House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Okay. Good morning everybody. This is the Committee on Waterland. My name is Mark Hashem. I'm the Chair. And Today is Thursday, April 10, 2025. It's 9:30 a.m. we are in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol.

First up, I'm going to go through some housekeeping things that we need to say in order to allow us as many people as to testify. We're going to put a two minute time limit. It's not going to be a hard time limit after two minutes. I'm going to ask you to sum things up.

This is a morning hearing. So we have session today. So please. So we have. We have session at 12 o' clock. So we're going to have to. If it runs late, we're going to have to cut you off. Please be aware of that.

And three, for those on Zoom, keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And after your testimony is complete, the Zoom chat function is only to chat with the tech support. If you're on zoom and disconnected, we will try to get you back hooked up. But if we can't, that is not on the house.

In the event of network failure, we may reschedule the hearing or reschedule the decision making for a later date. Please avoid using any trademark copyright images because we will get kicked off of YouTube. With that said, first off, we have SER3 SD1 authorizing. I'm not going to read all this. SCR3. Yeah. Authorizing a perpetual easement or non excluding.

Yeah, perpetual easement. First we have Rebecca from DLNR.

Hi, good morning, Chair. Good morning, Members of the Committee. I'm Rebecca Anderson with the Department of Land and Natural Resources. The Department stands on our testimony in support of this measure.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Hui Nalu Canoe Club in support. Next we have another one from Hui Nalu Canoe Club in support. That's all the testimony that we have received. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody on Zoom Members, are there any questions?

Yes, I don't know if. My name is Julie Brockman. Can you hear me?

Okay, Julie, go ahead.

You're ready for testimony?

Yes.

If I lose you, I'm sorry, I'm trying to hook up on my phone, so. My name is Julie Brockman and I am the board President at Pohailani, Maui. I am also their representative.

This is another. This is not Maui. This is for the alimony island of Oahu.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was. For Bill 76.

Oh, no, it's acr SCR 3.

Okay. I'm very sorry.

Okay, no problem.

Well, thank you.

We'll call you when we, when we get to yours. SCR 7. Yeah, we have a few. Okay, that's it. Nobody else wishing to testify. Any other questions?

I have a question, Chair.

Okay, go ahead.

DLNR please. You know, I'm sorry if this is uninformed question, but I noticed on some of the other SCRs the person that's receiving this easement is required to pay, have payments set up, a bond and insurance. And I'm just wondering, is that considered or necessary in this situation?

Yes. Thank you, Representative Shimizu, for this particular, this particular resolution here. Unlike the other easement resolutions that are being heard today, this one is for public infrastructure that belongs to the city and County of Honolulu. We're not requiring a bond or, or payment.

We give these gratis to, to public agencies and because it's public infrastructure that serves the public, in this case a wastewater drainage system. I'm sorry, stormwater managed system. We don't, we're, we don't charge and we don't require a removal bond.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, no other questions. We're moving on to SCR4, authorizing issuance of another easement. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Good morning again, Chair and Members of the Committee. Rebecca Anderson, Department of Land and Natural Resources. And the Department stands on its testimony in support of this measure.

Okay, thank you. We have an individual, Graham Shalias, in support. That's all the testimony that we received. Members, are there any questions? Go ahead. Kim Coco. Representative.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair. This is for DLNR. Yeah, hi. Thank you. Thank you for being here. So this is for a private landowner, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

I had a hard time actually going on to the Kauai GIS map and seeing the land. So what I've been doing for all of these is looking at the Google maps to see the actual beach and how the neighbors are going to be affected, etc. For this property.

So because I wasn't able to do that for this property, are there neighbors who don't have a. Is this, is this for a form of a thing that might become a seawall?

So in this particular case, this structure is, it's a fairly large structure and it's composed of sand filled sandbags, much like sand burritos. It's a fairly large structure and in this case it does front the subject property and then it continues down for a couple other properties to one side.

On the other side, the neighboring Property is non hardened. So there's nothing in front of the neighboring property on one side and there's a continuation of this large sandbag structure going to the other side.

Okay, so. And okay, so as we. So I know that a couple years ago the Legislature and the Governor enacted a law that says no more sea walls. Whereas so this is kind of like grandfathered in in a way. And then we're trying to formalize that relationship with the state.

So I guess I'm concerned with just generally our policy about protecting public lands. Specifically beach, you know, beach access, that all, all everyone's should have access to that beach access.

And so when we start doing this thing where it becomes like a drop and then there's private land on this side of the burritos and then like no place to actually enjoy a beach on this side. Right. As opposed to removing these structures and allowing a gradual sloping where there is still beach.

Some form of a beach that feels like it's a. Even though we are against seawalls, that it kind of has the same taking in a way from the public access.

Yeah, that's, that's a good point. And that is, I believe there is room for discussion on the, the state's overall policy of how we deal with shoreline land. In this particular instance, there is not a sandy beach at the area. There's you know, clay cliffs basically.

And the sandy beach of this area has been affected by the presence of the Kiki' Aola small boat harbor that was built in the 1950s by the Army Corps. Since the, since the boat harbor was put in the boat harbor and its pertinent breakwater have really affected the sand movement in this area.

So that's a piece of public infrastructure that at the time it was put in, I believe that it wasn't an engineering consideration at that time thinking about beach loss and sand movement.

And so because of that piece of public infrastructure that is pretty critical to that community and that has affected the beach process all along that coastline there. And that's why in this particular instance there is no sandy beach at that area and there's. And there is a need for the shoreline protection. I appreciate that.

And what will happen to the property you said next to it on the other side where there is no burrito and is that privately owned property that is a private.

Because what I think we understand from previous hearings is that the wave comes in and it goes sideways and it creates harsher turbulence or some kind of erosion for those private properties that don't have.

That is correct yes. In this case, the unarmored property on one side is showing signs of erosion. We call it flanking erosion. When it's coming from the side there, it is showing signs of erosion. The shoreline is set significantly back from where it's fixed by these, by these structures.

