[Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Aloha and good afternoon everyone. It is Tuesday, September 23rd, 2025 and the time is now 10:02 p.m. Will the committee on zoning and planning meeting please come to order? I would like to welcome committee members Cordderero, Okimoto and Tupola. I understand Vice Chair Waters should be coming um coming 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 HRS section 92-3.7. Therefore, the meeting will continue notwithstanding loss of audiovisisual communication with remote testifiers or loss of the public broadcast of the meeting. Members of the public will be allowed to provide verbal testimony on all items on the agenda when each item is taken up in two ways. In person in the council chamber and remotely via tele video conference or phone. Before testifying, each person shall state their name for the record. Each speaker will be limited to a one minute presentation per item. All persons who register 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 515, section four 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 Olo, 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 on the posted agenda. As a courtesy, please turn off or silence all cell phones for the duration of this meeting. Thank you. Before we move into agenda item number one, I just wanted to um notify my colleagues that I will be moving agenda item number three bill 51 2025 CD1 to the end of the uh agenda including after the uh informational briefing and the reason being that it was brought to our attention about a modification that uh needs to be made uh to the bill. As you know we have the bill and the attached plan. uh I needed the um word version of the plan uh to reinsert something and I did not get that until 20 minutes ago and as a result I need to give the office of council services the appropriate time to be able to uh achieve our objective. So I just wanted to let you know that and that would be for anybody out there who'd be testifying again on agenda item number three which is bill 51. It will not happen until the end of agenda. Moving to agenda item number one for action. Resolution 25-238. This resolution confirms the reappoint of Mahilani Cipher to serve on the Oahu Historic Preservation Commission of the City and County of Honolulu for a term to expire on June 16, 2030. Miss Cipher was first appointed to the commission in 2023 for a two-year term and and extremely knowledgeable in native Hawaiian history and culture. Members, we have posted on the agenda a proposed CD1 version of the resolution which I submitted. For your information, a summary of the amendments is listed on the agenda. The CD1 makes technical amendments including formatting changes, correcting typographical errors, and referencing the mayor's um message number. I would like to call up the appointee to say a few words. Aloha Mahani, could you please uh introduce yourself and share a little about your current and envision uh future role on the commission? Aloha Mayako. Mahalo for inviting me here today to offer whatever man I may have to share with you. Um, I'm really excited about this commission continuing to work to establish itself to show how it can help with historic preservation matters before the city. Um, I'm hoping we can complete our rule making in the next uh few months. And there's other things that are on our plans and agenda that uh we hope will help the city in all of the things that are needed to carry out what was desired when the commission was first established. So if you have any questions, I'm here to answer the best I can. Members, any questions? And welcome uh Chair Waters as well as Council Member Dosanzo Stam. >> I have one more thing to add. When we first proposed this commission in 1992, I think it was, we explained to each of the council members that in each of their nine districts, there are many historic places and places where history occurred that you may not know about. And so, we think that would really be great if some of you would learn about these things and maybe um study the history of your area because the community loves it when you tell them what happened in their neighborhoods. They, you know, really light light up. They love to hear the stories of old Hawaii before Western contact. So, every community has exciting historic places. Thank you. You know, that's a great idea. I'm wondering at the appropriate time uh perhaps we can have anformational briefing and uh maybe we'll have a huai here in the city council whereby you take a tour around the island and maybe uh talk about the unique history of each of our districts. >> That would be really fun. >> Okay. Thank you for the recommendation. >> Thank you. 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. >> Do we have any uh remote testifiers? >> Chair, there are none. >> Thank you so much. for the administration. Do we have anyone from the department of uh planning and permitting? >> Uh Michael Kat here for DBP. >> I'm assuming you strongly support this nominee. >> Uh yes. Uh we support the nominee and the proposed CD1. Uh >> members, any questions? If there are no questions or further discussion, the chair hereby recommends that resolution 25-238 be amended to the posted CD1. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the resolution has been amended to a CD1. The chair then recommends that resolution 25-238 CD1 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda item number two for action. Resolution 25-237. This resolution confirms the appointment of Katherine Stevens to serve on the Oahu Historic Preservation Commission of the City and County of Honolulu to f to fill a vacant position previously held by Halama for term to expire on June 16, 2030. Miss Stevens is a licensed architect and has a wealth of experience in historic preservation. We have posted on the agenda a proposed CD1 version of the resolution which I submitted. For your information, a summary of the amendment is listed on the agenda. The CD1 makes technical amendments including formatting changes, correcting typographical errors, and referencing the mayor's message number. I would like to call up the appointee, if she is here, to say a few words. If you could please introduce yourself and share the role you hope to fulfill in the commission. Thank you very much. Aloha everybody. Um, I got my masters in architecture at University of Hawaii as long as as well as a certificate in historic preservation. And I've worked my entire 33-y year career here in historic preservation. I always found historic preservation to be interesting, but I found over those years it's actually also very important. And historic resources offer us the opportunity to learn about people that came here, where they came from, when when they came here, why they came here, how they lived, what was important to them, and when we learn more about our past and other people, um we we understand more about each other, and I think it really can bring us together as a community. Um I look forward to this opportunity to support the the city and county and to help educate the public about these important resources. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Members, are there any uh questions for the nominee? As I mentioned in our um talk story, I greatly appreciate you um you agreeing to serve on the commission. Um I think you bring a lot of wealth of knowledge and um it I'm just heartened that in the evolution of the commission, we're now um renominating people and having people like yourselves come on board. and I think it only strengthens the handle of the overall commission. Uh before I call up the administration, thank you. I would like to take public testimony proceeding first with inperson 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? Seeing none, proceeding with remote testimony. Clerks, do we have any remote testifiers for this item? >> Chair, there are none >> for the administration. Thank you, Miss Steven. Thank you very much. >> Uh, Michael Cat, uh, for DBP, we are in support of the nominee and the proposed CD1. >> Thank you so much, member. Any questions for the um administration? Any discussion? If not, the chair recommends that resolution 25-237 be amended to the posted CD1. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the resolution has been amended to a CD1. The chair then recommends that resolution 25-237 CD1 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving on to agenda item number four. Bill 622025. Right. This bill makes certain amendments to RO section 25-5.70 uh-30 as enacted by ordinance 25-2 relating to bed and breakfast home and transit vacation unit standards and requirements which were initially made under ordinance 24-14 but inadvertently omitted under ordinance 25-2. If you recall, ordinance 25-2 repealed and replaced land use ordinance article 5 relating to land use regulations. Members, note that figures 21-5.1, 21-5.2, 21-5.3, and 21-5.4 for in the bill which depict the areas in close proximity to Wy Ki, Kalina Resort, Turtle Bay Resort and Hakale Resort where bed and breakfast homes and transit vacation units are where transit vacation units are permitted appear in black and white and are a little grainy. I would like to propose a verbal amendment for CD1 version of the bill that replaces all four figures with the higher resolution color versions that appear in ordinance 25-2. For members of the public, note that the title and purpose clause of the bill are very narrow. So, the only amendments that can be made in the bill are the amendments made in ordinance 24-14, which primarily relate to registration requirements. Some testifiers have suggested that other amendments be made to the bed and breakfast home and transit vacation unit provisions, but that could not be done under bill 62 and will not to be and would not be taken up and will need to be taken up in a separate bill. 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 inperson testifiers for this item? >> Chair, we have a couple standing by you. >> When I call your name, please come forward to the testifier podium and begin by stating your name for the record. Please conclude your remarks promptly when you hear the buzz of the timer. The first testifier is Edward Jones. Ed Jones um for Coastro in opposition. Um at the at the chair's request, I'm going to skip my first paragraph. Um Vice Chair Waters, mahalo for um introducing this bill and your discussion with me at the KS uh community meeting. You also attended the Hawaii Kai mayor's town hall and heard the mayor's direction um to clarify that short-term rental may occur on the same residential lot. This bill is uncon the LO is unconstitutional until this is achieved. Um you you were going to have lunch uh with Mayor Blangardi. I appreciate that. um that was a couple months ago. Hopefully that's occurred. Um and that you're prepared to bring um the results of your discussion back. Um and a separate bill is great. Um chair, if I can have like 15 seconds. Thank you. Um would be a great idea. Um chair, would you be willing to introduce that bill um at the next full council meeting for first reading? Uh I'm not going to be entertaining anything until after this committee hearing is uh possible. So no, I'm not going to commit to >> I'll follow up with your office on the phone. Thank you very much. Um so um Mayor Van Blanchiardi um has acknowledged that this is urgent. Um bill 62 is before us now, but I totally respect your authority to find the best and fastest way to achieve this. um your residents are suffering and it's it's been years um and it's time to bring this forward. Um the uh my proposal for the bill is in exhibit A of the Coastro um written testimony. Um that would be a good start that the exhibit A is the rooms portion and we'll be glad to make sure that you have copies um for the um um for dwellings also. Um mahalo I can answer any questions at this point but I recognize >> members any questions? >> Thank you so much. The next testifier is Margaret Orand. Aloha. I'm Margaret Oran. I'm here to testify. Um, I agree with the people that think the re-registration fee of $1,000 is excessive and should not uh be required when there's a change of management. Um, as far as the rest of my testimony, uh, I did not realize until a few minutes ago that nothing can be added to this bill. However, if it could, Mayor Blangiardi says we are not the target of the um, the bot employed by the DPP, which has put some of us out of business, including myself. Um, my property has been invisible for months now and I have no further bookings. Um, this is rather distressful and when I explain to people what is happening, they are both shocked and appalled at the fines and the restrictions. They should not be. They are unconstitutional. And I don't think the city wants to defend a a suit on the constitutional issues. Uh, in my one case, the damages would be $900,000 and you multiply me by a thousand and you've got a hefty um damages under the regulatory takings in the fifth amendment. Uh, if we could add something to this bill, um, it would be a a bed and breakfast hosted short-term rental must have a current homeowner's homestead exemption for purposes of property tax. A bed and breakfast um or hosted short-term rental unit must be registered pursuant to the requirements of this bill and may be rented for any time period pursuant to the provisions of HRS5221. All references to 30 and 90day minimum stay time periods are null and void as regards bed and breakfasts or short hosted short-term rentals. We everyone is confused about whether it even includes including the RBO about whether it's 30 or 90 days and we'd like to settle on 30 days if we possibly could. Um >> thank you so much for uh your testimonies. Um, I will assure all of you who are testifying today that I am going to look at all of the testimony and actually have a discussion with um DPP uh separately uh because uh to determine the parameters of any of any amendments being proposed. Okay. So, it might not just be under consideration. The amendments you are proposed DPP might have some additional amendments as well as amendments by my colleagues. So, thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the council chamber who would like to testify on this item? >> Okay. Cole McLullen on behalf of the American Hotel Lodging Association and Hawaii Hotel Alliance offering comments in support of bill 62. This council and the administration have worked very hard on codifying the short-term rental rules that are in place. This cleans up uh some of the things that DPP needs to ensure that we're enforcing the laws that are on the books. If anything, chair, u the team at DPP can use your support and this council's support and continue to do the great job of enforcing. Um we're not going to presume to put words in the mayor's mouth or threaten you with a lawsuit today. Uh but we will say that we appreciate everything that you folks continue to do on the short-term rental front. