House Standing Committee on Transportation

Morning convening the 10:00 am hearing on the House Committee Transportation today March 20, 2025 at 10:00 am here in Conference Room 430 at the Hawaii State Capitol. Myself Vice Chair Grandinetti. We have two measures on today's agenda, so if you folks would get started with me. I like to start with our first agenda item this morning.

Sorry, real quick. Just Housekeeping in order to allow people to testify, may Institute a time limit at any given time per testifier. Morning hearings must adjourn prior to floor session. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete.

Zoom chat is only for folks to talk with tech staff. Please use it for any technical issues. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. Event of network failure may be necessary to reschedule the hearing at an appropriate time and we'll make the appropriate notice for that hearing.

Please do not use trademark or copyright images as it will affect our live streaming capabilities and we haven't had to but just a friendly reminder to always please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior as such are grounds for removal. And with that we'll get started with our agenda for this morning.

First hearing on the first agenda item for this 10am hearing is SB597 relating to administrative Driver's License revocation extends the time restriction which Hawaii the Hawaii Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office is required to issue a written review decision of a notice of administrative revocation of a person's driver's license. Vice Chair for the testimony, please.

Attorney General in support.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department provides testimony in support of Senate Bill 597. This bill essentially extends the statutory deadlines for the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office. This will be such a huge important part in chemical testing for OVUII cases, operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant.

Currently there's a very small percentage of forensic toxicology labs to conduct this type of testing and because of that a lot of the neighbor islands, when they do their testing and have to send it out, it takes longer to get the results back.

And so this bill will essentially allow to make sure chemical testing is provided to the administrative driver's license revocation timely and we will be here for any test questions. Thank you.

Mahalo, Department of Law Enforcement and Support Department of Transportation in support on Zoom.

Good morning Chair My name is Larry Dill. I'm Administrator for the Highways Division of the Department of Transportation. We stand on our testimony as submitted in support of this measure. Thanks. Thank you.

Hawaii Police Department in support. Honolulu Police Department and support on Zoom. Present. Okay. HPD, we'll come back. Okay, we'll come back. County of Hawaii, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney in support on Zoom. Okay. Kiki Injury Prevention Coalition in support. And Frank Schultz, individual in opposition. Go back to HPD. Are you on? Okay.

Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Thank you.

Vice Chair, Members, any questions? I have one. Attorney General, please.

Good morning. Morning. Good morning, Chair.

So for section 2 of SB597, right now it has it at 15. 15 days after the date of notice was issued and 30 days after the date of notice is issued. Is that currently being. That's practiced right now?

No, it's currently 8 days and 22 days, which is what sometimes presents a difficulty.

And that's been the problem because it's too short of a timeline.

Yes. Because of the shipping time. Yeah. From neighbor islands to here or here to the mainland.

And how long has this been going on, if you don't mind me asking? This statute has been.

It has been for the past few years, I believe. There was a change in the contractor, where the local contractor, due to retirement and things like that, they were not able to do it in state anymore. So then it started getting sent to the mainland.

So it worked when we had. In state contractor, yes.

But right now, there's no definite plans for that.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. I was. Thank you for that. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Members, let's move on to the next agenda Item before us. SB1285SD2 relating to highway safety.

Establishes the offense of operating a vehicle while impaired and penalties establishes the process to automatically suspend the license of a person arrested for driving under the influence. Allows a person whose license is automatically suspended for driving under the influence to contest the suspension. Amends the administrative process at the administrative driver's license or vacation office.

Requires the Department of Attorney General to submit reports to the Legislature. Vice Chair for testimony. Please.

Judiciary offering comments. Attorney General offering comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Deputy Attorney General Elise Oyama for the Department. Our testimony is just about Section Two, which relates to the DUI infraction being created. We do just have some concerns.

As it stands right now, we have the ability to use a blood alcohol concentration that's below the .08 based upon an offender's driving that's observed by a law enforcement officer. We also would note that for Someone to get this infraction, they would have to still be initially arrested by a law enforcement officer.

Often these infraction types of defenses are supposed to be an efficient use of law enforcement resources where they just write the citation and then can go on to their next law enforcement contact. So it works counter to what our normal infraction process would be. So for that, we would be recommending taking out that section.

And I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney. Sorry. I just did that. Office of the Public Defender in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Representative Evslin, Sonny Ganaden, Deputy Public Defender. The Office of the Public Defender is in opposition to this. As noted by the Office of the Attorney General, there is a statute which allows for this to be charged 291E61A, which is actually broader than the 0.05.

