Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Good afternoon. It's 1:00pm today on Tuesday, March 18, 2025. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. In the unlikely event that we have to abruptly end this hearing due to technology technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 1:00pm on Thursday, March 19, 2025 in this room 225.

A public notice will be posted on the Legislature's website. We will have a one minute time limit for testifier. We have several agendas in today's time slot. We will begin with the one o' clock Joint Committee hearing of the committees on Housing and Labor.

That will be followed by the 1:05pm agenda jointly with the Water and Land Committee, the 1:10pm housing only agenda, two housing only agendas and then the for decision making at the end of everything. Okay, so if there are temporary technical glitches during your term, turn to testify via Zoom.

We may have to move on to the next person due to time constraints. We appreciate your understanding and remind you that the Committee has your written testimony. Okay, so on the Committee on Labor, I'd like to welcome Chair Aquino.

Thank you very much. Chair. Joining me is my Vice Chair, Senator Chris Lee, as well as Senator Favela.

Okay, thank you very much. Thanks. And we'd also like to welcome Senator Favela who's also a Member of the Committee on Housing. Our first measure today is HB 1298 HD3 relating to housing which requires HHFTC to establish a government employee Housing Revolving Fund program.

And government employee 99 year leasehold rent to own program establishes the Government Employee Housing Revolving Fund. Our first testifier is HHFDC in support. Thank you. Followed by Department of Budget and Finance with comments. Hawaii Government Employees Association in support. Thank you. United Public Workers in support. Thank you.

Maui Chamber of Commerce in support and Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice chairs, Members of the committees, Tom Yamachika from Tax foundation of Hawaii. Our concern is with the Revolving Fund and we have basically the same concerns as Department of Budget and Finance. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the registered testifiers. Is there anyone else wish to testify on HB 1298? We'd like to welcome Vice Chair Hashimoto of the Housing Committee. Are there any questions or discussion, Members? Okay, if not, we'll move on to our second item today.

HB 741 HD2 relating to housing which exempts affordable Housing projects that are financed by a non profit community development financial institution certified by HHFDC as utilizing less than a certain amount from the Affordable Homeownership Revolving Fund from prevailing wage provisions.

Our first testifier is Hawaii Habitat for Humanity Association in support, followed by Hawaii Community Lending in support, Maui Chamber of Commerce in support, Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters in opposition, International Union of Painters and Allied trades District Council 50 in opposition, and IBEW Local Union 1186 in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 741?

If not Members, Any questions or discussion? We'd like to welcome Senator Kanuha to our Committee meeting. All right, well that brings us to the end of the our joint agenda with the Labor Committee. All right, so our first measure is HB 1298 HD3.

Having conferred the recommendation for the Committee on Housing we'll be to pass this measure with amendments. We have technical non substitute of amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency and we also want to further defect the date. Any discussion Members? So if not for HB 1298 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Members HB 1298 Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator Aquino. Aye. Senator Kanuha. Aye. Senator Favela. Aye. Chair recommendations adopted.

Labor and Technology Committee same recommendation. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair put a vote. Chair vote.

Thanks voting on House Bill 1298 house draft three recommendations to pass with amendments noting Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senator IHara excused. Senator Moriwaki excused. Senator Favela. Aye. Chair the recommendations adopted.

For HB 741 HD2 having conferred chairs are quite concerned about the issues raised by the labor unions and and therefore we'll be deferring this measure in depth.

Labor and Technology Committee same recommendation to defer. Thank you very much.

All right, thank you. And that brings us to the end of the one o' clock joint labor housing agenda.

Good afternoon.

It's 1:10pm and we are convening the committee on housings 1:10pm agenda with just HB 417 HD1 on it. We were originally scheduled to reconvene for the 105 joint with Waterland but they're not ready yet. So we're going to just start with the housing only agendas and when water land is available we'll convene with that.

So for the 1:10pm the first 1:10pm agenda there's only one measure HB 417 HD1 relating to the Rental Housing Revolving Fund.

It establishes the Housing Efficiency and Innovation sub account within the Rental Housing Revolving Fund specifies permissible uses of funding and priorities Authorizes HHFTC to transfer funds between the Housing Efficiency and Innovation sub account and Rental Housing Revolving Fund without legislative approval. Our first testifier is HHFTC in support.

Thank you, followed by Department of Budget and Finance with comments, followed by Holomua Collaborative in support. Thank you. There's also Title Guarantee, HPM Building Supply, Hawaii Gas, Mana up and Tory Richard in support followed by Church of the Crossroads in support, Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii in support, Ellen Godby Carson in support and Seth Kamemoto with comments.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 417. Members any questions or discussion? Okay, if not, then I think we can go into decision making for HB 417. So for HB 417 HD1, the chair's recommendation was will be to pass this measure with amendments to further defect the date.

We'll also replace per, we'll take HHFDC's amendment to replace the language projects that require the least amount of state funding per housing unit per year with the efficiency of use of state funding.

Also integrate paragraph E1's perpetual affordability into paragraph E2 and delete E1, will change the structure of paragraph F so that financing and exclusive qualified residents be in paragraph F followed by numbered priority criteria. On page 4, line 20 will allow any form of land tenure including for sale for rent and rent to own.

Page four, paragraph F1 will specify that funds can be used for any type of financing including but not limited to loans, equity investments and credit enhancement and then delete two will insert new priority criterion under paragraph F1 projects with a mix of units affordable to a diverse income range as defined by the corporation.

We'll also insert a new priority Criterion under paragraph F1 projects prioritizing government employees. On page 8, line 19 through page 9, line 2 prioritize both government and nonprofit projects over for profit projects.

We'll make conforming amendments to the rest of the HHFPC Governance section and sorry, Rental Hazard Revolving Fund governing section will insert a blank appropriation for each year of the biennium and also a blank appropriation out of the Fund to the HCBA 99 year leasehold project and the Committee report will note the appropriation request of $75 million per year of biennium and also the request of $75 million to be appropriated out of the sub account to the HCDA 99 year lease form project. Members.

Any questions? Discussion okay, if not for HB 417 HD1 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Members chairs recommendation for HB 417 is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator Aquino. Aye. Senator Kanuha excused. Senator Fevella. Aye.

Chair recommendations adopted. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the first 1pm agenda. And so that agenda is now adjourned. Good afternoon. We're now starting the second 1:10pm agenda of the Committee on Housing. We'll begin with HB 422 HD1 relating to school impact fees.

It repeals school impact fees, abolishes and transfers unencumbered balances of the school impact fee sub accounts, and certain fair share contribution accounts to the School Facilities Special Fund. Our first testifier is HPHA in support.

Thank you.

Followed by School Facilities Authority with comments. Thank you. Hawaii State Department of Education in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Dean Uchida, Deputy Superintendent with Department of Education. After conversation with your Vice Chair yesterday, we provided the Chair and the Vice Chair with language that we thought we could submit to Amanda the current version of the Bill. After consultation with our staff, we actually came up with easier language.

Rather than exempting or removing the construction costs from the impact fee Bill, we would like to provide, I mean, suggest that we just exempt the government housing projects from the construction cost component of impact fee Bill. Some language that we proposal.

