House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Okay. Good morning everybody. Sorry that we're late. This is the Committee on Waterland. I am the Chair, Mark Hashem and to the left of me is nobody. Today is 30. Today is Thursday, March 20, 2025. It's about 10:00am we're in conference room 411. First up we have SB 4746SD2HD1 relating to invasive species.

First up we have DLNR with comments.

Good morning, Chair Hashem. Rob Hoff with DLNR. Hartmid supports the intent of this bill, but does have some comments. As you know, CRB has become a crisis on Oahu, attacking coconut trees.

But in addition to the coconut trees that we all see being attacked, it's also attacking our native loulou palms up in the mountains, some of which are endangered species. Three of the four species on Oahu are endangered and all species have been found in the wild being attacked by CRB. So we're very concerned about this.

We just want to point out that bounty bills don't have a really great or bounties for invasive species management don't have a great track record. We are concerned that this could divert resources from developing new tools. UH is undergoing the permitting process to import a virus to research for biocontrol of CRB.

And we feel that that would probably be a better option for investing. And there's still HB 643 that is alive that would hasn't made it. It's been in the ag committees. It would support biological control research for coconut rhinoceros beetle. And we think that that's hugely important and hope that that passes. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Next up we have Department of Comments.

Good morning. Good morning Chair. Jonathan Ho on behalf of the Department of Agriculture we stand on our end testimony offering comments.

Again, we support the intent and judge is concerned about some unintended consequences with using a bounty as it relates to the potential for malfeasance to, to abuse the monetary structure if it's, if it's incorporated available for questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up we have Hawaii Invasive Species Council with comments. Nope. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Okay. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have probably five other individuals and departments that submitted testimony and support. Is nobody on zoom? Is there anybody else wishing to testify? See None. Let me just ask Department of Ag or DLNR.

So you're not really opposed to this, but you don't want funds diverted away from the other stuff that you're doing Is really, what you're saying, right?

That is correct. And we feel that the. The benefits of doing something like this are going to be more for outreach and educating the public and less for actually controlling populations.

We don't feel that it's necessarily going to be effective in controlling populations and just want to be clear about that, but we would be amenable to somehow executing this in the best possible way.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. See, nobody else is asking questions. Next up, we have SB 1541, first, relating to the Waihole Water System. First up, we have ADC in support. You can stand on your testimony. Okay. Next we have in person, Kunia Village Tidal Holding Corporation. They're pretty straightforward, bill. So.

My name is Stephanie Whalen from the Kuneh Village Title Holding Company, and I just want to emphasize one thing and apologize for the header, which I added agriculture into it, which I realize that's not under this Committee, but anyway, I just want to point out that there's no other system in the state, to my knowledge, that so much of it, of the land that it serves, is already dedicated in perpetuity to agriculture, either through the state's IAL or through the federal and state preservation programs.

And so I think that's really important, the fact that so much land is already there, dedicated to agriculture forever, and we're still paying the highest taxes, the highest cost for water.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have Farm Bureau in support. Okay, that is. Do we have people on soon? You have one person on Zoom. Micah on Zoom. Is that Ulupuno?

Morning, Chair. Just. Just want to stand on our testimony and strong support of this measure. I really appreciate you moving in, you know, standing behind some of the previous testimony, this system being very important for our agricultural future. Thank you very much for moving it forward, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Is there. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have probably in total about 10 people and organizations in support of this measure. I don't have any questions. It's pretty straightforward. Nobody else is here to ask questions, so we're moving on. Next up is SB66. zero, this one is kind of difficult.

First up, we have DLNR Jessica Puff with comments. Okay, thank you. Next we have OHA with comments.

Good morning Chair, Elena Alile, Director of Advocacy at OHA. We stand on our written comments. I just wanted to emphasize the First Amendment that we suggest, because essentially this bill empowers the counties to stand in the shoes of Shipti, but Shipti does has existing responsibilities to consult with OHA.

So we on those specific properties that have Native Hawaiian sites on them. So we want to be sure that the counties continue, since they will be standing in the shoes of Shipti under this bill, to continue to consult with OHA as required under the rules that we cite in our testimony.

Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. Next we have. Do we have dp Wait, hold on. Hawaii Realtors. Do we have anybody else in here? Okay. Trying to find all the people that we have in here. Ironworkers.

Thank you. Chair all the Members of the Committee.

It's a crowded room here.

You know. You know, I'm. My name is Mel Kahele. I work with the Ironworkers Local 625 Stabilization Fund.

We submitted testimony, and we actually was going to stand solely on our testimony, written testimony, but we wanted to make a comment and ask if the Committee would be able to look at this program and try to recommend a program that's going to be a pilot program, maybe one to two years, and see how it actually works out with how.

And. And. And the changes that is currently in the bill.

Thank you. All right, we're going to recess. I. We got to go back to the decision. DM on the other side, so we're going to recess.

Gambling back in on our Committee on Water and Land. We are on SB66. Ironworkers, you want to go back up again? Continue on.

Good morning, chairs and vice chairs and Committee Members. My name is Cliff Laboy. I'm with the Iron Workers Stabilization Fund. And we totally support this bill, but we want to make a recommendation.

If we can implement this program as a pilot program instead of just changing everything right off the bat so that we can see and at least for two years, we can, you know, measure what's going on, what we need to fix. I mean, the current situation is really bad.

So we don't want to just shut that down and then two years later find out that this project doesn't work also. But we want to be able to do it as a pilot so we can go back if we need to.

At the same time, the current group can figure out what they're doing wrong and try to fix the problems. But the permitting thing is a mess. We got to do this.

We got to fix it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Dwayne Bautista, individual. Are you sure you're not with the Iron Workers? Because it says individual?

Yes, I am. I'm testifying as an individual, but good morning Chairman, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I Support Senate Bill 66. I believe it's gonna, like you said, expedite this permit. But I'm also asking to amend or to have a pilot project for one to two years. Reason for having a pilot project.

It identifies and address potential changes, refine best practices, gathering data for in to inform decision making. But other than that, I support the intent. But just ask. Recommend a pilot project, one to two years. Thank you for your time.

Okay, thank you. Do we have anybody on Zoom? We have one person on Zoom. Wait. Before we go on Zoom, is anybody else in the room wishing to testify? DPP. I didn't see you in the back. Sorry.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Donna Puna, Department of Planning and Permitting, City and County of Honolulu. We stand in strong opposition of this bill. I'll stand on my testimony, but I'm here for any questions. Just basically, I think a lot of people don't understand what the permitting process entails.

