>>Chair Kia'aina: ALOOOOHA! GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 226, TIME IS NOW, 2026, 9:01 A.M. COMMITTEE ON ZONING AND PLANNING MEETING PLEASE COME TO ORDER LIKE TO WELCOME COMMITTEE MEMBERS COUNCILMEMBER CORDERO, COUNCILMEMBER OKIMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA, VICE CHAIR WATERS WILL BE COMING IN SHORTLY. ALSO JOINING US TODAY WILL BE COUNCILMEMBER WEYER. ALTHOUGH REMOTE VERBAL TESTIMONY IS BEING PYRAMID THERE IS A REGULAR IN-PERSON MEETING AND A NOT REMOTE MEETING BY INTERACTIVE CONFERENCE TECHNOLOGY UNDER HRS SECTION 29-3.7, THEREFORE MEETING WILL CONTINUE NOTWITHSTANDING LOSS OF AUDIO-VISUAL CONTACT. WITH REMOTE TESTIFIERS. OR LOSS PUBLIC BROADCAST OF THE MEETING. MEMBERS PUBLIC WILL BE ALLOWED TO PROVIDE VERBAL TESTIMONY ON ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA WHEN EACH ITEM IS TAKEN UP TWO WAY. IIN PERSON COUNCIL AND MEET PALI VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE OR PHONE. EACH PERSON SHALL STATE THEIR NAME 230R THE R FOR E THE ER RET HAVE ANYONE ELSE REED THEIR STATEMENT. ONE-MINUTE PRESENTATION PER ITEM. REGISTERED TO IN-PERSON CALLED UPON FIRST. PERSONS DID NOT REGISTER WILL BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER TESTIMONY AFTER THE REGISTERED TESTIFIERS. ONCE IN-PERSON TESTIMONY HAS CONCLUDED, I WILL PROCEED TO REMOTE TESTIFIERS WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, OR THE LAST THREE DIGITS OF YOUR PHONE NUMBER, PLEASE FOLLOW THE PROMPTS TO UNMUTE. BOTH ENGLISH AND HAWAIIAN ARE OFFICIALS LANGUAGES STATE OF HAWAII, PURSUANT TO C ARTICLE 15 SECTION 4 OF THE HAWAII STATE CONSTITUTION AND 113 HAWAII REVISED STATUTES MEMBERS PUBLIC MAY TESTIFY IN EITHER LANGUAGEMENT VERN VERBAL TELL TEPS OLELOTESTIMONIES OFFE OLELO HAWAII. ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE OFFERED TO PROVIDE TRANSLATION. TESTIFIER'S ADDRESS EMAIL ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER WILL BE HA VETERANS ADMINISTRATIONABE TO THE PUBLIC AS DESCRIBE CLEUR AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC DESCRIBED POST ADD ED AGENDA. TURN OFF OR LIC SILENCE PHONES R THE DURATION OF THIS MEETING. UNDER OUR OFFICE ITEM 6, RESOLUTION 26-2 ON PAGE 1 E'O 10 AND ITEM NUMBER 7 BILL 702025, CD1 ON PAGE 11, OF THE AGENDA HAVE BEEN CANCELED AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. I DID WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6. AND I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR ASKING ME TO TAKE THIS MEASURE OFF THE AGENDA. AFTER I I WORKED ON CD THAT I FELT NOT ONLY ADDRESSED THEIR CONCERNS, BUT WAS ACTUALLY SUPPORTED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATION AS WELL AS CORPORATION COUNSEL. AT THE END THE DAY, I THINK WE ALL WANT TO GET THE NECESSARY HOUSING BUILT FOR OUR KUPUNA. WHATEVER AGE THEY ARE. BUT I DID WANT TO SAY THAT IF ANYONE HAS A MATTER BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, I WOULD PREFER THAT YOU HAVE THE COURTESY IF YOU WANT TO WORK ON A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER, RELATING TO ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE THAT YOU COME AT THE OUTSET, AND NOT DAY BEFORE. TO TRY TO RESOLVE ANY OUTSTANDING ISSUES. MOVING TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1. FOR ACTION RESOLUTION 26-13. RESOLUTION CONFIRMS MAYOR'S REAPPOINTMENT OF RYAN KAMO TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 2030. MR. C RYAN KAMO ARCHITECT DESIGN PARTNERS INCORPORATED AND WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMISSION UNDER THE LAND USE PLANNING POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES CATEGORY. WE POSTED ON THE TED AGENDA CD1 INVESTIGATORS VERSION HE OFCD VERSION OF THE AMENDMENT. SUMMARY AMENDMENTS LISTED ON THE AGENDA. CD1 MAKES TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS INCLUDING ADDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AND APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO STAGGERED FIVE YEAR TERMS IS REFERENCING MAYOR'S MESSAGE NUMBER AND CLARIFYING THAT MR. CALM OWE IS BEING REAPPOINTED AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION. KAMO I WOULD LIKE TO DOLL U KCALL UP APPOINTEE TO SAY A FEW WORDS. YOU TROIN E'O INTRODUCE OURSELFD SHARE VISION ON THE ROLE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>Testifier: ALOHA. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU CHAIR KIA'AINA ADD MEMBERS OF ZONING AND PLA PING COMMITTEE. PLANNING COMMITTEE TH THANK YOU COMMIT A FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AROUND MAYOR AND MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR THEIR CONTINUED SUPPORT. THROUGH THIS SUPPOSE. HUMBLED AND HONOR TO BE CONSIDERED FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO T THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE THAT ROLE SERIOUS SERIOUSLY FORTUNATE TO SEE IMPACTS THAT NUANCES OF LAND USE LEGISLATION AS WELL AS DECISIONS MADE IN THIS CHAMBER HAVE IMPACTS OF OUR COMMUNITIES TODAY. AND FOR OUR FUTURE COMMU COMMUNITIES. AND I HAWAIIAN ORDERED TO SHARE MY -- HONOR TO DO SHARE MY EXPERIENCES AS WELL AS PERSPECTIVES WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. HONOR TO SERVE THUS FAR AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED COLLABORATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR THIS REAPPOINTMENT. MEMBERS PRESENTS ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. C KAMO? SEEING NONE. MR. CMP KA AM. O RESPOND THAT THE EMPLOYER DOES BUSINESS WHICH CITY. HOWEVER, YOU DID NOT INDICATE THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND APPROXIMATE DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH THIS INFORMATION AND IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION NOW, CAN YOU PLEASE GET BACK TO US BEFORE THE NEXT FULL COUNCIL MEETING? >>Testifier: WILL DO. NATURE OF THE BUSINESS TOO WAS POTENTIALLY RFP WORK, RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ONGOING CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY & COUNTY. BUT WE'LL GET THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU SO MUCH. BEFORE I CALL UP THE ADMINISTRATION, I WITH LIKE TO TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. PROCEEDING FIRST WITH IN PERSON PERSON CHAMBER. IN IN PERSON TESTIFIERS FOR THIS ITEM. >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBER WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY? SEEING CIN NONE. REMOTE TESTIMONY. ANY REMOTE TESTIFIERS OR ANYBODY 1257BDIN E'O STANDING BY. >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU MR. KAMO. >>Testifier: THANK YOU CHAIR. >>Chair Kia'aina: FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, WE HAVE DAWN TAKEUCHI APUNA DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING. >>Testifier: GOOD MORNING CHAIR. COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SWECERTAINLY SUPPORT MR. KAMO REAPPOINTMENT AND THANK HIM FOR HIS GOOD WORK. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE DISCUSSION BEFORE I M MAKE MY RECOMMENDATION? SEEING NONE. CHAIR RECOMMENDS THAT WR RESOLUTION 26-13 BE AMEND TO POSTED CD1. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERV RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. RESOLUTION HAS BEEN AMENDED TO A CD1. CHAIR THEN RECOMMEND THAT IS RESOLUTION 26-13 CD1 BE REPORTED OUT FOR ADOPTION. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERV RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. SO ORDERED. MOVING TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2. FOR ACTION. RESOLUTION 25-333, THIS RESOLUTION GRANTS P SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA MAJOR P MERIT TO ROBERT VAVUL D DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE STORY SINGLE UNITS DWELLING. INSTALLATION OF A NEW INDIVIDUAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM ON AN APPROXIMATELY 13,230-SQUARE-FOOT SHORELINE LOT ZONED R-7.5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 68-309 CROZIER DRIVE IN WAIALUA, AND IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEY 6-8-005: 015 WE HAVE POSTED ON THE AGENDA CD1 VERSION OF THE RESOLUTION. WHICH I SUBMITTED FOR YOUR INFORMATION. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS IS LISTED ON THE AGENDA. CITY'S WAVES WAIVERS WASTEWATES NOT SERVE AREA. SYSTEM REGULATED BY THE STATE DEDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. SCHMIDT TO THE PLANNING AND PERMITTING REVISED PROJECTS PLANS VOTING HOE LEGI LOCATION W SYSTEM MUST BE OUTSIDE OF THE PORTION OF THE PROJECT SIDE SITE WITHIN FLOOD ZONE AE. IS IMPACTED BY 3 3 3.2 SEA LEVEL RISE BY THE YEAR 2100. NO PILOT P2100 PROJECTSTRUCTUREE SEA LEVEL RISE AREA. SHORELINE SETBACK FOR THE PROJECT SOIT IS 6 SITE 60 FEET. SWIM SWIMMING POOL CLOSEST STRUCTURE TO THE SHORELINE SETBACK APPROXIMATELY 63 FEET. THERE IS NO WALL BETWEEN THE POOL AND THE SHORELINE. THAT CAN ACT AS A SHORELINE HANDERING STRUCTURE. INSTEAD, CHAIN LINK FENCE. HARDENING, PORTION OF THE PROJECT, IS WITHIN FLOOD ZONE AE FRINGE FLOOD AREA THAT IS WITHIN THE FLOOD HAZARD AREA. AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE SPECIAL FLOOD ZONE REQUIREMENTS, FLOOD HAZARD REQUIREMENTS OF ROH CHAPTER 12H. DWELLING WILL BE ELEVATED APPROXIMATELY 14 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL. CONDITIONS C2, PROPOSED CD1 REQUIRES APPLICANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CLEAN-UP AND RESTORATION OF THE PROJECT SITE IN THE EVENT OF COASTAL HAZARD RELATED LOSS OF PROPERTY. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLAPPLICANT PREPARE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY WITH SUBSURFACE TESTING FOR PROJECT SITE. CONDITION G OF THE PROPOSED CD1 INCLUDES CONDITIONS REQUIRING APPLICANT TO SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING COPY OF THE DIVISION'S BRI WRITTEN ACCEPTANE OF THE PROJECT' PROJECT AIS PRO. EXCAVATE 340 CUBIC LES IHARA, JR. MATERIAL WHICH WILL BE USED AS INFILL ACROSS THE PROJECT -- CUBIC YARDS. NO IMPORTATION ST STRUCTURAL FIL MATERIAL IS PROPOSED. MAY TRANSFER ILLNESS INVASIVE PATHOGENS, INCLUDES CONDITION J REQUIRES APPLICANT TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN PEROTEL COULDS TO MINIMIZE SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES. JOINING US BY REMOTELY BY VIDEO CONFERENCE IS MANAGER HMARKHOWLAND WELL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROVIDING BRIEF PRESENTATION. AVAILABLE ONLINE AS MAS MISCMISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION 61-2026. MR. HOWLAND. >>Testifier: GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBER. THANK YOU FOR BEING ATTENDANCE ON THIS MATTER. THIS IS RESOLUTION 25-333. ZONING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE. CONCCONCERNED CROZIER DRIVE WAILEA. >>Chair Kia'aina: YES. IF YOU CAN PLEASE SHARE YOUR POWERPOINT PLEASE. >>Testifier: IS IT SHARED? >>Chair Kia'aina: WH WHICH SEE IT. CAN YOU MAKE IT EXPANDED TO THE SCREEN? >>Testifier: I'M TRYING TO. THERE YOU GO. THIS IS AS WE MENTIONED RESOLUTION 25-333. CROZIER DRIVE IN WAIALUA. LOCUS WAS PR OF THE PROPERTY. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION. FOR SMA MAJOR APPLICATION. IN FR FRONT OF YOUR COMMITTEE. PROPOSED ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ON PARCEL DEMOLITION OF EX EXISTING SINGLE SINGLE-FAMILY HE GARAGE, NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, GARAGE AND WAIALUA. UNDER SMA MAJOR LAND USAGE EDUCATION. COST GRADED $500,000 MARRIAGE. 13,230 SQUARE FEET. APPROXIMATELY .303 ACRES. MAJOR. NO EROSION AREA CERTIFIED SHORELINE OFF SITE. COORDINATION WITH PARTIES WAS REQUIRED. TO THE AGENCY SOLICITS CONSULTATION. ARCHITECT IS ALSO HERE TODAY. IN CASE THERE'S TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. THIS IS THE DWELLING FLOOR AREAS. AND INTERIOR AREAS GARAGE AREAS, OWNER INFORMATION, TMK NUMBER, BUILDING AREA, AND PARKING CALCULATIONS. THIS IS THE PLOT PLAN OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S MIDPOINT OF CROZIER DR DRIVE. THIS IS EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON THE PROPERTY. AND -- SITE PHOTOS TAKEN FROM VARIOUS PORTION ON THE PROPERTY. SHOWS DIFFERENT SIDE WAS EXIST BILLING. VOICE MESSAGE BUILDING. AVEVERGEVEGETATION BAIL OBAMA T. -- ITPALM TREE. NOT AFFECTED Y THE RHINO BEETLES. OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY. AS DRAWN BY KC DESIGNS. THIS IS IT SOIL MAP FOR THE PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, A LOT OF FILL LAND, RECALL J JAUCAS SANDS ON THE PROPERTY. AND ACTUALLY GIVEN THE PAST CONSTRUCTION, THERE'S A LOT MORE FILL IN THE JAUCAS SANDS THAN INDICATES -- THIS IS WORK AREA IS NOT IMPACTED BY THE 3.2 SEA LEVEL RISE. BUT THE NONWORK AREA TO THE SHORELINE. YES, REGARDLESS, ENHANCE FOUNDATIONS PLAN. SO SMALL EROSION LOTS INDICATE SHORELINE LOT. BASICALLY .3 FEET PER YEAR. SO ACTUALLY B BUMPS THE SHORELINE SURVEY SETBACK OUT ON THE FOOT MAP .2. EROSION RATE INCREASING IS LARGE. SO TEN FEET, GROWING FEW ON OAHU. NOT SHRINKING. -- 4, BASICALLY ALONG THE SHORELINE. HURRICANE SITE WAS NOT WORKING WELL THE DAY WE TOOK THOSE PICTURES. ALL SITES IN. E ARE S FLOOD ZONE. ARC WORK AREA AE. ALONG WAIALUA BEACH ROAD IS THE X. GLAGAIN ALWAYS APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONDITIONS CITY COUNCIL ZONING AND PLANNING COMP COMMITTEE GIVES TO ALWAYS LONG WITH OTHER PARTIES TO MAKE SURE THESE PROVISIONS ARE CLEAR TO THE APPLICANT. AND HE WILL FOLLOW THEM. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION, WE'LL GLADLY ANSWER THEM AND ALSO, CAN KAI FROM KC DESIGNS A SERVICES COMMITTEE HERE FOR AARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. AC DESIGNS. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. MEMBERS ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. HOWLAND? BEFORE I CALL UP THE ADMINISTRATION? I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. CHAIR. >>Councilmember Weyer: THANK YOU. I WANTED TO CONFIRM. TO MAKE SURE ALL THE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED. OCTOBER 2023 YOU EVER A YOU EOOFFERTRO PRESENT TO NEIGHBORHD BOARD. NOVEMBER 2025 PUBLIC HEARING. WERE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, THAT WERE RAISED TO YOURSELF OR TO DPP AS FAR AS YOU KNOW? >>Testifier: NOT THAT I KNOW OF. >>Councilmember Weyer: MAHALO. THANK YOU CHAIR. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. BEFORE YOU CALM ADMI CALL UP ADMINISTRATION I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. IN-PERSON TESTIMONY IN THE CHAMBER. IN IN-PERSON TESTIFIERS? >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBER WHO WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY? SEEING NONE. ANY REMOTE TESTIFIERS? >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, WE HAVE DAWN APUNAS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING. >>Testifier: SUPPORTIVE THE PROPOSED CD1 AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THANK YOU. >>Chair Kia'aina: MEMBERS ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION BEFORE I MAKE MAY RECOMMENDATION? MY RECOMMENDATION? THE CHAIR RECOMMENDS THAT RESOLUTION 25-333 BE AMENDED TO THE POSTED CD1. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTION OR RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. RESOLUTION HAS BEEN AMEND TO DO A CD1. CHAIR THEN RECOMMENDS RESOLUTION 25-333 CD1 BE REPORTED OUT FOR ADOPTION. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERV RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE SO ORDERED. KOPBEFORE WE MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3. WELCOME FOURTH AND FIFTH AND SIXTH GRADE LEAD FRRS THE MAUNAWILI STUDENT COUNCIL. IF YOU COULD PLEASE RISE AS YOUR NAME IS CALLED. CAMRON, MAYA, GRAYSON, EZE EZEKIEL, ELEANOR LYNCH, LYNN, ELLA, SERENA, RHODE ISLANDER, RENTON, BRI BRIANNA AND JAYNA, WELCOME TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AND LOOKING FORWARD TO YOU LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE PROCESS AND WE GREATLY APPRECIATE YOU SERVING YOUR COMMUNITY. [APPLAUSE] MOVING TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3. FOR ACTION, RESOLUTION 26-4. THIS RESOLUTION GRANTS SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA MAJOR PERMIT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION AND REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING WEST LOCH WASTEWATER PUMP STATION INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GENERATOR ROOM, A MUCH AT THATTED TO THE PUMP STATION BUILDING BY A BREEZE WAY. RELOCATION OF VARIOUS EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS TO THE NEW GENERATOR ROOM. REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF ABOVE GROUND DIESEL FUEL STORAGE TANK, RELOCATION OF NORTH AND EAST C CONCRETE RUBBLE MASONRY PERIMETER WALLS. REPLACEMENT OF SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS, PUMP BYPASS SYSTEM, FIRST MAIN PIPING AND VALUE OFS, V VENTILATION SYSTEMS RESTROOM FACILITIES, WINDOWS DOORS AND GATES. INSTALLATION OF NEW AIR RELIEF VALVE, EXPANSION OF REHABILITATION OF WET W WELL, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE YOU ARE, AND RESTRIPING OF SURFACE PARKING AREA ON APPROXIMATELY 2300 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF AN 80.269-ACRE ZONING LOT SPLIT ZONED AG-1 RESTRICTED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND P. 2, GENERAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT. LOCATED 91-1024 KAPAPAPUHI STREET IN HONO ULUMAUAHI KEALI'IKANAKA'OLE I. IDENTIFY -- HONOULIULI. TAX MAP KEY 91-181-001. WE HAVE POSTED ON THE AGENDA, CD1 VERSION THE RESOLUTION. WHICH I SUBMITTED. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENT IS LISTED ON THED AGENDA. 23 LION SQUARE FOOT 2300 SITE S LOCATED PORTION OF WEST LOCH GOLF COURSE PARCEL. PUMP STATION AND GOLF COURSE DEVELOP BY THE CITY IN LATE 1980S PART OF WEST LOCH ESTATE SUBDIVISION. PUMP STATION HAS CAPACITY OF 1,050,000,000 GALLONS PER DAY. AND PUMPS WASTEWATER FROM THE WEST LOCH SUBDIVISION THROUGH FORCE MAIN ALONG THE PEARL HARBOR SHORELINE. TO A MANHOLE IN THE WAIPAHU INDUSTRIAL AREA. THE WASTEWATER THEN FLOWS VIA GAVINTY LINE TO THE KUNIA, WASTEWATER PUMP STATION AND TO THE HONOULIULI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. LARGE 80-ACRE ZONING LOT IS NOT A SHORELINE LOT. BUT TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED SHORELINE LOT BECAUSE PORTIONS OF THE LOT ARE WITHIN THE 60-FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK AR AREA. HOWEVER, PROJECT SITE IS MORE THAN 4 HAD BEEN FEET FROM THE SHORELINE AND NOT EXPECTED TO BE IMPACTED BY 3.2 FEET OF SEA LEVEL RISE BY THE YEAR 2100. ENVIRONMENTAL'S ASSESSMENT COMPLETED FOR THE PROJECT AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ISSUED FINDING NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTEL MAY 28, 2025. A SESSOM INCLUDED LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD INSPECTION CONDUCT OCTOBER 2, TO 2024. THERE ARE MANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES PREPARED AND RESPONSE TO RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA. PRECONTACT SITES NEAR THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDES FISHING POND. >> IWI KUPUNA OR NATIVE HAWAIIAN ANCESTRAL REMAINS. HABITATION AREA AGRICULTURAL SITES. POST CONTACT SITES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HISTORIC SUGAR PLANTATION ERA AND INCLUDE FOUNDATIONS OF FORMER P PLANTATION STRUCTURES. HISTORIC BURIALS IRRIGATION FEATURE, WELLS AND REMNANTS OF OAHU RAILWAY AND LAND COMPANY RAILROAD. NEARLY 100 LAND COMMISSION AWARDS FOR LO'I KALO. BASED ON CULTURAL SENSITIVITY OF THE AREA, KAYE ULU PONO RECOMMENDED PREPARATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PLANT. NOVEMBER OF 2025, KAYE OLD OWE PONO PREPARED CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND KAPAA KAI ANALYSIS FOR THE PROJECT SITE, WHILE THE ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS, DID NOT IDENTIFY CULTURAL RESOURCES, OR ON GOING TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PRACTICE IS ON THE SITE, FISHING AND CRABBING FISH B WISH F POND AND WETLAND ONGOING PRAK TINGS PRACTICEHEREBY NEARBY. ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITOR. CONDITION B. PROPOSED CD1 INCLUDES CONDITIONS REQUIRING APPLICANT TO SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING, A COPY OF THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT'S AARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PLAN AND TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION PE PROTOCOLS APPROVED OR OTHERWISE REQUIRES BY THE DIVISION. PROJECT PROPOSES TO EXCAVATE APPROXIMATELY 65 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL MAT MATERIAL WHICH WILLE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF OFF SITE. WHILE NO IMPORTATION OF SOIL OR STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL IS PROPOSED, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MAY TRANSFER INVASIVE PATHOGENS PATHS ARE PLANTS, PROPOSED CD1 INCLUDE CONDITION D, WHICH REQUIRES APPLICANT TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN PROTOCOLS, TO MINIMIZE SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES. SINCE PROJECT IS PUBLIC USE, AND STRUCTURE AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE IS THE APPLICANT, THE RESOLUTION DOES NOT INCLUDE DEADLINE TO TON OBTAIN A PROJECT BIDDING P YOU ERR PERMIT. BUILDING UN UNIT. JOINING US ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LLC PROVIDING BRIEF PRESENTATION YOUR YOUR INFORMATION VACATION RENTAL ONLINE AS DID EVE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ONLINE. E >>Testifier: THANK YOU MADAME CHAIR. KIA'AINA. MEMBERS OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS COLETTE S KOODA REPRESENTING THE RES SPONSOR OFE PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE. IT'S FOR RESOLUTION, 26-4. WEST LOCH ESTATES. WASTEWATER PUMP STATION UPGRADE. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA PER PERMIT. PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE EXISTING PARKING LOT OF THE WEST LOCH COMMUNITY SHORELINE PARK. AT END OF KAPAPAPUHI STREET IN EWA BEACH. THE PROJECT SITE WAS DESIGNATED IN THE WE WEST LOCH ESTATE MASTER PLAN MORE THAN A YEARS AGO. 35 YEARS AGO. LOCATED AT THE MAUKA EDGE OF THE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA ON LAND OWNED BY THE CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU, IT'S ABOUT 450 FEET MAUKA OF THE PEARL HARBOR WEST LOCH SHORELINE. THIS UPGRADE PROJECT HAS COMPLETED ITS 343 HRS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS PRESENTED TO THE EWA NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD AND THIS WAS DONE WITH PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THE WASTEWATER PUMP STATION WAS BUILT IN 1989. TO SERVICE WEST LOCH ESTATES COMMUNITY. FACILITY IS IN GOOD CONDITION. BUT AGING. THE 2023 ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL AND CODE ISSUES WERE POINTED OUT IN THIS PUMP STATION. IT'S CRM WALL CREATED ADA COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE ISSUES AND RESTRICTS ACCESS TO THE GENERATOR ROOM AND REMOVAL OF THE GENERATOR. EXISTING ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANK IS NOT PROPERLY SIZED. AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY SPILL CONTAINMENTS. PUMP STATION BUILDING IS NO LONGER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LATEST NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION CODES WITH THE WEST WELL WITHIN THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. AND AGING PUMPS VARV VA V VALVEN PIPING. WITH THE WET WELL. THIS IS A CURRENT SITE PLAN. PREPARED TO REFLECT IN READ THE NEW EXPAND FACILITIES? RED) AGAINST THE EXISTING. THE ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SOLUTIONS FORWARDED THESE KEY SAFETY ACCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ARE TO INSTALL ABOVE GROUND DOUBLE WALLED FUEL STORAGE TANK THAT ENSURES PHYSICAL SPILL CONTAINMENT, CREATE OPEN GRACE WAY WITHIN EXISTING PUMP STATION BUILDINGS, BY REMOVING PORTIONS OF THE FORMING AND SOUTH WALL OF THE BUILDING AND ADDING SECURITY FENCING. BY REMOVE BE RELOCATE EMERGENCY DWRGENERATEEVERYDAY TANK GENERAM ATTACHED TO EXISTING BUILDING RELOCATE EXISTING ELECTRICAL, REMOTE OR CONTROL CENTER AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA AND ACQUISITION SYSTEM. INTO THE EXISTING GENERATOR ROOM. TO PROVIDE SEPARATE LENG ELECTL ROOM AWAY WITH THE WET WELL. OVER AWOVERALL EXISTING SITE OF0 SQUARE FEET W WILL BE EDG ENLARD BY ROW L REPORT AN OUTAGE LOCATG FORMING AND EAST CR MOVEMENT M WALLS TOBE NORTHWARD ADD ABOU0 SQUARE FEET. THESE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING PROVIDING DEDICATED PARKING AREA FOR MAINTENANCE VEHICLES, AS WELL AS PROTECTING PUBLIC FROM WASTEWATER MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, WOULD BE ALSO NOT I AM IMIN IMMEDIATING ON TE PUBLIC -- NOT IMPEDING ON THE PUBLIC PARKING AREA. THESE ARE ELEVATIONS DRAWINGS THAT PRETTY MUCH REFLECT THE NEW FACILITIES, NEW BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE SAME HEIGHT LIMIT. OF THE EXISTING. THESE ARE THE EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS. OTHER MAJOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE REPLACING EXISTING PUMPS, VALVES AND PINEAPPLING WITHIN THE PUMP STATION. PIPING. REPLACE, RESTROOM FACILITIES, ELECTRICAL AND WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, CONSTRUCTEDDING NEW ATTACHED GENERATOR ROOM, FOR NEW DIESEL FUEL GENERATOR AND DAY TANK. DESCRGEGENT LEGISVENTIL ELECTRICAL ROOM. GATES WINDOWS AN DOORS, PARK, PARKING LOT OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING CONSTRUCTING NEW TRASH KEOHOKENCLOSURE YOUARE ADDED SED LIGHTING. TRASH ENCLOSURE AND NEW SU RECALLEVALUATION INCLUDING PREPARATION OF ENGINEERINGING AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, AND CHAPTER 343 ENVIRONMENTAL ASASSESSMENT STUDIES INCLUDED HAZARD US MATERIALS ASSESSMENT AND EXISTING TREES REPORT, ARCHAEOLOGICAL LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD INSPECTION REPORT, AND CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT, AS WELL AS GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE EWA NEIGHBORHOOD PRESENTATION AND PRIOR TO THAT, SENDING NOTIFICATIONS AHEAD OF TIME, TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD MEETING PRESENTATION WAS HE HELD APRIL 0 OF LAST YEAR. THE FINAL E.A. WAS ISSUED IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR. THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE X WHICH IS AREA DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE FL FLOOD PLAIN. ACCORDING TO FEMA AND FIRM. SOILS CONSIST OF HONOULIULI CLAY AND HELEMANO SILTY CLAY. THE VEGETATION CONDITION OF THE EXISTING THREE TREES NEAR THE PROJECT SITE, AFRICAN TULIP TREE WILL BE REMOVED, OTHER TWO ONE MONKEYPOD AND ANOTHER AFRICAN TULIP TREE WILL BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCT. OTHER EXISTING SURROUNDING VEGETATION WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT. AND AS MENTIONED MENTION L HE R EXCAVATION APPROXIMATELY 65 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AND 12 UBER12 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL. THIS SITE IS, AWAY FROM THE SHORELINE AND NO CERTIFIED SHORELINE SURVEY IS REQUIRED SINCE IT IS WITHIN OUTSIDE OF THE SHORELINE SETBACK AREA. >>Chair Kia'aina: IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE HAVE AT ALL HAVE A COPY OF THIS. IF YOU COULD PLEASE SUMM SUMMAR. >>Testifier: OKAY. JUST TO UPDATE YOU ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PLANS, ON JANUARY 8, OF THIS YEAR, SHPD ISSUED OFFICIAL APPROVAL OF THE REPORT. SO WE WILL BE SUBMITTING THAT TO DPP. AND FOR THE RECORD, AND WE WILL BE PREPARING THE ARCHEOLOGICAL MONITORING PLAN AND THIS WOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR SHPD REVIEW DURING THE SAME TIME AS BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR POPATIENCE AND WE KELLY WELL COME ANY QUESTIONS. WE WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS. >>Chair Kia'aina: TH THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS SAKO ADA? >>Councilmember Tupola: THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. BRIEFLY. WHEN YOU PRESENTED, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT NECESSARILY AT THAT SITE BUT DOWN FURTHER COUPLE PUHI, OTHER ISSUES. WERE THERE ANY ISSUES BROUGHT UP OR ANY CONCERNS? >>Testifier: NO CONCERNS. TUPOLA PERFECT. THANK YOU CHAIR. >>Chair Kia'aina: ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. BEFORE I CALM ADMINISTRATION, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. PROCEEDING FIRST WITH IN-PERSON TESTIMONY COUNCIL CHAMBER. ANY IN-PERSON TESTIFIERS FOR THIS ITEM. >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBER WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY? SEEING NONE. PROCEEDING WITH REMOTE TESTIMONY. CLERK ANY REMOTE TESTIFIERS? >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: FOR THE ADMINISTRATION. WE HAVE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING, DAWN APUNA. >>Testifier: THANK YOU CHAIR. WHICH ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED CD1. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. >>Chair Kia'aina: MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION BEFORE I MAKE MY RECOMMENDATION? CHAIR RECOMMEND THAT IS RESOLUTION 26-4 BE AMEND TO THE POSTED CD1. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. RESOLUTION HAS BEEN AMENDED TO A CD1. CHAIR THEN RECOMMENDS THAT RESOLUTION 26-4 CD1 BE REPORTED OUT FOR ADOPTION. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERV RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. SO ORDERED. MOVING FORWARD. WE'LL BE TAKING UP AGENDAS NUMBER 4 AND 5 TOGETHER. MEMBERS OF PUBLIC MAY TESTIFY ON EITHER/OR BOTH AGENDA IT ITEMS. FOR ACTION, 228 AND 26-17. DIRECT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO PROCESS AMENDMENT TO LAND USE COMMISSION FOR MODIFY PROVISION RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS WHICH I WILL BE REFERRING TO AS C.U.P.ES ARE DISCRETIONARY PERMIT AS ALLOW FOR CERTAIN USES AND CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS OF SPECIFIED SATISFIED. C.U.P.ES ARE PROCESSED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ARE NOT REVIEWED BY THE COUNCIL. SINCE C.U.P.ES ARE DISREGULADISCRETIONARY PERMITS. CONDITION APPROVAL MAY BE INCLUDED TO MITIGATE IMPACTS OFF THE USE. WE HAVE POSTED ON THE AGENDA A CD1 VERSION OF THE RESOLUTION 25-228. SUBMITTED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEYER. WHO ALSO INTRODUCE RESO RESOLUT. FOR YOUR INFO INFORMATION SUMMAY AMENDMENTS LIST ONED AGENDA. AND WILL NOW, CALL ON COUNCILMEMBER WEYER FOR EXPLANATION. >>Councilmember Weyer: MAHALO CHAIR. I MEAN JUST TO PUT IT CONCISELY, THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH PACKAGE OF MEASURES WE INTRODUCED JUST RESPOND TO THE CONTINUED LAND USE ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS. I THINK RECENT GONDOLA PROJECT WAS INFORMATIVE ABOUT HOW WE CAN HONE IN ON WHAT THE UNDERLYING ISSUE WAS. FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT. COMMUNITY WAS CONCERNED. IT WAS CLEAR THAT OF COURSE, GONDOLA INAPPROPRIATE. INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC INPUT. AND THERE WASN'T ALL THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO MAKE THE DECISION. LIKE WE SAW U.S. ARMY GARRISON HAWAII COMING OUT TO OPPOSE THE PROJECT. NOT LEGALLY DETE DETERMINE DETERMIDETERMINATIVE AND OHA DLA TALOT OF INFORMATION WASN'T THERE. TALKED ABOUT IN THE COMMUNITY MEETING LAST WEEK, WITH NORTH SHORE CHAMBER AND OTHER FOLKS, HONING IN ON THE UNDERLYING ISSUE, UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL SUPPORT FOLKS THAT WANT TO UPLIFT THE COMMUNITY PARTICULARLY GENERATIONAL LAND HOLDERS, THAT HAVE A COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY, THE ACTIVITIES TO CONTINUE THEIR FARMING AND RANCHING ACT AT THIS TIME IT'S BUT ALSO PROVIDE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES SAW THIS AS MECHANISM TO AVOID DIVISION IN THE COMMUNITY. AND REMEDY THE UNDERLYING ISSUES. SO MEASURE WOULD ESSENTIALLY START WITH THE PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS. WHICH WOULD ENSURE THAT ALL THE AGENCIES DEPARTMENTS AND OF COURSE, COMMUNITY KNOWING NORTH SHORE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD AND RURAL COMMUNITY HAS BROAD REACH IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO GET INFORMATION 'OI OUT. WOULD ALLOW STAKEHOLDERS TO PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION TO DPP. TO HELP INFORM THEIR DECISION AND THEN OF COURSE, GIVING DPP DIRECTOR DISCRETION TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING IF SUFFICIENT INFORMATION WAS PUT FORWARD. WOULD AGAIN I THINK ALLOW US TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T LAND IN THE SAME ISSUE WE DID WITH MOUNT KOALA WHERE HEADING OFF THE PROBLEM, SO EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE AT THE FORE FOREFRONTMENT BOTH COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPER. WHO IDEALLY WOULD COME IN AND RECEIVE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY BUT OF COURSE, NOT HARMING OR ADDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDSES OF DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL COST TO THOSE GENERATIONAL LAND HOLDERS, FAMILY FARMERS RANCHERS THAT ARE WANTING TO BOTH DO WHAT THEY LOB, BUT THEN ALSO PROVIDE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. WHAT THEY LOVE. MAHALO. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER WEYER. AS IT RELATES TO RESOLUTION 26-17, CHAIR KIA'AINA WATERS AND IAN INTRODUCED THIS MEASURED P DISTRIBUTED HANDCARRIED CD IS VERSION. CS2026, 0085, EXHIBIT A BILL ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL RESOLUTION PROVIDES FOR THE EXPIRATION, OF IMPROVED CUP. IF NO ACTION TO PROCEED WITH THE APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE IS TAKE TAKEN WITHIN 36 MONTHS AFTER THE THE PERMIT A PROD WITH A POSSIBLE-APPROVED POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF THIS DEADLINE BY UP TO 12 MONTHS IF APPROVE BY THE DIRECT. CD1 DELETES CAN C.U.P. EXPIRATION PROVISION. DEPARTMENT HAS INDICATED THE THAT 36 MONTH EXPIRATION DATE MAY RESULT IN DEPARTMENT CONSTANTLY ISSUING EXAMPLE TEXTINGS OF THE -- TENSION DEADLINE AND PREFER TO THE DIRECTOR HAVE THE DISCRETION -- EXTENSIONS BASED ON THE SUPERVICROUPINVOLVED SET CONDIT. EXHIBIT A BILL A ATTACHED PROVIDES FOR CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH DIRECTOR MAY RECONSIDER, A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED C.U.P. APPLICATION CONTAINS FALLING INFORMATION. FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. NEW INFORMATION THAT B WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE CUP IS APPROVED IS PRESENTED. CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING AT THE TIME THE C.U.P. WAS APPROVED SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED. WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. OR WHEN THE CONDITIONAL USE BECOMES DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE. PROCESS FOR THE DEPARTMENT RECONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED C.U.P. SET FORTH IN THE DEPARTMENT'S ADMINISTRATIVE RULES. SECOND, THE MEASURE REQUIRES A MAJOR C.U.P. INSTEAD OF CURRENT R REQUIRED MINOR USE AGITOURISM USE. MAY H HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS SURROUNDING AGRICULTURAL USE AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AND MAJOR C.U.P. MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO ADDRESS THESE IMPACTS. GENERALLY, OTHER THAN FOR FEW EXCEPTIONS MAJOR C.U.P. DOES NOT REQUIRE APPLICANT TO PRESENT THE PROJECT TO THE APPLICABLE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD AND DOES NOT REQUIRE DIRECTOR TO ASK ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WHETHER THEY WISH TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT. IN CONTRAST, MAJOR C.U.P. REQUIRES PRESENTATION OF THE PROBABLY TO THE APPLICABLE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION, REQUIRES APPLICANT TO POST A NOTICE OF PENDING PERMIT SIGN ON THE PROPERTY, REQUIRES APPLICANT TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ALL OWNERS PROPERTY WITHIN 300 FEET MUCH PROPERTY, REGARDING PROPOSED USE. AND REQUIRES DIRECTOR TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED USE. CHAIR WATERS, AS THE COINTRODUCE YOU ARE OF THIS RESOLUTION, WE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT FURTHER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT FURTHER? COINTRODUCEER? THANK YOU. RESOLUTION 25-228 WOULD INCLUDING A TOURISM USE AS ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONSER FOR WHICH A MINOR C.U.P. WOULD REQUIRE PRESENTATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD. AND PROVIDE DIRECTOR WITH DISREGULARS CREATION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED USE. DISCRETION) SINCE RESOLUTION 2016, 2017 REQUIRE MAJOR CROUP FOR AGITOURISM IN ADDITION TO ADDRESSING THESE IE ISSUES C C.U.P., ADDRESS OTHER ISSUES WE DISCUSSED. I WILL BE REELING THAT WE POSTPONE ACTION, RECOMMENDING POSTPONE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 25-228 AND PROCEED PROD ON THIS MATTER UNDER THE HANDCARRIED CD1 VERSION OF RESOLUTION 26-17. PROCEED THIS MATTER. BEFORE I CALL UP THE ADMINISTRATION I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. PROCEEDING FIRST WITH IN-PERSON TESTIMONY COUNCIL CHAMBER, CLERK ANY IN-PERSON TESTIFIERS FOR THIS ITEM? >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: THERE ANYONE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER WOWOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY? SEEING NONE. PROCEEDING WITH REMOTE TESTIMONY. ANY REMOTE TESTIFIERS FOR THIS ITEM. >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, YES. WE HAVE ONE PERSON. RAQUEL ACHEW. >>Chair Kia'aina: GOOD MORNING. YOU ARE ABLE TO TESTIFY ON BOTH ITEMS PLEASE. SINCE THEY'RE BOTH CONSIDERED AT THE SAME TIME. >>Testifier: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. RAQUEL ACHEW WAIALUA MOKU. I SUBMITTED TESTIMONY WRITTEN TESTIMONY. STAND BY THOSE AS WELL. JUST QUICK NOTES I'M VERY, VERY APPRECIATIVE FOR BOTH OF THESE RESOLUTIONS. IT'S NOT UNKNOWN THAT WE HAVE STRUGGLED WITH C.U.P. APPR APPROVALS SPE SPECIFICALLY IN MY AREA. VERY ABUSED APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THEM. BUT MORE SO, I THINK IF WE'RE ABLE TO TIGHTEN THE GAPS IT WOULD HELP. I HOPE, AND SUPPORT DPP AND THEIR EFFORTS TO ENFORCEMENT I THINK EXPIRATION IS ABSOLUTELY NEEDED. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE CONCERN ABOUT DOING EXTEN EXTENSIONS. WE COULD JUST NOT GIVE AN EXTENSION. BECAUSE TAKING TOO LONG, THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG. BUT ALSO, BECAUSE WE END UP WITH A PROFESSIONALS, THAT ARE TOO OLD AND DON'T ADDRESS CURRENT ENVIRONMENT AND CURRENT AREA OF WHERE THESE THINGS WILL TAKE PLACE. HAVING BY DEVELOPERS, GOOD FAITH. PERFECT WORLD THAT'S GREAT CONCEPT. BUT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. COMMUNITY PRESENTATIONS WE LEARNED HAVE BEEN CRITICAL. BECAUSE WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T FIND OUT ABOUT THESE THINGS UNTIL AFTER THE FACTMENT SUCH AS KAMA KAMANANUI. AND WITH THE AGITOURISM COMPONENT, WE'VE LOST A VAST AMOUNT OF LANDS TO DEVELOPERS BUYING OUR AG LANDS, CO COP CHOPPING THEM UP, SELLING THEM OFF AND TURNING THEM INTO FAKE FARMS NOW HAVE WHAT I CALL IMPOSTER INDUSTRY. WHERE THE FARMERS AND SO-CALLED RAN THEY AVES IN AIR YEAH WANT TO BE AGRICULTURAL. RAN TE ENTER CHERS WARRANTS TO E IN AGRICULTURAL BUT NOT. USE THESE TIME OF MINERS AND MAJORS TO GET BY. AND REALLY IMPACTS THE ACTUAL GENGENUINE FARMER OR RANCHER. SO I AGAIN, HAVE WRITTEN TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED SO ANY QUESTIONS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER. WE REALLY LIKE TO GET A GRIP ON BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT OUR INDUSTRY BETTER. MAHALO. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU SO MUCH. MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS? >>Councilmember Weyer: THANK YOU CHAIR. MAHALO MISS ACHEW FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I KNOW YOU REE REFERENCES IN YOR MANTESTIMONY GOING MAJOR ROUTE MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE CRITERIA THAT GETS PROTECTING I GUESS AT LEAST CERTAIN FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY. THAT ARE MEETING EXPECTATION IN THE COMMUNITY. AND DISTINGUISHING MAYBE BETWEEN THING LENGTH AND DEPTH OF PROCESS WHICH CAN BE COS COSTLY. BETWEEN CERTAIN TYPES OF PRONLS VERSUS OTHER TYPES OF PROJECTS. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU COULD EXPAND ON THAT CRITERIA BECAUSE I THINK REALLY P PICKINGS MY INTEREST ABOUT WANTING TO PROTECT GENERATIONAL LAND HOLDERS AND IN PARTICULAR, DOING WHAT THEY LOVE. PICKED MY INTEREST. AND OBVIOUSLY, INCREASING COST ON THEM WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IT. BUT OBVIOUSLY INVESTORS CAN COME IN AND EASILY PAY $200,000 TO DO THE MAJORS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE INSIGHT ON CRITERIA THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED TO DISTINGUISH AND GET AT WHO OR WAN WHO WE'RE WANTINGING TO TARGET. >> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. RAYA REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT. I'VE TAKEN SOME TIME TO VOLUNTEER AT SOME FARMS, WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY. AND WE DO HAVE SEVERAL FARMERS AND RANCHERS THAT ARE GENUINE AND REAL TO THEIR PROPERTIES. AND TO THEIR OPERATION. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE ONES THAT ARE NOT. SO AGRITOURISM COMPONENT REQUIRING MINOR OR MAJOR, REALLY, I REALLY BELIEVE THERE IS A FINE LINE BETWEEN THE TWO AND HAS TO BE DISTINCT. IT HAS TO BE KIND OF CHECKLIST. I WOULD SAY, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO SAY? I THINK IF WE WERE ABLE TO DEVELOP CRITERIA, THAT COULD POTENTIALLY CONSIDER MAYBE THE VOLUME, OF WORK, OR OPERATION THAT THEY'RE DOING, SO IF YOU HAVE A GEN GENUINE FARMER THAT S LIKE LEGIT FARMING A WANTED TO OPEN TO TOURS COUPLE TIMES A WEEK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEN MAYBE THEY DON'T REALLY REQUIRE A MAJOR. BECAUSE THEY ARE NEXUS TO AGRICULTURE IS THERE. YOU ALSO HAVE THE ONES WOULD CHOSEN TO MAKE THAT TOURISM ACTIVITY THEIR PRIMARY. AND THE AGRICULTURE IS NO LONGER PRIMARY. SO THEY SHOULD REQUIRE MAJOR AND THAT IS I THINK WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET AT ORIGINALLY IN OUR COMMUNITY TALKING ABOUT IT. I DON'T WANT TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ESTABLISHED LONG TIME GENUINE FARMERS THAT ARE LOOKING AT AN NEXUS AND WAY TO SUPPORT THEIR FARM IN OPENING IT UP. I THINK IT'S DOABLE. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF FARMS ON THE NORTH SHORE NOW THAT OPEN UP TO TOURS. COUPLE TIMES A WEEK. WITH VERY CAPPED GROUP OF PEOPLE. ZOO THAT DOESN'T TALK AWAY FROM THEIR OPERATION. IF YOU'RE LOOK AT IT'S A AGITOURISM PLAN THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TOURISM ACTIVITY OR ACTIVITY DOES NOT INVOLVE AG, CLEARLY, STHEPPED IN A REALM WHERE-STEPPED INTO A REALM DON'T STR TIME FOR AG OPERATION. ONLY GOING TO BE, T THAT A ACCESSORY. SO I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONVERSATION TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS MOVE FORWARD BUT YOU THINK THAT IS MAYBE ONE ANGLE TO CONSIDER. AND BEING ABLE TO ADJUST TO THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS THAT THEY WANT TO DO OUTSIDE OF THE PRODUCTION. >>Councilmember Weyer: I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M HEARING, BECAUSE THAT'S HELPFUL FOR ME THAT REALLY DISTINCTION MAY BE COULD BE NOTED BASED ON IMPACT. REALLY CONCERN. SO WHETHER THAT IS MENTORING, BASED ON VISITORS, PER DAY, PER WEEK, PER MONTH, WHATEVER, OR THEIR CRITERIA, WHAT IS THE WASTEWATER OUTPUT. WHAT IS ANOTHER FACTOR THAT DEMONSTRATES SIZABLE PROJECT THAT WARRANTS THAT MUCH SCRUTINY OF THE WHICH OFTENTIMES HONESTLY, IS GETTING AT THE HEART OF WHAT IS CAUSING SO MANY CONCERNS. FOLKS THAT COME IN FROM OUT THE OF STATE WITH LARGE SUMS OF MONEY AND ARE DOING MAJOR PROJECTS THAT BRING ABOUT IMPACTS AND MAYBE DEEP FAKE AYES FROM AG ACE PRIMARY PURPOSE. DEVIATE FROM AG. I HOPE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THAT DISCUSS AND FLESH THAT OUT. BEFORE PASSING IT. BUT I DID HEAR COMMITTEE CH CHAIR'S RECOMMENDATION. I WANT TO SHINE YOU ARE THAT THAT'S COMMUNITY -- HE SURE COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY PROVIDE INPUT IT IS THERE. ANY ROOM FOR DISCUSSION, I'M HAPPY TO WORK ON COMMITTEE DRAFT INCORPORATE THAT. I TRUST ZONING CHAIR TO ENGAGE COMMUNITY TO SEE IF THERE IS FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED. BUT THANK YOU. >>Testifier: THANK YOU. >>C >>Councilmember Weyer: THANK YOU CHAIR. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU SO MUCH. MEMBERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FOR MISS ACHEW? FOR NOT, PHO SHALL ON TO THE TO THEMOVE ONTO THE NEXT TESTIF. KU AKI KAMAKEE OWE HO EMPLET LO ONLINE. >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, TESTIFIER NOT LOGGED ON. >>Chair Kia'aina: ANYONE ELSE STANDING BY TO TESTIFY ON THIS MATTER? IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO BRING UP THE ADMINISTRATION. FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING. DAWN TAKEUCHI APUNA. >>Testifier: THANK YOU CHAIR. WE ARE GOT OPPOSE THESE RESOLUTION. WE'RE SUPPORTIVE AND SO THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE CAN LOOK AT SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. WE DO CONCERNS ABOUT OVER BRABOUT YOURING SMALLER FARMS, OVER BURDENING. SMALLER FARMS MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO SCALE IT BETWEEN A MINOR AND A MAJOR. THERE'S JUST DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT I THINK WE CAN VEELTD, IN EVALUATE IN ORDER TO SEE HOW THESE MAKES SENSE AND ROBERT FITZPATRICK DIFFERENT TYPES -- FITS DIFFERENT TYPES OF AGITOURISM PROPOSALS OUT TH THERE. IN CASE THAT'S AN OPTION TOO IF YOU WANTED TO PUSH FORWARD BOTH RESOLUTIONS AND WE WOULD LOOK AT BOTH OF THEM AND INCLUDE OUR CONCERNS AND PROVIDE THAT AS PART OF OUR ANALYSIS. >>Chair Kia'aina: OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ACTUALLY ASK YOU. SO THAT WOULD BE BETTER THAN DOING IT IN ONE, CORRECT? >>Testifier: EITHER WAY. BUT I THINK WE HEARD CONCERNS AND WE SIMILARLY HAVE THOSE CONCERNS SO WE WOULD EVALUATE AND WE WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON WHAT WE BELIEVE WOULD BE MAKE SE SENSE. GOING FORWARD. >>Chair Kia'aina: OKAY. AND LET ME LEAVE IT TO AHAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE MEMBERS HERE. THANK YOU. HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE MEMBERSEL YOU ANSWERED ACTUALLY AWE QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU, WITH REGARD TO MAKING DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. SO COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA,. >>Councilmember Tupola: THANK YOU. ALOHA DIRECTOR. QUICK QUESTION. I GUESS FOR ME, ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS ABOUT BRINGING THINGS THAT ARE C.U.P. MINOR UP TO NEIGHBORHOOD BOARDS STATUS. WE WANTED TO DIFFERENTIATE THAT FROM CROUP MAJOR WHICH IS A LOT OF INVESTMENT MONEY PRESENTATIONS. C.U.P., HIRE A CONSULTANT. MOST TIME AN AN APPLICANT IS NOT AT THAT LEVEL TO ANSWER TOWS KIND OF QUESTION THE WHEREAS OTHER RESOLUTION IS KIND OF SUGGESTING INVERSE WHICH IS NOT THAT WE BRING THINGS FROM C.U.P. MINOR TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD, BUT THAT WE CONSIDER PORTION OF AGRITOURISM THAT MIGHT BE MEDICAL MARIJUANA. AS OPPOSED--MAJOR AS OPPOSED TO C.U.P. MINOR. BACK DOING BILL 64, I KIND OF BROUGHT THAT UP FROM SOME OF FARMERS. IN YOUR PERSPECTIVE, BEC BECAUSI KNOW IF WE BRING THINGS SUPERVISOR MINE UP TO NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD, SUPERVISOR MINOR THAT'S EVERYTHING. C.U.P. MINOR. JUST TALKING ABOUT AGITOURISM. WHICH IS WHY I FELT LIKE IT WAS SAFER DURING BILL 64, TO TODEFINE MAJOR AGITOURISM VERSUS C.U.P. MINOR TOURISM. WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS BAY ABOUT IS THAT? SEE IN THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE TWO RESOLUTION I WOULD RATHER US EXPLORE AGITOURISM AS MAJOR MINOR AS OPPOSED TO BRING EVERYTHING THAT IS C.U.P. MINOR UP. WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHTS? >>Testifier: I THINK THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. THAT'S JUST PROJECTS ARE SO VARIED AND RESOURCES FOR ONE FARMER VERSUS ANOTHER. I THINK THAT IS WE NEED TO KIND OF DELINEATE WHAT IS THE SPAN OF POSSIBILITIES AND IF THERE IS LINE FOR MINOR REMVERSUSMAVEERMAJOR BURDEN WITR VERSUS MINOR. >> AGREE. SOMETHING WE WOULD LOOK AT AND WHERE WE WOULD KIND OF DRAW THAT LINE. >>Councilmember Tupola: THANK YOU DIRECTOR. THANK YOU CHAIR. I'LL JOIN THE DISCUSSION AFTER WE FINISH QUESTIONS. >>Chair Kia'aina: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CHAIR,. >>Councilmember Weyer: THANK YOU CHAIR. QUICKLY. MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING. SO FOR THE MAJOR GENERALLY, IF IT'S A MAJOR GOES TO NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD? >>Testifier: YES. >>Councilmember Weyer: WHAT AT ADDITIONAL STEPS MAYBE IF YOU COULD JUST OUTLINE THOSE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COSTS AND IMPACT. >>Testifier: I CAN GET, JUST GENERALLY I THINK THEY HAVE TO WOULD HIRE A PROFESSIONAL TO KIND OF PROVIDE ANY KIND OF REPORTS OR STUDIES THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THAT. LOOK AT KAMANANUI EFFORT IS QUITE LARGE R COMPARED TO MINOR, MIGHT JUST BE MORE REVIEW BY DPP. LOOKING AT WHAT THE CONCEPT IS. AND IF IT'S ENOUGH TO MOVE FEFORWARD. >>Councilmember Weyer: I APPRECIATE THAT. I MEAN, JUST FOR CHAIR'S INFORMATION, I'M NOT, WED TO MY RESOLUTION. DEFINITELY WOULD HOPE AND SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA'S COMMENTS THAT THIS DISTI DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TWO WOULD BE IDEAL. DPP WOULD BE LOOKING AT THAT. SO MAHALO. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. MEMBERS ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA. >>Councilmember Tupola: FOR THE DIRECTOR. OR DISCUSSION? >>Chair Kia'aina: FOR DISCUSSION. >>Councilmember Tupola: SO CHAIR, MY THOUGHT IS JUST BECAUSE I DID ACTUALLY SUBMIT THIS TO YOU TALKING ABOUT BILL 64, I DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN AGITOURISM MAJOR, MINOR BUT I GOT AGREE THAT WE NEED TO BRING EVERYTHING THAT IS C.U.P. MINOR UP TO HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD DISCUSSION. ONE, THAT'S TOO MANY PROJECTS. 2, TOO MANY C.U.P. MINOR THINGS THAT ARE NOT AGITOURISM RELATED THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT. >>Chair Kia'aina: OKAY. THTHIS IS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION TO THE MEMBERS. JUST IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION, AND BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC, OF COURSE,, I COULD JUST POSTPONE BOTH AND WE WORK ON SOMETHING. BUT QUITE FRANKLY, I'M A BELIEVER THAT WE'RE ALSO BUSY RIGHT? AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT LOSING MOMENTUM. SO IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION, I'M ACTUALLY NOW RECOMMENDING THAT BOTH MEASURES BE MOVED OUT OF THE COMMITTEE. SSO THIS IS WHAT I'M THROWING OUT ON THE TABLE. COUNCILMEMBER CORDERO. >>Councilmember Cordero: CHAIR, FOR DISCUSSION, I WAS GOING TO SUPPORT THAT RECOMMENDATION. BY YOURSELF AS WE AS DIRECTOR OF DPP. >>Chair Kia'aina: COUNCILMEMBER OKIMOTO ANY COMMENTS? >>Vice >>Councilmember Okimoto: THANK YOU. I AGREE. I THINK I HAVE TO CONCUR WITH COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA AND HER CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING EVERYTHING GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE MOST EFFICIENT USE OF ANY TIME OR RESOURCE. HOWEVER, I DEFER TO YOU AS CHAIR IF YOU FEEL THEAGHT B BOTH MEASURES SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. >>Chair Kia'aina: I WILL SAY THIS. WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS DISCU DISCUSSIONS, ON THE MINOR FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD. AND I BELIEVE DPP OW DPP OFFICIS WERE OKAY WITH THAT I SENSITIVE TO THAT. BECAUSE WE CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING GOING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD. BUT I THINK JUST GIVEN THE IMPACT OF A LOT OF THE AGITOURISM PROPOSALS, IT REALLY HAS IMPACTED OUR COMMUNITIES. AND SO I WAS IN FAVOR OF THAT. MY OBJECTIVE WITH THE OTHER MEASURE TODAY WAS TO DO IT AT THE MAJOR LEVEL BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE NEEDS TO AB DISTINCTION. AGAIN, MY, SORRY MY RECOMMENDATION WILL BE TO MOVE BOTH MEASURES OUT TO JUST HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION. >>Testifier: THANK YOU I WANTED TO ALSO ADD BE RESPECTFUL FOR YOUR DISTRICT AN COUNCILMEMBER WEYER, ESPECIALLY COUNCILMEMBER WEYER'S PROJECT,. >>Councilmember Okimoto: THIS DOESN'T IMPACT MY DISTRICT DIRECTLY B WE WE ARE NEIGHBORHOONEIGHBORING. WE WOULD LIKE THE DISCUSSION TO GO FORWARD. >>Chair Kia'aina: COUNCILMEMBER WATERS DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION? >>Councilmember Waters: JUST THAT I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA. AND OKIMOTO. BUT I ALSO AGREE WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION BOLT ULTIMATELY S TO GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND TO THE PLANNING AND PERMITTING AND COME BACK. IT HAS TO PLANNING AND PERMITTING AND COME BACK IF WE HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DRESS THIS. >>Chair Kia'aina: AFTER WE HAVE A DISCUSSION TODAY, FURTHER DECIDE, THAT PRIOR TO FULL COUNCIL, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S DIFFERENT MEASURE. WHAT I DID NOT WANT TO DO IS JUST POSTPONE IT INDEFINITELY BECAUSE I THINK WE KIND OF KNOW WHAT WE WANT. AND ALL WE WE NEED TO DO IS FINESSE TM IT WORRIED ABOUT THE FACT DPP RIGHT NOW IS THE THROWS OF. 30 DAYS BECAUSE TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THE DEVELOPER OF THE GONDOLA PROJECT DID NOT ALLOW THEN TO HAVE 60 DAYS TO REVIEW TESTIMONY. IS THAT CORRECT DPP DIRECTOR? I KNOW THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT PERMIT. BUT IT'S JUST IDEA THAT THIS IS A VERY BIG TOPIC RIGHT NOW. TOP OF MIND FOR EVERYBODY. I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A MOVING VEHICLE OUT FOR DISCUSSION. RATHER THAN FOR ME TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE THIS. UNTIL FUTURE DATE. CAN YOU ANSWER WHETHER OR NOT THE DEVELOPER OF THE GONDOLA PROJECT SAID OKAY TO 60 DAYS OR STILL 30 DAYS? >>Testifier: I THINK I NEED CLARIFY WHAT HAPPENED THERE. DURING THE HEARING. WHAT HE WITH WERE TRYING TO SAY WAS THAT NORMALLY, IT WOULD BE 30 DAYS FOR TO US PROCESS. AFTER THE HEARING. BUT THAT WE WANTED TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW AND THE DEVELOPER THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION, SEEING WHAT IT WAS COMING IN THAT WE MIGHT NEED MORE THAN 30 DAYS. SER AT THIS POINT, I BELIEVE HEARING WAS ON THE 12TH OR THE 1S1S13TH OF JANUARY. AUNTIES TATE WE WON'T BE COMPLETE WITH THE ANALYSIS BY THE 12TH OR 13TH OF MONTH. HAVE TO CONTINUE UNTIL WE'RE COMPLETE WITH OUR ANALYSIS. >>Chair Kia'aina: DO YOU EVER THE DISCRETION WITHOUT THE DEVELOPERS APPROVAL? >>Testifier: YES. ABSOLUTELY. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU DID I NOT KNOW THAT. THAT'S GOOD NEWS. FACT STILL REMAINS THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO MOVE BOTH RESOLUTIONS. >>Councilmember Waters: THANK YOU. IF YOUR INTENTION IS TO FINESSE IT, AND DO THAT AT FULL D COUNCIL PREFER WE DO IT IN COMMITTEE IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY AMENDMENTS. RATHER THAN AS WE KNOW, FULL COUNCIL IS SOMETIMESEL HOUR HEARING. 8 HOUR HEARING LIKE TO DISSUADE CHAIRS FROM DOING IT. >>Chair Kia'aina: YES. WHAT COULD ALSO HAPPEN IS THAT THERE WOULD BE ONE VEHICLE AND WE RECONCILE EVERYTHING IN ONE VEHICLE. SAND SO HOW BY JUST ASK EVERYBODY WHAT THEIR PREFERENCE IS. SO THAT I COULD GET YOUR MANA'O WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT ME TO MOVE BOTH OR NOT TO MOVE EITHER. >>Councilmember Waters: AGAIN. I DON'T MIND MOVING BOTH. BUT WE COULD ALSO FIX IT IF NEED BE WHEN IT COMES BACK FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BECAUSE I PREFER NOT TO TRY TO FIX IT OR FINESSE IT AT FULL COUNCIL. >>Chair Kia'aina: SO WOULD THAT BE BOTH MEASURES? >>Counc >>Councilmember Tupola: CHAIR I THINK I AGREE. IF WE COULD FIX IT HERE I GUESS WHAT MY THOUGHT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED, I KNOW SO LONG AGO, BILL 64, IS WE DISCUSSED JUST DIVIDING IT BY ACREAGE. I DO AGREE WITH CHAIR WATERS IT WILL COME BACK. COMMISSION WILL HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS. BUT FROM WHAT WHICH SEEN IN THE PAST WITH THE COMMISSION, WE SHOULD GIB GUN VIOLENCE BEST SHOT O TO THEM SO--GIVE BEST SHOT OVER TO THEM NOT HAVING TO DECIDE TOO MUCH. A LOT FOR THEM. VOLUNTEER IS NOT EVERYONE A ATTENDS MEETINGS BEST SHOT COMES BACK OVER TO TO US. IF ANYTHING, IF WE COULD FINESSE IT, AND TRY TO GET IT AS CLOSE TO WHAT WE ALL AGREE WITH, I THINK WE'RE ALL SAYING SAME THING. IN SO MANY WORDS I THINK THIS WOULD BE BEST. NO GUESSING. DIRECTOR IS GOOD WITH IT. WE P BASICALLY HAVE PLANNING COMMISSION DOUBLE OKAY IT AND THEN IT COMES BACK AND WE'RE ABLE TO KIND OF PASS IT INTO LAW. SOMETHING THAT I WISH THAT WE HAD DONE THE FIRST TIME AROUND. I GET IT. A LITTLE BIT NUANCED. >>Chair Kia'aina: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DIRECTOR. OR DPP STAFF. FAMILIAR IN THE PROCESS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IS IT POSSIBLE TO PASS BOTH RESOLUTIONS AND THEN PERHAPS CONSOLIDATE RECOMMENDATIONS BASE ON SO IT WOULD BE RUN RECOMMENDATION AS OPPOSED TO TWO SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS. >>Testifier: BY PLANNING COMMISSION. >>Chair Kia'aina: YES. PLANNING COMMISSION AFTER WE PASS BOTH, I MEAN. I THEY COULD BUT THEY DO SEEM TO CONFLICT. SO I GUESS WHEN IT COMES BACK TO COUNCIL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE BETWEEN THE TWO. THEY WO WHO WOULD BE LOOKING AT THEM THEM SEPARATELY. WHAT WE'RE HOPE DOING DPP, IS STILL LOOK AT BOTH OF THEM AND A ANALYZE AND PUT FORTH THREE OPTIONS WHETHER IT'S ONE OF THE TWO, OR OUR OWN. THAT WOULD MAYBE CONSOLIDATE OR BE THIRD OPTION. >>Chair Kia'aina: BECAUSE JUST TECHNICAL, IS IT POSSIBLE TO CALM LIZ KROEGER TO FURTHER OPINE? CALL UP L LIZ KROEGER? >>Testifier: GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. LIZ KROEGER LAND USE PERMITS DIVISION CHIEF WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING. THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST, HAVE TWO BILLS THAT OR TWO RESOLUTIONS WITH A TAPPED BILLS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, A MUCH TAD THAT ARE ELLIOT ROAD WE'LL -- ATTACHED BILLS, CONSOLIDATE THEM IN ONE REP REPORT. EXPLAIN, WHAT THE TWO BILLS PROPOSE. HOW WE RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES, WHAT WE RECOMMEND AND THEN WE TRANSMIT BACK BOTH L THAT'S THE DPP BILL AT THAT CONSOLIDATES THEM. USUALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEN HAS RELATIVELY FINITE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION TO PROCESS. BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE EXPLAINED WHY THE TWO BILLS WERE DIFFERENT. AND WHAT WE DID TO REGULAR ON RECONCILETHOSE DIRNL DIFFERENCE. >>Chair Kia'aina: METROPOLIMEMBERSMORE CONFUSE CLARIFIED? >>Councilmember Weyer: JUST GETTING TEXT. WITH YOUR INDULGENCE, I'M CURIOUS SINCE WE HONED IN ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE, IF I COULD ASK MISS ACHEW HER THOUGHTS. >>Chair Kia'aina: SURE. >>Councilmember Weyer: SURE. THINK YOU'RE STILL THERE. >>Testifier: YES. I'M HERE. THANK YOU. >>Councilmember Weyer: THE QUESTION WAS JUST, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN LISTEN TO THE DISCUSSION, SO MAYBE TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL I INPUT FOR US TO CONSIDER. DEFINITELY INTERESTED IN KNOWING. >>Testifier: THANK YOU. SO TO COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA'S POINT, OF THE MINE YOU AVES GOING IN FRONT OF THE BOARDS OR COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATES. MINERS) I AGREE. NONE OF WONTS TO SEE THOSE ALL THE TIME. BUT IT DOES PROMPT TRIGGER AND THAT THIS DRAFT, ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE TO REVIEW IT. IN THE PAST FOR US, WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE APPLICATION AND ANDSAID WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO SEE IT. ADVISED APPLICANT THAT THERE IS REALLY NO NEED FOR YOU TO COME IN FRONT OF US. SO JUST BASICALLY PROVIDED TRIGGER TO ALLOW US TO HAVE THAT OVERSIGHT AND SAY, OH, YEAH, THAT DOESN'T REALLY WE DON'T HAVE ANY KULEANA HERE. BUT AT LEAST PROVIDE TRIGGER AND SO ACCOUNTABILITY TO THAT DEVELOPER OR LANDOWNER. AND OBVIOUSLY ONES THAT DO COME IN FRONT OF US, THAT ARE HARDY, WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE MANY INSTANCES, INFORMATION THAT KIND OF SWAYED OR PROVIDED ADDITIONAL REVIEW FOR CONDITIONS OF THOSE, THAT PROCESS. BUT NOT APPLICATION. SO I THINK TO THE POINT OF IT NOT, MINOR NOT COMING IN FR FROT OF AT ALL I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO THAT COMMUNITY TO WEIGH IN AND LIKE I SAY, WE DON'T WANT TO SEE EVERY APP CAUSIAPPLICATION EITHER. BUT IT PROVIDES TRIGGER. >>Councilmember Weyer: I APPRECIATE THAT. >>Chair Kia'aina: THAT ACTUALLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR MANA'O. THAT WASN'T ACTUALLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER WE VOTE OR NOT. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THAT. >> >>Councilmember Weyer: I THINK MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD TO MOVE BOTH. I'LL DEFER. ISSUE ENTERTAIN THE DISCUSSION. GIVES DPP THE TRIGGER TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSALS AND THEN I THINK THEY WOULD FLESH OUT DETAILS A HAVE THIRD PROPOSAL SOUNDS LIKE. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA,. >>Councilmember Tupola: MY PROBLEM IS I HEAR EVERYONE'S CONCERNS BUT RESOLUTION 25-228 I HAVE TO GO NO ON IT BECAUSE LIT HONLITERALLY SAYS COUNCIL BELIEVES ALL C.U.P. MINOR APPLICANTS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD OR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION. SO DOESN'T SAY, THIS IS GOOD SUGGESTION. THEY CAN USE THEIR DISCRETION ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR IT. SO I CAN'T AGREE WITH THAT. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO THINK THAT I'M SUGGESTING WE SHOULD SUBJECT ALL THE MINORS TO THIS. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING FEEL LIKE YOU RESOLVED CONCERNS IN YOUR CD WITH YOUR RESOLUTION. AND I WOULD RATHER US DETERMINE ONCE MOVE FORWARD, ESPECIALLY IF ONE IS GOING TO DO EXACTLY WHAT WE THINK NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT ON THE NORTH SHORE. >>Councilmember Weyer: CHAIR. >>C?>>Chair Kia'aina: COUNCILMEMBER WEYER U. >>Councilmember Weyer: REALLY GOOD SCIMPLETION WANTED TO NOTE BECAUSE IT'S COME UP COUPLE TIME REAMSLY GOOD REALLY GOODDISCUSSION. I AGREE ALL C.U.P. MINERS SHOULD BE GOING THROUGH LEN LENGTHY PROCESS. APPRECIATE CHAIR AG INGUA INGAMN TMPLET DOING ADDING AGITOURISM TECHNICALLY TO ONE TYPE OF C.U.P. MINOR. GYRO ENENGAGEMENT LIST OF C.U.P. MINERS ALREADY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. GROUP OF ELEVATED ISSUES. SO JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT. SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION THERE ISN'T MAKING ALL C.U.P. MINERS MAKE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. >>Chair Kia'aina: DID YOU KNOW IT WAS NARROWLY TAYLORED TO AGITOURISM OKAY WITH THAT OR STILL CONCERNED. IT'S THE NO I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO ALL C.U.P.ES AS WELL. >>Councilmember Tupola: I'M SAYING VERBIAGE FLIEMGD WHEREAS CLAUSE, I'M READENING WHEREAS CLAUSE, DOESN'T HAVE A CD. SUGGESTING THAT. I HEAR WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT TO IS NOT EXACTLY THE WAY THAT, WE WANT TO GO WITH RESOLUTION 2 25-228. WHEREAS RESOLUTION 25-17 IS ACCOMPLISHING THE SAME OUT OUTCOME. ACCOMPLISHING SAME OUTCOME, THEN WE SHOULD JUST GO W WITH THE ONE THAT THAT WE THINK SAYST THE BEST. >>Chair Kia'aina: I THINK WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE SAY IF WE DO PASS BOTH OUT TODAY, DOESN'T MEAN THAT BOTH IS GOING TO PASS FULL COUNCIL. SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE BOTH MEASURES FORWARD. AND NOTING THE OPPOSITION TO 25228 FROM YOURSELF, TUPOLA RESPECTFULLY. YES. >>Chair Kia'aina: COUNCILMEMBER WATERS. BEFORE I MAKE MY RECOMMENDATION, I'M GOING TO MAKE MY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RESOLUTION 25-228. >>Councilmember Waters: NO. NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU. >>Chair Kia'aina: OKAY. CHAIR ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I MASK MY RECOMMENDATION? CHAIR RECOMMENDS THAT RESOLUTION 25-228 BE AMENDED TO THE POSTED CD1. ANY DISCUSSION, ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERVATIONS? NOTING THE RESER RESERVATIONS COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA. RESOLUTION HAS BEEN AMENDED TO A CD1. CHAIR THEN REPS THAT RESOLUTION -- RECOMMEND THAT IS RESOLUTION -- >>Councilmember Waters: MY RESERVATIONS ON FIRST MEASURE. >>Chair Kia'aina: OKAY. YES. CHAIR THEN RECOMMEND THAT IS RESOLUTION -- TUPOLA FOR 228. >>Chair Kia'aina: YES. >>Councilmember Tupola: SAME. LUKE WISE. >>Chair Kia'aina: OKAY. FIRST TVRsED IT WAS CD1 MAKING RECOMMENDATION TO CD1. RESERVATIONS ALSO ON THE CD1. >>Vice Chair Waters: CORRECT. >>Chair Kia'aina: I'M SORRY. >>Councilmember Tupola: CORRECT. >>Chair Kia'aina: NOTING THE RESERVATIONS FOR THE CD1, TO RESOLUTION 25-228, BY COUNCILMEMBER WATERS, COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA AND COUNCILMEMBER OKIMOTO. RESOLUTION, YEAH. AMENDMENT? OH, YES. THE RESOLUTION HAS BEEN AMEND TO A CD1. CHAIR THEN RECOMMEND THAT IS RESOLUTION 25-228 CD1 BE REPORTED OUT FOR ADOPTION. ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERV RESERVATIONS? I'M ASSUMING IT'S THE SAME RESERVATIONS? RESERVATIONS FROM COUNCILMEMBER WATERS, TUPOLA, AND OKIMOTO? TUPOLA NO. THANK YOU. >>Chair Kia'aina: NOTING THE NO RESERVATIONS I'M SORRY. NO FROM COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA. OKAY I'LL DO NO ALSO. >>Chair Kia'aina: NO FROM COUNCILMEMBER OKIMOTO. >>Councilmember Waters: I'LL DO A NO AS WELL. >>Chair Kia'aina: AND NO FROM COUNCIL WATERS. THE MEASURE HAS FAILED. MEASURE HAS FAILED. MOVING ON TO NEXT MEASURE. MOVING ON TO RESOLUTION 26-17, CHAIR RECOMMEND THAT IS RESOLUTION 26-17 BE AMEND TO DO A HANDCARRIED CD1. OCS2026, 0085, ANY DISCUSSION? THINK OBJECTIONS OR RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. RESOLUTION HAS BEEN AMEND TIE CD1. CHAIR THEN RECOMMENDS THAT RESOLUTION 26-17 CD1 BE REPORTED OUT FOR ADOPTION. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERV RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. SO ORDERED. NEXT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6, MENTION EARLIER. RE RESOLUTION 26-6, HAS BEEN CANCELED. THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7 BILL 70, 20 2025 HAS BEEN CANCELED. TAKING UP AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 AND 9 TOGETHER. MEMBERS PUBLIC MAY TESTIFY ON EITHER/OR BOTH AGENDA ITEMS. NUMBER 8, BILL 5, 2026 AND 9, 2026, BILLS AMEND THE LAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO MOD FEW THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR APARTMENT AND APARTMENT MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT. TO MODIFY R AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ORDINANCE, PROPOSED BY THE COUNCIL ARE PROCESSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING. AND PLANNING COMMISSION. THE COUNCIL PROPOSED BILL 5, 2026, BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 25-105. WHEN PROCESSING PROPOSAL, DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE VERSION OF THE COUNCIL'S BILL 5. WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY REQUEST AND NUMBERED AS BILL 6, 2026. COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S BILL 6 I WILL BE RECOMMENDING THAT WE PROCEED ON THIS MATTER. UNDER BILL 6, 2026. MEMBERS WE POSTED ON AGENDA CD1 VERSION OF BILL 6, 2026. FOR YOUR INFORMING, SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENTS IS LISTED ON AGENDA. FOR YOUR INFORMATION. CD1 INCORPORATES AMENDMENTS MADE IN ORDINANCE 25-2, WHICH REPEALED AND REPLACED ARTICLE 5 OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE RELATING TO USE REGULATIONS. CD1 ALSO REQUIRES HEIGHTS FOR DUPLEX UNITS TOILETS COMPLY WITH RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT AND HEIGHT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. UNITS BILL 52025, COUNCIL VERSION, WOULD REDUCE MINIMUM LOT AREA, REDUCE MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS AND SIMPLIFY INCREASE MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA RATIO. I WANT TO APPLAUD COUNCILMEMBER DOS SANTOS-TAM FOR INITIATING THIS BILL. WHICH STARTED CONVERSATION ON UPDATING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR THE APARTMENT AND APARTMENT MIXED USE DISRESTRICTION FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE HOUSING. BILL 6, 2025, WHICH IS DEPARTMENT OF VERSION WOULD REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT DIMENSIONS BUT TO LESSER EXTENTS THAN THE COUNCIL'S BILL 5. THE DEPARTMENT'S BILL 6 WOULD ALSO SIMPLIFY AND INCREASE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL FARE, M MOMODF.A.R. INCENTIVE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND SIMPLIFY BUILDING AREA THE REPORTS THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL OF 7,729 LOTS ON OAHU, THAT ARE ZONED APARTMENT OR APARTMENT MENTIONED USE, 308 -- MIXED USE. 308 LOTS CONSIDERED DEV DEVELOPABLE. WITH A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUBDIVISION AND REDEVELOPMENT IN THE RELA RELATIVELY NEAR FUTURE. THESE 308 ZONING LOTS MOSTLY IN THE A2 MEDIUM DENSITY APARTMENT DENTIST TRINKET AND MOSTLY -- DISTRICT PRIM PRIMARY ARNDTSOARNDT URBAN AND EWA DEVELOPMENT AREA. MODIFYING FOR APARTMENT AND MIXED ZONE DISTRICTSINGS NUMBER OF NUMBER OF DEV DEVELOPABLE LOTS THAT ARE SUBDIVIDE IN THE FUTURE. AND CONTRIBUTE IT SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING IN ZONING DISTRICTS. REGARDING MINIMUM LOT AREA, COUNCIL BILL 5 RECOMMENDS THAT MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET. FOR THE A1, A2AM K-1 AND 2 DISTRICTS BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE A3 AND AMX3 DISTRICTS. DEPARTMENT'S BILL 6 RECOMMENDS THAT 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF A THOUSAND FOR EACH OF THESE ZONING DIST DISTRICTS. WHICH DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS TO BE THE MINIMUM SIZE NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE LOTS EFFICIENT WILL. REGARDING MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS, COUNCIL BILL 5 RECOMMENDS THAT MINIMUM 45-FOOT WIDTH AND DEPTH IN THE A1 AND AMX18 DISTRICTS AND 50-FOOT WIDTH AND DEPTH IN THE A2, A3, AM DPVMENT 2 AND A AMX3. MIGHT NOT BE PROVIDE ENOUGH SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE INFRASTRUCTURE STREET FOOTAGE. 6 RECOMMENDS STANDARD 60-FOOT MINIMUM DIMENSIONS FOR ALL APARTMENT AND APARTMENT MIXED USE DISRES RESTRICTION REGARDING DENSITY FOR DISTRICTS. FLOOR AREA REPLEN AREA, INCREASS MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL FAR TO 2 2-POINT 3.5 IN THE A2 AND AHX2 DISTRICTS A 4.4 AND DISTRICTSMENT MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL FAM F.A.R. AND 3. 0.4. AMX 0. OF, AND MX3 DISTRICT. 0.6, DEPARTMENT BILL 6 WOULD RETAIN MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL F.A.R. AND MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL F.A.R. INN THE COUNCIL'S BILL 5. BUT IT WILL APPLY THE MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL F.A.R. AS ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE. NOT AS PART OF THE OVER AWE MAXIMUM F.A.R. THIS APPROACH IS INTEND TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION, BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. AND APARTMENT MIXED USE DISTRICTS. REGARDING MAXIMUM BUILDING ARIA, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF ZONING LOT THAT CAN BE DID YOU EVERRED BY STRUCK COVERED STRUCTURE OVER 30 INCHING IN. BILL 5 DID NOT M MODIFY CURRENT STANDARDS. 60 TO 40% WAS ZONING LOT DEPENDING ON LOT SIZE WITH HIGHER PERCENTAGE FOR THE MODERNIZE SMALLER LOTS AND LOWER FOR LARGER LOTS. BILL 6 SET SCALABLE STANDARD OF 6 60% ZONING LOT. COUNCIL'S BILL 5 DEPARTMENT'S BILL 6 TO NOT A EXPWRUS GADJUST YARD ANDHEIGHT ADEQUATET APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE POSSIBLE WITH A YOU LOUD DENSE I.T. RECOMMENDED BILL 6, 2026, IT SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBERS REQUIRED FOR BILL 6 TO PASS THIRD READING. JOINING US IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER IS A ALEX FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING. WOULD O PROVIDING BRIEF MENTIONPRESENTATIONBILL 5 AND 6. AVAILABLE ONLINE DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION 63-2026. >>Testifier: GOOD MORNING CHAIR COUNCILMEMBERS THANK YOU FOR THAT ROBUST EXPLANATION. ACTUALLY GASH QUITE A BIT OF MY PRESENTATION. I WILL TRY TO MAKE IT AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. GAVE QUITE A BUILT TALK ABOUT BILLS 5 AND 6. MOSTLY BILL 6. HAS A CD1. WHICH AMEND APARTMENT AND APARTMENT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. YAKS FOCUS ON BILL 6. BOTH BILL AS JUST MINIMUM LOT DIMENSION, LOTS SIZE, F.A.R. AND ADJUSTS COMMERCIAL F.A.R. IN BILLION DO B.I.L.ING AREA. A BUILDING AREA.DENSITY ABSTRACK ABOUT IN A LOT WAYS. TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM A BILLING DENSITY PERSPECTIVE. NOT UNITS PER ACRE NOT PEOPLE PER ACRE BUT HOW MANY BUIL BUILDING, FLOOR AREA ARE. PETER OF THESE BILL AS JUST -- NEITHER BILLS ADJUST HEIGHT SETBACKS. FOCUS F.A.R., BILLING DIMENSION AND DIMENSION AND SIZE ONLY IN THE APARTMENT AND APARTMENT MIXED USE DISTRICTS. THANK HAWAII HOUSING L LAB PROCEEDED VYING SOME GRAPHICS FOR THE PRESENTATION TODAY. PROVIDED GRAPH ITION. HELHELPFUL HAND TBOOK TALK ABOUT DENSITY. THANK COUNCILMEMBER DOS SANTOS-TAM COUNCILMEMBER DOS SANTOS-TAM, VERY FUN PROJECT FOR ME TO WORK ON AND THINK MOVES EVERYTHING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THIS IS GOOD WORK MOVING FORWARD AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE HOW THE DISCUSSION GOES. I WILL SKIP THIS MOSTLY. BUT THE LUO IS ROW LOW CARED. ZONING-D&B LEE I REQUIRED BY -DIDREQUIRED BY CHART. ENCOURAGES DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS. SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS. APARTMENT AND APARTMENT MIXED USE DISTRICTS ARE MEANT TO PROVIDE FOR VOOR ATE OF LIVING ENVIRONMENTS FROM VARIETY OF LLIVING ENVIRONMENTS COMMON WALL LOWER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING UP TO HIGH RISES. AND AMX IS SUPPOSED TO A PROVIDE LEGAL COUNSELS COMMERCIAL USES THAT MEET DAILY NEEDS OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS. GROCERY STORES, SALONS, TOO THAT TYPE OF THING. AS CHAIR KIA'AINA MENTIONED, VAST MAJORITY