a zoning waiver that DOE qualifies for as a public use. So they can always apply for a waiver for those things. And we're certainly willing to work with them as they design these brand new schools.

Could you assure me that you will meet with them prior to the next committee hearing?

Yes, we can meet with them. Thank you.

And my second question is DR Horton is developing a master plan community within and around the Hone Uli Uli and Keonei Station areas. They have submitted testimony expressing concerns with conflicts between the land use ordinance and the subdivision ordinance regarding the undergrounding of utilities. According to DR Horton, the land use ordinance requires the undergrounding of all utilities within the East Kapolei TOD plan area, but the subdivision ordinance only required undergrounding utility lines of 15 kilovolts or less, but not electric distribution and transmission systems exceeding 15 kilovolts. What is the department's position? Is there a conflict? Which requirement takes precedence, the land use ordinance or the subdivision ordinance? Whatever your answer is, should this be clarified in Bill 38?

Thank you for that question. The special district article 9 of chapter 21 ROH does specify that public utilities are supposed to be undergrounded in special districts. And then the subdivision ordinance, which does not apply automatically in special districts, but applies when a subdivision has been approved, has more detail about exactly which utilities should be undergrounded. This is a really old provision that is not specific to the TOD special district. to TOD or to special districts at large. So I think that we're definitely willing to work with them and look at what would make sense, whether it needs to be clarified. And I know that they proposed language about where it should be clarified in the current bill. I'd ask for a little bit of extra time, again, between second reading and the next committee hearing to be able to figure out exactly what would be best. I think we obviously need to

take into account both what the developer is looking at as well as what hiko would say okay thank you so you will also contact hiko and ask for their mana'o correct we will try yes okay greatly appreciate it um members any other questions councilmember cordero first

Thank you, Chair. Hi, Mr. Krueger. Thank you very much for the presentation and also to the Chair for the explanation. I do have a question for, mainly was listed in Bill 38 relating to the promotion of a festival street near the Hono'uliuli Station, or sorry, excuse me. Oh yeah, yeah. the one before that, the one after that, the Keonei Station where there's going to be a university village and a main street style atmosphere. I know that the rail station or the skyline station is going to be across the street from that, across Kuala Kai Parkway. How can we plan or require for cohesive design on the opposite side of where the proposed main street style primarily focused on the university side. How can we get them to be cohesive?

That's a very good question. I think one of the ways that we can help ensure that they're cohesive is during the plan review use review that one of the amendments in this is to specify that plan review uses are exempt from the TOD special district permit. That's because the PRU, the plan review use, does an overall evaluation of the entire development for UH West O'ahu. They already have one and then it will be amended as time goes on. I think during that interaction, which has a lot of public community interaction, we'll hopefully be able to get the University of Hawaii to see how important that will be. I think probably they already understand that it will be very important for students to be able to have this safe and direct access to the station area.

That's true. Just that section, It kind of puts a lot of the primary main street planning and university village just incumbent on the university and us just waiting on them. So, I mean, if they see, I said this before for TOD, we need to be the example on our side of our city property. So hopefully we can do that. And hopefully it's cohesive planning. to the plans that UH has. My next question is as it relates to, so on page, oh, there's no page numbers. The TOD special district background for off-street parking, optional near transit. I know that it says optional, but don't we have other language that says no, like... I guess we don't usually use the word optional, right? Even in our LUO, we just say no off-street parking required.

That's true. And in 2020, the LUO was amended so that any area that's within the EVA development plan and primary urban center development plan don't require parking for commercial and multi-unit dwellings.

I'm sorry. I'm nitpicking the language because it says there's not required versus optional. I don't know how big it would, I guess, inhibit developers to provide that parking or not provide that parking. With that in mind, would it be best then if we are leaving it optional to request or add parking maximums for parking near transit and TOD?

Parking maximums is something that we considered maybe 10 years ago when we were doing the overall TOD special district standards. At the time, we were concerned about going from big maximums, reducing the maximums, and then putting on I'm sorry, having large minimum requirements. So people had to provide a lot of parking, maybe too much parking. And so we were significantly reducing that. We were concerned that putting a maximum parking requirement at the same time would be very difficult to administer. It is something that we can definitely start to reconsider. as the rail is now running out there. So we can continue to look at how that would affect developers. And maybe we can, because many of these areas don't have a parking requirement right now, we can see what kind of parking there

providing having no having government not tell them how much parking is necessary how much are they providing right does that align with what a proposed maximum could look like is something that we can for sure study i guess i'd rather just say not required versus optional i guess um okay so my last question uh as is the second to the last uh part uh sorry the one that says proposal to the special district proposal on your slides for the project classification permits, I understand that major modifications will then be going in a similar fashion as minor modifications or minor additions so that they won't be required to obtain a major permit. So how are you going to determine or still classify them as a major modification although going through the minor modification permit application? That was a lot.