It is not just stuck at DPP or the county agency. It goes through other agencies for review. And really importantly, it goes back to the applicant. So more than half the time, it's with the applicant addressing comments.

There's review cycle after review cycle, and if we're not addressing that part of the situation, we're not addressing and trying to fix the whole permitting process. DPP has been working very hard in the last two years to bring down our review.

And we have in the code review, we've brought it down to two weeks for residential, two months for commercial. But there is so much more that is part of the building permit review process. That part needs to be addressed. We need to acknowledge that there needs to be better quality.

The standard for review by, I'm sorry, the design professionals needs to come up and then we'll all be on the same page and the review will come down. But this just requiring an outcome without looking at the issue and the real solutions is really not going to get us anywhere.

But thank you and I'm here for any questions.

Okay, thank you. And we have anybody in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Lauren on Zoom.

Thank you. Chair, my name is Lauren Zurgle. I'm here on behalf of Hawaii Food Industry Association. We represent over 200 member companies, retailers, suppliers, producers, manufacturers and distributors of food and beverage products.

Many of our members have had very long multi year, up to five year delays that have been definitely increased the cost of food locally and made it nearly impossible to manufacture food products locally. Although this bill is only for single family homes, we believe it would help clear some of the backlog.

We do recommend an amendment to include all types of permits in this bill as other types of permitting are not included in this bill and also have a very negative impact on the economy. Passage of this bill would bring Hawaii in line with the rest of the country.

We would actually still have pretty long weights with the passage of this bill compared to other states. We just strongly support the passage of this bill. It's also a great way for the state to generate tax revenue.

We estimate over $2 billion of state income and over $1.0 billion of county income if this bill were passed and implemented appropriately. So this bill is a huge win. And the income generated from this bill could help eliminate taxes on grocery, which is a big reason why one in three residents are struggling with food insecurity locally.

So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. We have 15 testimonies that we received in support, comments and in opposition. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? See none. Members, questions go on. Representative Shimizu, go ahead.

Thank you. Chair, I have a question for DPP. So the question would be what would be a reasonable time? Because you're saying 60 days is not acceptable. Would you have Like a revised time frame that might be like a compromise where we're trying to expedite it and yet be reasonable for your concerns.

So I still think that a deadline, it doesn't really address the issue. So like I said, for single family residential projects, at this point, DPP, two weeks or less, if you submit your plans, we'll review it and you'll get it back.

But what that means though is that usually we have comments and the applicant and their design professional need to review it and, or if there's comments, they need to address the comments. Because if it doesn't go through without any comments, it should be approved. You should get it within a month or so.

But it's the issue with being able to have the comments addressed by the applicants and then the other outside agencies. So we need to address that part. What I'm saying is that the county has done, I mean, we're still working on it, but we've shrunken down our review.

When it's with DPP or when it's in process, it's not with DPP for whatever five years. It's just that the code review that DPP does is much Shorter, but the process is extended by the part of the applicant to make the plans conform. So I don't think there's necessarily a better timeline.

I think if we focused on helping applicants better prepare their plans and, and to fix their plans, that will drastically bring down the permitting review times.

Okay, what I'm hearing is, and you stated that in your first part of your testimony is there's time that the applicant is correcting the comments, so that's counting against the clock. Yes, and obviously it's not uniform. There's discrepancies in any project. So.

Besides what you shared of helping the applicants to streamline the process, what if we were to just clock DPP's time and not count the applicant's corrective time against your clock?

You could do that. And we were already below the 60 days. Like I said, for residential, we get it done within a couple weeks. And just to add in our administrative rules, we have something similar. There's a 60 day limit, but again, we're meeting that.

If you're looking for a solution to the permitting process, I think it falls outside of DPP at this point. We also are trying to help the applicant.

We're implementing artificial intelligence so that the applicant can run it through AI and be guided to provide better quality plans so that before it's even submitted, they're cutting down review times because they're, they better understand how to prepare their plans. So that's how we're trying to help that side.

But you know, I think it's really, it's the focus needs to shift. We are, we do struggle with capacity. If we had more reviewers, it'd be even faster. You know, we're just going to continue to try to bring the time down on our side.

But let's really look closely at the whole other half of the building permit process. Like, please, like this is the narrative that we need to change. DPP has done a lot in the last two years. I'm not going to say that we weren't bad two years ago, but we brought it together. We're doing everything we can.

But let's really try to be real about what we need to fix next so that all these permits will be completely approved in a very short time, amount of time.

Okay. Understand. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Next. Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. Are there any, I guess, county offices here who can speak to this as an unfunded mandate, that it's taking away some kind of home rule? Right.

I mean you just mentioned that if you had capacity, meaning more people filling vacancies and they're not filling the vacancies partially because there isn't enough funds to pay them competitive wages.

Yes, absolutely. That's a huge part. So I have vacancies, 25% vacancies. Commercial. On the commercial side, engineers, we need commercials to commercial. We need engineers to review commercial projects. On the residential side, our building plans, examiners, they're not engineers, but the pay is very low.

So we are working with our, with the union HR budget to bring those salaries up. But that is like the hardest thing is just to get people to say based on the salary that they're willing to even apply.

So if the state is prescribing a mandate, should they be providing funding as well?

Yes, I believe so. Thank you. Yes.

Any other questions? Yeah, Don, I have a question. I'm okay to. Are you, I'm okay to eliminate the timeline. Are you okay with doing like a one time review process?

Like where a lot of times what other agencies or the Federal Government does is when you submit your plans, a full set of plans that's complete, stamped by the engineers, they make their comments and with that comments, it's your review is complete.

And if the Department, if the, if the applicant agrees to the comments, they can go forward with construction. The inspector comes in and just makes sure that the Building was or the building has been built according to the plans and the comments have been adapted to the plans. Are you guys okay with that?

So I think that makes sense theoretically. But again, it goes back to the quality of, you know, are they really going to address those comments? You know, are they really going to adapt those so well?

That's what the building inspector is for, to ensure that they've been adapted.

It does, but I think.

And incorporated to the final product.

Right. Our inspectors inspect to the approved plans, not to the code. They're not trained that way at this time. At some point they will be.

But based on what we see as far as the quality of what comes in and the ability to address everything through one cycle and just by comments, we would be very concerned because about life and health safety, if they really are.

I think that for a long time DPP has been like a design consultant to a lot of people. What comes in is not well done. And if we only have one shot, one crack at it, and we're not able to really provide. I mean, projects are very complicated.