OF THESE LOTS DEVELOPABLE WHICH MEANS EXAMPLE INCLUDING THOSE WITH HIGH EXCLUDING HIGH BID TO GO LAND VALUE W RATIOS TOO SMALL TO BE SUBDIVIDED OR NARROW ROADWAY LOTS VAST OF MAJORITY OF THOSE, 308 IN THE PUC EWA DEVELOPMENT AREA AND CENTRAL OAHU. IT'S A LOT ALONG THE RAIL ROUTE. THIS SLO SLOW SHOWS ALL OP AND APARTMENT MISSED USE DIST DISTRICTS. DID NOT F PULL OUT JUST 308. SEE WHERE IT'S CLUSTERED AND MOSTLY FOCUSED. SO EVEN IN SAY WAIALUA, OR KANEOHE, MOST OF THOSE APARTMENT DISTRICTS ARE DEVELOPED TO A POINT WHERE THEY'RE UNLIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS. SUMMARIZING PROPOSAL AGAIN. I'LL BE TALKING ABOUT EACH OF THESE SECTIONS INDIVIDUALLY. MINIMUM LOT SIZE, IS MEANT TO PROVIDE FOR THE MINIMUM AREA THAT A REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT COULD TAKE PLACE ON THE LOT. LALARGE LOTS EFFI EFFIC E EF SCALE. LOLOOKING T FOR SOMETHING SPLIT THE DINNERS. TOO SMALL DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP WITH REASONABLE DENSITY. FOR THAT REASON DON'T SUPPORT BILL 5 WHICH HAS A 0 MINIMUM LOT SIZE. FOR THE A3 AND A3 DISTRI DISTRIBUTION. MINI MAUI LOT DIMENSION, T THIS IS-MINIMUM LOT DIMENSION. GRAPHIC STAFF MEMBER PROPOSE PREPARED. THIS IS THE AREA WHERE ALMOST ALWAYS THE MINIMUM LOT DIMENSION IS THE FRONT AJ. WHERE THE LOT MEETS RIGHT OF WAY. PRIVATE LAND INTERACTS WITH PUBLIC HAND. A LOT HAS TO HAPPEN THERE. IF THEY'RE TOO NARROW, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT IS ENVISIONED BY THE PLANS. THTHIS IS SOME CALL OUTS FROM THE VARIOUS PLANS. THEY EXPECT THAT DEVELOPMENTS BE WELL DESIGNED. USE GREEN STREETS. BE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED. HAVE ENHANCED WALKING ENVIRONMENTS. KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE IMAGINE APARTMENT AND APARTMENT MIXED USE DISTRICT WOULD BE DEVELOPED WITH. 50 YEAR EVEN 45-FOOT FRONTAGE. LIKELY HAPPEN A DROUGHT OF DLIERVEL W DRIVEWAY PIED CONFLICT. SIMPLIFICATION WHAT A FR FRONTAE MIGHT LOOK LIKE. SEE 40 FEET OF THE FRONTAGE IS DRIVEWAY. FOR A 2 WAY DRIVEWAY. AND THAT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR SEWER, WATER, ELECTRICAL, STREET TREES, FIRE HYDRANTS, STORMWATER CATCHMENT, ALL OF THOSE PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THEN ALL OF THOSE PRIVATE TITILTED UTILITIES HAVE CROSS THAT FRONTAGE HAPPEN IN A AR AREA. IMPORTANT TOO SMALL. END UP UNU UNDERDEVELOPED LO LOTS. DIFFERENT AIR AGENT AYES ARE STILL ASKING FOR ATE QUITE A B HECO REQUIRES 12 FEET FOR TRANSFORMER APARTMENT BUILDING. BWS8 FEET FROM TREES. HIRE H HYDRANTS STREET PARKING A LOT HAPPENS HERE RPT I WANTED TO HIGHLY. NOT ENOUGH SPACE GIVEN THE SMALLER SIZE, UTILITIES WOULD BE PROVIDED. LIMITING THE DEVELOPMENT TO LOW DENSITY HOW LONG. IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF ZONING THAT WE'RE GRANTING. BUILDING ARIA IS ONLY BILL 6 RECOMMENDATION. BILL 6 PROPOSES TO SIMPLIFY THE STANDARDS. RIGHT NOW INVERSE OF THE LOT SIZE. SO MORE BUILDING AREA IS ALLOWED. BUILD AGRICUBUILDING AREA WE FOE GRANULAR REQUIREMENT ISN'T ALL THAT EFF EFFECT TESTED POSITIVE. RELAXES STANDARD -- EFFECTIVE. RELAXES STA STANDARD IT TO THE HIGHER AMOUNT. HOLD ON. IN PRAY PART PRACTICE ON LEFT, T DEVELOPMENT HAS A LOT BEST LESS BUILDING YEAH ON THE RIGHT. SEE IMAGE FROM THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER FROM THE PUBLIC PECK TIF THEY'RE ABOUT THE SAME. BUILDING AREA OFTEN AFFECTS HOW THE PRIVATE SPACE FEELS BUT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECTED HOW THE PUBLIC SPACE FEELS. SO WE'RE HI'IP HI' HE HOPING NOT DEVELOPMENT. HOUR GARAGES WHICH IS BUILDING AREA INSTEAD OPEN PARKING LOT IS NOT BUILDING AREA. RECALL F.A.R., AS CHAIR INDICATED, ALL RECOMMENDING THAT THE F.A.R. BE INCREASED TO 2, 3 AND 4. FOR A1, 2 AND 3. EN BILL 6 ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT THESE DENSITIES FOR COMMERCIAL USES BE SEPARATED OUT TO PROVIDE SORT OF POLICY INCENTIVE TO UTILIZE THESE MIXED USE DISTRICTSMENT WHICH ARE MORE EFFICIENT USE OF LAND AWE LONGER FOR HE U ALL IT EINTERN DIFFICULT TO ACCESS TO DAILY KNEES WALKING BI -- DAILY NEEDS WALKING BASE BIKING OR TAKE BUS. LESS RELYING SINGLE O OCCUPANCY VEHICLES. SUPPORTED GOAL A O BE TIF ADOPT BY THE COUNCIL THROUGH THEN PO HE -- GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ADOPTED THROUGH THE COUNCIL. DEMONSTRATION SIZE, A1 AND AMX 1 AND A2. AMX 1 AND A2. AND THEN A. 3 AND ACHES AMX 3. AGAIN, JUST POINTING OUT THAT BILL 6 SEPARATES OUT THE COMMERCIAL ALLOWANCE. SO THERE'S LESS COMPETITION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USE. WE SUPPORT THIS PROVISION. AND THEN THE RESULT WOULD BE MORE FOLKS FOR SUBDIVIDED LOTS AND MORE POTENTIAL FOR UNITS. ANTIBIOTIC ADV THESE NORTHEAST NUMBERS ARE QUITE LARGE. CAN'T S EXPECT THEM ALL TO BE DEVELOPED. MOVE THE CONVERSATION TO HOUSING CAP SORT OF THING. LIKE WHAT IS OUR HOUSING CAP OF ZONING COULD ALLOW. AND THIS WOULD INCREASE THAT BY 55,000 UNITS. SAME WITH BILL 64. ALLOWING THE B1 AND B2 MU MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGINGS. COMPLAININGED SIMILARLY INCREASED HOUSING CAP BY ABOUT 50 OR 55,000 UNITS. THIS IS ALL MOVING US IN THE DIRECTION OF ALLOWING MORE MOREHOUSING. THAT'S IT FOR THE PRESENTATION. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. AND GO BACK TO ANY SLIDE THAT IS YOU WOULD LIKE. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. MEMBERS ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BEATTY? COUNCILMEMBER DOS SANTOS-TAM? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM? >>Vice Chair Dos Santos Tam: NO. I'LL SABER IT FO SAVE IT FOR DI. >>Chair Kia'aina: COUNCILMEMBER WATERS? >>Councilmember Weyer: THANK YOU. FOR YOUR HARD WORK. THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER DOS SANTOS-TAM. ACTUALLY HAD A QUESTION RELATING TO DOWNTOWN IF YOU DON'T MIND. COUNCILMEMBER DOS SANTOS-TAM. TALKED WITH DEVELOPER RECE RECENTLY, AND WITH REGARD TO DOWNTOWN, WHY DO WE HAVE F.A.R. REI REQUIREMENTS ON DOWNTOWN? NOT TALKING ABOUT REST DRESIDENTIAL.CAN WE WITH YOUR I, ACTUALLY LOOK AT POSSIBLY LIFTING THE F.A.R. REI QU HE REQUIREMENT DOWNTOWN? IS IT TRUE EITHER 2, 3 OR 4 DOWNTOWN? >>Testifier: DOWNTOWN IS, ZONED BMX 4. AND F.A.R. IS SCALE AND I THINK IT GOES UP TO 7 OR 7.5. BASED ON HOW MUCH PUBLIC OPEN SPACE YOU PREPROVIDE. SO DENSITY DOWNTOWN, ARE SLIGHTLY LESS THAN WHAT WE'RE ALLOWING THROUGH THE T.O.D. INTERIM PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS THAT COME THROUGH. THIS BODY. BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD BE OPEN TO LOOKING AT. THERE'S IMMEDIATE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION THAT HAPPENS AT THIS BILL GETS ADOPTED. WHICH IS WHY IS THEN B1 AND B2 AND BMX 3 NOW LOWER THAN OUR APARTMENT SAD DISTRICT BILLS? SOMETHING WE'RE EXCITED TO WORK ON BUT DON'T HAVE THE TIME AT THE MOMENT. >>Councilme WATERS. >>Chair Kia'aina: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FOR THE PRESENTER SURF IF NOT, FOR THE PRESENTER? GOING TO BRI BRING UP THE D DIRECTOR. DAWN APUNA FOR DIRECTOR PLANNING AND PERMITTING. >>Testifier: THANK YOU CH CHAIR. I MEAN WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF BILL 6 AS ALEX ALLUDED TO. BUT WE'RE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THANK YOU. >>Chair Kia'aina: MEMBERS MEETIMEMBERS IN ARE THERE I ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. PROCEEDING FIRST WITH IN-PERSON TESTIMONY. DO WE HAVE ANY IN-PERSON TESTIFIERS? >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: ANYBODY STANDING BY TO LIKE TO TES TESTIFY? SEEING NONE. PROCEEDING WITH REPORT AN OUTAGE REMOTE TESTIFIERS. ANY REMOTE TESTIFIERS? >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: MEMBERS WE ARE IN DISCUSSION. ON EITHER BILL 5 OR 6. BEFORE I MAKE MY RECOMMRECOMMENDATIONS. COUNCILMEMBER DOS SANTOS-TAM? >>Vice Chair Dos Santos Tam: NO. THANK YOU CHAIR. THIS IS SOMETHING AS ALEX MENTIONED, THAT HAS WE'VE PROBABLY NEEDED TO DO FOR A LONG TIME. THERE WAS A SLIDE IN THERE ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HOW ZONING CODE GOT WHERE IT IS. IF YOU LOOK AT MANY OF THE PROBLEMS WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH MONSTER HOMES REASON WHY PATRICK MAMONSTEMOAMTION RESIDEA APARTMENT ZONES ARE SO RESTRICTIVE PEOPLE TRY TO SHOE HOUR HORN 20 BEDROOM MONSTER HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL. WHOLE REASON WE HAVE BILL 7 BECAUSE, IN ORDER TO BUILD APARTMENTS OF ANY SIZE, YOU NEED F.A.R.ES ABOVE WHAT IS ALLOWED VERY RESTRICTIVE. AND IF FRANKLY, IF WE WILL DONE THIS SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO, WE MAY NOT HAVE EVEN NEEDED BILL 7 IN THE FIRST PLACE. MINUS THE INCENTIVE THAT IS HELP TO GET PROJECTS TO PENCIL OUT. FINALLY, AS ALEX MENTIONED AS WE WORK THROUGH THE T.O.D. PLAN, AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, WE CAN ALSO ADDRESS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AREAS ALL WHICH ALSO NEEDS TO BE UPDATE. SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS BILL AND PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR WORK AND FOLKS OVER THE A DPP WHO ISED ON THIS. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU SO MUCH. IF THERE'S IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, CHAIR RECOMMEND THAT IS ACTION ON BILL 5, 2026, BE POTUS PO ENDED TO POSTPONED DATE ANDTIME DETERMINE CHAIR. ANY DISCUSSION,? OBJECTION OR RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. SO ORDERED. CHAIR RECOMMENDS BILL 6, 2026, SHALL AMEND TO THE POSTED CD1. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. BILL HAS BEEN MAD MADE THE TO C. RECOMMENDS BILL 6, 2026 CD1 REPORTED OUT FOR PASSAGE ON SECOND READING. SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. SO ORDERED. MOVING TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10. FOR ACTION, BILL 7, 2026, THIS BILL AMENDS LAND USE ORDINANCE BY MODIFYING SIGN STANDARD FOR THE APARTMENT AND APARTMENT MIXED USE DISTRICTS. AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ORDINANCE PROPOSED BY THE COUNCIL ARE PROCESSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING AND PLANNING COMMISSION. COUNCIL O PROPOSED BILL 7 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 24-223, DEPARTMENT SUPPORTS INTENT OF THE BILL. BUT NOTES THAT THE BILL INADD VETEINADVERTENTLY OMITS SECOND PPARAGRAPH ROH 21-740D. COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE BILL. BUT RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE SIZE LIMIT ON THE SIGN FROM 12 SQUARE FEET TO 9 SQUARE FEET. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ROH SECTION 21-7 FOR 40D ALLOW FOR ONE SIGN FOR EACH GROUND FLOOR ESTABLISHMENT WITH B BUILDING FRONTAGE. ONLY ONE SIGN ALLOWED FOR EACH PRINCIPAL PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICLE OR ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING. IF THERE ARE SEVERAL GROUND FLOORS ESTABLISHEDMENTS STREET FROFRFRONTAGE ALLOW GROUND FLOOR ESTABLISHMENT STREET FRONT TAJIRI TAJIRI HAVE A CIP THE MENTIONED USE BUILDING LIKELY TO USE ADDITIONAL SIG SIGNAGE FLOOND FLOOR ESTABLISHMENTS. EXISTING MULTIUNITS DWELLING LEAST LIKELY TO USE ADDIT ADDITIONAL, SIGNAGE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE GROUND FLOOR ESTABLISHMENTS BUT COULD CONVERT GROUND FLOOR IN THE FUTURE UNDEVELOPED LAND COULD BE VEANLD MIXED USE BUILDINGS THAT COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MODIFIED SIGNS STANDARD. DEPARTMENT CONCLUDED THAT ALLOWING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE FOR GROUND FLOOR ESTABL ESTABLISHMENTS WOULD HAVE MINMINIMAL AND ADVERSE VISUAL OR HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING AREAS. BECAUSE SIGNS ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED IN SIZE AND DIRECT ELIMINATION IS PROHINDU HAD I BEENED. ALSO, PROHIBITED. ESTABLISHMENTS HIGHER NOWS ARE NO ALLOWED ADDITIONAL SIGN LANGUAGE AJ, VISUAL IMPACTS WILL ONLY OCCUR 'TEST GROUND LEVEL. SIGNAGE. MEMBERS WE HAVE POSTED ON THE AGENDA, CD1 VERSION OF THE RESOLUTION. THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY COUNCILMCOUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA INTRODUCED RESOLUTION 24-23. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENTS ISLY U LIST ON THE AGENDA. I WILL NOW DEFER TO COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA FOR EXPLANATION. >>Councilmember Tupola: THANK YOU SO MUCH. PROPOSED CD1 TO BILL 7 DOES RESOLVE CONCERNS BROUGHT UP BY THE DEPARTMENT. DECREASE MAXIMUM SIZE OF SIGN ON THE GROUND FLOOR. AS WELL AS INSERTING MISSING PARAGRAPH. THIS IS NOT A COUNCILMEMBER NISHIMOTO FOREAREAS BECAUSE -- COMMON AIR OTHER AREAS IKS AID USE DISTRICTS POPPED UP KAPOLEI SECOND STATE I. I HAVE HO'OPILI MUL MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ON LOST AGROUNDFLOOR. NEW TYPE OFFER DEVELOPMENT, MANY BUSINESS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS PARTICULARRER RULE IN THE LAND USE ORDINANCE. SO WITH THIS SMALL AMENDMENT I THINK WOULD BE HELPING A LOT OF PEEL AND TRYING TO BUILD NEIGHBORHOOD BOARDS WHERE YOU CAN WORK AN PLAY AND NO ONE REALLY KNOWSER WHERE ANY OF THESE PLACES ARE WITHOUT THE SIGNAGE. WORK WITH DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR INPUT. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU SO MUCH. FOR THAT EXPLANATION. SINCE THE CD1 INCORPORATE RACE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, INCORPORATES REDUCE SIZE LIMIT ON THE SIGNS FROM 12 SQUARE FEET TO 9, SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE ON THE COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE REQUIRED FOR BILL TO PASS THIRD READING. JOINING US IN THE COUNCIL DACHAI AM CHAMBER IS LE A. >>Vice Chair Waters: IN. A FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING. LEINA PROVIDING BRIEF PRESENTATION ON BILL 7, 2026. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, PRESENTATION IS AVAILABLE ONLINE AS DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION 64-2026. WELCOME. >>Testifier: GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS. AGAIN, LEINA, DPP STAFF PLANNER. I BELIEVE CHAIR DID A GREAT JOB SUMM SUMMARIZING WHAT I WAS GOING TO PRESENTS ON. SO I CAN GO THROUGH IT QUI QUICKLY. JUST SINCE WE'RE HERE. YEAH. SO THE AMENDMENT CHANGE IS MAINLY SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ALLOWING GROUND FLOOR ESTABLISHMENTS TO HAVE SIGNAGE BASED ON BUILDING FRONTAGE. SO ESSENTIALLY, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED SIGNAGE IN FOR THEIR ENTRANCE FACING THE STREET AND AS WELL AS FACING PARKING LOT, PARKWAY, ANJJABLE OPEN SPACE IF THERE'S ANE ENTRANCE ON THAT SIDE. ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE, EXAMPLE AS COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA, MENTIONED, MEHANA KAPOLEI. SO THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW THEM IS TO HAVE THE ORANGE SIGN WHERE IT WOULD SAY, MEHANA KAPOLEI FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEN YELLOW SIGN IN THE SLIDE FOR THE SPECIFIC GROUND FLOOR ESTABLISHMENTS, SUCH AS HON HONDINO SALON AND LEONG DENTAL KAPOLEI. AND THEN LET'S SAY THEY HAVE IN ENRICHMENT TRANS PATIENT PARKING LOT, THEY WOULD GET THAT SECOND ADDITIONAL SIGN AS WELL. SO 9 SQUARE FEET. WE CHOSE IT BECAUSED ON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS SIGNAGE ALLOWANCE IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW. IT'S REDUCTION TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED ORIGINALLY, WHAT I WAS SOMETHING PLANNING COMMISSION WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WWITH. AND WE THINK IT'S LARGE ENOUGH TO BE SEEN BY ALL VEHICLES OR OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. AS WELL AS SMALL ENOUGH TO ADHERE TO PEDESTRIANS SCALE. SO HOW BIG IS A 9 SQUARE FOOT SIGN? SIGN AREA CALCULATED BASED ON THE WIDTH AND THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGNS. SO GENERALLY, IT'S ONE-AND-A-HALF BY 6-FOOT. ONE BY 9 OR 3 BY 3. MOST COMMON. AND TWHEN ALSO HAVE EXAMPLES OF WHAT THE 9 SQUARE FOOT SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE. SO HERE'S AINA HAINA SHOPPING CENTER. WHERE THEY HAVE ALREADY 9 SQUARE FOOT SIGNS. AND THEN HERE IS EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN MAY HANA. AT COUNCIL E KAPOLEI. SIGNAGE RIGHT NOW 3 AND A QUARTER SQUARE FOOT AND 9 SQUARE FOOT IS SHOWN IN THE YELLOW THEN AS YOU CAN SEE, BASED ON THE DESIGN OF BUILDING, AND HOW THE UNITS ARE SEPARATED, BY THE BEAMS, THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE FURTHER RESTRICTED FOR THE SIGN ALLOWANCE. AND THEN WE ALSO DID ANALYSIS ON THE AMX DISTRIBUTION ALONG E'O CROSS THE I DON'T KNOW. GENERALLY 8 AREAS WITH AMX TIGS DISTRICTS TEND DISTRICTS ADJACENT OR CLOSE APPROXIMATE TIMMY TO BUSINESS AND BUSINESS USE DISTRICTS OF THE APPROXPROXIMITYMAKE IT PRETTY NN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE IN THE AREA. AND THEN WE ALSO FOUND THAT, MOST LIKELY, IF IT WILL BE EXISTING MULTIUNIT WORK LIVE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT, SO THAT WOULD BE USING THIS AND ANY FUTURE MULTIUSE BUILDINGS. SO TO CONCLUDE, WE AGREE AND SUPPORT THE DRAFT CD1, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE VERY MINIMAL VISUAL AND IMPACT. BASED ON REGULATION LEVEL. DESIGN LEVEL AND ZONING LEVEL. THEN THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. AND AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION. MEMBERS ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? FOR THE PRESENTER? NO QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER TUPOLA? >>Counc OKAY. GOOD JOB FOR BOTH OF THE PRESENTERS TODAY. OH, COUNCILMEMBER DOS SANTOS-TAM. TAMMY HAVE A QUESTION FOR DPP. OVERALL. >>Vice Chair Dos Santos Tam:. I, APPRECIATE THIS. I THINK THIS IS ABSOLUTELY STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR OUR APARTMENT MIXED USE AREAS. I WANT TO ASK ABOUT SIGN PERMITS, SIGN PERMIT PROCESS IN GENERAL. SENT A LETTER TO DPP. FEW WEEKS AGO ABOUT SIGN PERMITS. I HEARD FROM MANYAPPLICANTS THAT SILL MANY SIM SOME SIGN PET IS VALUE OF SIGN IS FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS TAKES A VERY LOCK TIME. WONDERWONDER COMMENT ABOUT THE PROCESSING TIMES FOR SIGN PERMITS, VOLUMES OF SIGN PERMITS, APPLICATIONS, THAT COME IN, PERHAPS AS REFLECTION OF THE TOTAL AMOUNTS OF PERMITS THAT YOU ARE PROCESS AND SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF GETTING THEM OUT IN TIMELY WAY. >>Testifier: THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER. I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS. BUT I COULD GET IT FOR YOU. CERTAINLY WE DO GETTY WON'T SIDE SUPER-HIGH VOLUME BUT DO GET THEM REGULARLY AS APPLICATIONS I THINK THERE WAS SOME BACKLOGGING IN THE LAST YEAR, SO WE ARE WORKING ON ALL OF THAT. IT IS PART OF SUBMISSION INTO HNL BUILD LIKE ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS WE'LL GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU. THANK YOU. >>Vice Chair Dos Santos Tam: I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE THE PROCESS AFTER APPLYING IS FAIRLY CUMBERSOME. I UNDERSTAND WE WANTED TO HAVE A ROBUST SIGN SCHEME SO WE DON'T HAVE BILLBOARD AN OTHER THING. BUT WHEN YOU SUBMIT APPLICATION, YOU NEED ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS OF SIGNS UFLT NEED DRAWINGS ALL THE OTHER SIGNS IN BUILDING. WHICH DPP SHOULD HAVER YOU I DON'T KNOW WHY THE APPLICANT HAS TO DO IT STHISM THEMSELVES ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING ENTIRE FACADE. CUMBERSOME FOR A SMALL BUSINESS. TO DO. ER AND THAT IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO WORK ON OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. TO SEE WITH IT HE WITH EVEN USE AI SUBMIT PICTURE. GOT TO BE A WAY MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. >>Testifier: WE AGREE. >> WANT TO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR THEM THE AS WELL. THANK YOU. >>Chair Kia'aina: COUNCILMEMBER CORDERO. >>Councilmember Cordero: THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION RELATING TO THE PRESENTATION AND PROPOSED DESIGN DISTRICT SIGN STANDARDS RELATING TO MARQUEE. VERSUS ONE THAT IS NOT DIRECTLY ILLUMINATED. BECAUSE OUR MATTER KEY IS NORM AILHAR NORMALLY YOU WILL I'M NAITDEDER. >> ILLUMINATED. >> DEPENDS ON THE DISTRICT. USUALLY LIKE A SLANTED ROOF OVEOVERHANG HAVE THE SIGN THERE. >>Councilmember Cordero: I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU CHAIR. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. MEMBERS IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, FOR DPP, I WILL NOW TALK E'O TAKE TUCK E'O PUBLIC C TESTIMONY. IN IN-PERSON TESTIFIERS. >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: ANYONE ELSE STANDING BY TO TESTIFY? SEEING NONE. PROCEEDING WITH REMOTE TESTIMONY. ARE THERE ANY REMOTE TESTIFIERS? >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION BEFORE I MAKAMAE RECOMMENDATION? SEEING NONE. MAKE MY RECOMMENDATION. CHAIR RECOMMENDS THAT BILL 7, 226 BE AMENDED TO THE PESTED CD1. ANY DISCUSSION POSTED CD1. OBJECTION OR RESERVATIONS. AMENDED TO CD1ER CHAIR THEN RECOMMENDS THAT BILL 7 2026 CD1 BE REPORTED OUT PASSAGE SECOND READING MUCH AND SCHEDULING OF HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTIONS? RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE. SO ORDERED. MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11. AND OUR LAST MEASURE FOR THE DAY. BILL 15. FOR ACTION. BILL 15, 2026. THIS BILL AMENDS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUI REQUIREMENTS UNDER ROH CHAPTER 29, WHICH APPLIES TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF TEN OR MORE FOR SALE DWELLING UNITS OR TO THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS OFFICES OR RENT RENTAL UNITS TO MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS. CONTAINING TEN OR MORE FOR SALE DWELLING UNITS SUBJECTS TO CERTAIN COLL EXCLUSIONS. UNDER ROH CHAPTER 29, NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS REQUIRED IS DETERMINED PEOPLE PERCENTAGE TOTAL DWELLING UNITS IN PRINCIPLE PROJECT AND PERCENTAGES HIGHER FOR INTERIM PLANNED PROJECTS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TRANSIT PROJECT OR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PROJECTS SEEN US BONUS TYPE OR DENSITY. WE REFERRING TO THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS AS T.O.D. PROJECTS. A DEVELOPER MAY PROVIDE THESE REQUIREMENT AFFORDABLE UNITS AS FOR SALE OR LE RENTAL UNIT. FOR SALE PROVIDED THREE OPT OPTIONS BASED ON LENGTH OF TIME. UNITS MUST REMAIN AFFORDABLE. FOR T.O.D. PROJECTS, TEN% OF THE TOTAL UNITS MUST REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR MINIMUM OF 30 YEARS. 20R% OF THE TOTAL UNITS MUST BE REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR ME HMINIMUM OF TEN YEARS OR 30% OF TOTAL UNITS MUST REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR MINIMUM OF 50 5YEARS. FOR ALL OTHER PROJECTS, 5% OF THE TOTAL UNITS MUST REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR ANYBODY YOU EVER 30 YEARS. 10% MUST REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR MINIMUM 10 YEARS OR 15% TOTAL UNITS MUST REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS. TWO T.O.D. PROJECTS ELECTED TO PROVIDE FOR SALE AFFORDABLE UNITS UNDER THE OPTION REQ REQUIRING 10% OF THE TOTAL UNITS REMAIN AFFORDABLE, FOR A MUFN 30 YEARS. MINIMUM 30 YEARS. 10% OF THE TOTAL UNIT CONSTITUTES LOWEST PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL UNITS THAT MUST BE PROVIDE AS AFFORDABLE FOR T.O.D. PROJECTS, 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY PERIOD PROVED TO BE PROBLEMATIC. DEVELOPERS WERE NOT ABLE TO SELL SMALLER AFFORDABLE UNITS. PARTICULARLY FOR STUDIO UNITS. 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY PERIOD WAS NOT APPEALING. TO POTENTIAL HOME BUYERS. WHO PLANNED TO START FAMILIES. OR FOR OTHER REASONS WHO WOULD NEED A LARGER HOME FOR THE 30 YEAR PERIOD DESIRES BEFORE. COUNCIL HAS ALREADY PROVIDED RELIEF TO ONE OF THESE PROJECTS. SKY ALA MOANA. VIA RESOLUTION 25-288. WHICH AWE NANEA LOOED DEVELOPER TO RENT THE UNSOLD UNITS TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 80% OR BOW LEE OF THE AM AMI--BELOW AMI UNTIL UNITS ARE SOLD. DEVELOPER HAD SELECTED RENTAL OPTION REQUIRED DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE 15% OF THE TOTAL UNITS AS AFFORDABLE RENTAL RENTAL UNITS. DEVELOPER IS BASICALLY PROVIDING 5% FEWER AFFORDABLE UNITS. REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS TESTIFIED IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL IS THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT FOR THE SKY ALA MOANA PROJECT. AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTEDDING THE 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY OPTION. COUNCIL RECENTLY PROVIDED RELIEF TO THAT PROJECT. AND WHILE THAT DEVELOPER IS NO LONGER INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, IT IS STILL INVOLVED IN MARKETING ROLE. AND KNOW FROM DIRECT EXPERIENCE DIFFICULTIESEN CONE TOURED IN SELLING AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS UNDER 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY. OPTIONS. ENCOUNTERED. UNDER ROH CHAPTER 29, FOR MARKETING PERIODS ARE SPECIFIED, WITH EACH OF THE FIRST THREE MARKETING PERIODS CONSISTING 120 DAY PERIOD. AS MARKETING PERIODS PRO PROGRE, UNSOLD AFFORDABLE RENTAL OR FOR SALE UNITS COULD BE INCREMENTALLY IE A YOU HAVED TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME GROUPS 20% HIGHER THAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME GROUPS FOR THE PREVIOUS MARKETING PERIOD. NOT TO EXCEED HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 100% OF THE AMI BUT AT PRICES AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING PERCENTAGE OF AMI ORIGINALLY REQUIRED. AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A NEED FOR MARKETING PERIODS BECAUSE UNITS ARE QUICKLY RENTED. FOR SALE AFFORDABLE UNITS, THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE DIFFICULTY SELLING, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT HAVE 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY PERIOD, AMERICAING PERIOD HAVE NOT--MARKETING PERIOD NOT SUCCESSFUL. SELLING UNIT NOT ATTRACTIVE TO BUYERS UNITS MAY REMAIN VACANT FOR MONTHS UNTIL THE MARKETING PERIOD EXPIRE. BILL 15 THEREFORE WOULD DELETE THE 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY OPTION BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL AND RESULTED IN FEAR OF AFFORDABLE UNITS BEING PROVIDED. BILL ALSO DELETES MARKETING PERIOD THAT HAVE BEEN A ASSOCIATED WITH 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY PERIODS. KEEP IN MIND, THAT ALL OTHER OPTIONS WERE PROVIDING REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY USUALLY IT UNDER ROH CHAPTER 29 REMAIN IN PLACE AND ARE AVAILABLE TO SHEDEVELOPERS. CHAIR WATERS INTRODUCERS OF THIS BILL, WOULD YOU HIKE TO COMMENT FURTHER? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT. >>Councilmember Waters: THANK YOU SO MUCH. VERY, GOOD EXPLANATION OF WAS THE CURRENT STATUS IS. A WHAT THIS BILL DOES. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BECAUSE IT IS THE NUMBER ONE TOPIC ALONG WITH COST OF LIVING ISSUES. SINCE FIRST READING, I MET WITH HOME BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS TO TRY TO GET OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD GO FORWARD WITH THIS. IT IS A TOOL IN THE TOOL CHEST FOR DEVELOPER TO USE. MY FEELING WAS THAT IT'S NOT JUST WITH 30 YEAR REQUIREMENT, BUT EVEN JUST HAVING A SINGLE REWREQUIREMENT TO REMAIN AFFORDABLE RENFOOTBALLSOMETHINGO DISCUSS FURTHER. WHAT FROM THE O OUTSET SUGGEST WE DEFER THE MEASURE. BUT I DO WANT TO HAVE THE, CONVERSATION BECAUSE THE TWO INSTANCES WHERE DEVELOPERS OPTED TO BUILD 10%S UNITS FOR 30 YEARS, IT DIDN'T WORK. THEY DIDN'T SELL IT. IF YOU -- CAN'T SELL IT. THINK ABOUT IT, IF YOU'RE A SINGLE PERSON, AND YOU LIVE IN A STUDIO, IT'S POSSIBLE YOU COULD DO THAT FOR 30 YEARS. BUT IF YOU HAVE A PARTNER, NOW HAVE TWO PEOPLE. IN THE SAME UNIT FOR 30 YEARS. AND IF YOU HAVE A CHILD, 3 OR FOUR PEOPLE IN THE STUDIO FOR 30 YEARS, TURNS OUTS TO BE MORE LIKELY A JAIL CELL. THAN SOME PLACE YOU WANT TO RACES A FAMILY. THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THIS UP. AGAIN, I DO WANT TO ASK AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, OF DPP, WHAT IS THE LOGIC BEHIND HAVING THE REQUIREMENT THAT REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR NUMBER OF YE YEARS? NUMBER ONE, AND NUMBER 2, IS ANYBODY EVEN UTILIZING THIS PROGRAM? IS IT EVEN WORKING? BUT THANK SO MUCH. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. >>Councilmember Waters: YOU APPRECIATE. >>Chair Waters: THANK YOU CHAIR WATERS. GOING TO GO TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. I'LL BRING DPP UP. PROCEEDING FIRST WITH IN-PERSON TESTIMONY IN THE CHAMBER, ANY P IN-PERSON TESTIFIERS. >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TESTIFY? IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE TO TURN THE MIC ON. >>Testifier: ALOHA. MY NAME IS MCKINLEY EAVES TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF AVALON GAME ROOM. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT CITY'S GOAL OF IMPROVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTCOMES. CITY TAXPAYORS HAVE INVESTED BILLIONS IN RAIL TO SUPPORT DENSITY AND ROUND STATIONS. WE HOLD CONCERNS THAT BILL 15 AS CURRENT WRITTEN REMOVES CRITICAL FLEXIBILITY WITHOUT REPLACING IT WITH THE PRACTICAL MECHANISM TO ADDRESS REAL WORLD MARKET CONDITIONS. BILL 15 REPEALING OF THE 30 YEAR FOR SALE AFFORDABILITY OPTION AND E ELIMINATING STRUCTURE MARKETING PERIOD FRAMEWORK. I UNDERSTAND MOTIVATION BEHIND THESE CHANGES. IN PRACTICE MARKETING PERIOD DO NOT ALWAYS FUNCTION AS INTENDED. THE 30 YEAR RESTRICTION REDUCED BUYER INTEREST ESPECIALLY FOR THE SMALL UNITS PRODUCED IN CERTAIN IPTD AROUND T.O.D. PROJECTS. REMOVING THESE TOOLS DOES NOT ADDRESS UNDERLYING CHALLENGE. SOME CASES DESPITE GOOD FAITH AND DOCUMENTED MARKETING EFFORTS, AFFORDABLE RESTRICTED FOR SALE UNITS SIMPLY DO NOT SELL. THIS HAPPENS RESULT IS VACANT HOUSING. MAKING AFFORDABLE UNITS DO NOT SERVE FAMILIES TO NOT STRENGTHEN COMMUNITIES AND DO NOT MOVE CITY CLOSER TO HOUSING GOALS. WE HAVE SEEN THIS INCUR REAL PROJECTS SUCH AS SKY ALA MOANA AND PARK COUNCILMEMBER OKI OKIMOTO. IMPORTANTLY, -- COUNCILMEMBER KEEAUMOKU.NOT FAI FFAILURES. PRIVATE INVESTMENT HOMES AND PUBLIC BENEFIT TAX BASE. LEGITIMATE MARKETING EFFORTS SOME AFFORDABLE FOR SALE UNITS REMAIN U UNSETTLED. WE NEED MORE-DINNER UNSOLD. IMMEDIATE MORE PRIVATE INV INVESTMENTS HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOT LESS. MOVING FLEXIBILITY BILL 15 COULDEN DISCOURAGE PRIVATE DEVELOPERS FROM PARTICIPATING. HARDER TO DELIVER HOMES COMMUNITY NEEDS. THIS IS WHY BILL 15 CLEARLY DEFINED LEAST VARVEL MEGHAN VALVE MED- MECHANISM UNITSARE O. DEVELOPER CAN DEMONSTRATE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS PRINT, DIGITAL ADVERTISING. >>Chair Kia'aina: HAVE TO ONE MINUTE. ALREADY WENT EVER THAT. COULD SUMMARIZE IT. WITH VERY YOUR TESTIMONY. IF YOU COULD SUMMARIZE I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. >>Testifier: AFTER REMAIN UNSOLD AFTER REQUIRE MARKETING PERIOD, THOSE UNITS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONVERT TO AFFORDABLE RENTING HOUS HOUSING.ENSURE MEANINGFUL PROPORTIONAL PUBLIC BENEFIT. ANY CONVERSION FROM FOR SALE TO RENTAL SHOULD CARRY LONGER FOOSHT COMMITMENT SPECIFICALLY 30 YEAR FOR SALE REQUIREMENT SHOULD CONVERT TO 6 YEAR RENTAL RESTRICTION. APPROACH CLEAR BENEFIT PREVENTS FOOTBALL URINE ITS SITTING VACANT. AFFORDABLE UNITS REMAINING VANIC AND PVACANT CHANGING PROPD BILL 15 INCREASE LENDER UN UNUNS EARNTY. OUTCOMES MALTY LIMITING HOUSING PRODUCTION. REASON FOR RELEASE VALVE DOES NOT GOALS. STRENGTHS THEM. OPERATING AT INTENDED THANK YOU. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE A YOU ESSENCE WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY? DID ANYONE WIANT WASHINGTON NEW TONIGHT QUERY-DID ANYONE WANT TO KERI THE TESTIFIER SURF? QUESTIONS COULD YOU PLEASE COME UP OF QUESTIONER IT TESTIFIER? QUERY THE TESTIFIER. >>Councilmember Waters: APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US TO TRY TO FIND SOLUTIONS. DO YOU THINK WE ALREADY HELPED SKY WITH A A LOWL LIEUTENANT GOR IT TO GO INTO TRANSIENT VACATION RENTAL. DO YOU THINK -- ALLOWING TO GO 23450 RENTAL. HELP SELL THE UNITS REDUCED 30 YEAR REQUIREMENTS SAY IN HALF. >>, TO 15 YEARS OR EVEN TEN YEARS. >>Testifier: JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. 2 YEERLSD I WOULDN'T REALLY SEE MYSELF WANTING TO LIVE IN THE SALMAH PLACE I DO NOW. WHEN I'M 52. I THINK THAT WOULD DEFINITELY HELP. WATERS YOU AGREE WITH THIS THAT THE, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE IN STUDIO FOR 30 YEARS,. >>Testifier: I DID THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, ONLY OPTION TO MAKE PROJECT PENCIL. EVEN IF YOU AND I WOULD ANT WANT TO LIVE THERE, THERE IS PROOF THAT SOME PEOPLE DO. >>Councilmember Waters: AGAIN, SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY BOUGHT THE UNITS. RIGHT? BUT YOU COULDN'T SELL ALL OF THEM. I'M JUST THINKING RATHER THAN CONVERTING IT TO RENTAL R, SHOULD WE BE CONSIDERING AT LEAST IN THIS CASE AND OTHER DEVELOPERS, WHO ONE OPTED TORE F OPTION REDUCE AMOUNT OF YEARS THAT IT NEEDS TO STAY AFFORDABLE TO ALLOW TO YOU SELL THEM. >> I BELIEVE SO. >>Councilmember Waters: ALSO, WHY WOULD THE DEVELOPER ONLY BUILD STUDIOS? AT THE 30 YEAR REQUIREMENT BECAUSE I THINK IF IT WAS LARGER UNIT, PROBABLY BE ABLE TO SELL THEM EASIER. >>Testifier: I AG AGREE WITH THAT. I DO NOT KNOW WHY THEY CHOSE THAT. >>Councilmember Waters: I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU CHAIR. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER DOS SANTOS-TAM. >>Vice Chair Dos Santos Tam: THANK YOU CHAIR. I KNOW THAT YOU'RE INVOLVED WITH THE NUMBER OF J PROS. AND PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THE RENTAL MARKET. NUMBER OF J PROS. RIGHT NOW, PROJECTS RIGHT NOW IN THE ALA MOANA CORRIDOR KAKAAKO, DOWNTOWN AREA, WHAT IS THE MARKET RENT CONVERT TO IN TERMS AMI? 80%? OR IS IT A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT IN. >>Testifier: BIT MORE THAN 80%. PROBABLY AROUND 100, 120. >>Chair Kia'aina: >>Vice Chair Dos Santos Tam: ABOUT 100 TO, 120%. SO NEITHERICALLY, IF SOMEBODY WERE TO USE. THEORETICALLY, SOMEBODY WERE TO USE MARKETING PERIOD ALLOW IT TO SCALE UP MIGHT I WILL U ACTUALLY HIT MARKET RENT ANY WAY? IS THAT KIND OF WHAT MIGHT HANNHAPPEN? >>Testifier: WOULD NOT FORESEE. STILL RE STRIKD TO SPECIFIC AMI LEVELS YOU COULD ENSURE AFFORDABILITY FOR CALL THEM AFFORDABILITY YEARS. >>Vice Chair Dos Santos Tam: THANK YOU. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. NO ONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBER TO TESTIFY, CLERK ANY REMOTE TESTIFIERS? >>Council Clerk: CHAIR, THERE ARE NONE. >>Chair Kia'aina: FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, DO WE HAVE DHHL LEADERSHIP HERE? DVMENTD HLM. >>Testifier: GOOD MORNING. GAFFIN THORNTON ON BEHALF JJOJOYOGEES KEVIN AUGER HOUSING DIRECTOR. DON'T HAVE A POSITION ON THIS PARTICULAR. TREE WITH SOME OF THE, SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY COUNCIL CHAIR WATERS. WE THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO, WE THINK CHAPTER 29 IS RAPE FOR REVIEW. AND -- RAYA FOR REVIEW AND FURTHER NOLA ASSIST LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH D COUNCIL. RIPE FOR REVIEW AND NAIL FURTHER ANALYSIS AND LOVE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH COUNCIL. >>Chair Kia'aina: DOES THE DPP DIRECTOR HAVE ANY MANA'O AS WELL? >>Testifier: I THINK WE DO AGREE. THAT THE MARKETING AND AFFORDABILITY PERIODS ARE NOT WORKING. SO WE I APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF THIS BILL. AND WILL WORK WITH DHHL AND COUNCIL TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEEL RESOLUTION. >>Chair Kia'aina: I APPRECIATE IT. FOR THE ROSHED ALREADY BEEN CONTACT BY THE OTHER DEVELOPERS. FOR THE RECORD. TO HE CAN MORE THE OPTION. AND SO EXPLORE THE OPTIONS WE HAVE HAD A CONFERENCE CALL WITH APPROPRIATE COUNCIL, TO TELL THEM WHAT HAD OCCURRED WITH SKY ALA MOANA. AND SO WRITING IS ON BALL U WALLY THINK WRITING IS ON WA WALL. VICE CHAIR WATERS WAS TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE HEAD ON. SO THAT WE DON'T GET INTO THIS GAME. OF HAVING TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND TO MODIFY. THE STRUCTURE. WE ARE MEMBERS WE ARE IN DISCUSSION. I'M GOING TO CAN I SEEK YOUR COUNCIL. WHAT ARE YOU RECOMMENDING THEN? >> >>Councilmember Waters: THANK YOU. I AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR HAVING HEARING ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT HOUSING MEASURE. I DO SUGGEST THAT WE DEFER IT. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND LAND MANAGEMENT AS WELL AS DPP OPINING IT'S NOT WORKING EVEN THE 30% OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, THAT ARE MUST BE REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR FIVE YEARS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DEVELOPERS ARE CHOOSING THAT OPTION. OR ANY OF THE THREE OPTIONS ON TABLE. BUT WITH YOUR INDULGENCE COULD I ASK LIZ KROEGER TO COME UP AND OPINE ON WHAT THE RATIONALE WAS WHEN OUR PRECPREPRETD ASSESS ERS MADE THS OPTION? PREDECESSORS IMMEDIATE THIS OPTION? , MADE THIS OPTION. >>Testifier: THANK YOU CH CHAIR. LISTS BETH KROEGER ER DPP. SO YO WONDERING WHAT THE CONCEPT OF HAVING THE THE 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY PERIOD WAS? I THINK THAT THE IDEA OF A 30 YEAR AFFORDABILITY PERIOD WAS NOT TO KEEP, PEOPLE IN THE SAME UNIT FOR 30 YEARS. I THINK IT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN IT CHANGES HANDS, DURING THAT 30 YEAR FE PETERED T REMAINS AFFORDABLE UNITS. >>Vice Chair Waters: 30 YEAR PERIOD. I THINK THERE'S A CERTAIN PROFIT-SHARING I THINK THAT OWNERS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS GET SOMETHING LIKE 1% PER YEAR OR I CONDITION QUITE REMEMBER HOW IT IS. THE MARKET IS GOING UP BY. HIGHER PERCENTAGE, THEY'RE NOT CAPTURING THE VALUE OF THAT INCREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE. SO MANY CITIES VERY CAREFULLY MANAGE THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK AS AN ASSET. THEY HAVE A MANAGER WHO IS MANAGING A LIST OF QUALIFIED APPLICANTS, THEY THEN WHEN SOMEBODY WHO IS IN AFFORDABLE UNIT, SAYS I WANT TO TELL SELL THIS AFFORDABLE UNIT, THEY FACILITATE AND ASSIST THAT SALE AND LET THE SELLER AND BUYER KNOW WHAT THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE. MANY OF THESE CITIES ARE LOOKING NOT FOR 30 YEAR PERIOD, BUT FOR ESSENTIALLY A FOREVER ASSET IN THAT CITY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK MUCH SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THI THINGSEL EXPIRING OUT OF THE AFFORDABLAFFORDABLE HOUSING EVEN YEARS. YOU HAVE A PERCENTAGE OF UNITS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WILL REMAIN RESERVED FOR PEOPLE AT CERTAIN ASIA MEDIAN INCOME. AREA MEDIAN INCOME. S. BHE CONCEPTUALLY LOOKED AT ORIGINALLY, THEY HAD ENVISIONED, A MUCH MORE MANAGED SITUATION AS OPPOSED TO KIND OF A THE WAY WE, WE DO IT, WE IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENTS THAT APPLY TO EACH INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT. THAT OF COURSE, FROM A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, IS PRETTY CUMBERSOME ON THE PART OF THE MANAGERS OF THOSE UNITS AND AS WELL AS ON THE PART OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, PLANNING AND ANCHOR PERMITTING DHHL M, AND SOMETIMES HHFD. C. LOT OF TURN AGENCIES ARE INVOLA IN ALL OF THESE. >>Councilmember Waters: GET RID OF TIME REQUIREMENT. UNITS RITZ GOING TO SELL. MAKE REQUIREMENT HAD TO OWNER OCCUPIED RATHER THAN TIME REQUIREMENT BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, MANY PEOPLE BUY A STUDIO, SELL IT, MAKE A SMALL PROFIT. AND MOVE ON TO BIGGER UNIT WHEN THEIR FA FAMILY SITUATION CHANGES. SO JUST WANTED TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT OPTIONS. WE COULD KEEP THIS ON THE BOOKS AND SEE ULTIMATELY, IF THE DEVELOPER COMES BACK AG AGAIN, WEAR GOING TO QUESTION THEM LIKE ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO 10% AFFORDABLE FOR 30 YEARS? BECAUSE WE KNOW FOR THE TWO INSTANCES, WHERE IT WAS SELECTED, IT DIDN'T WORK. LAST QUESTION. CHAIR, YOU HAVE THREE OPTIONS. HOW OFTEN DO YOU SEE DEVELOPERS CHOOSING ANY ONE OF THESE THREE? >>Testifier: WELL, MY DIVISION DOESN'T MANAGE THE, DOESN'T ADMINISTER CHAPTER 29. BUT I WOULD SAY IN GENERAL, WE ACTUALLY SEE A LOT MORE PEOPLE JUST GOING STRAIGHT FOR A 201H OR BILL 7 CHAPTER 32 STYLE PROJECT. SO I THINK PEOPLE ARE RESPONDING A LOT TO GOVERNMENT SUBSUBSIDIES. LOOKING AT FIVE, TEN, 15, 20 20%AFFORDABLE MANDATE VERSUS 50% AND THEN YOU GET YOU CAN APPLY FOR WAIVER AND FUNDING, PEOPLE ARE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION. THAT IS MY PERCEPTION. AGAIN, I DON'T ADMINISTER TO CHAPTER 29. SO TAKE THAT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. >>Chair Kia'aina: >>Councilmember Waters: THAT'S MY PERCEPTION AS WE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>Chair Kia'aina: THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE CHAIR COUNCILMEMBER WEYER. >>Councilmember Weyer: THANK YOU CHAIR. ER I JUST WANTED TO NOTE A LOT OF MY CONCERNS ARE PLAYED FROM THE CONCUSS DISCUSSION TODAY. S ME HOPEFUL. CONTINUED CONCERN AND DISCUSSION LAID OUT IN TERM HAVING TOOL IN THE TOOL TOOLKIT UNDERSTANDING ARE WE LOOK INCREASING INHAVE TO INVENTORY. SO MANY OF US LOOK FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO OWN THEIR OWN HOME. AND WE KNOW THAT THE ENTIRE PROGRAM, OUTSIDE OF JUST THIS SMALL ALLOCATION HAD 7 PROJECTS, MAYB MAYBE APPLICATIOS IN TOTAL UNDERUTILIZED GO DOWN THAT STAY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT DOWN THAT SCALE. ALL ABOUT PENCILING OUT I THINK NO ONE WANTS T TO PROVIDE A HIGH PROFIT MARGIN FOR ANYONE. TTAXPAYOR MONEY IN TERMS OF DEVELOPERS FOR EXAMPLE BUT THE REMOTE ORREMOTE OMYREMOTE ORAL E NOT INCREASING AND CREATING NUMBER OF UNITS WE NEED PACE WE NEED IT. OUR REASON REALITY. UHERO CAME UP THIS WEEK. FOCUS ARE PRESSED, BEYOND MEASURE. OPTED BOTH COST OF LIVING AND JUST LACK OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES. AND SO REALLY, MY CONCERN WAS JUST INSHEARING THAT WANT WERE TAKING AWAY TOOLS IT. BUT LOOKING AT OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE MOORE TOOLS. ENSURING THAT WE WEREN'T TAKING AWAY TOOL MANY LOOK AT GOVEGGOVERNMENT'S ROLE ENTIRE PROCESS. WHERE WE CAN STEP. IN NONPROFIT PRIVATE DHI COMMUNY AND THE ABLE TO PROVIDE RESOURCE OR OPPORTUNITY. MAIN HOPE FLEW ALL OF THIS APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION. IT'S CREATED. HOPE FLEW ALL OF THIS. MAIN PASSION AND GOAL, THROUGH DISCUSSION ALL OF THE MEAS MEASURES, TODAY, REALLY JUST ABOUT EMPHASIZING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE PATHWAY TO CREATE HOUSING THAT OUR COMMUNITY NEED. APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION. >>Vice Chair Dos Santos Tam: THANK YOU CHAIR. ONE MORE QUESTION FOR DPP. BECAUSE LIZ SAID SOMETHING THAT WAS TRIGGERED A THOUGHT. IS THREE, DOES DPP HAVE A CONCERN T IF WE WERE TO DRASTICALLY AMEND OUR IPE PROCESS, THAT I-POD PROCESS PUSH DEVELOPERS TO UTILIZE 201H PROCESS INSTEAD H HAVE VERY SLITTLE SAY WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE I PDT. >>Testifier: HE THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION I THINK YOU KNOW, MY PERSONAL THOUGHT ON THAT IS THAT INEN STEPHANIES WITHIN THE TOTED AREA. INCENTIVES WITHIN THE TOTED AREA ARE SUCH SUCH THAT PEOPLE HAVE DEVELOPERS AND LANDOWNERS HAVE INCENTIVE TO GO FOR THE T.O.D. BONUSES. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD NECESSARILY CHOOSE 201H PROCESS OVER THAT. I THINK THAT IS TRUE FOR THE ALA MOANA AREA. ELSEWHERE ON ALIGNMENT, I WOULD SEE I WOULD IMAGINE IN THAT DEBATE, ON PART OF THE DEVELOPER, WOULD BE A A LOT CLOSER. BENEFITS FROM A 201H VERSUS BENEFITS FROM IPD-T OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TRANSIT PERMIT. COULD BE A LOT CLOSER. >>Vice Chair Dos Santos Tam: JUST TO CLARIFY ALL OF THE IPD-T PERMIT THAT IS HAVE BEEN ISSUED SO FAR HAVE BEEN BEEREN IN THE ALA MOANA AREA. OTHERS OUTSIDE THE ALA MOANA AREA? >>Testifier: THERE WAS ONE IN CHINATOWN. AND THEN THERE WERE PRONES THAT I DON'T THINK -- PROJECTS EVER CAME TO FRUITION. THAT NEVER EVEN ACTUALLY APPLIED IN WAIPAHU. >>Vice Chair Dos Santos Tam: OKAY THE THANK YOU. >>Chair Kia'aina: COUNCILMEMBER CORDERO. >>Councilmember Cordero: ACTUALLY, FIRST OF ALL, SUPPORT THE INTRODUCER'S RECOMMENDATION. BUT I DID HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION. ABOUT THE BILL. IF IT WILL, IF WE PASS THIS BILL, WILL IT ALLEVIATE AND RELEASE ALL OF THE EXISTING PROJECTS OR JUST FUTURE PROJECTS? WE'RE GOING TO BE DE DEFERRING THE BILL OF YARD YARD I UNDERSTAND. WENC.>>Councilmember Cordero: I UNDERSTAND. >>Chair Kia'aina: HAVING CON KOOLAUED DISCUSSION, CHAIR RECOMMENDS THAT ACTION ON BILL 15. 2026 BE POSTPONED. CONCLUDED DISCUSSION. TO A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMITTEE CHAIR ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTIONS OR RESERVATIONS? HEARING NONE SO ORDERED. MAHALO EVERYBODY. BEING HERE TODAY. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. >>(ADJOURNED). ♪