So the question of whether a new permit is required is where the major or minor comes in with the project classification. So it is the case that sometimes we have a minor permit that has a major modification. If there's a major modification to a minor permit, we process that in the exact same way that we would do the original minor permit. So yeah, if a permit exists or doesn't exist, then the question of is it major or minor tells us how to proceed to process for procedural requirements. But yeah, I think if there's no permit at all and they're proposing something new, then we know whether it's a major permit or a minor permit. If there's already a permit, then we know whether it's a major modification or a minor modification.

And the project classification will still be determined under the classification or the plans of the TOD special district, right? Not like the LUO or other types of zoning.

That's right. The project classification table is where we'll start that review.

Understood. Thank you for that clarification. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Council Member DiPolo.

Thank you so much. Aloha, Ms. Krueger. Thank you for being here. Thank you to my colleague for asking the question about the rail station. It does concern me because people do have to cross the road where they came from, go up, cross over to where they just came from to get onto the rail, which doesn't make any sense. So I'm kind of into the details with that. And I will meet with UH and try to see, because I know that we're providing a parking lot later on our side, but it's kind of a mess, you know, and I do think that for my district and especially if people want the rail to be used, we got to make it make sense. Because a lot of people from Waianae are driving out there. One, the parking lot's too small. Two, it's on the wrong side of the road. There's all kinds of things. So trying to work with, obviously on the heart side, it's already been built. We really can't do too much. We got to see what we can do. So her questions were my questions, and I look forward to your answer on that. I guess my other thoughts. You know, I know that I bring up the names of Hawaiian places, and it's important to me because the history of Hawaii can't be erased, even if we're building out new stuff. I'm all about development and housing, but we're trying to correct the way that we call places, and this area is not called East Kapolei. It's called Honauliuli, and even the fire station is going to change their name to the right name. So I know that it's been thrown around, but Kapolei is the name of a small hill right in the park of Kapolei Regional, and it's actually not the whole name of the area. So if we could in the future, and I don't know what that would take, maybe a resolution, we can call this the Hono'uli'uli TOD area. I just feel bad because as we go through and we're making new developments, we're kind of just slapping any Hawaiian word anywhere, and that's not the right one. So thank you very much for considering that. Secondarily, I think for the Ag areas, you know, we're going from 18% Ag 2 down to 2. We're going from Ag 1, 30% down to 0. And I realize that in some of the areas, you know, it's already up. We have housing. We have DR Horton that got approved for the 11,000 homes. We're moving through that. And I'm fully in the details with DR Horton on all the difficulties that they've had from you guys to real property tax to the laws that were created that aren't benefiting us having commercial on the bottom and housing on the top. But I Between this hearing and the next hearing, I want to discuss with you guys some areas where I think we could preserve this a little bit more. We have talked, and I've talked with and other guys about just some areas that may or may not be fully developable, but we can talk. If you guys are open to that, I would like to discuss that. Yeah, absolutely. We're open to that discussion. Thank you. I know that Dara Horton might testify and they might share more about the DOE situation. I thank the chair for bringing that up. But, you know, the DOE parcels have been sitting right. They did the middle school, but they're mandated to do high school and elementary. And right now the elementary site is is not moving the high school site. We don't know when we'll move because it's when the DOE has money allocated to do it. So I guess I am concerned maybe in the future about what happens with them, but it was written in the unilateral agreement that DR Horton can't build anything else or it has to be a school. I think whatever we do decide or when we do get the verbiage or the wording from the DOE, I think we need to be mindful and I don't know what we can amend in the UA, but every development, especially in my district, is going to require some type of educational site. I have another one between Coalina and Kapolei that's coming out that they have to dedicate for a school to be built because more houses, more families, right? But there cannot be this thing where the DOE sits for 10, 15 years and no school is built because then we have a piece of land in the community that we have no say over. We're just like, well, we have to let it go because unilateral agreement said only a school goes here. So is there any way that... I mean, I don't know if we can do it now because obviously the UA is done for DR Horton, but the one that's coming up in the other part of my district, is there a way that we can say that in X amount of years that the DOE has to show some type of intent on it? Because if they don't, that parcel of land is actually paying real property tax at market rate to sit vacant. And actually, real property tax told me they're not going to change that. So even though it's not allowed to be housing, real property tax is not gonna change the classification. And on that empty lot, you still have to pay market value property taxes, even though it may sit for 10, 15 years, however long. So what is the ability for us to kind of be proactive in that area?

for the zone change in the unilateral agreement?