Thank you. We have the Department of Hawaiian Homelands in support. Thank you. Hawaii State Board of Education with comments. Thank you. City and County of Honolulu Office of Housing and Support, EAH Housing and Support Affordable Housing Connections and support, Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika for Tax foundation of Hawaii. Apparently we have a situation where due to the technical requirements in each of the funds, the funds have basically been unused for a very long period of time.

The fair share of share accounts have been sitting around for at least 17 years and the school impact fee account balances have been sitting around for a very long time. Also steadily and steadily gaining and having little or no money spent until they're about $20 million now. We think it's a very good idea. To.

Have this money go back where the Department of Education could actually use it. Be available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in support.

Not. Present on zoom Chair.

Thank you. Hawaii Indian support Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic justice and support Nan Ink in support. Libertarian Party of Hawaii in support and several individuals Kathleen Fleming Michael, Cheryl Rozanka, Jake Fergus, Candice Viscara, Nicholas Zaire, Kelly Nishimura. Sorry. With the exception of Kelly Yoshimura, all those were in support.

And then we have individuals Seth Kamimoto and Kelly Nishimura in opposition. Is there anyone else wishes to testify in House Bill 422? Okay. If not Members questions? Senator Hashimoto.

All right, maybe Dean, you can come back up. So I understand your concerns about the Department of Education getting some type of land contributions, and I know you haven't been there very long, but have you been able to take a look at the Auditor's report regarding school impact fees?

Yes, I do.

And do you believe that the Department has adequately addressed all the Auditor's findings since this report has come out?

Well, the program was transferred over to SFA in 2021.

Okay, so then you're fine. You don't. You're out of the picture then.

We are in a picture from a standpoint of needing land for new school site if the project is going to generate more students than the schools can accommodate.

Okay, and so how much land have you gotten since the time that this has been implemented from the beginning? Well, this, you know, I noticed you were on the original Committee to figure out the school impact fees from 2007. So once we implemented it, how much land has the DOE gotten from the school impact fee?

I don't have that number.

Okay, so why do you think it's important if you don't know what the number is? I think it's important that we get a school site for a new project. But why.

So why can't you just get that through the State Land Use Commission, which is what their role is, to take care of the proper, you know, to take a look at primary impacts on state facilities when they're reviewing things that are 15 acres or more.

Correct, but this isn't a statute. It's a law that allows us to get land for new school construction if the project generates more students than the schools can accommodate.

Okay, so then we go back to the Auditor's report. Did you read through the Auditor's report? I did. To figure out what are.

Why we have these concerns because we don't believe that the Department of Education is sufficiently using the impact fee to help you figure out things that you need to do to get facilities up and running. So, for example, of the 21 million, this is what I asked you guys.

Of the 21 million, how much of the 21 million that was generated through school impact fees did you guys actually use?

We didn't use very much, if any, because prior to 2021, the impact fee, user impact fee, construction costs and land in lieu of was very restrictive. It only dealt with new school construction.

But then it shouldn't be new school construction because it's for new homes.

Right, but we're using the. The new homes have to be in the area that or this new school has to be in the area where the homes are being constructed.

Right, but did you read the Auditor's report on how disjointed it was of where you could use the school impact fee? So it essentially, you had this zone that you could use it. You could be in pro city and you could use the impact fee out in Kapolei. Did you guys fix that?

I'm not sure. I was applying before I got there.

Right. So I think the bottom line is if you have 21 million sitting in that account, and then if you read the statute, it says that we're going to have to give that money back plus interest, coming up on 20 years. So I think we're coming up on 20 years if you don't spend the money.

So we're gonna have to give all that money back because we didn't spend anything and now it's not your problem. So. Great. But I think the bottom line is if you guys, during that time that you had it, couldn't figure out what to do with it, why should we continue it?

Because all the things that, you know is stopping affordable housing, you know, you're not helping with that, people, when you take a look at build 7 projects, they're avoiding the school impact fee zone. So.

So, you know, I get where the DOE is coming from, but if you can't tell me what lands you've effectively been able to get because of the school impact fee, it's kind of hard for us to support you to say yes, we're. We're concerned, even talking about school consolidation. So we're talking about new, new schools.

But you're consolidating schools. So what is it? I think your population is declining. So I think.

What is, what is the vision of. Acreage we got so far? I'll get back to you on that.

Okay, but this is. We're almost one of the last committees to hear this Bill. You guys weren't, you know, getting. Gathering this data along the way.

Nobody asked before, so I'll get it for you.

Okay, well, I think, you know, just so we're transparent, all you're saying is that all government housing projects shall be exempt from the construction cost of the impact fee. That's your proposal from the DOE, Right. So, okay, so all we're doing is we don't care about anything.

All the other development projects that are having a hard time figuring out how to pencil out, you're just. You're talking about government projects.

Well, other projects are complying with the law right now.

Well, not projects on the Big Island. The Big island doesn't even follow the school impact fee law.

They do in the areas outside of. Well, we have this.

So when you say that this was meant, you know, the purpose of the impact fee was to bring some type of standardized, state, statewide process of doing impact fees. But then the Big island decided, well, we're just not going to follow it, and you guys did nothing about it. Why is that?

I wasn't there when this.

So, Dean. But you're defending the Department today on why we should continue to impact fees, and you can't use the excuse, zero, I wasn't here. I don't know. If you believe the impact fee is important to the Department, you should be coming here prepared with information that will help us make our decision.

But the information that you're giving is, I don't know. We haven't been tracking. It was before my time. So what do you want me to think here? I'll get your information. Okay, well, I think that's concerning. I think this is not a new topic. We've been talking about this for years.

I was in the House talking about school impact fees. Now we're talking about school impact fees again. The Governor has waived school impact fees in his emergency proclamation. And it's very surprising that the DOE is coming here without a plan on how to use the school impact fees when we're saying it's a big barrier to affordable housing.

If the DOE can make a compelling case for me on why they should continue to keep the school impact fee, maybe we will be interested. But if you can't come here and make a compelling case, it's hard for us to understand that. All right, thank you, SFA.

So if we, if we pass this Bill as is, what would be the mechanism for us to get land contributions?

Right. If you look at the history of the Bill, you would revert back to what it was before, which is the district boundary amendment process of the Land Use Commission and then the zoning process of each county government. I think historically, though, because county governments don't pay for schools, that process hasn't been very effective.

And it was primarily relying upon the district boundary amendment Process which is through the land use, the Land Use Commission. So if the SFA were to build a school, we would be part of that hearing and we would request through that district boundary amendment process primarily for a land set aside.

But don't you think the state, isn't that the role of the state Land Use Commission to really understand what are the factors going into a development? Because I think one of the biggest issues at this point in time is that we don't know how projects are penciling out. A lot of times the projects don't pencil out.

So maybe there needs to be some flexibility in the process versus some formula that doesn't make sense and it's going to push a project into unaffordability.

Right. There's no formula for the land use process. It's a case by case basis based upon each petitioner's action. So given the merits of the development, that would be all part of the Land Use Commission's process, which is very long on ultimately deciding the ability to take conservation land as urban or, you know, to reclassify state use.

