House Standing Committee on Housing

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the Committee on Housing. It is the public hearing for the Committee on Housing. It is Friday, January 31st and it's 9:16 a.m. and we're in conference room 4:30. We do have 15 items to get through today and it looks like a decent amount of testimony.

So we are going to try the best we can to strictly implement a two minute time limit for testimony. And if you're standing on your testimony, please just stand on your testimony. For those of you on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your camera off until you hear your name called.

Please use the chat only to talk to the technical support. Please don't use any profanity or you could be removed from the room. If you have technical difficulties, we'll do our best to get you back. But if we can't get you back, I'm sorry about that. And then lastly is that we really have to finish by 11:45.

So if for whatever reason we are running long here and we haven't gotten through everybody's testimony, it's possible that we might end up cutting to off testimony as we go because we'll have to strict finish time so we can get to our floor session.

But I'm pretty sure we can get through it all, and I appreciate everybody being here today and engaged. So that all said, the first item on the agenda is HB1, relating to building codes. Vice Chair for the Testimony.

AG's office, with comments, on Zoom. Oh, good morning.

We've provided our comments...and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Sierra Club of Hawaii, in opposition, on Zoom.

Oh, here we go. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Wayne Tanaka, with Sierra Club of Hawaii. We are in opposition to this measure. You know, you know, I believe there are many things that we can and should do to address the myriad underlying causes of our housing challenges.

And there are also many, you know, proposed solutions that may result in unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefits it may provide. And so, I do believe this Bill represents the latter. We shouldn't be compromising the health and the safety and welfare of building tenants and of first responders.

We shouldn't be making, you know, entire neighborhoods more vulnerable to fires and floods. We should not be, um, walking away from the well-vetted, years-long research amendments from, you know, case studies around the world that are represented by building code updates, as is proposed in this measure.

And also, I'd like to note that, you know, the cost assessments that are proposed may be inherently more narrowly focused than they should be. You know, when it's the construction and development interests that are assessing the cost of building the provisions.

You know, they're going to focus on their costs, rather than, you know, potential long-term impacts to the public interest. And so, you know, for those reasons, we respectfully ask that you hold this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Pacific Resource Partnerships in support, in person. ASHRAE Hawaii Chapter, in opposition. BIA Hawaii, in Support, on Zoom.

Good morning. I'm trying to get my camera on. Sorry about that. A little slow over here. Good morning, the Housing Committee. I am Roseann Freitas. I'm the CEO at the Building Industry Association of Hawaii, and we are in strong support of HB1. Our testimony shows that we do have some comments with this.

We do believe that the intent of building codes most definitely is to protect the public health and safety. Unfortunately, the process has been hijacked by some special interest groups that do promote their agenda at the expense of affordable housing.

So, the current process with the NGOs, the state, and the counties, all at different levels, adds to the confusion. So, we at BIA Hawaii support HB1.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Green Party of Hawaii, in opposition. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ted Kefalas of Grassroots Institute. We're testifying today in strong support of HB1. I think the current process for adopting building codes is broken. It leads to unnecessary delays, so this Bill would shift the State Building Code Council to more of an advisory role.

I want to kind of keep this brief, because I know we've got a lot to get through, but for your consideration, if you do move forward with this Bill, the current draft does not update HRS 107-28, which still references the state building code.

So, we would like to see that at least reflected in HB1, if you do move forward with this. And just in conclusion, there's a lot of good bills that are looking to reform the building code today. We hope you guys pass something because this is something that's really necessary for our home building process. So, appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you. AI Hawaii, in opposition. D.R. Horton, in support.

Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Lee Tokuhara with D.R. Horton Hawaii, in strong support, and we stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. International Code Council, in opposition.

There we go. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Bryan Imai. I am Government Relations Manager for the International Code Council. ICC opposes HB1 as written.

And while we generally stand on our written testimony, I'm here today to briefly elaborate on an issue that was just raised and a concern that ICC has, in addition to the Bill eliminating state and county timelines for code adoption. ICC is concerned that the Bill appears to eliminate the State Building Code Council's ability to adopt an updated statewide code that guides the counties and, just as importantly, governs state building projects.

The Bill also doesn't amend other sections that assume that there's an updated state building code. Instead of HB1, ICC urges the Committee and Legislature to consider funding the staff positions for the State Building Code Council to help the Council adopt codes in a timely manner.

County officials already have veto rights and voting authority on the council, so funding it would help smooth the process for them as well. So, ICC urges you to reject HB1. Thank you.

Thank you. Castle and Cook Homes Hawaii, in support. RMA Sales, in support. Amari Esco, in support. NYA Hawaii, in support.

[Unintelligible]...We present our testimony in support.

Thank you. Maui Chambers, in support, and we have 15 individuals in opposition and one in support, Chair. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on the matter before us? Mr. Bukowski.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Kiko Bukowski on behalf of IBEW 1260. For the record, I previously also was the Executive Director of the Hawaii Building and Construction Trades Council, as well as with the plumbers—Plumbers Local 675. So, I didn't submit written testimony. I wasn't planning on testifying.

However, I realize that there are a number of bills that are trying to amend or change the State Building Code Council. I am in strong opposition to this Bill, as well as the other bills that are changing the State Building Code Council. Chair Evslin, you, you know that I'm very passionate about this issue.

We've dealt with building codes on the county level, when you were with the Kauai County Council. I look around the room and I don't see anybody that I've ever seen at any State Building Code Council meeting. I've been at every single one. I understand how the Building Code Council works.

One of the problems we have is that it's not active. The governor's proclamation, which suspended the activities of the Building Code Council, has severely hampered the construction industry. Building code—building codes and standards—are, are intended. The, the basic intent and purpose is to serve; it is to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare.

If, if an unintended consequence is, is increased costs, that's not the intent. But if it is, then I think that's, that's a cost that we should bear. I don't think we should put a price—any price—on the safety of the public. One lost life is enough.

Structural integrity, the integrity of plumbing systems, the integrity of electrical systems, all play in. I mean, we see what played out in Florida when we have buildings collapsing.

You know, and I'm not trying to say that the sky is falling, but what we're trying to do is prevent these types of things from happening, and that's what the codes—codes and standards—attempt to do. Is it a perfect process? No. But the council has worked diligently to adopt and amend timely codes for the construction industry.

Now, I know that I have a lot of friends in the audience that support these, these issues, and this has been an issue for a number of years. And it's been the same argument—cost over safety.

You know, if, if they're talking about making more efficient adoption of codes, doing a cost analysis for every, every proposed amendment is not going to make this process more efficient. It's going to, it's going to make it even worse than what it is today. And I know that there are specific codes that maybe don't speak to public health and safety, but you talk about this—the—building code itself, the electrical code, the plumbing code.

The intent and purpose is specifically to protect public health and safety. So, I urge this Committee and I make myself available to speak in more detail. I know we have a limited time, but these Bills to change and amend the State Building Code Council, I think is really seriously the wrong direction to go.

And I have no skin in the game. I got no agenda. It's just doing the right thing. We need—the fact that we're talking about cost of housing, especially for affordable housing, because you live in a lower-income bracket, does not mean that you have to live in a less safe home.

And that's what I think some of these Amendments may unintendedly do—is put people with lower-income brackets in less safe homes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bukowski.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us? Seeing none, Chair.

Any questions? Okay, seeing none. Next item is HP745 relating to building codes, again. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ted Kefalas with Grassroots Institute. We're testifying in strong support of HB745. It may seem a little contradictory given our previous testimony on HB1, but again, we feel that this process is broken and something needs to be changed. I think there is maybe some confusion.

A lot of these bills doesn't seem like they are delaying the code adoption. It's really trying to expedite that so that we're actually passing These codes and adopting these codes in a timely fashion. This removes the two step process that would replace the current system with a single state building code.

Again, just trying to help streamline that process. Builders right now navigate, you know, four different county codes which have inconsistent and complex rules. But ultimately, you know, this is a policy question for you guys. Do you all believe that the state should be in the building code business or not?

So mahalo for your consideration and here for any questions.

Thank you, Ted. Hawaii YIMBY in support the American Institute of Architects and support anyone else online or in person wishing to testify. Seeing none. Chair Members, any questions?

I'm thinking through my question right now. Was AIA here? Is anybody represented from architecture? Okay. It's okay. All right. Next time on the agenda is HP 1321 relating to the Hawaii state building codes. Again, Vice Chair for the testimony.

Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and Support. Oh, oh, we.

Oh, sorry. Did you call for anybody else? Yes, we are done. We can go back to 745. Yeah, please. And then please keep it within two minutes. Yep. Thank you.

So, Chair, I mean a lot of what I said in my last testimony is, is, is similar for this bill.

The one thing that I know that is different with this bill is that it actually gives the county the ability to remove, if I recall correctly, remove amendments that the state building code council adopted and that runs squarely contradictory to the intent of the state.

The whole reason why the state building Code council was created was to establish statewide consistent uniform codes so that we could have somewhat of a uniformity throughout the state. It allowed the counties to make amendments based on geographical and other concerns that were county specific, like wind loads, seismic activity, geographical things.

It wasn't intended to have this ad hoc amendments on a county level. We're trying to achieve some form of consistency and uniformity so that squarely runs contradictory. The state is trying to establish minimum standards and codes to follow.

I do want to say that the time that's given allowed for the codes to be adopted could be looked at. But some of those that time is to allow the industry and those that are actually building these projects time to catch up with the changes in the codes.

The people that are designing, the engineers, the architects and the guys out there actually building these projects. The plumbers are licensed, applied according to the updated codes. The electricians are licensed according to the updated codes. They have to be trained on the, on the new codes, the ones that are changed or amended.