Well, can we require some type of like in X amount of years, some type of effort has to be shown so that it can fulfill the unilateral agreement. There's no time agreement with us and DOE to build the school. So it could sit forever.

I'm going to ask Dina to answer the question about unilateral agreement and timing.

Good morning Dina Wong DPP planning division chief. We do have conditions in new ways requiring like setting aside a parcel for school facilities and we need that because you know it's a growing community. There's going to need space for for the elementary or high school. We don't always put time limits on things because some of that is really out of our control. It's DOE that has their schedule, has their funding when they're able to build it.

I guess my question is, I know we can't force DOE's hand, but if we are not allowed per the unilateral agreement to put anything else but an educational facility, then what type of interim uses can be done for that parcel so it doesn't just sit until On the other side, right, on the state side, they're ready for it because we're busting at the seams. Campbell High School graduating close to 900 kids a year. Like, we need another high school, but we have a piece of land. But because there's just kind of indefinite time and then, of course, the developers sitting on the land paying the property taxes just waiting for the day to come, what could be done?

I mean, I guess that would be in DOE's hands. If they're over capacity, they could build their portable classrooms.

No, I mean on our side. What could be done on our side? I know we don't control DOE. Could we do some type of interim use so that it's Yes, we're dedicating it for a school, but knowing that DOE and their budgetary process is separate from ours, they have other priorities. We had the Kona Lowes, now we have Naalehu that needs money. The state is cycling their budgetary needs as they see fit, which means that sometimes the school just gets put on the back burner, so I don't know. And then I have a new development coming up with another educational facility that's probably gonna sit because now they're behind this one.

An interim use could be considered, I think, as long as it's a use that's permitted in whatever zoning district it is, but perhaps some type of MOA would be needed to make sure that when DOE is ready to build, that interim use ceases to operate.

Something like that. I'm just saying, we need it. I'm mentioning it because I'm looking at this, and I know that there's educational facilities, but we need to be mindful of the fact that we don't control the other side. But thank you, Dina.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it. I guess lastly, Liz, when I'm looking at the map three and you have different areas of BMX and height changes, I guess my question is for the TOD bonus heights, how did you guys choose those areas or how was it chosen?

The height bonuses were considered in the East Kapolei TOD neighborhood plan and now this is implementing the plan. So they did a lot of community outreach as well as looking at what the EVA development plan supported and any important views and that type of thing. So a lot of that background information went into determining what the bonus height was.

Okay. Well, when we meet, I can talk to you about details on that. But thank you so much for this. Thank you, Chair. I look forward to meeting with you before the next meeting. Members, any other questions before we go to testimony?

Okay. Seeing no further questions, clerks, do we have... And by the way, in taking public testimony, each testifier may testify on any or all of the three bills. Just identify yourself, just identify which bill you're testifying on. Clerks, do we have any in-person testifiers? Chair, there are none. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to testify? Please come forward to the testifier podium and begin by stating your name.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Jesse Suki, Deputy Superintendent of Operations at the Department of Education, State of Hawaii. Chair Kiana, you summarized our testimony well, so we have our written testimony and our request. I would like to add, maybe in response to some of the questions, one was the recent conversation about we've got these properties out there on the west side, They're set aside for schools on the UAs and land use agreements. Why are they not built? There are a couple of things that control that. And it's also out of DOE's hands. One is funding. So we need funding from the legislature. The other is we wait until the units are built and occupied. Because if we don't have students and we build a school before we have students, that doesn't make a lot of sense. That all said, I recognize the urgent need for schools in the west side. And I can say, which is a positive thing, I think, we've got funding for planning for the East Kapolei High School. May I continue, just complete that thought?

Yes, you can continue and ensure that you clarify which bills you're testifying on, okay?

Oh, sorry, I'm speaking on Bill 38.

Okay, and then you can, because you're a critical stakeholder here, I allow you more time.