Again, however, there's again, that property on the other side, several properties on the other side that are a continuation of this or protected by a continuation of this structure. And with the presence of the boat harbor there being the major determinant of the effects on beach processes. Thank you.

I appreciate that information because it does set it aside from all the others where there was some kind of government construction infrastructure that led to the greater erosion. So these are private owners who are just trying to hold on. That's correct. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. Chair.

Can I ask a question? Chair?

Yes.

Okay. You know, as, as Rep.

Iwamoto is asking the question, I guess what comes to mind is a determination of fairness for, let's say, someone who's on the beginning of that thread that's being pulled and they're taking the brunt of this correction, for lack of a better term, and the other succeeding adjacent properties are benefiting from this.

Is there any issue with determining prorated or shared compensation?

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, Member, for your question in this case. Again, this goes back to the overarching policy of shoreline management in the state, as set by statute, is that we regulate parcel by parcel.

So if the, and generally these, these issues come to us at DLNR when some, when, when a landowner is seeking a permit or seeking a shoreline certification, and they, we need to, to resolve encroachments on the shoreline to give them a shoreline certification.

So in this case, if the successive property owner is going down the line of that thread of the same structure, if and when they come to the state to ask for some kind of a permit, ask for a shoreline certification, we will at that time go through the same kind of process with those homeowners that we're going through with this homeowner here, and they would have the same sort of, you know, board hearing, legislative hearing, paying rent, paying easement costs, that kind of thing.

Understood, thank you. I guess you're unfortunate if you're the first one. Yeah. Thank you. Perhaps. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Is this property sticking out further than the other properties?

It's the, the situation of this property is, and I have some photos that I can provide to the Committee as well. If, if that would be.

No, I'm Just, I'm just. It's a bay, right? There's the boat harbor, there's a little bay. And then I believe these properties that are affected are kind of sticking more.

Out a little bit. There's. Right. The curve of the bay kind of comes around and comes back out this way and they're along this outward curve.

And, and long, long ago, before the boat harbor was more hardened, the water used to flow through pretty good and the currents would carry the sand across. But since they did more improvements and hardened it, the water is not able to pass through. So now the erosion is worse.

So now we are committed to moving sand from in front of the boat harbor across to the other side whenever we can.

Yes, that's correct. And there have been sand moving projects in the past. However, there hasn't been funding and we haven't had an application for another sand moving project in quite some time.

Right. Okay. So we are, we know about the problem. We are trying to get the sand moved from one side to the other side whenever possible. But in this instance, I believe the property owner needs some type of mitigation.

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on. Next up, SCR 5, authorizing an issuance of an easement in Waikiki for steps. First up, we have DLNR, Rebecca. Busy, busy today.

Yes. Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. Rebecca Anderson with the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We stand in support of—stand on our testimony in support of this measure.

Okay. Next, we have HDH Ventures in support. Are they on Zoom? No, not—oh, you're here. Okay.

Hello, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Ivan Louis Kwan. I represent the landowner, HDHDH Ventures LLC, and we stand in support of our written testimony in support of the, the matter. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. That's all the testimony that we received on this measure. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Kim Coco, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. It's for...so if the, if there were steps and now there's going to be replacement and they were removed, were they removed by request?

Yes. In this case, Representative Iwamoto, the landowner remove—there, there were some steps. It seems they were in a derelict condition. The landowner did remove them without a permit, was given a violation for that, cured that violation.

I need to say they paid their fine, cured the violation, and they're now asking to replace the steps that had been erroneously removed.

Okay, and these steps, are they for public access or just for the private landowner?

So, these steps—there is an already existing seawall, or not seawall. It's very, very far back from, from the, the actual shoreline. And so, in this case, and, and that wall's been there since probably the 1920s.

In this case, the, the steps lead from the beach to the private property and the private property owner has an easement that includes the area of these steps and access easement through the private property to the beach.

Okay.

And that was a pre-existing access easement.

And how far out from the existing wall, wall, if it's a sea wall or landscaping wall, whatever that structure wall is, how far out does this, the steps protrude?

The steps are, I believe—so, the step, the replacement steps will be the original design of the original steps. And I believe that the steps will be more or less flush with the face, with the makai face of the seawall. So, there's not really going to be a protrusion out.

Oh, okay.

Yes. And my understanding too is that this wall is mainly a boundary designation wall. So, it doesn't serve a retaining wall purpose or a seawall purpose.

But the sea comes right up to it?

It comes close to it.

Eventually it will be a seawall.

It could. It could. With sea level rise, it could.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions? See, none. We are moving on Ser 6 authorizing another easement in Ewa Beach. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. Rebecca Anderson, Department of Land and Natural Resources. And the Department stands and stands on our written testimony in support of this measure.

Okay. That's all the testimony that we have received from this measure. Is there anybody wishing to ask questions?

Thank you, Chair. DLNR. I'm just curious, you know, when they talk about appraised value payment, is that a one time payment or is that ongoing payment?

Yes, the appraised value payment is a one time payment. And to take one step back with this, this pro. This easement process, because of the legislative approval requirement and the board approval requirement, we have a gap that can be a year or more between board approval and legislative approval.

We can't move to finalize the easement until we have legislative approval. So during that gap period, the property owner pays a monthly rent. That's based on. We have a formula that we use and it's based on the tax assessed value of the abutting private property.

When the after we get legislative approval, we go through a full appraisal process with a licensed real estate appraiser. And that person does a very Detailed analysis of determining the cost of a 25 year easement for that area and for that structure.

And at that time, once we have the appraisal, the appraised value, the property owner pays a lump sum for the appraised value and then ceases paying the monthly rent.

Great, great information. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. Chair, in regards to this specific parcel, is the erosion being caused by any government structure similar to the hardening of the boat harbor?

Not that I know of. The thing that's very difficult about coastal erosion, especially on a sandy beach, right, where beach process is so very important and is that it's kind of like a Jenga tower, right. When you pull one piece, everything else can collapse.

So there's not a direct, there hasn't been something, anything identified as a direct cause of erosion here in this area. It seems like sea level rise is probably the main culprit, but there hasn't been a direct line drawn from any particular structure or action to the erosion in the beach area. And so it does on this one.