So that timeframe allows the industry to catch up. It can be looked at though. I gotta say that. And yes, I agree with some of the testifiers. This is a policy decision. Are we gonna put cost over safety? Are we gonna put. Are we gonna put the jeopardy of low income housing, low income earners, Are we gonna.

Are we gonna make policy to put them in lace and less safe homes? That's the policy decision I think that we're looking at right now with these bills. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us. Seeing none, Chair.

Kika, I have a question. Do you have a preference between HP1 and HP745, or are they both. They're all equally bad.

Okay, they're all bad. And I'm not saying that to be smart. I've talked with legislators off session. I've offered myself to sit down and talk, to my knowledge. And please correct me if I'm wrong when we talk about, you know, discussing with industry stakeholders. I don't remember any of the labor unions being invited to these discussions.

Our guys are the ones building it. Plumbers are licensed to the code, electricians are licensed to the code. Line workers. Utility line workers are licensed by the National Electrical Safety Code for the safety of the worker and for the safety of the public.

So if there's going to be discussions about building codes and standards, labor's got to be involved.

Okay, thank you.

And I know currently it's common practice, as far as I understand, for at least some of the counties to both add to the code and to take away from the code while they're doing the review process, or what it sounded like you were saying was that the counties don't have the authority to take away from the code currently.

They cannot reduce what the state sets as the minimum standard. They can go above, they can exceed, but they cannot go below. They cannot. And I do want to restate the fact that, with all due respect. I look around the room and I have.

I cannot see one person that I have seen ever in a state building code council meeting. So for some of them to stand up here and say that the system is broken, I have issue with that.

Yeah. Thank you. I think we'll need to get clarity on that. I know we on Kauai had removed the code and had an opinion that we had the authority to remove sections of the code.

So I think if it didn't reduce. The standard, sure, you can repeal certain sections if it doesn't actually reduce the standard. But, I mean, you know, attorneys make decisions based on opinion and, and you can argue each side of the coin.

So I'm not sure on that specific issue, but I would have loved to have been part of that conversation.

Appreciate we, it's good to see you again talking about building codes here. Always a pleasure. Thank you. Members, any further questions? Oh, Rep. Grandinetti.

Can you come back up? This is a really new subject matter area for me on HB745.

You have, I hear you taking issue with the removal of requirements, but you also said that the time between adoption is something that we could look at the part in the Bill that says that the state building code should supersede all existing county building codes. Is that like that does that already.

Is that already in place and it's okay. Okay.

Yeah. And the reason for that, again, is that the, the purpose of the State Building Code Council is to attempt to create a statewide uniform code. And, and it allows the counties to make specific amendments that are reflective of that county's geographical or, you know, conditions that maybe are different from other counties.

Maui has maybe a higher wind load than other counties. Big island maybe has a higher seismic activity than other than other counties. So they can adjust those types of things. What I, what I haven't seen, and I gotta say this, you know, Chapter 107, in my opinion, is written well. It's just not enforced. That's the problem.

It's not enforced consistently. Not everybody understands it. Maybe we gotta be, maybe we gotta start by getting everybody in a room and see if we all understand the. And we're playing on the same, on the same page.

You know, it, I don't think it needs to be overhauled, but I think if we all understood what it does and we're consistent in how we apply it, I think is a good start.

Thank you

Members for the questions. Yep.

Hi. Good morning. Like Rep. Grandinetti, this is relatively new to me. Well, this is brand new to me, but so I have some questions. First, I'd like to say thank you. As you know, I represent District 45 with which we, our, our median income is lower. And I appreciate your concern about.

Just because we cannot afford certain things doesn't mean we should be unsafe. My question was in your testimony with HB1 and you said there was a government's pro. A governor's proclamation with the council. And did that stop the council from making these. Is that, is that.

Yeah, there was a blanket, it was a broad emergency order that the Governor issued subsequent to the wildfires that suspended numerous chapters in hrs. And evidently the building code council was One of them that was suspended. So they haven't met since that emergency proclamation was issued.

And part of that has caused confusion in the industry because the way Chapter 107 is written, it automatically adopts the latest published code by the publishers. And there are two publishers. I want to note that International Code Council is one.

And then you have the iapmo, the International Association of Plumbers and Mechanical Officials which publishes the plumbing and mechanical code Tariqo.

We're going to be pressed for time here, so. All right, but did that answer your question or?

Yeah. And just to add on to that real quick, what do you think we can do to help with enforcement? I know you said enforcement is a big thing.

Again, I think if the powers to be, you know, we all got around in a room with the stakeholders and we, and we understood how the code, how the code should be applied and be consistent about it and all on the same page, I think it would go a long way.

Before the code council was suspended, there was a lot of disruption. It was unfortunate because again, the members of the code council are volunteers. They're largely from the private sector. They put in a lot of hours of volunteer time to work through those codes. I know the Chair of the council is very diligent.

So it's unfortunate that it turned into somewhat of a fiasco towards the the end before it was suspended.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Kiko. Members, any further questions? We went back to HB 745 here. Seeing none, back to HB 1321, relating to the State Building Code. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, in support.

We'll stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. BIA Hawaii in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha. Roseann Freitas, again, with the BIA Hawaii. We are in opposition of HB 1321. We do believe that currently it's a challenge. We are--we have seven different codes, they're being updated every three years, but this is not mandated by any government agency at the federal, state, or local level.

This cycle is determined by a non-government organization that derive their income from the sales of these codes and trainings, which is one of the reasons we oppose it. BIA Hawaii is about safety in building homes, but we cannot think about that without also considering that anything we add in does add to the cost of building.

It's just the reality of building, and we need to think about the people of Hawaii who can't even afford a home right now. So it's really that balance of safety and safety will always be first. But what are we adding in there that doesn't really impact the safety side, but does impact people being able to live with shelter? Thank you.

Thank you. Pacific Resource Partnership, in opposition. Is there anyone online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions?

All right. See none. Next. Next item on the agenda is HP284 related to housing.

Vice Chair for the testimony, DLNR Jessica Puff in opposition.

Yes. Hi, I'm Jessica Puff, the administrator of SHV Chair Members of the Committee. We stand on our testimony and are here for any questions you have.

Thank you. Hawaii Realtors with comments.

zero, we stand on our testimony.

Thank you. Grassroot Institute of Hawaiian Support testimony. RMA Sales in support. NYAP Hawaii in support. Thank you. Maui Chamber of Commerce and support. Six individuals also in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us signature Members.

Members any questions? Seeing none, next item. HP2. Sorry, HP 7621 relating to county permitting and inspection. Vice Chair for the testimony.

HHFDC in support. Thank you. DLNR Chair Chang and with comments.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Edwin Matsuda with the Department of Land Natural Resources Engineering Division. We're the state NFIP coordinating agency between FEMA and the counties. We have, we understand to acknowledge the intent of this measure. We have concerns that the proposed amendments could jeopardize our participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.

And so we have proposed some amendments to that the language and offer any. We're here for any questions, if there are any. Thank you.

Thank you. OPSD with comments. Thank you. DAGS with comments.

Thank you. Department of Planning and Permitting in opposition. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support. Thank you. NIOP in support. Thank you. And one individual with comments. Any. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us. Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? I guess one just clarifying question for DAGS. In your testimony sounded like you were saying that you would need to duplicate the county permitting process and hire additional staff to ensure that you guys were in compliance. Just want to verify that that's.

Yeah, you're correct. That is our perception. Okay. We'd have to duplicate the staff of each county.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members, any further questions? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 738 related to historic preservation. Vice Chair for the testimony.

HHFDC in support. Thank you. Jessica Puff, DLNR in support. Thank you. Lena Lalei Oha with comments. Thank you. Department of Planning and Permitting with comments. HCDA with comments.

We stand on our testimony.

Thank you. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in Support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ted Kefalas with Grassroot. Just briefly for your consideration, we noticed that this bill seems to limit the expedited review to residential projects in TOD. And you know, mixed-use development is a big thing with the counties now and a lot of them are planning to utilize this TOD.

So just want to ensure that mixed-use development is also available for this kind of review. So mahalo for your time.

Thank you. Hawaii YIMBY in support. NAIOP in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Evan Oy on behalf of NAIOP Hawaii, we stand in support.

Just wanted to note one comment that we had on the bill was a proposed, you know, clarification essentially changing scope of work to physical scope of work which provides additional clarity as to the ground disturbance in which would prompt reviews. So just wanted to provide that additional clarification. But we'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. Holomua Collaborative in Support. Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us? Seeing none, Chair.

Members any questions? I have a quick question for Jessica.

Good morning. Given grassroots point that this only applies to residential development within Tod areas and wanting to ensure that it would also apply to mixed use buildings or entirely commercial buildings that are getting converted to residential or mixed use, do you see any issues with adding language that says residential and mixed use projects?

I think that, I think that I can't give you a definitive answer right now because I think commercial mixed use can have a number of other factors at play with the intended use of the mixed use. Housing has limited, like plumbing and, and utility hookups.

Commercial buildings can have things like grease bats and other features that may require. Require more substantive ground disturbance. I don't think that we would have any issue with conversions of commercial to residential off the top of my head.

So I think it, my answer would be it probably depends, but I think we would be open to the idea at this point.

Okay. And given that this is sort of, you know, that this memorandum would be on a parcel by parcel basis, then if it is, say a commercial building with lots of utility hookups that's looking at redevelopment, you guys are still the flexibility to sort of classify that as higher risk based on the use of the building?

Yeah, and I also think that the portion of the Bill that talks about the development of like Tod zoning plans and having ship D sort of like pre review those, it could be a scope of work that's included in that review.

And so we might be able at that time to opine on the likelihood of significant impacts to historic or cultural resources or the concern about IWI kupuna being located within those parcels.

So also, what about. What if we just deleted the word residential?