We believe that this is going to have unintended consequences. The OVUII Court, or, you know, colloquially called the DUI court, it's already overburdened and many charges are dropped because police officers can't make the hearings.

Should these cases come before the Office of the Public Defender, we're going to suggest that people contest them because it's an administrative process rather than a criminal process, which is, we would say, violative of due process rights.

The number of cases that are going to come before the court means a lot of them are going to get dropped, just like a lot of them are already being dropped. So you're going to have a lower prosecution rate. We also regretfully would like to contest the conversation about fatalities.

Fatalities for DUIs have dropped significantly in the last few years. We don't believe that that is because of a change in law, but because of a change in behavior of drivers. So the change in the way that people can get rides and the basic conversation that has happened about drunk driving with our generation.

So for those reasons, we contest and we believe that this is not necessary at all. Thank you.

Thank you, Sonny.

Department of Transportation and support on Zoom.

Yep. Morning, Chair. Larry Dill, Administrator for Highways, Department of Transportation. And we stand in support with comments on this measure. In support of this measure. Thank you. Thank you.

County of Hawaii Office of the Prosecuting Attorney in support on zoom. Not present. Maui County Department of the Prosecuting Attorney Offering comments. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. AAA Hawaii offering comments. Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition in support. Malahanai Pua in support. MAD offering comments. Hawaii Alcohol Policy alliance in support on Zoom. Not present.

Lokahi Treatment Centers in support. Maika E Cleaning Services in support, Cynthia Okazaki. Individual in support on Zoom. Cynthia. Hi.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Cynthia Okazaki and I am in strong support of Senate Bill 1285, Senate Draft 2. I'm just gonna briefly highlight what I've stated in my written testimony. Reducing the blood alcohol content to 0.05% is linked to fewer instances of impaired driving and its consequences.

A.05 BAC limit is a deterrent to impaired driving and affects everyone's safety. Lowering the BAC limit to 0.05 is not about drinking. It is about separating drinking from Dr. It is about preventing crashes, injuries and deaths, creating safer streets for everyone.

Contrary to popular belief, data from Utah after the state lowered their BAC 2.05% in 2019 showed that the alcohol sales actually increased 28%. Again, this bill does not limit the amount of alcohol consumed or purchased. This bill would improve the overall health and safety of all people in Hawaii.

I urge you to move SB 1285, Senate draft two out of Committee. Mahalo for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Kavena Bagano, individual in support on Zoom, not present. Okay, we have 17 additional individuals in support. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify?

Thank you. Vice Chair, Members, any questions? Okay.

Members of three cess reconvening the House Committee on Transportation's 10am Agenda for decision making. Members, thank you. I know this is a quick agenda, but I do want to note after this one, we will gavel out. The gavel in for our resolution hearing this morning will be led by Vice Chair Grandinetti.

Members, let's start with the first measure today, SB597 relating to administrative driver's license revocation. Members like to adopt an HD1. Let's defect the effective date to 7-1-3000. I'd like to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Members, turn your attention to amend. We'll go to section two, line nine.

I want to amend it to specify that the written review decision shall be issued no later than 14 days after the date of the notice was issued. And Same section, Section 2, line 12 to specify that the written review decision shall be issued no later than 28 days after the date notice was issued.

Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll call]

Representative Moraoka, Representative Peric Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Members, move on to second agenda item SP1285SD2 relating to highway safety. Members, I'd like to do the same thing. I'd like to adopt the HD one on the measure before us. I'd like to defect the effective date to July 13000. We're going to do technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style.

And you will folks will see why. Members, I the House Committee on Transportation previously took a position on supporting lowering the bac, and I think it's clear that that is where we would like to go.

But the great thing about the legislative process is there's it's a process and with this SB version, it's another attempt or version I think, to look at lowering the bac. But there are other parts of the bill that I think are super important.

So I like to try some parts of the bill first, if you folks don't mind. With that, I like to delete sections 12 and 3 so section 1 will be deleted. Section 2 talks about a new section of the Hawaii Revised Statutes of Operating a Vehicle While Impaired. While impaired. I'd like to delete that.

And then for section three as well, I like to do the same thing. So with the technical amendments, the new subsection shall be renumbered accordingly. I'd like to amend Section 291E41 to clarify the revocation periods for respondents who refuse to be tested. Replace the existing language on page 23, lines 16 to 18, with the following.

