House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Thursday, March 27, 2025. It's 2:00pm here in Conference Room 325. Thanks to all the testifiers who are here and on Zoom. If you're testifying, please if you could please limit your testimony to two minutes. At that point, I'll ask you to summarize.

For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And after your testimony is complete, turn your video off and mute yourself as well. If you have technical issues on Zoom, you can use the chat function to communicate with our technical staff. They will help you out as best they can.

If you're disconnected on Zoom, don't panic. Just rejoin as soon as you can and I'll try to fit your testimony in at that time. If the power goes off in this room or in the Capitol and we lose our network, we may have to reschedule.

If we do that, then we'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you'll know what we're doing when. If you're testifying on Zoom, please do not use any trademarked or copyrighted images. That kicks us off of YouTube, which is a problem. We want to make sure that the public sees what we're doing here.

And please conduct yourself with aloha and refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. Okay, let's go ahead and get started here. Senate Bill 946 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 2 relating to wastewater management.

This clarifies that the prohibition against discharging wastewater or raw sewage into state waters after 123126 includes treatment planning plants. First up, we have the Department of Health in support, Maui County Council in support, Mayor Bisson from Maui in support. And two testimonies from individuals in support. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on Senate Bill 946?

House Draft 2. Seeing none. Members, we'll go to the next measure since nobody's here to ask questions of. Next measure, Senate Bill 849, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to wildlife conservation. This measure prohibits and imposes penalties for the intentional taking, harming, or killing of the Hawaiian hawk, known as ʻio. It also increases penalties and fees for taking and killing indigenous species of aquatic life, wildlife, and land plants that are native to the state. First up, we have testimony from DLNR.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Kathryn Stanaway, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife. We stand on our written testimony.

So in this committee, I don't want you just to some just to say you stand on their testimony because some people out there in TV land or here didn't get a chance to read your testimony. Could you give us the highlights of your testimony?

We support this bill. We, so the ʻio was delisted by the federal government in 2020, and this bill would provide for the prohibit the intentional taking of ʻio. So the Department supports that. And then it also updates the penalty provisions from I think they were all misdemeanors before. So it's going to be misdemeanor for first offense and then class C felony for the other two offenses and adds rehabilitation community service option in there. And the Department supports that as well.

Right on. Thank you for those highlights. That helps everybody know what we're doing here. Thank you. Next we have testimony from an individual in support. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on Senate Bill 849, House Draft 1? Seeing none. Questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 330, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to invasive species prevention.

This authorizes the Department of Agriculture to enforce federal quarantines. First up, we have the Department of Agriculture with comments. Next we have the Attorney General on Zoom or in person. In person. Welcome. Always good to have you in person. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General Travis Moon with comments. We provided written testimony about a Supremacy Clause issue regarding the interstate commerce. Well, excuse me. The requirement that owners and carriers of regulated articles provide some type of certificate to show the origin of their regulated articles when it's not coming from a federally quarantined area.

We think that it could be violating the Supremacy Clause so preempted by federal regulation. Because there is an exhaustive federal regulation that sets forth the requirements for these for interstate commerce that the state would need to follow.

So you would recommend deleting.

Right. So in our testimony we did make a recommendation to kind of revert back to the bill's previous version with a catch all provision for the federal regulation. Yep. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Representative, Members of the Committee may be watching. My name is Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species Species called CGAPS. We try to see the gaps in Hawaii's biosecurity program. And work with partners to fill them. This bill addresses one of those big gaps.

The USDA issues pest quarantines for species like red and black imported fire ant. And the one that we focused on, citrus greening, that prohibits items that might not be obviously infested with that pest, but because of where they're coming from and the inability to detect it, they say, you just can't move this interstate. That's the federal law.

The State of Hawaii does not have the jurisdiction to enforce that federal court. It's like if the Hawaii Department of Transportation decided the TSA lines at the airport were too long. They can't just go set up a TSA screener, Department of Transportation screener, and start having state officials carry out that TSA law. They don't have jurisdiction.

They would have to get the authority to do it from you. And it would have to comport with the federal law any preemption requirements and constitutional requirements. That little analogy. The same is true for stopping items coming in to prevent the movement of pests.

Let's see.

And as we note in our testimony, Hawaii citrus growers are in a race against time to prevent citrus greening from coming here. In February, the entire State of Mississippi was quarantined for citrus greening. And we do have the insect that vectors it. So if that bacteria gets here, it's going to really impact the citrus industry.

Like you used to see those labels, 100% Florida grown orange juice. You don't see them anymore because the orange industry in Florida is not producing oranges. We, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture suggests that this authority, this jurisdiction could be provided with a cooperative agreement between the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and USDA.

You know, it is a jurisdictional issue. This statute would give them the jurisdiction to make that cooperative agreement and then they could work cooperatively to enforce it. I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Let's go back. Members to the Department of Agriculture, since I just saw it official arrive. So this is on Senate Bill 330, Department of Agriculture, please proceed.

Chair, Vice Chair Jonathan Ho, Plant Quarantine Branch Manager. On behalf of the Department of Agriculture, we stand on our written testimony offering some comments. We don't disagree, I think, with, I think the intent of the bill to ensure that pests don't get introduced into the state. Just.

I think that one comment is, I think, enabling us to take action without cooperative agreement is, I think, really our only concern. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Could you highlight the two deletions that you're recommending in your testimony.

The two deletions.

Excuse me.

Sure. Here. Sorry about that. Basically the, the idea of being able to enact a regulation that's not necessarily tied to the federal one. We can do that already, basically as a result in administrative rulemaking through 4:70. Yeah.

Okay. And then you also had concerns about Section B.

Yeah, yeah. So like I stated, the idea of taking action even without an agreement, that. That's really the concern because normally we would work with usda, not in lieu of them.

Right. So you're saying Section B would conflict with the execution of a future cooperative agreement?

Conceivably depending on, I think, what action we took if it was in inconsistent with the federal. The federal requirements.

Okay, so what your recommendation is to delete Section B.

Yeah, so I think. Yeah, I think keeping the rest of the regulation to enable and clarify, that's fine. I think it's just that one portion about taking action without it. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Thanks for explaining that. Thank you. We've received written testimony and support from Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Farm Bureau and two individuals. And then we also have Greg Masakian on Zoom. No, not present. He testified as well, in support.

Is there anyone else here wishing to testify In Senate Bill 330, House draft one if not questions, Members seeing none. Thank you very much. To the testifiers. We're going to go on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1393. Senate Draft 1, House Draft 2 relating to the use of public lands.

This measure requires the School Facilities Authority to consult with the Department of Education and other impacted departments or agencies before the conveyance of ownership rights or lease of lands to the School Facilities Authority. And it repeals the requirement that the Department of Education transfer title to lands it holds upon request of the School Facilities Authority.

First up, we have the School Facilities Authority.

Thank you, Committee. Ricky Fujitani with the School Facilities Authority. What this Bill seeks to do is just to clarify that you need approval and agreement. Ultimately, the Governor decides, but all of that is all decided before it goes before the Governor.

So you support the legislation? Yes. Thank you very much. Next, the Department of Education.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Member Audrey Hidano, Associate Superintendent for Keith Hayashi. We have our written testimony, which I'll explain. So all we want to do is make sure that there's communication between SFA and the DOE.

We want to make sure everything is safe, it's done in compliant with whatever rules and regulations and followed all what has to be done. And this would be... We would like to be consulted for any proposed conveyance, any proposed ownership rights, or any leasing of land. That's all we want to do, and we'll work with whatever parties.

Okay, so you support the legislation.

With these comments? Yes, to communicate and work together.

Understood. But you don't have any amendments that you're recommending? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1393, House Draft 2? If not questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair, can I ask a question from Department of Education, please? I'm just wondering.

My apologies.

Zero, go ahead. Okay. Where was I? Asking the DOE a question. Right.

You mentioned communication is important, which obviously that is very important. This Bill would affect more than just communication.

I'm wondering, were there any specific examples or incidences that the Department felt maybe SFA did something that you didn't agree with, and that's why you're requiring more stringent processes that would, I guess, give the Department of Education more say in the land issues?

Sir, it's not so much that we disagree. It's just that sometimes things happen and they move forward, and we either find out later or during or after the fact.

So we just want to make it clear that we want to be brought on to the table on the inception of whatever they want to do to our schools, which is on our property.

Last question, Chair. So I guess I'm just looking ahead where there could be disagreement and a stalemate. And I'm just wondering what happens in that situation where SFA is tasked to do something.

They plan, they propose something, they come to you, you may not agree and you try to discuss it, but you may not come to an agreement. What would happen at that point?

I don't know, and I don't have a crystal ball. But so far we've able to work things out and move forward so far.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 321, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to transportation. This measure provides that fee simple absolute title of a privately owned highway, road, alley, street, way, lane, bikeway, bridge, or trail is deemed transferred to adjacent property owners or the community association if certain conditions are met. First up, we have Hawaii Land Title Association with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Mihoko Ito here on behalf of the Hawaii Land Title Association. We did provide some comments regarding this bill. Certainly we're sympathetic to the issue regarding these private roads.

But we do have concerns that this bill as drafted really won't accomplish the intended result. And the reason is this. It's really the operative language in the bill that says property will be deemed transferred. That in and of itself will create uncertainty, particularly in situations where there's multiple parties involved.

So we did propose a solution in our testimony and that is to overlay a court process to clarify the ownership over these private roadways, which then provides, you know, adequate notice to the parties and a way to work out some of the issues that could arise and also would then create a court order that could be recorded to duly vest title over these private roadways. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Members, we've received written testimony from the Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii and Hawaii Financial Services Association and one individual. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 321, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? None. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 66.

Senate Draft 2 House Draft 2 relating to housing.

This measure requires permits to be issued by applicable permitting agencies within 60 days of a complete application being filed for certain single family or multifamily housing projects if certain conditions are satisfied, automatically deems approved a permit that is either not otherwise approved by the applicable permitting agency within 60 days or for which the applicant has agreed to all the changes and and recommendations to the plans and specifications made by the applicable permitting agency.

It pauses the 60 day permit review period under certain circumstances. First up, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, I'm Jessica Puff, the administrator for SHPD. We've submitted comments for this bill and acknowledge the intent of is of note that the State of Hawaii is the only state that has 100% participation in the certified local government program through the National Park Service.

Which means that all of our local counties have historic preservation programs. Maui County is the only county that has a full time archaeologist and architectural historian. This bill identifies that counties can complete the 6e review process internally, which is the historic preservation review process in lieu of SHPD.

And it also identifies that a completed project permit project submittal is not complete until the historic preservation review process is completed, which we feel is important. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. Members of the Committee, Lena Alola on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We submitted comments. We appreciate provisions added in previous committees to strengthen this bill.

We did have two suggested amendments to clarify specific aspects of the county's duties as Shipti made clear that they are standing in the shoes of Shipti here, so would be subject to all the requirements of HRS Chapter 6E.

But given, you know, problems in the past with counties knowing the extent of their duties under the law, we had suggested language that would, you know, help direct them to that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have written testimony from the Department of Planning and Permitting. Are they here today? Yes, please.

Good afternoon, Chair. Curtis Lone with Department of Planning and Permitting. I wasn't planning on being up here, but our directors tied up. So we stand on our written testimony in opposition to this bill. In a nutshell, any law or ordinance that puts a time clock on the review of a permit is dangerous.

Reviews are thorough because we look for health and safety issues. And I'm not sure if you guys are aware, but over the last two years, DPP has brought down our review time. Our code review time for residential is now 10 days. And for commercial projects, our code review is two months.