I can't, I can't remember where that, like where. I'd have to read it. I think I might, if I can, I can make a commitment to review the Bill and provide you guys with more substantive comments after today, if you'd like, like this afternoon, just to confirm.

Because I don't want to confirm something without being 100% sure that that's okay.

Okay, yeah. And just, just to clarify where that's at that says counties may request programmatic review by the Department for Residential Transit Oriented Development where a permit, license, certificate, et cetera, et cetera may be required. And so I think, I think certainly there's a openness from us to try and broaden that.

What we want to do is broaden in a way that doesn't inundate you guys and make this thing unworkable.

So, yeah, yeah, I think that we're open to this. I think we're open to this. I think it sets forward a plan that fits within the original process, the existing process, but also identifies an expedited path. I don't think that there's terribly amounts, especially for dense residential, especially if you're building like towers or converting commercial to residential.

There's not a ton of difference between commercial and residential in terms of terms of impact. I think that it's possible we could delete the word residential, but I think that I need to confer with the archaeology branch chief and the history and culture branch chief just to make sure that they're comfortable with it too.

Sounds good. Okay. And just a request, we're going to do decision making on this in an hour. Ish. If you had an answer by then, we could do it. Otherwise we can just note in the Committee report. But maybe we'll get back to you before.

Before we decide. Yeah, I'll send them an email right now and see what they say.

Appreciate it and appreciate all your work on this. Members, further, any further questions? All right, seeing none. Next item is HB1008 relating to historic preservation reviews of state affordable housing projects.

HHFDC in support. Thank you. DBED in support. Ship D in support. 0 thank you. NIOP and support.

Hey, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Evan Oy. On behalf of N, we do stand in strong support. Just wanted to provide an additional Amendment to subsections A1 or A2 and 3 from changing the language from me to Shao just to help, you know, ex. Further the intent to expedite.

So, you know, we'll be available for any questions on that though. Thanks. Chair. Sorry, you.

You submitted that in written testimony also for.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. And Maui Chamber of Commerce and support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us sing None.

Chair Members, any questions? Right. Seeing none. Next item is HP737 historic preservation Vice Chair for the Destiny. Ship D in support.

Thank you. Kauai County Housing Agency and support. Housing Hawaii's future in support. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Ted Kaphalas with Grassroots Institute. We're testifying in strong support of HB 737. Current law defines historic property as anything over 50 years old, regardless of any actual historical or cultural significance. And this broad definition leads to a lot of unnecessary reviews and long delays and whatnot.

So 737 helps update this definition. I just want to highlight kind of the growing burden of unnecessary reviews on Shipti Oahu alone has 135,000 plus residential parcels. Of those, almost 60% were built in 1975 or earlier. So they would be subject to a review. And every year more homes are aging into that 50 year threshold.

So next year it's going to be an additional 1500 plus homes. So this Bill would help ensure historic properties, you know, receive appropriate protection but the ones that don't necessarily need review don't have to go through that process. So we urge you to pass this Bill, help improve the efficiency of the process while preserving our cultural heritage.

Mahalo for your time.

Thank you Hawaii Yimby in support. Historic Hawaii foundation with comments. Holomua Collaborative in support.

Thanks very much.

Thank you. Naya with comments.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee evano again on behalf of N we stand as we stand, you know, appreciate the intent of this measure. We did just want to note make a note on some of the language and and the unintended consequences it may have.

You know I know the definition includes 50 and but we were concerned that this may create an additional layer of review on the back end if we include, you know, native Hawaiian cultural practices as well as the criteria.

So just wanted to note that for the Committee that you know, creating an additional layer may create additional time and delay and you know we just wanted to note that for the Committee but appreciate the time.

Tara, thank you. And individual Jacob Weinsek in support Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us seeing non chair.

Was historical. What you hear Representative no, no. I have a question for Jessica.

Hello again.

Hello. So historic Hawaii recommended removing the reference to historic property in 60.42.2 to so right now it gives the exemption for single family homes and townhomes if they're historic property and then listed or nominated for the register or in a historic district. So they were saying it's a circular reference historic property and it's not necessary.

So I guess the question there is if we remove the language around historic Property in that 6E 42.2 exemption, is it possible then because that third gate in there is located in a historic district. So right now it reads essentially is historic property and is located in a historic district, then it would be subject to historic review.

My concern is if we remove the language of historic property then I think everything in a historic district would be subject to review. For single family homes and townhomes, Instead of having two gates, we just have one broad one.

Yeah, I think that the way that 6042.2 is written is that single family residential dwellings and townhomes are exempt from review unless they're listed. And if they're listed in it individually or in a historic district, they do need to come to us for review. So I think that still pursuant to 6042.2.

So I think that removing the language of historic property or reference to that with the new definition of historic property. Yeah.

Is kind of redundant and a little confusing because if you redefine historic property to anything that's eligible, it would suggest that the only single family residential dwellings and townhomes that aren't eligible for listing might be exempt and everything else would have to come to us, I think. So I could see what they're. If that's what.

Yeah.

I think that is what they're saying.

They're saying.

I guess my concern is that given that that third criteria is or located in a historic district, if we don't have is historic property and located in a historic district, I guess the question is like in a historic district, is everything in that district historic and should it all be up for review or do we need the second gate to kind of narrow that?

Yes. Everything within the historic district is considered a historic property and would be subject to review under hrs 6010.

Okay, thank you very much, Members. Any further questions? Seeing none. HB830 relating to historic preservation reviews ship D with comments.

Yes.

Thank you. County of Maui Mayor Bisson in support. NIOP in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee evano again, on behalf of npoi. We do you have a written testimony? But we just did want to voice our strong support for this measure. You know, this is the. The intent is to expedite the review process. And you know, there's a lot of.

There's a current backlog and we just would like to see that help cleared, you know, that current backlog and help these projects continue to move forward and reduce costs for residents. You know, the do the Bill does include educational requirements.

So we're looking to help balance that and ensure that the reviews are done by qualified consultants and that these reviews are done with the highest quality. So you know the look, the Bill attempts to balance that in this instance. So we'll be available for any questions though. Thank you.

Evan, just a quick apology on HB1008. I missed your testimony, which is why I had asked if you had submitted it but you got it in on time. It was there. I just almost skipped it. So thanks for. No apologies. No, my fault.

Next is Hawaii Realtors in support. Thank you. Grassroot Institute of Hawaiian Support. Stand on our just thank you. HGEA with comments. Thank you. Maui Chamber of Commerce in support anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on the matter before us.

Members. Any questions on HB830? I have a question.

Jessica, please. Just going to stay in the Hi. Hi. So in your comment you stated that the cost is the Department able to charge the applicant for this third party review cost?

I think that we could if it if we were allowed to or if we included it within our fees that we have already established. We'd have to make a rule for that though. And what either a specific charge amount or like language that suggested what whatever the cost may be.

So it either be a specific dollar amount or just language that it was whatever the cost may be. I think we could do that, but I don't think the language was there in this Bill.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank.

Sorry Members, further questions. All right, seeing none. HB 1318 relating to affordable housing. HHFDC in support.

Thank you. DLNR with comments on zoom.

Good morning Chair, Vice chairs, Members of the Committee, Ian Hirokawa with deal in our land division. We'll stand on our written testimony offering comments and be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. OHA with comments.

Good morning Chair Evslin, Vice Chair Miyake and Members of the Committee. I'm going to mostly stand on our written testimony but it came in late.

So I just did want to highlight that we said submitted proposed amendments to protect from alienation of the Public Land Trust ceded lands, which is consistent with positions OHA has taken since its lawsuit settlement and OHAV HCDA and the first proposed amendment is consistent, you know, with protections that are given to other lands that are also exempted in 1712.

But then 64.7 clarifies if they're, you know, because it's a, it's a broad range of lands we're talking about. We, we don't know what the Governor would set aside to the counties.

So if the counties were therefore then to try and permanently alienate the lands or do very long term leases, they should go through the 64.7 process which would allow an opportunity for OHA, other Members of the public to comment on disposition of ceded lands. And then so I just wanted to highlight that.

And then the other two amendments were also again to protect the corpus of the ceded land. So so I do ask you to take that into consideration while looking at this Bill. Mahalo.

Thank You County, Kauai Housing Agency in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us? Seeing none. Chair zero. Is there somebody?

Zero, sorry. Good morning. My apologies. My Internet went down so I couldn't submit written before this hearing, but I will do that right presently. Sierra Club Ahoy is in opposition to this measure as drafted. You know, as I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of things that we can and should be doing to address our housing challenges.

But what this bill does by allowing for the alienation or effective alienation of public lands, including ceded lands or lands stolen from the Hawaiian Kingdom and crown, doesn't seem to be a viable solution.

I'd just like to emphasize that really there's no safeguard to ensure if this measure does go through that any of the residential leases or units will be reserved for local residents or that they will account for the claims of native Hawaiians to ceded lands.

And so if the Committee does choose to move this forward, we'd respectfully ask that it be amended to at minimum preclude the use of ceded lands for these long term residential leases or for the exemption to 171 that's proposed in the amendment to 1712. Happy to answer any questions.

And my apologies again for not getting written on time.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter? Seeing none. Chair thank you.

Members, any questions? I have a question for dnr. Yes.

Yes.

So you folks recommended that we include a specific reference that lands that are EO to the counties are, if it's ceded land, it's subject to the public trust. Um, even if it's exempt from the definition of public land. But, but isn't that implied? I mean, isn't everything subject to the public trust if it's for all ceded land?

Like, do we need that specific clarification as none of the other exemptions have that clarification?

Sorry, Chair, not to, I didn't mean to interrupt.

No, no, go.