So if we make a comment in the first round and we have to let it go, a lot of times that comment might affect the design of the project. And that's why there's a second review, because they're like, okay, I can't do it this way, so I got to redesign it. And then it becomes something different.

That's why you have a subsequent review. But just to say comment, fix it, go. We'd be very nervous because I don't think the actual product is going to be based on that one review, comments, fix, if that makes sense. Just based on the quality of what we see now.

I think just in general, we got to raise the standard of quality that's coming up at some point. I think when everyone is. Is doing what they need to do, we can do that.

But how do you. How do we do that? I mean, how do you. Yeah, how do we go in and say that it'll be up to your standard? I mean, no, I get it, right. If you get half big plans, you. Right, you.

I think you should just reject it and say, come back when you have a full set. When you have a full set of plans. Right. Personally, that's what I think you guys should do.

But when somebody comes in with a full set of plans, not half baked, and it's very good to go and there's just subtle comments, and if the applicant agrees to those changes and goes forward, many times they're not going to agree and they're going to have to, like you said, redesign. But then they should come back and.

Because it's going to be a negotiation between DPP and the design team. Right. Because you guys got to come out with a happy medium of some sort.

Yeah. I think that there is a range of quality out there. There are definitely those that can do it. They can get through with one review, but there's a lot. There's a significant amount that we would be taking a big risk.

How would we be able to allow you to reject plants?

I mean, we can reject them now, but, you know, I think it's. We're dealing with a different culture, and we're trying to shift and trying to. Yeah. Make that move. We're thinking of. I think some other counties, they don't.

They only allow certain number of reviews before you have to pay for a subsequent review cycle, you know, and then that kind of forces them to do a better job earlier on. So we're looking at things like that that we can do. But I think, you know, that's why I'm here.

I'm trying to show everyone that DPP has done a lot, but there's this whole other part. People really have to, you know, the contractors or the developer need to know what their subs are doing. Are they doing it well, or are they just saying it's with DPP. DPP is giving me a hard time.

Like, really, are you providing good quality work? Because if everyone does everything properly, it'll go through really quickly.

Yeah, no, I. I agree with that. Yeah. I didn't get my answer, though. I know. We get it. So that way you guys can reject the plans. Right. And just say yes or no on the front. We. We can. And then you come back and say, if you just make comments and go forward.

Yeah. I mean, and then we have, like, self certification that we're standing up to. You know, that's an option for design professionals who just want to sign off and certify with the right insurance levels. That. I'm saying that this thing is good, but, you know, we.

What we see, based on what we see, there's cause for concern that even with a license, people are not producing designs that are to code.

Okay, so you're okay with self certification. Can I put that in the bill where.

I mean, we're already doing it, but.

All right, I'll. Okay. Yeah.

But, yeah, I think, like Representative Iwamoto says, you know, it's a capacity issue, too. I think that could help. And when we have more capacity we're able to sit down with clients more and explain, and we can have a better relationship with clients. Right now we're just trying to review.

We don't have time to take a lot of phone calls. So we're trying to make that better. I think we didn't grow. We. With the complexity of codes and the amount of building permits that come in, that's what we're doing.

We're trying to, like, catch up to everything that we need to do to be efficient and effective and to help our customers the way that we should.

Okay.

Chair, Can I have ask one question? It's just I've recently been talking to some Oahu people, and one of the criticisms I got is their plan has not even been reviewed or they haven't gotten any. Any messages or correspondence from DPP about the status of their plans. And it's been months.

So their building permit. So what I would suggest. So we have the. I think it's only a renovation. Okay. So it's. We have electronic plans, e-plans, and that's the electronic submittal of the plans.

Now, as an owner, they tell their design professional, take my email, and I want to be in the system because they can go at any moment, look at where the project is, where it is in our workflow. Who has it? DPP, Your architect, BWS. And it'll show every comment that they need to address.

But they have to get into that system that way. They do. And they do it through whoever applied for the permit. And that's huge because this whole time people are like, it's with DPV. But do they know that that's the problem? Yeah. So we're trying to. I mean, we've. We've made some public announcements, but, I.

Mean, I'll go back and tell them that. But the police, they're just giving this. Interpret this. This idea that if you don't have pool, you're not going to get your plans looked at.

That's not true. Now you have this opportunity to clearly see what's going on with your project. And this is. Yeah, this. We're like lifting off the COVID look. This is what's actually going on. It's not stuck with DPP just sitting there. Nine times out of 10, when I look at a permit, it's been with the design professional.

Like, they have a backlog at this point. So. Okay. And if you want, I can take those application numbers or that address and I can show you. I can send you the report. Thank you.

Yeah, I just want to get Back to your point, to get back to chair's point about just stamping rejection and not having that back and forth. Do you think your customers, the users would be or homeowners would be frustrated if you just hit reject and didn't tell them?

Do you think they appreciate the transparency of going over in detail what the problem is?

Yes, I mean, I think so. We have like one time review in our rules. We have 60 day limits but most people elect to let it keep going past those times or more than one review because they want to make sure that their project is to code and that's what we do.

So I know everyone wants to hit that mark, but really I think we provide a very valuable service.

And I wonder if you can actually have the design professional sign an affidavit saying that they gave their customer their, the, the, the, the link to overview. Yes. The progress so that they know. Yes. That it's not with the Department but it's with their, their professional.

Yes. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. We, we need to do more PR about that so people can take advantage of that tool. Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Say none. We are moving on. Next up we have SB relating to affordable housing. First up we have HHFDC in support. Okay, next we have OPSD in support. Okay, next we have. We receive testimony from HPHA, HCDA and one individual. I don't see any of them here. Is there anybody else wishing to?

ACDA is over there. Sorry, you're hiding in the back. Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody on Zoom. Members, any questions? See? None. No, I really don't have any questions on this bill. Next up we have. We're moving on. Next up we have SP1263 relating to historic preservation.

First up we have HHFDC in support. Okay, next we have DLNR in support. Okay, next we have OHA with comments.

Mahalo. Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Lena Alale with OHA. We stand on our written comments. I wanted to emphasize the second amendment we request which has to do with the extended timeline for the programmatic review that's looking at high risk, medium risk and low risk areas.

And OHA has talked to SHIPD about this being one of those potential solutions that can be used, utilized in different situations to be able to identify high risk areas. It provides information to the owner and the project proponent. And low risk areas similarly will allow for it to be expedited in certain situations.

But this is kind of the first time this is happening. There's another bill, but whichever one gets past this session, this risk assessment is a new procedure. And so we would like to see it be done.