So if there's any delay, a lot of times it's with the applicant. We have comments, the agencies have comments. We send them back to the applicant to answer the respond to the comments. Sometimes they hold onto it for weeks, months, years. So we have no control over how long they have the application.

We understand they have backlogs, too, but we believe we've taken care of, of the backlog on our side. And I think the focus needs to be more on the applicant and their design professionals responding in a timely manner.

And I think this bill has a clause that says if they agree to the changes, then we have to issue the permit. But where does that show up in the plans?

Our inspectors will go out and they will look at the approved plans and they will see work that's being done that doesn't match, and they may stop the work. They may require that new plans are submitted, which would take more time.

So in essence, this bill could actually add time and cost to a project rather than going one time through the review cycle anyway. So that's. I think the Director could have said it better, but she's not here.

So I appreciate you being here. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Hawaii realtors. Ms. Garcia. Good afternoon.

Lindsey Garcia. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members with Hawaii Realtors. So we support the intent of this bill to help address any issues with permitting delays. However, we do understand that this is one of many bills that is trying to address this issue. And so we generally support any bill that helps to address permitting delays.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Hawaii Food Industry Association on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair. Lauren Zorbal on behalf of Hawaii Food Industry Association. We represent about 200 food and beverage companies in the State of Hawaii. We support this bill. Many of our Members have experienced very long permitting delays, which drives up the cost of food, makes it difficult to operate here.

We realize that this bill only pertains to single and multifamily residential units, but any clearing of the backlog would be helpful for the system to work in a quicker manner and help everyone grow the economy, grow the amount of tax dollars the State of Hawaii can bring in, and just generally uplift the community.

So we support this bill and we really appreciate the effort that the prior committees have made to address the concerns stated here. So thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony. We received written testimony from RMA Sales, Anthony Borg in support. We next, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Ted Kaphalis on Zoom. Not present. In support. Next we have Hawaii good neighbor Christine Arozh on Zoom not present. She's in opposition. Next, NAIOP Hawaii chapter. Mr. Oye, welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair. Members of the Committee, Evan Oy, on behalf of NAIOP Hawaii, we stand on our testimony and support. Just in sum, similar to the Hawaii Realtors, you know, this is one of. Many measures to help expedite the regulatory systems to help housing get online faster. At a lower cost.

And for those reasons, we do support this, strongly support this measure.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from Lahaina Strong in opposition. Next we have testimony from Hawaii, Yimby, Hawaii Yimby, Damian Waikoloa in support. Next, testimony from Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. And testimony from two individuals in opposition. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in Senate Bill 6? 6.

Senate Draft 2, House Draft 2. If not questions, Members. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for DPP, please. You mentioned the shot clock and the time that the applicant has the document that's in question that's being part of this time frame. And I believe that was brought up in a previous Committee.

And the amendment and language that was introduced to address that was to pause the clock when it's in the applicant's court, so to speak, so that the 60 days is just measured when it's in DPP's possession. Are you aware of that? Yeah. Yes. Okay.

So with that provision, are you still Saying that the time element is, is of concern.

Yes, because I believe also it says if the applicant agrees to all the changes, then we would have to approve the permit. That's my understanding of what the bill says.

So if someone just writes a letter and say says we agree with all the comments and changes we will make them in and in the field, then I think that's my understanding what this bill says.

So even though there is a clock, I think the clock, my understanding is it starts if the applicant does not agree with, to make the changes. That's my understanding.

Yeah, I'm hearing what you're saying and I would agree with you that, that that is not acceptable as far as I'm concerned that it has to be more than just a letter complying with your comments and it has to be specifically shown on a resubmittal. I have a follow up question, Chair. Yes.

One of the languages that I see in the bill also is requiring. The. Applicant to have an engineer and an architect review the plans and I would assume stamp the plans as part of their submittal. Is that, is that a requirement at this point? Yeah, that's already required.

That is already submit plans. The architect has to stamp it.

Okay.

All right. But just because they stamp it doesn't mean the plans are good to go. A lot of we, we took a snapshot. I think I meant back in November, but where the 3,000 permits that were in the queue, 75% were with the applicant. So we cannot again cannot control how long plans are with the applicant.

Okay. So if we were to address your, your concern about the letter, just acknowledging your corrective review comments in compliance and somehow addressing that to require a resubmittal to incorporate and reflect all of those requirements, that, that would be a big improvement to you supporting the Bill.

That's pretty much what we do now. We have comments. Other agencies, Fire Department, border, water supply, other agencies have comments. We send it to the applicant, they respond and they don't always address all the comments and concerns, so we have to send it back.

So if the clock starts again when they return it to us, do we get to pause it again because we have more comments? Because some projects, one or two review cycles is normal, but we have some for simple projects that go 6710 review cycles.

That means each time we send it to the applicant, they're not answering the questions. And it's not always from DPP to his fire Department, like I said, bought a water supply. And so how many times do we start and stop the clock?

My understanding is as many times as.

Is applicable and it's kind of like what we do now. So there would be no need for a 60 day limit because if it's constantly going back and forth, do we have to start the clock every time? Because our review, like I said, our code review for residential is about 10 days to one week.

That means our guys take two weeks to review an application for commercial. They take two months. Back in the day it was a year and the residential code review was six months. But we brought it down to two weeks and two months. So we can do that.

But again, it's up to the applicant to answer all the questions, all the concerns. So we feel good about issuing a permit. So that's what we do. Now, if you're talking about the back and forth.

Right, okay. Yeah. You just brought up a thought that the applicant could play the system and just ignore the review comments and run out the clock for an automatic approval, which is not the intent of this Bill by any means. Thank you.

I can add. We have, we call them Bill seven projects. They're affordable rentals, they get a lot of waivers and they can get grants and everything. And that has a 90 day clock. But of the 50 something that we've reviewed, we approved some more than half are with the applicant.

Some with have been with them for years23 years. So we could automatically disapprove those projects if it hits 90 days. We can say disapprove because we don't want the automatic approval. But we don't because Bill 7 projects are really important. They're affordable housing projects. So we work with the developer to keep it going.

And to date, I believe only one developer has asked for that 91 day permit approval. But when we told them all the things that are wrong with their project, they said, okay, nobody wants a bad project. So because of health and safety. But thank you. So that's why we go through the thorough review process.

I'm sorry, Chair, one last question.

Sure.

Thank you. Chair. So you mentioned disapproved. Do you feel that this Bill gives you that authorization to still say disapproved after 60 days so that it just restarts a whole 60 day cloud, if that is applicable?

Yeah, and we could, I think because we're authorized to approve or disapprove.

Okay.

But if we disapprove, and we think it's a good project, but we have to disapprove, the developer will have to come in or the owner has to come in, start from scratch, submit plans from the beginning, pay the plan review fee, go through the review cycle again.

So rather than do that, just allow the process to go as it is now would be probably the best.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Thank you very much for the questions. Other questions, Members. Nope. Okay, thanks very much. The testifiers. Let's go on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1170. Senate Draft 2. House Draft 2. Relating to the expeditious redevelopment and development of affordable rental housing.

This measure authorizes the Director of County Planning Department to issue a special management area use permit to redevelop permanent affordable multi family rental housing that has been substantially destroyed as a result of certain natural disasters and requires county planning departments and any other applicable state or county departments or agency to prioritize approving permits for these redevelopments with certain exceptions.

Exempts permanently affordable multifamily rental housing projects within the special management area that are being redeveloped and are located on properties or districts on the state or national historic register from environmental impact statement requirements. Okay, there's a little bit more, but that's in summary, what the Bill does. First up, we have Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Dean Minakami with the Hawaii Housing Finance Development Corporation. We support this measure. In particular, this would support the rebuild. Of the Front street apartments project which was lost in the line of wildfires. Normally for SMA permits, they are approved by the on Maui for by the Planning Commission.

And that process can take well over a year. So we're hopeful that allowing the permits to be approved by the planning director will be much quicker.

Thank you very much. Next, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. I'm Mary Alice Evans with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We support the intent of this measure. We speak only to the amendment to Chapter 205, which is the Coastal Zone Management Chapter, which is under our purview. We have suggestions on how to handle.

The other amendments by placing them under. The chapters to which they refer.

Thank you for doing that hard work to figure out where they all went and where they should be placed. Next. We have testimony, support from Lahaina Strong, from Maui Chamber of Commerce and testimony from Joe Blanco.

Good morning. I mean, good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Joe Blanco. I'm with the KCOM Corporation. We actually developed this property 30 years ago, I and my former business partner. One of the things that we discovered as we were trying to get our permits done was this project was actually an experimental housing project built under 4615.

And we found that the language in 4615 made it very difficult because of its rigidity to rebuild. In fact, we've been talking to the county and they actually were saying it could be interpreted that we had to use 1990 standards when we rebuilt because it said the project at the time it was approved became the standards of the project. And so the county wants to build back better. We definitely want to do that.

And so that's the reason why you see a lot more language now that was added to the bill that specifically addresses the unique quirks that projects developed under 4615 have now experienced. I guess nobody figured that they would ever get destroyed, but they do. So any project that is built under 4615 will experience the same thing that we have. So hopefully this will change it.

The other thing that Maui County asked us to do is with regards to the SMA building, there was some question by the Attorney General that if the project was not completed prior to the expiration of the Governor's emergency proclamation, that could make the process start all over again.

And so the county actually asked us to insert language in there that if at least you have an application that was accepted and approved, that that would be deemed satisfactory in order to keep the project alive. So I urge you, we support this bill. Myself and Pacific Commercial Realty, they're actually the owners of the property.

The two of us are working together to get this rebuilt. We're 63 affordable rental projects and we're privately owned. So our challenge is a little bit different than HHFDC or any government project. We're doing this, we're rebuilding, all with insurance money, so time is of the essence. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Mr. Blanco. Next, we've received testimony in writing from the Housing Technology Associates in support. Got it. Thank you. And also from one individual in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 1170, House Draft 2? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers.

We're going to move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1263, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 2 relating to historic preservation.

This Measure creates a process for expediting the review of majority residential mixed use use, Transit Oriented Development or residential transit oriented Development on certain parcels within county designated transit Oriented Development zones that have a low risk of affecting historically significant resources. First up, we have Dean Minakami with Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation.

Chair, Vice Chair. We support this proposal. We certainly understand the importance of historic review, but the process can be lengthy. So we appreciate any measures that can be taken to shorten the process. And in particular, we support Tod projects as we are co chairs along with OPSD on the states.

Just so everyone knows, Tod is Transit Oriented Development.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thanks. I do try to avoid using Jargon so that I want the public to really understand what we're doing here and otherwise we speak in code. So I apologize for those whose patience is tried by my efforts to make this transparent, but I think it does help. Thanks for working with me on that.

Okay, next we have dlnr State Historic Preservation Division. Welcome.

Good afternoon again. Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Jessica Puff. I am the administrator of SHPD. We have submitted written testimony and we support this bill.

It does a lot to close some loopholes related to 60086010 and 6042 Hawaii Revised Statutes, which is the historic preservation review process for publicly owned or publicly supported projects, projects affecting historic resources listed in the State Register and also private projects that require a permit.

It essentially says in some cases where a project has been reviewed for one of those categories, that review will cover all of those categories going forward.

It also establishes a programmatic approach for affordable housing projects under within Transportation Oriented Development areas that will help us more proactively go through the historic preservation review process, hopefully expedite that process and plan ahead programmatically so that these projects can be implemented quickly, efficiently while considering historic and cultural resources.