It does indicate the. That it is a sea wall. That's correct, yes. This, this is an interesting property. It's something we see a lot. Pardon me. This wall was actually constructed pursuant to a valid permit in 1965, I believe in the 1960s. And they were given a county permit at the time the wall was constructed.

It was mostly like a landscaping wall or a boundary designation wall, you know, designating the, the boundary of the private property from where the public beach starts. And it was very. And the wall was constructed wholly within the private property at that time.

And it was quite far back from the, from the shoreline due to again shoreline migration. Now the, the water's hitting the wall.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. SCR 7, authorizing another—authorizing an easement in Laie, Oahu. First up, we have—first up, we have DLNR.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Rebecca Anderson, Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the Department stands on its testimony in support of this measure.

Okay, is there anybody else wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Thank you, Chair. DLNR. So, this—I was able to look at the Google Maps on this one and it does look like the landscaping wall that's currently there.

And I'm looking at other properties nearby and it looks like there's some landscaping walls, previous landscaping walls for like a house five properties away where the ocean actually came in. And now it's a pool, stagnant water that's on this side of the, I mean.

Yeah, in this area—this is in Laie, along the north shore. We do see a lot of, a lot of wave action in this area. There is a sandy beach present. It's narrow in some places, but there is a sandy beach present. We do see a lot of wave action here.

In this area, there are several properties that are hardened similar to this one and there are others where it looks like some, I know from site visits, it looks like maybe some prior attempts at some shoreline stabilization might have failed.

Or those might have been landscaping walls that were just not as high as this current landscaping wall in this property.

Perhaps. Yeah, this one is interesting. This is what we call a non-conforming structure. It was, you know, OCCL, the Office of Conservation Coastal Lands, determined that it was likely constructed—or that it was constructed prior to the enactment of shoreline laws. So, we're, we're not sure exactly where the shoreline was at the time this one was constructed.

But again, yeah, there are other hardened properties along the same.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up we have scr54. First up we have DLNR with comments.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Kira Kahahane, DLNR Commission on Water Resource Management. We offered comments on this bill. We support the intent of this task force. Desalination is going to be a very important thing that we for us to understand and study in the future.

Our comments mostly focused on the level of effort that would be needed to complete a study of this scale statewide.

So we in previous hearings requested that the deadline be extended or delayed to 2027, 20 days before the 2027 legislative session to allow us to complete a more comprehensive report and standing Committee report 1428 from the subsequent from the prior Committee concurred with that time extension. So those are our only comments.

I'm available if you have any questions. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Okay, next we have Bord of Water Supply in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Kathy Mitchell with the Board of Water Supply. We stand in support of this measure SCR54 and I'm available for questions.

Okay, next we have CARES in support.

Aloha. Angela Melody Young, testifying on behalf of CARES, in strong support. So, islands like Oahu rely on underground aquifers for fresh water supply and destruction of some of the watershed forests have contributed to freshwater concerns. So, DESAL is a promising solution to water supply for future generations to come.

And the scope of work, as anticipated to be planned by DLNR to provide administrative assistance to the planning task force, is appropriate because Shifty is under DLNR's purview.

So, if we look at number five, OHA, it's necessary for assessment of Hawaiian preservation and conservation of water natural resources because it could cause interference to historical sites as it relates to Shifty's management purview.

So, the Oahu Historic Preservation Commission, which is a county's office Commission, has responsibilities to work with Shifty to communicate sensitivities to historical sites as it relates to this topic. And so, I think...

Angela, we're talking about desalinization.

Right. So, in the task force, if you look at it, it says that OHA has to help plan because there are concerns about sensitivities to historical sites such as burials—if you read the entire task force.

So, I'm just talking about how, when you're planning for this task force and sustainability, in terms of a new system of water supply, you have to consider all these things, right? Environmental resources and how it influences the Hawaiian culture and what the Hawaiian people are worried about, as well as for me, my mom is a real estate agent.

I'm getting trained in the class. So, how does it relate to the housing industry? Because Kui Le Place has a sustainable water system, right? So, the DESAL system can help with providing for future infrastructure needs in the housing industry, as well as agriculture.

And we should be considerate of the effects of water on Shifty responsibilities. Thank you.

Okay. Good job. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Anybody else on Zoom? No? Is there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. DLNR, please. My question is, is, is DLNR able to ask help from other agencies in performing this research?

We will definitely be capitalizing on some of the studies that have already been done. So, Board of Water Supply already does DESAL. The County of Maui has contracted to do a DESAL feasibility study as well.

So, we will be working with those other agencies from the county at least, and with Department of Health to pull together the information that we need to complete this.

Thank you. Can I ask one more question, Chair?

Yes, go ahead.

Again, apologize for my not being up to speed on all of these, but the question is, because this is a reso, how much weight will it have on DLNR to say we need to do this?

Well, because it's a reso, I mean, it doesn't have the full force and effect of, you know, a Bill. But we understand at DLNR that there is a need for this study. So, you know, this is something that we would like to do, that this is a responsibility that we want to take on.

The only thing is that it doesn't have an appropriation associated with it, which is why we're asking more time to complete the report, because it is going to require some, you know, some staffing and substantial time.

So, it'll get on your list to do, and there'll be a question of whether you get to it then, yeah?

Yeah, we'll get to it, definitely. That's why we're asking to extend the deadline.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, Members, any other questions? So, you, you might as well stay up there. So, you want to extend this from 2026. So, I see the 2026 to 2027, right?

Yes.

On page three.

Right.

All right.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next we have SCR76. Back to Hololani. Okay, first up, we have AOAO of Hololani in support. Would that be you?

But I can go first. Morning, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Mihoko Ito, on behalf of Hololani AOAO, we do support this resolution. We think it's really important, and you'll hear from many of the other property owners in this area that something needs to happen and needs to be done.

So what this reso does is it asks the Office of Planning to consult with the parties and try to find a path forward. The Kahana Bay Steering Committee, which is the regional group that formed around this, has invested a lot of time and their own finances to Fund the draft environmental assessment to date.

