House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning and welcome to the Committee on Public Safety. We this is Wednesday, April 2nd. It's now 1105am we are in room 411.

I just want to share with the public that's tuning in maybe is that I guess it's custom and practice that during the resolution period that the chairs and so Chair Bellotti of the Public Safety Commission allowed me to serve as acting Chair of Resolutions. And thank you so much, Chair Belatti, for that.

So I guess it makes you acting race Chair. So thank you. And it's something that's being done just uniformly across I guess, many committees. So I really appreciate that as acting Chair I'm learning quite a bit about the process, the deliberations, about democracy. So I really appreciate this opportunity. And so I'm going to read the housekeepings stuff.

There's only two resos on the agenda, so there's no real time limit if there is anybody wanting to testify. Because the morning hearings must adjourn prior to the noon 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.

Please keep yourself muted and your video off. And this is for those who are testifying via 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 are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the Committee. Rejoin the meeting if disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end.

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. Please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. So the first item on the agenda is House Resolution 43 HD1 urging the city and County of Honolulu to work with stakeholders to construct an emergency access road on the Waianae coast. There were 14 testimonies submitted in support. None opposed. Are there?

I don't no one signed up to testify in person. Is there anyone wishing to testify in the room or on Zoom? Seeing none as acting Chair, I am making the amendment to the amendment is before you.

I think all the Members have a copy of the amendment which is a proposed HD2 this basically, this does not erase any of the language in the original resolution or the HD1. It does piggyback on the. A very similar language, but for the area of Makakilo.

As many as some of you may know, and as was stated in prior committees, the representative from Makakilo has been trying to get an emergency access road or at least a discussion started on that for her, for the further residents of her district.

So that is the amendment I'm seeking the, the Committee Members to add on to the current resolution before us. Are there any comments, questions, concerns? Yes, Representative. Yes, the introducer is aware and I gave him ample time to discuss them with me. He did not. He acknowledged getting receipt.

He, he confirmed that he would be giving a response and he has chosen not to. So I think that's important that he did not reject. He was completely notified. I learned from my last.

He didn't respond.

So, yeah, he did not respond.

So he's not rejecting it.

He's not rejecting. He's not anything. Yeah, but you know, and I, and I did tell him that this would be an opportunity for him to. The way I see, this is the legislation, this is a collaborative process. We introduce a measure and we understand it's going to go through the Committee process and people will amend.

People have conversations about how to make it better or in this case, at this stage of the lifespan of at least House Resolutions, the window has closed for a lot of various resolutions and bills. And, and so this becomes an opportunity when a bill or reso is overlooked.

It's an opportunity to say, hey, here's a vehicle that's very, very similar to what the goals of another representative's efforts were and why don't we kind of put them together as a way to honor. And in this case, this is about protecting the residents of an area by offering them emergency access.

This is about saying, hey, why are we, why don't we broaden the scope of individuals that we are trying to protect in the case of an emergency? Yes, Representative Lamasao.

So if that was the case that you were looking to further this discussion and including that emergency access for Maka Kilo, then why did you not submit or post a agenda with the proposed HD2 for input from this community and, or by others?

Because I, well, I wasn't sure. I mean, so I'm new to this. Thank you for recognizing that. And I wasn't sure I wouldn't get prior. I didn't know that this would be not approved of by either the, by the by the introducer of the original resolution. I didn't know that we could.

I've seen other amendments happen in other committees. I've been on without it being posted as a HD proposed HD2.

I understand that, but I wish you had posted the HD to propose HD2 because you have it in front of us to the public for review all and for further discussion and now on the new merits of the bill. So I have concerns about. About that because although it's very similar, it is quite substantial. So. Thank you.

Thank you. I mean, it looks substantial because obviously we're including another neighborhood and another access road. But everything, if you look at it, it's. The language is very parallel.

Question. Was there prior concurrence with the chair from the previous Committee?

I did. I did seek prior concurrence. And I believe you also were in communication with the chair of the prior Committee. The chair of the prior Committee did not respond. Again, let me be clear.

