House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. Our hearing Today is Wednesday, February 262025. It's 2:00pm here in Conference Room 325 at the beautiful State Capitol. Thanks everyone for being here today to provide testimony in person and online. You help us do a better job as legislators by testifying, so thanks for being here.

Appreciate that. Those who are giving testimony, I would request that you limit your testimony to two minutes, and I'll ask you to summarize at that point so we can get through all the testifiers and decision making and hopefully get every quorum so we can make our decisions today.

For those who are on Zoom providing testimony, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting, and then after your testimony is complete, turn off your video and mute yourself again. The zoom chat function is there for you to communicate with our excellent technology staff here, and they can assist you if you have any issues.

If you're disconnected unexpectedly, don't worry. Just try to rejoin us as soon as you can and I'll try to fit you in to provide your testimony when you return.

If possible, in the event of power failure here in the building or network failure and we have to reschedule, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice and everyone will know when we will meet again to finish our work.

Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images when you're using a background on Zoom that kicks us off of YouTube if that happens, and we don't want that because we want the public to see what we're doing here. That's all part of our effort at transparency. Please conduct yourself with aloha and no profanity or uncivil behavior.

It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We can all do the work for the State of Hawaii, even if we have disagreements. Okay, let's go ahead and get started here. First up, we have House Bill 1008 House Draft 2, relating to historic preservation reviews of state affordable housing projects.

This measure requires the Department of Land and Natural Resources to determine the effect of any proposed state affordable housing project within 90 days of a request for determination. It bases the historic review requirements on the project area's known or likely density of historic cultural and archaeological resources or previous identification of no significant historic properties.

First up, we have the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Mr. Minakami, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair Members Dean Minakami, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. We send our testimony and support. The historic review process isn't necessary, but it does add time to the review pro to the development process. So this bill proposes a expedited pathway for projects which will probably not have a significant impact on historic resources.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony in writing from the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism Director James Tokioka in support. Next we have testimony and support from the Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Jessica Puff. I'm the administrator of the State Historic Preservation Division. And we stand on our testimony as submitted and are here for any questions you might have.

Thanks. Ms. Puff or Dr. Puff, could you help us out here in this Committee, I always ask people, rather than just standing on their testimony to highlight portions of their testimony that would show if you. In this case, you. It's listed that you support it. Why do you think this is a good bill?

Well, I think it holds SHPD accountable.

The 90 day historic preservation division.

Yes, the State Historic Preservation Division. Thank you. Accountable. We do have rules for time periods when we have to complete a review of a permit or a governmental project or one that's impacting a historic listed property. This bill clarifies what happens after that review period. Specifically 90 days.

If the 90 days lapse, that means that the project proponent could move forward with their project instead of having any vague ambiguity. It also establishes sensitivity areas where there's low sensitivity, a project may proceed without like an archaeological monitoring plan or a comprehensive archaeological inventory survey being completed before the project is able to finish the permitting process.

For moderately sensitive areas, those are areas where there may be a historic property present but it's determined not significant or no historic properties have been found on that parcel.

But maybe there have been on adjacent parcels that the project might proceed with just archaeological monitoring rather than a very invasive archaeological inventory survey, which may require additional time added onto the project review process.

And then also high sensitivity areas where it would sort of predetermine that if a project is taking place in an area that there are known significant historic properties, then the project would be subject to an archaeological inventory survey prior to the permitting process being completed.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. We have received written comments from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and written letter of support from Hawaii Realtors. Do we have Hawaii Realtors here? And then written letter of support from Maui Chamber of Commerce. That's all the testimony we received on House Bill 1008, House Draft 2.

Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? If not. Questions, Members? Yes, Vice Chair Poepoe.

Yes, SHPD thank you. Can you just describe what would be considered not significant properties or what would be considered significant and significant properties?

Sure. Well, the state rules have different categories of significance that we follow. They are criterion A through E. They are determined based on whether a resource is significant for its Association with historic events, with historic people, if it's of architectural significance, if it's of cultural significance, or any other significance to the Native Hawaiian people.

And so this is getting into the weeds a little bit, so I apologize if I make this confusing. So the current definition of a historic property is anything that is 50 years old or older. A significant historic property is something that is at least 50 years old or older, but then also meets one of those criteria.

It's either associated with an important event, an important person, it's characteristic of a significant architectural or other design style, or it's significant culturally. So it's like an added level of evaluation. So an evaluation of something that's not significant is something that's just 50 years old.

It might be an old culvert or say, something having to do with agricultural infrastructure that is still present, but the rest of the agricultural infrastructure is no longer there, like historic wall or fence or something like that. It's just old. But it's not necessarily significant. Okay, thank you.

That was very helpful. Sure.

Thank you. Other questions. Yes. Represent bilati.

Questions for SHPD, Actually, a few. This bill is not just reserved to historic properties, though, Right. It's going to be about burial sites, properties. I mean, it's. It's. It's many things. It covers many things. And we know Hawaiian burials are not just one site. They're actually quite found throughout our islands.

So knowing that, and knowing that there are other historic preservation laws, how does this intersect with the Kapaakai analysis that properties projects have to undergo? Does this undercut the Kapaa Kai?

I don't believe so, because I believe the Kapaa Kai analysis is somewhat separate. It's like its own separate analysis that a project proponent does in advance of their project. Our office may use the Kapaa Kai analysis as an assessment for the likelihood of historic properties being present.

Significant, I should say, historic properties being present in terms of like a geographical area or project areas, Association with significant cultural practices, events, and then also the physical remnants of history that may be there, whether they're buildings, objects, that sort of thing. And it may also inform whether or not there's a likelihood of ED being present, too.

But it's a separate evaluation.

And so this doesn't in any way undermine for any state project that has to undergoes Kapaakai analysis that still applies to us. Yes. Including affordable housing projects.

Yes. Kapaa Kai is separate from HRS 6 Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 6E.

Okay, and then one last question. You know, I'm looking at your folks timeline and looking over the historic process and it looks like folks are able to complete the process within 165 days. And it includes an opportunity to review mitigation plans and accept verification reports.

Is that still going to be part of the process or will that be the process that's now cut out with this 90 day timeline that allows people to move forward?

That process will, will not be cut out. Our 90 day review process as it's in the rules right now is still supposed to incorporate all those elements. But, but the simplified way of saying this is that our permit review can be reviewed and if say there's a historic property present, it can be reviewed within those 90 days.

And if any mitigation needs to occur, as soon as we send our letter of determination out, that is the end of the 90 day review.

Like the consultation on any minimization or avoidance measures or mitigation measures can carry forward outside of that 90 day period based on, you know, how what is needed in terms of consulting with the community, consulting with the project proponent and then any other interested parties.

So that's sort of a separate consultation from the initial 90 day review period on assessing effects to historic properties.

I would. Has this proposal been taken up with the burial councils? Because I would think that they would be the most concerned with, with this proposal moving through the Legislature.

I don't believe that anybody has consulted on this bill with the burial councils. I don't believe it's been included on any of the agenda.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Sure. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. Thanks very much to the other testifiers. Next measure we're going to take up now is House Bill 1093 relating to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. This measure clarifies the Hawaii Public Housing Authority's powers relating to housing projects.

First up, we have the Hawaii Public Housing Authority.

Welcome. Please proceed. Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for hearing this Bill. This Bill intends to make.

I know you're famous, but you have to introduce yourself if you would please.

Not as famous as you, but thank you very much. Hakeem Wansafi. I'm the Executive Director, Director for the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. Thank you. Thank you for having me.

This Bill intends to make the definitions of housing clear and consistent and also brings it in line and consistent with Session Law 251 that passed in 2022 which allows us to define housing projects. And the other consequences of this Bill is allow us to make sure that we concentrate poverty.

The thing of having public housing all grouped in one area, something that's been dead has been proven that it's ineffective.

And what this will allow us to do is make sure that when we rebuild, we rebuild a community that has a different kind of income and not just all the poor people in one section and others in the other. So we ask for your approval of this.

If I may add just one more thing, this Bill has become even more important in the last couple of weeks of what's happening in the Federal Government under cuts of HUD today. That's. The HUD is the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Thank you. Yeah, we just try to avoid acronyms if we can.

This Department are the folks who actually Fund for us our public housing and Section 8. We have learned today that part of the five priorities from the Secretary, the North Secretary is, is to eliminate public housing. So this is a step forward.

Now it has a little bit more of urgency for us to have some tools to be able to respond very efficiently and quickly should they execute that and inform us that we have to do so. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Director Wansafi, any other people wishing to testify in House Bill 1093? If not questions, Members.

Representative, Director Wansaki, I'm sorry, can you. Repeat again exactly what the new housing stated? You want to eliminate public housing?

Yes. There are five priorities that we were informed today that some of the field offices in the nation have been informed. And number one, is it okay if I get my phone so I can read the five? Sorry, I usually don't like to.

So we had our consultant that started to scope what's going on in there so we can always be prepared prior to anything coming our way. And spoke to the Baltimore office and they got a HUD top five priorities from the secretary. Number one, eliminate public housing. Number two, evict undocumented from assisted housing. Number three, enact term limits.

Number four, implement work requirements in exchange for subsidy except for the elderly and disabled and consolidate or eliminate small housing authorities. So those seem to be, and the number one is the public housing. So we just want to be a little bit ahead. So this one, it's becoming a little bit urgent.

Was this if there's any form of this information that you could share with the Committee, we'd appreciate it so we can be up-to-date because things change so quickly coming out. This new Administration.

We shall.

It would be helpful if we can tap your sources of information as well. Yes. Thank you very much. Other questions? Please, Representative Perruso.

So is it your intention then to comply with this directive even prior to additional guidance being issued?

If you could explain to whom was the directive?

Right now the directive is given to HUD to the offices that execute the secretaries. So they have not yet informed us. But we're trying to take and have all available tools, including not complying if we know that we're not going to lose the subsidies.

The way it works, HUD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, enter into a contract with us with the Housing Authority. It says for the following units. That number hasn't changed since 1958. So that's when they put a fair cloth limit. They said we're going to give you subsidy for the final folks.

And that's what we have been doing. So an easy way for them to do is just say we're not going to subsidize it. If you have any undocumented, we're not going to subsidize and we have, we have a contract with it go all the way to the Supreme Court. I don't know. So it's just a scary time.

This tool, however, we can't say publicly what we intend, but it will give us an advantage to be able to put those units somewhere else and continue to. To manage.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Other questions Members, if not thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yep. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1096, House Draft 1 relating to tenant selection. This measure repeals the tenant selection preferences for disabled veterans and the spouses of Deceased veterans in the state low income housing program.

First up, we have Director Wansafi, Hawaii Public Housing Authority.