Thank you. So we did recently get money appropriated from the legislature in the recent session for planning and design of the East Kapolei High School parcel, which we're talking about taking out of the TOD boundary. That's TMK 19-1-018-026. so and one of the reasons why we're asking to take it out among other reasons you can see in our testimony is that because we have the planning money we started planning so it's kind of like you're changing the rules mid-game um i heard what uh planning department said about waivers um you know we have another school in that area we're not asking to take that out right now but we are asking that there's language in the bill that specifically excludes know we should talk about excluding now the kind of things that we have concerns about when we're planning like bus routes and drop off pickup and that sort of thing so we talk about that in our testimony so we'd like that language added and then this language in the bill that talks about coordination so we just like to add doe as a section for that coordination as well for that other school for the high school um we just like it taken out because we're working on it now and again changing mid-game you know what we're going to work with dpp on planning and development of that There was some mention of the legislature. I think what they're talking about is the tax increment financing. DOE built schools. we don't build developments. So we're looking at building a school for West O'ahu kids that is just as good as the schools we've built in high schools in other areas of the state. And so we're not looking at commercial mixed use in the school. We're looking at building a school. So that kind of tax increment financing wouldn't necessarily work for us in any case. And we don't pay property tax. Thank you. Thank you.

Questions? Council Member Tipolo. Thank you so much for being here and thank you for your comments. Yeah, I don't, you know, disparage the department because really it is the priorities and allocations of the legislature of which there's been a lot of other needs and I'm very sensitive to the fact that there's many natural disasters recently that we've had to really set aside from Lahaina to this that we've kind of been waiting and I also hear your sentiment about kind of waiting for the houses because that'll bring the kids but I'm telling you right now the kids is ready to come. So I know that more houses will bring more kids, but we got kids ready to go to different high schools because we're so packed at both Kapolei and at Campbell. So I guess on my side, I tried to do what I could with the real property tax division to see if we couldn't just, you know, because it's going from market rate to zero once you guys get on that. But in the meantime, I asked them if there could be some type of agreement. They said no. So that's why I don't know if I can go into the UA and see if there can be one interim use, because I know you guys got planning money for the high school, but the elementary site is still going to sit for some time. I know that DR Horton has invested and now it's a soccer field, but they're kind of expending a lot of money to make sure that that can stay there maybe until the school goes. So I guess I'm just sharing with you. I understand and I thank you. There is one school in my district that I did a TEFRA for. So I did a tax exempt bond, but it was I could only do it because they were a charter school and they had a nonprofit. So I did the TEFRA for them and they were able to do the commercial on the bottom. Christine Camp did it and then we put the school on the top. So it's like a four or five story building, but we're able to do it a lot faster. And I guess I'm not sure if you would answer it or if I'd have to go higher, but I was just wondering, because we know that maybe there's other allowances if we're dealing with charter schools, if there could be a way forward on the other parcel, if we know that we need the help to do it maybe a different way than maybe a budget line item allocation for the school, I guess, construction. What is your thoughts?

I've done P3 TEFRA projects involved, so I'm familiar. There's a lot we can talk about. I can talk offline with you. It's complicated financing. But believe it or not, money is cheaper if you get it through general obligation bonds than TEFRA. And because schools are not a revenue generating entity, what pays it back? So it's quintessentially a public good. And that's a larger debate than me.

Yeah, no, I hear you. Just trying to find a way forward because it's been sitting for so long in my district, not at your error, anybody's error, just because of the way the timeline goes on the state side. So I look forward to talking offline with you. And of course, definitely supporting the edits that you put in so that we can move forward with what you guys are doing and not have any holdups. We don't need any more holdups in that area. We're excited that you guys got the money for planning. Looking forward to getting the legislators to put in the money that we need for design and construction. Thank you.

Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to testify in person?

Hi, my name is Leslie Keating. I'm a resident of Kapolei in the Mahana neighborhood. And I just wanted to bring up a few of the issues. I do support these bills, especially 38 and 39. But I wanted to give my concerns regarding the Makakilo extension, which still has not been extended and we desperately need and will be even more needed when we have Hānaʻuluʻuli fully developed. The water issues that we're having, the water table underneath Hānaʻuluʻuli, which is now causing problems with homes in that area. I'm not sure exactly if D.R. Horton is aware and is planning to do something different for these new homes they're building, They're not stable. That entire area is an underwater current in many areas. The height bonuses, I'm very much in favor of. But again, special engineering is going to need to be done for these buildings. And actually, I'd like to see them taller. I want to see big buildings so that my kids, who are now in second grade, can go to West O'ahu and live there. I have more, but that's all I have time for.

Thank you. Council member has questions. Council member Topolo.

Yeah, go ahead and you can continue.

I do have questions for you.

So I do want to see higher buildings, especially around West O'ahu and around the transit stations so that we can have that very extreme density actually, which actually lowers our water and utility uses. and our needs for water and utilities in that area. Then also, because I am a resident of Kapolei and Mahana, I would like to be able to use the skyline. In order to do that, we do need to have improved parking, but that parking could also be for the residents of Honolulu in the evening who still need parking, but because of minimum requirements in that area are unable to find parking in their neighborhood. but they might be able to use that extended parking around the stations in the evening to park their cars and then get to their homes nearby. Finally, the last thing I had on my list was the underground utilities, which just came up for DR Horton. I do want to encourage DR Horton to spend the extra money to put those utilities underground We are on the leeward side. We are always at a risk of fire. We do have extreme winds sometimes, and I would like to see the safest for our neighborhoods.