And we have spoken, by the way, with the Office of Planning, and they are willing to help us work on this. So we appreciate the opportunity and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify live? Go ahead.

Aloha, Angela Melody Young. Although this is not my community, I'm testifying because some of the students I get to teach and some of the work I get to do in the community has to do with learning about erosion and the environment.

So I think this is a very important project to restore coastal erosion at the bay and to transform and revitalize how we approach mitigating such things. Right. So the Kahuna Bay is currently at an inflection point for mitigating natural hazard risks to public safety and developed infrastructure.

And for decades, climate change, strong wave action, coastal flooding and shoreline development have transported sands away from the Kahuna Coast. And this chronic coastal erosion has resulted in shoreline recession and also beachfront concerns and also risks of hazards to the community and oceanfront resources and buildings, infrastructures and amenities.

Climate change is causing destruction to the oceanfront properties and beachfront natural resources. I think as I'm reading it, I'm reading it super fast. I'm not trying to distort distorted, I'm not trying to cause distortion, just interpreting as I'm reading it. So forgive me for my inaccuracy, it's not my intention.

So it seems like the private condos are funding it privately for public concern. And Maui County is unwilling to provide to help with the funding plan or to assume liability for funding.

So I think what we can do as a community to empower community groups and homeowners associations and properties management teams to work together with the counties and the planning groups to develop effective solution will help with this concern, especially to provide beyond the scope of the state and the county's resources, manpower, financing programs. Right.

To help with common goals of transforming how we plan for sustainability and natural resources and building a resilient future for future generations to come as it relates to erosion.

Okay, thank you very much. Good job. Next, is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Is there anybody on. We have five people on Zoom. We will start with who. Robert.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Robert Shaw. I am an owner at one of the Kahana Bay condominiums. I'm also a board member of the AOAO of Hololani and a former co-chair of the Kahana Bay Steering Committee. Largely.

I would like to stand on my testimony as submitted and ensure that you're aware that I'm here to help with any questions that the Committee may have. I would like to point out one important thing and that is, as the previous testifier Ms.

Young mentioned, the Kahana Bay Steering Committee in conjunction with County of Maui was seeking to Fund this 100% via a community facilities district. And it's not so much a question of the money because the CFD would allow us to pay for it all.

It was, you know, we've struggled a bit with the concept of who would, I'll say, own any structures and the liability associated with it and county and state and the owners, the AOAOs and the Kuleana property really need to come together and sort this out. This is the point and purpose of this bill.

So again, I stand on my testimony. I thank you for the opportunity to to speak in strong support of this measure and I make myself available to you should you have questions.

Okay. Thank you, Robert. Next we have Lenore on Zoom.

Aloha. I'm Lenore Houston. Honorable Senators. I'm writing to support this resolution SCR76. I've lived at Hololani Resort and worked in Kahana since October of 2022. I immediately became aware of the history of West Maui erosion and that is what it is, plain and simple.

Erosion, the sandbags are that were meant to be a temporary solution are breaking down and floating into the ocean causing more problems for marine life and creating a dangerous environment for locals who wish to fish and guests who might venture down onto these bags.

I've seen torrential rains flood the Lower Honoa Pilani Road and remove large areas of sand in the easement. Something that may not have happened had there been a rock revetment in place regarding the pain and loss of Lahaina fire victims. Many of these victims live and work at Hololani Resort and go to my church.

We live with this every single day. Hololani collected furniture, food, clothing and household items for months after the fire. And we continuously support all efforts of our community to move forward past this tragedy. To state that we are not helping is really an untruth because what is pono or beneficial for one is pono or beneficial for all.

The fire is a separate issue altogether and one should look at this issue with the sandbags and saving our shoreline as a whole. In Hawaii we live in a world that is a melting pot of cultures, religions and peoples. We should be fostering inclusion and promoting our famous Hawaiian hospitality.

This is a land of aloha and we should live it. So the Kahana Bay Steering Committee has been working respectfully and tirelessly to provide plans, engineering studies and research to meet the requirements of the County of Maui DLNR and the Maui Planning Commission. There have been so many delays.

It's time to move forward with this mitigation project and preserve what we already have. No one really wants to see the destruction of homes and livelihoods. I urge you to support SCR76 to protect our shoreline and ensure a sustainable future for our community and and future generations.

Let us prioritize the preservation of our environment and this island. And the well being of our residents and visitors. Respectfully, sincerely, Lenore. Thank you.

Thank you, Lenore. Next up we have Adam.

That's me. Hold on. Hey. Aloha Kakou. Thank you guys for the opportunity to speak. My name is Adam. I'm indigenous native Hawaiian, born and raised on Maui. My mom lives in Hawaiian homes in Lahaina. So I'm very familiar with the area and I 100% support them replacing sandbags with rocks. It seems very simple and very straightforward.

The Kahana Bay Steering Committee is, this is their top priority. And like Lenore said, Maui, Maui definitely has their hands full with the, with the rebuilding efforts from Lahaina and all the other things that the government officials of Maui are occupying their time with.

And I think this is a great opportunity to let the Hana Bay Steering Committee just do what they do and focus on this. And we should support them 100%. This is, it's the right thing to do. People are getting hurt down there. It's a long term solution.

And it would just look like the rest of Lahaina Wahekuli is all rocks down there. So we obviously are not inventing some new process. You know this, there's a, there's a time tested way to address coastal erosion and it's with rocks and groins and things of that nature. And we do it all over the rest of Hawaii.

I don't know why we can't do it right there in Lahaina, but that's it. Just want to say that. Thank you guys again for the time and the opportunity to speak. But yeah, I, I 100 support them replacing sand [unintelligible] with rocks. Thank you.

Thank you, Adam. Next we have Julie. Julie, are you there?

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay. I didn't know if you had unmuted me. Yes. Good morning, Committee. My name is Julie Brockman. I am a resident of the west side of Maui for nearly 20 years in Kahana and I am a homeowner there. I am Board President for our association and I also represent our association in the Kahana Bay Steering Committee.