Well, OHA was named in the last Committee as a consulting party in that subsection looking at, you know, what is the criteria that SHIPD will use to develop the high risk, the medium risk and the low risk areas. And also OHA and IBCs will be consulting parties.

But we really want this to be done well so that it can be used across the board to address some of the recurring concerns that people raise with six es. So that's why we're requesting that it be given a year when there's the Tod areas identified, which again, that's a large.

That's going to be a large scope of area. Right. It's the counties identifying Tod districts. So it's not a single project. It's going to be multiple different parcels of land. And so I think it's reasonable to expect that it's going to take some time. And again, we want to do this well. It's going to be a pilot.

We want to see it implemented in a way that's useful but still protective of E Kupuna. So I just wanted to emphasize that portion of our testimony because that is, you know, a potential solution to some of the dissatisfaction, I guess, with the process. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up we have Office Oahu Met, OMPO, Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support, and we have Hawaii Realtors in support. Next we have HCDA in support. Yep.

Thank you, Chair. Craig Nakamoto, Executive Director. First of all, we have written testimony and support, but I wanted to acknowledge, you know, Ms. Buff and SHIPD for being willing to consider, you know, suggestions. To make, you know, the process better.

We have some specific comments related to specific parts of the bill that we suggested in the prior Committee that I think weren't covered in the the last draft. So we're suggesting that those additional changes be made. Chair, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next we have collaborative. Josh. Wow. Did I get it correct this time? Thank you. Anybody on Zoom? And we have nobody on Zoom. We have two. We have grassroots initiative and one individual in support. That is all the people that we. That's all the testimony that we received.

Is there anybody else wishing to testify? See none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Poepoe for SHIPD.

Thank you. Morning. I'm just curious. On page four, there's new language, lines 11 through 12. I'll just read the whole thing. If the Department fails to provide written concurrence within the 90 days or the 30 days it says the lead agency may assume the department's concurrence.

Are you comfortable with being assumed that you concur with something if you never got a chance to review it?

I think that we are comfortable because this language matches the federal historic preservation law language, and it's pretty standard. In that case, if SHIPD hasn't reviewed a Section 106, which is the historic preservation review process on the federal level, within 30 days, the federal agency may assume concurrence and move on. And so, yes, it is.

It is something that we're already.

Okay. I was just wondering. I guess it's just like a small point with language. If something like the Department did not respond so then, you know, the project may move forward is just a little more right to me than assumed concurrence.

I think that. I think that we would feel very comfortable with that language as well, because then if there are determinations of eligibility within the submittal, then it wouldn't suggest that SHIPD concurs with those determinations of eligibility or significance for historic resources or determination of effect against them. Yeah.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking. Thank you. Yep.

Okay. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair. I have a question for OHA.

We might get through it.

I wanted to make sure I understood and heard you correctly. You're saying that the current bill says 90 days, and you would be. You would want 180 days to have enough time for the review and the process to be done. Well, is that correct?

You know, I defer to SHIPD on the exact timeline. The prior version of the bill. bill did say that. Kind of similar to what DPP was saying about incomplete submittals and the agency's time clock being run while the. Well, the request is actually with the applicant to provide further information that there would be more of.

Like maybe the clock stops while the applicant has the questions and is getting back to the agency. And then the agency would, you know, the time clock would start to run.

So I don't know the exact language that is necessary, but the prior version of the bill, you know, provided more of those kind of guardrails about, you know, the time period being when the agency is in active review as opposed to when it's back with the applicant due to incomplete information or something.

You know, just a badly done submittal.

Yeah. Hard to put a number on it. Yes. Sometimes.

Yeah. I'm not sure if SHIPD has further thoughts, but I do. I mean, I think it's important that there's those guardrails that make sure that, you know, the agency has the information that it needs to make an accurate assessment of the property.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Okay, Members. Representative Iwamoto, thank you, Chair.

Just to follow up with SHIPD about the points raised by OHA that if it is not now 90 days, would it be helpful to insert that the definition of those 90 days or it includes the or excludes the tolling of the review process going back to the applicant?

Yes, I think that that would be very helpful to potentially clarify that the clock stops as soon as shiftee responds to a submittal that is incomplete or we need additional clarification on points and that it doesn't start again until it's resubmitted.

I think one of the things that we've talked to OHA about too, is there's a little bit of ambiguity with the language. Now, if the.

If SHIPD has been going back and forth requesting more information multiple times and the clock is starting and stopping and starting and stopping, and you're slowly eating away at those 90 days, if they finally give you more information on the 89th or 90 day, after we've been going back and forth for a while, did how much time would SHIPD then have to review that additional information if we're already at 8990 days?

So I think that just making sure that the language in there allows for flexibility in those cases so that there is sufficient time to review a completed submittal is important so we don't get to the point where they have been intentionally or unintentionally not providing what they need to provide in order to run out the clock.

That's correct.

Right. So then you wouldn't resume the clock until they actually answered or responded directly to all of your questions. They can't piecemeal their responses to total your time.

Yes. And with the federal review process that I was referring to before, they have a similar provision with their timeline. But. But they essentially have language that says that the clock stops, but then it resets once the new information comes in, so it resets to the 30 days.

So it incentivize the submitter to submit everything accurately the first time so that the clock doesn't stop and then start again from the beginning.

And then if more information is necessary, it incentivize the submitter that the second batch of information they submit is also correct so that the clock doesn't again stop again and then have to restart because they're submitting inaccurate, incomplete information or they're using a consultant that isn't really giving them what they need, that kind of thing.

Thank you. Good question. Members, any other questions? Nope. See? None. SHIPD, I have a question. So how do we put what you just said into the bill? How do we get it so the clock start, stops and starts again?

I think that I can review the section and like essentially send you guys the language that we use for that's in the federal law and we can mimic that and pull that.

We have a deadline tonight. Right. That it has to move out of.

The Committee while we hear the other items. I can send it over to you before discussion if that works. I can do it in the next five minutes, I think.

Okay. Okay. One more. And can you give a definition of completed or complete submittal? Because you mentioned that when you get a complete submittal. Right.

The definition of complete submittal would depend from project to project, whether it's 68 or 6042 because 68 is pre-consultation. So there is a permit necessarily at that point, if one is required.

I think that in other bills it has required things like any permits that we have at the time that are available at that time, a complete scope of work, or I think that one of the other folks providing testimony even defined what a complete scope of work was to a physical description of the project, a map that includes a project area that's defined on where your project is going to be located.

That includes like a site plan that says where your buildings are going to go on site. That also includes depth of ground disturbance so we know how deep you're going to go, stuff like that, photos. And.

