Senate Standing Committee on Water, Land, Culture and the Arts

Good afternoon. We're convening the Committee on Waterland, Culture and the arts on our 1pm agenda here in State Capitol Conference Room 224. We do have a number of measures on the agenda this afternoon with a bunch of testifiers. So we do want to ask folks to make sure you've submitted your written testimony.

So we have that for the record. And if you have, you can please feel free to summarize your comments. We're going to limit folks on your time to make sure we have an opportunity to get to everyone's comments and testimony and we'll have an opportunity for question and answer from the Committee thereafter.

So that being said, up first is Senate Bill 2982 relating to campaign finance, which prohibits foreign entities and foreign influence businesses for making contributions, expenditures, etc. Testifying first on SB2982 is the Attorney General.

Submitted.

Thank you very much. Signed up to testify next is the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair Christy Chang from Campaign Spending Commission. This commission supports this bill and just had a couple of comments. One is regarding the the condition where if foreign influence business is deemed unconstitutional that it would be the commission that would have to determine the constitutionality.

The commissioners will Defer to the AG's office on all constitutional issues. And then the second was we would ask to have additional time that if this bill is passed that we would need time to do certifications and establish forms and procedures internally. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Signed up next to testify is Gregory Misakyan on Zoom.

Not available on Zoom. Chair.

Okay, thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? NSB 2982. Oh, please come forward. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Cameron Hurt, Common Coloss Hawaii. We submitted our testimony maybe like an hour before the hearing. So maybe why it doesn't show up. But we'll of course stand on that rating testimony. But just really expressing the need that since Citizens United we've seen a valve kind of break that allows dark money into our politics.

And on top of Citizens United, we also have seen a rising threat from foreign entities that have taken an interest in our elections. And it's important that we find ways to safeguard our elections within the realm realms of the law. And it posts Citizens United World and this legislation does exactly that.

So just want to stand on our writing testimony and we're here for any questions of support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none Are there any questions? All right, seeing none. Thank you. Let's move on to the next measure. I recognize there's going to be a number of these we're going to go through, so appreciate everyone's patience.

I know some of these issues probably have a lot of commentary, so thanks for. Thanks for hanging around. Okay, Up Next is SB2367 relating to state boating facilities, which establishes the state boating facility management lease program within the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation regarding Alawai Small Boat Harbor. And Testifying first on SB2367 is DOBOR. Good afternoon.

You're entirely welcome to if you like.

Megan Stats on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, we stand on our testimony and support.

No problem.

Thank you. Up next is UPW. Thank you. And HGEA.

How you doing, Chair? Vice Chair, Members Nui Sebast asked for HGEA. We'll stand on our testimony in opposition to this measure. We feel that this, the boat harbor is a valuable public asset and should remain operated by the state.

And we do fear that this measure could lead to job displacement for our Members that currently work at this bull harbor. Thank you.

Thank you. Signed up next is the Vidamia. I'm pronouncing that right. The Bryn Rovito for Davida Mia. Signed up in person. Okay, moving on to Scott Allen. Good afternoon.

So aloha, Chair, Vice Chairs, my name is Scott Allen and I'm here to offer comments on this bill today. And Chair, I also have a one page set of suggested amendments if you. Are okay with me providing them, please. We can.

Oh yeah.

It's the same that was in my testimony.

Okay, yeah, we got it, we got it, we got it.

So in any case, I come to the this build today wearing a few hats. So I've had my boat at the, at the Alawai harbor, at other state boating facilities and at private marinas. I also hold a master's degree in Urban and Regional planning and I currently work the State Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

I'm speaking today in my personal capacity, but it draws on each of these experiences. In prior years, I've testified in opposition to this proposal because it lacked clarity regarding public access, governance and accountability, particularly given the scale and significance of Alawai Harbor. Many of those concerns still remain.

This year I'm providing draft language for amendments that are offered in the spirit of addressing the core issues that originally motivated my opposition, while recognizing the legislature's interest in exploring alternative management models. So these changes are intended to ensure that any long term shift in Control of Alawai harbor remains transparent, accountable and grounded in its public purpose.

Together, these amendments would provide enhanced legislative oversight for long term leases involving Alawai harbor, narrow exemptions from public notice and authorization requirements, articulate explicit protections for public access and affordability, ensure clear performance standards and enforcements authority, and enable more structured and actionable legislative reporting. So mahalo for the opportunity to provide comments and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB2367? Please come forward. Good afternoon.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Shelley Oswalding and I'm here in support of SB 2367 with amendments firstly mainly to protect public access, youth ocean safety and community use of the harbour. The harbour is not just another harbour.

Yes, it's the gateway to Waikiki, but it's also the only harbour in Hawaii with direct access to both world class ocean and flat water regatta courses for competition.

It creates a unique opportunity for us to with a well managed harbour, not only the visitors can come and they can help Fund ocean safety education for our local Keiki, but we could also develop an international destination for water sport events, cultural exchange and sustainable economic growth.

At the same time, the harbour is also irreplaceable to our youth. It's the only place on the island that provides safe and scalable pathway for college rowing and for Olympic level sprint kayaking and canoeing which are part of our history. King Kalakaua was an avid rower.

Prince Kehio championed the Ala Wai Canal and our waterways to serve the people, not to be locked away privately. The only athlete that's ever competed in the world in canoe and kayaking trained right here in the Alawai Canal.

Today there is no designated access for youth rowing or kayaking, let alone a hub or a world class facility for our Hawaiian culture. It must be learned from Koala Basin that the communities raised valid concerns about the loss of access, the rising costs and parking and over commercialisation.

Hopefully this bill will not repeat those mistakes and we'll learn from those lessons. I respectfully ask for the governance to look at negotiating leasehold condominium style under a long term state lease and to ensure that the harbour remains Hawaii owned, Hawaii managed and that the money then comes back into local maintenance, access and public benefit.

The community based, community based Waterman's program would protect the public trust while delivering real outcomes for ocean safety, for the pathway, for our youth and for local jobs. I hope we can let the Alawai Harbour be a place where you can summarize. Thank you. Yeah. And thank you for them.

Okay, anyone else? Yes, please grab that. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? I'm sorry, did you sign up for this measure? You said earlier you're here for the Allawai Bill. Is this the one? Okay. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify on SB 2367 going once, going twice, seeing none.

Thanks. Are there any questions?

Megan? Yes, State Harpers. Thank you. Thanks. Megan. I have a question with regards to page three on C, as in Charlie and lines 123. The state boating Facility Management Lease program shall be exempt from the notice and legislative authorization requirements of sections 17153 and 17160. Sorry, we don't have our. Our great.

Our own Attorney General with us, but. Except for sma. But can you explain? Because I don't have that on my computer yet, so watch. What is 171 to 53 and 60?

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair Megan Stats for the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. Senator, I don't have that section. I believe 171 is tied into land leases, and I don't know specifically what those sections cover.

Yeah, it kind of sounds like.

But it's under 171, which is covered under land leases.

2153 is the reclamation and disposition of submerged public land. zero, okay. The submerged land. So DLNR Land Division usually is under that chapter. Right.

So if it's under submerged lands, and that would give. That basically would allow for the submerged lands to be leased as part of this proposal.

Okay. But if it applies to this bill, that has some, I would say, authorization with activities that will probably be at the harbor on submerged lands. Because just in case you have a restaurant or you decide to do something, you still need to have DLNR and the board's approval.

Right. So everything with this proposal, everything still has to go through the Board of Land and Natural Resources. Right. That would include everything that happens there. And if there is no agreement with the board, then it would be. They wouldn't be able to do a certain thing. So, for example. Right.