If a respondent has refused to be tested after being informed pursuant to Section 291E15, then the revocation period imposed under subsection B1, 2 and 3 shall be doubled from the previous from the period established in those revocation provisions.

I'd also like to delete section 9 as it's written now to make amending and conforming amendments to make it conducive to the way that the bill is written now.

And just making sure that in the same measure before that we just made amendments on SB597 to specify that written review decision shall be issued no later than 14 days and same thing that 28 days after the notice was issued, I believe I have it in the bill, but I just want to make sure it's consistent and then process for note taking.

So with that, Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Okay. See nine by sure for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 1285, SD2 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absences of Representative Cochran, Representative Kitagawa and Representative La Chica. Are there any Members voting? No. Any with reservations? Okay. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, let's adjourn our 10:00am hearing and we will prepare for the 10:15.

10:15Am Agenda of the House Committee on Transportation here in room Conference Room 430 in the Hawaii State Capitol. Vice Chair Grandinetti here with Chair Kila. And today we'll be hearing resolutions. Housekeeping. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two minute time limit per testifier.

Because morning hearings must adjourn prior to floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify. In that event. Please know that your written testimony will be considered by the Committee. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify.

And after your testimony is complete, the Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits.

Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the test fire's end. And in the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted.

Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images and please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. Okay. Okay.

With that, we will move on to Our first measures, HCR 201 and HR 193, requesting the Department of Transportation and Department of Transportation of the County of Maui to collaborate with the Kihei Community Association in the planning and implementation of the Kihei Mauka Road Project. Chair for testimony.

Thank you, Members. HCR201, HR 193 in tandem, providing support on Zoom. Department of Transportation.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I am Larry Dill, Administrator for Highways, Department of Transportation. We stand on our testimony as submitted in support of the intent of this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you. See no other further registered testifiers on the measures before us. Is there anyone online or in person like to testify on either resolution? Seeing none.

Members, any questions? I have a quick question for.in your testimony. You recommend a planning study be conducted. Is it necessary to amend the RESO to reflect that or was that just a broader contextual thing?

I don't think it's necessary to amend the resolution that's consistent with the resolution.

Okay, cool. Thank you so much. Any other questions, Members? Okay. Seeing none. Moving on to HCR 203 and HR 195, urging the County of Maui to prioritize the development and planning of the northern terminus of the Kihei North South Collector Road. Chair for testimony, thank you.

HCR203HR 195. There are no registered testifiers that provided testimony in those measures before us. Is there anyone online or in person like to testify in the measures before us? Seeing none.

Chair Members, any questions? No one to ask questions. Okay, moving on to the next measure. HCR205HR197, urging the County of Maui and the United States United States Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize and expedite the planning, funding and construction of a permanent replacement for the Kulani Hakoi Bridge. Chair for the Testimony, thank you.

HCR205HR197, testimony in tandem. We have one registered testifier. Frank Schultz, who's supporting none, did not say that they'll be doing zoom or in person. Seeing no other further registered testifiers. Is there anyone else online or in person that like to testify on HCR205HR197 in the room or online? Seeing none.

Chair Members, any questions or okay, Moving on to HCR 30. HR 29 requesting each county Police Department to increase enforcement against out of state vehicles operating on public roadways that have not been properly registered in the appropriate county. Chair for Testimony, thank you.

HC30HR29, in tandem, we have one individual in support, Frank Schultz. Anyone online or in person like to testify on the measure before us? Say none.

Chair thank you. Members, any questions? Okay, Moving on to HC 44. HR 37 requesting the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation to extend the Skyline Rail project to the west side of Oahu. Chair for Testimony, thank you.

HCR44, HR37 in tandem, one individual providing testimony and support. Is there anyone else online or in person, like to testify in the measure before us? Seeing none.

Chair thank you. Members, any questions? Moving on to HCR 45, HR 38, urging the Public Utilities Commission to support the complete transfer of its regulatory authority over motor carriers and and other means of transportation to the Department of Transportation. Chair for testimony.

Thank you Members. HCR 45, HR 38 in tandem. We have several testifiers on this matter before us. Up first, Leo Ascension of the Public Utilities Commission in support. Next, we have the Department of Transportation in support on Zoom.