So there is a mechanism for us to get lands then out of the whole process. There is. If we, if we get rid of the impact fee, there is, we won't not see land.

Yeah. There's two processes. Right. There's a state process, the Land Use Commission, and there's also the counting process of, of zoning.

So the DOE can continue to say we need land. We, we need land. If you're going to do a subdivision. And that will be through the normal consultation process. Right.

Or the SFA, if you decide to give us to, to, to, to build that school, so. Right, exactly. Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Okay, so on the impact fees, I guess that this wasn't brought up besides the impact fees with the land. It just doesn't come with land. The developer develops the land, get them prepped for the elementary school or the high school, that they put money into it.

Maybe the, from what I hear from my colleagues, maybe the DOE or whatever, they're not spending the money that they're getting from the, in fact fees of $1200 a home. In my community, but my community, you get 1,2,3,4,5,6 to 7 more schools, probably 9 all together. And we need land. Right now.

The ever beach new high school is almost being on the final phases. This is why my colleagues is frustrated because guess what? Nobody's building it. Nobody's talking about building it. We get elementary school. Paul Pele is willing to turn over the elementary school to the state. Guess what? We don't do that too. So they're paying land tax.

These are the kinds of things of why this thing came up. I'm not for this Bill because my community is a fast and growing. I get 3,300 students in my high school. Elementary schools is overcrowded from 9 to 700 kids. We get 1200 kids have a makai middle who have a new 6th grade wing. Right.

Is already overcrowded. So it's not helping my community. Right. But again what my colleague is saying from Maui is that the frustration is that you guys are not doing you guys part in getting this. This is decades. What year Was this started? Adi 2001. Okay. Ever beach was impacted prior to that nothing wouldn't catch up.

So they blame us here at the ledge that we're not providing the funding for the schools. But then the developers is putting in building the land. Right. Giving them the land. Right. That's the only thing I care about is making sure that the developers build up. Build the schools.

Excuse me, build up, give the land, put the infrastructure in. But it's your guys job to build the schools.

So that's why when my colleagues over here is asking right Dean and anybody in the DOE should have known just in my district, excuse me, hopefully we get the new middle school, middle school that was, that was all done again the impact fees and infrastructure so that we need to get it built.

But when he, when a colleague asking for land that should be automatic because nobody's paying attention to my community. That's the problem. And I, I talked to my colleagues. I want this Bill not to pass but it's going to pass.

But I want to make sure that the land that we get from the developers, not just the land with land use Commission, whatever. I want to make sure the developer put in the infrastructure because Kali knows anybody in this building knows about the infrastructure. That's the most expensive part of any development.

So I like no for me just telling you this right now so you can put this on the record. When is your guys timeline to taking over the whole Pele elementary property and then ending out of here? When are you guys going to take over the new Ever Beach High School property?

So by statute, I understand your frustration. We can only do projects that we've been incited to by the Legislature or the Governor or the Board of Ed. The only school we've been assigned to is Central Maui New Middle School.

So at this moment in time and we are working diligently with the Central Maui community to build that school.

Okay, but let me, let me, let me clarify this. When was Central Maui's one required to be built? When was the need for Central Maui?

The need for Central Maui?

No, when was, when was this allocated or depending to Bill for central Maui not to get away from Central. I know what year, how much Years ago.

So the appropriation for Central Maui to plan a design was in 2022.

Okay. You know how long the elementary scoop in there ready for you guys? Even when you guys came in, when I didn't even want you guys. I told Michelle that because I thought it was. It was you guys wasn't going to do nothing.

That's the reason why we had problems and we were trying to get rid of you guys. Yeah, elementary been ready for seven years in whole Pele.

Seven years, maybe for central Maui.

Yeah, you guys came in in time for go build that elementary. But you guys never took a hold of the property.

No, we were never assigned it. We have no power.

It wasn't assigned it. But see what. That's not the excuse. You're not listening. Not the excuse because prior to you being there we told the first person that was in your shoes about that being turned over. Okay. So it wasn't a sign. And you guys got to go pay attention what is ready.

So because the New Ever Beach High School is not assigned. Forget about them. What about the defense? You guys understand that's what caused the developer costs paying the land tax on stuff that the state not taking control of. That's the problem. The state then that costs the cost of the consumer who's buying homes in Pele. Right.

Gotta offset the cost because of the land. Right. They gotta pay the land tax on that. That's not small money. But this is what my colleagues are talking about. I understand you not understand and the statute. But it's not that you guys not knowing that these things was ready. The reason why we're not building on this thing.

Oh, we don't want enough teachers. Right. We don't want money for building schools. We no more teachers. But you guys should have taught her that previous before you understandable. But they should have taught her that before they started busting up my community with having that much students. Every single school.

We'll take a tour from Kapolei High School, Kapolei Middle, Honouliuli Ever elementary, all the schools Honomua all of them. Kyoni' Ula. Everyone is overcrowded. Campbell is the biggest overcrowded in the state. So again I told you guys this before.

Told you guys, people in your Department before these other neighbor islands had come out to board for teacher housing and school. Campbell, Elva beach already was overcrowded, had facilities to be built for the congestion at Elva Elementary. You know what we're doing at Elva Elementary? We're giving them portables.

You know, when I was in School in 1986, they didn't wear the portable because you know what they told us that's not adequate classrooms. You know what portables? Campbell has 64 portables.

So those are the things that you guys got to go back instead of your air conditioned room and go look out because that's unacceptable for my community. Have that much portables. We get the most portables, probably the whole state. Again, like I said, I wasn't for this Bill. I talked to my colleagues.

I'm going to agree with the Bill, but I'm not agreeing to the fact that, that we're going to lose the impact fees when it comes to the land. I like the developers. Build, build. I mean put the infrastructure for the schools and then you guys figure out what is in the statute.

So if the Governor is not putting this list in, then I'm going to make sure, I'm going to see the Governor, let them know that our community was ready seven years ago. Thank you, Chair. Sorry.

Appreciate you, Senator, thank you very much. Sure. Any further questions? Okay. If not, thank you so much. Thank you so much. We'll move on to our next Bill, which is actually a resolution and we'll take them together.

SCR 60 and SR 45 urging the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to develop a plan to produce sufficient housing to meet the state's demand. Our first testifier is HHFDC with comments. Thank you. And Johnnie-Mae Perry in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SDR 60 or SR 45? Members, do we have any questions?

If not, we'll move to the last item on today's agenda which are another pair of resolutions: SCR 77 and SR 60, declaring the intent that projects with housing units that qualify for housing credits under Act 31. Session Laws of Hawaii 2024 are still eligible to receive housing credits after the repeal of that act if the housing projects were approved by the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation before July 1, 2031, and requesting the corporation and each county to include certain information when approving housing projects for housing credits.

Our first testifier for these two resolutions is HHFTC in support, followed by DHHL in support. And finally, Johnnie-Mae Perry, an individual in opposite. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SCR 77 or SR 60?