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the council chamber would like to testify on this item? Aloha. >> Aloha. Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES, so I'm neutral in this discussion. Um, I'd just like to comment. I think the bill, if I'm reading it accurately, um is requiring the property owners wishing to and desire to rent out a home um for their Airbnb to abide by these restrictive parameters in good faith to direct these business activities in an effort to control um unlawful rentals, reduce liabilities. Um but then it also um helps the city to avoid liabilities in mismanagement of properties not in good standing with the law. So it it requires additional homeowners insurance umbrella coverage to meet the million dollars in homeowners insurance and business liability coverage um as well as uh the creation um of homeowners associations to manage uh what's being talked about in bill 62. So I think um it's expected that these properties owners have a certain um threshold of investment um knowledge as well as um like >> Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. >> Guest experience management. >> Angela, you know, I appreciate you coming on occasion, but we don't need a recitation of what the bill is. You're you're here to testify on whether or not you support or you oppose or you have comments, but thank you for your testimony. >> I think they should talk to the state house about it. >> Is there anyone else in the council chamber who would like to testify on this item? Clerks, do we have any remote testimony? >> Chair, we have a couple standing by. >> We have signing up for remote testimony, Kelly Lee. Kelly, are you there? Aloha, Kelly. P, please proceed. >> Aloha, chair, vice chair, and the zoning committee. I'm Kelly Lee with the Oahu Short-Term Rental Alliance. We strongly support Bill 6225, which builds on the success of Ordinance 2414, and it makes registration more efficient. But one unintended issue remains. The law requires a full re-registration and $1,000 fee every time an operator or point of contact changes, even when the owner remains the same. These routine changes create unnecessary costs for the owners and duplicate work for DPP BFS and the tax department without improving registration compliance. It also creates a disentive for owners to comply which goes against the p purpose of the bill. We respectfully ask that you amend section 2CY to remove change in operator as a trigger for re-registration or it could be replaced with a simpler update process or a modest fee. Please fix this unintended consequence so a simple operator change doesn't cost $1,000 and create extra work for everyone. Mahalo. >> Thank you so much. The next person is Bradley Ramos. I'm sorry, Bradley Ramos. Uh, please move forward. >> Hello. Um, hi, my name is Bradley Ramos. I'm reservations manager at Captain Cook Resorts. Speaking on behalf of my company as well as the Oahu Short-Term Rental Alliance. Um, pretty much the same testimony as Kelly. I do support bill 6225. Uh, we think it makes registration more efficient and we are very thankful for that. But I have one key concern, same as Kelly, that a full new registration with a thousand fee is required any time an operator or on island contact changes even when the property owner remains the same. Uh, these routine updates add unnecessary costs for owners and duplicate work for all the government agencies involved without providing any real additional compliance benefit. So, I respectfully ask that section 2CY be amended to remove change in operator as a trigger for re-registration or at least allow a simple contact info update process with a more modest fee that matches the minor nature of the changes to an exist an owner's existing approved short-term rental registration. Thank you. >> Thank you so much uh Brad and uh to you and everyone who's testified. I actually share your concerns and I'll be uh calling up DPP to ask questions. Um so thank you so much. Is there anyone else standing by remotely who would like to testify on this item? Please raise the hand button. >> None. >> Thank you so much. Can we have the administration um come to testify on this item? Good afternoon, Chair Kia Aina and committee members. I'm Elizabeth Kger with the Department of Planning and Permitting. Thank you very much for taking this bill up today. Uh this was something that we uh generated once we realized that it had been inadvertently omitted under ordinance 252. Uh we thank the council staff and the staff at the office of council services for working with us on this and uh you have already summarized what how it changes from ordinance 252. Uh if you would like me to go into any of those in more detail, I'd be happy to do that. >> No, I think we're okay. I just want to start with questions. So, my first question is, you've heard all of the testimony, and I share the concern for the re-registration requirement that includes a $1,000 fee uh for any change in operator or an online point of contact. Uh I understand because of the um narrow description that we were unable to make amendments, but what is DPP's position on that? And of course, if you share the concerns, would you support um a remedy in that regard? >> Uh yes, I do share those concerns and I think that the department would be uh amendable to looking at a remedy for that. >> Okay. So, if we uh introduce a freestanding measure that you would be supportive of that legislation, is that correct? >> To change the fees relating to that? Uh well, I haven't gotten a chance to talk to the director about it, but I definitely think that she would be interested in a discussion about it. >> Okay. Thank you so much. And what I would uh recommend is that if there are other things that are nonrelated to this bill that may not may have to all be considered, then perhaps we could do it as a um as a comprehensive measure. I I will I would like a heads up on whether or not it would be an administration proposal or whether you'd like myself or another member to introduce that that remedy. Okay. Can we keep in touch on that? >> Yes, we can absolutely keep in touch on that. >> Thank you so much. U members, are there any questions to uh DPP? Council member Tupola. >> Thank you, Chair. A quick question. Um, Elizabeth, on page 10, it says the renewal fee and then it it strikes it out and said specify in 6-41.1. Is that an actual list of fees or is it just a reference to admin rules? >> No, that's an abs that's an actual table of DPP land use permits fees. Oh, >> okay. And is that for many different things aside from uh vacation rentals? Is that why it's referring to that as opposed to writing it in here? >> Yes, that's right. >> Okay, sounds good. Thank you for your help. Thank you, chair. >> Okay. Uh members, any other questions? If not, thank you. The chair recommends that bill 62 20225 be amended to a CD1 that replaces figures 21-5.1, 21-5.2, 21-5.3, and 21-5.4 with the higher resolution color versions that appear in ordinance 25-2. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the bill has been amended to a CD1. The chair then recommends that bill 62 2025 CD1 be reported out for passage on second reading in the scheduling of a public hearing. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none so ordered. For all of you who have testified in person and online, I hope that you heard the discussion with regard to the concerns that you have shared. We hear it and we are going to be uh considering a remedy in concert with the city administration. Mahalo. Moving to agenda item number five for action resolution 25-229. This resolution grants a special management area major permit to Sea Turtles Estates LLC to allow for the demolition of an existing single unit dwelling and the construction of a new two-story single dwelling unit, detached fourcar garage with a recreation room above the garage, five open parking spaces, replacement of the existing cesspool with a new individual wastewater system with leech field. installation of drywalls to collect and disperse storm water runoff and landscaping improvements on an approximately 1.36 acre shoreline lot zone R5 residential district located at 56-157 Kameia Highway in Malai Kahana and identified as tax map key 5600189 members we have posted on the agenda a proposed CD1 version of the resolution which I submitted For your information, a summary of the amendments is listed on the agenda. I would also like to propose a verbal amendment to remove condition C1, which would have required the applicant to prepare and submit to the state historic preservation division a revised cultural impact assessment. The division does not accept an an approved cultural impact assessments. The certified shoreline survey for the project site has expired, but the director of planning and permitting waved the requirement that a new certified shoreline survey be conducted because the project is located mocha of the regulatory 60oot shoreline setback plus 15 ft. All project buildings and structures are located at least 75 ft from the presumed shoreline with the nearest structure located approximately 82 feet from the shoreline. The applicant proposes to install dry wells on the project site to collect and disperse storm water runoff. Condition B of the proposed CD1 provides that prior to the issuance of any construction permit or building permit for the project, the applicant is required to submit to the department revised project plans showing the location of the dry wells and the associated earthwork calculations. The state historic preservation division commented that Eevee kuna or native Hawaiian ancestral rem remains were found on adjacent and nearby parcels and requested the preparation of an archaeological inventory survey with subsurface testing for the project site. Condition C of the proposed CD1 includes conditions requiring the applicant to prepare and submit to the division an archaeological inventory survey and to implement all mitigation protocols approved or otherwise required by the division. The project involves the excavation of approximately 17 cubic yards of soil for the new individual wastewater system tank and 95 cubic yards for the associated leech field. About half of the excavated soil will be used as infill for the excavation sites and the remaining soil will be used to backfill the area where the current ceso is located. The applicant also proposes to import 29.2 cubic yards of structural fill material for the project slab ongrade foundations since structural fill may contain invasive pathogens past or plants. The proposed CD1 includes condition D which requires the applicant to comply with certain protocols to minimize the spread of invasive species. The Makai portion of the project site is anticipated to be impacted by 3.2 feet of sea level rise by the year 2100, but all proposed project structures will be located mala of the sea level rise exposure area. Joining us in the council chamber is Mark Howland from Well Environmental Services who will be providing a brief presentation. For information, the presentation is available online as miscellaneous communication 4912025. >> Aloha chair and council members. Thank you for hearing me today. We're here for resolution 2529 um 229. Um and the address is 57157 Kamehameh Highway in Malakahana. This is uh Sea Turtle Estates. Diane Zuko is the applicant. Um she's the owner of Sea Turtles Estates LLC. Um as we're here