Aloha again, Hakeem Wansafi, the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. This Bill intends to standardize our state housing preferences with the federal housing preferences. The reason that we recommended it is because we have a mechanism for the veterans that is much better, much more superior than what we have in the state housing.

And that mechanism through the Veteran Assistant program, it's called Vash Veteran with the Veteran Department. What it does is not only provides the voucher that the folks can find any housing anywhere they want, but they also provide services.

It's also worthy to note that this preference that's been here we haven't used for over five years because there are other mechanisms. So this allows us just to streamline our processes and have both state and housing programs. We have 864 state housing and we have over 5,400 federal housing.

We'd like to standardize them and be able to serve the community that way. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, we have written testimony and support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. And we have testimony and support on Zoom from Kirby Shaw, Disability and Communication Access Board not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1096, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members seeing none. Thank you very much.

Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1411 relating to housing preference. This measure allows the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to allow projects to grant preferences in the same sale or lease of housing units to applicants who live or work within five miles of the project. First up, we have Mr.

Minakami, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation in support. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Dean Minakami, Hawaii Housing Finance Development Corporation. We stand in support of this measure as indicated. This measure gives allows us to give the developers to give preference to applicants who live within five miles of a project. The benefit of this is that area residents can maintain ties to their community.

Many times when affordable projects are built, area residents ask, can they be given priority? So this Bill would allow those nearby residents to be given priority.

Thank you, Mr. Minakami. Next, Evan Oye, NIOP Hawaii Chapter. And I'm informed NIOP is no longer an acronym, so we call it NYOP, but it's a commercial real estate development Association. Mr. Oye, please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Evan Oy. On behalf of NIAP Hawaii, we do stand on our support for this measure. You know, HB 1411 would help create you know, neighborhoods and allow their workforce to live near where they. Where they live so. Or where they work.

So, you know, we do feel like this is great policy and we stand on our written support. So. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1411, House Draft 1? If not questions, Members? Representative Peruso for Mr.

Minakami, please. So I understand the intention with this measure about granting preferences. It seems like workforce related preferences. And have you also explored or are there other measures moving that would provide for a broader expansion of preferences to really apply to local families?

I mean, I know that there are some constitutional questions involved, but I think that's a deep concern of many legislators. So I was wondering if you are connecting this measure with any other measures.

Yes, the constitutional concern is the primary, I guess, barrier to implementing a broader policy such as, for example, that giving preference to residents that are discriminating against. Right. So there's a duration, having that durational requirement where if you are a resident for say a year.

We've been told that that's not possible, but this does is a step in the right direction where at least you have to be in Hawaii to be a preferred applicant because there are times when an applicant can be on the mainland applying for affordable housing here and they will not be given preference.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Any other questions, Members? See None. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 367, House Draft 1 relating to building permits. This measure allows for county permit exemptions for certain kinds of activities, including agricultural and maintenance activities.

First up, we have testimony in opposition in writing from the Department of Planning and Permitting, Curtis Lum. Next we have testimony, written testimony in support from Hawaii Farm Bureau, written testimony and support from Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, written testimony and support from Glenn Kagamida and then written testimony in.

Excuse me, testimony on Zoom from Greg Misakian in opposition. Mr. Misakian, please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Greg Misakian and I am here in opposition of this Bill. I would like to first point out.

Excuse me, just as I go to the testimony, I would like to point out that the person that signed the testimony that you just mentioned, the first one that was submitted by Curtis Lum, was actually the Director of. Her name is there, Don Takeuchi Ankona, the Director of DPP.

So I'm assuming that it was submitted on behalf of the Director. So with that stated first, because that's very important to know that the Director is opposing this. Just a couple of quick background pieces of information so that the Committee understands fully what's going on out in the public.

If you follow Civil Beat, you'll know that there's a recent story about renovation Aloha, a show that's on HGTV and many permits that haven't been applied for and homes that are being built and continuously being built that are televised. So there's been a number of stories about that and there's a lot of issues with that. Potential litigation.

I think there's litigation that's in the works right now. Issues where the safety and well-being of the residents that purchase these homes is at play. In addition to all of the facts that there's regulations in place that are being completely violated. And I'll just add one more thing.

At my condominium association where I live, our building is considered commercial property. It's a high rise building. And we frequently or our board frequently does not obtain permits. The contractors that they hire do not obtain permits for much of the work that's done here. And when they do the work, it's often done improperly.

There's notices of violation that are being issued. They don't have permits in place. And I've reached out to the Director of DPP numerous times. I'm still waiting from two years ago to get follow up. So there's a lot of issues at play and it's important that people follow the regulations.

The safety and wellness of the residents that live in these buildings is at stake. And so I will ask you to please carefully look at that. And I do oppose this and hope that you don't move it forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 367, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. We'll move on. Rep Belatti? No, we'll move on.

No. Okay, we will move on to the next Bill. House Bill 826 House draft 1 relating to housing. This measure authorizes a county planning commission by special permit to permit land uses exclusively providing residential housing for agricultural workforce housing, long term rental or workforce fee, simple ownership in an agricultural district under certain conditions.

First up we have the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Welcome, Mr. Minakami.

Thank you. We stand in support of this Bill. The state land use redistricting process can be cumbersome and it can delay the process by up to a year or longer in some cases if there's a contested case hearing.

So this measure does provide a pathway where the Planning Commission for projects up to 100 acres can allow residential projects to proceed. And it's only on land which are rated C, I think C, D, E or U. So they're not prime agricultural lands. And also the projects have to be within a county general plan designated for residential use.

So that's important also, because when the counties update their general plans, they go through a extensive vetting process, a lot of public input. They're approved by the county council. So it's legislative. Legislative approval for that land use. So we feel that this does accelerate the process for residential projects and there are adequate safeguards in place.

Thank you very much. Next, we have written. No, excuse me. We have testimony of the comments from the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Mr. Gates, please proceed.

Aloha and good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The Department stands on our written testimony appreciating the intent of this measure, but also sharing some concerns. Our comments include similar concerns as the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, which is.

This Bill could adversely impact our goals to double food production because it has the potential of permitting projects beyond just housing for agriculture workers and could take out land from food production. Again, we're here for any questions. Mahalo. For the opportunity to testify. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, Mr. Gates. Next, we have testimony with comments from the Land Use Commission.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. You have our written testimony.

Again, I know you're famous, but you need to introduce yourself, please.

I'm sorry. I'm infamous, not famous. Daniel Orodenker, Executive Officer for the Land Use Commission. You have our written testimony. We laud the intent to stimulate housing and to develop workforce housing for agricultural workers. However, this bill procedurally is seriously flawed.

We don't think it meets due process requirements. It doesn't lay out a process. It refers to the process used in Section 205-6, which is a special permit process which does not include a contested case hearing or a Ka Paʻakai analysis. And we have serious concerns that without modification the bill may just result in a lot of litigation.

Thank you. Next, we have testimony with comments from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Brandon Soo, and I'm a planner with OPSD, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We stand by a written testimony with comments on the HD 1 of this bill. OPSD believes the special permit is not the appropriate mechanism for permanent residential subdivision in the State Ag District.

Special permits are intended to provide landowners with with relief in exceptional situations for unusual and but reasonable uses otherwise not allowed in the district only when the use would promote the effectiveness and objectives of 205. And I'd like to add that Hawaii case law cautions against the use of the special permit to effectuate what essentially amounts to a district boundary change. We noted three key additional concerns in our testimony.

First, the bill only allows residential housing and does not address how essential services such as police and fire protection, schools, and utilities would be provided. This conflicts with existing special permit rules, which provide guidelines to prevent the project from placing unreasonable burdens on public agencies.

And second, because the underlying district does not change, the landowners, future landowners, and the developer would be indefinitely bound by the conditions of the permit. So if we're talking about land areas as big as 100 acres, right. It could potentially be hundreds of landowners who would need to comply with the permit conditions.

And any future changes would require require amendments to that permit. And lastly, it's unclear how this measure would be implemented with respect to existing requirements and processes, as Mr. Orodenker highlighted. Special permits for areas over 15 acres require LUC approval and the bill does not resolve this jurisdictional issue.

So overall, we support efforts to streamline housing production, but we strongly recommend the establishment of a county plan based district boundary amendment process that facilitates the implementation of adopted county plans. And OPSD is open to and stands ready to assist in helping the Legislature establish such a process. Thanks for the opportunity to testify. We'll be available for comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have written testimony and opposition from Locals in My Backyard Hawaii, Makana Hicks-Goo. Testimony in support from Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Testimony in opposition from Sierra Club of Hawaii, Wayne Tanaka on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. Wayne Tanaka with Sierra Club of Hawaii in opposition to this measure. I just want to add, you know, in addition to the, you know, procedural ambiguities and the potential unintended consequences in the written testimony that have been shared by the previous testifiers.

You know, did want to emphasize that this bill could actually be exacerbate our affordable housing and our food security challenges by continuing to fast track the urbanization of up to 100 acres of ag lands at a time that could drive up land costs across the board, which in turn would drive up the cost of housing and the cost of food production.

Did also want to note that this measure is looking at general plans that were passed as late as or as old as 20 years ago. And so that was things are very different in 2005. Different agriculture technologies, different kinds of land uses, resources available, infrastructure, and so forth. And then I also did want to highlight that the soil productivity ratings in this measure are based on sugar and pineapple cultivation potential, as you folks probably know.

And so just because they're C, D, or E class lands, it doesn't mean they don't have potentially significant food production capabilities, especially when you're looking at the risk for agriculture and traditional native Hawaiian agricultural methods and technologies. So again, even though it's not A and B lands, it could still be impacting some lands of agricultural importance. Happy to answer any questions, and thank you for taking time to hear my testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Tanaka. Next we have written testimony in support from Glen Kagamida. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 826, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? Representative Belatti.

I have a question for Mr. Minakami, and then the gentleman from I believe the LUC. Seeing as you're probably the biggest supporter of this bill, what kinds of lands would this apply to on the island of Oahu?

On the island of Oahu, I'd have to look at maps of where the county has designated ag lands for residential lands for ag use that are overlaid by the state land use ag district. I'm not aware off the top of my head where those lands are, but basically the growth areas that the county's identified for residential use that are still in the state land use agricultural district.

Could we have that those communities identified for us, Chair? And provided to the Members of the Committee so that we know what areas, at least on the island of Ohio, this would apply to.

Sure. I'm not sure whether Mr. Minakami would be the one or Mr. Orodenker. You can ask him when you, when you bring up the Land Use Commission. But we could use the information from whatever source you can get it from.

So off the top of your head, you don't know. You support this bill, but you don't know what lands this applies to?

It might apply to future lands where the county's in the process right now updating their sustainable communities plans, which are in effect similar to the general plan. So it might apply to future plans where the county designates lands from an agricultural use to a residential use.