Aloha. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Evan Knapp, on behalf of NAPP Hawaii; I apologies on our late testimony on this on these resolutions. We stand in strong support of both of these measures and just seeking clarification for the affordable housing credits that are created from Act 31 and just ensuring their viability past the repeal date.

So, you know, for those reasons, we stand in strong support and appreciate it, and we'll be available for any questions, Chair.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SCR 77 or SR 60? Okay. Members, any questions? Discussion? Okay. If not, that brings us to the end of this agenda. So, we're going to go into recess, and we'll come back for decision making.

Welcome back. The Committee on Housing is back for decision making on the 1:10pm agenda starting with HB 422. So having discussed this measure, the Chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure with pass this bill with amendments to further defect the date. But the Chair does note the concerns from Senator Fevella.

And so, in the committee report we want to note those concerns regarding the school sites in 'Ewa. And Senator Fevella, if you wanted to just further elaborate if you'd like to right now, you can do so.

There's the future bill - there's the future bill out for Hoopili and all the development in Ocean Point that is happening.

I want to make sure that, you know, if we're not putting in the impact fees for money, which I can understand because they're not using it, I don't want to make sure that the land is within the district that is supposed to what the Land Use Commission said that they have to because of the impact in the notes should be that they have to provide land for schools.

So, I don't know how it will work when it comes to just getting the land because right now the DOE not going to have the money to put infrastructure. If we're just getting land with no infrastructure, what is the impact?

So that would be the provision if they provide the land to also provide the infrastructure to the land. Because I think we supposed that one more middle school and I think three more elementary schools. Of course, the high school that I just said earlier.

But if there's something to that effect and I will work closely with the Land Use Commission because if anybody know in my community, I ain't letting nothing slip through the cracks, period. Thank you.

So mindful of those concerns about the school sites in the 'Ewa area that are owed to the community via the Land Use Commission process, we will be recommending that this measure pass with amendments with a further defective date. Okay, any further discussion members or questions for HP 422? Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

Chair votes aye.

Members, HP 422; Chair's recommendations passed with amendments. [Roll Call]. Chair's recommendations adopted.

Yeah. Let's change my note to our presentations just to support the measure, but we need to really check on the impact on 'Ewa Beach community. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Great. Chair recommendations adopted

Thank you very much. Our next measure is the pair of resolutions SCR 60 and SR 45. Chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure with amendments.

We'll add a further resolved clause to make sure that the report includes site identification density at each site, how to maximize walkability and density, the most efficient and sustainable financial plan and needs, financing needs, personnel and government capacity needs, as well as how to overcome hurdles to housing supply provision, including those identified in the HCR 131 report.

Further in the committee report, we'll Note that the HCR 131 report did not address financing needs or potential financing mechanisms. And we also want to note the DBEDT Strategic Plan to increase housing supply in Hawaii and HHFDC's comment that it will address financing needs in that report. Okay, Members, any questions or discussion?

If not; for SCR 60 and SR 45, Chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Members SR 45, SCR 60; Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. [Roll Call]. Chair's recommendations adopted.

Thank you. And our final measure on this agenda is SCR 77 and SR 60. Chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure with amendments. We have technical, non-substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency. So, any discussion or questions. Okay, if not SCR 77 and SR 60. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

Chair votes aye.

Members, SR 60, SCR 77; Chair's recommendations is passed with amendments. Chair votes aye. Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting, no? With all others voting aye, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. That brings us to the end of the 1:10pm hearing agenda, so this committee is adjourned. Good afternoon. It's 1:46pm and welcome to the deferred decision making of the Committee on Housing. These measures have all already been heard in their respective committees, so we're just going to proceed directly to decision making.

So, the first measure today on this agenda is HB 576 HD2 relating to restrictions on the transfer of real property under Chapter 201H HRS, which exempts transfers of Hawaiian Homelands from transfer restrictions for real property under housing development programs of the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. So, the chairs of the Housing and Hawaiian Affairs Committees have been conferred.

The Chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure with amendments.

The amendment will be to revise page 13 to read this section "shall not apply to any transfers of Hawaiian homelands under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 1920 as amended as any such transfers shall be governed by the provisions of that act, including but not limited to lease conditions, stipulating that the lease shall be for a term of 99 years."

Members, any questions or discussion? Okay, so again for HB 576 HD2, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendment.

Members, HB 576 HD2; Chair's recommendations passed with amendments, noting the presence of all members. Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no? All others voting aye, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Our next bill is HB 606 HD1, relating to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Again, the chairs of Hawaiian Affairs and Housing having conferred. The Chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure unamended. Additionally, the Committee report will note the requested appropriation amount of $50 million. Any discussion of questions, members?

The Committee report will note that the requested appropriation is $50 million.

You know, my concern is that I understand, I, I totally understand a lot of the miscommunication that people was getting. I just got to tell you right now, regardless if we use 600 million to build one house, I know we didn't just build one house or whatever, we're moving in the right direction.

If we really truly in this square building, believe that we need to get our people off the list and moving forward, 50 million is not going to cost nothing for any infrastructure that we got to do going forward.

Infrastructure right now, colleagues, is costing the most money for this new development, especially on the neighbor islands in rural areas that have no infrastructure, no water, no electricity, none of that. So, I understand you guys made the decision for 50 million, but yeah, I don't know. Thank you, Chair. Sorry.

Thank you, Senator. And why don't we note that in the committee report too, what you were just talking about your concerns about the infrastructure needs, especially on the neighbor islands.

Because even if the 600 million that they're asking for is not even enough for the infrastructure, and I know they didn't spend the money or, you know, colleagues say they never spend the money, a lot of this is going to go into infrastructure.

I will tell you right now, within our area, especially in 'Ewa Beach, Kalaeloa or whatever they call them, but it's Ever Veach Hawaiian homes area, there's no infrastructure. And they're doing a great job right now in putting all the infrastructure in where there was nothing. And it costs a lot of money for that. So that's my recommendation.

I mean, if I had my way, I would have gave them the 600 million. But it's not my decision. Thank you.

Thank you. And like I said, we'll note those concerns in the committee report. Thank You, Senator. All right, so again for HB 606 HD1, the Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Chair votes aye.

Members, Chair's recommendation for HB 606 HD1 is passed unamended. Chair votes aye. Any members waiting with reservations? Reservations from Senator Fevella. Any members voting no? Without others voting aye, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Our next measure is HB 1408 relating to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, which would allow the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to utilize the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund as collateral when the department acts as an eligible borrower for a loan agreement under section 184A of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as amended.

So, the chairs haven't conferred on this measure and worked with Department of Hawaiian Homelands. They've expressed that this measure is no longer needed. And maybe we can revisit this issue in a future year, but for this year we'll be deferring this measure.

Okay, we'll move next to our last two measures which were joint jointly heard with the Committee on Consumer Protection. HB 1097 HD1 relating to public housing evictions, which reduces the time HPHA is required to store unclaimed personal effects of a tenant evicted from public housing.

Having conferred, again, the Chair's recommendation, will you pass this measure with amendments to further defect the date? Members, any discussion or questions?

Okay, again for HBA -

I'm sorry, what bill is this?