Yes. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I am Larry Dill, Administrator for Highways, Department of Transportation. We stand on our testimony as submitted in support of this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you. And lastly, Frank Schultz in support. Is there anyone else online in person that would like to Testify on the matter, the measures before us. Seeing none. Chair.

Thank you, Members. Any questions?

I have a question for dot.

Go ahead.

Hi, Larry. Did you have a chance to review the PUC's testimony? Just asking for clarification if the Water Carrier Authority is something the DOT would like.

I'm sorry, I've not had a chance to review that.

Okay. Could you ping maybe somebody before we do decision making on the matter before us if possible? Certainly. We'll do. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on to the next measure. HCR71, HR64 requesting the Ko'Olina Golf Club owners and management in coordination with the Department of Transportation to implement measures to prevent golf balls from reaching Farrington Highway. Chair for testimony.

Thank you, Members. HCR 71, HR 64 in tandem. First providing. Sorry, two members, two people in support on the measure before us. Up first form of transportation and support. I think he's getting an update. And then next we have Frank Schultz in support. Anyone else online or in person like to testify on the matter before us?

Seeing none. Chair.

Thank you, Members. Any questions? Okay, moving on to HCR120. HR116 requesting the airports Division of the Department of Transportation to convene a task force to explore the feasibility of establishing and implementing a corporation to manage the state's airports. Chair for Testimony.

Thank you. HCR 120. HR 116 in tandem of testimony. Up first we have Department of Transportation in opposition on Zoom.

Good morning. Chair Kila, Vice Chair Grandinetti, Members of the Committee, Kurt Otoguro, Deputy Director for Airports. We appreciate the opportunity to testify. We respectfully oppose this, these measures or for several reasons as stated in our testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry. Up next we have Kamakana from UPW providing comments in person.

Good morning, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Grandinetti, Members of the Committee, [unintelligible] with UPW. I did want to first just address there was a slight error on the title of on our testimony. And so we just wanted to make sure that you're made aware. But UPW stands on our comments. Be here for any questions if you have.

Thank you. Up next we have Lori Lum from the Airlines Committee of Hawaii providing comments. Not here. Next we have Jacob Aki from Alaska and Hawaiian Airlines providing support. Next we have Brandy Pereira of Hawaii Government Employees Association providing comments in person.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair, Members Nui Sebast here with HGA. We'll stand on our written comments. I do just want to Kind of just emphasize that we represent hundreds of employees that provide services within our airport.

So we would just like to be included in this task force or just specifically an amendment to include representatives from public sector unions. Thank you.

Thank you. Lastly, Ted Kafalas of Grassroots Institute of Hawaiian Support. See no other further registered testifiers on the measures before us. Is there anyone else online or personally to testify in the matter? Seeing none.

Chair thank you Members. Any questions?

I have a question. DOT. Thank you for clarifying your folks position and testimony. So if I could just, I think maybe understand further, in the case that we adopt an authority, we remove legislative oversight and purview. How does that work in other states that operate with authorities? Does the Legislature have any input?

It depends. Chair in most cases corporations are private. In those cases the Legislature does not have any authority over policy or appropriations or that matter. So we believe that while we have been working tirelessly as an airport system for 15 airports, we have master plans.

We have made great strides over the last several years in prioritizing many of the projects that focus on safety, airfield safety. To begin with. We are focused on, as you very well know, inputs to additions to the terminal here in Honolulu with the Mauka expansion. We have further plans to continue that modernization and plan.

And then we're also working with our vendors to improve and offer passengers and guests different food and beverage alternatives, retail alternatives. These are contracts that are bid out and are there.

So we believe that we're in a good place and with the structure in place and governance in place with the Legislature to continue on and make good progress. So the instance of a corporation really is, has been vetted as the Legislature has known for several years, for previous sessions have addressed this.

And so the discussions have always been pros and cons like anything. But we believe that we're already doing what we need to do to improve level of service to passengers. It's all about passenger experience as well as a great working relationship with the airline Committee of Hawaii and the airline partners.

And so we just feel that this is redundant and time would be better spent working with the Legislature and working with our partners to continue the plan that we currently have.

Okay, then I think that leads to my next question is that if you operate with an authority under a public, I guess, service, which is the airport, does it then become privatized?

That's one option that the task force could come up with. And so again the task force will vet through different models of airport corporations, some airports internationally, the government owns their fields and privatized on the terminal side. So again, going through a task force and weighing all the different alternatives can be done.