So a lot of central Oahu still potentially?

I'm not sure how much appetite there is to redistrict lands by the county in central Oahu. It could be central Oahu.

And windward areas? Potentially. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, and I don't know your name, although you look very famous.

Thank you. Daniel Orodenker. It's not a problem if you can't remember my name.

Mr. Orodenker, in your testimony, it appears that there might have been a stakeholder group that was like looking at this bill. Can you give us some background on what that might have been? Because you recommend an acreage of a maximum of 40 acres. That might be more... Somewhat better.

There have been, over the years, there have been several attempts to try and change the land use system to stimulate affordable housing. The last time there was a major attempt was before COVID I believe. And at that point in time, the bill was hotly debated. There were representatives from everybody from the Sierra Club to the developers involved, and there was a sort of an unofficial agreement that 40 acres would be better than on.

Okay, and then to the last question. I asked the previous testifier, would you be able to provide us with communities that would be affected by this law on the island of Oahu?

Well, we have overlays that show, you know, or we have maps that show where the agricultural districts are and the urban districts, but I do not know if we have an overlay that shows the general plan designation. I would have to get back to you on that.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Thank you very much. Other questions? Vice Chair.

Okay, I'll start with you, since you're already up there. So in Chapter 205, there already is a special permit process that an applicant can go through to petition their commission for a special permit. But in order to make a finding or issue the permit, they have to find that the use proposed would promote the effectiveness and objectives of Chapter 205.

And one of the main purposes of that is to basically protect agricultural lands. So do you think that this measure, as it's proposed, conflicts with Chapter 205 in... I mean, I think it conflicts in numerous ways, but I think that's one of the most obvious.

I would agree with that statement, yes.

Okay. And then would you... There was testimony submitted by another testifier saying that the Land Use Commission does complete its review usually within 45 days. I think there's misplaced blame a lot of the time on the Land Use Commission when the holdup is somewhere else. So can you confirm that, you know, the expedience at which you're able to complete the reviews?

On a project that falls under Chapter 201H, the Land Use Commission must render a decision within 45 days after receiving the petition from, usually from the county because they're the ones who process the initial 201H filing. And even if it's not a 201H project, the maximum, not the maximum. The maximum that we can take to review a project is a year.

But in effect, we usually review projects within 30 to 60 days. Or 90 days, I should say. Not 60 days, 90 days. I mean, that's once we get a completed petition, we notice the hearing or notice the project's filing. That has to be up for 30 days. And then usually right after that, we schedule a hearing.

Okay. Thank you. That's all for now. Maybe OPSD.

In your initial testimony you answered a lot of my questions, but I just wanted to expand on this Bill says that land use and one of the uses can be for workforce fee simple ownership. I'm just curious how, if that is possible with a special use permit.

Because like you said, the special use permit is attached to the applicant and I think the app, or to the owner, the applicant, the developer. So if after that it's subdivided into a bunch of little lots, I don't know how that transfer of responsibility to comply with the conditions of the special permit.

Special permits are often time bound as well. So it just seems a little complicated that those would be able to go into fee simple lots if the underlying permit is a special use permit and not like a district boundary amendment which is much more clear cut.

And right, that's exactly what our concern is called.

Or condominium or I'm just not sure.

So usually for a special permit the developer comes in and then either the county or the Land use Commission will approve a specific use. Okay. And the use is usually, you know, temporary. It's a landfill, it's a quarry, rock quarry. I am not aware of any special permits that have approved permanent residential housing.

And you know, when the developer sells the individual lots, maybe subdivides or CPRs the individual lots, then there will be a lot of owners who need to be compliant with the special permit but also agree to any future uses. So you need to make sure that you have all the landowner's approval and that could be troublesome.

Well, if the individual owners then want to do another type of use, they would still have to like analyze that use based on agriculture. Like the agricultural district, right? Because it's still agricultural district is just special use.

Exactly. So. So things like ADUs are not allowed in the Ag District.

Things like fire stations, parks potentially if it's not approved by the special permit, anything that would help build a community would not be allowed without special approval either from the county or the land use Commission, which could be costly and you would need basically all the landowners to agree. Essentially, yeah.

Okay, thank you. Maybe for. I just have a question for Department of Ag and then Sierra Club. Department of Ag. Oh, I was hoping I would get you. Okay.

I'm just curious about if you are able to share if you're aware of what if there is potential impact to existing farmers that may be located on or food producers or agricultural producers that may be located on properties that would qualify for this type of permit?

Earl Yamamoto, Planner, Department of Agriculture. Without having the maps for this island, without having the maps for the land use. That land use map, I guess that are contained in the sustainable communities plans. Can't really tell.

But I'm kind of familiar with the more rural sustainable communities plan maps and further expansion of the urban areas. Not that much. Going up central Oahu along Kunia Road and Kamehameha Highway. Not that much again, maybe around the periphery of Wahiawa with more Mililani and Waiawa. That's about it. In terms of current agricultural use.

Well, those areas already urban. The area north of Royal Cunea, phase two, I believe, where the proposed golf course was, and there seems to be some. Our proposed agricultural park is located. There is some potential for urban expansion over there, light industrial, but most of the. Most of the expansion lands are pretty much taken up.

Yeah.

Do you have any insight on the neighbor islands?

Neighbor islands? No.

Okay. I would also like to see the maps, or see maps because I think that would allow for more meaningful engagement from, you know, the community and our agencies as well. So. But thank you.

You're welcome.

Sierra Club. Hi. I have, I think of two questions so far. The first is based on your testimony, you kind of talked on the concern about traditional customary practices.

Can you talk a little bit about how you would or clarify or expand on how you see that traditional customary practices and practitioners may be impacted by, I would say, due process issues?

Absolutely. So on less than fully developed lands, as a Committee may be aware, Native Hawaiian culture practitioners have the rights to engage in traditional customer practices. And so when you propose to change land uses, that could impact those rates. And often.

And what usually happens when you have these larger land use district changes like from ag or rural to urban, the Land Use Commission engages in a quasi judicial process or a contested case process where they take evidence in the record. You can take testimony from practitioners, from experts and cross-examine the evidence.

And what shakes out is explicit findings of fact, explicit conclusions of law and conditions that the Commission is actually constitutionally obligated to impose to mitigate impacts to those practices.

Our concern is that without this kind of objective, transparent accounting for the evidence and for what's presented, practitioners won't have what could be their only opportunity to assert their practices, assert their rights and have them meaningfully and explicitly considered.

Oftentimes the counties use what's called a quasi legislative practice where kind of like here people just testify and then they make a decision and we don't have a good picture of why they made the decision or if they took some decent account, including rights and so that's our.

That's really what we're concerned about when, you know, when we're considering allowing these really big lines changes. Without the mindfulness and the accounting and the transparency of a contested case hearing.

Okay, thank you. Okay, That's. I think that's all for now.

Thank you. Vice Chair. Other questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair. I have a question for Department of Ag, please. The question is regarding language in the Bill that says, it states that the soils classified have a productivity rating class C, D, E or U. Could you kind of explain what that is?

Earl Yamamoto Department of Agriculture. That refers to the detailed land classification by the Land Study Bureau for this island. Completed study was done, 50 years ago it was completed. The alpha, the C, D and E refer to the g1eneral productivity potential of the lands that are so rated. C being better than the subsequent D and E.

That's basically it, it gives the person using the thing, whether it be an engineer, a planner, decision makers, people wishing to locate uses of any type on the lands that are rated. That document provides the soil characteristics surface as well as subsurface characteristics that give a general picture of the utility of the land for multiple uses, including agriculture.

Right. I kind of gather that. So are those ratings indicating that the soil is not too good for agricultural food production?

People like to think that. Historically, the Land Study Bureau reflected the uses at the time. It was a snapshot in time taken back in the late 50s to early 60s of the uses that were present when the study was completed, was undertaken and completed.

If you look at the original documentation for the Land Study Bureau, which are in books using aerial photos, you see that the A and B usually are the irrigated lands here on this island. And those lands were occupied primarily by sugar. The unirrigated but still highly rated productivity potential, potential are the pineapple lands that were.

They're considered B. Use the diversified ag. They can use anything. But the poorer rated soils require more inputs in order to achieve economic return that can pay, pay the lease, rent or the mortgage on the land. So it gives a general idea of the productivity potential. There's. What do you call that?

Crop yields and all that kind of stuff. That's also part of the Land Study Bureau study that gives the reader an idea of how many pounds of whatever they're looking at can be produced on any given piece of land that has a particular overall productivity rating and land type.

Okay. Thank you for the explanation. Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Other questions, Members, other questions? No, thank you very much. Appreciate all the testifiers. Let's Move on to the next measure. House Bill 1325, House Draft 2 relating to housing.

This measure requires developers developing an affordable housing project under HHFDC, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to assist certain tenants who are subject to displacement or eviction by the proposed project by granting those tenants the right of first refusal of a comparable unit in the housing project at an affordable rate or establishing a Fund to provide relocation benefits and offer assistance.

Also providing information either directly or through a contracted service on how to obtain assistance and exercise the right of first refusal and establishing procedures to track and maintain communication with those tenants. It also establishes consequences for developers non compliance. First up, we have Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Mr. Minakami.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members, we are in support of this measure, but most of our projects do not involve displacement of residents. For those that do displace residents, they typically require preparation of a relocation plan because they're used accessing federal funds.

But even for projects that aren't accessing federal funds, we would support this measure because it's established as a minimum baseline that must be complied with for all developers.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony on zoom from Nadine Ortega. Not present in support. Next we have written testimony and support from the Democratic Party of Hawaii, Jun Shin. Next we have testimony and support from the Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. Susan Le Please proceed.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Susan Le With Hawaii Appleseed standing in strong support of HBA 1325. We stand on our written testimony, but I just wanted to highlight a few things from our testimony. This bill really addresses a couple of key issues. One is that we need redevelopment.

It increases the supply of our affordable housing stock and it also makes sure that we're renovating and redeveloping older units in Hawaii, which we have a long history of being older than the national average and as well as being non compliant in maintenance and so that they don't necessari function with their needs, their intended needs anymore.

However, the unintended consequence of redevelopment is disastrous, right? It can lead into displacement of tenants and that results in a number of issues which includes adverse impacts to health, education, financial insecurity, just a host of things. So balancing these two things out is a major issue. And this is what this bill addresses.

It requires the first right of refusal for a comparable unit and it also offers three months of or in place of that offers three months of relocation assistance. And this addresses the destabilizing nature of the redevelopment for tenants, but it also really helps with future potential Redevelopments.

One of the things that we see really often is a a deterrence of knowing that something like this could happen and occurring.