1097.

Any discussion?

So, we're lessening it to 14 days to 30 days? So, we're lessening it to 14 days to 30 days? Okay, so just want to make the note that is, I think it's going to be a hardship on the families regardless if they're occupying them. And people think that it's just rubbish.

It's going to cause, to me, it's going to cause again problems for us to having more of our houseless community being out there feeling the crunch. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And we can definitely note those concerns in the committee report, especially about the hardship to families and homelessness as well. Okay, so again for HB 1097, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Members, Chair's recommendation for HB 1097 passed with amendments. Chair votes aye. Any members voting with reservation?

Reservation.

Reservation from Senator Fevella. Any members voting no? With all others voting aye. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. And our final DM today is HB 1325 HD3 relating to housing. So, the Chair's recommendation, having conferred with the CPM Committee, will be to pass this measure with amendments. We have technical, non-substantive amendments. We'll be further defecting the date.

And we'll also take HHFDC's amendment to require projects to provide relocation assistance and the right of first refusal on the project, as long as there is no requirement that the unit be offered at the same rate as the prior unit. And additionally in the committee report, we'll be noting NAIOP's concerns in testimony. Any discussion or questions?

Just, just from what the testifiers had said earlier; if we can, Chair, to make sure that if they have an appointment or a relocation or someplace that they're going to stay that they said like it's, it's, it's, you can live in.

I don't know if that's supposed to be legal under Section 8, but we got to make sure that they have good living, quality of life area if they're going to be relocated temporarily or permanent on their decision. But to please make sure that we take care of them when it comes to them to be relocated. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And we can definitely note those concerns in the Committee report. Okay. So again, for House Bill 1325, Chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Members, HB 1325; Chair's we're going to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Any members voting with reservations?

I'm gonna vote on aye; I was going to vote reservations, but I'll give an aye. Thank you, Chair.

So, noted. Anybody voting no? With all others voting aye, including Senator Fevella, recommendations adopted.

Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the decision making. But members, we're still waiting on the Water and Land Committee to start the 1:05pm agenda. So, we still have one more item for today's time slot. All right, this decision making is adjourned.

Good afternoon and welcome to the last agenda that the Committee on Housing has today. We are on the 1:05 p.m. joint agenda with the Committee on Water Land. I'd like to welcome Water Land Chair Inouye as well as Vice Chair Elefante and Senator DeCorte. We have four measures on today's 1:05 p.m. agenda.

The first is HB1409, HD1, relating to transit oriented development, which amends the funding priorities of the Rental Housing Revolving Fund to incentivize development in areas that satisfy transit-supportive density requirements. It allocates a minimum percentage of Rental Housing Revolving Fund monies for certain mixed-income rental housing projects.

Requires TOD infrastructure improvement boards to consider the infrastructure needs of transit-supported density requirements. Requires a strategic plan developed by the Hawaii Interagency Council for Transit Oriented Development to delineate county-designated transit oriented development areas for each county. Our first specifier is Office of Planning and Sustainable Development in support. Thank you. Followed by HHFDC in support.

Thank you. Department of Hawaiian Homelands in support. Thank you. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting with comments. AARP Hawaii in support. Honolulu Collaborative in support. Thank you. Housing Hawaii's Future in support. Thank you. Grassroots Institute of Hawaiian Support.

Thank you. Hawaii YIMBY in support.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice in support. Kevin Carney in support. And three further individuals, Seth Kamimoto, Candice Vizcarra, and Jacob Wiencek, in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB1409? Members, any questions? Discussion? Is anyone here from the city and county? On Zoom, anyone from city and county?

I don't think they're with us. Okay, next bill is.

Okay, we'll proceed to HB 830 House Draft 2 relating to historic preservation reviews. This requires DLNR to contract its review of proposed state projects, projects on privately owned historic property and projects affecting historic properties to two, third party consultants.

If the Department is unable to complete its review within 60 days, it authorizes the Department to assess the cost of third party consultant to the project proponent. Okay. DLNR. Okay. Since DLNR you have SHPD as well and there's comments to your testimony. Can you come up please? Okay.

And share with us on the comments and how this measure would impact the Department or, yeah, the work that's put in.

Absolutely. Jessica Puff, the administrator of State Historic Preservation Division. SHPD is concerned by how to implement this measure not just because of the contracting procedures and needing to find a qualified consultant or consultants that could do this work.

But then also the workload that it would establish for our staff to monitor the work of these third party reviewers to make sure that they were following all applicable laws and holding the project opponents to account to consider the impact of their projects on historic resources.

And we recommended though there is a Senate version of the bill that you all considered previously that had added some language that helped to resolve some of these issues that this version of the third party review, this version of a bill for third party reviewers doesn't address.

Okay. Thank you. And while you're here and I don't have my other notes with me, you remember the bill number for the Senate on the amendment we made.

It was Senate Bill 1002. I think it's, there's a House draft too now for it because there was just a hearing for it today.

And that's what we're hearing.

You're hearing right now the House Bill 830.

Okay. It was in the companion.

Yes. The added language was in the companion bill. The ones or the Senate Bill 1002.

Thank you. Yes. And why I, you know, asking you to make comments because we're into development of housing no different than TOD developments to occur and ensure that with the TOD areas. It seems like we've been planning for the TOD since the, for quite some time now and so we want to make sure that it's clear that we can move projects along.

Now, with that said, also we did include in your budget couple of years ago with many for you to fill many positions the vacancies. Where are we so we can ensure that whatever the Legislature passes and issues like this comes up that we're already you're covered.

So we are, we're actively hiring and recruiting right now for all of the vacant positions there. We've made selections for that are in the process of their paperwork is being processed for the Maui office. So the Maui Archaeology positions will be fully staffed hopefully by the end of this month, if not early next month.

We're also actively recruiting and interviewing for positions on Oahu in the archaeology branch and we're working on getting vacant postings that just were recently vacated in the architecture branch as well so that we can fill those positions.

I'm hoping that we have at least all of the positions posted, because we've had to post them in batches and in order to keep consistently the recruiting instead of flooding the system with 20 vacancies all at once, we're hoping to get all of our batches posted before the start of the summer. So I'm hoping to get them done before 1st of June.

So with that, you got your, you can have your vacancies addressed and whatever. So the measure similar that, I mean the, the bill itself is addressing similar like we addressed in SB 1002. So can you tell me right now, because we're all busy people, bills are being heard, what's the status of SB 1002 or if anybody knows.

So it just made it out of the water and land, the House Water and Land Committee earlier this morning.

It hasn't got into Judiciary. It goes there or to Finn. Yeah, it goes to Finn. Okay. So. All right. It's, it seems like, I think when we looked at SB 1002 and this, the testifiers with regards to this measure is drastically different. Okay. So I'm just thinking that we've had good work and evokes helped us with the language as well in SB 1002. Okay, thank you so much.

I'm glad at least those that who are concerned about the, you know, the comments I said earlier, moving housing, you know, getting done fast, TOD we want to make sure that we start the plants, you know, can start, infrastructure can be put in and we're moving along.

