The Committee on Zoning and Planning amended Resolution 25‑236 to the hand‑carried CD1 and reported it out for adoption Thursday after an extended discussion about affordability levels, required exemptions and regional infrastructure.

The Laulima affordable rental housing project proposes 750 rental units on approximately 17.312 acres in Kapolei Parkway (the Kapolei West master plan area) divided into four phases: phase 1 (236 units), phase 2 (264 units), phase 3 (180 units) and phase 4 (70 units). According to the committee record, all units will be restricted to households earning at or below 120% of area median income (AMI), with 250 units restricted to households at or below 60% AMI. The developer stated the rental restrictions will remain in perpetuity.

Committee members raised questions about rent levels at the 120% AMI ceiling and how those numbers translate into monthly rents. Kip Shepherd, CEO of Laulima Affordable Housing, and Jackson Shepherd (project president) explained the development’s financing: HHFDC awarded low‑income housing tax credit (LIHTC/LITEC) allocations for a 70‑unit phase and the project has multiple public and private financing components. Dean Minakami, Executive Director of the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC), told the committee HHFDC awarded LIHTC and a Rental Housing Revolving Fund loan for the 70‑unit phase, and that the private investor is bringing roughly $97 million in equity to the project.

Council members pressed whether rents at the 120% AMI cap would be affordable for local workers. Vice Chair Waters quoted state DBEDT rent estimates and asked whether the project would charge rents at the maximums; the developers said final rents would reflect market conditions and lease‑up expectations and that local market rents in Kapolei tend to be below the 120% AMI maximums. HHFDC staff explained the AMI and rent limits: HUD publishes AMI levels; rent limits assume a 30% income‑to‑rent share and include utility allowances; HHFDC calculates maximum rents accordingly.

The committee also discussed park‑dedication exemptions, wastewater facility charges and EVA traffic/roadway impact fees. The Chair explained Act 294 (2025) amended HRS 201H to limit the county’s ability to impose stricter conditions than HHFDC; the Chair noted the Council plans to seek repeal of Act 294 in the next legislative session. The hand‑carried CD1 that the Chair offered and the committee adopted deletes a requested waiver of park dedication requirements (the applicant agreed to delete that waiver) and approves the project’s other exemptions or deferrals, with conditions recommended by DPP for transportation, access and bicycle parking (conditional expansion if demand increases).

The chair recommended the hand‑carried CD1 and the committee ordered Resolution 25‑236 reported out for adoption; the transcript records one reservation noted by Council Member Ferrero. The committee’s action sends the resolution to the full Council for adoption under the committee’s recommended CD1 conditions.

Next steps: The Council will act on the resolution at adoption; developers and HHFDC are expected to finalize financing and phasing details and the applicant must meet conditions stipulated in CD1 (transportation clarifications, phasing and fee deferrals/conditions).