Shelley Oats Wilding brings up the fact about public access, kayaks, canoes. That is not going to change. That access would still be there because the Board of Land and Natural Resources would make sure that that would not happen.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Just to. Oh, go ahead, Go ahead. No, I'm done. I'm done. Sure.

To follow up on that, how many. How many employees do we have? State employees do we have down there.

Right now at Alawai? We have two UPW and we have about six hgea and so I, I heard the concerns two union representatives. We have more than enough work at all of our facilities as well as our ocean recreation management program that we do not have any staffing for.

So all of those employees would still remain and probably still be working in that particular locati on. Probably Waikiki all the way down to Kuala Basin. We oversee the ocean waters from the high water mark three miles out and we have zero staff to do anything.

Are there typically currently mixed responsibilities where folks from Alawai would go down to Kuala or vice versa or is everybody there full time?

So everybody is housed specifically at the Alawai small boat harbor for this particular facility, but they do have the requirement to handle Waikiki Beach, Mauna Loa Bay as well. So they do go out to those locations. Their jurisdiction is from Coco Head all the way down to past Kuala Basin ocean water wise.

Sure. In the event that there's a lease pursuant to some General direction, I think this is, this is going. Is there or would you guys have any issue maintaining some sort of provisions. That. Retain state support and employees as you're alluding to in that location or in that General vicinity?

Yeah, we're definitely not opposed to that. I as the administrator want to ensure that all of my staff remains my staff and is able to work. I've been a State employee for 31 years now with the division and I find that that's very important to have and I want to continue that.

Sure. So then is the real and I apologize I'm relatively new to this Committee so no problem. Chair for the general intent for DOBOR is the real end game here to really get the actual physical infrastructure and management and whatever that future plan looks like financed and in place.

So we're looking to do a lease. Right. And it would be with. We've had a number of companies, entities that manage harbor facilities, including Kevin Cho, have interest specifically in this harbor, but without the submerged lands, they're not interested.

So we are looking at doing an overall plan that would benefit the boaters, benefit the users and then still be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Land and Natural Resources.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Vice Chair.

Fine. Part of the land areas that you manage, aside from the mooring side, you have one of the buildings that is on. I'm trying to think what end of the building that's run by a private entity and remind me who they were. There's some.

So we have the Hawaii Yacht Club is a, is a lease, is a leasee within the facility itself. We also. Okay. And. And then across the way we have the Waikiki Yacht Club.

In our facility. And then we have a parking concessionaire that's there. We also have the Transpac building with the yacht races that come every year.

Okay.

So what's going to happen to all of them? Is that part of the lease plans that you have?

No, they would still fall under us. All of the leases would still remain under us. Unless at some point there would be some sort of discussion about possibly entering into an agreement. I'm not sure. That's a legal question that I cannot answer.

But for us right now is those leases would remain specifically with the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

So the privatization with regards to 2367 on the Senate measure covers what areas.

Covers the entire facility that's not under current leases. So you're looking at all of the slips, the buildings that are not under lease, the parking.

The Administration building as.

Well, the boating office as well. Office, yeah. Our Administration building is at Kehi, right? Sun Island.

Right. How many civil service employees you have?

A total of eight, I believe.

That's at that facility?

At that facility, yes, ma'am.

Okay. And I've been here 21 years and I've went through several agencies that had similar changes, either closure and sending our employees elsewhere. I'm just. And it's something that the Legislature has to decide if this measure continues anyway as to what happens with the employees, but without, I would say, chair, it's kind of difficult right now.

If we look at. There are some things that I think we need to understand that we need to have improvements.

And I think we all agree and I like part of the concept with this measure, however, the place is a little too active because we have our surfers, we have all the parking areas that always has been controversial. And so if you can kind of give us a little more guidance as the area.

So I asked you already, the other areas of the concessions are going to remain so. And you know, I tend to sort of agree with the chair, like, you know, being here, you know, the first time, but understanding that we need some improvements but without some guidance as to what the entire area would look like.

Because the concern I have as well is with the parking because it's open to the public, the surfers use it and everyone else. And to see if there is something. Is there something in this measure that addresses areas like that for public use.

It doesn't specifically have that in there. But what it does state is that this has to be agreed upon by the Board of Land and Natural Resources. And the board has said time and time again that we are not going to affect any of the free recreational.

Whatever happens, whatever the Committee decides to do, if it passes the Legislature, everything remains the same with DLNR on the board.

The board, the lease would still have to go through the board and approve everything including the slip rents, the parking, etc.

Okay. So there's still a lot of discussions yet on the measure and you know, notwithstanding, you know, the activity that's been happening for years and one of the popular areas within our visitor industry areas as well.

We do understand that we need to do improvements, but there's a lot of issues that we need to but we'll see what the Committee decides to do to move this forward.

But just to let you know that there are all these other areas of concerns and that has to be addressed what we're going to do with the employees who's going to remain on the leasing part of the area as well. But you know that's pretty much we can move on with discussions.

Thank you for your comment, Senator. Appreciate it.

Thank you Chair. And there's real quick follow up for UPW and hga. Thanks. With respect to the public employees currently at the location, in your testimony you obviously talked about some of the concerns that changes could mean noting.

Thank you.

Also I think HGA's reference in particular to if the intent is to improve the facilities and create something more attractive using the capacity that this might provide, that also ensuring there's support for our public employees is to that end is a piece of this.

If there are provisions put into a measure that would somehow ensure continuity and similar work capacity, things like that, is that something that would be helpful from your end?

So again, Kamakana Kaimuloa United Public Workers. Thanks for the question, Chair. I think while we do appreciate the effort in the bill to actually maintain the civil service rights of those employees that would be affected should this area be leased out for management and development.

I think our greater concern is the actual establishment of a program like this because what our fear ultimately is the privatization. You know, I think the example used in the bill is Kiwalo an HCDA. You know, they have a very defined geographic management area and dobor overseas state facilities across the state. Right.

So if there's success here, our concern is another, you know, another facility could be privatized maybe on Maui or on Hoy Island or something like that. So yeah, while our concern are the handful of employees there. The larger concern is what happens to the work further down the road.

And then. I'm sorry, go ahead. Oh, Chair, Vice Chair, I'll, I'll Recommend, I'll echo UPW's concern as well. And I think just generally it's, it's kind of just a slippery slope kind of on, on our end.

Okay, question. So with that said, we have other facilities, as you know, under Dover and there's placements that they can go, you know, just, just to gather the information that, you know, we're not going to just throw them out in the water.

And the past agencies, when we, when we decided the Legislature and future, like we did with those that were at the Aloha Tower, when we moved them to the convention center, it was already set in the Bill the chances for relocation and guarantee of their jobs. But knowing that Dhobar has other facilities, you know, I'm sure.

But, you know, it's something beyond us right now looking at if there's vacancies there as well. Specifically, the measure will have to include the, just what you said, the displacement of the employees from the historical background that I had with relocations of agencies. So it has to be part of the measure.

So knowing that we can specifically say, and if it's agreeable that what we discussed with doing anything to do with Alawi can be specifically only for Alawai and not to any other entities that can be added as well, you know, if there's agreements like the concerns you raised and you know, that's a good point as well because we have the small boat harbors on all islands just a concern.

And so there's work for us too, because in working with, you know, the, with Dobar, because we really don't know what vacancies they are in the other facilities here on Oahu that they could be relocated.