I first spoke with the Acting Chair Grandnetti, who assured me that she was vetting or she was managing in the same way that you're offering me the opportunity to be acting Chair of Resolutions. She assured me that she was acting Chair of Resolutions for Transportation when I sent her the formal request. I'm sorry.

Go ahead. Yeah. The chair is still a chair of the Committee, regardless if you're.

Okay. Okay. So.

Was there prior concurrence of the chair?

Neither from Acting Chair Grandinetti. She deferred me to Chair Aquila and I did send him an email, and she just informed me this morning that she would not be. She's not in the position to offer concurrence on this. So she referred me to the permanent Chair of Transportation, which is Shila, and I did send him an email.

I stopped by his office and he was not available or was not there.

Thank you.

But that is. Is that. Is that an important.

Does that affect your vote when you make your recommendation? Yes, it will affect my vote. Okay.

And also chair, Acting chair. I do have comments, but I will wait till the recommendation portion.

Well, this is the. That. So this is the opportunity. So if I can respond to you further. Vice Chair. Acting Vice Chair. But Chair Belatti, regarding seeking prior concurrence from the prior chair. First of all, the rules which I examined only require that for bills, not for resolutions.

And I just to share with you, also, things were delayed in this process because I also got misinformation from somebody in leadership that I was told that we could not even amend titles to resolutions. But that was a. After speaking with House attorney, I was informed that that was not correct.

So that did stall this deliberative process or the, you know, gathering concurrence or even posting the proposed alternative amendment. So that was part of the wrench in the works that made this part, like, awkward. And again, I'm learning this as we're going along. So, Member, what's. You look concerned. Is there any comments?

Well, I think that if you're gonna throw an allegation out like that, that leadership misled you, that should, that should be substantiated. That's not appropriate for you to just throw it out there like that.

Okay. So how would you, would you like me to specifically state.

I just think it should be substantiated before you throw an allegation out like that. That's very serious.

Okay, well, so I did contact Speaker Nakamura and I said yes. So I'm trying to do this resolution to amend the resolution. And even though the rules don't require me to get prior concurrence, I'm afraid that the chair of the Previous Committee will not provide concurrence.

And if, if we are, if we are following the rules as it pertains to bills, even though it specifically does not include resolutions, I'm like, if we have, if we are going to follow that template, the template does say if one, if the subsequent Committee chair requests of the prior Committee chair an amendment and that prior Committee chair does not concur, then it is the, the matter should be brought to the Speaker.

So the speaker should meet within both parties and try to figure out what's going on. So I did, thinking that I could not. So I wanted to speak. So I spoke, I brought this issue up to Speaker Nakamura.

I said, well, if this is the case, and that was at that time, she goes, well, you're not even allowed to change the title of a resolution. And I just said, okay. And then I communicated that with my colleagues and my colleagues said, actually that's not correct.

And then they referred, said, and they told me that they spoke to the attorney. And then I spoke to the attorney and they said that's true. And then yesterday's CPC Committee, the acting chair of that Committee change the rules, the title of the resolution.

And I did, clarifying to the record, I said, are you changing the title of the resolution? He said, yes. I'm like, okay, so clearly it can be done. Again, I don't, maybe Speaker Nakamura misheard my, what I was calling about.

But she, I clearly heard her communicate to me that we were not allowed to amend titles for resolutions. So does that help?

I state it by comments, but thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you. And then. So going back to the prior concurrence, one of the reasons why I actually tried to speak to Speaker Nakamura about this, and my belief was that the prior chair would not concur, because in a previous.

In a previous Joint Hearing between Transportation and Pbs, when the meeting was adjourned, I don't know if you guys remember this, but Member Souza made a statement alluding to her community needing an emergency access road. And then I. And so she put it out there. And I turned to Acting Vice Chair Bellotti, and I said.

And I said, is this a discussion? Like, can I dig in further? And so I wanted to dig in further with her on the record, but I decided not to. And so when the meeting was adjourned, people left the room. Member Sousa left the room, and I turned to Permanent Chair Kila.