today, we prepared the written statement, submitted the DPP, and they've reviewed um it's um as we said with the address, it's uh over $500,000 of work. It's a severely damaged termite infested home that'll be demolished and replaced with a new home and a detached garage with a wreck room above. This is the location. It's directly across from Guntock Ranch. Um, and as you see, it's near where the split that goes up to the ridge um starts to develop. This is the current site plan. Um, as you can see, the this area Malakahana has a very steep coastal bank. So most of the sea level rise lines are down by the bank and the property actually slopes down towards from where the house is down towards the highway. So the runoff will be in that direction. Um this is the plot plan for the site. Um this is the um shoreline study website. As you see it has a small um loss along the line. kind of splits between an accretion and a loss line. Um so it doesn't add very much to the shoreline setback. Um the soils on the map a jack of sands um which is one of the reasons why there are cultural concerns. The ark um sites that have been detected before are two lots to the south of this lot. These are site photos of the site. As you can see, it's markedly sloping, mostly grass with a fringe of palm trees along the perimeter, side perimeters and the paka on the shoreline, falls in the pocket. Sea level rise, it's um pretty much confined is to the beach area and the beach sands below. Um this is the flood hazard map. It's a exone flood zone. Um this is the topo of the area which shows the way the land slopes to the mocker side. Um so essentially if you have any questions I'll be glad to answer. Thank you >> members. Are there any questions? Uh thank you Mr. Holland. I know that you've and I be in contact um on a matter that was raised to our attention but if you don't mind I'm going to move forward and just ask it uh to you in this hearing. I understand that some of the project plans that were attached as exhibits to the resolution were initially prepared by a licensed architect whose stamp appears on the exhibits, but the plans were subsequently revised by another architect without removing the initial architect stamp. Can you please confirm that the conceptual plans that appear in the exhibits accurately portray and represent the proposed project and describe what adjustments were made to the plans by the new architect? Can you also please explain why the initial architect stamp was not removed when the plans were altered by a different architect? >> Um, Miss Dian Zuko had sent a letter to your staff members explaining that she had paid in full for the plans and they were her property. She the architect did not want to remove um the impervious concrete driveway and change it to a pvious concrete driveway which is something DPP prefers for groundwater recharge. And so that was the only major change. And then she incorrectly identified uh where the shoreline setback was going to be. Um it's 75 ft plus 2.1 ft of erosion rate loss. So the axle she had to she wouldn't do it. And so that's why the applicant had to have a draftsman change the number from 75 ft to 77.1 separate. But why did you still leave the previous architect stamp on? Why, if you were modifying it, why didn't you get the new architect to drop new plans rather than just make a modification to someone else's >> That was between Miss Zuko. We had nothing to do with developmental plans. >> Okay. Well, I will ask DPP when they come up. Thank you so much. Any uh any members? Do you have any other questions here? >> Thank you. Okay, I'm going to take uh 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 podium and begin by stating your name. Seeing none, proceeding with remote testimony. Clerks, do we have any remote testifiers for this item or is anyone else standing by online to testify? Chair, >> there are none. for the administration of planning and permitting. >> Good afternoon, chair and committee members. Elizabeth Kger. We support the CD1 for this and we support the project. >> Thank you so much. Could you elaborate a little on what I previously uh discussed with the agent regarding this property? I understand that you were notified by the architect. Can you tell me what is common practice when an agent is submitting documents to DPP with regard to a stample of approval by an architect? >> Yes. Um, land use permit plans don't actually have to be stamped by an architect at the conceptual phase, but they do have to be stamped by the architect during the building permit phase. So, we were um notified by the previous architect when she saw her stamp on the plans that had been transmitted in our draft report and recommendation and let us know that she was no longer on the project and was concerned that her stamp was still on there. So, uh she did verify that the owner will have a different architect during the phase where it gets submitted for the building permit application. And our concern there was that uh possibly the plans that were submitted as part of the building permit application would have elements that were not considered as part of the SMA approval. It sounds like the agent has confirmed that in general the plan will be essentially the same. But uh we appreciate the discussion occurring that we make sure that we are in fact evaluating the plans that would show u the the conceptual the conceptual dwelling so that we can accurately evaluate the coastal impacts. Is that standard practice for someone to modify another architect's plans and still have their stample of approval on it? >> As I understand it, once they modify another architect's plans, the stamp would have to be removed because the person who had stamped and essentially certified the work was no longer the last person who touched it. So would you recommend for the agent who has presented the application that moving forward in the future that the adhere to that code of conduct? >> Yes, I'd strongly recommend at least being open and transparent with the department about who the architect of record is and making sure that the stamps uh accurately reflect that. >> Okay. Thank you so much. The members any questions? The chair recommends that resolution 25-229 be amended to the posted CD1 as further amended as we discussed to remove condition C1 which would have required the applicant to prepare and submit to the state historic preservation division a revised cultural impact assessment. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the resolution has been amended to a CD1. The chair then recommends that resolution 25-229 CD1 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda item number six for action resolution 25-230. This resolution grants a special management area major permit to James M. and Mary E. Sippen to allow for the construction of a new two-story single unit dwelling with covered lenai exterior stairs, attached twocar carport, and two uncovered parking spaces. and the installation of a new individual wastewater system on an approximately 29,976 square foot shoreline zoned uh lot zoned R5 residential district located at 47711A Kameha Highway in Kahalu and identified as tax map key 47014010. Members, we have posted on the agenda CD1 which I submitted. For your information, a summary of the amendments is listed on the agenda. The project site has been submitted to a condominium property regime and consists of two condominium units. The project will be constructed on condominium unit one on the Mala portion of the project site and there is an existing unit single unit dwelling with an individual wastewater system and condominium unit two in the Makai portion of the project site. The certified shoreline survey for the project site has expired, but the director of planning and permitting waved the requirement that a new certified shoreline survey be conducted because the project is located mala of the regulatory 60 ft shoreline setback plus 15 ft. All project buildings and structures are located at least 75 ft for the presumed shoreline with the nearest structure located more than 150 ft from the shoreline. The project site is located within flood zone AEF which is a floodway associated with drainage from the Kaallaya stream wershed. The project dwelling will be elevated above the 9 foot base flood elevation level with a finished floor elevation of approximately 10.5 ft above mean sea level. In addition, the ground level will be enclosed with breakaway walls to allow any water entering the area to flow through without damaging the structural beams and column footings. Development within flood zone AF must comply with the special flood hazard requirements of RO chapter 21A and requires an approved floodway permit. The applicant has filed two applications for a floodway permit, but both applications were rejected as incomplete and required additional information to ensure the applicant is aware of additional flooding flood related requirements and approvals. Condition B of the proposed CD1 requires the applicant to obtain obtain flood insurance for damage or loss to the project structures. And condition J1 requires the applicant to obtain a floodway permit prior to the issuance of any construction permit or building permit for the project. The MA portion of the project site where the project will be developed is anticipated to be impacted by 3.22 two two feet of sea level rise by the year 2100 and approximately twothirds of the project dwelling is within the 3.2 foot sea level rise exposure area combined with the flood hazard risk of being located within the floodway. Condition C2 of the propos CD1 requires the applicant to acknowledge and take responsibility for the cleanup and restoration of the project site in the event of coastal erosion related loss of property. When the applicant presented the project to the Cahulu neighborhood board number 29 and at the Department of Planning and Permitting's public hearing on the project, community members expressed concern about installing another individual wastewater system in an area subject to flooding and sea level rise. The project system will be located in the Mala most portion of the project site in an area outside of the 3.2 foot sea level rise exposure area. The entire area surrounding the project site is not served by the city sewer system. So such development must provide its own individual wastewater system that is designed and size to meet the wastewater requirements of that development. The state department of health regulates and approves of these systems including location and safeguards prevent the release of pollutants into the environment. Previous archaeological archaeological research in the general area of the project site documented a relatively large number of traditional and archaeological sites and features including habitation and agricultural sites ha burial sites and fish ponds. By letter dated May 22nd, 2025, the state historic preservation division recommended that an archaeological inventory survey with subsurface testing be conducted for the project site. The division also recommended that the applicant consult would recognize descendants of the area and the division regarding appropriate testing strategy prior to implementing the survey. Condition G of the proposed CD1 includes conditions requiring the applicant to prepare and submit to the vision an archaeological inventory survey and to implement all mitigation protocols approved or otherwise required by the division. The project involves the disturbance of approximately 107.5 cubic yards of soil for site preparation and construction activities. The applicant also proposes to import 103 cubic yards of structural fill material for the project support grade beams, column footings, concrete slabs, and the leech field. No importation of soil fill material is proposed. Since structural fill may contain invasive pathogens, pests or plants, the proposed CD1 includes condition I, which requires the applicant to comply with certain protocols to minimize the spread of invasive species. Joining us in the chamber is Mark Holland from Well Environmental Services who will be providing a brief presentation. For information, the presentation is available online as miscellaneous communication 493 2025. >> Hello our chair, committee members. Thank you for hearing us today. This is the James Sippins property. Mary Sippen. This is James Sippins here sitting down. He's the owner of the property. Um, we of course reviewed this with DPP and went over the different changes they wanted and we got to the point where we think it's a well-designed project that addresses the concerns in sea level rise areas. It has uh before mentioned it's um a residential lot um over $500,000. So, it's an SMA major. This is the property. The state GIS lines are always a little bit off on this, but you get general idea of what the property looks like. The existing single family dwelling is the shoreline property. Where the red dot is is where his proposed new single family dwelling would be. There was a house there years ago. It's been demolished and tanned down. This is the site plan of what he plans to do. Uh and it shows you where the uh 3.2 erosion line is. This is the u type of house it is. It's a haunt modular home building. Um so it' be relatively easy to erect. These are site photos of the site. It's mostly lawn fescue grasses or guinea grass um on the majority of the site. The soils on the site are pearl harbor clays which is one of the reasons why it's slow draining. Um so um the leech field requires better draining type material. This is the 3.2 sea level rise exposure area. It's the reason why the septic system will be close to the highway and the house is up on pilings. Um there's no coastal erosion indicators on this site. This unstudied area as most of Carnegoi Bay is um critical habitat. Um there's nothing u oh this is the hurricane surge. I'm sorry. Um it's going to be affected um in the category 4. This is the critical This is the uh critical habitat map. As you can see, it's only up in the mountains. It's probably the Hawaiian hoy bat. Again, we always listen very carefully to what the council recommends and the CDE conditions u match the concerns that we had as well. Um, so there's a series of conditions that we thank you for providing such as dark sky, wildlife protection, cultural investigations, clean soils, and SMA acknowledgment of climate impact. Thank you. Take any questions. >> Thank you so much. Members, any questions? Chair Waters, >> slightly off subject, but uh I'm in support, but is this a dock? Does the property have a dock there? the it's a CPI subdivision. So, the CPI unit that's on the water that's already built does have a dock. >> I think it's grandfathered in. You can't build a new dock. So, you're going to want to you're going to want to keep that there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> He's not there's no activity on that CPR unit. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you so much. Before we um 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 inperson testifiers for this item? >> Chair, there are none. >> Is there any remote testifiers? >> Chair, there are none. >> Thank you for the administration. >> Thank you, Chair Elizabeth Kger for the Department of Planning and Permitting. Uh we support the CD1 and we support the project. >> Thank you. I have no questions. Members, any questions or further discussion? If not, the chair recommends that resolution 25-230 be amended to the posted CD1. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the resolution has been amended to a CD1. The chair then recommends that resolution 25-230 CD1 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda item number seven for action resolution 25-245. This resolution grants a special management area major permit to Noel E. Remington to allow for the construction of an addition to an existing single unit dwelling involving the expansion of the first floor with two covered knives and a new second floor with the partially covered lenai. the construction of a new twostory single unit dwelling with attached garage to accommodate six vehicles covered lai and concrete driveway with two uncovered parking spaces and the installation of a new individual wastewater system for the new dwelling on an approximately 31,480 square foot shoreline lot zoned R5 residential district located at 56225 Kameha Highway in Malai Kahana and identified as Tax map key 560011078. We have posted on the agenda a CD1 version of the resolution. For your information, a summary of the amendment is listed on the agenda. Approximately approximately 10% of the project site is anticipated to be impacted by 3.2 feet of sea level rise by the year 2100, but there are no proposed structures in this affected area. According to state historic preservation division records, subsurface cultural deposits and EB kuna native hine ancestral remains have been identified in the vicinity of the project site, including two sites included on the state inventory of historic places. A majority of the soil in the project site areas classified as Jacquisan, which as we all know has a higher likelihood of containing subsurface archaeological sites in Eevee Kuna. By letter dated May 23rd, 2025, the division recommended that an archaeological inventory survey with subsurface testing be conducted for the project site. The division also recommended the applicant consult with recognized descendants of the area and the division regarding appropriate testing strategy prior to implementing the survey. Condition F of the proposed CD1 includes conditions requiring the applicant to prepare and submit to the division an archaeological inventory survey and to implement all mitigation protocol protocols approved or otherwise required by the division. The applicant proposals proposes to import approximately 46 cubic yards of structural fill material for the project's new garbage slab foundation and approximately 4 cubic yards of soil fill material. Since fill material may contain invasive pathogens, pests or plants, the proposed CD1 includes condition I, which requires the applicant to comply with certain protocols to minimize the spread of invasive species. Joining us in the chamber is Mark Holland again from Well Environmental Services for a brief presentation. For your information, the presentation is available online as a miscellaneous communication 492 2025. >> Hello our chair council members. Thank you for hearing this. This is a Remington property. It's next door to the Peach property that you gave an SNA permit to last year. Um, it's um Why didn't this switch? It's not switching. >> Yeah, go that one. Thank you. Um, so this is a photo of the property. Um, it's an RFI district. The shoreline survey has certified at a 6,364 foot erosion loss. So far, isolated for impervious surface area calculation is actually less than actual lot. So, I guess it's working now. It's our five district. Again, it's over $500,000 in SNA major. The um Dr. Mike Dagger from SCS has been hired. He's already started the uh marching plan has been approved and he's already started the AIS. This is the shoreline of the beach um which is not going to be affected at all. As you can see, it's one of the few places in Hawaii where the beach is actually still pretty good. Um these is the proposal. One is modification of the existing dwelling in the same footprint where it is. Then a brand new dwelling next to the highway for her daughter. Conceptually, this is what they would look like. It's in the SMA district. The sand jack of sands as mentioned, beach sands up by the beach. There's no work in the beach sands area. And as I said, the AIS has already been done. 3.2 sea level rise. Um, again, does not go into the work areas. This is the um what's this one? Oh, again there's no coastal erosion line indicators for this area. On the hurricane surge, um a category 4 affects the most of the area, but not this particular site for some reason. They think it's because it's deep within the bay. The um endangered species is a proposal to uh name the beach area as critical habitat. Currently, it's they identified as potential. We do know it has green sea turtles among seals. They've been observed on the property. And again, the same series of conditions that I discussed before, which have come out of discussions with DPP and the council. We thank you for them. We think they make it for a very protected coastal development. Thank you. >> Members, any questions? Before I call on the administration, I would like to take public testimony, proceeding first with in-person testimony. Clerks, do we have any inperson testifiers? Chair, >> there are none. >> And if anyone would like to present testimony, please come forward. Seeing none, proceeding on with remote testifiers and anyone standing by. Clerks, do we have anyone standing by? >> Chair, there are none. >> Any questions? Oh, I'm sorry. DPP. >> Thank you, chair. Uh, we support the CD1 and we support the project. Thank you members. Any questions? Council member Okimoto. >> Thank you, chair. Maybe if I could get the for not for DVP, but for um the developer. I was just curious. These are nice drawings, but these are two big homes. Who who will be living in this? Is this are these? >> The existing house that's going to be renovated is the Remingtons, Brad and Noel. Then the daughter and her family and she I believe she has two young kids are going to be in the other new house. >> Okay. So four current residents not to be used >> no >> commercially or any other way >> family use only. >> Okay. >> The same thing as the peaches next door. They were building their house you approved last year for a family member. >> Got it. Thank you. Thank you chair. >> Thank you. If there are no further questions or discussion, the chair recommends that resolution 25-245 be amended to the posted CD1. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the resolution has been amended to a CD1. The chair then recommends that resolution 25-245 CD1 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda item number eight for action. Resolution 25-246. This resolution grants a special management area major permit to AJ Beach LLC and JB Beachside LLC to allow for the construction of a new two-story single unit dwelling with two covered lenai two open lenai attached twocar garage primarily above ground swimming pool and concrete driveway and the installation of landscaping and an irrigation system on an approximately 13,724 square foot shoreline zone R10 residential district located at 914C Punael Place in Wup and identified as tax map key20009. We have posted on the agenda a CD1 version of the resolution which I submitted. For your information, a summary of that amendment is listed on the agenda. The shoreline setback for the project site is 60 ft. The entire project site is anticipated to be impacted by 3.2 2 ft of sea level rise by the year 2100. The project's proposed dwelling is located approximately 10 ft from the front front boundary front property boundary and 60 ft from the anticipated regulatory shoreline. So relocation of the dwelling further mala is not possible without redesigning or reducing the size of the dwelling. Instead, the applicant is proposing to use a durable concrete masonry unit perimeter wall foundation to support the dwelling. The existing non-conforming low concrete seaw wall along the Makai portion of the project site is part of a contiguous seaw wall that runs along the entire width of the project site and was built in 1949. The seaw wall encroaches approximately 5 feet into stateowned submerged lands with the state land use conservation district. There is no certified shoreline survey for the project site because title 13 chapter 222 of the Hawaii administrative rules prohibits the issuance of a survey if a seaw wall encroaches into state submerged land. However, the presumed shoreline wrong runs along the Mai face of the seaw wall. On April 25th, 2025, the Board of Land and Natural Resources granted the applicant a right of entry until the board until the board issues a non-exclusive easement or revocable permit to resolve the seaw wall encroachment. The applicant anticipates receiving a certified shoreline survey within 6 to 12 months. Condition B1 requires that prior to the issuance of construction or building permit for the project, the applicant is required to submit to the DPP a copy of the project certified shoreline survey. Condi condition H of the proposed CD1 requires the use of pvious surface materials such as grass or grass block pavers for the project's driveway and open parking areas to facilitate drainage within the project site and decrease the storm water runoff volume and velocity toward the ocean. A review of field reports and surveys found that Eevee kuna or native wine ancestral remains were discovered in 2002 approximately 80 feet north of the project site. In addition, in the 1990s when colonial no was widened, Eevee kuna were discovered west of hine drive to Hale Mu street. A majority of the soil on the project site is classified as jockis sand which has a higher likelihood of containing subsurface archaeological sites in EV kuna. The applicant has contracted for the preparation of an archaeological inventory survey which will be submitted to the state historic preservation district shortly. Condition I of the proposed CD1 includes conditions requiring the applicant to submit to the department a copy of the division's acceptance of the archaeological inventory survey and to implement all mitigation protocols approved or otherwise required by the division. The applicant proposes to import approximately 450 cubic yards of structural fill material for the concrete masonry unit perimeter wall foundation. No importation of soil fill material is proposed since structural fill material may contain invasive pathogens, pests, or plants. The proposed CD1 includes condition K, which requires the applicant to comply with certain protocols to minimize the spread of invasive species. The project's roof overhang encroaches approximately 2 feet into the 60oot shoreline setback area. Condition L1 requires the applicant to obtain a minor shoreline structure permit for this encroachment. 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 4812025. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh Jim Hayes with Planning Solutions representing the applicant. Um let's see. It's not advancing again. There it goes. All right. Hopefully it'll work from there. Uh so this project site um is near the front of Anahina Valley, right on the east side of Hupe Peninsula. Um and we already reviewed the zoning and the size. Thanks for doing that, chair. Uh, this aerial photograph illustrates that the project site is currently vacant. It was previously used for residential purposes. Uh, but the the previous dwelling uh deteriorated and was removed some time ago. And you'll see that the shoreline residences in this neighborhood tend to be relatively large. Uh, and the older residences, the existing residences are relatively close to the shoreline. This shows the sea level rise exposure area. Uh the sea level rise exposure area in this area is substantially due to high wash of waves. Um so as sea level rises, it's anticipated that annually there'll be some intrusion by high waves as far inland as Colani Highway. This illustrates the proposed uh dwelling. Uh it consists of two areas with a lai between them as well as a swimming pool. It is set back 60 ft from the shoreline and is consistent with uh the surrounding properties except that this dwelling will be set back further from the shoreline than the nearby dwellings. Um and this is a view from the sea side of the dwelling illustrating that the dwelling is elevated above the ground level to address um the flood zone requirements and that the pool the lenai area is also elevated so that the pool is only partially uh into the ground um which is reducing the amount of ground disturbance. And we also talked about the perimeter wall foundation which is another element that will reduce uh ground disturbance relative to other options. Chair mentioned previously that uh the seaw wall encroaches into state property or state submerged lands. uh we have obtained a non-exclusive easement through the board of land and natural resources and the applicant is complying with the conditions uh of that easement. We've also contracted with ASM affiliates to complete an envir an archaeological inventory survey and we are waiting for the state historic preservation division to approve our AIS plan and as soon as that is done that will proceed. uh related to the shoreline certification. That process is now being uh now making progress because we have obtained the easement. So that will be available well in advance of uh building permits. So thank you very much. I appreciate your consideration of this resolution. >> Thank you so much members. Any questions for the agent? Thank you. Before I call up the administration, I would like to take public testimony. Clerks, are is there any inerson or remote testimony? >> Chair, there are none. >> Thank you for the administration for the director of planning and permitting. >> Uh thank you chair. We support the CD1 and we support the project. >> Thank you so much members. Any questions, discussion? If not, the chair recommends that resolution 25-246 be amended to the posted CD1. Any discussion? Any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the resolution has been amended to a CD1. The chair then recommends that resolution 25-246 CD1 be reported out for adoption. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Members, uh, I have received a copy of the hand carried CD2 by the office of council service for bill 51 CD1. So, if you wouldn't mind, I am going to take that action item now. That was originally uh agenda item number three prior to ourformational briefing. Is that okay with the committee members? Thank you so much. Moving to agenda item number three for action, bill 51, 2025, CD1. This bill amends the Fort Street Mall Special Improvement District number two and supersedes any conflicting provisions. Highlight it, please. This bill would primarily expand the Fort Street Mall Special Improvement District number two to encompass more of downtown Honolulu and rename the district to the downtown Honolulu Special Improvement District number two. The expanded district is intended to enhance the quality of life in downtown Honolulu by providing residents, businesses, and visitors with a safe, clean, and enjoyable environment in which to live, work, and play. and to revitalize and enhance business in downtown Honolulu. Members, we have posted on the agenda a CD2 version of the bill which I submitted. For your information, a summary of the amendments is listed on the agenda. As discussed at our previous committee meeting, the proposed CD2 clarifies that in addition to amendments to the district's boundaries, supplemental services and improvements to be provided or financed and rate or method of aortionment of the special assessment. The revised plan also amends the number of members on the district association board of directors and budget for the district's first fiscal year. We have also distributed a handcarried CD2 version of the bill OCS 2025776 which I submitted. The handcarried CD2 incorporates the amendments in my posted proposed CD2 and also revises the downtown Honolulu business business improvement district plan attached in exhibit 8 to add a new section 10B 43 to provide for an exemption from the payment of the district special assessment for parcels exempt from the payment of real property taxes under RO 810.9B3. Three, this exemption relates to parcels that are exempt from the payment of real property taxes because the parcel is used for church purposes. As I had previously mentioned, this exemption was initially removed from the revised plan, but I am proposing to add it back in. Joining us in the chamber is Chris Fong from Tradewind Capital, who will be providing a brief presentation. For your information, the presentation is available online as miscellaneous communication 4892025. Welcome. >> Thank you, chair, and thank you, zoning committee. Um, you know, this is my third time presenting on the business improvement district, so I will try to keep it short and really I just want to re-emphasize the need for this and um why now? So, I'll keep this under three minutes. Um, but you know, downtown Honolulu is really compromised. The impression of safety and security is not what it once was. And this has really been exacerbated coming out of CO. And you can see this by the look and feel when you walk in the district, but you can also see this by the changing retail landscape. And so we've had some major retailers um pull out of the the district over the last couple of years. So what this tells us as local residents is, you know, mainland businesses are really giving up on this district. Um but, you know, we don't want to. Now, it's not all doom and gloom. Downtown is going through some positive changes, too. There has been some great investments from entrepreneurs in the district, things like new hotels, um new retailers like Paris Baguette, um new pickle ball, and so there is positive momentum, but you know, individual entrepreneurs can only do so much. And so, I think this is really an effort for the community to step up and and support uh the district as a whole. And so what the B does, and I know you all know this, but um for anyone new, you know, it'll provide safety and security personnel, u maintenance personnel, u ability to to uh clean the streets, power wash the district, and really revitalize the area and taking it into our own hands. And this is all with the goal of keeping our neighborhoods looking and feeling clean and safe. So I'll end it there. Thank you for the time. >> Thank you so much. Members, are there any questions for Mr. Fong? Thank you so much. Before I call up the administration, I would like to take public testimony. Proceeding first with in-person testimony in the council chamber. Clerks, do we have any in-person testifiers for this item? >> Chair, we have a few standing by you. >> When I call your name, please come forward to the testifier podium and begin by stating your name for the record. Please conclude your remarks promptly when you hear the buzz of the timer. The first testifier is Kiko Mlelen. Aloha committee chair, honorable members of the council, uh, Chair Waters, thank you so much for accepting this testimony on behalf of the Roman Catholic Dascese of Honolulu. Um, you have my written remarks. I want to thank you for the uh, uh, amendment that was offered. Committee chair Kiaina. I I think relevant to u our conversation today really is the connection that the dascese has to the very land that this improvement district seeks to enhance. It is deep and foundational to our history here in Hawaii. You know, the very first Catholic missionaries arrived here on July 7th in 1827. And in 1828, we established our mother church, the Cathedral Basilica of Our Lady of Peace right here in Honolulu. And that has been the heart of our church ever since. Um, we support the intent of this bill to write revitalize the downtown district. A safe, clean envir vibrant environment is good for all of us, including our parishioners. And it's important to note that the resources um of our church are funded by charitable contributions and directed toward our mission which are critical to the comprehensive nature of a special district like the one proposed. So we appreciate the the offered amendment and we support the intent of this measure. >> Thank you so much members. Any questions for Mi Mr. Mlen? Thank you so much. Next testifier is Angela Young. Aloha, Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES. So, um in the last discussion, um I wanted to keep to the technicalities of um the discussion and to request um Chinatown to be added um and propose the amendment um so that it can help the council's processes, right? if there are going to be other communities and parcels to be included to um help with protecting public safety concerns um in the district. And so um this time though um as a student of a seminary school I also like to um you know be supportive of the church um that churches and religious organizations organizing exclusively for charitable and educational purposes should be exempt from the financial burden. Um, yeah. So, uh, churches are workingass, uh, middle class people, unlike the, uh, Coalina discussion. They're very rich. They can afford things. Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to testify on this item? Seeing none, clerks, do we have any remote testifiers? >> There are none. Thank you so much. Uh for the administration, we have uh Mike Formy, managing director. >> Good afternoon, committee Cherokee. Aina, council members. Mike Forby, managing director. The administration continues to support this community initiative for a special improvement district. Happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Members, any questions? Council member Okimoto. >> Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, um managing director. really quickly with the movement and the the goal to clean up the area. What is the plan for those in the the this area homeless or houseless at this time? >> So, are you talking about a specific area downtown? >> No, I'm just wondering I know that there are homeless. So, as we clean up Chinatown especially, what would be the what would be the plans for those who are maybe in this area that are >> Yeah. >> with a with a plan to clean up and get it safe? What was the thoughts for that? >> Yeah. Um, the way I would answer that question is that the city, if the special improvement district is established, the city's commitment would probably be more than it is now. and and and that happens because when when the community has boots on the ground in the district and can call core can call my office and say many times they do with a photo say this is what's happening in the community we can react more quickly than if it goes through the normal process that it would so what I find is that for wiki because of the special improvement district we actually do more for that community than we do for communities that don't have these districts. So, I think it's going to be beneficial for us. I think it will help us respond more quickly and I think we can work with the public part of this public private partnership. We can work with the public and we can work with the community to respond more quickly. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair. >> Members, any other questions? I have a brief question. One of the testifiers who uh opposed this measure uh states in the testimony that um a business improvement district alone simply cannot solve these complex social issues. And never once did I think that we are transferring uh the government's responsibility uh for downtown to the B. Um so I just want to make sure that uh in creating this we uh it is our intent of course for the city administration the city agencies as well as the state and federal agencies to work hand in hand with the B. Is that correct? So this statement is >> correct. >> Yes chair that's absolutely correct. It's a public private partnership and I have stated publicly at the public meetings that we've had on this issue that the city does not intend to do less. we intend to do more and that's actually what's been proven out in wiki. So we're not we're not relinquishing any of our duties to the bid. We're actually going to partner with it. >> I just wanted that confirmation because uh you know in I've been um going to and speaking at a lot of various uh forums where on a multitude of issues and at the end of the day it's about leveraging all resources. It's all resources at every level of government and public private partnerships, not just the private sector, but our nonprofit faith-based community-based institutions and educational institutions quite frankly. So, I just wanted that affirmation. Thank you. Members, if we if there's no further discussion, the chair recommends that resolution bill 512025 CD1 be amended to the hand carried CD2 OCS 2025 0776. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the bill has been amended to a CD2. The chair then recommends that bill 512025 CD2 be reported out for passage on third reading. Any discussion, any objections or reservations? Hearing none, so ordered. Moving to agenda item number nine for discussion only bill 56 2025. This bill amends the provisions relating to special management area permits. The the bill would require neighborhood board presentations for a special management area minor permits which are processed by the department of planning and permitting and do not require council approval. Special management area minor permits apply to developments that have evaluation of less than of less than 500,000 and will not have any significant adverse environmental or ecological effect. Note that the department of planning and permitting filed departmental communication 6882025 in opposite in opposition to the bill. I will now defer to the introducer of the bill, council member Matt wire for the explanation of this measure. >> Um thank you chair and I'll just have it apply broadly to both measures. So no need to explain the second one because both of them are dealing with discretionary permits and um just in working with the community and trying to find a no cost or lowcost mechanism to support DPP who I think we know struggles with enforcement um with the notices of violations and even just trying to get out and enforce those or file those. You know we see that in Kona, we see that in Northshore up the hill from Hal Eva. Um really the crux of the the bill is providing notice to the community um so that they can engage with and provide input directly to DPP uh as they're doing their analyses um to ensure that just that firsthand um information that the community often has um can be discussed and reviewed at the forefront um instead of the latter or at the end of the process where then we see the litigation that arises. is uh and just the tension in the community and also at the department itself who sometimes finds itself bound by you know prior administration or administrative decisions and so um that's really the main purpose and I think there's definitely opportunities to flesh it out more uh but definitely understand that you know the ultimate goal is to ensure that we're reducing costs all around and so that means on the development side on the city side as we're trying to navigate our enforcement issues and then of course avoiding litigation which is costly for all of our parties. So thank you chair. >> Thank you so much for the administration. >> Good afternoon chair and committee members. Uh Elizabeth Kger with the department of planning and permitting. Um we submitted testimony as you said in opposition to um bill 5 bill 56. Um and I wonder are we talking about both measures now or should I >> we're only talking about bill 56. >> Okay. Um, so when it comes to SMA minors, one of the things that we wanted to bring attention to right away is that by definition, an SMA minor means an action that has no substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect taking into account potential cumulative effects. Uh so therefore we cannot approve a an SMA minor permit if we find that it does potentially have ecological effect or cumulative impact. And in those scenarios we have to deny the SMA minor permit and they then proceed with an SMA major permit. The SMA major permit needs to go to the city council. uh it needs to go to the neighborhood board before it's resubmitted to the DPP and then it comes to the council for decision. So in terms of procedure, we believe that SMA minors because they are minor in effect should not warrant a notification to the neighborhood board. Um, in addition to that, we wanted to discuss that an SMA minor permit procedural timeline gives the department 10 days to determine if the application is complete and then 45 days to submit uh or to render a decision. Um, with the neighborhood board notification provisions, the neighborhood board has to provide an opportunity to present within 60 days of their request, which would mean that an applicant, rather than applying straight to the department and getting a decision within about 55 days, would have to potentially wait 60 days to either get an opportunity to present or no opportunity and then another 55 days uh while the department was going through its procedure. ederal decisions. So, in terms of SMA minors, um I would I I believe that it's unnecessary to go to the neighborhood board. We do um post we we do share with the environmental review program our decisions and they publish them in the environmental notice. uh and we are also looking at ways to um publish those uh SMA minor decisions on our website as part of our H&L build upgrades. The final thing that I wanted to say about this uh is that I looked over the past uh in 2024 we got 80 SMA minor permits and then I looked over the past five years and we've had about 356 SMA minor permits. Some of them are reapplications, but each permit is a separate touch. Uh, and and for the most part, um, a lot of those permits are additions to existing dwellings, rooftop telecommunication facilities, fences and walls, uh, storage tanks, uh, rock wall mitiga, rockfall mitigation measures, and, um, additions of like accessory dwelling units. So, they are very minor permits. and we have uh rendered denials on nine of them. So those nine either would have proceeded with an SMA major permit or maybe didn't proceed from there. So I'm available to answer any questions that you have. >> Thank you. Uh before we I I I move to my colleagues, I did have a question. Um and this is to build about on uh your comments on the Honolulu build system. Can you explain how the department's new Honolulu build system can be used to identify and check the status of special management area minor permit applications? And second, would this help with public awareness of projects seeking SMA minor permits? because I'm I'm assuming that is the impetus that there are a lot of communities are who are just frustrated with um developers perhaps that seem to be circumventing the process. >> Well, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure how the H&L build per will look on our website yet. Um, we do have a really incredible team of people who are updating our website to reflect all of those things. Right now, what we have is a a Google map that shows the application materials for our major permits. Uh, and I expect that it'll be an expansion like that that it would be reflected on a map and you could look at your neighborhood and click on things and that would show the decision. So is uh when is that going to become available for the minor SMAs? >> We don't have a date yet, but we're actively working on it. >> Okay. But apart from the decision, what if somebody wants to know about the project? How how would they find out about the project? >> There's a way to look up the tax map keys. There are also ways to look up every permit that has been generated within within the last couple of days. Um, again, I'm not entirely sure how the public facing >> I guess what I'm saying is that they would have to know what the application number is. Is there a way that when you have this map and you know in say a geographical area say Kyua and I I press them the the the location of where uh an SMA minor has been triggered would I be able to go to it and know everything about it as opposed to just the decision rendered? >> Uh yes well the decision rendered would have the full analysis as well as the attached exhibit. So it would be very similar to the kind of information that's in the resolutions for the council >> but not when um a minor permit is applied for. >> At present we don't put minor permits on our website. Again they're they're very minor in almost >> Thank you. I'll I'll know that um council member W probably have a lot of questions. Um members any other questions? Con uh uh council member wire if you don't mind I'm going to go to council member Topola and the others and then I'll come back to you because I know you have a lot of questions. Okay. Council member Tupola. >> Hi Eloh. Um quick question. So in my district or do you have those 80 broken down by district or is it >> I don't write I don't write here. Um >> it's okay. I was just thinking because I think in my community I've had more issues not with SMA minors but with like say for example what is it called? Someone just did one. The conditional use permit from like maybe a residential house into like a 500 person church. I just had to mediate a discussion in the middle of the street with everyone about that because it was a conditional use permit that was applied for but the street has no lights. It has no sewage. now they're singing um at 7 am in between people people's houses with 500 people or whatever the number is. So, like I think that's different than this discussion, but I guess I I wanted to know what your thoughts are because I think for me issues like that still kind of need to be moderated face to face. Like we did it, we had a meeting all the neighbors which was total of seven. So, not that many people live on that street. Sat down with the church and we had a discussion about like you know being good good community members. How can we get move forward on this? So, what is your thoughts? Especially as maybe it's not necessarily a SMA minor. I mean, I'm not in favor of this bill, but I kind of feel the sentiment when something happens and a conditional use permit is asked for because the cup doesn't require neighborhood board either, does it? Like the conditional use permit. >> Actually, a meeting facility CUP does require neighborhood board notification and we offer the neighbors the opportunity to request a public hearing for those. So that's part of the next the nextformational briefing is all about cups and notification. Um, I agree with you that there are times when a project gets really intense for neighbors and I do think when it comes to SMA miners, usually if it's rising to that level where it is an impactful project that is still valued at less than 500,000 or less than $750,000, the department is very often weighing how a project that does not cost that much but may have a major impact should be treated and in those those are the few times those nine times when we have straight up denied a minor project because the impacts might be major we also I'm guessing that a lot of the projects that have applied for SMA minor were rejected by us because we have issued 100 incomplete notices and then um in those situations we're often saying to somebody you've applied for an SMA minor and either you didn't give us enough information or you this isn't the permit for you, you're a major permit. Yeah. So, I think that that happens a lot of the time. Uh and then they're notified that they first have to go to the neighborhood board. That's the first stop on their on their process to get a m a complete application. >> Yeah, thank you for that clarification. Yeah, I don't have issues with SMA minor permits, so I will reserve my comments for the next one. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Council Member Cordderero. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, Miss Krueger, I just wanted to ask, could could you list again the different items that may have been brought up as concerned? You know, rockfall uh mitigation. Would you be able to list that off again, please? >> Sure. I'll read the list that I brought. Um, I have rooftop telecommunication, alterations to dwellings, walls and fences, accessory dwelling unit additions, sewer line upgrades, uh, temporary stockpiling, lighting in commercial properties, rockfall mitigation, storage tanks, wastewater treatment systems, new dwelling units, surfboard racks, EV charging stations, and beach park shower improvements. Okay, thank you very much uh for your response um to that. I I just wanted to ensure and so uh when you have that uh would that be cause for denial as well or is that just what comes up more frequently? >> That's looking through the 356 projects that were that were generated in the list that I went through to kind of pull out some that are repeats. I also made a list of what showed up for the SMA majors if you'd like to hear that. >> No, I think we're okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Council Member Wire. >> Thank you, chair. Um, I don't think it'll be too too long, but appreciate the opportunity. Um, mahalo Liz and I think you know for me I definitely am in agreement with everything you mentioned about the legal standard and the level of analysis but um after talking with the community I think the reason I was comfortable introducing it um was just kind of talking through and it's not SMA specific comments I know you know there's other measures as well um was that okay we have the legal standard but I think that's assuming that all the information and backstory and relevant details are in the hands of DPP when they're making that determination. And so just to kind of flesh out where the conversation was going before and as chair mentioned with Honolulu Builds, I think a part of the issue with the the decision being what's put forward is then again there's still no notice input opportunity. I understand, you know, there's no public hearing for minors. There's no level of input, but in terms of putting the actual application um online, is that still something that's on the table? Because I know we talked to a director about that, too. Um or even it it could be as simple as notification from the person when it comes in to the neighborhood board. I'm not saying it's even just the neighborhood board that needs to be notified, but I think trying to figure out a notice mechanism that triggers awareness when we know that the neighborhood port doesn't even do hearings for the bulk of SMAs on Northshore in particular. Um, do you have any thoughts about that or ways we can kind of solicit or provide a pathway for input that's maybe on point and more factual to ensure that data is getting to DPP um without disrupting that flow of review? Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that a lot of those sound like really good ideas and really good ways for us to make sure that electronically it's available so that people can review what's being submitted to us and then from there ways for us to maybe not like I a lot of permits already have neighborhood um board notifications just the papers um but also if the you know if we were posting a lot of minor permits online and like I said over the last couple years, 350 permits. If the neighborhood board chairs made it part of their procedure to kind of check on our website to see if they wanted um to discuss those things at their meetings or something like that or if if anything was coming up that we could definitely make that notice. I do think that on the Northshore in particular, some of the properties that I know to be um very controversial have gotten a lot of incomplete notices from us when it comes to SMA minors because we have repeatedly told them that they needed SMA majors. So, uh, in those scenarios, uh, we'd have to discuss more whether we were going to post all of our incomplete applications as well, but I do think that a lot of the time that's occurring. >> Appreciate that. That that's helpful. Mahalo. Mahalo, chair. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. If there's no other further questions, we're going to now take public testimony. Proceeding first with in-person testimony in the chamber. Clerks, we have any inerson testifiers? Chair, >> we have a couple standing by. >> When I call your name, please come forward to the testifier podium and begin by stating your name. Please conclude your remarks promptly when you hear the buzzer of the timer. Buzz of the timer. Uh Raquel Au. Thank you, chair. Good afternoon. Um, okay. So, with the minors, I get the definition and that's not what we're opposing. We're very appreciative that our council member wire introduced this. We've beenounding this for years, but we've entered a time now, especially on the Northshore, where it warrants at least a notification to immediate neighbors and to the boards. We are inundated with projects throughout our community. Basically, they're coming in for minors. They're lying to you guys. They're lying. I have two projects I can right out of the top of my head. We're dealing with gondola boy out there and we have a house that came in for a SMA minor on a shoreline, a major shoreline and they got a minor for um alterations to an existing pool. This house is down the street from my house. There's never been a pool. It's a massive build. just the other day, steel beams being hauled in. It warrants notification so that we as a community can understand what is taking place in our community. Most of these guys are developers and not residents. So, they're really abusing the system in that sense. It's hard to for me, I can look through all of the websites and everything, but most people cannot. And that's what we're look there's huge infractions happening and warrant at least our notification of it. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I'm um before you sit down, you I'm pretty sure that there's questions to um so that you can further discuss some of the concerns that you're facing. Council member Wire, do you have any questions for her? >> Thank you, Chair. Um yeah, I mean if you could maybe walk through because that's a good point too like notification to just one individual may not get out to the entire community. So maybe if you could walk through what would the ideal scenario be in your mind and how would things play out and maybe just explaining that because we've had SMAS come through the Northshore oftentimes those won't even get a hearing like there's certain things that folks are looking for. Um, so practically speaking, because I know we're having this conversation in the context of there's always concern of, oh, are we adding cost? We're adding time to projects and making it harder to develop. Um, so maybe if you could just kind of sift through how that wouldn't necessarily be the case >> in this particular context. >> Absolutely. So naturally we don't want to burden the department with DPP with further timelines as they're you know progressing the way they are but we do feel that there's a huge gap in how the community is made aware of major impacts. So, if someone comes in and says they're doing alterations and it turns into this massive 18bedroom, possibly a vacation rental, and we skipped all of the environmentals, that's what the SMA says. No impact to environmental, but clearly they have an impact. They dug, we've heard rumors of uh Eevee Kuna, and I can't prove that. Nobody's checking. It's only what I heard. and the the further build of things. So, at least having that notification and and people on the board don't want to listen to those things unnecessarily, but if they're in locations and in spaces that we are very familiar with, I believe we're able to provide good information to all of the necessary agencies to provide a better decision and hold these developers, landowners accountable for what they're putting in because they're now parceling these projects. If your build is over 500,000 or now 750, they're just going in and saying, "Oh, it's only 200." This permit said for this pool 68,000. If you guys saw that pool today, I'm telling you, you're missing out on some money because it's overwhelming the violations that are there, but they're blatant. they just basically dismiss our process and the community that they're taking place in. >> So just final question for me hearing that it's not even that you're disagreeing with the legal standard and what DPP is doing, right? >> But you're saying what I'm hearing is that DPP isn't necessarily having all the accurate information that they should or could when they're making these determinations. >> Yeah. Mahalo. Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you. Thank you, Raquel. Thank you. >> Next testifier is Kathleen Pahinui. >> Aloha, council, committee chair, council members. Thank you for your time. Um, I am here actually today as chair of the Northshore neighborhood board and I'm the one that gets most of the notifications. Again, we're just asking for a heads up. That's all we're looking for. And if we can figure out a way via computer so people can go in and search. I would recommend though when they are the application goes in not when a decision is made because again it's too late then for us to affect any change or any positive change or to help you guys perhaps with additional information. So that would be my recommendation. This bill is on our agenda tonight. We have our board meeting tonight. So I will take back this really great discussion and hopefully we can come back with some uh suggestions for you. We're not married to what's in the bill. We've had we've discussed with council member wire was very grateful for him introducing this. We're not married to the language. We're open for but we just needed to have a place to start the conversation. So we really really appreciate it. Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much as well. If there are no questions, we're going to clerks. Do we have any uh remote testifiers? Oh, I'm sorry. Is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to testify on this item? >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh Jim Hayes. Um you guys are uh familiar with me as a representative of developers, but I'm also a community um involved in the community and uh work with Sierra Club and others and have certain certainly uh environmental protection on my mind and I work with DPP all the time. And as Liz has outlined, they have they are they have the discretion to require someone that applies for an SMA minor to boost it up to an SMA major. And I believe that they exercise that discretion well um in my experience. And that it sounds like more of the problem might be with people that might get a permit for one thing, but then they end up actually building something else. and that's a notice of violation scenario. Um, but having a requirement to go to the neighborhood board and request a presentation, it sounds like a simple thing to require. Uh, but it does add to the timeline and it adds substantially to the cost of preparing an application. And when you're talking about a oftentimes we're talking about someone wants to build a wall or a fence or something small like that with these SMA miners. And so the total application is relatively easy and and inexpensive to produce. But when you add going to the neighborhood board and notifying all the neighbors and having that notification um you know have preparing an affidavit for that and all that it adds substantially to the burden of preparing the application. So I don't feel that that is warranted in the case of an SMA minor. So I appreciate the opportunity to uh add my opinion to the discussion. >> Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to testify? Going on to remote testifiers. Is Benjamin Saddowski available online? >> Chair. No. >> Is there anyone else online who would like to testify on this matter? >> Chair. There are none. >> Members, any questions or discussion before we move on to our last agenda item? Seeing none, moving on to agenda item number 10 for discussion only. Resolution 25-228. This res resolution proposes an amendment to chapter 21, revised ordinances of Honolulu 2021, the land use ordinance relating to conditional use permits. The resolution would direct the director of planning and permitting to process an amendment to the land use ordinance to require neighborhood board presentations for minor conditional use permits which are processed by the department of planning and permitting and do not require council approval. Currently, RO section 21-240-1 requires a neighborhood board presentation for minor conditional use permits involving certain uses such as transmitting antennas, meeting facilities, daycare facilities, schools, or hotels with up to 180 rooms in the BMX3 zoning district. Because this is an amendment to the land use ordinance, the amendments proposed in the draft bill attached to the resolution must be processed by the department of planning and permitting and the planning commission. Note that the department filed departmental communication D686 2025 requesting additional information that will assist the DPP in processing the land use ordinance amendment. I will now defer to the introducer of the measure, council member Mattwater, for an explanation. >> Um, thank you, Chair. I think the explanation for the other measure, I would just re reiterate that without repeating all of it. So, that would be the general um purpose and intent. And I think um in particular, you know, we've seen projects in the news and in the community recently um that have just generated a lot of controversy. And again, I think it comes down to trying to avoid u, you know, unnecessary concern on the community side, unnecessary litigation, and of course, just simplifying the process too when sometimes we find ourselves stuck in maybe previously made determinations. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you for the administration. >> Good afternoon, chair and committee members. Elizabeth Kger. Um this is um another fun conversation where I've brought a bunch of facts about what we've done in the last five years to share. Um it's really interesting to me when I broke down these numbers. In the last five years, we've processed 227 SMA M um I'm sorry, conditional use permit minors and only 14 conditional use permit majors. And in fact, those are applications. They're not um some of them many were returned as incomplete. So um I'd like to tell you what kind of permits we had for those uh overall 241 permits. Uh in the miners category we had uh a five aggra business applications, five daycare facilities, one hotel in the uh industrial mixeduse district, 12 meeting facilities, uh six outdoor recreation, uh one salvage scrap junk and storage processing, three schools, uh and three waste disposal and processing facilities. So, those are all of the ones that were um there were relatively small numbers of those um and some of those had to apply twice because they had been sent back as incomplete the first time. Where we see the major numbers is we had 126 joint development agreements. Uh so a joint development agreement is essentially a paper transaction where one zoning lot can be developed with a permitted principal use on two zoning lots or more zoning lots. Um we also had 15 off-site parking agreements which again is um relating to lots and only relating to parking. uh we had 37 telecommunications so like maybe monopoles or rooftop uh installations and then we had 12 solar applications. So in general um just to give you a good sense of that about half of our SMA minor permit applications were for joint developments and um that the joint development again doesn't approve a use in particular um as the chair read the daycare facilities, meeting facilities, schools and transmitting antennas all require neighborhood board presentations already. So that means that I think that we should focus not on all conditional use permit minors requiring a neighborhood board presentation, but we should focus in on exactly which projects, which types of projects are the ones that are likely to have impacts and are likely to be controversial within the community and make those particular uses go to the neighborhood board. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. And can I can I ask similar to the SMAs where you have the discretion uh to require a um a major SMA, do you have the discretion here to require a major cup? >> It's sort of like that because the difference between a major and a minor cup is that a minor permit is a 45day permit and a major permit is a 90-day permit with a with a public hearing. So the department holds a public hearing for those uses that I called off the meeting facility, school, daycare facility, transmitting antenna. They first of all have to go to the neighborhood board and then when we accept those permits for processing, we notify the neighbors that we've accepted a permit. And those neighbors can ask us to hold a public hearing. If the neighbors ask us to hold a public hearing, we extend the procedure from 45 days to 90 and hold that administrative hearing. >> Okay. But uh I want to zero in on the cup miners that are not requiring u a neighborhood board presentation. Does DPP still have the authority if it is a questionable uh project or contentious project? Do you have the discretion to require a public hearing or um or make them go through a CUP major? No, we can't make them go through a major if they're minor. Uh and if they're not in that list of those permits that need to be notified to the neighbors, if if those uses, you know, like really, let's be honest, we're talking about agra business and agra tourism, right? Those are the main ones that people are concerned about. Um if we add that to the list just like meeting facilities, daycare facilities and um schools then that would go under that same procedure where we would notify neighbors and they could ask for a hearing. >> Okay. So you wouldn't do it on your own discretion to hold a public hearing. >> We don't have all the for the delineated ones the neighborhood board can ask you. So if we want to add anything, we could we should be considering rather than making across the board looking at certain projects that are causing concern and consider adding it to the list. Is that correct? >> That's what I would recommend. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um members, any questions before we go to public testimony? Do you have any questions? Council member Wire. >> Thank you, Chair. just one um and just simming off of that because if we're specifically honing in on a activities um offering a neighborhood board presentation while not requiring it, leaving it up to the conversation between the developer and the board would actually be less burdensome, right, than having the public hearing process or or maybe not. Maybe could you walk us through that? like cuz normally if DPP did the public hearing you'd have to you know do all get the room do the notice right all of that stuff versus um just having you know maybe a presentation or the offer of such presentation if we honed in on just maybe agricultural land just a thought that welcome input on >> the way the code works right now it's kind of a both and so first you have to notify the neighborhood board or you have to request a a not a presentation to the neighborhood board. When they offer you the opportunity, you have to tell the neighbors that you're going to do it. And then you apply to the department. We check and make sure you notified the neighborhood board. Then we send a notification to all those neighbors to say, "Hey, we're accepting this permit. Do you want a hearing?" And if we hear back from the neighborhood board or the neighbors or anybody who says, "Hey, you should hold a public hearing and here's why." Then the director has the discretion to hold the hearing. >> Okay. But then that doesn't apply to agurism. >> Right now it doesn't apply to agriurism. But but if this proposed amendment added it to that list, then it could apply to that use. which is one of the reasons that in our letter we kind of had that segment of the master use table to say which of these uses are the ones that are of concern because you know the the history of it is that in the 1980s when meeting facility schools and daycare facilities were going to require a conditional use permit for the first time ever the communities wanted hearings and of course the users of those types of uses did not want hearings. So, it was going to be a major permit versus minor. And then they kind of did this blended minor with the opportunity so that the neighborhood could focus in on those uses that were more likely to have an impact compared to say something where the master plan for that community has a school-sized lot that already has roads that are designed for schools and that kind of thing. So it it was built into the code to create that kind of flexibility. >> Interesting. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. >> Uh members, any other questions? We're going to go to uh public testimony for um inerson testimony. We have Raquel AU. Thank you, Raquel Au. Woku. Um, same issues as with the SMA, but I I will the reason this points out, and I'll just take the elephant out of the room, is we've got a gondola project that came in under an minor right out of the gate. No notice, no hearing, nothing. And that's not a small project. and it was presented the way it's forming and now it's morphing and it's out of control on ALAN and so on and so forth. So clearly there's got to be a way to be able to inform and adjust the way the process is being done so that we're trying to be preventive on our end. I don't want to have to hound DPP every time something comes up because it's a lot and I'm a pest. But I want to be preventive versus reactive for the future of all of our communities. It's it's critical. We're in that stage right now. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Is there anyone else that wanted to present in person testimony? Please come to the podium and provide your testimony. >> Aloha. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Um, I like where the chair was going with maybe changing some of the categories and put them into that higher level that Elizabeth pointed out. Raquel is right. This gondola should never and that was in the previous administration should never have been approved. It's massive. You you can't put a gondola or a zipline out without putting up substantial infrastructure. Uh we are going to we are currently going around to the neighborhood boards and so far we've got six or seven have supported us. Our own neighborhood board does not support this project. We support you know that really should be have been a CUP major not a minor. So I like where chair is going with this and again we're not married to the language. We're open and this will also be on our uh October board agenda. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. you know, before I call up the next testifier, is it okay? I'd like to um find out a little bit about a little bit more about how DPP um made their decisions on the gondola project in Northshore. So the uh gondola project came in originally as a conditional use permit minor application in I believe 2017 maybe 2018 and then it was issued it was approved in 2018 or 2019 2019. So it came in in late 2018 was approved early 2019 and it was reviewed as an aggraus project where the uh agricultural use was 50% of the zoning lot area which was approximately 2200 acres. Um and the gondola was proposed is proposed as a um an agricultural transport system. So the way the code is written and then the way the decision was rendered that that's part of that agricultural transport system and then they propose in addition to that the uh agra business element of the proposed use. >> So did they only need a minor cup and a minor SMA? They did not need a minor SMA because they're not in the special management area. And yes, they only needed an a minor conditional use permit. >> And so what is the status of their application? Is this project moving forward? >> I believe they're coming in for they had applied for a minor minor modification to the conditional use permit. They recently withdrew that minor modification application and they will be resubmitting a minor modification application shortly. >> And for their minor modification that does that does that require a public hearing? >> The minor modification does not require >> because they're not part of it. >> Okay. Interesting. Interesting. I'm a little shocked myself um about the project and um under the guise of a aggregate business and um complete disrespect for the proposal of a gondola. I I I I don't know of any um any place in Hawaii where people would want a gondola. So anyway, uh questions. Uh, Council Member Wire, >> you chair, just quickly, um, and I'm just specifically on the withdrawal of the application, the modifier, the modification application, because I'd heard that they did, but then they hadn't officially done it. But then, do we have an official correspondence or anything that you can communicate or transmit over to um, just relay that information like if an official request did come in? >> Yeah, we did get an official request and I can send that over to you. >> Okay. Mahalo. >> Okay. Thank you. And um, thank you. I'm going to go back to public testimony. Is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to testify in person? Please proceed. >> Jim Hayes testifying as a citizen. Um I also prepare a lot of conditional use permit applications which don't come to u this committee but I work with DPP on these frequently from meeting facilities to waste facilities etc etc. Um, and I can understand uh the desire to have more public uh transparency in these. Um, but as Liz has laid out, I think the ones that do require uh neighborhood board meetings are appropriate, but when you talk about joint use development and parking and things like that, I don't think those should be thrown into the same bucket. uh those don't warrant um going to the neighborhood board. I will say however that uh aggra business preparing a cup application for an aggra business um development is a substantial undertaking and people that do that certainly have the time and wherewithal to go to the neighborhood board and in my experience um the people that are engaged in that type of business tend to uh bend the rules uh more than others. Uh so I think they should have a strong relationship with their community and requiring aggra businesses to go to the neighborhood board uh would um help develop that relationship. Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony. That was going to be the question I was going to ask you. So you would support an amendment to the underlying ordinance adding agra business? >> Oh yes. >> Thank you. Any other testifiers in person? If not, do we have any remote testifiers? I just will I know that um Benjamin Saddulski had had uh signed up. I just wanted to call your name out since you did sign up. And if um if you're not online, I'm going to be closing this section of theformational briefing. And actually um just wanting to thank everybody who came out here today. Um as well as I want to a special mahalo to the office of council services. not only for helping us for the long agenda but also the last minute hand carried CD2 for bill 51. So thank you so much for that. I know it wasn't easy. Uh there being no further business, this meeting is adjourned. [Music] [Music]