But there could, you know, there's issues and concerns and that's why the chair called you up, because we'd like to know that specifically. And more suggestions that you have will be appreciated in the concerns. And specifically, again, like I say, this measure can be just specific for Alawai on Oahu and with population more than 500,000.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. All right, if there's no further questions. Thank you, everyone. Let's move on to the next measure, SB2818 relating to boating, which clarifies the penalties for violations of boating and ocean recreation laws pursuant to HRS. And testifying first on SB2818 is DOBAR. Good afternoon.

Chair. Vice Chair. The apartment stands on its written testimony and strong support.

Thank you. Signed up next to testify is John McCabe person. That's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in SB2818? All right. Seeing none. Are there any questions? zero, yeah, my apologies. Yes, we did have late testimony. Well, it's written testimony only from a few individuals. Yeah.

But there's no one else in the room with us wishing to testify or online. Any questions? All right, seeing none. Thank you. Let's move on to the next measure then. Sb2944 relating to conservation. This requires BLNR to adopt rules that implement wildlife viewing guidelines that support substantially conform to the viewing guidelines issued by NOAA. Requires reports.

Testifying first on SB2944 is the Department of Land and Natural Resources,

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Charlie Taylor from the owner's. Division of Aquatic Resources. We stand on our ring testimony.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify on 2944. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure this afternoon? Seeing none. Are there any questions? All right. If not, thanks.

Let's move on to the next measure, SB2022, relating to state water code penalties, which adds a minimum and maximum penalty for violation of CWORM rules and establishes factors that must be considered when determining the amount of penalty and makes other amendments. Testifying first on SB 2022 is the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Good afternoon. Excuse me.

Good afternoon.

Aloha Chair and Vice Chair. Kira Kahane, Deputy Director, Commission on Water Resource Management. I want to thank Vice Chair very much for introducing this measure and I wanted to highlight. Well, we strongly support this bill.

I want to highlight in particular how much we appreciate and in fact, this two tiered structure is something that we advocated for last legislative session. The two tiered structure really is intended to maintain the deterrent effect, particularly for violations that are repeat violations or cause harm to the resource or other water users.

The penalty would remain the same at the current 5,000 for those who haven't committed a violation before and for violations that don't cause harm. So that's particularly important, I think, in response to some of the concerns that have been raised in regard to this bill. With that, I'm available if you have any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Up next is EDC with comments. Board of Water Supply.

Thank you, Chair. Ernie Lau, Manager for the Board of Water Supply. We've submitted comments on this bill. I do understand the commissions need to have some tools to enforce water code. But please take a look at our comments.

Thank you. Testifying next is Ulupono.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Mariah Yoshizu on behalf of Ulupona Initiative, we really appreciate the Committee looking into this measure and hearing it today. It's a much needed update for a tool that the Commission on Water Resource Management can use to protect our vital resource, water.

This update will help to send a message about the value of an invaluable resource that every person on the islands. It's so important to. It'll also put us on par with other jurisdictions as well as our own state Department of Water that charge much higher fines to any violations of water quality as well. That's all.

We appreciate you guys hearing this measure today and protecting this bed of resource. Thank you so much.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify on 3022. Is there anyone else wishing to testify this afternoon? All right. Seeing none of any questions.

Ernie Lau, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ernie, for being here as well and the good job that you do for this county. Just, just one question with regards to your comments and that had more to do. Was it the penalty side or. What. Was your concern more? Was it the ceiling? The penalty ceiling?

Yeah, I think the.

Raising the penalty sealing.

Yeah, raising it. I think we were advocating for because this is an important tool for the commission.

But I think also maybe getting input from different stakeholders that are regulated by the commission on what we think is fair because there are small water users of surface water or groundwater, but then there are larger utilities like my own, but getting that public or stakeholder input into these penalties.

And I think when I introduced this measure as well, the concerns were, I think more of the larger users.

And I think the initial when it was first brought out was going to try to parallel the Department of Health, go to like $60,000 from the current, current level to all the way up to 60,000 just to parallel the Department of Health.

I do appreciate their ability looking at phasing this in over time rather than a large increase about phase.

Ian, but I noticed you didn't make any recommendations, you know, making some amendments to that as well. Do you think that, I mean, we would appreciate it if you could kind of add some of the amendments of some of the concerns or that would help this Committee.

Okay, we can.

We would appreciate that.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. We'll reach out to the other county water Department, please, and help to coordinate some suggestions.

Now this is. How was your statute? I mean your time schedule. This is single disco. What's the referral on this bill? Do you know. oh, it should be on here.

It's a double.

It's, it's a double. Oh, okay. Okay. I think, I think we probably have time. You got time? Yeah.

We'll also reach out to the Deputy Director Kira at the commission. Okay. To see, you know, and if the.

Chair agrees, you know, some amendments to it to move forward before it gets to the next Committee. We would appreciate that.

Okay, thank you, Chair, if you can.

Yeah. Work with his office to see what your time, their schedule is.

Okay. Well, we can reach out to your. Office chair for that would be helpful. Kind of a deadline for when we can accomplish and get back to you on feedback on this bill.

Yeah. This issue with why has been too important for us not to do anything.

I understand that too. Okay. All right, thank you.

Thanks, Ernie. Appreciate it.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Sure. Just real quick for cworm. Thank you. I'll just note there were concerns raised in ADC's testimony just regarding potential impacts on various users.

But I want to clarify from you is the way you read this that under the provisions as proposed in the bill, cworms still have discretion to decide levels of fines and things like that based on different criteria, such as if it's a first time situation or there's some exigent circumstance versus some intentional misuse and that sort of thing.

Oh, absolutely. So just to provide a little bit of background, all of these violations, once noticed, actually have to go to the commission for decision making. So they're the ones who exercise decisions, discretion ultimately and decide what to impose. They hear testimony from the violator as well as any others who have been affected by the violation.

And at present we have an administrative penalty guideline that specifically considers any corrective action that is taken, self reporting, things of that nature, as well as the violator's ability to pay would come in under any other matters that justice may require under the existing bill.

So that kind of information is already considered by the commission in determining ultimately what penalty to assess.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, let's move on to the next measure, SB2240 relating to land use, which requires any petitioner for a district boundary amendment to obtain certification from the Commission on Water Resources Management that there is water available before going to the Land Use Commission. Testifying first on SB2240 is. zero, Seaworm. Good afternoon again.

Good afternoon again, Chair and Vice Chair. Thank you. Kira Kahane, once more, Deputy Director, Commission on Water Resource Management. So we, we support this bill. We, we appreciate the intent of the measure, we did offer comments and suggest some amendment specific specifically to the language.

These are similar ones that were made on that on the House side, just as an as a note, we do frequently do document reviews of environmental assessments and eiss that actually come to the commission that propose a project, and we found frequently that those often don't contain information or contain enough information about the water needs of the project and water availability.

So this would provide us with an early opportunity to comment on water availability and address any issues before there's a lot of momentum behind a project and before a lot of money has been invested into a specific project. With that, I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you for testifying. Next is Office of Planning and Sustainable.

Development Chair Vice Chair. The PSB will stand on his written testimony providing comments.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB2240? Seeing none other questions real quick for I guess OPSD, You took the time to show up. So I figure I might as well ask some questions the way this is contemplated.

I recognize in your testimony you had suggested a few amendments, but generally right now, am I understanding this right, that the current process is if the Land Use Commission is approached with some proposal, whatever it is, there doesn't need to be a guarantee or some sort of allocation previously set aside for whatever the water use for that project would be before folks can request a boundary amendment.

Is that right correct?