Yeah, I mean, I think generally that is my belief that, yes, if it's public it should, but we just wanted to clarify that in the statute. So there's, you know, essentially no issue that they would be bound by the same fiduciary obligations as the board as a manager of public trust lands, even though they're exempted from 171.

I guess my concern with that is if we're specifically calling out that county lands are subject to public trust and nothing else on there is called out. I guess my like read and there could be confusion around that, that only, only county land is subject and all these other exemptions are not subject.

It just seems weird to me to call out only county land when there's whatever it is, 12 to 18 exemptions and none of the others have that specific reference. And I was wondering, you know, what if.

Well, I guess the follow up to that is what would it mean, you know, if the county is developing affordable housing on these lots, what would it mean for them to be affordable, you know, fiduciary.

Their fiduciary duties under the public trust, you know, is that if they are providing say 20% of that housing for native Hawaiians, would that fulfill their fiduciary duties?

You know, I don't, I don't know specifically what it would mean. I mean it would probably be dependent on what the project proposed is. But I think like I said, it depends on what the specific project is proposed.

I certainly would, I guess as an example, I certainly would raise concern if it were like housing that were like a sale in fee. Right. Like they were going to propose to sell the fee as a, to homeowners. I think that would, it's an easy.

That's a more of a, to me, an example of what would raise a concern.

So if they're, you know, the intention is long term leases on these lots and that had to be affordable per the statute, that would be allowable. Even the public trust.

I, I think if, yeah, I mean, I think if they were ceded land and whatever revenues were at least, and I'm just speaking for myself as a, you know, again staff just kind of thinking about this, you know, if they paid the pro rata share to oha, if they were ceded lands, whatever revenues, you know, and the project was done in a what I would say, you know, consistent with our fiduciary obligations, ensure that, you know, if there's any impact to traditional smear practices, for example, you know, that would be, that would be also addressed, you know, things like that.

Okay.

I think would be. Those are the big examples I can think of off the top of my head would like, I would think would raise concern.

Okay.

And then the other question is, you know, in your testimony regarding Section 2 of the Bill, which is the allowance for up to 99 year leases under the residential lease component, are you saying that that that only applies to blnr leases and that the county could do 99 year leases even if we don't have that language in Section 2?

Like it was a little hard to.

Zero, sorry. I'm sorry, go ahead. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I'm sorry.

No, no, go on.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, well, those, you know, our read is that that section applies to residential leases issued by the board. And we don't, you know, we don't, as I think I mentioned the testimony, we don't really issue residential leases anymore.

I'd say, for example, that provision exists and if the land is set aside to hhfdc, for example, I don't know if they're bound, I'm not sure what their day, how they view it, but I don't know if we're bound by it. If they're, you know, they're bound by it. If they're the ones issuing the lease. Right.

For example, if they own the land in fear, have it set aside. You know, I don't, I don't know if that would conflict with them, but I, like I said, I would defer to that, that whatever land, the whatever agency who has management control over the land or jurisdiction of the land, their statutes would control.

Okay, so just to be totally clear, if we deleted section 2 so there's no extension of the 99 year lease provision, what you're saying is your impression is that because the land was EO to the county and if this passes, the land is exempt from the definition of public lands and the County of Kauai or any county could do a 99 year lease on these lands with.

Right, yes, we, our position that their statutes would, would control.

Okay, yeah, thank you very much. I guess a question for, zero. What. Would you see as a county's fiduciary duties under the public trust if they're developing affordable housing on ceded lands?

I would say that the ceded, I mean the pro rata share should continue to apply, but the, you know, the 20% monetary compensation is a different question from preservation of the corpus of the ceded lands for resolve for, for eventual resolution of Native Hawaiian claims, which has never happened.

And then of course public trust, again, not being something that can be monetarily compensated. I know we're talking about public trust in a different concept, but I just, I didn't want them to all bleed together because there are different obligations. Right. That the state has.

So absolutely, I think for whatever development goes on, there's always a 20% ceded land share or public land share that goes to OHA under the statute. But we would still, still, you know, oppose taking away the guard rails of Chapter 171 that do protect ceded lands from, from alienation.

And, and the set Aside to the counties is not clear, you know, without further amendment as we've proposed.

And I know, I think in previous discussions with the county Kauai, when they're trying to develop some housing unceded land near Mahilona, my understanding was that there was discussion around the 20% share. And because, because it's affordable housing, which is, you know, subsidized by the county.

A 20% share is like, you know, they're not getting profit from these. That instead there was discussion around setting aside 20% of the units for Native Hawaiians, which the county was supportive of doing. Would you see that as fulfilling the public trust if 20% of units were set aside instead of 20% of revenue?

Again, sorry, the question being not if it was set as for the public Trust, but the 20% share.

Yeah, sorry.

Yeah. And I would have to, you know, check. That's kind of a policy question for the board of trustees. I can't answer that for you today.

Okay.

If this is, you know, a Bill that's going to come around, I would definitely come back to the Committee or future committees about that. But I, I can't answer that question for you today.

And then given D's testimony suggesting that we add specifically that counties set aside, I mean land set aside to the counties are exempt from the public land definition of public land, but shall be subject to public trust. Do you recommend also that we add that language?

Again, that would mean that out of all of these exemptions to the definition of public land, only one specifically calls that out.

I would agree that that could be subject to misinterpretation. It's not necessary under the Constitution.

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Members, further questions. Rep. Grand. The Nettie.

My question is for Elena Allah. Again, Oha sorry, I really echo some of Wayne's concerns, but do you feel, does OHA feel that the proposed. The amendments you propose would kind of address those. Those concerns about the alienation? Okay, thank you.

Members, further questions. Seeing none. Where we at? Next item on the agenda is HB 420 relating to remedies. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Specific resource partnerships and support. Thank you. General Contractors Association and support. KY International in support. Ali Glass and Meadow in support. Hawaii Lesset in support. Mitchell Tainanis, Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters in support.

And Members of the Committee. My name is Mitchell Tynanes testifying on behalf of the Hawai'i Regional Council of Carpenters. We are in strong support of HB420. I'll stand by my written testimony, but I just wanted to highlight a few things. This is a pro housing measure.

Hawaii is in midst of a severe housing crisis with working families struggling to find affordable homeownership opportunities. The excessive legal claims against new developments had a far reaching financial consequences including increased construction costs. That makes it harder for building homes. In Hawaii, residents and families that can afford passed down to buyers.

Higher insurance premiums for homeowners as a result of increased litigation. More restrictive lending conditions making it harder for first time home buyers to qualify for loans. For these reasons and the reasons listed in our testimony in strong support. Along with other Members who have signed letters, hopefully you guys receive them.

We ask you to advance HP420 model for your time.

Thank you. Hawaii realtors in support. Thank you, thank you. Housing Hawaii's future and support. Thank you. RM Toll Corporation in support. Mutual Housing Association of Hawaii in support. Paradigm Construction in support. Hawaii YIMBY in support of Collaborative in support. Thank you. Gentry Homes in support.

Can I read portions of the testimony on behalf of Quentin? Yes. My name is Debbie Looney. I'm the Director of governmental affairs and community relations for Gentry Homes and we are in strong support of this measure.

I'll just highlight a few items from the written testimony, but I'd like to point out that Gentry Homes has been in Hawaii for over 55 years building homes for our local working families. And we feel that our reputation is very important to us.

And so if there's something that's wrong with, you know, a legitimate construction defect, we'd like to go in there and fix it as soon as possible. Unfortunately, our company and a number of other home builders have recently been the subject of some class action lawsuits which prohibit us from taking swift action to correct these defects.

And this harms not only the homeowner, but also the construction industry and the community as a whole. Hospital 420 offers a solution by establishing clearer guidelines that will lead to more fair and cooperative process for addressing construction defects.

And this Bill will reduce unnecessary litigation, will stabilize costs and allow builders to focus on delivering quality homes for Hawaii's residents. So I urge you to support this Bill and thank you Chair for introducing this important.

Thank you, Dr. Horton. Hawaii in support.

Good morning Chair Evslin, Vice Chair Miyake, Members of the Committee, I am Lee Tokuhara representing Dr. Horton Hawaii. Thank you for this opportunity to share our testimony and strong support of House Bill 420 relating to remedies.

Dear Horton, Hawaii has been serving our local families with affordable housing and first time homebuyer opportunities for more than 50 years across the state through our quality home designs, including at Hoopili, our master planned community in Ewa and East Kapolei, we remain committed to addressing critical housing needs for Hawaii's families.

As we all know, Hawaii faces a severe housing shortage and unfortunately new developments, especially those aimed at first time home buyers are being delayed or abandoned due to unjustified and unnecessarily. Sorry. These projects are being delayed or abandoned due to unrestricted lawsuits. These lawsuits significantly and unnecessarily increase home prices by driving up construction costs and insurance premiums.

Most egregiously, these lawsuits have restricted the government backed mortgage financing options many first time home buyers need. These buyers at condo projects cannot secure FHA, VA, USDA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac warrantable mortgage loans when litigation is pending. Data shows that 81% of home buyers need these Low down payment government backed mortgage options to enter into homeownership.

House Bill 420 provides a practical solution to address these challenges. The Bill strikes an essential balance between protecting the legal rights of homeowners and ensuring a fair efficient process for resolving construction defect claims. Thank you for your time and your consideration for introducing the Bill. Chair. We respectfully urge the Committee to pass HB20. Any questions?

We'll take questions after. Thank you. Kenneth Kazdan in opposition on zoom.

zero, thank you Members of the Chair. My name is Kenneth Kazdan and I am an attorney representing tens of thousands of homeowners throughout the country and in fact multiple buildings now throughout Oahu and in connection with areas in Maui, Kauai, the Big island and throughout the Ewe area here in Oahu.