If I might just indulge if there's anybody listening to this hearing who wants to be an archaeologist for SHPD, we have openings.

And just to add that, we did increase that pay scale tremendously, maybe even 100%.

Absolutely. We're very competitive now.

Yes, we're moving along. Thank you so much. Okay. Sorry. Any questions? Yes. Yes. Senator Hashimoto.

Thank you. Thanks for being here. So I guess. So the issue of liability, is that figured out in SB 1002?

It addresses that SHPD would maintain liability for the decisions or the determinations made by the third party reviewer. It does have a stipulation within the bill.

In there.

Yes.

Okay. So I think the question really is, what is the plan? So it's good to hear that you're open to third party review. It's just a matter of, I think is the thought process when you do the third party, is someone then reviewing it within SHPD once it comes back, or are we giving them some type of freedom?

I think I was reading in your testimony that, you know, they have to follow the ethics rules of review, and I hope that's already addressed in SB 1002. But I think if it has to come back and then wait for somebody to review what they reviewed, it just kind of doesn't make sense at a certain point too. But I guess what is your thinking on how that's going to work.

Well, typically we have had somewhat similar agreements with like the Department of Transportation where they've paid for third party reviewers within our office to help transportation projects move along. So they don't. There's like a wall between HDOT and our office with those contract workers

And essentially those workers review the project, they produce a letter with a determination and we review the letter and either I have to sign it or the chair of DLNR has to sign the letter that goes out that has the final determination. At that point we don't rereview the entire project.

As long as the letter itself meets all the requirements and has the required language and it's a sound determination, then we'll sign it and send it on. So there is a point where we do have to still sign the letter that the third party reviewer writes at this point based on what we've done before without having to re review the entire project from the beginning. So it should speed things up.

And do we feel like we have the appropriate guardrails in place? Because I think when I talked to the city about permit third party reviews, they were like, they blamed that's how a lot of these monster homes got through. And I was like, well, you can't catch everything.

But I think, you know, as long as we know that we are going to have, you know, policies and procedures in place to make sure, you know, some of the things that you don't want, you know, at least we're going to catch most of the things. Right? I think we're not expecting it to be 100%, but.

Yeah. And I think with the case with historic preservation, we don't have the ability to prevent necessarily a project from moving forward just to ensure that historic preservation is considered and historic resources are avoided if they can be, or the impact is minimized or mitigated if it can't be.

And then of course to take into account any impacts to EV and try to avoid that as well. And so I think it's a little bit different, I guess is what I'm saying than what the county is looking at and the professionals looking at this in terms of the SB 1002 bill.

And I believe there's language in this version of the bill too, but I don't think it's a specific. It does require that those third party reviewers do meet the state professional qualifications. And so there is like a professional like check, like a professional control there that the people doing the review should know what they're doing. And again, we would be kind of reviewing their final determination.

So I guess the question is, do we think there is people that are willing to do this? Because I think, you know, when we were doing, contemplating something for Maui County, they couldn't find anybody even though we gave them the authority.

Yeah. And I think that was talking about the consultants, right? Yeah, that was our concern that the language in the initial draft of both bills said that SHPD shall, but it didn't have language in there that says, well, what happens if you can't find a third party reviewer? SB 1002, I think you guys resolved that problem.

You added language that essentially said if a third party reviewer is available, so it allows us to. And I'm not sure how much a third party reviewer consultant would charge for this either.

Sounds expensive.

You also. Well, I think it was anticipated that we would charge a fee and that the fee would pay for the review, but we don't get the fee for at least a month. That's how the payment system works.

And so we need a little seed money to start up the contract in order to start it so that the fees can feed into it later. Sorry, I'm going off too much detail, I'm sure. But yeah, it's complicated on who would take it.

So the concept is you have to select the third party review or.

Yes. I believe so. Okay.

That's in 1002.

That's in both of the bills. Yeah.

With more clarity in 1002.

Thank you, Chair.

Any further discussion? Senator Elefante

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Puff, what is your current average time now for review? And secondly, is it separate categories for development projects and private residences or are they looped into one category?

There, the review period is contingent upon the complexity of the project and whether or not there's a federal component as well as the state component. And then also based upon the completeness of the submittal that we receive and whether or not they have all the information or not.

If it's a simple permit, we have a 45 day review period for a determination of whether or not a historic property is there and if it's significant and a 45 day review period to determine if there's an effect to that historic property.

We've been getting the simple permits reviewed within a 30 day timeline and the ones for Maui for recovery projects, we've been trying to get those out in less than two weeks. For the more complicated projects and those including Section 106 consultation, depending upon when they come to us, because they may come to us well in advance of them actually submitting their full project.

The Section 106 process, which is the federal historic preservation review process, limits us to a 30 day review period. And so a lot of projects we can review within that timeframe if we have all the information. But if, if they're missing parts, it can take longer. It could take months and in some cases a year.

Or in some cases where it's a phased project like the rail project, it'll continue through the duration of the project.

Or incomplete form applications by the developer.

Absolutely. Yep. Or if there's like a change in scope mid project, that can also throw off the review period too, because then you technically open up consultation again.

Thank you.

Any further discussions on HB 830? Hearing none, we'll continue. Thank you so much, Jessica. Appreciate it. OHA, Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Mahalo for bearing with us today.

No, sorry, Chair. Chair Chang, Members of the Committee. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs stands on our written testimony providing comments much in line with SHPDs comments. We don't think this bill will effectuate, as written, will effectuate the change that's desired. It'll require additional resources from SHPD to manage the contracts and find the right third party consultants.

Plus there's also problems with finding third party consultants because there's not a wide pool of them in archaeology and it's not like SHPD doesn't have the ability to do it already. And so we are more comfortable with the language that's in the SB version as well, as well as SB 1263.

In our testimony for SB 1002, we asked to conform that bill because we thought there were better guiderails and it was more practical in that sense. But available for any questions.

Thank you so much. Okay, Hawaii Realtors, Lyndsey Garcia or representative. Okay. Sent communication in support. AAC consultants at HICRIS and Li Cobian. Okay. Aloha. Good seeing you again. Thank you.

My name is Li Cobian. I'm an environmental contractor and consultant. I submitted testimony. I just had two questions and I'm glad Jessica's here. I wanted to find out. I just did a review. Got it like two weeks ago. And for a 23 acre project in Kaila Loa to do a land clearing and it only costed 25 bucks.

And you guys were on time within the 90 days? It was pretty seamless, especially through their HICRIS website. My question is, would there be a provision? Would an applicant be able to waive the 90 days and come to a mutual agreement on an extension so we can possibly avoid the third party cost?

Because if you look at it, this is a 23 acre land project that I just submitted for review and it was only $25. So I mean, as an applicant, I'm willing to say, hey, SHPD, if you guys need extra time, no problem.

But I think, I think the SHPD has been good about extensions. Come on up. Yes.

Yeah, they have a clause, a mutual agreed upon date.

Yeah, I don't think it's necessary that we're going to demand because I think they're already doing it. Response?

Well, I think SB 1002 also had language in it that to your point, it would allow the applicant upon application for a historic preservation review to identify whether or not they wanted the third party reviewer option, like checking off a checkbox or something like that.