Leo Ascension, Administrator with the Office of Planning and Sustainability Development. You're correct, Chair. The current process is the petitioner would turn in their proposed district boundary amendment. The Office of Planning, as a mandatory party, would then see comments from all of our state agencies that may be impacted by the petition, by the reclassification.

So that's how we get information from, you know, different agencies, including cworm, dlnr, you name it. And we start to form the state's position that we present to the commission, including recommendations and conditions that we may want to have the commission consider in their deliberations on that particular project.

I'll just note. Well, let me ask currently, when someone comes forward and I think you have a couple testifiers raising questions about process in General potentially impacting proposed housing or other projects or various things, which obviously is a huge issue in some areas.

If someone approaches the LUC currently and there's a positive outcome where something is given a green light to proceed and it ends up at the end of the day that there's not water, what.

Typically then happens then under the current process, right. The commission has the ability to come back or ask the petitioner to come back. Right. Because now they're not fulfilling a condition. Right. From there there's, there's proceedings, there's an order to show cause. If there's a comment, they say, right, there's no alternative to it. And then what? Right.

Now that, that ultimate penalty that the commission has is the reversion of the land back to its original.

Is there a typical timeline for what that sort of process back and forth could take?

I'm not sure, Dan. It's probably a commission decision, but I don't believe there is. I mean, we would have to go through that proceeding, right? It's a two step proceeding.

Sure. Thank you. Chair and Vice Chair. Dennard Ankar, Executive Officer for the State Land Use Commission. To answer your question, if a project is approved and then it later turns out that there's not water, such as with the Pulelehua project on Maui. There.

Is a timeline that we usually put in our district boundary amendments for when construction has to have begun. And if they reach it's usually 10 years. If they reach 10 years and the project hasn't started, then we have the ability to revert the property.

But the way the process works is at first we would call in a petitioner for a status report. And if during the course of that status report it is uncovered that the petitioner cannot or will not meet the conditions contained in the district boundary amendment, then we schedule a motion for hearing.

A motion for order to show cause. But there are notification requirements that usually amount to about three months before we can actually hold the hearing on a motion for order to show cause.

Okay, thank you both.

Yeah, why don't you just refreshing my mind. There was a measure, and I'm trying to think if it was this year or we passed a measure that all decision makings, whether the state or the counties, before approving any development that water that we needed to have a water plan for each community or each district.

Mary Alice, you remember that measure? Did it pass or died or county.

Water plans are required.

Okay, did we do something statutorily with regards to what I was saying that any development, all the counties and the state must ensure that there's water first before a development would occur. And that bill could have died? I'm not sure, but this is familiar.

I think I recall the bill that you're talking about, but I'm not exactly sure. That is not a current requirement to my knowledge.

So right now I think the plans that Mary Alice was alluding to are the county water use and development plans, which are required under the state water code, are prepared by each county, but they don't go into a project by project analysis.

Okay. Okay. So probably. And we're talking about it. We probably could. I think you're doing revisions already, Mary Alice, with regards to the state water plan. Okay.

Okay.

Yes.

So at present, we are updating our framework for the Hawaii Water Plan, which includes the requirements for. For water use and development plans. We've been speaking to each of the counties regarding at what point they consider and assess the availability of water for each project.

It's my understanding that it's very commonplace for them to confer with the respective water Department of the. Of the county. So for county of Hawaii, they might check in with the county water purveyor or a private purveyor in the area, but that currently does not occur within. Under the commission's purview. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks.

And just to follow up, looking at your testimony from Cworm on this, which suggests a similar amendment to what OPSD had suggested, which was still providing additional information at the time of going in for a potential amendment, assuming that something like that were to move forward, is it fair to say some of the situations like those in the past could be potentially headed off with a shorter timeline if there's additional information demonstrating that there is maybe in some cases capacity versus in other cases, likely not.

Before you go through that whole process of realizing that there's some sort of issue down the road which forces everybody to go back to the table over again?

It's difficult for me to conjecture. It's difficult for me to conjecture this is designed to avert many of those circumstances? Yes. Because we do often see circumstances where there is a project proposed, they come to us and ask, you know, is there water available? And we have to tell them not really so likely.

This probably would catch issues earlier on in the process.

I realize there's other bills that touch on these issues, but I think the theme through them, at least that I'm getting is ultimately, if you're putting forward a project or something, how do you, as soon as possible have an idea of what the actual capacity is available and what does that timeline look like before putting a bunch of money on the table is generally what I think.

So I guess to that end, there's probably a number of other fixes down the road that might be viable. But is that part of what you were talking about in the updated things that you guys are working on right now.

So yes, the short answer is yes. And really this Bill and our approach in the Hawaii water plan framework looks more at the broader planning level, not project by project as those types of plans frequently change, but at the at the broad planning level consistent with things like district boundary amendments.

That's when the counties really estimate authorized planned use, which is one of the criteria for designation of a groundwater management area under the state water code. So authorized planned use is based off of they look at the zoning of the land and they look at if it was fully built out, what would the water needs be.

So we're really looking not at a project level, but really more of a broader planning level to make sure that there's water available based on the proposed amendment, not a specific project.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you very much.

I think just to add as well the timeline for approvals anyway. And I think the last agency isn't it Land use Land Use Commission, if there's development that goes to all of the comments from the different agencies like it.

I think you're when land use hears a development project on their agenda and I know that they do send out comments again asking for additional information if it chooses to. If the Land Use Commission, you know, has some concerns, but then go back to you as well.

I'm sure it has happened many times on review of land use applications before them, but I know that they're pretty good about and they're the ones that meet the constituents. Right. They're the ones that taking the applications to the counties or to its communities for further deliberation and approvals. I think there's a system in place.

But you know, this issue and this, you know, topic as well. How do we move faster on housing? That is the cry of everyone for affordable housing.

But I think what makes it much easier is if we have legislation that would sort of assist, you know, the impacts even prior to getting to the Land Use Commission because, you know, it seems like it's a double duty and you know as well that that process. So how do we move these process Much faster.

Yeah, just do it. Thanks. Appreciate the work you guys do. Thank you.

Any further questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much.

Let's move on to the next measure, SB 2986 relating to the Land Use Commission, which authorizes the LUC to amend, revise or modify a decision and order granting a district boundary amendment or find a petitioner upon finding that a petitioner or its successors or signs have not adhered to the conditions imposed by The Commission testifying first on 2986 is Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

All right, thank you very much. Next. oh, that's everyone who had signed up to testify on 2986. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure this afternoon? All right, seeing none. Are there any questions? Okay.

Why don't we in that case move on to the next measure, SB2547 relating to the Coastal Zone Management act, which amends the definition of development as pertains to coastal zone management to exempt state or county sponsored infrastructure improvement projects that are consistent with the applicable counties community plans. And testifying first on 2547 is OPSD. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairs. I'm Mariella Sevins with the Office of Planning and Sustainability, Sustainable Development. We have comments and an amendment to propose. We would like suggest that the Legislature keep chapter 205a 221 as is.

And then for 222 we are recommending an amendment that which would then become subsection X in this section and that would allow for the restoration of infrastructure more quickly.

Thank you very much. Signed up to testify next is the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair, good afternoon. So we provided written testimony, but after seeing OPSD's written testimony, we're gonna defer to them and you can disregard our testimony.

Put so much work into it, though.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Was your comments under Steven Domingo? Oh, okay.

Okay. We were a little shorthanded, so we wanted to make sure someone was here to cover just in case.

Ok. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Chair Testifying next is the county of Maui on Zoom. Good afternoon.