Thank you very much. Next, Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair.

Members of the Committee OHA provided comments on both SB 1263 and SB 79, which do something similar in proposing, as Shipti just discussed, a proactive risk assessment system as a way to help front end historic review and allow future project proponents to take advantage of past archaeological inventory surveys and other sources of information and also to provide notice to areas where there hasn't ever been any study and that are high risk for that reason as well.

Between these two bills, SB 1263 is a much better bill.

It has been amended in previous committees to have a lot of safeguards and guardrails in terms of making sure that submittals are complete to making sure that Chipte has enough time to review those submittals and also making sure that any risk assessment system that is put in place has certain categories of information that need to be considered and also includes consultation with Ohan, the Island Burial Councils.

Because Kamaina testimony and knowledge of the community is also an important source of information about areas that might have burials in them. So we would prefer that the Committee advance this bill. SB 1263. I'll get the SB 79 when that's before you, but this is between those bills. Much better in our opinion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next HCDA in support Community Development Authority. Next Hawaii Realtors Ms. Garcia.

Aloha Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Lindsay Garcia from Hawaii Realtors. We stand in support of this measure. We generally support efforts to streamline and the review process for Transit Oriented Development. For homes along the transit corridor. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we've got testimony support from the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. Next testimony is from Holomua Collaborative. Mr. Wish there he is.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Josh Wish for Holomua Collaborative. Also, thank you for keeping us honest on acronyms. Appreciate that we will largely stand on our testimony in support of this.

Just to underscore that we one of the reasons why we're supporting this is trying to help streamline the time frame and reduce the delays isn't just for the purpose of reducing delays.

It's because generally whenever you have delays in that kind of construction, it of course also increases the cost of that construction which inevitably then gets passed on to the eventual homebuyer. And so it increases housing costs which accelerates people leaving the state.

And so this bill seems to strike a really nice balance of reducing those time frames, specifically in Transit Oriented Development areas, while also as OHA was mentioning, providing safeguards to make sure that we are protecting our historic and cultural resources. Thanks so much here for any questions you've got.

Thank you very much. Next testimony is from Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Ted Kaphalis on zoom not present. Next Napa Mr. Oy.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committees, Evan Oy on behalf of Napa, we stand in strong support of this measure. You know, similar to previous measures as well as other measures on this agenda. You know, this does help regulate the cost of, you know, for many housing projects here in the state.

And this bill in particular puts emphasis on mixed use developments and transit oriented developments in our state which are you know, a lot of the housing units are going to be coming up in that in those areas.

And so we feel like though, as though this is an important emphasis and we would like to see this continue to move. So. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. And finally, one testimony from Damian Waikoloa in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1263, House Draft 2. If not questions, Members seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 79 relating to historic preservation reviews.

This measure requires the Department of Land and Natural Resources to determine the effect of any proposed housing projects that may affect a historical property, an aviation artifact, or a burial site within 90 days of a request for determination.

It establishes historic review requirements based on the project area's known historic, cultural, and archaeological resources and establishes procedures and notification requirements if previously unidentified human remains or previously unidentified historic or cultural resources are discovered. First up, we have Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Thanks for being here, Mr. Minakami.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. HHFDC is in strong support of this measure, as it has the potential to accelerate the 6c process. We do have one proposed amendment. In areas that are categorized as moderately sensitive areas, the bill was amended in the Senate to require, seems to require an AIS for those projects.

And the original version of the bill committed projects to conduct archaeological monitoring in moderately sensitive areas. So we don't see the need for an AIS to be required. So we would request that the bill be reverted back to its original language.

Thank you very much. Next we have DLNR, State Historic Preservation Division, Administrator Puff.

Hello again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jessica Puff, the administrator of SHPD. We have also submitted written testimony online for anyone who wants to read it, and we support this measure. It does create a framework for SHPD to work with existing data to help identify the sensitivity or likelihood of encountering subsurface historic properties, iwi, or above ground historic building, historic properties like building structures, et cetera, to inform the historic preservation review process.

I think that the testimony that was just given before may potentially confuse the change in language from that part of the bill where it references an AIS. I think the intent of referencing archaeological inventory surveys within that section of the bill was to further identify how we got to the determination of moderately sensitive, meaning that we have previous archaeological survey data not from this particular project that's before us, but from a previous one that happened on that property or if it was a parcel of land that was previously owned by like a federal agency or another entity that did archaeological survey.

We use that data to determine that there's a low potential of encountering subsurface historic properties or iwi, but the possibility isn't zero. And therefore instead of requiring another AIS, we're going to go with archaeological monitoring instead. So that's the only additional comment I might make.

Thank you for that explanation. Next, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Mahalo, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Leinaʻala Ley on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. As previously stated, this is the lesser of the two bills with the risk categorization system. And OHA does have many concerns with the bill.

But the two that we highlighted and suggested specific amendments on were, first, if this were to move forward to ensure that the categorization system is similar as described in SB 1263 and includes in the statute itself the different types of criteria that would be necessary to consider when trying to identify these different risk areas. And again, also including consultation with OHA and the Island Burial Council is an important source of information.

And then our second amendment is to specifically make clear where the Island Burial Councils have existing authority to make decisions that that is not inadvertently usurped by the way that the law is or this measure is written and just to make sure that's clear. Because when they're previously identified, it does go before the Island Burial Council currently as a decision making body with subsequent opportunity for the Department to weigh in if there's an appeal. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that explanation for your testimony. Next, Evan Oue, NAIOP Hawaii Chapter. And I asked him what the acronym meant and doesn't mean anything anymore. So it's the name of the organization is NAIOP.

Yes, yes, apologies for that, Chair. You know, again, Evan Oue on behalf of NAIOP Hawaii. We do stand in strong support of this measure. SB 79 is slightly different, of course, than 1263 in terms of scope, and that's why we do support this measure in addition to 1263 due to the broader implications of housing projects that could fall under this and still receive an expedited review in this sense and determination. So for those reasons, we do support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Last testifier is Alan Downer on Zoom. Dr. Downer, good to see you again, sir. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm glad to see all of you again. I will start with a disclaimer. Some of you may remember me as a state official. I left SHPD at the end of last session and so I'm testifying today solely as a private individual. I respectfully oppose this bill. And largely, I mean, I think many of the things that are in here are things that are already in the rules if agencies actually took advantage of them.

More importantly, in terms of this particular bill, it is putting a burden on SHPD to do things it does not have resources to do. In other words, come up with zones of high probability, moderate probability, and so on. Requires analysis of data that they have, and they don't have the resources to do that or to contract it out. By the same token, they are expected to write rules to implement this.

The rule writing process takes years and it takes people to do it. And I think that it's, I think it suggests, this bill suggests that something dramatic is going to happen very quickly when SHPD simply doesn't have the resources to make it happen. I appreciate your time, giving me the time to testify, and I'm certainly willing to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. That's all the testimony we've received on this measure. Is there anyone else here or on Zoom wishing to testify in Senate Bill 79, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? Nope. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 15 Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 relating to historic preservation, this measure amends the definition of historic property to require that the Property is over 50 years old and meets the criteria for inclusion in the Hawaii Register of Historic Places.

It excludes proposed projects on existing residential property and proposed projects that are in nominally sensitive areas from the state's historic preservation program review under certain circumstances. First up, we have Administrator Puff.

Hello again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Jessica Puff, the administrator of SHPD. Again, we have submitted written testimony for anybody who would like to read it, but we do support this measure.

The change in definition specifically will help us to align the state definition of historic property with the federal definition of historic property and further help to streamline. Streamline the state and federal historic preservation review processes. Thanks.

Thank you very much. We received written testimony from the Oahu Historic Preservation Division, Koolau Foundation, Historic Hawaii Foundation, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Ted Kefalas on zoom not present. NAIOP Hawaii Chapter Evan Oue.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Evan Oue. Again, you know, SB15. We strongly support, as previously stated, this helps narrow the scope of projects that fall under the review as it's 50 years and meets the criteria to be on the registry.

And we strongly support the additional exemptions that are implemented in there in terms of 6E42 2, which put an emphasis on nominally sensitive areas as well as residential projects. So we're hoping that this will also is another tool in the toolbox to really help out with streamlining in these instances. So thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Next, we've received written testimony from Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. And finally, one testimony from an individual, Deborah King. Ah, welcome. Please.

Hello. Hi, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Deborah King and I'm a resident in Chinatown. Thank you for helping clarify some of these acronyms because I'm new to all of this, so I don't know what those mean. My testimony is strongly opposed because of some of the language in the revision.

And I was in attendance at the Oahu Society Committee the other day, and as I was listening to them, some of this language isn't clear to me. And so as far as.

Let's see, one of the things that was brought up was what if the property has made, like, any modifications or anything like that and they're no longer classified over 50 years, are they still okay, or does that change their ruling?

And then, as I've come to find out, Oahu has a lot of LWI burials around the whole island, so. And a lot of the sand and things like that have been moved from one place to another. So how do you classify a low density area?

So I guess for me it's some of the language, and I'm still in the learning process and just would like some of those clarifications. Thank you for considering my testimony.

Sure. Thanks very much. And thanks for giving us the examples of some of the terms that didn't make sense to you. Okay. That's all the testimony we received on Senate Bill 15. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not. Questions Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers.

Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1074. Senate Draft 2. House Draft 1 relating to environmental impact statements.

This measure allows an activity or operation that is permitted or authorized under Chapter 200, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and renewed within 12 months preceding the initiation of proceedings to determine whether the activity or operation is subject to environmental review to continue operation for one year while the appropriate agency makes the determination and conducts any necessary environmental review measure.

Also allows a person with oversight of the activity or operation to renew the appropriate permits while under the environmental review process. It sunsets in 2027. First up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Thank you, Members. We'll stand on our written testimony. We appreciate efforts to focus the bill. But we think it sets a dangerous precedent to have a carve out to HIPO, which is a environmental protection law of universal applicability.

And especially in these circumstances, given that it's our understanding that the Department does have options available that could immediately address some of the concerns raised by the commercial operators who are affected by the court's ruling in this matter. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Ms. Le. Next, Department of Land and Natural Resources. Dawn Chang. Welcome.

Aloha. Mai Kakou. Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Dawn Chang on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. I came here personally because this is an important bill for us. So thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak. The Department supports the intent of the bill.

We do have comments and we have proposed amendments. I do want to make some very key summary comments. You have our testimony before you. First, the Department is not seeking to exempt itself from Chapter 343.

We intend to comply, whether it's either through an exemption, through an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, or even a programmatic environmental review document. We are not seeking to be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 343. We are also seeking that the Department will prepare the environmental documents.

We are not intending that the permittees prepare the documents as we want to make sure that we can manage the activity. And that can only happen through us preparing the documents. However, the proposed bill does have potential impacts beyond just the division, just the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation.

We do have the Division of Aquatic Resources, DAR, who issues out permits. We also have other divisions. We have been meeting internally before. Even this case came up during the Umberger case with CWRM. So we have been looking at the.

Commission on Water Resource Management.

I'm sorry. Yes, that is correct. The Commission on Water Resource Resource Management. A similar decision came down with respect to our renewals of revocable permits. And the court clearly said we needed to prepare, comply with Chapter 343, of which we did so. There are other divisions that may be affected by this measure.

By the court's decision regarding the Ka'Anapali commercial use permits. That particular case involved six. Six permits. It was jet ski and parasails. But the impact of that decision is to over 30 permittees. So we are trying to.