This Bill does nothing to promote affordable housing and it does nothing to promote safe housing. We've heard a lot of speakers here today talking about, quote, safety is paramount and quote, affordable housing still should be safe housing.

This Bill has been promoted by the BIA and the developer entities, but does nothing to address any of those critical components. It seeks to change the claims resolution procedure to make it more one sided as opposed to a cooperative approach. It changes the contract warranty statute of limitations from six years to down to two years.

How does that promote affordable housing? And it in fact guts the provisions and Protections that are available in our building code right today, which is the directly opposite the concept of promoting affordable housing. May I share my screen and I'll show you some very brief items?

Yes, as long as there's. It's appropriate.

Yeah, yeah. Well, so what the Bill promotes to do is it says that in section G that if there is a deviation from the plans, if the plans have been approved, then there's no actionable claim unless it has already caused damage. We have thousands of units throughout the state where we have significant building code violations.

One particular area is at the top of walls. A number of set of plans call for acoustic sealant at the top of a firewall where in fact what the requirement is is fire resistive construction and a fire rated sealant. There's been no dispute in testing in these cases that acoustic sealant was used.

This Bill in section G sets up a section that if the plans were approved. Mr.

Kasman, please start wrapping up your testimony.

So the plan, the Bill says if the plans were approved and if the inspections were approved, there's no actionable claim. That's nonsense. That doesn't promote safety. The building code already provides that. Even if the plans were approved and inspections were done, if the code has been violated, it does not constitute approval.

So this Bill is not a cooperative effort. I think what we need is, I think we need the stakeholders to sit down and discuss remedies that could balance affordability and safety with protecting both the homeowners rights and the builder's rights. So that's what our proposal is. This is going way overboard.

Thank you, Mr. Kazdin. Next we got Kapolei Chamber of Commerce in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Karen Polk, Executive Director and CEO of the Kapolei Chamber of Commerce. We stand on our written testimony. I just would like to point out the overall economic impact of this, this measure and this issue.

You know, we're talking about affordable housing, but at the end of the day when, when our homeowners cannot get financed as mentioned by a previous testifier, and, and get the get into need, it just, it's a ripple effect on our economy and with the brain drain everything else we have, it just surmounts that.

So we support this measure and the collaborative effort to put this forward and move forward with the providing affordable housing for our west communities. Mahalo.

Thank you. Operating Engineers Local 3 in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Pandemic III, Political Deputy Director for Operating Engineers Local 3 represent all of my 3,000 Members and retirees bearing strong support of HB420. I'd just like to mention that this bill has been worked on quite a bit.

We feel that this Bill strikes the perfect balance between consumer protection and protecting developers that need the right to go and fix their efficiency so that people can have housing. Thank you.

Thank you, Raynor. Overhead doors and gates and support have Joey Gomes in support and individual Terry Revere in opposition on zoom.

Thank you. Chair, my name is Terry Revere. I'm an attorney who represents homeowners. Just to, you know, go down memory lane a little bit, the statute of repose has a very long and controversial history in Hawaii. It's been stricken down twice by the Hawaii Supreme Court for being unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause, etc.

It's always been a very problematic law because the construction industry says everything that you're hearing today. zero, it's the lawyer's fault that housing is expensive. It's not true. Every industry says that. Restaurateurs say that. Insurance companies say that. No one's in favor of lawyers coming after them if they do something wrong. That's the nature of human existence.

But this law is ludicrous. If, and I'm sure the Committee has and will read this law carefully, it literally is the only legislation I've ever heard of that actually promotes fraud.

It actually says, if a developer, for example, hides the fact that there's defects and uses fraud to keep it under wraps for the repose period, zero, well, too bad that can't be used as a defense by a consumer to come back after the developer.

I don't think there's another state in the country that would ever actually seriously suggest that we promote fraud by developers. As long as you can drag it past the statute of repose, then your consumer buyer is out of luck. There are many, many other problems.

I have submitted written testimony, but that one was, I found to be the most shocking, that they don't want consumers to defend themselves by active fraud on the part of developers. They also say that a defect is not material, literally, unless someone is injured or killed or the building's literally about to fall down.

To put it mildly, that doesn't promote safety when they say, that's our definition. Please wrap up your testimony, Mr. Revere. All right, thank you, Chair. I'll wrap it up. I did submit written testimony. This Bill is frankly preposterous.

I assume it's just out there so that the most outrageous things get taken away and still unfair things go under the wire. But it should not be passed And I strongly suggest that it'll be thrown out by the courts anyway because it's blatantly unconstitutional. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Chair. We also got 145 individuals in support, which includes 62 individuals from the Carpenters Union, one other individual in opposition. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us?

Thank you. My name is Phil Nurney and I submitted late testimony. I apologize. I am an attorney who represents condominium associations and has done so on a full time basis since 1990. I'm not here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute, but I chair the Legislative Action Committee.

And if this bill moves, I expect we will take a position I would echo. What the attorneys have said is that this does not strike a fair balance. It enables defective construction. So when the emphasis in the testimony is on entry to housing, that is not the entire equation.

Once people are in housing, if they then suffer defects, there are significant consequences. So I'd encourage the Committee to take into account that the whole notion that there's basically this unified front from building trades and developers, of course they want to be exonerated from liability.

And implicit in that whole scheme is that the courts, the judicial system, is somehow an inappropriate place to attend to construction defect claims is not meritorious. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on the matter before us? zero, please.

Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Emmanuel Zbakalam here on behalf of the Laborers Local 368. We're here to testify in support of this measure. I'll echo the comments from our previous union Members so that we don't take up too much time. And thank you for the time to testify. Thank you, Manny.

Anyone else online? zero, well.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Commission, Emmanuel Zibakalam here on behalf of the Plumbers and fitters local 675, here to support this measure. I'll echo myself as well as other union Members in our testimony to support this measure. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else online?

Hi, my name is Chris Akita. I'm a partner with Kazda, Interner, Thompson Booth. So I'm part of the same organization. So I'm not going to go through all the same points. One thing I do want to point out is that this statute actually encourages four litigation.

One of the big issues with filing a 672E and having to file litigation is that there is a short statute of limitations. What this does is it shortens the statute of limitations so it encourages People to file the litigation before the 672 process is over.

It doesn't encourage people to actually go through the process and really sit down and try and figure out, you know, what can be resolved and how it can be resolved. So I just wanted to point that 1.0 out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person wishing to testify on this matter? HB420, please.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tonga Hoy, Vice President, Economic Development, Government Communications Chamber of Commerce, is standing on our testimony. Apologies for the lateness. I have testimony copies here in support of the measure and here for any questions of the Committee.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or online wishing to testify on this matter? HB420 seeing none.

Chair, Members, any questions?

Representative La Chica, I don't know if this question is for the contractors or the developers, but like, so we heard from the attorneys that, you know, their, I guess their concern is that the, there, you know, the claims process is being used to, like, you know, delay the repair and like, the, I guess, inspection and, you know, potential, like, defects of the units.

But what is the actual, like, process of, like, I guess, being able to handle the process of the. Addressing the, you know, the concern of the, you know, safety concern, the defect, and what does, what is the frustration when it comes to ensuring that the homeowner's safety is protected or is addressed?

I just want to kind of understand. Yeah. Who can, who can answer the question?

Thank you for volunteering yourself to answer.

Okay. Good morning. My name is Sarah Love. I am a past President of the Building Industry Association of Hawaii. I'm also a partner at Lung Rose, Voss and Wagnold. In my work, I have done both plaintiffs and defense work. I've worked on a number of these types of cases.

So to the extent you have questions, I can try to help explain those to you. I mean, we do currently have a contractor Repair act in place. In General, what the process requires right now without these proposed amendments is very similar to what it would require with the proposed amendments.

The proposed amendments are really talking about adding more information into the process about what alleged defects are being alleged so that the process is a little more open and will hopefully get the parties on both sides to participate more fully in the process.

The way that it works is that if you are coming up on a statute of limitations, concern concern, you may proceed with filing a lawsuit. The Contractor Repair act statute allows you to do that. So any statute of limitations concerns you, file your lawsuit.

If there are no statute of limitations Concerns, you proceed with sending a notice letter. The contractor, developer, people on the industry side respond and try to see if you can come to an agreement on how to do either a proposed repair or a monetary settlement amount. If you don't come to agreement, you go to mediation.

That mediation process sometimes is short, sometimes it is long, depending upon the nature of the project and the alleged defects that you're talking about.

The proposed amendments right now, what they would do is they at least to the Contractor Repair act section, what they would do is they would require that more information, if it is available regarding testing that has been done, prior inspections that may have been done by the plaintiff, gets provided over as a part of that process.

So does that.

I don't know if that answers your questions, but would it still delay the contractor or the developer's ability to repair or mediate like address the situation?

Because there's an ongoing claim that depends on the parties willingness to participate with each other on accepting a proposed repair or monetary settlement amount or trying to figure out how to address the concerns. I mean, it just depends.

I've seen some cases that go through the Contractor Repair act process where the parties are all participating together to address the more serious issues and it gets taken care of just fine. I've seen other times where the process drags on for a really long time and there are disputes that prevent the parties from resolving.

I don't want this to get into a plaintiff's attorney versus defense attorney fight. So I don't necessarily want to get into specifics about that kind of stuff. I think the important part is that it's not taking away anybody's. The proposed amendments aren't taking away any rights from the consumer.

It's trying to make the process better so that people participate in it more fully because that is what will assist the parties.

Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that last comment by Ms. Love?

No. Unless somebody has a specific question for you. Thank you though. Members questions. Okay. No further questions for any of the testifiers. All right, thank you. We are moving on to HP463 relating to eviction records. Vice Chair for the testimony. Attorney Generals with comments on Zoom or in person.