And Vice Chair. Apologize. Am I. Am I visible? Jordan Hart, county of my Office of Recovery. We support this measure. We're aware of DLNR and OPSD's testimony, and DLNR just deferred to OPSD. We're. We're supportive of OPSD's proposed amendments as well.

We would be able to make use of this measure if passed in the reconstruction of Lahaina and, and hope it does succeed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Up next is Earth Justice online. Good afternoon.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Harley Broyles, attorney with Earth Justice. We stand on our writing testimony in opposition to this bill, but I wanted to highlight a few points. We are living in a time of a climate crisis facing us, facing sea level rise and major coastal erosion.

And so now is not the time to be amending our environmental laws in ways that will cause confusion, create issues, or even create blanket exceptions that could cause or result in environmental harm due to a lack of a CZMA review.

So please stay true to the purpose and the intent of the CZMA and our constitutional public trust doctrine and reject this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. That is everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in SB2547 seeing? None. Are there any questions, I guess, for the county of Maui, if you're still on? Yes.

With respect to the measure before us and assuming the proposed amendments that were made by the various agencies that you had also cited, what would that in practice mean for a project on the Lahaina shore?

Okay, so that's a really important thing to bring up, is that DLNR's comments were before they pivoted to supporting OPSD. I was going to say that we supported their comments because they point out that this should not be related to shoreline. It's also not in the section of hrs 204 that pertains to the shoreline.

It's in the section that pertains to the broader special management area. So it should not have alluded to shoreline and it would not where it's located, give any sort of authorizations to shoreline work.

Additionally, within that Same section of hrs 205A22, there is an obligation on the agency where they may find a significant ecological effect or cumulative impact that they determine that something is not exempt. So it's not a blind process. Now, OPSD does make reference to hrs343. I think that that's okay.

But I also believe that hrs343 and the administrative rules that regulate it are sufficient in their own context. I don't think that you need to reference 343 inside of 205A, but it's okay if that's the direction that everybody deems to go. Was that clear?

Somewhat. Let me pause there just for one second. Is Earthjustice still on?

Yes, I'm here.

Thanks. So, with respect to the conversation that's going on with the proposed amendments from opsd, I can't do. Are you able to see those?

Yes, I have them up right now.

Yeah. Would that change any of the, I guess, concerns you guys have about process and various things like that?

Let me just take a real quick look right now. I mean, to the extent that it. I think that if it doesn't change, you know, that blanket exception, that's the other part of the Bill. You know, of course we are opposed to that because we don't.

Our position is that there should not be any such blanket exception for counties and states to avoid CCMA review. And this changed the definition? Yeah, I mean, I. I'm not sure right now, honestly. Chair, I.

Sure, we can. We can figure this stuff out later. That's in the weeds. Were the provisions of this measure applied to Lahaina? With some guardrails. So it only applies to Lahaina for, you know, a period of time throughout what would presumably be reconstruction in some of those areas. Would that be also something amenable?

Of course. I mean, to the extent that we can still, you know, protect the coastline and the shorelines and Hawaii in General, and we. We definitely support the rebuild of Lahaina, so. Of course. Okay. Thank you very much.

I have a question for the county of Maui. How, Jordan, how does this. And we passed a law last year giving a timeline of when you folks were able to do work in the sma. Like, how does that coincide with that. Bill that was passed last year, this Bill, coincide with that Bill?

This. This Bill doesn't have a timeline as it's proposed, associated with it. So this would be. This would just be an amendment to HRS 205a 22 that would. There's a series of actions that are not considered to be development in the sma. And this would be adding governmental infrastructure projects.

And so basically, you know, generally providing services and improvements. There's a lot of cost and time associated with that. And so for government providing service to our constituents, that would streamline that process. And we see projects as far as the Office of Recovery coming forward that would likely make use of this through our recovery process.

And that's why I'm testifying in support here today. But I believe the intention is broader than just behind. It was just. It was proposing a statewide amendment that all state and county infrastructure project in the special management area. I do think that the referring to the shoreline in the initial draft was an issue.

And it's not located in the portion of HRS205 that addresses shoreline approvals. And so I think that that's unfortunately caused some issues.

Okay, thank you.

Follow up to. Can you stay on Maui as well now with regards to that. So the shoreline area it covers, they still have to apply for an SME permit, whether it's. Well, the states are pretty much exempt, but this measure is specifically for state or county infrastructure improvements, right?

It is. And if it were to pass, as it's written, it would depend on the local authority that administers the special management area as to whether or not an application would need to be filed in hrs 205A. Actions that are not considered to be development are not required to file for permit applications, essentially.

But some of our planning commissions on Maui do require submittal of applications, even for exempt actions.

So with recommendation from DLNR with regards to changing the name from the shoreline area would probably address many of the issues that we're just talking about. Then.

The testimony that I read does make significant reference to shoreline and show images of shoreline hardening and things like that. And that's what I was saying is that it's unfortunate that shoreline was used because this is. This section is talking about the greater SMA area, not the shoreline component of the SMA area.

So the recommendation that the Land Division at DLNR is suggesting that probably it's time that we make the necessary changes in the language.

I believe that would be more appropriate and accurate to what was intended with the introduction of this measure.

Yes. Thank you. Because DLNR, I think, also suggested that they support OPSD's recommendation. But we can also consider, I think, DLNR, that's not in part of OPSD's recommendation. Right. Okay. It's separate.

So maybe that we should consider, and I tend to agree with DLNR and the Land Division, that it blurs the distinction between the state and the county jurisdiction on the shoreline as defined in 205. Okay, thank you. Maybe we can consider that as well. Thank you very much. Further questions? Mariana says her hand.

Thank you. Chairs. I want to clarify. Our testimony does include when you. We Recommend keeping tool 5A22, one that references the special management area. So that's the larger area. It's not specifically the shoreline. And the amended section that we're recommending is related to the special management. Okay. All right.

Any further questions? I've seen none. Thank you, everybody. Let's move on to the next measure, SB 2401, relating to regional shoreline Mitigation districts, which authorizes the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development to approve the establishment of regional shoreline mitigation districts to facilitate regional coordination by shoreline property owners to address coastal erosion.

Requires preparation of management plans and procedures. Establishes the support and integration of regional coastline erosion sediment management planning and policy under the CZM program. Appropriates funds and establishes a position 2401. First testifying or signed up to testify is DLNR. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Members. Michael Kane, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, we. We stand on our testimony opposed to this measure. I thought OPSD would go first, and I can tell you that I support their testimony, so. But we support the concept of regional shoreline planning. We encourage it in planning school.

I think the first Hawaiian word we learned was ahupuaa. And my files are, you know, that's how we categorize things. Still, we don't need an extra layer of government to pursue regional shoreline planning.

And our concerns with this bill specifically is that it turns the Office of Planning into a regulatory agency and removes or limits the regulatory functions of DLNR. With that, I am available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Signed up Next. Sorry, I didn't know if OPSD. We didn't have you signed up to testify in person, but since he referenced you, you're more than welcome. If you want to stand your comments, that's great, too.

Yeah. Do I get Michael's phone, too?

But it's good. We get educated on comments from both agencies or many agencies.

We agree with DLNR. Our testimony, just to summarize, says we have already been working on shoreline manage, regional shoreline management assessments and planning. We see how important it is to look at shorelines from a beach process, ocean process perspective rather than TMKs and separate properties, because those ocean processes do not go to single properties.

They go for the entire headland to headland. Role. And so we think that, however, this. So I want to say that we really support the concept that this bill has, but we have some strong concerns about what it does. We think it is premature to develop. Adopt a measure here. And we.