We believe that this bill provides some kind of a balance, acknowledging that the permittees, the valid permittees, will continue to operate while we comply. Judge Cahill recently rendered a decision last week on a motion that he extended the stay to permit the Department to continue to renew the permits up until hearing is held, I believe in September.

So until then, the court has extended the stay. I do want to note that SB 1074 will not apply to aquarium fish industry because although Dr. Division of Aquatic Resources previously issued commercial aquarium permits, all of those permits have expired. There are currently no active commercial aquarium permits that could be renewed under this bill.

So I want to be very clear, this bill will not permit aquarium fish activities, commercial aquarium fish activities to continue. The consequence of not passing this measure is that all existing commercial use permits, not just the permits in Kaanapali, we will have to make a determination of whether we not renew any of them because of potential litigation.

So that is a potential impact of this bill. And I want to be clear too, this is not our bill. This bill was not introduced by the Department of Land and Natural Resources, but by the commercial vessel operators, that industry. So I am.

I just want to be very clear on what this bill does and what it doesn't do. So I am available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much.

Chair thank you very much. Next, Hawaii Island. Aha Moku. Charles Young on Zoom.

Aloha Koh. Can you hear me?

We hear you. Yes. Please go ahead, Charlie.

Yeah. Well, good afternoon Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe. I submitted written testimony in opposition. I hope you have all read it, but I want to depart a little bit from my testimony. There's just one paragraph that I would like to read from the testimony.

The Ahamoku disagrees with the assertion that the state's environmental review process is designed to assess new projects with potential environmental impacts. It is widely established that much of Hawaii's present day environmental problems are born out of the cumulative effects of human activity.

The state's environmental process is meant to address all projects and or uses that have potential impacts. Indeed, this is what the courts have supported. So we believe Ahomoku believes that this is really not good precedent to set. My other comments would be I had a chance to read through some of the documents that support the intent.

So I asked myself, well, what is the intent of this bill? This intent of this bill is to bar to provide financial relief to people who have been conducting a business for a long, long time and permitted to do this.

The logic is because they have been doing it for a long time, but the action actually reduces safeguards that protect environmental resources. We need to think of these as mutually exclusive. We need to quit connecting environmental issues with commercial issues, with for profit issues.

These things are causing us and have caused us much much problems over the years and they are cumulative. So the premise review process for new projects, environmental laws have evolved in response to changes, changes of use and conditions. Permits conditions need to also respond to as well. They need to be changed.

Conditions to the permits needs to be changed. This Bill does not do that. It just kind of grandfathers the because of the use. I understand livelihoods going back for a long time of being affected and for that we have great compassion, but this is not the answer to it.

I would also say that we should have great compassion for a KAI analysis which is now 24 years old, evolving and that will be swept aside along with HIPAA in my opinion should this go through. So I ask you please to consider these underlying conditions and to oppose this bill.

But not forget that we probably need to address what the issue really is and that is financial relief for folks who have permits. Mahalo for this opportunity to provide comment.

Sure. Thanks very much Mr. Young. Next office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Mary Alice Evans with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We support the intent of 1074 HD1. We believe it has a number of new safeguards in it that are helpful.

But we also want to share that if this Committee wants to offer temporary relief to any established permitting program that has been challenged by a court proceeding, that you can put it in 343. But if you are looking at this as a more narrow response to a specific court challenge, then perhaps this belongs in that chapter.

Thank you very much. Before I go on to the other persons who wish to testify, just to let Members and the public know, we've received 228 testimonies in support, 128 testimonies in opposition, three testimonies with comments.

The next person said they wish to testify is Antoinette Davis on Zoom.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, I so appreciate you scheduling this and while I've been waiting, I've been reading through the other testimony, specifically Chair Chang's. Which I so appreciate the changes that. She made address and the things that she shared about aquarium fisheries.

It's unfortunate when this bill was first introduced it was not done as well as it could have been. This bill by many is in a. Reaction to the Kaanapali court case. But actually this bill is much bigger than that. Regardless of what happens with that court case, what this bill is about, and.

I hate the dramatic term that this. Spews up, but it is weaponizing HIPAA for anti terrorism agendas and this bill was written not to undermine HEPA not to bring back aquarium fisheries. This bill was written so that these businesses could continue operating while in ears, which they fully support. I fully support most of what Ahemuku.

Said, other than the missing of what this bill's true intent is. Anyway, I appreciate the changes that Chair Chang made. I support those. They kind of align with my testimony. And again, this bill has been clouded for the true intent of what it's all about and we all will benefit from it.

So thank you very much for allowing me to testify. I'm available for any questions.

Sure. Thank you for your testimony. Next, Maui Hotel and Lodging Association, John Pelly on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Committee Members, John Paley from Maui Hotel and Lodging Association. We do stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. And furthermore, we'd like to thank the Legislator for all the work that's gone in to this measure throughout the process, throughout all the committees.

And we hope to have continued support for this measure and specificity to allowing our allowing our commercial boat operators to continue the operations for their financial viability, not only for their businesses, but more importantly for their employees who depend on them while Department of Land and Natural Resources completes all its compliance reviews environmentally. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Ted Bolan.

Thank you. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, Ted Bolan for Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and the Climate Protectors Hawaii. This bill has been improved in House draft one. It's added some narrowing.

The original bill was way too broad, I think, and I don't think it's necessary to amend HIPAA in order to achieve the results we want of not putting people out of business. I have compassion for those people. I want them to be employed.

But I don't want to see HIPAA gutted, which is what I think this original bill would have done. The DLNR has an exemption list that they provided and there are categories under the existing rules for the Environmental Council or what it was the Environmental Council when I was representing them for 14 years.

11,200.1 of the Hawaii Administrative rules has categories including general operations. DLNR has ways that they can declare things exempt. I don't understand why it's necessary to make a major change to an important environmental statute. And so I strongly oppose any broadening of the HD1 Bill and oppose the bill more mildly in the HD1 form.

I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Bolan. Next we have for the fishes on zoom. Inga Gibson, please proceed.

Hello Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, thank you for the opportunity to express our continued strong opposition to this measure. I think this really just comes down to it being unnecessary. As Ted stated, there are already processes, long standing processes and determinations available to the Department and all of its divisions.

And this is something that Brett Lohan, Chair Lohan brought up in the last Committee hearing, which DLNR was not able to respond to specifically exemptions 44 and 46. I believe DLNR was supposed to get back to Lohan as to whether or not they even had looked at those sections. So I think it's. It's absolutely unnecessary.

What may have started out with good intentions from a handful of folks that were impacted because of DLNR's foot dragging has essentially turned into, you know, an attempt to broaden this. I think Chair Chang made clear that they are fearful of potential future, potential future litigation, are using this bill as an opportunity to preempt any future efforts.

That is not, you know, what the intent of, of legislation. That is completely disingenuous. It really shortchanges the public of the opportunity to genuinely weigh in on this issue because this was specific to those impacted by a recent court ruling. DLNR DAR is now wanting to expand this to apply to all commercial fisheries.

You know, a plethora of HRS that have nothing to do with any past or ongoing litigation. So strong opposition. If the Committee feels compelled to pass something out, please direct DLNR to exercise its existing authority in making these environmental exemption determinations. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, Ms. Gibson. Next. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club on zoom. Oh, in person. Lucky us. Pleasure to see you, sir. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Wayne Tanaka. We have a written testimony in strong opposition to this measure. I just wanted to uplift two things.

One, with respect to the Annapoli Boulders and the commercial tour operators, it has to be very clearly understood that the DLNR could give these folks almost immediate relief, right.

If they engage with this in the settlement negotiation process, accept the settlement offer, a modest settlement offer that will address the wastewater and public safety and public access concerns that have been raised by the Native Hawaiian plaintiffs in that case, this whole issue can go away. They can start issuing permits almost immediately. But.

And whereas if this bill continues moving, that's going to incentivize the owner to continue driving its feet and essentially hold these folks in limbo. And so I think it's very important that people understand that those are the two options. This bill actually may be counterproductive to providing relief.

The second thing really quick, with regards to the claims about CMLs and commercial permits generally, that's classic chicken little fear mongering. Our courts don't create chaos even in this case for just a few dozen boulders. They've stayed proceedings, they've stayed their orders that the permits can continue to be in effect.

We saw even in the East Maui case where decades of neglect by the DLNR to do an environment review was nonetheless resulted in a stay in the injunction against continued issuance of the revocal permits there maybe it's, you know, to the extent there is a challenge, maybe we need to have that legal guidance. Right?

That's what the courts do is they, they take the laws you, you, you make and then make sure that it's applied in an equitable and fair fashion. And so maybe we just need to see if there is a challenge to CMLs or whatever.

Let's just see that play out before we start tinkering and potentially gutting our environmental review law. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Tanaka. And when you refer to CMLS, those are commercial marine licenses. Thank you. No, sorry, everyone's used to speaking in code. That's okay. It's hard to break that habit. Next, we have testimony from Jesse Croft. Not present in support. Next person that said they wish to testify is Ron Tubbs on zoom.

Not present in support. Next. Denver Coon, welcome. Please come on up.

Afternoon. Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. Denver Coon, on behalf of the Ocean Tourism Coalition, also my family business, Trilogy Excursions, we've operated on Maui Lanai for 52 years. We are in strong support of this bill. You know, I think it's important to keep in mind that kind of what the chair said.

This doesn't change anything with regards to environmental review. Right. It doesn't touch that all those will still remain in place. What this really does is just gives those assurance that if there is a challenge, if anything does happen, that these operators and all their employees will be protected during that environmental review process.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that, you know, these operations are heavily regulated. They're regulated through administrative rules and those administrative rules were created through public rulemaking. So this doesn't bypass, you know, all the public comments that went into creating all those restrictions in all these areas.

There will be those, you know, those preventative measures in place.

But this will allow, you know, all of our employees, again who lost their homes in the fire, this just gives them that insurance that they can go ahead, they can start rebuilding, they won't have to be dragged around by these kind of worry about all these court proceedings every month.

You know, it's always how do you make a big decision, life decision when there's always going to be something coming up in a few months. So again, we strongly support this measure and ask that you pass it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Coon. Next. George Garnes, Sailing Ships. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair Committee. My name is George Garnes. I'm with Sailing Ships. I represent a small business over there on the west side of Maui. And we're in strong support of this bill. 1074 is what we're.

We've had a lot of support from the state with regards to the fire with rebuilding housing and getting a lot of our employees, specifically getting their housing back on track and getting their lives back on track.

And we really need your guys assistance to help pass this so then we can also have our jobs, get on pack, get on track, back on track and keep rebuilding our future for say, our captains and our crew who are trying to rebuild.

Like Denver alluded to, people, folks need some certainty and this would greatly help that be accomplished. So thank you for your time and we're in strong support.

Thank you very much. Next, Henry Curtis on zoom. Not present in opposition. Next person said they wish to Testify is Philippe LeBlanc.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Philippe LeBlanc testifying in support today of this Bill from C. Maui. We have over 50 employees and families that depend on these jobs in Kaanapali. We have four pregnant mothers.

We have 16 kids under the age of 12 that we feed. We have elderly parents at home that we go and take care of. We have 13 employees who lost everything in the fires. So this has huge impacts. And I know someone did mention earlier that the courts don't intend to cause chaos. Unfortunately, this did cause chaos.

This one reinterpretation has sparked all of this. And what happens after September? I know it's stayed until then. That's great news. But we are trying to look forward to the future and give our employees some sort of guarantee they'll have a job. We're trying to build a new boat to replace our 35 year old boat.