And I asked him, well, why. Why wouldn't. Why wouldn't this issue come up in your Committee? And he said, it's. One of the things he said was that, this is a sitting county. We're urging this. It's a sitting county matter. And I'm like, that's strange, okay, Because I know just.

I know I'm new, but I've seen lots of resolutions urging the sitting county to convene a task force or to work on an issue. So that didn't make sense to me. And then. And then he further what I took away.

I heard a very clear statement that he was not intending to hear any bills or resolutions from Member Souza. And I. So I heard that very clearly. And there were other people in the room. I don't know if they heard it or not, but I was so shocked by that that I took it to.

I mentioned it to my staff immediately after. And so that's why I went to speaker, because I wanted. I said, I don't think he's going to concur because he knows this is Member Souza's b ill. Can I offer the question.

Can we just go ahead with your recommendation?

Yeah, I'm sorry. I'd like to hear from Rasa, because she's been waiting to make a comment.

I'll make a comment right after the recommendation. But. But thank you.

Thank you, Chair, for the recommendation was made. So this is the time I made the recommendation. Did I not make the recommendation? Because I said comments, questions, concerns.

So your recommendation is to adopt the proposed HD2 which is to support so that the title now reads urging the City and County of Honolulu to work with stakeholders to construct two emergency access roads, one on the Waianae coast and one in Makakilo, which will provide safety routes for West Oahu residents in their respective communities spanning from Makakilo to Makaha and then it adds in to the whereas along the Waianae coast which is like it's broadening it and then several whereases should I read them all that are underscore into the record where so this would be adding this whereas there is concurrently only one way in and out of Makakilo, a situation that poses significant, significant safety concerns for residents and whereas construction of the Makakilo Drive extension has been a decades old long standing promise to the residents of Makakilo for a second means of egress from Makakilo and whereas the lack of progress on the Makakilo Drive extension has led to increased traffic congestion, limited access for emergency vehicles and continued apprehension that in the event of an emergency only one route in and out of Makakilo exists and whereas the extension of Makakilo Drive is intended to enhance public safety if built and whereas Makakilo residents need an emergency access road built in a timely manner, whether or not this access road is in fact the Makakilo Drive Extension extension itself or another access road that is contemplated, designed and constructed and whereas the Makakilo Quarry, owned and operated by Grace Pacific LLC is not fit to serve as an emergency access route because it is not a substantial sustainable solution in light of its ongoing business operations and then we skip one Whereas Makakilo Drive serves as the only access road in and out of Makakilo and whereas the public safety of the Makakilo community requires that an emergency access route be developed and available for use as an alternative to Makakilo Drive.

Now therefore be it resolved and the added language are that stakeholders which may include and it lists various stakeholders and also includes language assist and emergency access road for ingress and egress in Makakilo be it further resolved and it references an access road on the Waianae coast.

It also adds in a final be more be it resolved access road in Makakila should benefit the communities of Makakilo and Kapolei be it further resolved that the City and County of Honolulu is requested to hold community events discussing plans to develop an emergency access road in Makakilo to solicit engagement of Makakilo and Kapolei residents and encourage public participation in the decision making process.

And another addition to the be it resolved and be further resolved that the city and County of Honolulu is requested to provide the plans along with a timeline for completion of an alternative emergency access road in Makakilo to the Legislature no later than 20 days prior to the convening of the regular session of 2026.

And that is the. That's all of the language that we're adding onto the. The res. The resolution of the HD, the HD1.

Can I like to make some comments if this is a comment period is that anymore?

I just wanted to say that. Sorry, I didn't. If. Well you can go, Chair, if you want to. I just, I'm going to vote no only because although you did speak to the introducer, there was no approval or rejection, but yet there was no approval and also no priority prior concurrence even if you sought those efforts.

So I will be voting no.

Chair. I will also be voting no for the reasons of not receiving prior concurrence. And I hear that you say, you know, you said earlier that the rules only require prior concurrence for bills, but the custom and practice is to get prior concurrence. I understand the concerns raised in the nature.

I think one of the great things about the legislative process is that there are other ways to also to advance this idea.