The Office of Planning Sustainable Development does not want to take over DLNR's regulatory roles. We want to work complementary and coordinated with them. Planning generally comes at the first end of the pipeline. Regulation can be toward the end of that. So thank you.

Thank you. All right, signed up next to testify is the Hawaii association of Realtors. Oh, there you are. Thank you. Next on Zoom is the Kahana Bay Steering Committee.

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

And also on Zoom, Jesse Olpindo.

Also not available on Zoom Chair.

That's not true. We're here.

Oh, I'm sorry. Your name is under Lenore Houston.

Well, that's my laptop, but it's Jesse. We signed in under Jesse.

Okay. Why don't you. So could you state your name for the record and feel free to proceed.

Okay. Aloha.

Sorry. Also, can you. Can you turn your video on there?

Yeah, we'll. We'll turn it on. We've been trying to.

Okay. There you go. Good afternoon.

Okay.

Okay. My name is Jesse Olpindo. I have lived on Maui for over 40 years. I'm an owner at Hololani in Kahana. I raised my family here. My kids grew up on this beach and this ocean, this shoreline is part of our life. I support SB 2401 because the beach is disappearing. Every year is less sand, the ocean come closer.

Places where families used to walk and fish are now gone. This is not our property problem. The whole shoreline is connected. What happens in one place affects everyone. People in Kahana want to work together to protect the shoreline. But process is slow and confusing.

We need better way to plan together and take care of the coast for the future. I want my grandchildren and local families to be able to enjoy this beach like we did. Please support SB2401. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. That's everyone. We have signed up. Oh, please come forward.

Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Chris Delaunay. And I'm actually here on behalf of the Kahana Bay Steering Committee. And with me, I have Ken Chung. From Oceanette in the back if any. Technical questions need to be be answered. So anyway, the Kahana Bay Steering Committee is. We're in strong support of SB2401.

The measure provides a pathway for Regional shoreline solutions while preserving agency oversight, environmental safeguards and local control. In 2017, well, KSB KBSC is a group of nine condominium properties and one residential shoreline parcel on Kahana Bay on Maui that are actively working to address a severe ongoing beach erosion problem.

In 2017, KBSC Members formed the Kana Bay Steering Committee to develop and to address this issue. KBSC has invested a significant amount of time, effort and money into this. They have gone through hiring engineers, worked on environmental assessments and coordinated with state and county government agencies. Oceanet published the second draft EIS in 2021.

However, despite the efforts, the planning and approval process has stalled. And currently many of these condominium properties are having intense impact from the sea and all those conditions from shoreline erosion and on. They have made emergency efforts to protect their properties from chronic wave impacts that is reducing beach with and threatening the shoreline area.

We support the bill because it means it's a way to move forward. It's a way to get the agencies together, OPSD, DLNR, the counties and the property owners in the area to actually devise a regional plan in order to address these solutions based on science. This will be all based on science.

And we did hear from OPSD as well as DLNR and we're more than willing to work with them. We just ask that we continue this discussion and move the bill forward so we can work on it. Because the intent is not to take any regulatory authority away from anyone.

And we we devise a plan to to have it lay out. So they'll still have to go through public hearings, they still have to get their sma, they still have to get their Conservation District use permit through blnr.

But we know that, you know, this needs a lot more work and we're willing to sit with the table with the various departments and stakeholders to find a regional solution to this problem.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? No. Please come forward. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Senator Lee, Senator Lee, Senator Inouye and Members of the Committee. My name is Bernie Bayes. I'm an attorney here representing the Shoreline Preservation Coalition. SBC is a coalition of individuals and community organizations that are concerned with the preservation of our beaches and our shoreline properties. SPC strongly supports the enactment of Senate Bill 2401.

This bill provides what we need, which is a regional based plans for the preservation of the shoreline that use all of the available tools that we have to address shoreline issues on a regional by regional basis. One size does not fit all.

Every region is different and they mechanisms that are used to protect the shoreline are different in each area. So as the prior speaker said, we need to use science to determine how we deal with the shorelines in each area. We've proven that reactive property by property regulation does not work and cannot work.

Property owners need to be told what they need to do and should do, not simply what they can't do, with no guidance about how to move forward. So we strongly support the passage of this bill. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Other questions. Let me start with Kahana Bay Steering Committee or. Well, yes. Do you know how you want me to.

With Sanai Government Strategies on behalf of Kahana Bay Steering Committee? Yes.

You said the process that had been. Everyone had been going through had stalled. What was the. What was the, I guess, hold up or what is the hold up?

Yeah. So Ken, is that something you can assist with? Ken from Oceanhet. Ken Chung, you can introduce yourself further.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair Members, Ken Chung from Oceanet. We are the engineering consultants for KBSC and what Chris referred to as stalling. We had actually gotten pretty far in the process, published a draft EIS and we're ready to move forward, even setting up financing, self financing by the condominium owners in a CFD.

What held that process up was the matter of ownership of the structures that were recommended. And that is basically what stalled the process.

Who's the.

The CFD would have. Would have required this county to have ownership and they basically did not want the responsibility and the liability.

Okay, thank you. And to your point earlier, you said the intent is not to take away the really mess with the responsibility for decision making within state, county. Paradigm. I guess you could say.

Absolutely. And we're willing to work that out, get the right language in order to ensure that.

Okay, thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thanks. And then just to follow up with OPSD and DLNR on this, Without getting too far into the weeds, we'll have time hopefully to follow up on this later on as we figure this out.

There seem to be a lot of moving parts here, but for your part, the General intent you had said about some sort of regional approach which can get all the various folks at the table which looks at more than a single property is something that is likely valuable.

Yes.

It's just the question in your minds of how that process comes to decision, is that right?

I'm a little bit confused actually, because there are three separate projects in West Maui that involve regional approaches that are in process, we heard from Kahana Bay and we did accept and publish their draft eis. So we're waiting on the final eis.

Ka Hanapali Operators association is a group of condo owners that are working together on a beach nourishment plan. And then there's another plan at Honokaui that we've recently responded to, their draft eis. So regional planning is happening. So I'm not sure what our role is. We're ready to receive the final EAs when they're finalized.

Was that too much in the weeds or.

Well, I'm less familiar with the neighbor islands, so it's really helpful to get, I think, context from your perspective, but recognizing we'll probably have to have follow up conversations in the next few days with all the stakeholders on this. Are you guys open to participating and diving into a deeper discussion?

Yes. Yes.

Okay, thank you very much. Any further questions? All right, seeing none. Thanks, everybody. Oh, I'm sorry, before we move on, sir, I forget your name. Yes, thank you. You'd represented SBC. What was the acronyms?

Shoreline Preservation Coalition.

Okay, thanks. Okay, thank you all.

Why don't we move on to the next measure, SB3031 relating to the conveyance tax, which we requires that all conveyance tax revenues collected from the conveyance or transfer of real property located in the sea level rise exposure area be deposited into the beach restoration special fund and allows that funding to be used to acquire property.

And testifying first on SB3031 is DLNR. Good Afternoon again.

So good afternoon, Chair, Committee Members, Michael Kane, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, we stand by our written testimony. One request is that the beach fund not be used to acquire land.

Beach fund is a very small special fund that right now it's geared towards assisting community groups in developing dune and coastal restoration plans. And we're worried that a large influx of money in the task of acquiring land would become a land fund.

And my office is a small office where planners and environmentalists, we don't know anything about real estate. So I don't have any comments on the state acquiring coastal land. I just. I don't think we're the right ones to do it. Thank you. Thank you.

