SB2981, the “Parking Reform and Modernization Act,” would prohibit counties from imposing minimum off-street parking requirements on any new development in an urban district beginning July 1, 2027. The bill states that fixed parking minimums increase construction costs, especially for housing, and can discourage walking, transit use, and lower-emission transportation choices. Instead of a one-size-fits-all county parking mandate, the bill shifts parking decisions to project-specific planning and permitting.
The measure also amends Hawaii’s adaptive reuse law to make it easier to convert existing buildings to new uses. It requires county adaptive reuse ordinances to allow micro units, align interior environment standards with the International Building Code, and provide exemptions from park dedication requirements and related off-street parking requirements when the building’s floor area, height, and setbacks do not change. Counties must revise conflicting charters, ordinances, codes, standards, or administrative procedures by July 1, 2027, and any conflicting local rule becomes void on that date.
The bill would preempt county authority over minimum off-street parking requirements for new development in urban districts, overriding conflicting local charters, ordinances, codes, standards, and administrative procedures. It would also revise Section 46-4.7, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to broaden adaptive reuse flexibility and remove prior conditions tied to existing parking capacity. In practical terms, the bill could reduce required parking supply for urban projects, potentially lowering development costs and affecting how counties regulate housing, mixed-use projects, and building conversions.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support in committee, passing several Senate committees unanimously or near-unanimously and advancing through the House with a majority vote. The committee history suggests broad agreement with the bill’s housing and land-use goals, particularly its effort to reduce regulatory barriers and encourage more flexible urban development. However, the House vote also shows that support was not unanimous, indicating some reservations about the scope of the parking mandate preemption and its local impacts.
The main point of contention is whether the state should eliminate local minimum parking requirements altogether in urban districts, which shifts control away from counties and could affect neighborhood parking availability, traffic, and local planning discretion. Supporters frame the bill as a housing-affordability and climate measure, while opponents appear concerned about the loss of county flexibility and the possibility that developments may provide too little parking for community needs. The adaptive reuse changes may also be debated because they further limit county authority by reducing parking-related conditions for building conversions.