And one of the things I actually take away and I'm going to digress a little bit, but from my years of teaching, one of the great things I loved about teaching is you always can come back and do more with the folks that you work with.

So in this instance because of the matter of prior concurrence, again the practice of also working, working collaboratively with introducers, while you may not agree with everything to try to do that. And so because of that I'm going to be voting no on the proposed HD2.

Thank you. I appreciate you suggesting coming back to this.

And I guess my concern is that if what I did here, what I heard the pro prior Committee Chair Kila mentioned, if he is not, if it is true and if he stays true to the statements that I heard that he will not hear any bills or resolutions from a specific Member of the House, then how will she ever get this access road heard?

This is my concern. And so for me this is my way of correcting an injustice. I can't unhear what I heard. I heard what I heard and now I'm like how do we Fix this. This doesn't feel right that a single chair can ignore the needs of entire district because of ill feelings.

I don't know what kind of feelings, but it doesn't sit well with me. I can't stand by and ignore the fact that one of our colleagues is being left out of this process. And I'll let her comment.

Thank you, Chair. I do appreciate everybody in this Committee and all of their thoughts regarding this issue. And I thank you, Chair, for, you know, having a different perspective and bringing new ideas to this, to this process and shaking things up.

Because I do think at the end of the day, you know, a lot of times that's what's needed. And I do appreciate you coming to me after that hearing and informing me of what you shared with this Committee and also allowing me the opportunity to make the amendments and using this vehicle.

And it was a good idea in my opinion. And perhaps along the process, I think the sentiment is getting lost a little bit, but to me, it was doing the right thing. And so I did provide you with these amendments and I appreciate that so, so much.

And I do have another statement that I prepared that I would just like to read. So thank you, Chair, for, for incorporating my amendments relating to an emergency access road into this measure, HR43HD1, and recommending that it pass out of this Committee with these amendments.

I appreciate your collaboration and courage when it comes to trying to simply just do the right thing and providing equity for our communities. Ultimately, we are trying to help vulnerable communities with, with proactive safety measures, and that is what we are doing here with including an emergency access road for the people of Makakilo.

All we are simply trying to do with these amendments is urge the City and County of Honolulu to create an emergency access road for Makahilo residents in House District 43, in addition to what this measure already calls for, which is an emergency access road for the residents along the Waianae Coast.

It would be wonderful and beneficial to help more than one community when it comes to safety and to prioritize the safety of residents in Nanakuli through Makaha as well as the residents of Makahilo.

It is unfortunate that the resolutions that I introduced that address the safety of Makahilo residents, which specifically addressed the Makahilo Drive Extension project, was not given hearings. And in light of that, we have to try to be creative in helping Makahila residents by piggybacking on this measure.

HR 43, as you know, Chair, Makahila residents currently have one way in and one way out using the Makahilo Drive. And in the event of an emergency, the lives of the 20,000 plus residents on the mountain will be in jeopardy if another point of access is not provided.

Even though you were not given prior concurrence to make the amendments that you're recommending in this Committee today, which is typically custom and practice here in the House, I feel that prior concurrence has perhaps not been given in light of the rationale you provided and the information you provided to this Committee.

I do understand Chair Belatti's concerns about prior concurrence and I thank her for her vigilance as well in conducting this Committee and leading this Committee this entire session with integrity.

I do want to acknowledge the comments that that you, Acting Chair Iwamoto, has brought to the attention of this Committee regarding the statements that you shared with me from the Transportation Chair.

Just to let you know, I have written a letter to speaker that was delivered today addressing that issue separately and hopefully a productive outcome will happen and we can move forward in a manner that continues to foster transparency in the House and also creates confidence in the people that we serve.

So I thank you, Acting Chair, for your due diligence and concern regarding this matter. And of course, I will be voting in support of this measure due to the amendments that will now extend to helping my constituents in the House in House District 43 and specifically the residents of Makakilo.

So I will always fiercely advocate for the safety of my constituents and I commend you for for joining me on this endeavor and trying to correct what you see as an injustice. And we are here to do one job and that is to serve the people of the state.

