The Honolulu City Council Budget Committee on the morning of the special meeting advanced two measures to support a planned affordable rental project in Ewa Beach: a ground lease with Komohale Westlock Venture LP and an authorization to issue up to $30,376,937 in multifamily housing revenue bonds.

The measures, introduced as Resolution 25‑74 (ground lease) and Resolution 25‑73 (bond authorization), were each amended to the posted CD1 and reported out for adoption after no committee members registered objections. Committee chair DeSantis Tam called for objections before ordering each amendment and the report out; none were voiced, and the chair directed the items forward.

Why it matters: The two actions together clear key local approvals the developer and city officials said are necessary for the project to obtain financing and begin construction. The city’s multifamily housing revenue bond program allows below‑market financing when projects meet affordability rules; project documents presented to the committee show the proposal would reserve most units at income levels targeted by that program.

Committee members and project representatives described the planned development as a mixed‑unit affordable rental community intended for low‑income households. The administration’s presentation said the project—identified in committee materials as Kala'ema'o Village and described in developer slides as "Kalei Mau Village"—is being developed by Komohale Westlock Venture LP in partnership with Standard Communities and (variously named in testimony) Stanford/Stafford Carr Development. The Office of Housing told the committee the parcel will host affordable rental housing totaling "126 rental units"; the developer’s presentation described a 127‑unit mix (28 one‑bed/1‑bath, 87 two‑bed/1‑bath and 12 three‑bed/2‑bath) and noted one one‑bed unit would be reserved for an on‑site manager.

Bond counsel Kathleen Orlandi of Hawkins Delafield & Wood, representing the city on housing bond matters, told the committee the bond authorization is the standard enabling resolution that allows the city to publish an official statement, offer the bonds for sale and execute a bond purchase contract. Elsa Kings, the city’s bond administrator at the Department of Planning and Permitting, summarized the multifamily rental housing program rules: projects using the city’s private activity bonds must reserve at least 20% of units at 50% of area median income (AMI) or 40% of units at 60% AMI and must maintain affordability for at least 15 years via a regulatory agreement. Kings said the project exceeds the program’s minimums based on the affordability levels represented in the presentation materials.

Developer and operator remarks: Project representatives described the site as vacant and showed renderings and floor plans. Project manager Stanford Carr (presenting on behalf of the development team) outlined design features including fiber‑cement siding, solar water heating and a community building with a kitchen, laundry and manager’s office. Carr said unit finishes would include quartz countertops, vinyl plank flooring in living areas, PTAC air‑conditioning units, and standard kitchen appliances. The community operator, Komohale Services (presented by Executive Director Pam Whitty Oakland), described plans for resident programs—keiki activities, kupuna outreach and partnerships with local nonprofits such as Lanakila Pacific Meals on Wheels and Catholic Charities—to be offered at the community site.

Costs, timing and approvals: The bond resolution authorizes issuance in a principal amount not to exceed $30,376,937 using a portion of the city’s 2022 and 2023 federal volume cap, the bond administrator said. The project will also use federal low‑income housing tax credits and the State Housing Revolving Fund, according to city staff. Construction was described as ready to begin upon financing and closing; the developer said building permits were approved only recently after roughly two years in permitting, with multiple rounds of comments from reviewing departments.

Questions from council members focused on site availability across districts, potential partnerships with state agencies and landowners, the permitting timeline and programmatic services for residents. Councilmember Keahaina asked the Office of Housing to follow up on identifying city‑owned parcels in her district. Developer representatives said gap financing and streamlined permitting would make it easier to deliver more affordable units.

Votes and formal action: For both items the chair recommended amendment to the posted CD1 and moving the CD1 versions forward for adoption; in each case the committee recorded no objections and the chair ordered the recommendation carried. No roll‑call votes were taken during the special meeting because no member objected when the chair called for objections.

Ending: The committee concluded the special meeting after reporting both measures out for adoption; committee members indicated staff follow‑up and one‑on‑one site discussions would continue as the budget process proceeds.