My husband and I started working with other concerned homeowners before we actually formed the Steering Committee with our concerns about beach erosions. And we started working with the county and different entities to come up with a solution. This was a county solution that they came to us with to do beach restoration and groins.

They also were active partners. We have tried relentlessly to get the CFD put through and as was stated before, our biggest problem is to get the county or a government entity through to sort of be our helpmate. We can't, as private citizens, restore a beach on public lands.

I know that there is a lot of scientific stuff, which I'm not a scientist. There are a lot of feelings about different things. But I have seen, besides the need to protect our buildings, how this has really affected our community.

And the beach has been a very important part of our community for family time, for exercise, for all of the things that we cherish in our life, whether it's giving gratitude, watching a sunset, taking a solitude walk, grieving. We've all been, I'm sure, to the beach when we've lost a parent or a loved one.

And I just think it's a really important project. And so I'm kindly asking for your assistance to help us move this project forward. I have been involved now for 10 years, and I'm willing to answer any questions that I can about our properties or who makes up our neighborhood.

Okay, thank you, Julie.

Thank you very much for listening.

Thank you. Okay, anybody else on zoom? Say none. Members, is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Wait.

Yeah, sorry.

Somebody yelling.

Please state your name.

Jesse Opendo.

Okay, go ahead, open. Mr. Opendo.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair and Member of Committee. My name is Jesse Opendo.

Okay, go ahead.

I am proud local resident, Lahaina, Maui. I'm also an owner, Hololani, and I've worked in Kahana for many years. I raised my children here, and now they're raising their own families, too. This shoreline, this neighborhood, it means everything to us.

I'm here today to strongly support SCR76 because this is protecting our home and safety and the access we all share. For years we have sandbags in front of Hololani not because we wanted them, but because of a serious erosion emergency. We followed the law. We got permits for every level, county, state, federal.

And now we just want to finish what was permitted to replace the sandbags with a smaller, safer, more respectful solution. Racks and stairs that help not harm. Some people out there are saying that this project is about taking the bits or blocking access. But live here.

I see every day there is no beach left in front of Hululani. The sand has been gone for a long time. You can destroy what already gone. And we're not taking beach land. We are leasing submerged land which is already underwater. This is a legal, public process and we will pay fair market value to the state.

And we're not blocking access. We're improving, improving it. This project include new public stairs so everyone can down to ocean more safely. Right now it's dangerous. The broken sandbags are falling into water. They look bad and they don't help anyone. The rocks and the stairs will make better for everyone. Families, Kapuna, kids, visitors, neighbors.

Jesse, can you sum up your testimony? Can you sum up your testimony? Excuse me? Can you sum up your testimony? We have your written testimony. Can you sum it up?

Yes. Hold on.

Okay, thank you very much, Jesse. Members, is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Lamosao, and Members of the Committee. My name is Virginia Keen. I am not a millionaire investor around here. The Ho'o Lani on Kahana Bay has been my only home for the past 26 years.

I am 82 years old and still substitute teach at Lahaina Luna High School on a daily basis. I have been part of this school program as a school district for 24 years. I have devoted 19 years to the after school tutoring program in Lahaina. I am a year round resident whose children and grandchildren visit often.

But I also cherish being part of the island family. I belong to Maria Lanakila Church for the past 26 years and have been elected there for the past 13. My condominium is now less than 20 feet from the retaining wall and failing sandbags that separate my building from the ocean. And this has me plenty worried.

When I first arrived, there were 50 feet of property next to my unit and as well as a substantial beach. I have seen firsthand how strong the ocean's impact is. I strongly support SCR 76 because we desperately need a real long-term solution to the severe erosion along the Kahana Bay shoreline.

If we continue to wait, this will become a catastrophic problem. The only thing currently standing between our homes and the ocean is a temporary patchwork of sandbags, some of which have been in place for over a decade. The turtles have been feeding on the seaweed covered bags causing rips and tears, speeding the deterioration of the bags.

The condominiums in this region have not been idle. The Kahana Bay Steering Committee Properties have invested time, effort, and significant funds to complete a draft environmental impact statement and they are willing to fund a viable solution. What we need now is for the DLNR to step in and help us bring this project to completion.

As a teacher, I have always believed in looking forward to building a better future. That is what this resolution represents. A future where the shoreline is protected, where our community is safe, and where the beauty of Kahana Bay can be enjoyed for generations to come. Please support SCR 76 and help us secure that future.

Mahalo for your time.

Thank you, Virginia. Is there anybody else on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question, Mihoko, is your name? You know, I was wondering because it mentions Corps of Engineers, so I'm questioning, have you had contact with them and how would their participation affect the process, move it forward? And I'm particularly interested in the reference to the River and Harbor Act. Are you familiar with that?

Somewhat. I can tell you what I know, which is that the KBSC has engaged in discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers. They do have, like, sort of a parallel process that would be part of a project like this.

And there have been very positive discussions with them about the potential for their involvement and help to align things and move it forward. So, I think that's the reference to the River and Harbors Act is just seeing what role they would have to play, whether or not they could help facilitate moving the project forward more quickly.

And then, you know, it does get into the discussion about, you know, who, how to either get the County of Maui to move forward with the Community Facilities District, you know, program to help to implement this, or whether or not there's some other path forward. Because I think those have been some of the sticking points.

But we do think that the Army Corps of Engineers is both interested and has been engaged and could be helpful in helping to move this project forward.

Could I have a discussion with you offline after the Committee? I'm very concerned about your situation. I'd like to see how I can get more involved in helping this situation.

Sure. I'd be happy to chat offline. I appreciate the interest.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you very much. Actually, I have a question, I think, for DLNR. Rebecca, are you available to, or do you know about this?

You're in the room.

Hi. Rebecca Anderson, DLNR. I can say I am minimally familiar with this. I have not been assigned to, to speak on this Bill. I'm minimally familiar with the situation. I might be able to help with some background or procedural information.