Chair, Talofa Rananim. My name is Deja Ostrowski. I'm an attorney with the Medical Legal Partnership and we provide free comprehensive direct legal services to patients at Kokukalihi Valley and Kapiolani Medical Center. So I have over 15 years experience working in providing legal advice and assistance to tenants. We actually have a bunch of them here.

So I'm going to try to be brief on my testimony. I did submit testimony and support but I wanted to notice that the importance of this Bill is not right to return and or relocation, but both. As you know, most of these affordable housing projects layer on financing as well as what we've heard this entire hearing.

Streamlining, offering developers waivers of our legal processes. All of these things are ones that should protect tenants in our community and offer them the housing that we say we are offering.

We are not asking for comparable Value Capture or things that our private developers should provide to our community when they get breaks from all of these things or when they layer financing upon financing. I know HHFTC testified about most projects that they do have federal funds.

I know there could still be some things in this bill that are better and I'm worried I'm overlooking them. Like I just overlooked the and instead of or for the relocation and right to return. And I think if we want to house local residents, we have to do this right.

You're going to hear from a lot of tenants about how there is a relocation plan, there is federal assistance, there is things that are supposed to happen. But we do not have the accountability measures. We do not have folks stepping up to the plate to say these people are being displaced from the community.

They must be offered the right to return and relocation assistance not just for this project, but any project that's getting 201H assistance, which is basically, you know, a waiver of every single legal process that we have is allowed under 201H as long as you provide half to affordable to 140AMI folks. That's a single person making $130,000.

So I think we need to ask for more from our developers value captures that they take care of folks in our community. The and Right of Return and Relocation Systems was modeled after Georgia. I actually had a developer from Georgia approach me after the hearing and say this is what we do in Georgia.

We ask of every developer. They already asked for more than what this bill has. So I would ask you to please look into it. Maybe we can even do more. We're just advocates saying we're seeing problems in the community. We want you as policymakers to make some law changes so we don't see those happen again. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Ostrowski. The next person that said they wish to testify is Dina Scheck on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon Representative Tarnas and Committee Members. My name is Dina Scheck and I first want to thank the Committee for Hearing House Bill 1325 HD 2. I submitted written testimony and strong support, but I just wanted to point out, as my colleague Deja just said, this bill is really about accountability and enforcement.

You need only scroll through the testimony for this bill to hear directly from people impacted by the devastating Maui wildfires and to hear specific examples from residents impacted by KPT low rise redevelopment. That's Kuhio Park Terrace low rise redevelopment going on right now.

I have personally accompanied a family to view a supposed comparable unit that was boarded up and completely uninhabitable. Families caring for disabled.

I've talked to several families who are caring for disabled elders who have been sent to inaccessible walk ups repeatedly as their only choices and and families with children with serious disabilities who are being offered units far outside of their home, school districts and far away from their medical homes.

There's also no meaningful right to return process other than an online Google form that has told them to stay in touch. And this is happening even though all of this is already required by law and by contract. These relocation and right to return requirements. But who enforces when things go wrong?

So the KPT residents themselves have been organizing, they've been submitting their demands and their invitations to talk to hpha, to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority, to the developers, to legislators and to the Governor, but to no avail.

So I urge you to please listen to them, meet with them, hear their stories and hear them when they say we need accountability and enforcement so that they are not permanently displaced and that their vibrant community is not permanently destroyed. That is what this bill seeks to do.

Add accountability and codify what the tenants have been asking for all along. A clear right to return. A clear process for that right. Clear communication and accountability so that they can be treated with respect. Respect throughout the relocation and the rate to return process. So let's listen to the residents impacted by redevelopment.

I urge you to pass House Bill 1325 and end the displacement of local families in Hawaii. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Scheck. We've had a total of 53 testifiers in support, none in opposition. It sounded like there are other people here who wish to testify. Could you just raise your hand so I know how many I have? 1234. Raise your hand high, please. 123456.

Okay, so I'd like to hear from the six of you one at a time. Come on up and introduce yourself. Because it wasn't indicated that you wanted to provide oral testimony, so we weren't prepared. But we want to accommodate you.

So how about we start with you since you've got the little one here and she can come up with you. That way she gets used to being in front of everybody and testifying. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Donalyn Willetts. I'm a resident of Kuhio Homes and I brought in my three girls with me. So KPT Is my home. I want to stay and make it better. The Housing Authority and Michael say they did one on one surveys with residents to understand their needs. But I was there.

They were only going door to door requesting us to sign a paper. When I explained that I was not the head of household and that the head of household wasn't home, they said anyone could sign the paper. We need to be a little bit more honest about what's been laid out and what's been actually occurring.

Families of five to six are being split apart into two separate units. Grandparents who cannot depend on themselves are forced to live in a one bedroom unit on their own.

Downsizing tenants into a smaller unit goes against the Fair Housing Act, specifically against familial status, along with Chapter 5 to 1 of Hawaii Revised Statutes where nuances permits promoting clarity and comprehension. Today, some of our tenants are facing verbal eviction notices from Hawaii Affordable property managers without an explanation on what they did wrong.

When tenants pay their rent on time and the only option they're offering is to take the broken down units or move out of Kalihi. This is not safe, reasonable or accommodating. This isn't what we signed up for. It's draining, rising anxiety and deteriorating our physical and mental health and well being.

We, the public housing tenants, are the epitome of Kalihi which businesses, organizations and schools thrive. I urge you to please support this bill. And I wanted to close with my daughter, but she's kind of nervous, so I'll close for her. In closing, she would like to add, KPT is the melting pot for all cultural backgrounds.

Not only have we learned to live with each other, but we also learned to respect and love each other as a community, no matter what background. Because right now we are looking at Hawaiian someone, mostly Micronesians, but we do, like, try so hard to come together.

And taking us away from Kalihi not only strips us from our hometown, it will also impact their future significantly. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify in support of HB 1325.

Thank you very much. You're a good role model. Those who want to sign up to testify, we've got a sign up sheet that is going around that if you would sign up because we want to make sure we have your name and contact information. Okay. The next person, this person over here. Do you want to testify?

Come on up, sister. And if you could please introduce yourself and proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Representative. My name is Linda. I'm part of the community in KPT. But I'm gonna. Can I just sing my song? But I'll move on aside. Is it okay if I sing a song? I wrote a song about what's happening in our community.

Okay. It's just. You got a short time, but go for it.

Okay.

You can stop me if it.

Okay, go ahead.

There's no place to go so amazing. Can we stay? We are family we are family Watch our children grow and our elders too Redevelopment. Would you take a look at all the faces that are surrounding you with development? Would you take a look at all the faces that are surrounding you? Because we. Are KPT family.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Next person that I have on the list here is Jesse Lippman. You've got a great voice. Not me, her. Ma' am. You got a great voice.

Yeah, it's from KPT, Colleen.

Right on. Yeah. Right on. That's great. Please proceed, Mr. Lippman.

Aloha. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee Members. I'm not gonna read my whole testimony. We have a lot of folks here, 53 to 0. So I think you know where the community comes from, so.

And you got tough competition coming after that.

From my heart, just want to say that this is the first phase of three plan for KPT. It's $224 million of taxpayer money that's being put into this. And it's part of a series plan for Halawa Mayor rights other places.

So just want to say, as you can hear from the community, it's really important that we get this right because we're setting a standard for how we're redeveloping our public housing.

I know the Director talked about concentrated poverty studies there's also many studies that show when you take a low income community and turn it into a mixed income community, the result is most of the original low income population gets forced out. And that's what we're fearful of in the community.

And the community is trying really hard to work with folks in policy making positions in government and the developer. And that you just use your leadership to help us with this process as we move forward along with supporting this bill. It's a good start.

Mahalo. Thank you very much. Next we have June.

I was trying to go last.

Zero, sorry.

Aloha, your honor and everybody. Wait, Chairman. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Too much TV. That's why I. But aloha. My name is June, also known as Auntie June from the village of Kaliher. You know, I'm not here to bash anybody. I love Hakeem. He's like my calabash nephew.

And I thank him for knowing that we got to do what we got to do and he got to do what he got to do. You know, in the year of 2020, the whole world was pretty much shut down.

And I don't know if we can say it was like under martial law when no one could do anything or make a move. And even if you had a laptop, but if you had kids at home, you couldn't get on it because they had to use it for school.

So the thing what I'm trying to say is I'm not against redevelopment, but I truly pray and hope that there could be a better way on going about doing it, letting our people, because the world was shut down in 2020, have more of a voice to say stuff.

Like I said, I live in Kalihora, but I go to church way out in Waianae, like in the days of Moses.

And on my way back to Kalihi, when I look at the beach, you have to admire it from afar because all you see is blue tarps, green tarps, red tarps, all the different homeless tarps along the beach which used to have nothing.

And if we don't straighten out how these developers, because our island needs help, financially speaking, but if we don't do it the right way, there's going to be more homeless along the beach way.

So I'm just praying and saying that I'm not against redevelopment, but I truly pray and hope that you, as the stewards of our land and as parents in a sense over us who may be older than you or maybe same age, think about us. Yeah, we are your island people. Island people, island hearts.

And sometimes I feel like crying.

Auntie June, thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Yep, appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much Auntie June for being a leader in your community in Kali Her. Okay, next we have Rona.

Good afternoon Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Rona Mangayam. I'm the Youth Services Director of Kukua Kalihi Valley where we provide safe space spaces for children and youth not only to strive but thrive.

Back in 2022 when the plan for KPT low rise development was presented, we brought some of our youth to look on that plan. And one of them, while we're walking to that place asked Auntie Rona if we are to move out from Kalihi, you're still welcome us into our programs.

A question that keeps ringing to me this afternoon I would like to share to you voices from our youth who are in our programs and directly affected by this KPT Low rise development because they live on that. One said, one thing I know it will affect our accessibility, school to work and other resources.

Our current location is in walking distance to my school, my dad's work and where my mom got resources. Another said, I have not moved yet. Mom said they would likely move to come for housing or to Halawa but I really don't know.

And he further said my friend already moved out and is not able to participate in activities that he used to do like playing basketball with us at Dole unless someone can drive him there and back.

He said, I hope we don't move too far from Kalihi because I still want to go to the same school and all my friends in and if I cannot go to K vibe one of our program I would be stuck in the house. And the third one said we already moved out from low rise KPT.

I already moved to Halawa. I have to take the bus now to get to school around 5 o' clock in the morning to be on time for school and take the bus back home. I have to say now that I'm from Halawa when boys ask me and and I've lost a sense of my identity.

All of them expressed their worries about what is going on in this redevelopment. They said, I'm worried about my parents struggling to find a place for us. Another one said, I worried about my little brother making friends with wrong people if we move out.

Another one said I'm worrying about some friends having to move somewhere where they won't be welcome or in danger. They gang affiliation and all. And others said, my parents are worried about us having to start all over again.