Thank you for coming. I appreciate you testifying today and keeping yourself abreast of all the different issues. I will leave the water table and the power lines to DR Horton when they stand up to testify. I agree with you. And it's kind of been this fight back and forth. And I hope, you know, whatever we need to do to bring specificity to the plan so that the power lines going underground is no issue, not with HECO and not with the land use. So I'm in favor of that. I will say that in regards to Makakilo Drive extension, I pushed hard to get the emergency access set up, asking the property owners for access of it, doing the MOU with Department of Emergency Management. At this time, our greatest move, I think, as a community is going to be to pivot to use that road and possibly permanently. But again, the landowner's open to it, but now that we got the MOU signed and now that it's open for use when we need it in emergencies, we could possibly take the next step further. seeing as though the extension itself had become such a high amount to do it and it dropped off the stip tip. And so neither the state, the federal or the city was able to compensate for where we could come up with that money. My hope is that if it is, you know, advantageous and the residents in that area desire that we can move towards that direction. But I loved what you said and I look forward to more drafts of this and you staying engaged. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to testify in person? Okay, seeing none, we're gonna go to remote testifiers. Clerks, do we have any remote testifiers?

Yes, Chair, we have one standing by.

We have Sam Kim. Kim, is he online? Yes, he is. Okay, good morning, Sam. Please proceed.

Law Chair Kiahina, Vice Chair Waters and committee members. My name is Sam Kim with the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters testifying in strong support of bills 37, 38 and 39. You know, there's much to celebrate with the great progress and advancements the rail has made, but equally important are the follow up policies such as these bills that make TOD a reality and a true benefit for our communities. So we thank this committee for all your hard work to advance TOD and we kindly ask that these bills be moved forward. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you so much. We do have listed Keith Hayashi. Jesse, are you testifying for Keith Hayashi or is he available online?

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else online who would like to testify? Could you please raise the hand button? Okay. I don't see anyone else. Members, are there any questions or discussion before I make my recommendations on the three measures? Council Member Topola.

Yeah. On August 24th, Governor Green did release $500,000 in geo bonds for us to do at EIS in this area. So I do appreciate the cooperation on the state side because there's various things we have to move together, especially because UH West O'ahu is out there. So I'm doing my best to engage with the local legislators to make sure we're moving

concurrently because we can't do this without their assistance as well so thank you okay any other questions or comments the chair recommends that i'm going to take them individually chair recommends that bill 37 2026 be reported out for passage on second reading and scheduling of a public hearing any discussion any objections to reservations hearing none so ordered The Chair also recommends that Bill 38, 2026 be reported out for passage on second reading and scheduling of a public hearing. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Lastly, the Chair recommends that Bill 39-2026 be amended to the post CD1. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the bill has been amended to a CD1. The Chair then recommends that Bill 39-CD1 be reported out for passage on second reading and scheduling of a public hearing. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda action number eight.