Then also a cover letter from if there's an agency involved indicating that if a consultant is submitting the project, they have the authority to do so on their behalf, that kind kind of thing. I can give you guys a list if you want to include that in the bill. But you have the list. I can.

Because then we don't have to put the definition of completed submittal in.

I don't think it's in the roles.

Or you have a definition somewhere.

I can draft up one in the next five minutes and include it with my comments for.

Okay. Okay. Well, I don't know if that's useful. All right, thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on. Next up we have SB465SD1 relating to the Hiki Aloa Small Boat Harbor. Did I pronounce it correct? No. No. Okay. Sorry. I'm not from Kauai. I got scolded by the Kauai representative.

First up, we have DLNR with comments. DLNR is not here. Next, we have. Wow. We. I don't think we have anybody on Zoom. We don't have anybody on Zoom. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify on SB465SD1? See? None. Members, any questions to Dee Morikawa?

I had tons of questions for DLNR.

Yeah, DLNR.

But at this point.

Yeah, maybe they're still. They're probably still in the building somewhere. You gotta ask the Chair of Public Safety to use her subpoena pars for Di.

Mayor. Mayor. Mayor's here. Yeah, why don't you come up? Why don't you take the hot seat? Go ahead. Chair. May I ask the mayor to come up? Chair, please?

Yes, please.

If you're in the room, you can hear him.

You can represent the council.

I do not represent the council. Hi, everybody. Majority floor leader. I feel like this is a bad joke, but I'm here to try to answer any questions from the county's perspective.

Very good. Thank you. Chair, may I ask some questions? Okay. First of all, I don't. I. I'm not going to ask you how much it's going to cost the study. I know we need to study.

Are we going to pay for it? You're not going to make the call?

No, no, no, no, no. I just want to verify a few things because I understand this capacity issue should have been done years ago because we did get funding for the additional ramps to be put. Put in.

I believe the boaters have done a very good job of moving a lot of their parking and where they stay, stage their tourist thingies outside of the Kikyola boat harbor. Do you know if that is true? Because you're named as allowing it.

Well, we're trying to. What we're trying to do is deescalate conflict between people that all live on Kauai.

And, you know, I know that this is a hot sort of button issue, but in all reality, I think it's good practice to know what our carrying capacity is at all of our facilities, whether it's county or state, because we do have a point where it can get contentious.

So we're trying to do our part from the county's perspective to strike the right balance between commercial and recreational use. And of course, you know, our hearts are with both of them. I mean, you don't have to look far to know that we have friends on both sides of the aisle. On this issue.

But, yeah, majority floor leader, I think the issue of carrying capacity fits in well with the priorities of the Legislature, which has been destination management is how can we strike the right balance of making sure that we have a vibrant visitor industry and support our local businesses, but not cross the line of eroding away at our quality of life.

So I do know that the boating industry is very concerned about conducting a study, but at what point do we take a look at data and hard facts to know what kind of improvements the harbor needs? Everything needs to be justified. We're spending a lot of taxpayer dollars on these additional ramps.

There needs to be some sort of in sync kind of look at the numbers of what it justifies. So I would say, yeah, that would be my answer.

Yes. And I think earlier we did talk about impact fees on what tourism is doing to our natural resources. And I totally agree that this needs to be done, but perhaps not right now.

I think after we have all these improvements in place, then it's time for the whole state to be assessing what their capacities are at both harbors. It wasn't a question, but thank you, thank you.

Thank you for your Members.

Yeah, I had a question, and maybe you can help me understand this. When I read testimony opposed to a study, I don't know what's so scary about a study. Like, why are they intimidated by just studying the issue?

I think. I think the opposition is symptomatic of perhaps a mistrust in government.

And we're trying to do everything in our power to start to rebuild that trust so that when we go out to communities to say that we're going to conduct a study, that it doesn't strike fear into the recipients of that particular facility or amenity in our community, but rather embrace it.

Because I think on both sides, they all live on Kauai. They all love Kauai, and they all love each other. That's the funny thing is, at the end of the day, that west side community is a testament of how a community should come together. And even though they don't always agree.

And so I truly believe that whenever we start seeing this type of opposition, it's symptomatic of a bigger problem that all of us, all of us elected officials have to do, which is to just rebuild trust and ease people's minds, that when we do a study, it's not to take away people's livelihoods, it's not to take away things from people, but it's, how can we leave something better for the next generation?

So that we can all be in harmony.

Right.

So if we push back the commencement or due date of the report of the study and it gives it time for you guys to move forward with that second boat ramp, then you would look at the study would include the capacity with two boat ramps, and it would also look at the mitigating factors of adjusting the parking situation, drop off situation.

Yeah.

So that study would be more accurate. Postponing the study, would that slow down the. The addition of the new boat ramp?

I wouldn't know. That is completely out of my wheelhouse. I think that's. That. That would be a state question. But yeah, I'm not sure.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sure, Go ahead. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mayor, great honor to have you with us. My question is regarding the study. Is it a problem to do the study before the second ramp is put in, or do you think.

No, I would say we should get the second ramp in.

And that's just selfishly because if it's going to benefit Kaua' I'm not going to say that not conducting a study should slow down any improvement to that harbor, because I can tell you that there is a need for increased capacity and there are young people who want to make a living off of commercial boating.

And that's all they know. And right now they don't have that opportunity. So for all we know, this study and with the additional ramps may increase capacity for more young people to be able to make a good living on Kauai doing what they love and not having to move to the mainland.

So, Representative, I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, but I would be remiss if I didn't say that my response to you is self serving for the people of Kauai in a normal sort of practical way. You should always do a study before spending that kind of money.

But in this case, we really need the additional boat ramp. So I'm trying to be just honest and transparent with you and everybody watching because at the end of the day, that's all I have is my integrity and my name.

So, last question, Chair. So my last question would be, do you feel comfortable that the DLNR is being tasked to do this study or would you like the County of Kauai to be involved in it and. And have your. Your own?

No, I trust DLNR.

Okay, all right. That's good.

Yes, 100%. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, moving on.

Thanks, Steve.

Thank you. Next up, we have SB438 relating to waste disposal facilities. First up, we have. Hold on. First up we have Jesus Oha in support. Next we have Department of Health in opposition. Are they on Zoom or. They are.

I'm here. Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Glenn Haai. On behalf of the Department of Health, the Department is opposing this measure. We support protection of drinking water sources, but we do see a public health crisis looming with Oahu's sole municipal solid waste landfill set to close in 2028 without a new landfill yet sited.