So mahalo nui, Chair for your work on this and Chair Belatti for helping to steer this Committee, even if it's challenging at times. So thank you all.

May I respond?

I don't know how this is going to vote, but I do urge all the parties because I think we all want to serve our communities. I urge that all the parties continue to work for advocating for their communities and try to move forward in that way.

As I said, we here in the Legislature have the opportunity to always come back to issues and we do that over time. So with that Chair, can I call for the question? Yes. Okay.

I'm sorry. Anybody else have a comment? Thank you.

[Roll call]

I hate these kinds of votes. I understand the no votes. And in speaking with the introducer to respect his portion of his intent and heart. I will vote yes with reservations.

[Roll call]

Chair your recommendation is not adopted. Two eyes. One with reservations. One25 Nos and two excuse. Thank you. We will be moving on to CR19.

I have a motion. I. Is there a motion? I was told we weren't allowed to make motions.

I'm going to resume my duties as Chair. So I'm going to make a Motion to pass HR43 as presented to this Committee. I understand that we're in maybe unusual times, but I do believe that this is my. I do have this authority to do this. I'm going to do this.

The reasons Members for recommending that HR 43 pass as is because based on the testimony we do have in front of us that individuals took the time to submit on HR43HD1. There is good reason to support this resolution. House Draft 1. Comments, questions or concerns?

Thank you very much. I did clearly mention to the introducer of the resolution. I said that your bill and the content of your bill would be in. Effect. Had the amendments been adopted. And so to me, his silence indicated that he was taking his chances.

Because quite frankly, this option of you now passing it without the amendments was not on the table. And so therefore to me, his silence also made it clear that he was not going to support. It was his way of, to me indicating my silence is take it or leave it. And he was leaving it. Okay, thank you.

Vice Chair. Any more comments, questions or concerns? Chair's recommendation is to pass HD3. HD1.

Excuse me, do you need a second on that? On your motion?

Let's get a second second. There's a second. As is. I second. We have a number of seconds. So, Chair, Chair and Members, that is the vote before the Committee. Any other comments, questions or concerns?

Just a brief comment. Thank you, Chair. You know, I do think this is an important measure. I. I think that you know what I'm experiencing with my. My residents in Makahilo, the people of the Waianae coast, they do need a second point of access. But I do agree with the acting chair too, that everyone deserves equity.

And so, just to express that sentiment, I'll be voting no. I do feel that we do have another measure regarding the Kole Pass. So it is duplicative in some sense. But thank you, Chair, for. For your recommendation.

All right, Members. So again, my Recommendation is pass HR43HD1 unamended call for the question. I'm going to take the vote. Chair Bellotti votes aye. Acting Chair Iwamoto.

[Roll call]

My recommendation is adopted. Chair. Moving on to the rest of the agenda.

Are you sending Chair again or whatever? Okay, so this is moving on to HCR19. I just want to, so, my recommendation is to pass as is. My recommendation as Acting Chair to pass as is. However, I will be voting no. And I can discuss why during the comments, concerns discussion portion.

But I'd like to have other people. Well.

Procedurally. Can I explain something first?

Sure. Oh, yeah. We have to do the reconsideration.

So procedurally, members, this is a, we have to do two votes. We have to do a vote to reconsider and then a vote on the resolution. So, Chair, shall we take.

So Chair's recommendation is to support a reconsideration. And I will be voting aye on the reconsideration. Okay.

I will be voting aye on the reconsideration. Okay. Any call for the question?

Call for the question.

Aye.

Representative Ichiyama is excused. Representative Lamosao.

Okay. So this is a vote for the committee to reconsider its previous decision on the measure for HCR19. Representative Belatti votes aye. Acting Chair Iwamoto votes aye. Representative Hashem?

Aye.

Representative Morikawa.

Aye.

Representative Poepoe is excused. Representative Woodson.

Aye.

Representative Shimizu.

Aye.

And Representative Souza.

Aye.

Okay, Chair, your recommendation to reconsider its previous decision on this measure has been adopted.

I mean, given the current lawsuit, our complaint filed in court about taking recess for. Is this about decision-making or going to the bathroom? Can't take a recess during decision-making. We cannot take a recess decision.