We just believe that the model that we've had in place continues to improve. We're able to improve upon what we're doing and deliver without having another layer of bureaucracy, frankly, that would add to policymaking that may be contrary to what the state Legislature or the Governor wants.

And so again, not that you it's just time consuming to go through this process to figure out the governance. And we believe that the governance in place today works. It always can be improved and we're always willing to do that. Director Sniffin is all about change and making sure that we're efficient and that we're responsive.

And so I personally believe we are in a good path forward to continue that, that, that mission to fulfill what we need to fulfill.

One more question. Thank you. One more question, Kurt. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, with the way that we operate the airports now. We collect landing fees from all these private operators.

In the case, from my understanding, with the landing fees we assess on everything with our operators, we are able to then subsidize airport terminals that are not as busy. Is that correct?

That's correct, Chair. So we are a airport system of 15 across the state. We're very fortunate to have commercial airports as we all travel and so we generate aviation related revenue and we also have an opportunity to generate non aviation related revenue that doesn't pertain directly to airlines, but General aviation rentals.

We have property off airport property, part of the dot, and so we have car rental agencies. And so we're able to manage all of the expenses and sustain growth through capital investment through revenue bonds that we issue based on the financial performance of this airport.

And so thankfully, thanks to good leadership of director and administrators and the entire team, we're able to run a shop where revenue exceeds expenses. And so we don't, we are fully funded on ourselves, special funded. We do not depend on state funds, as you know, on General funds.

So the model that is established today is very efficient from a taxpayer perspective and we believe that we should be allowed to continue with that with input and of course always open to adjustments and making change as it, as it seems appropriate.

But this airport system can subsidize some of the other airports that don't have the necessary foot traffic or volume to sustain itself. But as we all know, these rural airports are equally important to serve our communities.

And, and so this is why the model we feel financially is we're able to certainly take Care of all of our residents throughout the states.

Okay, sorry, one more question. So I didn't realize that technically if you did a task force on a private air, I mean, you privatize, you could technically privatize a public space. I didn't realize that was possible. So knowing that, are you able to just maybe send the Committee several examples of, I guess, public.

I think that's my larger concern. I didn't realize you could technically privatize a public transportation process and then make it private and subject to privatization.

Yeah. And these are just options. I'm not saying that it's possible, but certainly the task force would vet through that. But again, we believe because we have a source of federal funding as well as our revenue bond generations and a good track record.

Wait, sorry, Kurt. Well, the thoughts at the top of my head is a airport that then does the privatizing still leverage federal funds?

It could, it could. But again, decision making for that then rests in your corporation board. And again, policy making at the legislative level would be blurred. And so again, you know, this is like I said, this has been vetted many years. And so we believe that the model we have today works.

We'll continue to make improvements and we're the most efficient right now. We have a master plan for all airports that are being updated, that will continue to make improvements that will benefit the public as well as our airline partners.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Kirk.

Thank you. Members. Any other questions? Okay, moving on to our final measure. HCR 123 HR119 requesting the Department of Transportation Services of the city and County of Honolulu to implement a restricted parking zone pilot program in the Koina Honokai, Hale, Nanakuli and Maili neighborhoods. But Chair for the testimony.

Thank you, Members. HCR123, HR119. In tandem we have one person providing testimony in opposition. See no other further registered testifiers on the measures before us. Is there anyone else online or in person like to testify? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Seeing none re we will be recessing, reconvening the 10:15 am agenda of the House Committee on Transportation. We will be decision making on our resos with the.

Starting with the first measure, HCR201 and HR193 requesting the Department of Transportation and Department of Transportation of the County of Maui to collaborate with the Kihei Community Association in the planning and implementation of the Kihei Mauka Road project. We'll be moving this out as is Chair for the vote. Questions, comments or concerns from Members? Okay.

Seeing none, Chair for the vote.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Moving on to HCR203 and HR195. The recommendation is to move this out as is Members. Any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Members voting on HCR203HR195 in Tandem, noting the excused absences of Members Cochrane, Kitagawa and Lachica, who will remain excused for the remainder of this agenda unless noted with the Members present before us. Are there any Members voting with reservations or no Seeing none Chair your measures adopted. Thank you. Recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to HCR205 and HR197. The recommendation is to move out as is Members. Any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Members voting on HCR205HR197 in Tandem, noting the excused absences of the previous Members. Sorry. Noting excused absences of Members Cochran and Kitagawa and the Ch. On and noting the presence of the Members who are present. Is there any Members wishing to vote the reservations or no Seeing none share. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HCR 30 and HR 29. Recommendation is to move out as is Members. Any questions, comments or concerns?