May I ask you to summarize, please.

Last question that you asked. If you have an opportunity to send a message or ask question to those who have a hand in the redevelopment, what would you ask? And they said, one, are we coming back? Second, when will you guys be done? Third, why are you guys kicking us out?

Are you going to help us find a house? And said, how will you help people that you are kicking out? I believe passing this bill would be a huge step in addressing the needs of the community and making our youth a sense of comfort and stability in their lives. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 1325, House Draft 2? Anybody else? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers Members. Any questions?

Representative Shimizu, please proceed. Thank you. Chair, I guess I would ask Mr. Minakami a question. I totally understand and agree the intent of this bill. And I'm just trying to clarify and understand the provisions of the bill.

There's one portion that states that as far as the right of first refusal, the offer should be the same cost as the existing, I guess, rent subject to inflation. And I was wondering how that mechanism works. And then it continues or relocation benefits equal to three months rent. So are we saying that there is that or.

And I know that person said it should have been an and. But again, the question is the same rent subject to inflation? And I guess I want a clarification on how that looks and how is that calculated?

And then the second part is, for relocation benefits, is it just three months of rent that the developer is supposed to pay?

Yes, I believe the original version of the bill, it wasn't and we requested to be changed to or. Because there are times when a for sale project is proposed that displaces renters. And in that case, of course it's a for sale project, so it's not a rental, so you can't provide comparable rent.

And unfortunately, many times in a for sale project, the previous renter wouldn't be able to afford to purchase a unit in the building. So that's why we thought at a minimum there should be relocation services provided as month as well as rental assistance.

So is there explanation on subject. Subject to inflation as it. As it applies to rent rate?

Well, for rent, we would. The developer would look at what rent was being charged and inflate that using consumer price index or similar inflation index.

Okay. And then again, the OR for relocation would be three months. Is. Is that the scope of the provision?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Other Questions represent Peruso.

Mr. Minakami. So my question is really about. The. Amount of housing, the total amount that is available after redevelopment. So my question is really, is it conceivable that you would be able to accommodate all the folks, let's just say in this particular example within that the new development. Should they should be willing and.

Able to stay or is it such. That the mixture of units, now that we're no longer doing public housing, the. Mixture of units would be such that. It would necessitate a certain proportion leave?

That's a good question. You know, most of the projects that we've been involved with so far have involved going to higher densities, Significantly higher densities. So the new project could accommodate anyone who was displaced.

Basically, if there were a situation where densities were comparable or say that the proposed project was, the rents were significantly higher than what was being available to the prior residents, that that could be an issue.

So we need new legislation to address.

That problem if it were to occur. I'm not, not. Yeah, I, I can't think of any project right now that is planned that will do that.

Okay, thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Representative Belatti.

Question from Serenakami. So we heard in the testimony that some of the concerns are about accountability. And in your testimony you say that HHFTC typically requires developers to provide relocation assistance. So if it's not currently in the law, what contract provisions do you have to hold these developers accountable?

It's typically a HUD requirement that HUD holds the developers accountable and we also hold them accountable. And of course would not release our financing if they were found to be non compliance.

So people who have problems should come complain to you.

They should complain to us as well as HUD.

But you have the ultimate enforcement authorities.

No, we, no we don't. It is HUD.

Okay, but if you become aware that the contracts and the relocation assistance is not being provided or that it's being provided in a subpar manner, what are the mechanisms you have once you have that knowledge?

We would work with HUD to determine the appropriate compliance measures that we should take in conjunction with their actions.

Okay.

Has there ever been any kind of, any kind of that kind of follow up or accountability?

We have been communicating with the developer for the KPT project. So yes, we are aware of the issues and we have been talking to the developer about their messaging and outreach.

Okay, thank you. Thank you Chair.

Certainly represent Peruso. Second.

I have one more question for you, sir. So do you think the enforcement mechanisms included in this measure are adequate.

The relocation assistance? Correct. I think that they are the most that we can expect as a minimum standard for what's being done under a relocation assistance plan triggered by HUD, for example. It goes beyond this, but for a minimum standard, for example, a private developer who is not accessing state or federal funds, I think this is.

The best we can do. I think so. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions, Members?

One follow up, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Minakami, the way I see this bill is it is definitely a good step forward, forward as far as provisions for displaced tenants. I think what has come up in a testimony is seeing real life people that are being affected right now. So I think there's the.

Maybe a gap in this bill addressing future and what happens when the actual renovation is taking place and addressing that gap of people being displaced in the process of the period of the renovation happening. Are there provisions for that? Or is the.

Are you folks or the HUD people looking at addressing these tenants concerns that have been expressed today?

Yes. The relocation plan requires that the tenant be provided a comparable unit for their household. So that is the struggle, I think, between the tenants and the folks helping with the relocation plan is finding that appropriate unit because sometimes it isn't nearby the existing development. It is in a different neighborhood.

So just because of our limited housing stock, that is an issue.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Certainly. Thank you very much. Thank you all the Members for questions and thank you to the testifiers today. Appreciate that. Okay, we're going to move on to the next measure. And just so everyone knows, we will go through all the measures in the hearing agenda and then do decision making at the end.

So that's our plan. Next measure is House Bill 576, House draft one relating to restrictions on the transfer of real Property under Chapter 201h, Hawaii Revised Statutes. This measure exempts transfers of Hawaiian homelands from transfer restrictions for real property under housing development programs of the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. We've got two.

Two who have signed up. Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. If there's anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 576, if you could sign up over here, that would be great. So first up, we have Dean Minakami with the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members, we're in support of this measure. Basically, there are two provisions for our transfer restrictions. There's the buyback program and the short appreciation program. Under the buyback program, HHFDC buys back a unit within 10 years if a buyer wants to sell that unit. The share depreciation program, there is no shelf life to that.

But HHFDC receives a share of the appreciation when the seller sells the unit. We understand that the DHHL has their Department of Hawaiian Homelands has their own provisions to I guess to share appreciation and to find tenants if the tenant sells their unit. So we would defer to their program if they're accessing our program.

Got it. Thank you very much. Next we have Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

Aloha [unintelligible] Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ovao Oriana Leala Hoopulapula Hawaii, also known as the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. DHHL stands on its testimony in support of this measure. As outlined in our testimony, housing on. Hawaiian Homelands and Hawaiian Homelands itself is. Under the is solely governed by the.

Hawaiian Homes Commission act of 1920 as amended. Developers that DHHL contracts with Access 201h programs and this measure makes it clear and clarifies that Hawaiian Homelands is to. Be exempt from those particular provisions outlined. In 201H and available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 576 House Graph 1 seeing none questions Members. Any questions? The testimony was clear, so I think we'll move on. Thanks. Thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 528 House draft 1 relating to residential lease holds.

This measure exempts state and county lands leased after July 12025 for an initial period of no less than 99 years from state law governing residential lease holds. And we have Mr. Dean Minakami, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation Chair Vice Chair Members.

Chapter 528 basically relates to lease to fee conversion. So what this Bill does is if the state were to create a 99 year leasehold condo, it would be exempt from the mandatory lease to fee conversion.

Thank you. Appreciate the explanation. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 5 to 8 House draft 1. If not questions Members. Pretty straightforward. Thanks very much, Mr. Minakami. No questions. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 420 relating to remedies.

This measure clarifies the applicability of the statute of repose for actions arising from construction defects. It specifies that a plaintiff's failure to plead with particularity the claim of fraudulent concealment if the plaintiff raises the defense subjects the plaintiff to Liability for the costs incurred by the defendant, including attorney's fees and costs.

It clarifies the required contents of a notice of claim of construction defect served on a contractor. It also amends the process and time frame for a claimant to accept a contractor's offer to settle or inspect and authorize the contractor to proceed with repairs.

It limits the amount a claimant can recover if the claimant rejects a contractor's reasonable proposal for inspection or a reasonable offer to remedy. And. And it clarifies the consequences of rejecting an offer of settlement. First up, we have Gentry Holmes in support, Quentin Machida.

Hello, chair and Committee Members, Quentin Machida. I'm the President, Gentry Homes. And we stand on our submitted written testimony. We're here in support of HB 420. And I guess with the cost of housing and everybody's aware of trying to make affordable housing, Our company's been building. Homes for working families for 55 years.

We just want to clarify with this Bill our ability to repair the homes before, you know, any getting any lawsuits and that kind of thing. But thank you for allowing me to testify.

Certainly. Always happy to have your testimony. Thank you. Next we have testimony, written testimony, Support from Hawaii LeCet. Next, we have testimony support from the Hawaii regional council of Carpenters. Next, we have written testimony in support from the Honolulu Fire, protection from Bruce Mattson Co. And Hawaii Operating Engineers Industry Stabilization Fund PAC.

Next we have testimony, support from Z Contractors. Next, we have testimony, support from Hawaii Realtors. Lindsey Garcia is here. Thank you for being here. Please proceed.

Aloha, chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Lindsey Garcia from Hawai' I. Realtors largely stand on my testimony. To my understanding, this Bill strengthens an existing statute, the contractor Repair Act.

It does not prevent the ability for lawsuits to occur, but just requests that or requires that if there are issues that the contract repair act is done first. We believe this is very important to ensure that homeowners can seek remedy, you know, from the developers and to engage in this mediation process ahead of time.

Sounds like a very good process in our eyes. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Garcia. Next we have testimony from David Nakamura, Mutual Housing Association of Hawaii, Inc. On zoom. Please proceed, Mr. Nakamura.

Aloha Chairman Tarnas, I want to thank you and the Committee for allowing us to share our testimony on House Bill 420. Let me move. My name is Dave Nakamura and I'm Executive Director for the Mutual Housing Association of Hawaii. Mutual Housing is a local nonprofit that owns, develops and manages affordable rental housing focused on low income families.

Our testimony is in support of House Bill 420 and its efforts to establish clearer guidelines and collaborative solutions when construction defects rise in construction projects. I have over 35 years experience in the development industry and know how reasonable developers and builders know that working to solve problems rather than litigating is always the best pathway for all parties.

We are seeing a rise in frivolous and harmful lawsuits that are hampering the development and delivery of much needed affordable housing as legal costs and other resources or loss. Addressing litigation. Mutual Housing is currently experiencing firsthand how wasteful construction litigation can impact innocent parties.

Our organization developed the Kulea Affordable Rental Community in Ho' opili, the Ho' Opili Master community back in 2020. Kalia has not experienced any serious construction defects. However, attorneys that filed a class action suit against T.R. Horton sent a letter last year trying to draw us into their class action suit.

We explained that we do not qualify to be a Member of their class action as we are not a home buyer and we had not experienced any construction problems in development and specifically we did not experience the construction problems that they were spelling out in their lawsuit.