Testifying next is the Department of Taxation. Thank you. Up next on Zoom Tax Foundation. Good afternoon.

Hello. Colleen Teramae on behalf of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. The Tax foundation stands on its written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. And also on Zoom, Denise Antolini.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for hearing this measure. This is a really important additional tool to put in the toolbox so that we can collectively begin to address some of the very severe erosion instances around our islands.

I'm a North Shore resident, North Shore, Oahu resident, and been very engaged in some of the erosion issues on our North Shore. You're very familiar with the houses that fell in the ocean.

So by this is a common sense measure to take conveyance tax, which is already being paid, and to put it very intentionally back into reinvesting in our shorelines and beaches. So basically, you have the turnover of properties sellers, conveyance tax being reinvested in the very communities that they came from. So no new taxes, no new increase.

It, again, is a diversion from the General Fund, but intentional for a policy purpose. So I hope you can support this measure and move it forward. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. That is, everyone who had signed up to testify on SB3031. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure, please come forward. Yeah.

You called him. He wasn't on.

They were.

Good afternoon, Senator Lee, Senator Inouye. I guess I should say again that my name is Bernie Bayes and I represent the Shoreline Preservation Coalition. We strongly support the preservation of both the beaches and the shoreline properties where that's possible.

There may be some instances where we develop a regional shoreline plan where it's determined that it's simply not feasible to preserve some of the private properties on that beach.

And in those cases, what needs to happen is that the public needs to acquire those properties, that it's determined can't be saved, and that the owners of those properties need to be fairly compensated for the taking of their property.

And for example, in one case, as Denise mentioned a moment ago, a home fell on the beach that's adjacent to Sunset Beach Park. And our organization supports the expansion of Sunset beach park by the acquisition of the next three parcels, which we have determined probably cannot be saved.

And once those properties are acquired, they would be added to Sunset Beach Park. Now, what we would like to see is they're going to perform a dune restoration project on those properties to see if we can hold the line there and preserve the properties on down the beach so that we don't have to make further acquisitions.

That's the plan and the hope there. So that's an example of a place where you may not be able to preserve the private properties and they need to be publicly acquired and added to a park. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Saw somebody else in the back? Yes. Please come forward. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Welcome Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of this measure. My name is Hannah Lilly. I'm the Hawaii Regional Manager for Surfrider Foundation. So I offer this testimony on behalf of our three chapters on Maui, Kauai and Oahu in strong support.

Through our work addressing coastal erosion statewide, we see clear accelerating beach loss driven by shoreline armoring, dense coastal development and sea level rise undermining beach access and public trust resources. So this measure recognizes that current regulatory and fiscal tools are inadequate to address these impacts. It provides a path forward to meaningfully improve coastal resilience.

This bill creates a fair risk based funding structure that aligns coastal exposure with long term shoreline stewardship. So these funds support beach restoration through the beach Restoration Fund and dune and coastal enhancement and help the state's public. State's responsibility to protect public trust resources. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none other questions. Real quick for dlnr. Thanks. You'd raised concern that using the Beach Restoration Special Fund and adding additional funds into it and so forth could dilute the various purposes for which the Fund is used. Is that right? Correct.

In the case of collecting funds, if there's a separate segregation and sub account into which funds could be placed with the clear statutory guardrail, so they can only be used for that purpose from that sub account versus the rest of the Beach Restoration Special Fund, which would be continued to be used for its current purposes, does that absolve that concern?

It absolves that concern. But the bigger issue is I don't know anything about real estate. I don't know if our office is the right one. I don't even know how he would set that up structurally. Honestly, it's so far beyond my skill set. We did look into it and it quickly became overwhelming.

We'd have to set up a whole new structure for.

Like if there are other if within dlnr, I guess, other land division or, you know, other. Other folks that have some of that capacity can draw from that other Fund.

In other words. Okay, so in other words, there needs.

To be a place to store money somewhere. This particular Fund seems the most closely aligned with nexus. But being able to create a sub account, which has been done in numerous other cases within various funds. Okay, seems viable.

That conditionally seems viable. I'm also wary now because I'm testifying on behalf of dlnr. I actually don't know our administration's position on the property. So I. Well, let me not try to be cagey, I guess. No, not at all.

Let me, let me wrap it up this way and just say similar to the last Bill, if you're available along with some of the other stakeholders in the next few days, we can take a crack at figuring out what might work here.

Okay. And I might have to call in my acting chair on that one. Sure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, volunteering everyone today.

If there's no further questions, why don't we move on to the next measure on the agenda? SB3035 relating to real estate transactions which requires a seller of real property adjacent to the shoreline and the seller's agent to disclose and include in advertisements certain erosion issues related to the parcel. 3035. Testifying first is DLNR.

Thank you. DLNR stands on its testimony and support this.

Thank you. Up next is the Hawaii association of Realtors. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Chair Member. My name is Lindsey Garcia and I'm with the Hawaii Association of Realtors. So I wanted to state that we do believe in disclosures for buyers. However, because of that we already do have a process both in our sellers real property disclosure statement and with the two page oceanfront addendum that is provided to buyers.

So we just wanted to point out that we do believe in disclosures. However, in order to have all the necessary information stuck into an ad would be a little bit difficult to do, practically speaking, just because of character limitations, but also just because we want to make sure that appropriate and all of the information is disclosed.

And that's why we have this two part process both in the sellers real property disclosure statement as well as a two page oceanfront property addendum which we did create with the Legislature to address this very important issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next on 3035 is Surf Rider Foundation.

Good afternoon again, Hannah Lily, Surf Rider Foundation, Hawaii. So I just wanted to kind of walk through a scenario that would be directly related to this bill. So imagine an oceanfront second home in Hawaii being sold to an out of state buyer.

The online listing highlights ocean views and beach access, but does not disclose that the property sits in a chronic erosion hotspot. There's expired emergency shoreline control permits, unpermitted erosion controls and outstanding notices of violation. Under current practice, this information is often disclosed later in the transaction during escrow after the buyer has already invested significant time and money.

And, and this is where we get into that sunk cost fallacy. So the buyer goes through after the purchase, the new owner realizes that their options to address erosion are far more limited than expected.

As erosion continues, pressure mounts to do something leading to repeated emergency requests and in some cases illegal shoreline adjustments that further damage public beaches and public trust resources. So this measure changes this dynamic by moving required disclosures to the advertising stage, allowing buyers to make risk informed decisions earlier. This transparency reduces post purchase conflict.

It eases pressure on agencies and helps to prevent further harm to Hawaii's beaches. Importantly, this information is already required to be disclosed. So this bill simply requires it sooner. It creates no undue burden and aligns with basic principles of truth in advertising, which are especially important when we're talking about public health hazards. So.

So I see the comment from the Hawaii Realtor association that there's no space included to detail erosion risk. I wonder if there could be a link or a QR code or some way around that, because I think that that shouldn't be what holds this bill up. But shoreline erosion is not a private risk.

It affects public beaches, access safety agencies and taxpayers. Early public facing disclosure is the appropriate and responsible approach. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you very much. Is there any. Oh, I'm sorry. We also had signed up on this one on Zoom. Denise Antolini, Good afternoon again.

Aloha. Denise Antolini, North Shore Oahu Resident thank you chair, vice chair and Committee Members for hearing this measure. I wholeheartedly agree with the testimony you just heard from Surf Rider. I wanted to add some personal stories which I put in my written testimony from Realtors on the North Shore.

In particular, one told me how absolutely horrified she was that these issues were not being disclosed to buyers up front. The person who testified for the Realtors indicated there is disclosure, but it's not until the disclosure statement is given to a buyer upon an offer. It's way too late in the process.