The bank won't give us a loan right now because they don't know what's going to happen to our permit. I mean, we have companies that have not ours, but there's other companies that have been around for 50 years. We obey the law. We have done everything that we are asked to do.

We're all on the same page here. And we would just ask that you consider all of the people that this is affecting. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Mahesh Cleveland, Earth Justice.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair POIPOI and Committee Members, Mahesh Cleveland with Earth Justice. We strongly oppose this bill as we have from the get go. It is now 100% clear and obvious that DLNR is bending over backwards to undercut hepa. The last time we were in front of this Committee with HB 661 pretty broadly worded.

Chair Tarnas, you characterize DLNR's request to add these other statutes as a narrowing of the intent of the bill. This time you've got a bill that targets the problem everyone says is supposedly the root cause of this directly. And yet DLNR still wants to blow this up into a deregulation of all of their commercial fisheries.

So I hope it's as plain as day to the Committee as it is to everyone watching this. Meanwhile, the community plaintiffs in this lawsuit, who are not our clients, but we know the lawyers and some of the plaintiffs have been bending over backwards to resolve this matter.

Two weeks ago, DLNR didn't even know there was a settlement on the table. And we can leave the issue of the AG's ethics for another day. But now everyone knows. And not only that, but just like a couple days ago, the plaintiffs filed another motion trying to get the court to.

To basically modify the terms of the state in order to let these guys keep operating. So even the boaters themselves recognize they don't want to undercut environmental protections. Because if that happens, then they might go out of business for other reasons down the line.

Bottom line is, is if what we're really trying to do is address the problem with the commercial boating, let's address that problem. Let's not turn this into what DLNR wants, which is basically, I think it was HB 122 or 123, which was to exempt all the commercial fisheries from HIPAA.

They've tried to turn every bill into that one which died months ago. So please, please hold this bill. Please reject this bill. Please reject DLNR's attempts to strip Hawaii's people of the environmental protections that HIPAA has provided for over 50 years. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cleveland. Next Sands Dyer on Zoom. Please proceed. Yes, yes.

Hello. Thank you, Chair, for hearing me. Co-chair and Committee. I want to make a few points very clear. We are not wanting to provide relief. We want to continue operating our business and continue to employ our employees so that they can pay their mortgages when a lot of them have been affected by the Lahona fires.

There is no problem with commercial boating. We are not causing any harm to the environment. So an ea. Sure. Can it be conducted? Yeah, go ahead and do it. But it's not us that's causing any sort of harm to the environment. I mean, I'm in strong support of 1074.

And I think that everyone should realize that we are small business owners. We are small business owners that employ probably over 300 employees collectively in Kaanapali, that this would affect and take away their livelihoods. So I'm strong. It's strongly in support of 1074.

And I think that we should realize that if an environmental assessment needs to be done, which I don't think is necessary, but go ahead and do it, but allow us to continue to operate, which is what 1074 allows us to do. Do. But thank you for my testimony.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Mike Nakachi. Welcome. Mr. Nakachi, please proceed.

Aloha Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of this Committee, my name is Mike Nakachi. I come from the island of Mokuo Kawe in the district of Kekaha Viole. And with regards to 1074, I do oppose this statutory in terms of what HIPAA was primarily on purpose for serves its purpose.

What has happened dramatically over the years. I am a captain, I do operate and I feel for all these folks in Kaanapali. But I believe a solution could have been mitigated long before trying to introduce this type of legislation. That is reckless. And these folks wouldn't. They claim they don't.

But what I'm getting at is that infrastructure of Mala is no longer there. Lahaina is no longer there. Everything got squeezed through the site, Kaanapali and Malai. I get that. But what I'm getting at is that the permits from the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation do not take into account capacity.

They don't take into account the lens of many of us as Kanaka have changed. The days of six pack are no longer six pack. They're 149 passengers. The scale of things, the amount of money involved in ocean tourism is huge. I may be a black sheep, I don't care.

But I know I'm grounded by Mokuauhau and I know this place. And when we as people that have this privilege and this honor to enter the kai every day into that realm of Kanaloa, we have to have the utmost respect and most of all for this environment and this aina.

I am a traditional and customary practice of Aloha Aina to malama this aina and to restore aina momona. Where is that with this? I get it. But what I'm getting at is that we need HIPAA in place.

We need a kapa akai o Kaaina analysis that was never done when all of these permits were circumnavigated or gone to somewhere else. Was there engagement with the community? Was there enough dialogue done? I don't think so. So that's why for them to introduce this type of legislation.

And I really appreciate what Chair Chang has said here today. I appreciate that. But this is wrong and this is wrong for agency to use folks and pit each other. We all could be brothers out there on the ocean and I'll be happy to help them anytime.

But what I'm getting at is this is wrong to strip mine the Hawaiian Environmental Protection Act. It needs to be in place in perpetuity for hina not to be deregulated or brought down in any way shape or form here. Thank you for your time.

Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Nakachi. Next we have Mike Kelly on zoom chair, Tarnas Vice Chair, Poepoe Members of the Committee, thank you for your time today.

I've been in West Maui resident for 50 years and of all that time I've been employed in Kaanapali in the ocean recreation industry. I've seen everything. I've seen a lot. I've seen United Airlines strikes in the late 90s, late 70s.

I've seen SARS, Desert Storm Wars, Covid and most recently, as you all know, the fire which has been the most traumatic in the 50 years that I've been here. I think an EA and EIS is fine. Absolutely, let's do that. This is to correct some of the previous testimony. This is not DLNR's bill.

We're not looking for relief. We're trying to maintain our lives. Our children in schools, our mortgages, stay in business like we've been in business for 50 years. These permits did go in front of county hearings and public hearings and There are no 149 passenger carrying vessels. The capacity has been the same as always been.

It's maximum 49 passengers, maximum 65 foot vessel. That has not changed. I would ask you all to consider the collateral damage that's affecting those in business and those who live here. If you take 260300 people, 300 families that are affected by this, that's a big number. That's a lot of families. There's a lot of impact.

But it goes beyond that. Take one example for instance. Catering that these boats use. Cumulatively, there's 220,000 meals catered annually to go on these boats. Okay? So the caterers can have a problem of 220,000 less meals. That's not going to be great for their business. But forget the caterers. How about the Shorter cook preparing the food?

How about the person that delivers the food? How about the company that sells the food? How about the company sells the packaging? The food goes in. How about Uber? How about the shops? How about the restaurants? How about the hospitality industry? Taking these activities away in Kaanapali will have staggering effects for now and for years to come.

I'd ask you to please support House Bill, Senate Bill 1074 as I do do the right thing. Please pass and approve this for all of us.

Thank you very much. Next. Stephanie Fried on Zoom.

Aloha Kau. My name is Stephanie Fried with the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Hui. I urge you to please vote no and defer this bill, the gutting of the US EPA places more responsibility on the state and this bill deeply undermines the state ability to protect our natural resources. We've just heard that this bill is not a DLNR Bill.

But in fact DLNR has proposed in their written testimony, which was not made clear in their oral testimony, that they want to add four more chapters to be exempted from HIPAA. And that includes specifically the chapters pertaining to fishing and lobster harvest in Papa Nu Mokuakea. It specifically includes aquarium fishing throughout the Islands. That's HRS187 180A.

The claim that this is limited to existing permits and that there are no existing permits so it doesn't mean aquarium fishing is not true. There is no language limiting this to existing permits.

There is nothing in that bill that says for example, this is limited to permits issued on permits in practice on January 1st of this year, for example. There's no time stamp definition so it applies to permits that DLNR could issue at any point in time, including for aquarium fishing in the future.

This is now if DLNR's intervention is accepted. This is definitely a Dillon R. Harvest commercial fisheries bill. The claim that commercial fisheries will be shut down is a false claim. Hawaii's commercial fisheries with De minimis efficiency effects will not be affected. Longline and other federal fisheries go through NEPA and won't be affected.

Local small scale fisheries won't be affected. This is a very bad faith effort to abuse the plight of the Kaanapali boaters to allow the pillage of our marine resources. I stand in solidarity with the boaters and DLNR can resolve this problem now without changing our law.

Even the current effort to exempt all of the enormous 74 part Chapter 200 from normal heapa rules that that includes all existing and future high impact commercial activities in Kaneohe Bay. Why are they asking to exempt Kaneohe Bay activities when they're trying to respond to Kaanapali issues?

It also includes Chapter 200 which is currently in the bill includes all high speed boating and commercial tourism throughout state waters. Again, that is not necessary to resolve the Kaanapali problem. The proposed DLNR things also include anchoring and marine life conservation districts. Aquarium fishing. It's just a false claim that this is limited to existing permits.

Please read the language of the bill. There is nothing that restricts it to current permits. In terms of it provides a perverse incentive. These companion bills have encouraged DLNR to delay efforts to resolve the Ka' Anapali issue through the simple known steps.

Instead of improving DLNR accountability, which I know is very important, especially to Chair Tarnas to improve their accountability, these bills render DLNR more, far more accountable. So please don't abuse the plight of the voters harmed by DLNR negligence as a Trojan force to undermine our protections. Mahalo nuiloa for helping protect our Aina.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, Kai Nishiki on zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Kai NIshiki of Mapapai Wai Wai Ula' Ula and I am testifying in strong opposition to SB 1074. I'd like to remind this Committee and the permittees and DLNR that permits are issued for one year.

Commercial permittees are not entitled to these permits, nor should they be relying on them year after year.

Frankly, if the DLNR continues to operate as though its primary responsibility is promote commercial ocean tourism rather than protect our public health and safety and and our public trust, then it might as well hand over its permitting authority to the Hawaii tourism authority.

If DLNR's legal counsel, Miranda Steed, is going to continue advocating for policies that undermine environmental review, public access, cultural rights, perhaps she should go work for them, too. DLNR is not a business development agency. It is a resource management agency entrusted with sacred Kuleana.

The mission of the dlnr, to remind everyone, is to enhance, protect, conserve and manage Hawaii's unique and limited natural, cultural and historic resources held in public trust for current and future generations. In partnership with others from the public and private sector. This bill blatantly contradicts that mission.

We have continued to offer DLNR a very reasonable settlement that would allow ocean tour operators to continue operations during the environmental review process through implementation of basic protective measures such as temporary safety buoys and parking advisories. DLNR has refused to even discuss these.

So we filed that proposal with the court and it is now set for a decision by April 16 or sooner. Accepting our offer would allow permits to be issued almost immediately, much faster than waiting for this bill to pass and take effect.

But as long as this bill stays alive, DLNR has little incentive, as usual, to do the right thing. DLNR must be held accountable to its mission and to the public. It serves, not the convenience of commercial interests. Hawaii's natural and cultural resources deserve protection, not a political workaround. Please.

I urge every single Committee Member to ask the DLNR why wouldn't they agree to basic protective measures, most of which they previously implemented? And I would gladly share what the six items are. They are designated ingress, egress, Areas for the vessels for loading and offloading as well as. If you could summarize, please.

Ms. Nishiki, please, please summarize.

If Members are interested in the six items, then they could ask me a question. Mahalo.

Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Next. James Kastner on zoom not present.

I'm here.

Oh, there you are. Please proceed.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm James Kastner, 45 year resident of Hawaii. Last 20 years living in Kaneohe. During my entire stay in Hawaii, I've been self employed, small business person. As a landscape photographer and photographic decor contractor. I know the challenges of self employment and small business in the islands.

