Hawaiian Homes Commission defers vote on proposed donation of Ewa commercial parcel after beneficiaries raise environmental and process concerns

The Hawaiian Homes Commission on Sept. 15 voted to defer action on a proposed memorandum of agreement (MOA) to accept a conditional donation of two parcels in Ewa Oahu and a long‑term commercial leasing arrangement. Commissioners approved a motion to defer pending further environmental review, beneficiary consultation and other clarifications.

The vote followed more than an hour of public testimony from beneficiaries, community leaders and beneficiaries’ advocates who said the MOA, as drafted, lacked detail on contamination risks, the financial terms, and a formal beneficiary consultation process. Several speakers said the parcels have a history of industrial use and raised the possibility that cleanup could be costly if contamination is present.

The commission’s property development agent, Russell Ka‘upu, told the commission staff and the developer had added a provision to the MOA that would require the developer to pay the costs of a required environmental review under Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes. He said the department would rely on the developer’s due diligence reports and could walk away from the donation if the environmental findings were unsatisfactory. The developer’s representative, Christian O’Connor, told the commission a Phase I study had been completed and a Phase II environmental investigation was underway; he said the project remained in escrow and that the developer had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on site studies at risk.

But community speakers said the new language did not address several items they considered essential. Speakers asked for: a clear commitment that the donor or developer would pay all cleanup costs; public release of environmental reports to the department and beneficiaries before any approval; a formal beneficiary consultation rather than private meetings with selected homestead leaders; and disclosure of the purchase price and rent or revenue‑sharing terms. Several speakers also asked why the deputy director, not the chair, was authorized in the submittal to finalize and execute the MOA, and one public commenter asked the attorney general to review procurement records tied to a prior developer selection.

Commissioner discussion focused on protecting beneficiaries and the trust from environmental liability and on whether standing in the developer’s due‑diligence lane before environmental clearance exposed the department to undue risk. Several commissioners said they were open to the donation but wanted explicit, verifiable assurances that environmental investigation and remediation obligations and additional consultation would be completed before the department accepted the land or executed a lease.

Commissioner Lasua moved to defer and to instruct staff to (1) require formal beneficiary consultation, (2) ensure a separate environmental assessment process paid by the developer, and (3) check whether prior advice from other public entities (including the seller) had identified the site as unsuitable for homes or other uses. Commissioner Kaleikini seconded the motion. The commission then took a roll call vote and recorded six ayes and no nays; the motion carried.

What happens next: Ka‘upu told commissioners that the developer’s escrow and acquisition timeline could be jeopardized by a deferral because the purchaser had an outside closing date in its purchase agreement. Developer representatives said they would ask the seller for more time if needed, and that they could provide environmental reports to the department when they are completed. Commissioners directed staff to return with the requested environmental documentation, the results of a full beneficiary consultation, and clearer documentation of financial terms and the proposed lease structure before the commission again considers the MOA.

Ending — future steps and context The commission’s deferral leaves the MOA unresolved but preserves the department’s ability to proceed if the developer completes environmental work that satisfies staff and commissioners and if beneficiaries and the commission agree to the proposed terms. Testimony at the meeting illustrated a broader tension: beneficiaries who want revenue‑generating commercial land to bolster DHHL capacity and others who want the department to prioritize residential lots and to avoid taking land with environmental or community risks. The commission’s next steps will determine whether the donation proceeds, and under what conditions, or whether the department will decline to accept the parcels.