Bill 42, 2026, this bill amends the state land use district boundary map Kohuku Quadrant Angle by reclassifying approximately 8.188 acres of land in Haleiwa, Oahu from the state land use agricultural district to the state land use urban district. which I'll be referring to as the petition area. We've posted on the agenda CD1 version of the bill. For your information, a summary of the amendments is listed on the agenda. The petition area is on the Mauka side of Kamehameha Highway at the northern end of Laie town and is the location of the city's Laie Corporation Yard and Refuse Convenience Center. The Corporation Yard has been in operation since 1951. and precede state law and establish the state land use districts. When the state land use districts were established in 1961, the petition area was not included in the state land use urban district. The corporation yard is used by the Department of Facility Maintenance Division of Road Maintenance, which provides road maintenance from Waimea Bay to Kualoa. The Corporation Yard is also used by the Department of Environmental Services Division of Refuse Collection and Disposal as a transfer station for the Ko'olaloa residents to recycle and dispose of household waste. Under state law, yards for equipment, materials, vehicle storage, repair or maintenance, and refuse convenience centers are not permitted uses in the state land use agricultural district. The boundary amendment would bring the corporation yard's existing and planned uses into compliance with state land use district laws and allow for three phases of planned improvements to the corporation yard. While new structures were added in 1994 after the state land use laws went into effect, implementation of the Corporation's Yard Master Plan represents the most comprehensive and essential improvements to date. On the Ko'olaloa Sustainable Communities Plan land use map, the petition area is located within the community growth boundary on lands designated as industrial. there is no Corporation Yard symbol on the Koʻolaloa Public Infrastructure Map, and the Department of Design and Construction submitted an application to add a symbol, which must be approved by the Council prior to the appropriation of any construction funding for the improvements. On December 19th, 2019, the Department of Design and Construction issued a finding of no significant impact on the final environmental assessment for the Corporation Yard improvements. The Corporation Yard is a public facility, which is a permissible use in all zoning districts, so no change of zoning or conditional use permit is required. Other than under the discretionary approval, there is no subsequent opportunity to include conditions of approval. Therefore, in addition to the standard conditions of approval required under state law regarding the reclassification of land, contiguous to the agricultural district. The bill includes conditions requiring an archeological inventory survey and conditions recommended by the U S fish and wildlife service to protect endangered species. An existing fuel dispensing station and two above-ground fuel tanks are within the tsunami evacuation zone. The two fuel tanks are being relocated to higher elevation, but the report does not indicate that the fuel pumps will also be moved. The proposed CD1 adds a condition requiring relocation of the existing fuel pumps to higher elevation at the same time as the two fuel pump tanks. Portions of the state excuse me, portions of the site where buildings and improvements are planned are within the sea level rise exposure area and are anticipated to be submerged with 3.2 feet of sea level rise by the year 2100. The proposed CD1 also adds a condition requiring that the lowest building finished floor elevation is set at a minimum of six feet above mean sea level. So there will be a minimal impact from 3.2 feet of sea level rise. This could be achieved by grading and filling so that the finished floor elevations are above the height of runoff and the rise in groundwater. Joining us in the Council Chamber is Greg Nakai from PBR Hawaii and Associates Inc., who will be providing a brief presentation. For your information, the presentation is available online as Miscellaneous Communication 368 of 2026. Aloha, welcome.

Thank you, Vice Chair, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Greg Nakai with PBR Hawaii, the agent for this project. As was mentioned, the Laiea Corporation Yard is located just north of Laiea Town. This aerial photo shows the existing uses on the site and shows its location just off of Kamehameha Highway. As was mentioned, the site currently includes two existing uses, the Laiea Corporation Yard, which is managed by the Department of Facility Maintenance, and the Laiea Refuse Convenience Center, which is managed by the Department of Environmental Services. This slide shows the existing site plan with the existing structures shown in blue. To the left in Malka of the site is the refuse convenience center, which is located on the property but is not a part of the facility's master plan. This photo shows the division of road maintenance base yard on the site. And this photo shows the Refuse Convenience Center, which again is located on the property but not part of the facility's master plan. The Laie Corporation Yard and Refuse Convenience Center have operated on this location since 1951 and precede the 1961 state land use law. So the Corporation Yard was not included in the state land use urban district. It's located within the state agricultural land use district and therefore needs a state land use district boundary amendment. The corporation yard is located on lands that were not classified by the Land Study Bureau detailed land classification for agricultural lands. And only the Ma'akau portion of the site is identified as other important agricultural land. So not the portion of the site that is part of the facilities master plan. The project is consistent with the Ko'olaloa Sustainable Communities Plan. As was mentioned by the vice chair, the project is located within the community growth boundary. It's shown with a Corporation Yard symbol on the public facilities map and is located within an industrial area on the land use map. The City and County of Honolulu Department of Design and Construction, or DDC, is proposing several improvements to the Laie Corporation Yard. because the current facilities are challenged by obsolete operational and staffing accommodations, aged buildings and facilities, and constrained site conditions. This slide shows the proposed master plan with existing structures shown in blue, the proposed reconstructed structures in green, and proposed new structures in yellow, including new garages, new dewatering facility, and washing facility. The proposed improvements were addressed in the 2020 final environmental assessment, finding of no significant impact for the facility's master plan. The site is zoned AG too, but public uses and structures are permitted in every county zoning district. And at the advice of DPP, a less than 15 acre state land use district boundary amendment is required for the project. So this request is intended to bring the existing and proposed uses into compliance with the state land use law and to allow the Department of Facility Maintenance to proceed with implementing its facilities master plan for the property to better serve the communities of the Ko'olaloa and North Shore areas. The Bill 42 includes six conditions of approval, and DDC agrees with all six of the conditions of approval. This concludes my presentation. Mahalo. Thank you for your time. Are there any questions?

Thank you. Members, any questions for the presenter? Thank you so much. Before I call up the administration, I would like to take public testimony, proceeding first with in-person testimony. Is there anyone? Clerks, are there any in-person testifiers?