Good morning. Deputy Attorney General Christopher Hahn with comments on the bill. I just wanted to highlight our concerns regarding part three of this bill. We proposed amendments to try to protect this measure as much as possible, but we still have concerns as to the viability of this portion. Our concerns stem from.

Well, we came across a 9th Circuit Court decision from just two years ago that struck down a similar ordinance in Seattle and unfortunately the decision isn't entirely clear as to what would be sufficient and thus our concerns.

Thank you. Thank you. Judiciary with comments Maui Housing Hui in support Hawaii Realtors with comments. Thank you. Public First Law center in opposition Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic justice and support Hawaii Workers center and support Vice Chair. Thank you. Medical Legal Partnership for Children in Hawaii and support Aloha Maikako, Chair of Members of the community.

I'm here on zoom. I apologize for my late testimony. I really want to thank you for hearing this bill. I think there's not a lot of opportunities for renters to talk about what it is like to be a renter.

I'm a renter myself and I also represent Low income tenants every day in eviction court proceedings and legal matters against their landlord. If you keep a part of this bill, I think what's really important is section two, which is about automatically sealing the records for a tenant who prevails against their landlord.

Every single day we talk with tenants whose data is never seen because they have meritorious claims against their landlord, but they still simply will not pursue them, even with us as attorneys to help them because they're so worried about what it would look like and prejudice them in the future to have a claim against a landlord even when we assure them that we believe they could prevail.

We're talking about things where the landlord's trying to evict someone for their child's slippers, being outside the door as a lease violation, feeding feral chickens, things where people have massive problems in their unit, such as termites, other kinds of things that we as lawyers really want them to take the case.

We want to take the case with them, but they simply would rather leave because they do not want that on their record and they do not want to risk it.

So if there's any way you can preserve the ability for them to seal those records, you know, we can't keep building new housing if we're not making laws that would allow tenants to stay in their housing when they do have a legitimate dispute. Mahalo Nui.

Thank you. Individual Elizabeth Waits in support. Individual Jordan Hawker on Zoom in support.

Aloha Committee Members of the House Housing Committee. My name is Jordan Hawker. I've been a tenants organizer on Maui since 2021. Sorry, I'm not turning on my video because I'm using a hotspot. We're without power where I'm at right now.

You know what we find in a lot of the instances to remedy any issues the tenant has is that the onus is on the tenant or the tenant absorbs the majority of the impact in terms of stress and having to sort of uproot their life to handle the situation. We believe that.

I believe that in the cases where a tenant does prevail that that record should be sealed, because we know that it can be. If it's not, it can be used as a discriminatory mechanism. On Maui, we have a housing emergency. And as an outreach and education coordinator with the Maui Housing Hui, you know, we really need.

We need y'all to step up this legislative session to really advocate for us, because the situation that happened on Maui is this nexus that we can see recreating itself on other islands. And so in the case that we can alleviate any pressure on renters, I'm asking the spotty does so. And pass this out of your Committee.

Thank you.

Thank you. Alana K. In support on Zoom. Okay. There's also 10 other individuals in support of this measure. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us seeing none Chair Members questions represented.

Andy, thank you. I have a question for the ags. I just want to clarify that the part of the Bill that's potentially problematic is subsection B. There are. To my. It's my understanding that there are 12 other states with eviction record ceiling measures on the book, so. Or laws on the book.

So those haven't been challenged in a similar way. It's about the language creating. Defining it as a discriminatory practice to demand the record or require the record.

It's the part that. Yeah, yeah. So part B, where it prohibits a landlord from requiring disclosure of a sealed eviction record, because that's basically a prohibition on inquiries, and that's. That implicates.

Okay, but if the. If the bill was passed without that part, would the tenant still be protected? Like, would. Would it be effective at preventing, like, the tenant. The landlord could ask, but would they get an answer if the record is sealed? Do you know what I mean?

I think I get what you're coming at, but I think that's more of a policy determination. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Can I ask a question to DEJ Medical Legal Partnership?

Aloha.

Do you have thoughts on whether that language is necessary to make the measure effective?

I don't. I don't think so. I get where you're getting at. I think, you know, we all always want to say that the landlords shouldn't ask for that, but I think what we usually see is folks just. They look them up on Ecorp Kukua and see what's on there. Anyway.

And so I think the ceiling of it was be. What's most important is, especially when it is automatically sealed, not, not something that the tenant has to actually ask for on their own. Okay, thank you. Deja.

There's a question for the Attorney General's Office also. So you folks don't have legal concerns with the ceiling of the records?

That's correct.

And I would ask the judiciary, but they're not here. Are you aware of. Are there other cases where applied to sort of broad classes of individuals, where if a defendant prevails, the records are sealed?

I, I'm not aware of that, unfortunately, right now, but. zero, sorry. If it's okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Hi, good morning, Chair. Deputy Attorney General Alyssa Kaoh. I also represent the judiciary, so I think I. Well, I'm sorry, I don't represent the judiciary in this capacity, but in my role as a deputy, that's my primary client. Okay.

There are certain cases, not in the housing context, that I'm familiar with, where the eviction record could be sealed, but there are other proceedings not really relevant in this context, but for example, in a paternity or in a family suit, where those records could be sealed if the, if, if the defendant prevails. If. Rep.

Grandinetti, if I could just piggyback off of Chris's response to you earlier. The judiciary does have a records rule. I believe it's record. It's rule 10.4 of their records rules, but please don't quote me on the number. But what could happen is currently, if a def.

If a tenant would like their records set sealed, they could petition the judiciary. And that's a separate filing that you would ask of the court. And there are certain privacy interests within that that the tenant would have to say prevail or that they would have to include. So oftentimes records can be sealed.

For example, if there's personal identifying information like a Social Security number or birthday, if there's. In like a paternity case, if there's information about a minor. So if those requirements in the rules are met, then. And that's an ex parte motion that's filed by the plaintiff. So that's usually that the plaintiff just can ask the judge directly.

It doesn't require both parties to litigate. That oftentimes it won't require litigation before the court. So the court can grant it on a case by case basis if it is. If it is appropriate. However, there is a separate 9th Circuit case that has Come up. It's called Civil beat Law center vs. Miley.

That was just decided in late 2024. That has restricted the types of grounds for privacy. And so therefore, it makes it a little bit harder if tenants would like to seal their. Or any individual would like to seal their records.

Because previously, while there have been broader categories to seal records, now if an individual wants to seal their records, they each. They have to do it individually rather than having more broader protections. I don't know if that answers both of your questions, but I'm happy to stick around if you have any more clarifying questions.

I guess I have a question then. You know the second part that you said that. So as I'm understanding a tenant could get their record sealed through an individual request to do so, an agreement to do so.

Correct. If the tenant can, pursuant to the court's rules, explain why or what information could be sealed or should be sealed.

Okay. And then my read of this Bill is that the difference is that all records would be sealed if the tenant prevails and all parties agree to the ceiling. So it sort of start up this automatic process for sealing records.

Correct. So it would. It would. And I would probably defer to the. Or I would confirm with the judiciary on this stance.

But how I see it is it would kind of reverse the process in the solely in the eviction sense, where it then becomes incumbent on the court to seal the records rather than the tenant to ask for that by themselves.

Okay, thank you. I have a question for Deja.

Mahalo. Thank you.

So what. What's the barrier right now for going after these sort of individual ceiling requests? Do you guys do it? And how often do you end up prevailing?

We do not. And that's because I think there is that. You have to meet that you have to meet that threshold. And so I hope you understand we're providing legal advice to tenants about what we think could happen. And so it's difficult.

As a lawyer, we can never promise them if you do this, you will prevail, and you can. And you can seal your record. And so I do think that landlord tenant complaints are very different than some of these other legal complaints from a consumer standpoint, when we're talking about, you know, privacy and that kind of information.

And so I'm actually not aware of anyone who had it meet any kind of the judiciary's. And I would have to look at it, the judiciary's high bar for it being, like, having private information of a minor or that kind of information.

I think it would need to be a policy decision made by the Legislature that because of what landlord tenant law cases are like, that it's a different type of claim that we're dealing with in our courts.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, one more question for the attorney generals. I guess you can go because you spoke to it in the beginning. Part 3A says it's a discriminatory practice for a person to engage in any act deemed unlawful based on the actual knowledge or belief that a person has a sealed eviction record.

That component to you is fine and constitutional. It's just part B. Yeah, it's part B.

Yeah.

Rep.

Grand I have one more question for Deja. I'm wondering if you can explain a little bit about the importance of the automatic ceiling, particularly because my understanding is that it's also a question of tenant screening companies that like sell that or like use that data. Yes. Yeah.

Yes. Thank you. So that's the issue with the ceiling of the records being more important. So I'm just going to bring up this doesn't sound related, but it is. If you get your record expunged, that doesn't automatically seal the records at the court. That's a separate process.

So there's been a lot of talk about the need for if somebody has a criminal background, a criminal record, they may have the legal process done to expunge that record, but they still have not sealed the court case records. It's a different process. So there is kind of an advocacy push to have that happen automatically.

If you get your criminal record expunged, it will automatically seal the records. And that's because in our new age, these web companies scrape the data from e court Kokua and put it online and have that and it doesn't catch up with what the, you know, the expungement may say or the court sealing of records will say.

So that's what's really important is that you're not asking the tenant. It can happen when they prevail immediately and you're not asking them to go in for a separate thing. If you remember, they're already dealing with the idea that this landlord is looking into them and saying this is a litigious type of person.

I don't want to deal with them because they're going to assert their rights. And so I really want to stress the types of claims we're talking about and the types of Low income folks even to come to me is a miracle that they found me as a free legal attorney.

And so it would be really important to have that not be something they have to do on their own.