So that we knew right away because the language says that within, I think it's 60 days where to determine or not we, we have to determine. Yes, within 60 days whether or not we can review the project within 60 days and then immediately contract with a third party reviewer.

And if they don't check the box saying they want that they don't that they want that option, they wouldn't be charged the fee. Yeah.

So that option would be in the HICRIS system?

Like. Yeah, we'd have to add like a checkbox to the application.

Is there any way that you can upfront, kind of disclose what those third party cost might be?

Yes, we'd have to update our fee schedule that's posted on our website.

Those are basically my questions.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Okay. All right, Steph. Okay, let's. Let's move on. HDGEA, Randy Perreira. Thank you. NAIOP. Evan, thank you for your patience as well.

Afternoon, Senator. Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice chairs, Member of the Committees. Evan on behalf of NAIOP Hawaii, we stand in our strong support of this measure.

We just wanted to note we feel as though this bill properly balances the state, the interest at hand and really trying to help get housing projects off the ground and assist the Department with additional capacity to get their review times down. And that's the intent of the bill and that's why we support it and are strongly advocating for this measure to continue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Grassroots Institute. Okay. In support, Pamela Tumpap and she's Maui Chamber of Commerce in with comments. Maureen Brock, in support. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on HB 830.l Hearing none. Let's move on then we can clear our agenda hopefully. H, is that my, Chair? Oh, yes. 826. HB 826.

House dress two, and this is relating to housing. This authorizes a County Planning Commission by special permit to permit land uses exclusively providing residential housing for purposes of agricultural workforce housing long-term rental, or workforce fee simple ownership in an agricultural district under certain conditions. Okay. We will call on then Land Use Commission. Aloha.

Thank you, Chair, members of the committee, Vice Chairs. We stand on our written testimony.

Okay. With, with comments. All right. Okay. And members, anytime you want to call on the agency, just let me know. Department of Ag.

Earl Yamamoto, Department of Agriculture. Just had to make an amendment to our written testimony offering comments, and that is to remove the or the part of a sentence on the second paragraph where we state that we concur with the testimony of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Please delete that concurrence with the testimony of OPSD.

I understand they changed their, they've amended their testimony. It's no longer what it was for 3244 for, for earlier versions. Otherwise we, we continue with our concerns about using the special permit process for permanent residential uses on agricultural land. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. HHFDC.

Okay. Thank you, Dean. OPSD, Mary Alice.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs. I'm Mary Alice Evans with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We support the intent of this measure and we offer comments with suggestions for amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any questions you have on agency? It's a good time to do that now as well. Maui tomorrow, Albert Perez. Okay, in opposition. County of Kauai Planning Department in support. Office of the County Clerk Council Services, County of Kauai in support. We do have Sierra Club. Wayne Tanaka.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committees. Wayne Tanaka with the Sierra Club of Hawaii. We respectfully oppose this measure. You know, as you're probably well aware, when you develop up to 100 acres of non-urban lands at a time, that can create a whole host of impacts. Right to food security, to our public trust resources, to Hawaiian traditional custody practices.

And you even have opportunity costs, such as the loss of resources like water infrastructure that could be dedicated to truly affordable housing. And the Land Use Commission normally is able to very carefully balance all of these interests and through the express consideration of evidence and expert testimony and cross-examination, and so forth. And we don't.

This bill will sidestep that whole process, get rid of that manuscript commission balancing of interests, and instead replace it with other things like the County General Plans.

I do want to emphasize the County General Plans that this measure would look to could be as old as 20 years old, which a lot has happened in the last 20 years. As you can imagine, the soil classifications referenced in this bill also are, they're based on pineapple and sugar. Right.

So there could be tremendous agricultural potential that's lost when you develop lands of sort of classifications of C or D, even though they're not prime for sugar or pineapple. So, because of all these potential unintended consequences with this bill, we respectfully ask that the committees hold it. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

I have a question.

Yes.

One of the comments that came out from Land Use Commission, and as always, you know, it seems like every year we have, we have this measure, different players. However, the recommendation is to lower the 100 to 40 acres compared to the present counties.

The current law giving the counties 15 acres up to 15 acres within the county as well. And also, I think currently they can go through the contested case process. Contested case hearings now. So, how do you feel with regards to allow, I think there was an additional measure in this that had to do with a special permit system.

Yeah. So I guess so, starting with the 40 acres, you know, that's more than double the current standard for Lands Commission intervention. And a lot can happen with 40 acres. I still have concerns about the collateral and unintended consequences of having that big of land exchange processed by the counties.

If they do use a contested case process, you know, that would mitigate some of our concerns regarding transparency and accountability. I think I would just be cautious about putting that burden on the County Planning Commission since that's not what they typically do. So they're going to take this whole new responsibility.

They have all these other things that they focus on. And I'm actually concerned this might work against the intent to facilitate timely housing development. And I do think, you know, there has been comments from the other agency, from some of the agencies about the special permits not being appropriate mechanism.

And when we do have that land's district boundary amendment process that could appropriately reflect the, you know, what the urban district's supposed to be for versus agriculture.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions, members? Thank you so much.

Okay, Lahaina Strong on Zoom. IT?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Sense Communication in support. Life of the Land in opposition. Free Access Coalition in opposition. Green Party of Hawaii in opposition. Hanalei Watershed Hui in opposition. Grassroots Institute. Let's see, in support. HAPA in opposition. This measure has generated support for and majority opposition at 63. Is there anyone else wishes to speak to HB826. Okay, hearing none.

Chair, we have. Excuse me, Chair, we have one participant on Zoom.

All right, can you state your name, please. Is that Robert? Robert Benz?

Yes, Chair. This is Robert Benz, a farmer. I stand on my testimony and echo the concerns of the Department of Agriculture and the Sierra Club. 15 acres is already a lot of acreage. We need more farms to support the farm-to-school program. And as COVID and other disasters point out, we need farmland.

So there's also a lot of other problems from taking farmland and developing in this way. So I.

Robert, we're short timed here. This committee has only 15 minutes more, and we have a lot of agenda. But appreciate your communication with your opposition.

Thank you very much.

Mahalo.

Okay, IT. Any more on Zoom? Stacey, is that you? Okay. Stacey Alapai, we'll give you a minute because we're pretty much on a time constraint here. Your testimony in opposition, continue, please.

Aloha. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. I do think it's important for you to hear all the community feedback and not limit testimony, because a bill like this really kind of circumnavigates the process exists for public input. And it's important that we preserve our agricultural land for agricultural uses, not for housing.

And it's also really important that the term workforce has not been defined here. So while we might assume that means affordable housing for residents, that's not what this says.

And so the lack of specificity here opens the door for developers to bend the law and bend the rules, however fits them and is a disservice to the community and people like me who maybe don't hear about these things right away. And if the goal is to build. More affordable housing for residents, it needs to say that in this bill.

But I don't think we should be sacrificing our food security and our agricultural resources to build houses for an unknown group in an unknown entity so that we can.

