Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority assigns contested-case hearing on Kalailoa plan amendments

The Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority voted 6-0 on Nov. 17, 2025, to assign a petition by Tara Rojas seeking a contested-case hearing on proposed amendments to the Kalailoa Community Development District Plan to a hearings officer and to authorize the executive director to retain and facilitate that officer.

Craig Nakamoto, the authority’s executive director, summarized the staff report and recommended the move. “Point number 5, in this matter, the staff recommends that the authority assign this matter before a hearings officer for further action,” Nakamoto told the board during the special meeting.

The staff packet and Nakamoto’s summary framed the action as a procedural decision about how to adjudicate a challenge to proposed rule and plan amendments. The board considered whether to hold the contested matter before the full authority or to refer it to a hearings officer under the Hawai‘i Administrative Rules provisions cited by staff; the chair also noted the authority could consult legal counsel in an executive session under HRS 92-5(a)(4) but that no executive session was requested.

After the staff recommendation, the chair read a motion directing that, pursuant to HAR 15-219-48, the authority assign the petition requesting a contested-case hearing for further proceedings before a hearings officer as provided in HAR 15-219-26, and that the authority authorize the executive director to take all actions necessary to retain a hearings officer and facilitate the contested-case hearing. Secretary Lidstone moved the motion; a member seconded. The clerk conducted a roll-call vote: Secretary Lidstone—aye; Member Streitz—aye; Member Miranda Johnson—aye; Member Anderson—yes; Member Gordon—yes; Chair Sterling Higa—yes. The motion passed with six yes votes, zero no votes, two excused (Vice Chair Sheehy and Member Evans), and no abstentions.

No members of the public provided oral testimony during the meeting; the chair asked for testifiers both online and in person and closed the public-comment period after receiving none. The authority adjourned at 9:08 a.m.

The board’s vote sends the petition into the contested-case process overseen by a hearings officer, a formal administrative adjudication that will include additional procedural steps and opportunities for parties to present evidence and arguments. The executive director was authorized to begin the administrative steps needed to retain a hearings officer and to coordinate the contested-case proceedings.

The special meeting packet contains the staff report and the procedural history for the petition; the authority noted applicable rule citations during the meeting. The contested-case docket was referenced in the meeting as contested case hearing 2025-01. The authority did not set hearing dates at the meeting.