It takes about 10 years from initial siting to final construction for a new landfill to even start accepting waste. So even if it were sited today, a new landfill would probably not be in operation for well beyond 2028.

And so we know that that responsible solid waste management, including landfills is necessary and it's an important function provided by the counties to protect public health and environment. We're also opposing, based on the provided definition of significant aquifers, we require additional clarification and specific criteria in order to determine these aquifers so that we can apply any prohibition.

Despite these oppositions, the Department will enforce policy that exists in statute. So we provided proposed amendments to assist in that enforcement. We appreciate any the opportunity to testify and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Good. Next we have City and County of Honolulu.

Hello, Chair, Committee Members, Roger Babcock, Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu. We submitted testimony and it comments essentially on the challenges that this bill would cause for us with respect to siting the next landfill on Oahu. But I wanted to add a couple things or really just one thing.

We feel that blanket prohibitions like this with respect to ag land and location with respect to aquifers is not necessary and it does have unintended consequences and it really circumvents the regulatory safeguards that are in place right now with respect to the Department of Health. So any landfill has to get at least two permits from the state.

One is a solid waste permit from the Department of Health. Another is an air permit from the Department of Health. There's various state and federal regulations associated with that.

Any landfill to be located on ag lands already has to get a special use permit from the Land Use Commission, which is part of the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

That involves usually in this case it would a contested case hearing which could last days or weeks with lots of testimony and information provided with respect to that.

So we believe these agencies are charged with regulations that will protect public health and the environment and that these existing processes are adequate and appropriate to look then at specific locations where something is proposed, as opposed to just deciding that nothing is acceptable. So I'll remain for questions if needed. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next. Next up, we have County of Kauai Mayor Kawakami.

Okay. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you very much. My name is Derek Kawakami. I'm from Kauai. Thank you for the work that you folks do. I completely spaced out the first time I was called up unexpectedly. But I really more so just wanted to thank you folks for your hard work.

I know you guys are part of session where things get start to boil down to the wire and it can get stressful and seeing a mayor come in is the last thing that you folks want to see.

But chair, as I mentioned to you last night, this issue is so big, particularly for the County of Coim that I felt it would have been disrespectful if I didn't show up in person. I was just going to stand on my testimony with comments asking for some amendments.

But I felt compelled to speak just a little because I have two people that I look up to that it breaks my heart to go against what their testimony. One is Ernie Lau from the board of water Supply. I look up to him, he's a Kauai boy. And the other one not so much.

But I do like him. Brian Miyamoto from the Hawaii Farm. Because all I gotta say as written and I don't disagree with with the bill because it's well intended and it's very, very important. But I would not be doing my job if I just didn't give you Coyu's situation.

If the bill were to pass through as written with the existing act that's in place, we believe the county believes that we would have no options for a landfill on Kauai.

And you know, for people like Brian Miyamoto, he would have to go ask his farmers to go find find some place for their waste because we've just run out of real estate. We're a relatively small island.

With that being said, we would ask that perhaps you folks consider removing the bee lands from ag lands and restricting it to the A lands. Again, Brian will be better versed at telling you what those impacts on farming would be. But I'm here to tell you what the impacts would be if those bee lands were kept in.

Our options would be off the table and we are already running out of time with our existing landfill despite having decade, about a decade of a 42% diversion rate, meaning 42% of the waste that is produced on Koi is already being diverted out of the landfill through recycling programs.

The other thing that we should consider is that there are robust state and county procedures when asking for a special use permit to site a landfill on agricultural land. That means that it's a very open, transparent public process where members of our community can get their thoughts and opinions considered.

And that in and of itself is a good safety check to have when siting something as big as a landfill. With that being said, I'm here for any questions.

The last thing that I gotta bring up, but this is like if there are no other options and we don't want to go this route because it's just self serving for Kauai, and I know that this is an issue for every mayor is if we take a look at population to exempt Kauai from these restrictions.

We're that desperate to site a landfill, we're that close to finding one. And we really fear that as written, this bill would set us back decades. So thank you very much. I'm here for any questions.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Border Water Supply in support.

Thank you. Ernie Lau, Honolulu Border Water Supply Manager and Chief Engineer. And I must say I have the highest of respect to Mirakawa Kami and Representative Dimorikawa from Kauai. I have a lot of, a lot of aloha for Kauai and I understand what they're saying and the challenges they face.

Honolulu is a little different in terms of the population and our geology and our water resources. We are the most populous island in the state and unfortunately the water resources exist under the central parts of the island. We would ask your consideration. I understand the 500,000 population would exempt Kauai from this regulation.

But for Oahu, my concern is the long term. We've had the lessons on this island of the Navy's fuel tanks at Red Hill and how decisions made 80 plus years ago led to the contamination of the aquifer in that area and the unfortunate contamination of the drinking water system on Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam.

We are kind of at the crossroads here on this island with a landfill. I have a lot of respect for Mary, Mayor Blangiardi and for Dr. Roger Babcock and the difficult challenges they face. But my Kuleana is about providing water for our future.

And is the future not just today, but it is also the future 78 or more generations from now, 100 years from now. What will those that are around then say about the water resources and the condition of the water resources of Oahu? So I respectfully have to support this bill.

And I actually suggest that rather than using the underground injection control line, which is actually more restrictive, that we actually use the Board of Water Supplies no pass zone as a guide for the Department of Health.

And if necessary, the Department of Health could adopt its own rules to define the no pass zone, which is maybe less restrictive, would allow more options for Dr. Babcock and ENV and the mayor to site a new landfill on Oahu without putting at risk our precious water resources. Mahalo. Aloha.

Thank you. Okay, next up, we have Hawaii Farm Bureau in support.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Brian Miyamoto on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. If somebody could remind me what was the mayor. Darren Kawamura, you have a written testimony in support.

We've been in front of this Committee or this body testifying support, and it's been really directed at the potential sighting of the landfill in Wahiawa. And I will stand there and say that Marakawa Kami is a friend of agriculture, well respected in Kauai by our farmers and ranchers in the Kauai Farm Bureau.

And although I believe he may be younger in age than I am, one of my mentors and has been a strong supporter of agriculture. So it is a difficult testimony that we do have to give. So I'll preface again by saying we support agriculture, ag production. The primary use of ag land needs to be ag production.

However, in light of the Mayor's testimony, we want to find a solution not just for Oahu, but for Kauai. And as we're discussing this, we're looking at the maps and the potential sites, and we do understand that the restriction on A and B lands, what that will do to Kauai. We're not retracting our testimony like Mr. Lau.