We appreciate your comments. Thank you so much. Okay, Bianca Isaki on Zoom. IT?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, let's proceed then - oh, anyone else wishes to speak to HB 826 hearing? None. Let's proceed to HB 732 House Draft 2.

This is relating to shoreline management areas, or SMA, that we all know allows single family residences that are less than 3,500 square feet in floor area and not part of a larger development, regardless of development valuation, to be eligible for Special Management Area minor permit.

This increases the valuation of development that determines the necessity of a Special Management Area minor permit, or an SMA area use permit, to $750,000 and requires that amount to be adjusted every five years for inflation. OPSD. Thank you. County of Maui, I.T. on Zoom, Jordan Hart. Aloha. We can't hear you.

I apologize for that. Aloha, Chair Inouye, Chair Chang, and committee members. I'm Jordan Hart of the Office of Recovery testifying on behalf of the County of Maui in support of HB732 HD 2. HRS 205A-22 selected the dollar amount as a method of interpreting magnitude of a proposed action. There has been no update since 2024 of this valuation, but significant inflation has occurred affecting property owners.

The valuation adjustment is an appropriate application of Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management Regulations. SMA minor permits are development permits and are required to fully analyze the applications of HRS 205A as well as local SMA authorities' administrative rules, including shoreline rules established under HRS 205A part 3 shoreline setbacks.

And further, each individual local regulating authority has the capacity to tailor their administrative rulemaking to implement this proposed measure.

Thank you so much. We appreciate your comments. Thank you, Jordan. Lindsay Garcia Hawaii Realtors, representative in support. Elena Bryant, Earth Justice on Zoom.

Aloha. Elena Bryant on behalf of Earth Justice in strong opposition to HB 732. We stand on our written testimony, but I want to briefly emphasize just four quick points.

First, as you all know, our state is already facing a multitude of challenges due to climate change, rising sea levels and these things are impacting our coastal infrastructure and accelerating the loss of beaches across our state. There's nothing minor about authorizing development and rebuilds along our coastlines.

We should be carefully and rigorously analyzing any proposed development within our shoreline areas to ensure that permitted activity does not result in the permanent loss of valuable shoreline resources or adversely affect public access. That's what our SMA permitting program was intended to do.

Second, as noted by many of the testifiers that submitted written testimony, developers and private property owners are already evading the SMA permitting laws that are in place to the detriment of our public beaches. We should be strengthening our shoreline protection laws, not considering bills that dilute them.

Further, this bill would make it easier for developers to sidestep protections that this legislature has already put in place under our state Coastal Zone Management Program by allowing a broader category of uses and activities previously subject to rigorous SMA use permit requirements to public notice and inform decision making by county authorities.

Time is up. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. And in opposition, Rachel Tew is on Zoom.

Aloha Chair. Can you hear me?

Yes. Okay, we're going to allow you to speak in a minute. If you can summarize your opposition as well. And we have deadlines that we need to meet.

Absolutely. Mahalo. I did submit a fairly lengthy testimony. I stand by that testimony. And there's a lot of points in there. I am on the North Shore of Oahu. I sit on the neighborhood board. I am speaking as an individual. We face many challenges with the SMA and the way it's evaluated right now.

Developers, whether they are local and or out of state, are absolutely evading the purpose and the protections that the SMA process provides. I strongly, strongly oppose HB 732. So that we -

Thank you, Rachel, and thank you. Sorry because we're on time limited today. Thank you. Mary Ellis, come up front, please. From our current practices allowing the counties, is this measure necessary or we got somebody come; is he your specialty person?

Dr. Shitao Li is our coastal zone management. And so, we've been working with the counties on the limits and it's time to adjust them. Go ahead.

Yes, I will say because I working for more than 15 years regarding statewide SMA coordinator with County Planning Department, also review a lot of the SMA applications for this SMA minor streamline because Act 16 2020, we put the location shoreline parcel trigger SMA permit requirement for single family residency.

Since then, a lot of major application from City County Honolulu, like say 20 of the 27 is a SMA application major for single family residency. Definitely. Is it because the cost threshold $500,000 easily triggered as many measures and also that threshold since 2011 right now is more than say 14 years already.

So inflation also needs to adjust for this kind of -

Is this measure important necessary?

For cost threshold.

This bill?

Yes. For streamline the SML permitting system.

Okay. Because I didn't see any recommendation for any amendments with so much of the opposition is kind of concerning. And so, I'm saying if the counties are okay with what they're doing presently again. And it doesn't seem like we've had problems that come before the legislature to make these necessary changes. I'm kind of curious.

That's why I'm asking. Okay. You guys got any questions for OPSD as we see. But thank you. Thanks a lot. Okay.

It kind of seems like some of those restrictions that I've seen over the years and also made recommendations to agencies that when you have mandates or bills or laws that circumvent to where we are today in the 21st century, make the changes, get rid of the old stuff. But it seems like it whatever they're doing it's working.

Anyone else wishes to speak to HB 732. Okay.

All right. Members, any questions? Okay, otherwise, Chair, let's go close and see if we can - I think I'm pretty set with some recommendations as well.

Sure. Why don't we take a recess? Okay. All right. Thank you. Good afternoon. We're back from recess and the Committee's having conferred. We're ready to do something in decision making. Our first Bill today is HP 1409 HD1 released relating to Transit Oriented Development. Having conferred the Chair's recommendation, we pass this measure with amendments.

We have technical, non substantive amendments. We also will further defect the date on page eight. Line one will blank the percentage of funding. We will also take the city and County of Honolulu DPP's amendments to on line 6, page 17, delete county designated and on line 13, page 17, the last sentence would read.

These areas shall generally consist of lands within a 1/2 mile radius of a transit hub or transit station, but actual boundaries may differ under specific circumstances. Members, any questions or discussion? If not again for the Committee on Housing HB 1409 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

[Roll call]

Okay. For the Committee on Water and Land Chairs Recommendation to pass HB 1409 House Draft 1 with amendments for the Committee. Any discussions hearing none, vice chair for the vote.

[Roll call]

Thank you. With regards to HB 830 relating to historic preservation reviews, Chair's recommendation is to pass and will be replacing the language from SB1002 and to add further that includes any private and or public support projects as in the SB 1002 Senate Draft 2. Any discussions? Okay.

Hearing Non Committee on water and measure with amendments and Chair goes aye.

[Roll call]

Housing Same recommendation for HB 830 HD2 to pass with amendments.

[Roll call]

Thank you. HB826 house draft two relating to housing. Both. A chair's recommendation is that we Defer this measure. HB 732 House Draft 2 relating to shoreline areas as well. Chair's recommendation is to pass this measure. We'll be moving along to judiciary. And it's a recommendation with amendments Just on the technical, non substantive amendments.

Any discussions for the Committee on Water and Land? Chair votes I with amendments. Any discussion? Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll call]

And the same recommendation for the Committee on Housing for HB732 to pass with amendments.

[Roll call]

And for the Committee on Housing Back to HBA 26. We'll be deferring that measure to you as far line. Already did. Thank you very much. Thank you. There being no further business, this hearing is adjourned.

Okay. Thank you.