Regardless of our formal communication from our attorneys that these attorneys refused to acknowledge our correspondence and we've had to file two legal motions to be removed from their class action. We are confounded that we've had to fight for our right not to be part of a class action suit that we don't belong in.

Our nonprofit has incurred unnecessary legal costs to prevent this misrepresentation and manipulation by others. And so we hope that there can be this reform done. Thank you for the opportunity to share our manow and we hope you Support House Bill 420. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Nakamura. The next person that said they wish to Testify is John McKenna on Zoom from Hawaiiana Management Company. Please proceed.

Afternoon Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is John McKenna. I'm the President of Hawaiiana Management Company. We oversee more than 700 associations represented approximately 105,000 homes across six islands. With over 25 years in property management and related fields, I have extensive experience working with condominium boards, Association of Apartment Owners and Developers.

I'm here to testify in support of HP 420. The boards within these communities and associations are composed of volunteer homeowners and they dedicate their time to manage these communities as volunteers. They often possess various levels of experience and awareness regarding complex legal and construction matters as part of their duties.

The combination of volunteer status and diverse expertise makes these boards very susceptible to aggressive tactics employed by some attorneys and that could result in pressuring boards in joining class action construction defect lawsuits, even when the issues could be resolved through less adversarial means.

Engaging in such litigation oftentimes leads to significant financial burdens for associations, significant increase of maintenance fees, special assessments, possibly having to get loans. And further, the lawsuits can create significant strain on community relations as well. It can divide a community. Some may disagree, some may agree on certain approaches.

Reforming the Contractor Repair act is essential to protect volunteer board Members from undue legal pressures. And primarily, such reforms will promote alternative dispute resolution methods, allowing for a more collaborative and less costly solutions and less timely solutions related to construction related issues.

By supporting these reforms, we can safeguard our volunteer board Members, ensure the financial stability of the communities, and foster a more harmonious living environment for our residents. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McKenna. Next we have Operating Engineers Local 3. Welcome. Please, please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Pani Miyatonga iii, Deputy Political Director for Operating Engineers Local sri I believe you have my bosses, our District Representative Anatuya Susopo's written testimony. He wanted me to come down here and testify in person in support of HB420.

This has been an interesting process to see how this Bill has been developed. We support this process. We understand that there has been talks on both sides to come up with a Bill that would be amenable to everyone.

We appreciate that, as you can hear from the testimony from each side, that there are a bunch of issues that still need to be worked out. But we feel that this Bill needs to continue to move forward so that things can be worked out and come to a good, fair conclusion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your support. Next. Joshua Wish Holomua Collaborative.

Chair Vice Chair Committee Members I am not famous, so yes, I am Joshua Wish. I'll make that clear for Holomua Collaborative, our nonprofit works on trying to help keep local working families in the state by making sure they can afford to stay.

And so the reason that we're involved with supporting this is to try to help mitigate really high housing costs.

The one thing I'll just highlight from the testimony that we submitted in writing that caught our eye is the fact that there were a number of homes in one example that were ready to be built, that were undergoing where the construction had to stop because homes that hadn't even been built yet, to our understanding, were pulled in to litigation.

Homes that were being built according to the building code and had willing buyers. But it had to be stopped because of the pending litigation that you had groups like Fannie Mae that weren't able to provide the type of backing that would allow folks to be able to afford the mortgages that they needed.

And they were only allowed to start building again when they took steps that weren't strictly necessary to restart the construction. So hopefully this Bill could help alleviate those types of problems and we're happy to support it. Thanks so much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Wish. Next, Perry Arrowsmith Housing Hawaii's future in support, not present. Next. Tracy Tanaki, Dr. Horton Hawaii.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you very much for allowing me to testify today. My name is Tracy Tanaki. I'm President of Dr. Horton Hawaii. We've been building homes in Hawaii for over 50 years. We build quality homes. While we don't build perfect homes.

We absolutely want to have the ability to stand behind our product and fix the legitimate repairs that are needed in our homes. The contract, we're not being able to do that right now because the Contractor Repair act is not allowing us litigate. Rising litigation and broader litigation has precluded us from even speaking to our homeowners.

It has precluded our homeowners from getting the actual repairs of legitimate defects that they need to get done. It in fact stopped us when we were actually making some of these repairs. It is also encumbered homes and condos, as Mr. Wish had pointed out, that don't have defects.

And these are including homes that have been completed, homes that have been were actively in construction and homes that we hadn't even started building yet. We had our permit approval ready over 800 units out at Haupili that we weren't able to start.

And because the CRA process is not working, not being followed, litigation has now eliminated our first time home buyers ability to get a government back loan. The Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA and VA loans that all of our Hawaii families need to enter into homeownership.

So the CRA is not working for homeowners, is not working for home buyers, it's not working for builders, and it's definitely not working to solve our housing crisis. In fact, it's doing the opposite. It's increasing costs, it's delaying repairs it's restricting mortgages, it's stopping construction, it's increasing insurance.

So we ask that you support reform to the Contractor Repair Act. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Tanaki. Next person that said they wish to testify is Sherry Menor, the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii in support. Next person who wants to testify is Graham Lipsmith on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Graham Lipsmith. I'm one of the class action lawyers about whom I think a lot of people are talking about here. And I do want to try to clarify some aspects of the presumptions underlying this Bill that I don't think are exactly accurate.

First, I do think that courts are adequately and properly managing the class actions under the current version of HRS672 and HRCP Rule 23. They're harmonizing the two statutes together. And typically what we're seeing is that representative sampling in the class actions, which I do urge the Committee to consider. If there are modifications.

I do appreciate that there have been some modifications that have been discussed. But I think representative sampling in the class actions instead of the ability to inspect every single property in a class action is a very important thing to consider.

Representative sampling is efficient, precise, and it's far less costly than inspecting every single home in a class action that might entail hundreds, if not thousands of homes. We submitted a few examples of two cases where builders asked to inspect every single home and it wound up protracting the cases for years.

And they kept seeing the same defects over and over again. And neither of those cases has come forward into mediation or resolution or settlement. It's just been a long drug out process. One of those cases is about claims that have been pending for 10 years now in Hawaii.

The other one, by the time it gets a trial, will have been pending for about five years. This creates more litigation, not less litigation, to allow sampling and testing on every single home in a class.

Another issue that we think is not entirely accurate underlying the Bill is that builders are presently somehow denied the opportunity to repair or engage in early resolution. The current version of 672 gives the builders the unilateral right to demand mediation. It gives them the unilateral right to offer to repair.

It gives them the unilateral right to offer to pay money for repairs.

Typically, in our experience, and also as the plaintiffs in the case representing homeowners, we always welcome the opportunity to have repairs accomplished, to have money paid to the homeowners to compensate them for their issues, because fundamentally we're out there looking out for the homeowners to make sure they're properties are fixed. Builders do not typically.

May I ask you to summarize, please, sir?

Yes. Builders do not typically offer to repair homes or engage in early resolution of the claims in our cases.

And also the last presumption that I think is difficult to understand here is that we're going to be leaving homeowners who are not going to be able to care for their dangerous, costly defects in their homes at the end of the day. And I think that's the large danger here.

We're going to be pushing off major problems down the road. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lipsmith. Next we have testimony from the Hawaii Construction Alliance, Malama Min.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnes and Vice Chair Poipo. Members of the Committee, my name is Malama Min. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Construction Alliance.

The alliance is comprised of the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters, the Laborers International Union of North America, the Operative Plasters and Cement Masons Union, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers, and the Operating Engineers. Together, the Member unions of the Hawaii Construction alliance represent over 15,000 working men and women in Hawaii's construction industry.

We strongly support the passage of HB420 to address the escalating costs of developing desperately needed new housing in Hawaii. And we understand that they're looking out for the homeowners. We're looking out for homeowners, too. We want everyone to become a homeowner.

And this is just one of the solutions being presented in this year's legislative session to address the high cost of housing. All of this litigation does directly impact the cost of housing and the developer's ability to build affordable housing.

And we would like to take this process out of litigation so that those monies can go towards actually repairing the homes as opposed to paying attorneys. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Ms. Min. Next. Chris Hikita, Gasden Turner Thompson Booth. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Chris Hiquita. I'm a partner at Kazdan, Turner, Thompson Booth. We represent homeowners and associations and construction defect matters. You know, the main goals of bringing these construction defect claims.

Claims are to make sure that we can be able to fix houses and make sure that the houses here in Hawaii are safe. This Bill does not do anything to achieve the goals of creating more affordable housing.

Instead, it makes homeownership more unaffordable by making it difficult or impossible for homeowners to cover for construction defects, ultimately shifting the cost of repairing those defects to the consumer.

This Bill does this by preventing homeowners from pursuing their legitimate construction defect claims, such as, you know, by creating an impressive two year statute of limitations for all construction defect claims, preventing homeowners for recovering from building code violations that may protect residents from life and safety.

And it also guts the class action process, which is a key consumer protection vehicle in Hawaii. You know, without the consumer, without the class action process, many home, many homeowners who aren't aware that there are, you know, potential life, safety defects in their homes would not be able to recover and make and have those, those homes fixed.

Additionally. Additionally, what this does is it forces homeowners to inadequate to accept inadequate offers by limiting recovery to the value of the contractor's offer of repair. This off ignores many components of the the damages by that are caused by construction defects, such as damages to other components of the building.

For example, when there's a defect in the plumbing system, oftentimes what happens is that leads to multiple leaks, water damage, and that's outside of the actual scope of repair. So a contractor would likely only make an offer to repair the plumbing system itself.

So in the end, even if a jury were to find that the homeowner were entitled to $100,000 damages based on all the facts, this Bill would limit those damages to whatever was offered, maybe a $10,000 repair to do for the plumbing system. This doesn't make any sense at all.

This Bill would ultimately weaponize the Contractor Repair act for contractors and limit homeowners ability to recover for construction defects, ultimately making homeownership more costly for people in Hawaii. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hikita. Next testimony from Roseanne Freitas, BIA, Hawaii on Zoom. Not present. Next person said they wish to testify is Samuel Wilder King on Zoom. Not present. In support. Next person, Patricia Van Curren on Zoom. In support not present. Next person, Alan Taketa on Zoom. In support. Not present. Next person is Dallas Walker on Zoom.

In opposition, not present. Just so everyone knows, we received 182 testimonies in support and four in opposition. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify In House Bill 420, House draft two. Here from Zoom.

Mr. Moussakian, please proceed. Just a comment. Thank you so much. Greg Misakyan here. And after listening to this and wishing that I had gone through this Bill in detail and reviewed it so that I would understand it better, I do feel I understand enough to make a comment.