We are in support of this. We want to protect our agriculture lands, we want to protect our precious water resources, but we also want to find some solutions for Kauai and how to work with Kauai. Now, one of the suggestions, and it is in part of the bill, is the population exemption.

We do appreciate that there is a special use permit process. Again, we want to make sure we're protecting our most productive ag lines, which is A and B. I think in the past, we've also suggested potentially IL lands, which isn't necessarily just A and B lands. We do want to find a solution. Chair.

We know that that time is short, but we want to make sure that our Farm Bureau Members and our farmers and ranchers also have a solution on their island, in their county. And we know that the mayor has agriculture's best interest at heart.

And this is not a compromise from the Farm Bureau standpoint, but it is we do want to find a solution. We want to find a solution for all potential landfills that may have to go or may have to be sited. So that being said, we are still in support of the measure.

We do would like to work with the Committee, the Legislature and the county, Kauai if possible, if the, the Chair would consider that to find a solution so that our farmers and ranchers, as the mayor said, have somewhere to put their trash. So we are available for any questions from the Committee. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody on Zoom? Three people on Zoom. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Okay, come on.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Mihoko Ito. I'm here on behalf of Reworld who is the operator of H Power. This has been an interesting discussion.

We do not have a position on the landfill issues, but we just wanted to note that in the Senate when this bill moved through that there was an amendment included that was really not germane to the underlying bill that relates to act ash reuse.

Currently the city and Reworld are have a pending permit before the Department of Health to try to reuse ash and the bottom ash in, as aggregate. So we would just ask the Committee to not include that amendment in the, in the, in the bill that's before you. Thank you.

Thank you.

So we have Allison on Zoom.

Good morning. Good morning Committee Members, Chair and Vice Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Allison Fraley with the County Solid Waste Division and I stand on the written testimony that we've submitted. Okay, thank you. I'm available for questions.

Sierra Club on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Wayne Tanaka with the Circle Bahoyi. You know, we are in strong support of this measure. I do want to emphasize that this really isn't about protecting our water.

This bill is about protecting our grandchildren's water and their grandchildren's and making sure that we don't take away this precious resource from them, knowing that water is going to become ever more scarce and ever more valuable, invaluable, you know, in their lifetimes, due to what's happening to our planet.

I appreciate the suggestions made by other testifiers regarding, you know, their concerns and I appreciate that they are also looking for a solution because I think all of us agree that we need to do what, you know, whatever we can to safeguard the health and well being. Of our islands and of our future generations. Yeah.

And I'm happy to work with them to try and find ways to meet their concerns while also prioritizing again, the Future of our islands community. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Next we have Mike Ewall on Zoom.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Mike Ewall with Energy Justice Network. I've been studying waste incineration issues for 35 years now. And we urge you to restore the language that was approved by three Senate committees prohibiting the use of toxic incinerator ash in roads, construction or as daily landfill cover.

We support the border of water supplies, justified concerns over the landfill and over spreading the same material that will be in the landfill across the aquifer in the form of roads.

If it's too dangerous to have in a double lined landfill over the aquifer, it is surely too dangerous to put all over the island with no liner systems and stretch it out in the form of roads and drive over them and have workers handle it. And so there are a lot of misconceptions being spread about this.

Some pretend that ash can be cleaned of toxic chemicals, but there's no technology for that.

Reworld, who operates the H Power incinerator and would operate this plant to recycle this ash, claims as just bottom ash, but their own documents which I can provide you from the model plant in Pennsylvania show that's combined ash, which means that fly ash is part of the mix of what they receive there.

Roger Babcock also has described it as being like sand, which is a false claim and is nothing like sand, chemically speaking, it's much more toxic than sand and it doesn't mean that when it tests no-nash.

Can you wrap up your testimony? We are running short on time.

Okay, I'll skip my last couple of points, but I appreciate your work on this and I'm available for questions. Please add that ash. Amanda back in.

Okay, thank you very much. We have probably 30 individuals and organizations that submitted comments, support or opposition. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Nobody on Zoom. Members, any questions? Representative Iwamoto, please remember, I just want to recall that we have, we have to go through decision making and we have to go to the other hearing.

Okay. I just wanted to understand how toxic is this ash that is being proposed to be used in the roads.

Okay, go ahead.

Thanks for that question. Basically we require, you know, the ash to be tested. Right now it's all being disposed of before this recycling project can move forward. We're doing our due diligence on reviewing sampling that's coming out from, from the testing that they're doing for the ash that they're actually going to want to use. For recycling.

And so we're not convinced yet based on that data, there are some toxic elements to the ash. There are toxic elements in various things. You know, pesticides are in soil from previous agricultural uses, things like that. We have environmental action levels that as long as it's below the most stringent levels, it's safe.

There is a reason why, when the ash goes from H power to the landfill, that you require a lot of protective layering so that the ash doesn't seep into potentially the aquifer.

Right. So if there's leachate, and it may be that we don't know exactly what's in all types of material that goes into the landfill. So it's a protective measure. It's to mitigate any potential groundwater impacts. And so that's the General design of the landfill for all types of ways.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay. Representative.

For the Department of Health, Just to follow up, because of what's being burned to create the ash, the toxicity levels could greatly vary depending on what particular matter was burned to create the ash. So how do you really determine, like, toxicity, like, across the board?

So what? That's one of the questions that we had. And so we're requiring much more sampling before we can move forward with that.

We want a lot more data points to be able to determine, you know, over the long term, what types of wastes are producing, what types of toxic materials in there and whether they're going to exceed our environmental action levels, essentially.

So when. If it's mixed with asphalt, which is tar, which is petroleum, and then spread on the dirt, there's a higher likelihood of. Or it will probably, but higher likelihood of it seeping into the environment because there is no barrier between the asphalt and the dirt.

Yeah. So if there are. If it does leach, we're not 100% sure that that's going to be the case. In this case, we're, you know, we're hoping that. That if we get to that point, that we've looked at the data for what's in there and it's below, again, below those environmental action levels.

So it doesn't pose a risk to human health, essentially.

And in the testing, is it for PFAS, too?

I'm not sure at this point. I'm not on that project specifically whether PFAS is being included. I believe it is, though. I think we're asking those questions. Starting to ask those questions.

Very interested in our solid waste issues. Thank you.

Any other questions? Mr. Lau, I think you had a response to Representative Hoboy's Question?