Just a quick comment, Chair. I, I think I appreciate you moving this recommendation forward.

I think Hawaii taxpayers are the ones that are paying road user charges and I think there's no problem with folks who are coming to Hawaii under the orders and guise of military service who, who, who get the proper exemptions for not registering their vehicles.

But I think you have people who have moved out of from out of state into Hawaii who've not properly registered their vehicles and at some position are not doing their fair share diligence of the damage that is then caused on the road by these vehicles not properly registered.

I would hope that with the passage and adoption of this resolution, the county police enforcement departments would take this seriously because when we talk about burdening our taxpayers, I think it should not be solely the taxpayers having to burden these out of state folks not participating.

I don't want to say theft, but it's almost in that same position. So thank you.

Any other questions, comments or concerns? Okay. Seeing none Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Members voting on HCR 30 HR 29 in tandem. Members of anyone wishing to vote reservations or no Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HCR 44 and HR 37. Recommendation is to pass as or move out as is Members. Any questions, comments or concerns?

Quick comment, Chair. I just want to make a comment that when I look at Hart extending Skyline, I would hope that it doesn't have to be what is known to go throughout the entire corridor of Oahu as is.

I think the cement and the elevated skyline works, but I also don't think that would necessarily work in a position or places like the west side of Oahu.

But what's happening now is that you expect the largest workforce on the island of Oahu to use a system that goes all the way to Kapolei in order to access it. And just to get from that point A to point B alone is a traffic jam in itself.

And when you want people to use public transportation and you didn't make it to go to the places it needs to, I think it is concerning. So I would hope that they can even just explore different ways.

I'm not saying to go underground, I'm not saying light rail on the ground, but something to some sort that makes the Skyline feasible for folks in West Oahu that could actually benefit the most from it.

And then the resolution stating that something that could move at quick speed can also serve as an opportunity to quickly get people out of an area in the case of an emergency. So that's kind of my position on that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Yep, go ahead.

Also, so like Rep. Keyla had mentioned, I do support some type of system getting our people out from the west side. But as this RESO is written to extend the rail, I think it sets the wrong precedent. I mean I would definitely support something helping our traffic jam because we do have the largest population of labor workers.

So with it the way it's written, I. I'm a no.

Members. Any other questions, comments or concerns? Okay, seeing none. Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Members voting on HCR 44 HR 37 in Tandem noting the no votes from Representative Morocco Members. Anyone else wish to cast a reservation or no vote? No vote from Representative pic. Anyone else wish to cast a no vote or vote of reservations? Seeing none. Cherry recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HCR 45 HR 38. We're going to defer decision making on this one until Tuesday, March 25th at 10am and a hearing notice will be issued. We're just waiting on additional information from DOT Members. Any questions? Okay, moving on to HCR71HR64. Recommendation is to move this one now as is.

Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Chair, Seeing none Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Members voting on HCR 71 HR 64 in Tandem, noting the excused absence of the previous Members, as noted before. Is anyone wishing to vote, reservations or no Seeing none Vice Chair. I mean, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Now onto HCR120. HR116. We are going to defer this one. Just citing the concerns of the Department of Transportation and now Moving on to HCR123, HR119. Moving this one out as is or recommendation is to move this one out as is. Members, any questions, comments or concerns?

Good comment. Chair, go ahead. Thank you for moving this one forward. I think when you look at the areas of Kalihi that have adopted this pilot program, it obviously works.

I think the communities that have been impacted by influx of tourists is, I mean, amazing visitors from across the state and across the world to come visit our neighborhoods. But as we know, some of these neighborhoods where people are visiting abates people's residential lives. And people are still trying to live while people are visiting.

And parking plays a huge part in that. And so I think this, this would encourage the county to maybe expand what they're doing at downtown Honolulu to our less known communities on the west side of Oahu. So I appreciate the opportunity to move this forward.

Thank you. Members, any other questions, comments or concerns? Okay, Seeing none, Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Members voting on HCR123HR119 in tandem. Members, anyone wishing to vote, nor with reservations, Seeing none Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And that is all on our agenda today. Yeah, we'll add how many times? We're adjourned. That's it. Okay.