In my 20 years living in Kaneohe, I have paddled in the bay quite frequently and come to know the beauty of its varied reef types. In the past, I've worked with reef check on surveys and done cleanups in the bay. These activities have given me sensitivity and great appreciation for the resource.

I'm dismayed with the direction allowed in SB 1074 and voiced my opposition. This Bill poses a direct threat to the fragile reef systems of Kaneohe Bay by specifically exempting all commercial ocean activities in the bay from normal HIPAA requirements, including controversial commercial high speed boating, parasailing, water sledding, commercial sailing, diving and fishing tours, et cetera.

In 2023, the Legislature approved HB 1134, a Bill to strengthen protections for Kaneohe Bay from out of control commercial activities. SB 1074 represents a threatening step backwards. It's utterly unreasonable to exempt this entire statute from normal HIPAA requirements. It would be an extraordinary and unacceptable weakening of Hawaii's foundational environmental law.

This unique and highly valued area should be managed with a precautionary principle strictly regulating commercial activity with a focus on preservation. Many thanks for your time and considering my testimony. Aloha.

Thank you very much. Next. Bianca Isaki on zoom not present. Okay, Next. Peter Reardon.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Not my first time speaking to all of you. It's getting really exhausting mentally, financially and emotionally. Having to fly over to Maui to do this repetitively to sing for my supper, which is what I feel like I have to do every time here.

I haven't had the chance to speak to you and explain to you who I am. I am a commercial owner operator. I'm also a community Member of Lahaina who lost absolutely everything. I have nothing left but my business, which I explained to you prior, which I have two small children. I have another Child who's due in May.

And like I say, the commercial catamaran is all I have. I'm an Irishman, I'm an Islander by grace of God. So there is nobody in this room that understands the importance of natural resources and being an islander than myself. Okay, now, something that's really making me upset is the rhetoric of the opposition to this Bill.

From the inception of the bill has consistently pivoted every time that there's been an answer or something has been unrelated to the bill. We're still talking about fish collecting. This is in no way, shape or form about fish collecting or permits.

We have narrowed this bill, it is very specific, to a mile and a half area of commercial operation that is in favour of an EA and an EIs. There is no opposition. We simply want to continue what we are doing as we have followed the rules and regulations time and time again.

We have followed everything to the nth degree, to the T. We pay handsomely, we take care of things, we clean the reefs like we are the stewards of the ocean. The people who work with us are all marine biologists and conservationists. And now we're all facing this ambiguity and it's just completely unnecessary, to be honest.

You know, we should have the right to continue. We contribute very heavily to Maui. Before the fires, through the fires and after the fires.

I don't want to keep on bringing it back to this tragedy, but I feel like I have to talk about the fires to prove to you the severity and the importance of the people that are going to be affected directly by this decision. If opposed. Everybody here remembers where they were on August 8th, I'm sure. Right.

Let me tell you where the catamaran owners were and operators, and let me tell you where the staff were when their houses were burning. They were on the boats pulling Kupuna, Kanaka and Kamaina out of the water. What were you guys doing August 9th? Guess what?

All of the people who work on the boats were ferrying Kupuna and Kanaka and residents from Maalaya, from Lahaina, excuse me, to Maalaya, providing an essential service to people. Because guess what? There was no entry and exit out of Lahaina. We were the vessels, pardon the pun, that were doing it.

Okay, August 10th, what were you guys doing? I was loading up with my own personal money at Costco. I had nothing. Bringing water and fuel into families, speeding through police barricades illegally because we felt it was essential and a duty that we support the community that supports us. Another thing to mention, if I could ask you some.

A lot of opposition. Okay. Not many from Maui, right? You notice not many opposition coming from the island that this is affecting most. Okay, think about that, please. I urge you to support this bill. I yield my time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Nicholas Koons on Zoom. Not present. Next we have Isaac Harp on zoom. Please proceed, Isaac.

Isaac Harp testifying in firm opposition to Senate Bill 1074, House Draft 1.

Sorry. We hear you, Isaac, so please proceed.

Yeah, I shall tell. I got a message pop up on my screen that threw me up. I'm testifying in firm opposition to Senate Bill 1074, House Draft 1. The first sentence under Section 1 is very misleading.

All applications for state authorization for use of state lands and waters since the 1974 adoption of Chapter 343 HIPAA was in fact a new application subject to HIPAA. The current bill exempts Chapter 200, including all commercial activities in Kaneohe Bay and Much much.

The DLNR is now hijacking this kind of poly-turbos bill by trying to convince your Committee to add chapters 187A188189 and 190. Obviously, because House Bill 123 and Senate Bill 22, both proposing to exempt all commercial fisheries in state waters, were deferred.

These additional chapters exempt a plethora of other commercial ocean activities, including all commercial fisheries in the main Highlands and long prohibited commercial fisheries in Papahanaumokuakea. This bill does not apply only to existing permits as the DLNR claims. It applies to past, present and future permits because there is no language in the Bill to say otherwise.

As attorneys would say, the devil is in the detail. Don't fall for the storyline that all commercial fisheries in Hawaii would be shut down. Longline and other federal fisheries undergo NEPA review and the fisheries are conducted outside of state waters. No effect.

In my personal experience as a former Coast Guard licensed captain and commercial fisher, local small boat fisheries like bottom fishing, trolling, handlining, etc.

Have de-minimis effects on our environment and could be categorically exempted following the required HIPAA review and will continue to have happy fishermen defer this Bill to force the Dillonar to actually engage in good faith settlement negotiations with the Kaanapali lawsuit plaintiffs.

Apparently they're trying to avoid a settlement, hoping that the Legislature will bail them out of the mess that they made. I understand that settlement negotiations were held last Friday, so I encourage your Committee to inquire with Judge Peter Cahill on how the settlement Negotiat agents are going before you vote on this Bill.

In conclusion, let's hope that the deep wounds in the community caused by the DLNR failures will heal quickly. Mahalo.

Thank you, Isaac. Next. Leonard Nakoa on Zoom. Not present. Next. Brandon Chu.

Thank you. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Brandon Chu. I'm providing testimony and support of SB 1074. I'm from Maui. I work in the hospitality industry. And I really just wanted to emphasize that the impact of the commercial operators shutting down, you know, goes beyond just them.

You know, we're all in this industry together and we depend on visitors, you know, to provide some context.

The Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism Noted Maui visitor count was down over 23% last year versus 2019, which was significantly disproportionate to our neighbor islands that either saw growth during that same period or just a few percentage points down again.

These operators have been in Ka Nepali for decades and have a huge impact on our visitors to Maui. And I just urge you strongly to support SB 1074. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Uilani Naipaul on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Tarnes Vice Chair Po Representative Shimizu, Representative Perus and Representative Bilati. Mahalo Nui for this opportunity to testify. I'm Uilani Naipo in strong opposition of this measure. I appreciate the attempt to scope this measure down to Chapter 200 as it speaks to the particular scenario for why this measure was written.

Still broad, but it's a little bit closer. It was not written to generally impact all permitted activities. Yet what we have here is that DLNR has not taken any action either proactively or looking at an offer of settlement that if it would take action upon, could only provide.

Could not only provide relief to the primary khan of Pali Boat Operators, but also to the 30 or so other businesses. Dillon river has not attempted to use administrative authority to mitigate root causes of the issue, yet persistently is wanting to broaden the language of this measure to activities related to other chapters to include. 187.

Aqua Aquatic Resources Special Activity Permits. 188 Fishing Rights and Regulations. 189. Commercial Fishing. 190. Marine life Conservation District, Kaanopolis. Asking for relief in the form of resuming their businesses, not to shoulder the burden of DLNR's agenda here. If court cases have trend towards pressuring DLNR to conduct EIs and EAs, that is the result of HIPAA actually working.

Working to protect our culture and natural resources. We need you to do the same. Please Support and uphold HIPAA Vote no on SB 1074. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Next. David Frankel not on zoom. Okay. Not. Not present. He submitted testimony in opposition. Next person we have is Tiara Lawrence on zoom.

Aloha. Aloha, Chair. My name is Tiari Lawrence and I am one of the community plaintiffs. I was born and raised in Lahaina, Maui, and I strongly oppose this bill. Like previous testifiers, I lost my generational family home in the fires. But unlike others, I have no financial interest in this fight.

My only interest is in what is best for our community. Safety, cultural practices, beach access. Ka Napoli has always been a part of my life. I take my keiki there to surf, fish, dive, enjoy the beach. I grew up paddling and surfing at Hana Ko, which is now known as Kaanapali.

Over the years, I have witnessed firsthand the blatant neglect by the Department of Land and Natural Resources in maintaining basic safety measures, including buoys, proper ingress and egress for boats and public beach access. A previous testifier claimed that the tourism boating industry has no environmental impact. That could not be further from the truth.

This is precisely why community groups are demanding an environmental impact statement for ka' Anapalli. On December 292011 our community suffered a devastating loss. Billy Gonzalez, a beloved paddling coach, was killed when a boat struck him as he set up flags for a high school regatta. His death was preventable.

The state failed to maintain those buoys and proper oversight could have saved his life. All we ask for is basic safety measures to protect residents and visitors alike. Yet, rather than working with our community, the state refuses to accept a settlement offer that would make Kaanapali safer.

Simple, long overdue solutions, such as clear signage during catamaran beach landings and preventing commercial permit holders from occupying public beach parking continue to be ignored. I do not want to keep fighting this battle in court, but what choice do we have when the state refuses to listen?

Why should we have to resort to lawsuits just to demand fundamental safety and public access? Out of respect for Uncle Billy and his Ohana, urge you to kill this bill. It does nothing to address the real safety concerns at Kaanapali. The the state must stop turning its back on our community and start holding DLNR accountable.

Administrative rules are not being enforced. Kaanapali is overrun. A Kapaa Kai analysis is long overdue. Enough is enough. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. I've got two other testifiers on zoom. Is there anyone else in the room here that wishes to testify on this measure that hasn't signed up. zero, could you give your name over here to the our staff? Just so I've got that and I'll call you. Up next we have Greg Misakian on zoom.

Not present. And next we have Ron Tubbs on zoom.

Aloha Legislature Members, and thank you so much for this time to testify. Yes, just a few points that have been brought up in the meeting that I'd like to address. First, every long line industry, every offshore federal fishery is also required to have a CML license.

So entering state waters, you require to have a CML license so every fishery could be affected. DLNR has testified that every permit holder with their, with their Department is at risk of having to do an eis. Now, having to do an EIS is not about the environment. It's about blackmail.

It's about shutting down people that you don't like. It's about not the environment. It's about having leverage to get what you want. Okay, that's not right. It has nothing to do with the environment. And strongly support environmental factors. We have passed an environmental review. What has happened? We still don't have permits.

HEPA laws are not required by any other state in the United States. Only Hawaii has applied EPA laws to ocean permits. That is not right. Why are we the only state that's requiring EPA laws to apply to ocean permits? NEPA laws, national laws do not apply to ocean permits.

You know, these guys are having their jobs taken away. Presume guilty. And they're not okay. Yeah. If there's environmental problems, we have a complete Department, the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We have dhobar, Department of Ocean Voting Recreation. These guys highly have managed these permits over decades with increased laws.

Ability to shut down and remove permits if any issues are affected. I strongly Support Senate Bill 1074 to apply to all permittees. But, you know, save the jobs of those people from Lahaina. They need to have their jobs saved. You know, they need to be able to pay their bills for their mortgages on their new homes.

They need to rebuild. This is not right. There's no excuse for a lawyer making $150,000, you know, to shut down an ocean tourism group. That's not right. You know, these people lie. I mean, everything that caused this ruling to begin with was based on misinformation.