Thank you. I guess one more question, Another question for you. Deja. Page three part two says within essentially the record should be sealed within two years of the final disposition of a landlord's claim even if the landlord prevails and regains some repossession.

And the judiciary had concerns about that section and a lot of it seemed around sort of process concerns. If that were deleted, how much would that impact the impact of this Bill?

Well, I mean I'm leaving that as a policy consideration to you folks. I'm going to argue that that's the thing we have to decide in our community. Do we want to continue to allow an eviction to be on somebody's record for how many years and for how long even if it's just from non payment of rent?

I, I think that I really want to stress how much folks who have an eviction on their record are not able to find new housing and their only option is the streets and our homeless services system. So I think that's a policy consideration that I would ask to have the shortest possible.

But I think what's really important is the ceiling when folks prevail and then that's what I'm asking you folks to make that determination on.

When you feel we want to stop having an eviction, follow someone as a tenant advocate I would push for the least time possible but I understand that there's a lot of folks who are just in General opposition to this Bill from the beginning. So I. Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you. Members, any further questions? All right, seeing none. Next item on the agenda is relating to HB 464 relating to housing. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Attorney General with comments.

Deputy AG Chris Hahn again with comments. Just a housekeeping amendment on this one. Generally when you're dealing with contracts you want to have a savings clause and section three seems to have fallen by the wayside. So we just want to make sure we're closing up the gap on there.

Thank you. Thank you. Maui Housing Hui in support?

Yeah, we are. We are in full support. Our advocacy Director was unable to make it because she has no signal and no no power at this point in time. However, the Maui Housing community is a grassroots organization and is an equity organization for renters that is was co founded with nine original Members.

It is by renters for renters. With our housing situation on Maui currently with the reduction of inventory and in General and then an increased induction reduction in inventory that's affordable. We're finding that the people that we're speaking to. And our own Members are needing at least a month or two extra to find new accommodations.

And so right now, 45 days is just not a realistic timeline in a housing crisis with limited rentals and limited affordable rentals. So we are in full support of this measure.

Thank you. Thank you, Hawaii Realtors with comments.

Hawaii Realtor stands on our written comments, and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Thank you. Susan Lee, Hawaii Apple Seed and support.

We can come back to her. I think she was having issues with the Zoom link. Alana K. Hawaii Workers center and Support Catholic Charities of Hawaiian Support Hawaii Workers center and Support thank you Sergio Individual Elizabeth Waits in support Cheryl Ho in Support There are 13 other individuals with written testimony and support.

Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us.

Aloha. Deja Ostrowski, Medical Legal Partnerships Apologies I did not see and provide written testimony for this. I just wanted to make a strong support especially for particularly section 3. This is a hole in our law and is very difficult for us with tenants.

If you as you know if you're a renter, if you have a term lease of a certain expiration date, you're kind of left in limbo on whether or not your landlord is going to renew the lease or not. We have no notice requirements in law on either party.

So as the date comes up, folks don't know if their landlord is going to just let the lease ride from month to month lease, which is what I have actually I signed a year lease a long time ago and so really we need to close that gap.

Just it would help on both sides to add clarity where each folk needs to let the other know if they're going to continue that if the landlord needs to let the tenant know if they're going to continue that lease. Thank you.

Thank you. Susan Lee from Hawaii Apple. See it on now. Okay, anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us?

Aloha. Katie Austin with Lahaina Strong. I apologize we did not submit written testimony in this but I just wanted to echo Maui Housing who and request for y'all's full support on this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter? Seeing non chair Members.

Any questions for the testifiers? Seeing none HB next item is HB466 relating to evictions. Vice Chair for the testimony Attorney Generals.

With comments Deputy Aggress on for the. Last time today comments Again we've provided recommendations to insert some savings clauses. That said, we did have some concerns about a few of the provisions particularly for section 521i on page 14. It seems to be a blanket requirement to waive last month's rent for all no fault evictions.

Does seem a little extreme and could invite a legal challenge. We've also recommended defining what relocation assistance and reasonable terms could mean since there could be a lot of ambiguity about that. Thank you.

Thank you. Maui Housing Hui in support.

Yes, we are in full support of this initiative. As you know, after the August 8th wildfires, we had a reduction of inventory but also secondary disaster which functionally was a destabilization of our rental market. The emergency proclamation we found was not sufficient to keep people housed in a post disaster landscape.

And we know that what's going on in other areas post disaster is that there is a reduction of rental inventory. Rental prices will skyrocket and the opportunity is too good to pass up for certain individuals who are providing housing, certain landlords.

And so we believe that a clause like this would a measure like this for just cause evictions would actually stabilize rental communities post disaster throughout the state. But then also had a measure like this been in place, we wouldn't have seen as much displacement in our community as we saw.

I believe that our principal researcher for the Maui housing community did attach a community based research we did on the impacts of the FEMA direct lease program and them offering inflated rents and how that further destabilized our rental market. So we are in support of this measure.

Thank you. Hawaii Realtors in opposition. Thank you. Hawaii YIMBY in support. Jade Moreno, Maui Housing Hui in support. Catholic Charities of Hawaii in support. Hawaii Guerrilla Video Hui in support. Hawaii Workers center in support. Thank you. Individual Jordan Hawker in support.

I'll stand on my written testimony.

Thank you. Cheryl Ho in support. Alana K in support. There's also 13 other individuals in support on this measure. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before US Members.

Any questions? I have a question for the Attorney General. Thank you. You know, on the, on the possible impairment of the contracts clause if we adopt recommended language to clarify that nothing in the Bill is meant to impair an existing contract in a manner that violates the state or U.S. constitution.

If a lease agreement lays out what happens in the case of a no fault eviction under these terms, you know, if it lays out specifically in the event a family Member needs to move in on the sale of the unit, here's the remedy for it.

And if that remedy is less than is offered in the Bill, yet the two parties sign it, then if we add that clause that that would trump anything in the Bill. Is that the case we're talking about.

A contract that's entered after this Bill is effectuated?

Right.

So Noel, two things, I mean I guess certainly that to make sure that this is only going forward. Right, Right. But I guess the other intention is like, or just clarification is to, is to better understand if Elisa Griffin does lay out different procedures.

Different procedures and so say it says in the case of a no fault eviction, the death, you know, moving an employment Member at sale of the unit, the tenant will have 60 days to find a new place and there's no say provision for covering one month's rent. And that's in the lease signed by both people.

This would, would trump that or just make. You couldn't put that in the lease because this is going, going forward. That couldn't be in a lease agreement because it's a state law.

Well, generally if you have a contract that overwrites the law, you know, it could be void as a matter of public policy. I would probably want to look into it just to double check. But that's just my initial inclination based on that.

Okay, so the, so then the language though on the existing contract is certainly just if an existing contract does have something like this, this won't impact it. It would be going forward. Okay, thank you very much. Members. Other questions? Seeing none. Last item on the agenda, HP 467 relating to foreclosures.

Vice Chair for the testimony, Lahaina Strong in support.

Aloha, Chair. Vice Chair, my name is Katie Austin testifying on behalf of Lahaina Strong in full support of House Bill 467. We have submit written testimony. I just wanted to jump on to emphasize the dire need for this bill and share what we're currently witnessing in Lahaina.

Our community is grappling with the fallout from the foreclosure moratorium ending and those working on the ground are really bracing for foreclosure crisis. As the economic impacts of the fire continue to unfold. The Lahaina Community Land Trust is working tirelessly to protect lands for affordable housing and ensuring they remain in the hands of local residents for generations.

And even beyond that, they are actively intervening to help families at immediate risk of losing their properties. I don't believe they're here today to testify. They're actually deeply engaged in a case just like this right now with a family on the verge of foreclosure.

And this case alone has required significant resources and we fear that it is just the first of hundreds. So without the protections provided in HB467, we are really at risk of seeing an overwhelming number of families lose their homes to disaster capitalism with investors who begin to profit off of this tragedy. Tragedy.

So mahalo everyone and we just urge your support for this bill.

Thank you. Lahaina Community Land Trust and Northwest Community Land Trust Coalition in support.

Yeah, good morning and thank you, Chair. Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Simon Windell. I'm here on behalf of the Lahaina Community Land Trust as the CFO of the organization and the Northwest Community Land Trust Coalition as the treasurer of the board in strong support of the legislation.

I'll stand mostly on our written testimony, but will echo what the representative of Lahaina Strong mentioned, that we're seeing the beginning of the fallout of the foreclosure moratorium. And we're currently working with our first homeowner whose first. Whose fire destroyed home and land are in foreclosure.

We spent a lot of time and resources in an effort to pull their property out of foreclosure and purchase it on behalf of the community before it goes to auction. This is one case and one case that was a test on how difficult the process is, how vulnerable our fire affected homeowners are.

And if you extrapolate this to the 2000 or so residential parcels in Lahaina, the effort becomes Herculean. We're also working together with a data provider in an attempt to monitor all the residential parcels in Lahaina for judicial foreclosures. But non judicial foreclosures are actually really difficult to keep an eye on.

We have to physically monitor newspapers to try and find out about these non judicial foreclosures. Foreclosures, because that's where they're announced. So with the goal of proactively reaching out and working with the homeowners to first keep them on their land and then only if they need to sell, purchase that land on behalf of the community.

So that becomes extremely resource and time intensive when you extrapolate up to the potential of this foreclosure moratorium. This Bill will solve these time and resource intensive problems and enable us to focus on the primary challenges.

So in summary, this Bill will have a significant impact on the Lahaina community's ability to stem the tide of disaster capitalism and gentrification, which research shows and we know happens after a natural disaster. So this, this helps Lahaina and will also set Hawaii at large up for a healthy community response to the next natural disaster. Thank you.

