Two state Legislature bills are ringing alarms for those on the Honolulu City Council.

House Bill 1630 and Senate Bill 3202, respectively, are aimed at allowing two or more dwellings on lots zoned residential within urban districts.

If enacted, the state bills could override county zoning limitations and affect largely urbanized Oahu County as well as the more rural counties of Maui, Kauai and Hawaii island.

Neither HB 1630 nor SB 3202 has passed into law yet.

But during a special meeting Thursday morning of the Council’s Committee on Planning and the Economy, the panel voted to recommend passage of Resolution 65 — introduced by Chair Tommy Waters and Vice Chair Esther Kia‘aina — to express “strong concerns” relating to these active “urban density bills” and the potential for unchecked housing development on Oahu.

“If passed, the measures would impose a mandate for counties to allow at least two additional dwelling units on residentially zoned lots and appears to require the director of Planning and Permitting to approve subdivision requests for zoning lots as small as 2,000 square feet,” Kia‘aina said, noting that lot size “is much smaller than the current minimum lot sizes in the city’s residential zoning districts,” which typically range from 3,500 to 20,000 square feet.

Kia‘aina and others on the Council asserted such unwanted housing might lead to overdevelopment, subvert established zoning regulations and bring about more so-called “monster home” developments on Oahu.

HB 1630, if adopted, “prohibits county zoning ordinances from not allowing two or more additional dwelling units per residential lot within an urban district,” the bill reads. SB 3202, deemed closer to potential passage than the former bill, would provide “that for residentially zoned lots within an urban district each county shall allow for at least two additional dwelling units.”

And if enacted, SB 3202, would establish “provisions by which a parcel zoned for residential use that is in the state urban land use district may or may not be prohibited from being subdivided, consolidated, or resubdivided,” and would require “the counties to consider the square footage of a development when determining the development’s proportionate share of public facility capital improvement costs,” the bill states.

Effectively, the Council’s resolution demands an exemption from these potential laws.

“While the state bills may be appropriate for the neighbor island counties where zoning lots tend to be larger than those in Honolulu, they are not appropriate for the city … and where the existing density of developments cause unique infrastructure and neighborhood challenges,” the resolution states.

Resolution 65 drew supporters and opponents to the meeting.

State Rep. Lisa Marten, whose District 51 encompasses Waimanalo and Kailua, said, “I appreciate the efforts that you have made on behalf of my constituents who really do not like the monster homes in their neighborhoods to fight those.”

“And I now appreciate your efforts to possibly stop the state Legislature from making all monster homes legal,” she added, noting that “the bills would force Honolulu to approve applications for subdivision” and “it also forces Honolulu to approve three dwellings per lot with no special restrictions on size of the additional lots or on occupancy.”

“As you know, right now we can have five unrelated adults and their families in a home,” Marten said. “So that means that each 2,000-square-foot dwelling could have three homes, all stuck together with common walls, and up to 15 unrelated adults and their families, which feels a lot more like a barrack or dorm than a home.”

She added increased, unplanned density will lead to “insufficient street parking” and create “conflicts between neighbors.”

Ted Kefalas of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii opposed Resolution 65.

“To say we’re disappointed in this resolution is an understatement,” he said, adding the state bills were a long-awaited opportunity to combat high home prices here — “the highest in the nation, as you well know.”

He added that city plans — like the Primary Urban Center Development Plan from 2004 — “identified the need for more small lots” on Oahu.

“That’s 20 years of inaction by this body, and now you want more time. That’s not how it works,” he said. “Our home prices are continuing to go up; our crisis has just gotten worse.”

Kefalas added that the notion that these bills “would legalize monster homes is just false.”

“These are about legalizing small homes on small lots,” he said. “Part of the reason we’re dealing with monster homes today is because of that continued inaction by this body. Monster homes push the legal limits of large single lots. Small homes on small lots are quite literally the opposite of monster homes.”

But Waters opposed overdevelopment on smaller lots, in places like Kaimuki.

“So by allowing an owner to do that, what we’re seeing in my neighborhood is a developer will knock down a house and put an entirely new house on there with more units,” Waters said. “So that’s one of the things we’re worried about.”

He noted that under SB 3202 the state could allow a 10,000-square-foot lot to be divided into five lots, and three units could be placed “on each of those 2,000-square-foot lots.”

“So that would now create, instead of one house there, there would be 15 units there,” he said.

Later, Waters asked whether the city — namely its Department of Planning and Permitting — had “sufficient cover to deny applications for subdivision, if it doesn’t comport with one of these plans?”

DPP Director Dawn Take­uchi Apuna replied, “For someone to come in and ask for a building permit based on this bill … I think we would look at our (land use ordinance) and our subdivision (laws) to guide whether that would be allowed.”

She added that “DPP still has the authority to enforce its land use ordinance and its subdivision … and we have the ability to create rules that would even further kind of define what would be required for this type of development.”

Still, Waters worried about the building permit backlog at DPP.

“While you have made many strides in this area, what impact do you believe the passage of this measure would have on your workload and backlog?” he asked. “If we get a flood of people who want to subdivide, how is that going to help reduce your backlog?”

In response, Takeuchi Apuna said the subdivision branch was understaffed and that more applications “would definitely impact that branch.”

According to the city, the number of residential units under the city’s formal residential zoning districts are denominated variously as R-20, R-10, R-7.5, R-5 and R-3.5 zoning districts, with minimum lot sizes in each district. Respectively, those equate to lot sizes of 20,000, 10,000, 7,500, 5,000 and 3,500 square feet.

All denominations allow for only one dwelling unit, the city says.

At the meeting, Elizabeth Kreuger, DPP’s chief of the land use permits division, said in a R-3.5 residential district one dwelling unit is allowed for a 3,500-square-foot lot.

“And then each of those could have one (accessory dwelling unit), or they could have one ohana dwelling unit, depending on a couple of other caveats,” she said.

Kreuger said the city’s ongoing effort to update its Land Use Ordinance will consider an increase in ADUs per residential lot.

Meanwhile, the full Council is expected to review Resolution 65 for approval at its meeting Monday.