Chair, there are none.

Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to testify? Seeing none, is there anybody standing by remotely?

Chair, there are none.

Thank you. For the administration?

Good morning. Dina Wong, DPP Planning Division. We are in support of the CD1 to Bill 42, which provides clarification on a few of the conditions and adds the two new conditions. So we are in support.

Members, any questions for the administration? Are there any, is there any discussion? No discussion. The Chair recommends that Bill 42-2026 be amended to post at CD1. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the bill has been amended to CD1. The Chair then recommends that Bill 42 2026, CD1 be reported out for passage and second reading and scheduling of a public hearing. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda item number nine for action, Bill 43, 2026. This bill rezones an approximately 1.429 acre portion. of a 1.431-acre zoning lot at 669A Waialua Beach Road in Waialua, Oahu, and identified as a portion of tax map key 660118024 from the country district to the R5 residential district at the request of Jason C. and Elisa A. Hagan. The remaining 80 square foot portion of the property is already zoned R5 residential district. We have posted on the agenda a CD1 version of the bill. For your information, a summary of the amendments is listed on the agenda. The proposed CD1 clarifies that the land area subject to the zone chain is a portion of the zoning lot and reflects the correct address at 69 9A Waialua Beach Road. We have also posted on the agenda proposed unilateral agreement draft dated August 18th, 2026 to be attached as exhibit B to the bill after execution and recordation. The zone change would bring the zoning lot into conformance with its longstanding use as a site for six single unit dwellings and one two unit dwelling. The property's current country district zoning allows a maximum of one unit one dwelling unit per acre so seven of the eight dwelling units existing on the property are non-conforming structures under rh section 21-4.110d2 if a non-conforming structure is destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50 percent of its replacement costs at the time of destruction it may not be reconstructed unless in compliance with land use ordinance requirements. A rezone of the property to the R5 district would remove the nonconforming status of the dwelling units because the R5 district allows for up to eight dwelling units per zoning lot as of right, so long as the density does not exceed the required maximum floor ratio of 0.6. The FAR, the FAR for the eight existing dwelling units is 0.115. Removing the nonconforming status of the dwelling units would allow the applicant to rebuild if the dwelling units were to be catastrophically damaged from fire, natural disaster, or other causes. It would also reduce the likelihood that existing residents on the property would be permanently displaced if any of the existing dwellings were destroyed. The applicant is not proposing any new development, nor does the applicant propose to change the use of the property or to displace any of the existing property residents. Since the property is not connected to the city's wastewater system, each of the seven dwellings is served by its own septic system, which is under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Health. All existing dwellings were built 50 to 60 years ago, and the property is within the Haleiwa Special District. Single unit and two dwelling units constructed prior to December 21, 2018 are exempt from the design requirements of the Haleiwa Special District, subject to certain exceptions. While the applicant does not propose any improvements at this time, if improvements are proposed later, the portions of the dwellings that are approved will be subject to all Haleiwa Special District requirements. By letter dated October 1st, 2025, the Department of Planning and Permitting determined that the proposed rezone is not a significant zone change and therefore does not trigger requirements of environmental assessment. A small portion of the property along the west and north boundaries are within the special management area, but since no new development is being proposed, a special management area is not required. The North Shore Neighborhood Board number 27 supported the zone change but was concerned about the potential for additional structures to be developed on the property. To address these concerns and to ensure continued consistency with the North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan, the project's draft unilateral agreement includes a condition of approval that prohibits the applicant from subdividing the property to create additional residential zoning lots. Joining us in the chamber is Jim Hayes from Planning Solutions, Inc. who will be providing a brief presentation. The presentation is available online as Miscellaneous Communication 364-2026.