And I do live in a condominium Association where we have, you know, work that's done. But it's been an established Association for many years. So what I would ask to look at is the Contractors Licensing Board as a possible place for adjudication of these issues in some format because the contractors are the ones doing the work.

There's a developer and then the developer brings in the contractors and we hope they're licensed. If they're licensed or unlicensed, they would still fall under the perusal, I believe, of the Contractors Licensing Board and via the dcca.

And I would just think that there should be some kind of an office there, Resolution Office, to address properly if you were looking for a Bill to address this.

And maybe that's part of this, and I don't know, but I'm just offering that because it seems to me that this should be a much simpler process to resolve complaints where there's defects and clear examples of workmanship issues. And also DPP should be part of that, the Department of Planning and Permitting.

So with that, I will let you get back to it. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you consider that testimony in support or in opposition or providing comments?

Comments only. I don't know enough about the Bill to go either way. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony on House Bill 420, House Draft 2? If not. Questions, Members?

Representative Bellotti, Can I have the representative from Lip Smith, Mr.

Lipsmith, on Zoom? Yes. Hello. Thank you.

Just as an initial matter, as drafted, does this Bill effectively stop your litigation and then inappropriately going to stop your litigation?

I think for the class action cases, allowing a builder to inspect every single home in a class action will have the effect of stopping litigation for a period of years while they go through the process of doing that inspection. That's what's happened to us in two of our cases where builders have taken.

Those positions so appropriately, from a legislative perspective, we really should only apply this prospectively if we do it at all.

Absolutely. I think you will create very large problems in other cases that are pending under the prior regimes of 672 if there is modification to it.

Okay. And then I'm very interested in your testimony because you're litigating on behalf of what looks like 2,700 homes in one case, 4,800 homes in another case, 2,000, and other claims. I mean, what is your class action? What are the numbers of homes that are involved?

So those numbers are accurate. And the focus on these class action cases is typically a single building product or a combination of building products. So they're manufactured products that are used over and over and over again in hundreds or thousands of homes.

And in Hawaii, for example, the large products that we've had issues with are the foundation components that are rusting because they're not adequate for the corrosive and humid environment. There's one product in particular that the manufacturer has issued a warning letter on. And that product was used for probably 20 years in Hawaii.

It's now, under the current codes, not allowed to be used at all. And so these are the kinds of issues that are very problematic. They come up and then you won't see them for many years because they take time to corrode in place. But then once that happens, it becomes a very dramatic effect.

Where the homes reach a tipping point. And there are many homes still that are out there with these corroding components that have not been repaired or had any claims that have been resolved on them. But in our view of our experts, pose a danger to the occupants who are in them.

Okay, thank you. That provides a little bit more context because while there's overwhelming support for this Bill, there clearly is a group of citizens and residents who are very concerned about the state safety of their homes.

Okay. Yes. And that includes, that includes us. And that's why our biggest objective is to get homes repaired. And we've had a lot of success doing that using the class action mechanism.

We've had about more than 4,000 homes repaired in Hawaii with these very critical life safety defects that individual homeowners don't have enough money to repair on their own.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Representative. I have a question about mortgages, but I don't know if there's anyone in the room who can speak to it. There was testifiers here about. There was a testifier here from First Hawaiian Bank. Is there anyone in the audience that can speak to the availability of mortgages?

I don't think we had a testifier that had that expertise.

Maybe Dr. Horton. So I'm also very sympathetic because I don't think litigation should halt completely construction. And it sounds like from the testimony that some of that might be going on, but maybe not.

And I, and I guess can you explain what is it about the mortgage process that is delaying all this while there's active litigation, which I don't necessarily see why there is that connection. Explain that.

Yes, thank you for the question. So specific to condominiums for sale condominiums and mortgages on for sale condominiums, we need to, as a builder, we need to make a representation or get a certification or approval from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the other agencies that our condominium meets their requirements.

One of the questions asks us if there's any pending litigation. And when we are under litigation, and that litigation claim is broad, meaning the use of galvanized metal structural components. We have to check that box. Yes. And we haven't even started building the condominium yet. So we had a condominium where we actually got started building.

We started selling. We were able to provide FHA backed and Fannie Mae backed and VA loans. And then litigation stopped that. We had to report to the government agencies that it now has pending litigation and they rescinded their approval to lend on the project.

So those that condominium was sold without the Low down payment government backed programs that our first time home buyers need. It was a condominium that was one block away from our rail station. One23 bedroom condos that were meant for first time buyers.

The only buyers that can qualify there, they have to qualify for a portfolio loan which is 20% down payment. And we also through that process, I will hopefully someone from a financial institution is here.

But we experienced that the banks and credit unions who are willing to lend on a project that is encumbered by active litigation and who are willing to provide portfolio lending, they constrict or restrict the number of loans that they'll provide on the project just to minimize their risk.

They also increase portfolio, potentially add interest, percentage of interest rates, adders to the mortgages to cover the litigation risk. So does that answer your question?

It does. Does this, is this affecting single family homes in, in the same way or developments with larger single family homes? Because I don't think it should.

No. The FHA, the government backed financing limitation is specific to condominiums.

Are you still seeing that people are buying those condominiums? Just not the first time home buyers though?

Okay.

Yes.

So the market's still hot?

No, the market there is the buyer demographic and the buyer base of that we were targeting which is the first time home buyers that can get the government back loan completely shrunk.

Prior to that, doing a historical sampling of lending in the past 10 years at Ho' Opili, over 80% of our buyers required a, a, a low down payment or sub 20% down payment in condominiums to qualify. So it completely eviscerated a large demographic of buyers. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. I know this measure is a real challenging one and there's still conversations going on among the parties and we'll discuss more at decision making. Okay, let's move on to the next measure.

House Bill 1120, House draft one relating to nuisances. This measure clarifies that the Department of Health has the legal authority and obligation to prevent and address nuisances that affect environmental health or public health or both. First up, we have the Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. My name is Matthew Kurano, Department of Health, Environmental Health Services Division. This is a lot easier than everything you've been talking about all day. We submitted written testimony in support.

The bill is really there to recognize and mandate and make sure that we do our job as part of the Department of Health and as a Member of the Invasive Species Council, so that we, in order to have healthy communities, we have to have a healthy environment. So when the environment is threatened and it threatens the health of our community, we act. Available for any questions.

Thank you very much. And next, Mr. Misakyan, on Zoom with comments.

Aloha again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I just have a few comments on this. Bear with me.

So I know I mentioned earlier, and I'll mention it again, that I believe that on a previous testimony that I had given, I believe that this bill should be inclusive or bills like this should be inclusive of all nuisances. So this chapter, this particular chapter that's mentioned is Chapter 322.

And if you go to the Department of Health's website, there's a section regarding noise regulation. So there's Chapter 342 for noise pollution, and there's also a subsection 30.8 regarding weed whackers, leaf blowers and noise regulations for additional restrictions. And then There's a Chapter 46 that's referenced, which is community noise control.

And I haven't delved into that in detail. But what I would ask the Committee to do is take a look at all of these chapters 342, the subsection 30.8, the Chapter 46, and Chapter 322, and see if you can incorporate all into one comprehensive nuisance bill or chapter.

I should say, regarding nuisances, that's something the Department of Health would be probably appreciative to do, to have it all in one place, so it's not confusing to the public.

But when you do read this, one last comment, when you read this, it does say, the Department of Health and its agents shall examine into all nuisances, such as. And then it goes into foul and the other things.

And my very last statement is, could you please ensure that our God, God's creatures that God created, like chickens, I really worry about the euthanization of chickens is something that is not, you know, going to be overlooked. There's a lot of people that.

Could you summarize, please?

I will. There's a lot of people that don't want chickens to be euthanized, and that is part of the abatement process. So that's something that's close to heart. I'm an animal lover and I hope that others are also on the Committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all the testimony we received. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 1120, House draft one? If not questions. Members, thank you. Seeing none. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 36 HD1 related to excited delirium.

This measure prohibits excited delirium from being recognized as a valid medical diagnosis or cause cause of death in the state. It prohibits a medical examiner, coroner or health care provider from stating on a certificate of death or in any report that the cause of death was excited delirium.

It prohibits law enforcement officers from using the term excited delirium to describe an individual in incident report. It establishes a new Hawaii rule of evidence that Deems evidence that a person experienced or suffered an excited delirium inadmissible in a civil action. First up, we have Office of the Public Defender. Mr. Ganaden, welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Senator Ganaden, Deputy Public Defender, nice to see you today. At best, excited delirium described a behavior that police officers might not be able to fully articulate. But at worst, it's a vague description which confuses juries and obscures police pretend. We'd like the Legislature to adopt what is now best practices and delete it.

From the rules of evidence. I think you're going to hear from some experts from California and other places. As to the reasons why it shouldn't happen. In review of some of the other testimony that you're in support. In support.

Chair in review of some of the other testimony, I was did not know about the Hallett case from a decade ago and I was quite surprised to read the transcript from it for those reasons.

We are in support. Thank you very much, Mr. Ganaden. Next we have testimony from the Department of Health with comments, testimony from the judiciary in opposition, testimony from Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Lou Erticek in support. Please proceed.

Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Members. I'm Lou Erticek. Look, I'm a lawyer. I'm not a Doctor, so I'm clearly not the right guy to diagnose anybody's cause of death. But I do know a couple of things.

And one thing I know is that the obvious answer to this kind of a situation is better training of police officers. If somebody's having a mental health episode, the last thing you need is a police officer that's untrained in de-escalation. So you need that and you need crisis officers. So that's going to.

That would help solve the problem. The other thing that I know is, and Julia is here from California and she litigates a lot of these cases. We did get involved in Sheldon's case. Eric Seitz brought A lawsuit for a wrongful death action. And we signed on to an amicus brief.

I do know that there are witnesses that have abused and misused this all over the country, that have gone around the country testifying that, oh, he just died because he freaked out, or he was high on drugs or he had a heart attack instead of like, well, some police officer was sitting on his throat for 20 minutes.

And it has led to some confusion among juries. So when you have someone like Sheldon's family and it's bad enough what happened to him, and you try to get some measure of justice, and instead you run into the situation of excited delirium, and then you don't even get that.

So I think it has no place, just a quick comment on the judiciary testimony, because I.

Total support, yes. And just looking at the judiciary testimony, because when I first read that, I thought, oh, well, you know, they have a lot of concerns.

And you're testifying in support?

But, you know, I studied evidence in law school too, and I think if you leave it as to a case by case determination, you're going to have inconsistent results. So some judge might look at this thing and say, zero, this is baloney. I'm not going to allow it.

Another judge might say, well, maybe, you know, you know, maybe we should. So I don't think inconsistent results is a good idea.