Thank you. We received 14 individual support, written support from individuals, anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 467. Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Seeing none. We will recess for decision making. Thanks.

Reconvening the House Housing Committee hearing. Public hearing for 9:15 a.m. it is now 11:22 and we got to get through this. Reconvening for decision making. Thank you. All for bearing with us. So the first three bills on the agenda, HB1, HB745, HB1321, are all relating to building codes and they all do different things and they all can't pass.

So ultimately we're going to have to choose one of these bills to move. I want to give us a little bit more time to essentially figure out the right pathway forward. So I plan to defer for decision making until Wednesday, February 5th. HB1, same for HB 745, defer for decision making until Wednesday, February.

Let me just double check that that's the right date. Sorry.

Yes.

Okay. Wednesday, February 5th. And then HB 1321, defer for decision making until Wednesday, February 5th. And Then again, only one of those will survive, like a game of Survivor. So we'll see which one. HB 284 relating to housing.

I really appreciate the intent of this is a minority caucus priority bill and I appreciate the work that went into this and the intent here. I fundamentally actually believe in shock locks.

I think by passing a shot clock that could work, you could sort of hold the counties to move quicker on some of this stuff and streamline processes to abide by the shock lock. My concern is that, that I think that this, the wording of this bill makes it unworkable in some different ways.

So, bill says a building permit shall be issued within 60 days after submittal. It leaves room for a period longer than 60 days only if it doesn't comply with any discretionary approvals. Also leave certification of available infrastructure up to the applicant, so it doesn't leave room for rejection or even delay based on non compliance with county code.

As I'm reading it, it's only based on non compliance with discretionary parts, which is going to be different in a lot of ways than what's written in the ministerial code. So, for example, that could allow somebody to, you know, build a monster home.

As long as somebody's signing off that this complies with the code, I don't know if the county could push that back. Doesn't give enough time for archaeological review in some circumstances and could impact EV Kupuna, as Shipti testified.

And then I don't think private parties have the capacity often to know about the availability of infrastructure and they can't certify that availability. So again, I think there's some good things here to work with.

I'm hopeful that at some point in the future we can sort of work with the counties to come up with an effective shock lock and appreciate the work that went into that. All that said, we'll be deferring this measure HB761 relating to perm county permitting and inspection. We will defer this one.

Also, DAGS would need more resources to implement this and it seems like a duplication of services that are already offered by the county.

HB 738 related to historic preservation, I recommend we move this out with an HD1 with a defected date to adopt all of the amendments proposed by Shipti in their testimony to adopt HCDA suggested language requiring a 30 day review period for projects that do not impact historic properties for Section 6E-8, 6E-10 and 6E-42 but clarify that language to ensure clarify the language provided by HCDA to ensure that that clock only begins after receiving quote sorry, only after quote receiving a complete and true project submittal.

Right. So the project has to be good and verified, the documentation is all complete and then that shock lock begins. Include HCDA's proposal that the 90 day review period is tied to the submission of the project's documentation into Shipt's Hawaii. Oh, you know what, sorry, scratch that one. Sorry.

So just the HC days recommended by English for the 30 day review period and then based on NIOPS testimony, change scope of work to physical scope of work and define it as the size, location and depth of ground disturbance and then based on the Grassroots testimony to clarify that that it would be residential and mixed use projects as long as the mixed use projects are majority residential. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB738. The recommendation is to pass with amendments.[Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is HB1008 relating to historic preservation reviews of state affordable housing projects. Tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Oh, sorry. I recommend moving the bill out with an issue one with tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Will defect the date and then add the word commences on page five line three before the word any which is I think just for clarity and then adopt all of DLNR's proposed amendments from their testimony Members. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB1008 the recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absences of Representative Cochran and Kitagawa. Are there any Members voting no for any reservations? None shared. The recommendation is adopted.

For HP 737 historic preservation tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style. One of those tech amendments will be to change the title very slightly and we got confirmation that we can do this. The title was missing the word relating to which could be considered a tech amendment and has been done in the past.

So we will change the title to relating to historic preservation. The subject is still existing title says historic. I see AG is looking at me. So existing title is historic preservation. It was a typo. We're just adding relating to in front of that. So which is considered a tech amendment. And then.

Sorry, I think I saw a nod there from the AGs. So then adopt the recommendation of Historic Hawaii foundation to delete the additional reference to historic property in 6E 42.2 and instead. Oh yeah, just delete the reference to historic property. So it also delete the 50 year provision also.

So then 6E 42.2 would just exempt the three things listed there, right? Listed or nominated on the register in a historic district. Members, any discussion? Seeing None, Vice. Sorry, before we take that vote let me make sure I just didn't state that wrong regarding HB 737.

So just to clarify for the change to 6E 42.2 we're deleting the additional reference to historic property. We're leaving in the bill deleted over 50 years old. That over 50 years old will remain deleted. And then so we'll just have the three items listed below there without the additional qualifier of 50 years old or historic property.

So that's listed on the Hawaii or National register is nominated for inclusion or is located in historic district. All right. Sorry. Members, any discussion? No. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB737 the recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excuse absences of Representative Cochran and Kitagawa for the remaining of this hearing. Any Members voting? No. Any with reservations the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. HB830 historic preservation reviews will defect the date and then give Shipti the authority to charge for a third party review. Other than that. Members, any questions or discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB830 the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any recommendation? Sorry, strike that. Any reservations? Any nos? Seeing none Chair. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

HB 1318 relating to affordable housing I recommend that we define affordable as the same as is used in 201H57 based on DLNR's testimony that we don't need to amend the changes in Section 2 which give the extension to allow for 99 year residential leases of of state land because DLNR is saying that this would not be a DLNR lease and that that section wouldn't apply to a county lease.

We're going to delete section 2 of the bill entirely. But I am hoping going forward I'll get some clarity from the Attorney Generals to just make sure that is true.

Because the intention is to ensure that we could do 99 year leases or that counties could do 99 year leases on these properties, affordable leases, and then adopt OHA's proposed amendment to include a parallel language in 171-64.7 to ensure consistent procedural requirements for any land sale or fee disposition of land that has been set aside by the Governor to the county.

We'll also defect the date and then we can include in the committee report that the legislative intent here is, is that you know that if the county is utilizing ceded land that they are in full fulfillment of the public trust.

Whereas I am concerned though by adopting DLNR's amendment to more narrowly add that to the exemption that it could be clarified that the other items are not subject to public trust. So we won't be including that part in the bill, just in the committee report. That's it. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1318. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting? No. Any with reservation?

With reservations.

Yes vote okay. Yes Vote for Rep. Pierick and reservations for Rep. Muraoka Chair. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Remember, it's just a reminder when we're taking the vote if you could state loudly WR or no, so that our Vice Chair gets it right here, HP 420 relating to remedies, I recommend defecting the date and moving it forward.

And I just want to make a comment here that I think a number of concerns were brought. Well to back up one, I am in full agreement with the intent of this bill and that I think that our current laws are creating a loophole that are getting taken advantage of at the expense of all residents of Hawaii.

Right. It's reducing the number of homes that we're building. It's increasing insurance costs for those homes. And I don't think that when people are facing a possible construction defect, they're not necessarily getting the remedy that they're hoping for through these cases. So I think everybody is being harmed here.

That said, I do think maybe some good points were brought up today that are kind of outside of the committee's jurisdiction here.

To parse through this is going to go to CPC and to JHA where they have the staff attorneys that can parse through some of these other elements to ensure that this thing can be held up in court and to ensure that it's doing what the intent of the bill is. So that said, I.

I want to move forward here just with a defective date for further consideration. Members, any discussion?

Voting on HB 420. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any members voting? No. Any with reservations? Oh, no. Vote for Rep. Muraoka.

Chair. The recommendation is adopted. Thanks, Vice Chair. Next is HB463 relating to eviction records. I recommend that we defect. Oh, yeah, I should have back up.

I went into the meeting thinking that I was probably going to defer this based on some of the Attorney General's testimony and the Judiciary's testimony and other testimony, talking about how that this would be difficult to implement and possible First Amendment issues.

I think we had a good dialogue today where we parsed through some of that and I think we can more narrowly curtail the Bill so we can ensure it's constitutional, yet still having an effect here.

So I recommend affecting the date, adding a severability clause as recommended by the Attorney General's Office, deleting number two on page three so that in the event that a tenant doesn't prevail in a case, those records wouldn't be sealed and then in delete B in part three so that this is really just more narrowly curtailed to if a tenant prevails in a case, they can have their records sealed.

Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB463. The recommendation is passed with amendments. Are there any Members voting no? Any with reservation? Chair, the Recommendation is adopted.

HB 464 related to housing. I recommend that we defect the date and that we adopt recommended language from the Attorney General's Office to ensure that Section 3 of the act wouldn't impact existing rental agreements. Members, any discussion here? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB464. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes? Are there any with reservations? Seeing none. Chair the recommendation is adopted.

Next item is HB466 relating to evictions. Okay, there's a lot going on here. I recommend we move this out with an HD1 and that we defect the date. Technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Adopt the recommended amendment from the Attorney General to clarify that nothing in the bill is meant to impair an existing contract that manner that violates the state or U.S. constitution and then I appreciate that the intent is to apply to no fault evictions.

So I think some of what's classified as a no fault here is would be considered for cause or at least not no fault.

So I recommend deleting 521G for the refusal to sign new lease section Provision and delete 521H which is a history of non payment of rent as they don't seem to fall under the definition of a no fault.

Then also delete language that says at the end of the term of the rental agreement for every no fault eviction clause and then change the 90 day period to vacate to 60 days for all of the no fault clauses. Clarify that relocation assistance in Section 521I. That is 521I not L, right? Yes. I believe 521I.