Thank you, Chair. Brief presentation. This is a photograph of the project site currently in use, as the Chair mentioned, for six single family dwellings and one duplex. They're all along a central driveway, as you can see in the photograph here. The site is located near what's commonly called Weed Circle, just at the entrance to Holly Eva. And the entire parcel is roughly 1.421 acres. A small portion of the parcel is already zoned R5, but the substantial part of the parcel is zoned country. And this is about rezoning that country portion. The entire parcel is in the state's urban district. This shows that the site shown there in yellow near Weed Circle is outside of the flood hazard zones. It's also outside of any shoreline hazard zones and outside the regular tsunami evacuation zone, but of course inside the extreme tsunami evacuation zone. But given these characteristics of outside of those substantial hazard zones, it is an appropriate residential area. This illustrates the zone change area and the surrounding zoning. There is R5 zoning around the parcel, or at least to the south of the parcel. And as I mentioned earlier, a small portion of the parcel is already zoned R5. We're talking about rezoning roughly one point, what is it, 329 acre portion, sorry. Yeah, four to nine acre portion of the parcel from country to R5. This is a aerial photograph illustrating the existing conditions in the area. And as you can see, the site is in an established residential area. The dwellings were built in the 60s and 70s. They're relatively modest in size and consistent with properties surrounding them. And some of those other properties are also zoned country. So, They're all in a similar situation. But the owner I have here, Chris Hagan, with me today has sought to rezone this. And this drawing illustrates the existing development. And down in the lower corner, you can see a little red patch there. That's the area that's already zoned R5. It's just kind of an oddity that the zoning doesn't exactly follow the parcel boundaries. Uh, but as chair mentioned, one of the important aspects of this is to eliminate the nonconforming nature of the existing dwellings so that they can be rebuilt in the, uh, in the, uh, unlikely but possible, uh, just destruction of them by some natural disaster or something like that it's also so that the owner can obtain loans from a bank because when you have non-conforming structures it's it's very difficult to get loans to make necessary maintenance and repairs and renovations so that's another reason that this is being sought at this time So some other considerations. The site, since it has been developed for residential purposes for so long, is not classified as any important agricultural land. It's relatively flat and an elevation of 30 feet. And as the chair mentioned, the neighborhood board was generally supportive, but had those concerns which have been addressed by the condition of no subdivision. Let's see, other things to discuss. The rezoning is consistent with the O'ahu General Plan and the North Shore Sustainable Community Plan. And the existing development is, again, consistent with the R5 zoning. We're outside of the SMA. Then just to think briefly about the conditions, we want to lay out the family's plans for the parcel. The lot may not be further subdivided and there are no plans. The applicant never had plans to subdivide the parcel. There may be a CPR put in place just for full disclosure. A CPR may be used in the future, but that affects ownership, not land use. So we don't see that as an issue. It just affects who owns various units on the site. Then... The other condition, of course, is to comply with other applicable land use ordinances, and that includes no more than eight units on the parcel at any time under existing laws. So I want to reassure everybody that the owner will continue to make needed repairs and renovations to the existing dwellings. but there are no plans for new structures on the site at this time. Lastly, there are no short-term rentals. All the units are either occupied by the owner or his family or long-term rentals. Some of the units have been occupied by the same renters for decades at this point. That includes our presentation and available for any questions.

Members, are there any questions? Thank you. Before I call up the administration, I would like to take public testimony, proceeding first with in-person testifiers. Clerks, do we have any in-person testifiers? Chair, there are none. Is there anyone who's standing by to testify? Seeing none, proceeding with remote testifiers. Do we have anybody standing by online? Chair, there are none. Okay, for the administration.

Hello, Dina Wong with DPP's Planning Division. We are in support of the proposed CD1, which makes clarifications because of that small 80 square foot portion.

Yes. OK. I do have a question. So I see that there would be no subdivision plan, but CPR may occur in the future. when you CPR a property, you're able to sell it to individual owners, correct?

Yes, the CPR units can be sold to individual owners.

Okay, so why wouldn't the property owner be able to do that now under the current designation? Because by us upzoning it, the market value of the property goes higher. So So they're gonna be able to, wouldn't they be able to charge a higher value for the homes as opposed to the current designation? I'm just asking, because I just wanted to know what the differentiation is between a subdivision, concerns of a subdivision versus concerns of a CPR, because you can sell the individual lot. So I just wanted clarification.

You could sell the individual lots, but with the current country zoning, his units would still be nonconforming and you wouldn't be able to, He needs to rezone it so that he can have the maximum of eight units. So the CPR doesn't change the development potential.

Yes, did the agent want to speak on that as well?

Yes, please. So I bring up the CPR just to be transparent. Chris has three children, young children, and so the CPR would only be brought up for their benefit in the future so that the three children, each one could have their own say in how some of the land is used or owned at least. So the applicant is not looking to sell off the individual houses as different CPRs. He's only seeking that up. That's a possibility only way down the line for his offspring.

Sure, but I'm just saying that rezoning does increase the fair market value of the property.

That's true. I think that's true, but whether it's CPR or not, I think the same thing is true.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members, any questions? If not, I'm going to make my recommendation. The Chair recommends that Bill 43-2026 be amended to the post as CD1. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the bill has been amended to CD1. The Chair then recommends that Bill 43-2026 CD1 be reported out for passage on second reading and scheduling of a public hearing. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Thank you everyone for being here today. There being no further business, this meeting is adjourned.