And the scientists, you need to listen to the scientists, you need to listen to your resource managers. If there's a problem, they have a way to address ecological problems. So please Support Senate Bill 1074. Give exemption to people who's going to lose their permits and their livelihoods for no reason other than people don't like what they do.

That's not right. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, I'll gladly address them.

Thank you very much. Next. Mr. Moore, our last testifier. Please proceed, sir.

All right, thank you, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Yeah, I just want to address a couple things that I've heard that the 200 introduce yourself and the company you're with. Sure. I'm Blake Moore with Teralani Sailing Adventures out of Kaanapali.

You know, the 200 people that work for our operations are also part of the community that we're discussing today. So I just want you to remind. Remind us of that. And we do fly over each time we have a hearing like this, really, for these individuals that are counting on us to speak on their behalf.

They're at work today, and they hope to be there in a couple of months as well. I also just want to speak to this idea of a settlement, and the concern that I have for that is that a.

That any settlement that's done in court between a plaintiff and a defendant would actually circumvent this public process that's going on here with these healthy discussions between someone who sued the state and the state making some new rules that none of us get to even see or comment on through the court system.

We've tried to get involved in that suit and were denied. So we don't have any access to actually provide any, you know, any comment on that settlement either. So, you know, SB 1074, as far as I'm aware, does not gut HIPAA. I know we keep hearing that.

It just allows us to keep our jobs while we go through the process. So, yeah, thank you guys very much, and we appreciate you allowing us to continue to fly over and comment on this. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Moore. That's all the testimony we received on this measure. Now we'll go to questions. Members, questions?

I think I'll defer to.

If you want to have questions, you go first.

Okay. Chair, I have three sets of questions. Chair, can you explain the contradiction in your testimony where you say the narrowing in HD1 to Chapter 200 is actually a broadening, and how your request to add amendments to broaden but not remove Chapter 20 makes any sense?

Well, let me try to explain what our position is and hopefully notwithstanding what the written testimony is. Oh, I'm sorry. So, Dawn Shang, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, I think we initially the original bill did include that it would include Besides Dobar Chapter 3200.

It would also include permits issued under the Division of Aquatic Resources, and those included 187A, 188, 189, 190. So those provisions would apply. So I think. And do those provisions affect the Ka' An Pali. No, they don't.

Okay. So they shouldn't be in this bill. Well, I think I'll just go on.

Because right now we're worried about that community. And so this broadens it and makes it does exactly what some of the opponents are saying, that your position is now broadening it beyond the group that we are concerned about. Why can't DLNR use the categorical exemptions?

All right.

Thank you for that question. I'm going to read to you on March 332020. This is the exemption list for the Department of Land and Natural Resources Exemption Class one, operations, repair or maintenance of existing structures, facilities, equipment or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion or change of use beyond that previously existed.

Specifically items 44 permits, licenses, registrations and right of entries issued by the Department that are routine in nature involving negligible impacts beyond that previously existing and exemption number 46, granting to a person the the privilege to conduct operations involving the provisions of good wares, merchandise or services to the General public, but not limited to tours, food and beverage operations, retail rental operations or communications.

So yes, there are exemptions that apply. We have looked at those. Let me read to you the court's decision in Judge Cahill's decision in the Kaanapali permits. It specifically requires us to comply with the Umberger decision. The Umberger decision. So it says here.

It is hereby ordered this case is remanded to the Department of Land and Natural Resources to initiate and complete an environmental assessment for any future commercial use permits that authorize the engagement of commercial activities in Kaanapali waters or determine these exemptions are exempt from the preparation of such an assessment under 343 subparagraph A, subparagraph 2 and in accordance with the analysis posited in the Umberger vs Department of Land and Natural Resources.

140 Hawaii 500. Let me read you the Umberger test. So this is in the Umberger vs DLNR. If an action is exempt from HIPAA, it must first one, it is within an exempt class promulgated by the Environmental Council, 11208A, or within the exemption category created by the agency itself pursuant to the authority under HAR. 11.2008 D.

So we've identified the exemptions. The second test in Umberger, the relevant exemption category can be applied because the activity does not have a significant cumulative impact and it does not have a significant impact on a particularly sensitive environment. See 11 208B.

3, the agency obtained the advice or other agencies or individuals having jurisdiction or expertise as to the propriety of the exemption. We have not completed Test 2 and 3. We are proposing to exercise the exemption for those activities where we are satisfied. Because, as I think it was Charlie Young said, the cumulative effect.

We totally agree with that. Okay, let me pause you there.

So what you're saying is if HD, if the HD1 as crafted and limited to Chapter 200, goes forward, that you may then be able to engage in this process to apply the categorical. Yes. Okay. With that test.

Following the test.

So then that's why the HD1 language, which is limited to Chapter 200, is a good compromise between both the environmentalist and. And the business people who are sitting in this room and looking at us very uncomfortably right now.

It is a good compromise in HTML. I wouldn't disagree with that. I agree with you. I agree. It is a compromise. It permits them to operate while we DLNR, comply with the rules.

So, third question, I know that Kaine Shiki could answer this. What are the six settlement positions and what are the obstacles for DLNR to be able to implement those? Because that sounds like that's also another practical way out of this.

Let me tell. Let me. Let me explain. The operators are not parties to the lawsuit, so they cannot be bound or they cannot apply anywhere. Understood. There are existing rules right now that do permit signage, that do permit the buoys. The buoys are in deep water. The signage is a responsibility of the operators.

Parking, which is one of the things that the plaintiffs want that's totally outside of the jurisdiction of dlnr. We cannot insure parking on land. We only authorize activities in the ocean waters. But more importantly, our concern was this does not include all of the commercial operators. They are not a party to this lawsuit.

Okay, can I just finish the question? What are the six. So I heard. I heard designated ingress or egress. I heard parking. Let's see if you can answer it. I will ask Kai.

But what that demonstrates to me is that, yes, I understand the Department may not have ability to wrangle parking, but you also have sister agencies that can be brought into the lawsuit and you as the state. You can get creative.

You can get creative if if there is a for this limited matter and then to the issue of it applying to all of the voters. There is only one active lawsuit at the moment.

So the six of the six that you've asked for one. Designated ingress egress areas for all vessels for loading and offloading as well as delineated safe swim and zoning zones all demarcated by buoys. Buoys must be replaced within 24 hours or or reasonable time period should they disappear. We currently have buoys 2.

Temporary signage erected on the beach 15 minutes prior to the arrival until departure of any vessel or loading or unloading of passengers. A trained safety attendant shall be present on the beach from 15 minutes prior to arrival until departure of any vessel to alert those in the water and on the beach arriving vessels.

The train safety attendant a must know how to swim, B have basic life support certification training and C is familiar with the watercraft safety protocols. That's currently an existing condition of their permits. 3. Submission of waste disposal plans for each commercial use permit holder with supporting agreements with waste disposal contractors or other third parties.

Each cup holder commercial use permit holder has utilization of the Lahaina Small boat Harbor for vessel pump out with operators hiring and scheduling a pump truck to empty the facility until the Lahaina Harbor Pump Station is operational. Most of these are not large vessels that have pump out.

Condition Number four Submission of all parking contracts or other agreements with third parties. Each commercial use permit holder has providing parking for employees and customers and and how customers are informed about where to park.

A numbering system shall be utilized and a log maintained to identify where each party of customers have parked and require incorrectly parked customers to repark if they do not park in designated stalls and to furnish this log to the DLNR at regular intervals.

Condition number five Adopt interim standard protocols after consulting with NOAA county lifeguards and DOE Care when DLNR would require all activities in the ORMA Ocean Recreational Management Area by commercial use permittee holders be canceled, ensuring safety and fairness and that the profit motive does not drive companies to compete in unsafe or risky conditions for workers, their customers or the public, including the Department utilizing Livestream cameras when in person inspections are not available.

That is a capacity issue for us. Number six Once weekly randomly timed presence of docare and or do bar officers at the Kaanapali Orma to spot check compliance with safety measures including the Department utilizing livestream cameras when in person, inspections are not available, a capacity issue, but those are the six conditions.

Thank you. I think that's fair that the last two are capacity issues, but also that it could be negotiated in the timeline that they have to be done immediately.

I urge the Department to look at ways to creatively engage in a settlement and then if you know, the last two are funding issues, clearly funding and capacity issues, I will acknowledge that. But certainly there is things here that can be worked on in the settlement. And so I appreciate this.

But this, as you can tell, this is a really hard place to be putting the Legislature in.

I do appreciate that. Rep Belatti it is a difficult position for all of us. So no, thank you for that and we will try to engage. We are very open to engaging with the with the commercial operators and the community some. But this is, you know, so we will continue in that. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair More questions? Yeah, we'll go to Rep. Shamizu first, then to Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. DLNR I guess going back to Rep. Belatti's questions because we're trying to address the borders businesses. I'm just wondering why were the added chapters put in the amended language and that's very fair.

That's a fair question. Again, I want to reiterate, this is not our bill. This bill was introduced by the Ka' Anapali commercial voters, so it's primarily designed to address their concerns. However, if you read Judge Cahill's decision, it has much broader impact beyond just Kaanapalli.

I am concerned if we do not apply the standards of Judge Cahill's decision to all other permits that we issue, will we be charged? Will the next suit that gets filed against us because this is the law of the case, will we be sued for being egregiously not following the law? And I do also want to share.

DLNR we are moving in the direction to be more environmentally conscious. That is our mission. We have not always been that way, but we're trying to move in that direction. But that's the reason why we see the necessity to broadening the this 1074 to address the potential. And it's not even potential.

We think it's very likely that other operators who get issued permits similar situation beyond Kaanapali may be impacted. So we are trying to take a proactive approach to address those potential permittees.

Thanks. Another question, Chair.

Yes.

You know, I've heard it asserted in this hearing and previously that it's within the DLNR's scope or present authority and ability to resolve this issue without this bill happening. And I'm not sure how that would happen, but could you comment on that statement?

Sure. I think. Well, one, it may be, I think there may be two answers. One, it's the settlement. Two, it's we can use an exemption, but as you can see, the exemption is going to take us time. We believe the exemption would take us perhaps seven months to comply with just doing some of the analysis.

We will try to expedite it and do it sooner. And I think that's why Judge Cahill gave until September. He held in a bance and he stayed then stayed the renewal of those permits until September.

But we believe it will take us some time because we need to go and assess the waters at least in Kaanapali priority to ensure that it meets the Umberger test. So that's why we're looking for I mean, that's why this bill does hold in abeyance the continued activity while we do the the 343 exemption.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Maybe first to follow up on that question, if it would take six to eight months to work through an exemption, I mean, from now until September is about five months. If you prioritize doing it, you could get it done in that time.

And I will tell you, we are starting. So we have asked Division of Aquatic Resources. We have Durazo Spartz, he's our Maui biologist. So we have asked Durazo to begin assessing the Kaanapali waters, the areas where the boats go in and out, coral reefs, any impact of this activity on the resources.

So we have asked him to begin doing that. It is also a capacity issue for us because over the last two weeks he's been having to assess the damages, potential damages of grounded vessels.

Yeah.

So I just think that had the Department been more proactive, you could have already been months long into that exemption process and we would not maybe not have to be here today because I feel for the Kaanapali boating community or the commercial voters, and I don't hear I haven't heard testimony from them that is opposed to the narrowing to just the chapter that impacts their area.

But I'm hearing from the Department that the Department wants more chapters added. And I feel like that kind of hijacks their original intention with the bill.