Yes. Thank you, Representative. There was a field study conducted by the Department of Health last year, and they released a report by Dr. Roger Brewer, who's since retired. They checked for PFAS in landfills, the leachate and also the ash. And there are some pretty significant levels of PFAS compounds in the ash itself too.

So that's available on the DoH website. I can forward you a copy of the report later. Thank you.

Okay, Members, any other questions? See? None. We. We are going into decision making. Okay. We may need to recess halfway. No, we should be fine. Okay, first up, we have SB 746SD2HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. Any comments or concerns seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll call]

Okay, thank you, Members. Next up we have SB 1541, SD1HD1 chair's recommendation is to pass this unamended as is.

Okay, voting on SB. Sorry. Any discussion or comments?

No discussion. No comments. Thank you. Okay, voting on. Yes. It's still a blank amount. Okay. You can ask Brian.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay. Voting on SB 1541. SD1HD One recommendation of the chair is to pass as is noting the excuse absence of Representative Woodson for the remainder of the agenda. Anyone voting no or reservation seeing none. Chair. All Members. A no for Representative Shimizu. Anyone else voting no or reservations? All other Members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. I will take SB66 out of order and I'll come back to that. So now we're going to move on to SB26. Chair's recommendation is to pass this with an HD2 for the county. It doesn't designate who states on the county, it just says county.

So I'll put the mayor or their designee, his or her designee and defect 8 to 713000 kind of technical amendments. And that's it. Thank you. No comments, no concerns. Thank you.

All right, voting on SB26. SD2HD1 recordation is passed with amendments noting what was previously said. Anyone voting with reservations or nos. All Members present vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, next up we have HB 1263 SD2HD1 relating to historic, historic preservation. We're going. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD2 making technical amendments and add eight CDA's amendments for off site and infrastructure and HS. SB 1263. I was told, I just said HB 1263.

And this is the one where we're going to put in the clock. We're going to put in ship these recommendations for the clock starts and stops and definition for completed submittal. And that's it. No comments, no concerns. Thank you.

Voting on SB 1263, SD2HD One recommendation is to pass with amendments. Anyone voting no or reservation seeing none. All Members vote aye. Chair, your recognition is adopted.

Thank you. Next we have SP465, SD SB 465, SD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1 defecting the day to 713000, making tech amendments if needed and including the study should include the current upgrades to the, to the, to the harbor.

I talked to the introducer of this bill and he, he told me that it's not just the harbor, it's the whole Na Pali coast. So it's a carrying capacity of the whole area, not just the harbor. But the improvements should be included into the study.

Just to clarify, Chair. So that would mean that the study would not start until after the second harp, the second boat ramp is installed. Well, they can start in the study, but they can.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I think the, the concern is that the environment around the coast is what's want. Wanting to be studied.

Yes. It's not just the harbor. It's more of a broader picture. Okay. But the study should include the improvements that are going in. Got it. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Members.

Okay. Voting on SB465, SD1 recommendations passed with amendments. Anyone voting with reservations?

With reservations.

With reservations for Representative Iwamoto. Anyone voting no. All right. Other Members vote aye. Chair, your condition is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next we have SB438, SD2, HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass this with an HD2 and removing Class B agriculture land. It was the testimony of the man in the pink blazer that really. It was the blazer that convinced me the most. Right. I mean, I agree.

And adding in the language from border water supply and using the no pass zone instead of the current line. What is that? The injection control line. So we're going to. Yes, and you can get that to us. So. And we're going to add the no pass. We're Going to move the line to a no pass zone.

I think that's about it. Any comments or concerns?

Chair, would you consider also adding in the language prohibiting the use of the ash as it was already.

Yes, I forgot about that.

I didn't.

Yes, we'll add in that language too. Thank you. Okay. Right, sir, for the vote.

Okay. Voting on SB438SD2HD1 recommendation is passed with amendments. Anyone voting no or reservations seeing none. All Members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, going back to SB66, Chair's recommendation is to put a shot clock on this. Do I have the language? So we're going to use the same definition from Shipti, that the clock stops and starts. That the clock starts and stops as they provide when they're going through the permitting process.

And as I mentioned in my questions, we're going to put a one time review. So basically for what is this? If the applicant submits plans that are 100% complete and agrees to the recommendations to the said plans, or if they agree to the changes to the permitting agency, then they may proceed forward.

It is deemed that the permit is issued. If the applicant does not accept the changes or the recommendations, they may go back and revise the plans to the permitting agency. Do you understand? So their comments.

So when they make their comments, when you put in a full set of plans and it's deemed complete, we're going to define that too.

For earlier version in the bill, it says a full complete plan is stamped by a duly licensed structural, civil, electrical or mechanical engineer and architect certifying that all plans and specifications are in the compliance with the applicable building codes for their respective county. So that will be a full set of plans. So we'll put up.

So if you submit your plans, they come when the permitting agency comes back with comments, you may proceed and you agree to the comments you may proceed on that is deemed to be. You have your permits.

If I can ask, what is the safeguard to ensure that they actually did implement those?

Good question. It's the building inspector. The building inspector comes in, looks at the comments, looks at the plans and looks at the improvements and they verify that it is done based upon the comments that the permitting agency does. The Federal Government does it this way.

Okay. I'm just, I guess my concern is that they just, it could set up one of those. You ask, you apologize when you're done building instead of, you know, making sure it's correct.

That's what the building inspector is there for.

So they would tear down the building if there's something faulty or that's.

What the building inspector is for. Right. Because that, it's the same thing. Now you could get your plans and then you. You get your perfect permits and you can build something different based upon the plans. And then the building inspector comes in and they verify. Right. So this going back and forth. You can cut out that.

Going back and forth. Right. So that's. That's what we're trying. That's what I'm trying to get at.

I understand. I'm going to be voting with reservations. Because it's a work in progress. This is the first version. Got it. And also the issue of home rule on building permits things. Okay.

And we're going to add a sunset. I don't think we can do one year or two years. Probably they'll still be in the permitting process. So I'm going to put a sunset of five years. Is that okay? And we're going to defect date to 7-1-3000.

So we got a lot of time to figure this out and make tech amendments as needed. Any comments or concerns. See None. Vice Chair for the vote. Okay.

Voting on SP66SD2HD1 recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments noting the no from Representative Iwamoto. Anyone?

Sorry, I think it was with reservations.

With reservations. So sorry. Thank you.

She doesn't believe we can do it in a thousand years. Okay.

Anyone else voting with reservations or nos? Okay. Reservations for Representative Shimizu. All right. Anyone else? All right. Seeing that all other Members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. See you in 423. Thank you. We are adjourned.