Yeah, I'm sorry, because apparently the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development is not here, nor did they submit testimony. Well, maybe.

Good point.

I mean, but could you—do you mind? Because in the last version, actually, DLNR was the one agency that was being asked to consult and confer with various stakeholders. Excuse me. But regarding this, this resolution, as it's currently drafted, just basically urges a state agency to, you know, start talking with people about this.

And it seems like the solutions have been mulled. Is it required? What happens if—I'm sure this is going to pass, but I imagine it's going to pass, but if it doesn't, it's not like this doesn't move forward. Does it not—does it get stalled even longer?

In my, my limited knowledge, I've been briefed a little bit on this, some time ago, so I don't know that I'm up on the, necessarily the current status. In my limited knowledge, I believe that the stakeholders can work with the county to move on this. I don't know.

I don't, I honestly don't know too much about the, their current status of what they're doing, but I believe that the stakeholders could move forward. Obviously, communication and cooperation among agencies is preferred in all cases, right? At all times, communication is a good thing and information sharing is a good thing, and participation is a good thing.

But that's about all I can.

But just to clarify, so all of the previous resolutions has been about DLNR asking because it's kind of, you're replacing these sand bag, I don't know if it's...or bags with actual rocks to create a revetment. So, you're saying the county can authorize that. Wouldn't they need state approval?

So, in this case, the—in this case, I don't know. The way that, just for a little background, a little procedural background here which I can speak on, the, so chapter 205-A, Hawaii...statutes delegates to the counties the authority to issue, to issue building permits and do manage development activities within the special management area.

So, the primary kind of permit that a person usually or an entity usually needs to get to do something in the special management area is, which includes the shoreline area, is going to be a county permit.

There may be, there's probably going to be some state involvement or there's likely to be some state involvement in doing something like issuing a right of entry onto state land, for example.

That would be either a time limited right of entry to go onto state land and perform work or it would be a longer term right of entry permit or some, some other sort of permit to maintain a structure on state land.

But however, the county, because of the delegation to the county of, you know, issuing all kinds of development permits of all types in all areas and the specific delegation in Chapter 205-A that delegates to the counties the authority to issue permits and to manage development within the special management area, then the county does have a pretty primary role here.

Okay, thank you very much. I don't know if would like to—if that's a correct understanding. Is that how what your clients understand the process?

Yes, definitely. And I appreciate DLNR's commentary on that. I would just say that this has been going on since 2016 or '17 and the parties are stuck and that's why they need this resolution. That's why, you know, we're trying to get the parties to move forward.

There's been discussions with the county about the Community Facilities District that has stalled. So, the project has stalled, and it's been nine years. Right? So, there's no plan on anybody's part within the government to help the parties move it forward, which is why we're—we wanted to pursue this resolution to help shed some light on the fact that, yes, we all feel like something needs to happen, but nothing is happening.

Got it. Okay. And so, one of the testifiers just said, oh, we're replacing sandbags with rocks, but my understanding is it's going to be a little bit more involved. There's going to be perpendicular rock structures. Is that happening or is that something else?

Correct. Yes. There has been testimony about the situation specific to Hololani, which is actually not the subject of this resolution. So, the subject of the resolution is a regional solution for all of the neighboring condominium properties and a Kuleana parcel that's in that area.

So, they are the hui that's banded together to try to pursue a regional solution which would involve potentially other structures, a groin or that sort of thing.

So, this is just to replace sandbags—rocks?

No, this is not. This is the regional solution. So, it could involve rocks. It could involve rock revetments as part of a greater solution, but it's looking at it from a broader perspective from all of the owners along that coastline, rather than just specific to one property.

Okay, so that clarifies things, because this isn't about us voting to authorize a certain thing happening. All it is is to say, hey, you guys, the Legislature is paying attention. Please do move forward. Keep it moving forward. It's not saying that we're approving a structure or allocation of.

They are asking for help and interagency coordination on trying to move forward.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

Ms. Ito. What is the consequence if a resolution is not found and a path forward is not found?

Well, you know, the engineer that we're working with has said in other hearings that the consequences are going to be catastrophic. I mean, there are condos along that shoreline who are relying on emergency sandbags. There's no movement on that, on getting those extended or allowing repair, so.

And there are some properties that are really on their last leg at this point with no solution in sight.

So, our coastal engineer that we've been working with has said this and other shorelines are in catastrophic situation, potentially catastrophic situations, and depending on how quickly climate change occurs, sea level rise, and these properties are really desperate to get some help.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

I have a question for DLNR.

Hope I can answer.

I really wished—well, I would much rather have someone that voted in favor for all these other resos that came before us and voted in opposition to, not so much this resos, but to the solution of this. Why is it that all these other results prior to us is okay and the whole Olani solution not okay?

Okay.

So, understand that...schizophrenic.

Yeah, so. Yeah, so, so can we clarify, are we talking about, are you asking about the, the regional solution that's discussed in or specifically 76? Are you talking specifically the whole Olani property?

Specifically, why is so some of these like fine and DLNR supports and why is it like Olani that you don't support Olani?

Okay, so the board, in its discretion, when it considered and again, the Ho'olani specific situation is not what this, what's discussed in this resolution here. However, you know, the board did in fact decline to or did not grant permission for Ho'olani to build a rock revetment in front of their specific property.

That would be a different situation than this regional.

No, I understand that, but do you allow repairs for these specific properties in resolutions before this? Kind of going out of order. You guys can stop me if I want, but

Okay, so if we're going back to resolutions three through seven, the, the individual easement resolutions.

Yes, you have a whole bunch of—you have a whole bunch of resolutions before this that are giving individuals ability to repair their walls.

Yes. The distinction here is that the resolutions that are before the Committee today, the individual easement resolutions, that's SCR 3 through 7, these, these are discussing structures that are already in place and that will remain in place as they are with only minor repairs as allowed under the statute. We have a threshold.

If you were going to repair beyond this threshold, you can't do that. Right? If you repair under the threshold, you can. So, basically, we will allow minor repairs for maintenance purposes, not for expansion, not for using new material—new or different kinds of materials.