And I keep hearing that it's not a department bill, but the Department is kind of trying to make it their bill by adding all these additional Elements that makes it harder for us to, you know, be. Be more okay with it. I think. I understand. I have one more question.

So I'm hearing that you don't have, like, you don't need this bill to pursue an exemption, but that it would just give an additional safeguard for that time that all of these activities like the EA or the exemption process happens.

I mean, we don't need it. I think the commercial operators would like it so that they can continue to operate, because in the absence of this, although I think with Judge Cahill's decision, it does permit us to renew those permits. So potentially even without this bill, we would be.

I think we would be able to exercise the exemption, assuming that we don't find the necessity for, let's say, an environmental assessment. Let's say our assessment determines there is adverse impact, then we do have to do, perhaps do an environmental assessment. But we could. I mean, so I'm not going to in any way dismiss that.

There is a potential that we could complete the exemption assessment within the timeframe without this bill, because we will continue to do that with or without the bill. But you're right. I do recognize that our addition of the DAR provisions does put the Legislature in an awkward position.

I think we tried to look at an efficient way to identify those areas that we are.

Yeah. I think it uses this bill as an opportunity to do something that I don't think it was intended to do. I think the bill was very clearly intended just to try to help with the issue in Kaanpali.

And I think that trying to add all these additional chapters in was actually an unfortunate thing that happened to the bill because it made it much more complicated for us to deal with. Last question. Considering the DLNR's mission, how do you justify the position that you're taking in relation to your obligation to uphold the public trust?

That's a really. That. It's an excellent question, and it's a challenging one that we deal with every single day. We do have public trust duties. That is a priority for us. But I also have existing statutes that the Legislature pass, like Chapter 200, authorizing a level of commercial activity.

So that's a challenge we have, is while we have these public trust duties, we also have statutory obligations. Now, I think chapter 343 does provide us the safeguards to say, notwithstanding your authorization to permit this activity to be conducted, is it being conducted in an environmentally sound way?

Now, up until Judge Cahill's decision, these permits and activities were not challenged. So I think that.

Okay, thank you. I don't think I'll get a satisfactory answer, but I appreciate you trying. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, I want to say thank you to all the testifiers, those who traveled far to get here and those who came by Zoom. This is a very important matter for us to be considering. That's all the testifiers and that's all the questioning.

So we're going to go on to the receiving testimony on the last several measures on our agenda before we go into decision making. Next Measure, Senate Bill 1511. Senate Draft 1. House Draft 1 relating to Hanalei Bay.

This measure prohibits vessels longer than 75ft from entering Hanalei Bay and exempts vessels operated by a federal, state, or county agency. First up, we have Meghan Statts with DLNR.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Committee Members. Meghan Statts. I'm the administrator for the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. The Department will stand on its comments. Just to make a note, you know, we don't have any vessels that are 75ft or more in any of our Kauai small boat harbors. So this really wouldn't impact boats that we have in Kauai, but it could impact visiting vessels or larger vessels like that. But I'm here for any questions that you might have.

Thank you very much. We've received written testimony in support from Mayor Kawakami of Kauai, from Carl Imparato at the Hanalei Wainiha Ha’ena Community Association, and from one individual. Oh, from the Hanalei Watershed Hui. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1511, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. We're going to move on. Thank you.

Thank you to the testifiers. Next measure, Senate Bill 1099, House Draft 1, relating to important agricultural lands. This measure authorizes the Land Use Commission to designate county or state lands as important agricultural lands and adopt maps for the designated lands in counties that fail to identify and recommend important agricultural lands by December 31, 2027. First up, we have the Land Use Commission. You've been very patient. Thank you. Please proceed.

Aloha kākou, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Scott Derrickson, Chief Planner, State Land Use Commission. I appreciate your guys' stamina for hanging in there so long day after day, not just today. Okay. The Land Use Commission, LUC, has taken a position to support the intent of the measure. The staff believes that HD 1 of this measure essentially negates its impact as it limits the LUC to only designate IAL lands owned by the state or counties.

That designation of state and county lands is probably only a very small portion of the ag lands in the state, and they're not necessarily in danger of losing their agricultural designation. However, we are in support of the original version of the bill. The counties have had a significant amount of time to designate IAL lands within their jurisdiction. The same with the state.

This bill would allow the LUC to undertake an important and constitutionally mandated designation of IAL lands, important agricultural lands, and to preserve them for future generations and to ensure food security into the future. And I'm available to answer, we'll try to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Mr. Derrickson. Appreciate it. Next. Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Thank you for your patience, sir.

You're welcome. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Earl Yamamoto for the Department of Agriculture. We submitted comments and would prefer, I guess. We we support the existing process delineated in HRS, and that is Section 205-47. That's the county identification of important agricultural lands.

And I do not disagree with the testimony just presented by Scott Derrickson of the Land Use Commission. But I would, we would, the Department would prefer as much support be given to continuing and maybe funding as was mentioned by other parties in previous testimonies given on this bill, that the counties could be given funding to accomplish the tasks enumerated in statute. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yamamoto. We received written testimony from the Hawaii Farm Bureau with comments. That's all the testimony we've received on this measure. Anyone else here wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1099? If not, questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Land Use Commission, please. My simple question is are there, are there no such maps currently?

That's not a simple question. And I'll try and explain why. There are maps and they're quite dated, but they're still have a lot of value. The Land Study Bureau categories classifications. But they're not the same as what's the Constitution. And also the statute lays out to identify what are important agricultural lands.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Yes. Other questions on this side? If not, over here to Rep Belatti.

Question for the LUC person. Thank you. So my concern is, and I appreciate that you focus your testimony to be supportive of us designating the state and county lands first or the state lands and to determine whether they're IALs or not. What I fear is that if this were to go to conference, then it would shift back to all lands, and I think that's very problematic.

So you know, what is the timing that you think that the LUC would be able to accomplish what it needs to do for the small set amount of lands that are identified and then show us provide proof of concept that you guys can do it. I mean, I think that's actually a better way to approach this rather than to leave this door open that you guys are going to grab designation of IALs and all IALs.

I really wish I could give you a specific time frame. This is a really important task and it's also complicated task to muscle and get the appropriate information to support IAL designations. And it may not be as difficult on state lands. I can't speak to the county lands.

I don't know which county lands specifically are in the agricultural district now. But you know, basically we would depend a lot on DLNR and the Department of Ag to help to identify the values that define important agricultural lands. But I do think that it would be a shorter process.

So thank you. Thank you. Because my comment would be, well, show that to us and do that first. And don't try to advocate for grabbing and designating all the other lands.

Okay. Okay. Now, just to be clear, the Land Use Commission and its staff had nothing to do with this bill. We do not know where it came from or who has been supporting it up to this point. And we have not included in our budgets and our staffing requirements to do this work.

Even for the state lands.

That's right. That's right. Because that the responsibility to designate state lands has been, you know, we're the ones that ultimately do the designation, but we're not the ones in the statute that are identified to identify the lands and bring them to the commission for designation. Now this bill would make us do both.

Understood. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Okay, one last question.

Thank you, Chair. So, Land Use Commission, based on Department of Agriculture's testimony, that the way I understand it, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Department of Agriculture, is the way that it is now is acceptable. And would you agree with that statement, or do you feel that this bill is an improvement?

Okay. The current, the current law has several different paths, several different paths to identifying important agricultural lands. There's a path for private landowners to bring a petition to the commission. There's a path for state agencies to bring state lands to the commission.

And there's also a path for the counties to bring private and, well, primarily private lands and county lands to the commission for designation. Is that preferable? I think one of the problems that exists that we've heard from the counties, and we don't disagree with it, is that it's like an unfunded mandate for them.

While it's important, it's a constitutionally mandated process, they don't have the resources that they feel they need to get all that information together, bring a petition to the Land Use Commission. The only county who has done it so far was City and County of Honolulu, and that is still in court now for not potentially following the correct procedures in the law. So I would say that the current process still requires funding for staffing, for expertise, to put together these petitions.

So that's the limiting factor then, is the funding for implementation?

That's what I think. If you talk to the counties, that's what they would tell you. And I think that from our standpoint, if we're going to go forward with this task, even on in a limited fashion, we have to have the funding and staffing to be able to do it and do it well.

Thank you, Chair, for your indulgence.

Sure. Yeah. You've always got good questions. I think some of these things may require further study outside just this hearing because it is complicated and there's, it's very important. Okay. Other questions. Yes.

So in your mind, who does this version of the bill benefit?

Okay, well, I'm giving you my professional take on it. Not the Land Use Commission's take, but professional planner. Who does it benefit? I think ultimately this would benefit the State of Hawaii. State lands potentially would be identified as IAL and have greater protection into the future. County lands, same.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. To the testifiers. Final Bill, Senate Bill 1582, House Draft 1 relating to the coconut tree. This measure recognizes the coconut palm as a culturally significant plant and sustainable state food source in the state. First up, we have DLNR and support. Next, we have.

Okay, so direct the chair. Chang said she's going to stand on her written testimony and support because they can't see you on TV over there. It's okay. We got. We got it covered. I think everyone's ready for the. Moving on to decision making. Next, we have testimony on Zoom from NIU. Now ULU. NIU not present in support.

Next, we have Mr. Billionaire on Zoom. Not present in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1582, House Draft 1. If not questions. Members seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. To all the testifiers on all the bills here.

We're done with the receiving testimony and I really appreciate all those testifiers helping us out with their input. Let's go ahead into decision making now, Members, to the top of the agenda. Okay. Senate Bill 946, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 2 relating to wastewater management. On this, I think this bill is ready to move forward.

I'd like to insert a clean date upon approval and move this forward. Questions or concerns, Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Next Measure, Senate Bill849. Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 relating to wildlife conservation. On this I'd like to recommend we make some amendments specifically because it's While this bill addresses this important issue, there's another section of the Hawaii Revised Statutes that also addresses the prohibition on taking or harming hawk and other wild birds.

So I just want to insert the following clause at the beginning of Section 183D62, quote except as otherwise provided in Section 195D. Just include that in here. And then we need to make technical amendments to fix statutory language that's being repealed and technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

I would also like to insert a clean date upon approval. Those are my recommendations. Questions or concerns. Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 849SD1HD1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran and Todd are excused. Are there any no's or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 330, Senate Draft 1. House Draft 1 relating to invasive species prevention. On this measure I would like to recommend we move forward with amendments. I would like to adopt. Well, first I want to on page five, lines four to nine, we've got two terms, federal quarantine and quarantined state.

And they mean two different things. So I actually want to create definitions for each of those terms so that there's not a confusion. So that's, that's one change. I also want to on page five, lines 14 and 18, we need to add to that list American Samoa. It was, I think inadvertently left out.

I also would like to adopt the recommended amendments from the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the amendments recommended by the Attorney General. And I also want to add the State of Mississippi to the list of states that are experiencing the citrus greening as was recommended by CGAPs in their testimony. So those are my recommended amendments.

Questions or concerns. Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Please voting on SB330SD1HD1. Representative Cochran is excused, noting Representative Todd as present. Are there any no's or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1393 Senate Draft 1. House Draft 2 relating to the use of public lands. I would like to move this forward with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Questions or concerns. Members, if not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 1393 SD1 HD2. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any no's or reservations hearing None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 321 Senate Draft 1. House Draft 1 relating to transportation. On this measure, I would like to adopt the amendments recommended by the Hawaii Land Title Association and make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Questions or concerns Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 321SD1HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any no's or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.