And the other is that even just reading from their own testimony, they're saying if scientific knowledge will help the trier of fact and so forth, this has been debunked by all the people that have studied it. So I'm not even sure it even qualifies as scientific evidence.

And then when they talk about weighing that against the danger of unfair prejudice, I think that's the key. This is really, it really is prejudicial and it confuses juries. So we are in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Erticek. Next we have Kat Brady, Community alliance on Prisons in support. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair poepoe, and Members of the Committee. Kat Brady testifying in strong support of this measure for Community alliance on Prisons. Our hearts really go out to the hallecks because they.

Their son was killed and, and they were reading the paper and they saw California's doing something and that's what spurred them to contact Hawaii Legislature to introduce a bill. You know, this is. The American College of Emergency physicians withdrew a 2009 report that was the last bit of evidence or medical pillar of support for excited delirium.

So it's been debunked this is a law that's following science. And we're happy that the rules of evidence will change, that it'll be in statute in 327C. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms. Brady. Ilima DaCosta in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Elima DaCosta and I am testifying in strong support. You've heard from some of the experts already about the reasons why we need to move this measure forward.

From my perspective, when I understand the facts of the case, and I understand that Sheldon Halleck was suffering from a mental health cris. Mental health crisis. And really his only crime was jaywalking, I think everybody should be able to come home even if they commit the minor misdemeanor of jaywalking.

So the reason why I'm wearing the yellow ribbon today is because Sheldon was also a Native Hawaiian veteran. And I think that we anticipate all of our military Members to serve honorably and come home, which was what Sheldon did. But in this case, he didn't even survive walking across the street because our police are not adequately trained.

So I do support HB 36 and I do support expanded CIT training for all of our law enforcement, not just the 18% or so that are self selecting for the training. So mahalo for your opportunity to testify and for your support.

Thank you, Ms. DaCosta. Next we have Julia Sherwin, Haddad and Sherwin, please proceed.

Mahalo, chair, Vice Chair and Committee. My name is Julia Sherwin and I'm very grateful that you scheduled this hearing today on this vitally important legislation. I have been a civil rights lawyer for 30 years. I first started encountering excited delirium 20 years ago. I co-authored the Physicians for Human Rights comprehensive report on excited delirium.

And in my written testimony I gave you a link to that report. My medical co authors studied all of the medical underpinning for excited delirium and determined as a medical basis, there's no base, as a medical foundation, there is no basis for this theory. It is junk science.

It is rooted in racism and sexism as set forth in the PHR Physicians for Human Rights report. And it has been bankrolled by Taser International. And unfortunately, the Sheldon Hallett case that is referenced by-

Ms. DaCosta and in my written testimony is a prime and really heartbreaking example of the injustice that happens when excited delirium is allowed into court. Sheldon served our country for 12 years valiantly and came home with PTSD. And as a result of as Ms. DaCosta said jaywalking.

He was repeatedly tased, pepper sprayed, forced into a prone position, handcuffed with leg shackles, and had multiple officers putting weight on him, including a knee on his neck. And he died from this incident that began with jaywalking.

I did, in my original letter to you in January, request that you expand CIT training to all officers in the State of Hawaii. I'm happy to discuss that with you more. And I also provided information about the City of Eugene's non Law Enforcement Mobile Crisis Response Team.

I would like to just respond very quickly to the judiciary's objections, which I was only able to review this afternoon right before the hearing. And the objection, as I understand it, is not, is wishing not to have a rule precluding excited delirium from being in court. But Sheldon's case is a prime example of that.

Excited delirium was not on his death certificate or in his autopsy. Excited delirium came up in the trial of his case because the Honolulu Police Department hired three Taser International experts, including Mark Kroll, who was on the board of Taser International for 20 years until he just resigned last year.

Stacy Hale and John Peters, who are referenced in my written testimony, who have long ties to Taser International. John Peters started a company to promote Taser, to promote excited delirium in the medical literature. I've been working for 20 years to debunk this junk science. And I ask that Hawaii join my state, California. This bill is a complete.

It is an excellent rendition of the bill in my state, AB 360. And also Colorado, Minnesota and New York have enacted excited delirium legislation. I'm happy to answer any questions and mahalo for your time.

Thank you very much, Ms. Sherwin. Next we have Wookie Kim, ACLU of Hawaii, in support or his representative.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, My name is Emily Hills. I'm an attorney at the ACLU of Hawaii, and I'm standing in for our legal Director, Wookie Kim. Today, ACLU of Hawaii is in strong support of House Bill 36. Excited delirium is more than just junk science.

Now, don't get me wrong, it is junk science, as you've heard and as our written testimony elaborates on. But it's also an excuse. It's a defense. It's a way for police officers to evade accountability for excessive force. And it's a way for companies like Taser International to put a thumb on the scales of justice.

And when a family has to go up against not just a Police Department, not just a state, but a multi state corporation with over $1.0 billion in annual revenue funding a cottage industry of experts to back their unscientific defense. It's not surprising that justice struggles to win out.

That's what happened to the Halleck family here in Hawaii. And that's why Hawaii needs House Bill 36. Excluding excited delirium testimony from civil cases will level the playing field and increase access to justice. Mahalo for your time and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Verdell Halleck on zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Verdell Halleck and I strongly support HB 36 relating to excited delirium.

I am speaking on behalf of my son, Sheldon Halleck, who was a loving father, husband, son, brother, and a veteran of the Hawaii Air National Guard, who was honorably discharged, suffering from past deployments with PTSD, drugs and other mental health issues.

In March 2015, Sheldon died from an encounter with the Honolulu police in front of Iolani palace for jaywalking. He was unarmed, did not harm anyone, didn't damage any property, but was having a mental health crisis.

He was pepper sprayed 12 times, tased, three times, handcuffed, hogtied, with police officers on his back and one with a knee to his neck where he became unresponsive and died. The next day, the Police Department claimed he died from excited delirium.

We filed a civil lawsuit against the officers involved and the defense expert witness, an ER Doctor, said Sheldon didn't die from pepper spray or tasing or from the excessive force of the police, but he died from excited delirium. The jurors believed it was a real medical diagnosis and found the police officers not responsible for Sheldon's death.

In 2023, the American College of Emergency Physicians disavowed their white paper, which was the backing of for excited delirium as a diagnosis. This injustice is what spurred our request for change with the introduction of HB 36 relating to excited delirium.

California, Colorado, Minnesota have already passed bills to ban it, and Hawaii, we pray that it should ban it as well. Our goal is not only for Sheldon, but for all those who unjustly lost their lives while in police custody. And we hope that no other family will suffer from this tragic situation.

Thank you for your time and I ask for your support for HB 36 relating to excited delirium. And if this bill should get passed, I humbly ask that it could be called Sheldon's Law or Sheldon's act in honor of him, so his death was not in vain. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Halleck. And thank you for your testimony. Your family's gone through a lot of trauma and I appreciate you taking the time to share your testimony with us today. I appreciate your courage and your dedication to your family and to your son who's no longer with us.

Thank you.

Thank you. We've received a total of 29 testimonies in support and one in opposition and one with comments. That's all. That said they wish to testify. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify In House Bill 36, House draft one if not, any questions? Members seeing none. We'll move on to the next measure. Thank you very much.

To the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 277. House draft 1 relating to vehicular pursuit. This measure establishes a vehicular pursuit policy for law enforcement agencies. First up, we have Office of Information Practices with comments. Members, I refer you to her written comments. Next, we have comments from the Attorney General. Mr. Tom.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department provides comments for House Bill 277. I would just note that in 2018. The Legislature created the Law Enforcement Standards Board. Subsequently, this board, among other things, kind. Of provides program standards training for law enforcement agencies.

In 2020, their powers and duties. That's in. Chapter 139 was expanded by adding subsection. 12, which essentially covers reviewing, recommending statewide policies and procedures for law enforcement based. On their powers and duties. That's already established in the hrs. The Department would just suggest to the Committee to allow the Law Enforcement Standard.

Board to take up this issue, work. Collaboratively and create a comprehensive policy for law enforcement agencies. We'll be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Tom. We received written testimony and opposition from the Department of Law Enforcement. Next we have testimony with comments from the Law Enforcement Standards Board.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Adrian Dakwa from the Law Enforcement Standards Board. I would echo on my colleague from the Attorney General's Office said the standards board's responsibilities subsection 139.3, subsection 12 includes reviewing and recommending statewide law enforcement policies. A vehicular pursuit policy seems to fall squarely within those parameters.

We would ask that you give the board a chance to take up the issue before moving this Bill. We would ask to the Committee to either hold or defer the Bill. We'd be here for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Daqua. Next we have testimony and opposition from the Honolulu Police Department. Next, we have testimony and support from ACLU of Hawaii.

Nathan Lee Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Nathan Lee, ACLU of Hawaii in support of this Bill, we want to note that the current lack of standardized pursuit practices across law enforcement agencies in Hawaii creates unnecessary risk and potential for abuse of police discretion.

Implementing basic requirements for pursuits as written in the Bill and not only for authorizing them, but for documenting these pursuits afterwards are common sense measures that other cities have promoted and adopted that protect citizens against excessive use of force. Just two things to highlight from our written testimony.

First, guidance issued by the Department of Justice and the Police Executive Research Forum found that the high speed chase is not, and I'm quoting here, is not or nor should it be a routine part of law enforcement work.

The safety of fleeing suspects, their passengers, pursuing officers and uninvolved bystanders are too important to risk on a regular basis. Second, we want to note that most of the time, in fact, a strong majority police pursuits begin with minor violations rather than with violent crimes.

And so we just want to note that these reporting requirements create much needed transparency and allow for meaningful public oversight. We also want to note that the inclusion of clear limitations on firing weapons at moving vehicles will keep the public safer and provide a check on a shoot first, ask questions later mindset that harm uninvolved third parties.

And so we ask that you support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from Josh Parker, the Policing Project, New York University School of law. Please proceed, Mr. Parker.

Thank you. Aloha Chair Tarnas and Committee Members. I'm ParkJosh er, Deputy Director of Policy at the Policing project. We support HB277 because ample national and Hawaii data cited in our written testimony shows far too often pursuits seriously injure or kill officers and community Members.

And most of the time, drivers are chased for low level crimes and traffic infractions like playing loud music. Because of the danger of pursuit, states and departments across the country have enacted laws and policies only permitting them for violent crimes and sometimes reckless or impaired driving.

A working group of police chiefs and lieutenants recommended just this in the DOJ perf report that Nathan just referred to on pursuits. And just last month, the largest municipal police union in the entire country successfully urged the NYPD to adopt such a restrictive policy. Most testimony in opposition.

Everything we've heard today agrees that statewide standards are appropriate, but asserts that reform should be done exclusively by the Law Enforcement Standards Board lesb and not this Legislature.