Hello and good morning, everyone.

It is Thursday, January 15, 2026, and the time is now nine oh three AM.

With the committee on zoning and planning meeting, please come to order.

I would like to welcome committee members, Councilmember Cordero as well as Councilmember Okimoto.

Although remote verbal testimony is being permitted, this is the regular in-person meeting and not a remote meeting by interactive conference technology under HRS section 92-3.7.

Therefore, the meeting will continue, notwithstanding loss of audio visual communication with remote testifiers or loss of the public broadcast of the meeting.

Members of the public will be allowed to provide verbal testimony on all items on the agenda when each item is taken up in two ways in person in the council chamber and remotely via video conference or phone.

Before testifying, each person shall state their name for the record.

Each speaker may not have anyone else read their statement and will be limited to a one-minute presentation per item.

All persons who register to testify in person will be called upon first.

This resolution grants a special management area major permit to Robert Vavell to allow for the construction of a new single unit dwelling pool, spa garage, and recreation room on an approximately 13,230 square foot shoreline zoned lot zoned uh R75 residential district located at 68-309 Crozier Drive in Wayalua and identified as tax map key 6805015.

I will be recommending a 90-day extension of the deadline for council action on this resolution to give the committee more time to consider the measure since it was transmitted to the council right before Christmas last month.

Members, for your information, the written request for a 90-day extension of time is available online as miscellaneous communications to 2026.

Before I call up the administration, I would like to take public testimony.

Proceeding first with in-person testimony in the council chair.

Clerks, do we have any in-person testifiers for this item?

Proceeding on with remote testimony.

Clerks, do we have any remote testifiers for this item or anybody standing by?

None.

Thank you.

Uh for the administration, we have Don Takiuchi Opuna, director of the Department of Planning and Permitting.

Good morning, Chair.

Members, uh the department has no objections to this extension.

Thank you.

Members, are there any questions for the director?

Or do you have any other questions before I make my recommendation?

The chair notes that the time needed to reconsider resolution 25-333 may exceed the current deadline for console action.

The chair therefore recommends that the resolution be granted a 90-day extension of time pursuant to request from the applicant's agent in miscellaneous communication 2 2026.

Any discussion, any objections or reservations, hearing none so ordered.

Moving to agenda item number two for action, resolution 25-320.

This resolution confirms the mayor's reappointment of Gina Thielen to serve on the Building Board of Appeals of the City and County of Honolulu for a term to expire on December 31st, 2030.

Ms.

Thielen is the construction manager at Complete Construction Services and will continue to provide representation on the board as the general contractor member.

We have posted on the agenda a C1 version of the resolution, which I submit it for your information.

A summary of the amendments is listed on the agenda.

The CD1 makes technical amendments, including correcting the citation to the city charter and referencing and referencing the mayor's message number.

I would like to call up the appointee to say a few words.

If you could please introduce yourself and share a little about your current and envisioned future role on the building board of appeals.

Good to see you, Gina.

Good to see you as well, Chair.

Thank you very much for your time.

And I'm not sure if the committee or the council is interested in revisiting the statutory language surrounding the building board of appeals.

But by and large, excuse me, we've had a difficult time being able to uh take affirmative action on behalf of any of the applicants because of this very limited um interpretation of our authority in terms of the statutory language.

So with that, I guess I would open it up to any questions about my background or uh about the building board of appeals and the functionality.

Thank you.

Uh members, there you are.

Actually, at this point, um, welcome uh Chair Waters.

Uh Gina, do you mind?

I think uh you know we've been working with you for a couple of years now.

Could you um talk more to the um statutory changes that you were uh recommending and the uh justification for it?

I'm assuming that you are uh proposing it because you see it as constraining the ability of the the board members.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And and as I said in my written testimony, this is this is my interpretation and my opinion.

It doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of the board at large, although we've had a discussion as a board about this issue frequently.

Um essentially, what it boils down to is that in order for us to find in favor of the applicant.

Um, I'll read the statutory language, I don't get it wrong.

Is that the decision of the building official is based on an erroneous finding of material fact is based on an arbitrary or capricious decision making or is a manifest abuse of discretion?

Only when one of those three criteria is met may we find in favor of the applicant.

Um, and because the burden of proof is on the applicant, and the majority of our applicants are simple homeowners without you know legal training.