Basically, the kind of maintenance that's allowed under the easement resolutions is minor stuff just to maintain the status quo, whereas the distinction with the specific Ho'olani property, which, again, is not the subject of SCR 76, the distinction there is that the applicants were asking for permission to do a replacement, right?

To replace one thing with another, basically to put in—to take out what's there and put in something else that would be of a different type and different character. And I believe that that's that was the board's reasoning for not granting permission to do that.

And the distinction, again, is that Senate Concurrent Resolutions 3 through 7 deal with structures that are currently in place, have been in place for quite some time, and will remain in place, status quo, with no significant, no substantive changes, whereas the other situation that the board did not approve would have been a change to the structure.

Now, I'm going even more off, more off topic. Why did I have a constituent in Kahala that had vegetation in front of his house on the water and DLNR sent the letter saying you must remove the vegetation that was naturally there. I don't understand that either.

So, that vegetation removal is handled by the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, which is not my division, but I can speak a little bit on the process here. I can't speak on why a decision was made because I wasn't part of that discussion and I don't know.

However, the, there's another—there's a specific statute in Chapter 205-A Hawaii Revised Statute, that's repeated in another statutory in another chapter, which I don't remember off the top of my head now, that specifically states that a landowner, a coastal landowner, must maintain the beach transit corridor.

That means maintain enough space for lateral access along the along the shoreline, and that includes by—it specifies that a landowner can't allow, they can't either induce vegetation to interfere with the beach transit corridor and they cannot allow vegetation from their property to grow into and intrude on the beach transit corridor and affect lateral access.

So, it's an issue of access to public land and access to the ocean. And again, there's a specific statute that was approved by the Legislature in the, it was around 2008, 2010 or so, that specifically states that landowners are responsible for maintaining their vegetation in a way to maintain access.

Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Chair, I appreciate the questioning. So, DLNR—and I appreciate you being here. You may not be able to answer this question, but going back to the bigger picture of I guess a global type of addressing this erosion problem, not just specifically for existing in place, but new areas that will have to be addressed.

Is DLNR or is another agency that you are aware of addressing this or has current analysis or procedure—procedures—that are going to be implemented and established, or are we going to have to deal with this one by one?

So, currently—I'll answer this kind of in two parts. As I stated before, our current land management system for coastal properties requires—is based on a parcel-by-parcel disposition system. That's what's in the statute. That's what the Legislature, the policy that the Legislature enacted in the past, and it's the regime that we're working under now.

I do think that there is a reasonable discussion on all sides to be had about whether this is working, and it's a high-level policy issue. Right? Is this working? We can talk about, you know, should we look at it more systemically? Maybe we should. Currently, there is not the statutory framework in place to do that.

And again, I believe there's a discussion to be had on whether that would be worth pursuing. That, that would be a high level policy decision at the legislative level. Now, to answer the, the second part of the question. Yes, there are several agencies statewide and nationwide looking at sea level rise as a systemic issue.

The University of Hawaii's—was it the SOEST, the School of Ocean and whatever technology—are doing some really great work mapping sea level rise. They've got a great interactive tool that maps sea level rise and flood hazards statewide and has projections for different levels of sea level rise. And it's a great planning tool that's out there.

And there's a lot of research being done at UH, through that. The UHC Grant College is also doing a lot of research there. I know that, you know, people are looking into this. However, we, we are still.

And there is a recognition some of the counties are doing some, some work with looking at setbacks in a different way. For example, Maui County is looking at doing shoreline setbacks in a different way that accounts for sea level rise and accounts for flooding. So, that kind of thing is happening.

However, we do still have the statutory regulatory framework in place at the highest level of policy that says that when we deal with these solutions, we go parcel, parcel, parcel, parcel, one at a time.

Understood. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Last question. We were supposed to be in a meeting right at 10:30, so just be aware of that. Go ahead.

Sorry, sorry about that. Okay, so this is the bottom line for me, is if the counties, if the County of Maui, Maui County, doesn't agree. So, this is urging a state agency to work with stakeholders. But ultimately, if the county doesn't agree that all of this work was for nothing, is that on your?

Because you, because the state agency cannot make this happen.

Correct. Yeah. My understanding is that this is a project that's largely being coordinated at the county level.

Okay, thank you. That's it. I'm ready.

I'm gonna move to. Any other questions. See? None. Before we move on, I'm gonna push out the. The SCR3, SCR4, SCR5, SCR6, SCR7. We're going to vote on this concurrently. We're going to take this out of order and vote because we have quorum now, and these are. These are resolves that we need to pass. Right.

So before we lose quorum or whatnot, we're going to. I was. Okay. Do you have any reservations or concerns on any of them? Okay. Can you note which ones that you have?

Yes, thank you. Reservations on which one? Perfect. Thank you. SCR4 with reservations. SCR5 with reservations. SCR6, no. And SCR7. No.

Okay, thank you. Members. Any other reservations or.

No reservations please on all of them, four through seven.

Okay. Same request.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Members for your indulgence. We just want to push this out. Personally, I want to tell DLNR I would prefer that you guys come up with a global solution, just like you're requiring other Members in the private sector. That. I think DLNR should go by your own statements. But anyways.

But we'll push these up. Members are voting on SCR3, SCR4, SCR5, SCR6, and SCR7 concurrently. We noted no votes and reservations of our Members. Are there any noes or reservations? Seeing none.

So, Chair, your recommendation is to approve as.

I'm sorry. You're right. Pass as is. Yeah, I'm sorry. Good. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Catch. So my recommendation is to pass these out as is. Any concerns or noes? Seeing none. Wait.

I did state my no, and my no was recorded for SCR6 and 7. And then reservations just on 4 and 5 and yes on 3. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay, we do have to do it per. Do it with a roll call first. For the first. Okay. Yeah, sorry. Okay, so voting on SCR3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendment. Sorry. As is Chair and Vice Chair, vote aye. Representative Belatti for SCR. Sorry. For three is a yes.

WR from four all the way to seven.

Yes, that is correct.