That's why I asked after we finished.

No.

Oh, okay. Okay. So back to the original motion, which was to the motion I'm making as Acting Chair is to pass HCR19 as is. And I wanted to share with everyone that Rep. I'm sorry. That Rep. Shimizu, who's we did.

I'm confused. Is it like you have to go use the bathroom?

Thank you very much for sending me an email addressing the. I guess, lack of miscommunication perhaps, that we had when I heard you say it's okay to amend it or just add on because I did clarify that I want to add on amendments, and then, and so I appreciate you not leaning in on that and and then but it led to some confusion.

So I appreciate that, and thank you. Although you did indicate that you were not open, I did invite you to offer amendments to my amendment to clarify, like what language were you comfortable with, and you made it clear that you'd rather have it not move because you did not want to put any changes in. Right.

And then, so you were comfortable with the Chair's recommendation of not hearing at all. I appreciated that clarity. So I held the, so I chose not to give in your statement. However, the HCR will go on to the senate, and there'll be more deliberation.

And I think that, you know, again for me, I'm going to be voting no on this. But again, it's important that a chair not feel like just because they're not personally supporting a measure that they can keep everyone else from voting on the measure.

So this is, thank you for the opportunity to once again demonstrate that just because the chair doesn't support a measure, that doesn't mean they should keep anyone else from voting however they want to vote on it.

But I will be voting no because it's a conversation that we've seen many times between the military and government officials, number one. Number two, the issue is that we've seen the military back off of public conversations about Red Hill.

For instance, there was a community resource group convened right where people went through this election process to get on to represent the community. The military was supposed to show up, and then they totally abandoned that process.

So I just feel like we're creating more opportunities for military and our government to have these controlled conversations that don't really heal the community where the community is truly hurting.

And again, for me, it was around housing, it was around the environment, it was around civil rights access, and also economic hardship that the military's presence puts on our public education system. So that's why I'm voting no. It's just kind of the conversation will just continue to just be a conversation that doesn't result in substantive changes.

Anybody else with comments, questions, concerns?

Thank you, Chair. I just want to thank you for reconsidering hearing my resolution. And I guess I want to clarify, because this is new to me also, that we are now voting on my original resolution without any amended language. And my desire is to eventually get to topics that you had included in your amended language.

But I just felt the timing on it was not what I intended on this initial attempt. So, so it's not a rejection of your beliefs or the things that you wanted to address. It's just my thought on the purpose and the timing of things.

And I am hopeful that we will eventually address your important concerns that you have.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And that's actually you reminded the committee of something really important. The HR that is not the HR version of 19 that's not on the agenda is still technically alive and open for discussion next when we resume this session in next January. So that's still available. And that is also the case.

If members feel like HCR19 should be, should have more depth to it, you should feel welcome to. You're also welcome to vote it down so that we can have more amendments to make it a richer task force. Anybody else with comments, questions, or concerns?

I guess my one comment.

So, because the recommendation is to pass unamended as is, because it's a concurrent resolution which can continue to be worked on within this body and by the it has to be passed by the senate, Chair, your recommendation is split, which is both a recommendation to pass unamended as is, but you're going to be personally voting no with all that taken into consideration because it helps to advance a good idea.

My actual concern is that like we're putting people on a task force that we really should be looking at other folks to be on the task force. The Governor, the President, Speaker of the House.

But because the underlying idea is good, I'm going to be voting yes because this is a bill that can a measure that can continue to be worked on. So I just wanted to share that thought with you.

Anyone else? Thank you. Let's take the vote.

Okay. So recommendation is to pass HCR19 unamended. I vote aye. Chair Iwamoto.

No.

Representative Ichiyama is excused. Representative Lamosao.

Aye.

Representative Morikawa.

Representative Poepoe is excused. Representative Woodson.

Aye.

Chair Hashem.

Aye.

Aye.

Representative Shimizu.

Aye.

And Representative Souza.

Reservations.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And again, I really want to thank the committee members for exploring this alternative ways of furthering democracy. Thank you so much.

Thank you.