And also for Representative Suzum, WR for SCR four to SCR seven.

Correct.

Representative. I'm sorry. Belatti. Okay. Sorry. Ichiyama is excused. Iwamoto is a WR for str 45 and no to 6 and 7.

Correct.

And. Representative Mori Kawa all the way. Okay. And Representative Poipo is excused. Representative Woodson is also excused. Representative Shimizu. Thank you, Chair. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members. Though now going back to HCR 54 or SCR 54. Let me go back. Sorry. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with the HD one. We're going to take the DLNR's amendments to change the report to 2027 and make tech amendments.

So sorry.

Okay, sure.

We have to go back to. We have to say. I have to say. Zero, I thought we did.

I didn't say SD1.

Okay.

SD1. All right.

Yeah.

Okay. Wait, wait. Can we take the vote on this? Since we already started. Okay. Since we're already on this one. And then we'll go back. Sorry. It would have been quicker if we just gone individually. Sorry. We're trying. I was trying to get everybody out of here in time and ended up. It ended up being worse.

It's all on me. I'm sorry. It's all good. We've done this before and it went smooth, but now. Okay. Sorry, Members. That's all right. Okay. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

Any comments?

Any? No comments. No questions. Thank you.

Okay. Voting on SCR54SD1. Recommendation of the chairs to pass with amendments noting the excuse absence of Representative Ichiyama, Poi Poi and Woodson for the rest of the agenda. Anyone voting with reservations or noes? Your recommendation is adopted, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have SCR 6 urging the. All right, you know what? I'm not going to SCR76 relating to Hololani and that Ho Kosto way. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out as is. Any comments or concerns.

I'm going to vote with reservations. State. I think my line of questioning and the responses states why. Okay.

As is.

Okay.

Voting on SCR76. SD1 recommendation of the chairs to pass as is. Noting the reservations from Representative Iwamoto. Anyone else voting with reservations or noes? Cherry recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we're going back to SCR3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Sorry, Members. I think we have to.

Okay. Recession. Okay.

So we have found out that we need to make a motion to reconsider our previous action. So Chair's recommendation is to make a motion to reconsider SCR3, SC1, SCR4, SC5, SC1, SCR6 and SCR7. So you second my motion? Second. Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair, can you vote?

Okay.

Voting on the reconsideration for SCR SD1, SCR4, SCR5SD1, SCR6, SCR7, any noes or reservations? And noting the excused absence of Representative Ichiyama, Poepoe and Woodson. Your recommendation is adopted. Chair, Sorry, going back to SCR.

Let's just take them one by one.

Three SD1 recommendation is to pass, as is noting the excuse absence of Representative. Yes, Ichiyama, Poepoe and Woodson and everyone else voting I. Anyone voting with reservations or no?

Okay.

Seeing none. Recommendation is adopted. So we're doing one by one right now. Okay, so as we are now voting on SCR4, recommendation is to pass as is. Again noting the excuse absence already mentioned and will be excuse for the remainder of this particular vote. Anyone voting with reservations? zero, sorry. And reservations for Representative Bilati.

It was Bilati and Suza. And also with reservations for Representative Iwamoto. Anyone else voting with reservations or no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay.

And now SCR5, we are also passing as is noting the reservation from SCR5SD1. Sorry. Noting the reservation from Representative and Souza. Anyone else voting with reservations or noes? Chair, your recommendation is adopted for SCR 6. Recommendation of the chair is to pass, as is noting the no from Representative Iwamoto and WRS for Belatti and Souza.

Anyone else voting with reservation or no? Charity Recommendation is adopted for SCR7. Noting the no from representative Iwamoto and WR from Belatti and Souza. Anyone else voting with reservations or no? Chair Recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much, Members. Last up, we have SCR 119 SD1 requesting DLNR to comply to convene a Kua Bay advisory working group. We have one testifier. We have DLNR with comments. Stand on your written comments. Thank you.

That was from Doar and. Okay, I'll stand on their behalf.

Okay. And we have one person here in person. Mike Atwood. Is that you, Mike? Okay. Sorry for the little fiasco.

That's interesting.

We got our procedures mixed up a little bit, so we had to redo it.

Great minds think alike. Mahalo. My name is Mike Atwood. Mahalo for the opportunity to be here and to be a part of the state Legislature. I stand in support of my testimony. And I would like to add that as the Kona community grows, the need for activities, recreational, cultural business in and around the Kailua Pier grows too.

And having the DLNR as an avenue to be able to communicate those needs is something that I support and I feel we desperately need.

Thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify in person or on zoom. We have about seven or eight people with comments or support. Is there any questions? Okay, no questions. Please note we have a meeting that we're supposed to be on. So you have 10 seconds. Stand on your.

Stand on your comments.

Okay. So Angela Melody Young, CARES in strong support of Kailua Bay. So one of these days I might sell a property beachfront on Kailua Bay when I get licensed after I pass my test to do properties management.

But either I want to be supportive of transforming Kailua Bay as an iconic destination for various activities and in my scope of work. As anticipated as a professional, the properties management team. The facilitation of this task force is critically important to the housing industry because it will increase property's value in the district because of the public events.

Right. So for example, the Queen Liliokalani Canoe race, the Ironman World Championships Hawaiian ceremonies.

Okay, can you sum up your.

Yes, I'm going to summarize. So to develop these interjurisdictional concerns and to enhance safety for users including swimmers and boaters while protecting environmental natural resources, it's really important to set a standard for inclusive coordination to facilitate these offices and to work together cooperatively on this public issue with safety safety management team expertise.

So thank you and strong support. Okay. Okay, good.

I'll set stand on your standing stated comments. Okay. Okay. Thank you Members. No questions. We're going to vote on SCR119. Oh, did we lose anybody? Nope. Okay. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out as is Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on SCR 119. Sorry. 119 SD1 recommendation of the Chair is to pass as is. Noting the excuse absence of representative Ichiyama, Poepoe, and Woodson as stated earlier. But we're going we open our Committee. But anyways. Anyone voting with reservations or noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. We are adjourned.