So I think actually ethical realtors would support this measure. And as Ms. Lilly testified, there are ways to do QR code or a link that again, should not be an obstacle. But for public policy reasons, the disclosure needs to be much more early in the process. Thank you very much for moving this forward.

Thank you very much. That's everyone who signed up to testify on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB3035 seeing another questions?

Board of Realtors or Hawaii association of Realtors? Which one is it? I apologize. I know those are two separate entities.

Or is it board Realtors who've been sitting.

Oh my gosh, so many of us. The Hawaii association of Realtors, Hawaii association level. A lot of the boards are at the, the local. The local level.

And she's all in one. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you for your testimony. So you had mentioned maybe some cost concerns with the advertisement and putting it out basically in the front. So as example, one of your folks. Regulation. Not regulations, but your disclosures when advertising is the listing price. Right.

So that's one area that you have to disclose the listing price with. The way that real estate or just consumer. Consumer things are going. Everything is pretty much online. I don't really see a lot of people posting in the newspaper. Maybe there might be some magazines.

But do you expect this to be a heavy cost, adding a disclosure line so that buyers know up front what they're getting into before they even, even go to their Realtor, attend the open house and just as a preventative.

Yeah, no, that's a very good question. Thank you, Senator. I think in addition to the cost though, it's really just making sure that the buyer does get all adequate information. Right.

The real prop, the Oceanfront property addendum is two pages long, which hopefully provides a thorough amount of information about what shoreline erosion is, especially for folk who may not be from here who are unfamiliar.

In order to better educate them, I would hate to have to limit like what we put into an ad about shoreline disclosure just because there are kind of space limitations with that.

I will say also that the, when it comes to the SRPDs and the oceanfront property addendum, so what, what kicks off a sale is signing the purchase contract. But that's not the end of the process, right? You don't close until, until escrow at the end. The, the, the buyer is given this information before closing.

It happens after the purchase contract. So it's basically when, when someone who is interested in the property and starts to kick off the process of like do I want to buy this?

And they, they, they begin the process is when it would trigger the, the, the disclosing of all of the mandatory disclosures of one of which is related to shoreline. But there are a lot of other mandatory disclosures that we are regulated, required by law.

And so we would want to ensure that all the disclosures are made all at the same time.

So if the purchaser has to get into a contract which they're in escrow at that point, how long after do they realize that this might be a property they don't want to proceed with because of the risk for the shoreline risk.

So I mean, at any point, you know, they can decide to stop the process before closing and you know, when they, the. The intent of the seller's real property disclosure statement is to ensure that the seller or that the buyer is making an informed choice about the property they're about to invest funding into.

And so we want to be able to ensure that they get all of that information all at the same time. And they can review, they can review it. It's very, very detailed and it's going to include more than just the shoreline related disclosures. It includes everything they need to know.

Do you think it would save time though, on the buyer side and the seller side if they knew up front that this had some shoreline disclaimers and that it could pose a real serious risk? And not to mention the insurance, they might not even be able to get property insurance based off of that.

Do you believe that it would save time having at least a disclaimer? Maybe if it's just an asterisk leading to a website or somebody had mentioned a QR code.

I'm not necessarily sure how that might work for people that don't have smartphones, but just in the spirit of honesty and transparency, letting them know up front, and then maybe they don't even tie up the property once it goes into escrow, everybody can just move on.

Well, I mean, this is even just before escrow, right, that the sellers real property disclosure statement is given. There are a lot of things that could include, you know, wanting to, that the buyer would want to know in order to make that determination if this is a good property to purchase or not.

And it's not just shoreline shore, whether the property is on the shoreline, that could affect whether a buyer decides to buy.

So are you saying that the sellers or property disclosure statement is given to the buyer before escrow?

It's before closing, yes. Okay, so they can stop the process. Yeah. They decide this is before they buy. Yeah.

I think by then weeks have gone by, other houses for sale have gone by and the buyer may have lost out on other properties that would have better fit their needs. And then it ties up the property with the seller.

Then when the property goes back on the market after the buyer cancels, then it kind of puts a bad taste in other buyers. Mouths zero, this went into escrow and then it fell out. There must be something wrong with it.

So I think in today's market, it's a little unrealistic to tie up a property and then not have a concern with potential buyers.

I do believe though that there is a discussion that does need to meet with an effort from the Hawaii association of Realtors because without necessarily having to waste everybody's time, I'm sure insurance might be an issue as well.

But, but, but I do think that the Hawaii association of Realtors really needs to take a hard look at that. And you know, if there needs to be adjustments made, compromises and even extra line items, I think it might be worth it so that the buyer knows up front what they're getting into.

But that's all I would like to say. Thank you. Chair thank, thank you, Senator. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll just close by saying we're short on time, but.

Yeah, if it were just a one or few words of disclosure saying maybe even this property has a erosion disclosure with a whatever, click the link or something like that, seems pretty reasonable and easy to fit in an advertisement for an issue which could endanger the entire value of the property, if not immediately, but certainly in the years to come.

I think it's a, it's a good point, Senator, but I think there are, like I said before, I think there are a lot of disclosures that could affect whether a person wants to buy a property or not and then deciding which which to put in an ad and which not. We wouldn't want to leave anything out.

And so which is why we believe in having the disclosure all happen all at the same time so that they can understand all of the issues that a property could possibly have.

Understand. I think there's not a lot of properties relative to the universe that first of all sit on a shoreline and secondly, sit in a shoreline erosion prone area. It would seem like it's a really small number of them relative to the ultimate cost that people could bear in time, as my colleagues suggested.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Let's move on to the last measure, SB3032 relating to beaches, which clarifies that any person in violation of laws and subject to administrative, civil or criminal penalties prohibiting the removal of sand from public beaches includes licensed and unlicensed contractors. Testifying first on SB3032 is the attorney General.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Deputy Attorney General Alyssa Kao on behalf of the Department. So the Department wants to offer or seeks to provide the following comments on the bill. So the bill seeks to define that persons who remove sand from public beaches are licensed and unlicensed contractors.

So we don't take a position on the clarity of the enforcement. However, we do have concerns about placing the bill in chapters 171 and 205A those concern public lands and coastal zone management, respectively.

And putting the definition of person in these sections could unintentionally affect the scope of other offenses that could be or that could fall under 171 and 205A that don't concern removing sand from public beaches. So we've offered some amendments for your concern.

And I think this approach would preserve the existing enforcement statutes and reduce any interpretive risk that our Department and DLNR might encounter for the enforcement of these types of violations. I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have signed up to testify on this measure. Denise Antolini on Zoom.

Sorry, I'm just unmuting here. Aloha. Dinny Santolini, North Shore Oahu resident, in full support of this measure and in full support of the Attorney General's suggested amendments. I think it was a very good Testimony submitted by Ms. Cow and it makes a lot of sense, so I think move forward with those amendments.

Thank you so much for making sure that another tool is put in the toolbox to address these kinds of issues. Mahalo.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

Hannah Lily, Surf Rider Foundation, Hawaii. We stand on our testimony. I also agree with Denise Antolini and we support the Attorney General's proposed amendments.

Thank you. All right, anyone else seeing none? Any questions?

I have a question for Attorney General. With the amendments that you propose. That doesn't affect contracts that the city or the state has with adding to a beach like you know, a couple of years ago, we provided resources, funding, and we.

They and I. I'm trying to think if we did it as a state or we gave the money to the sitting county, but we did increase the sand at Waikiki as an example. Does this affect any contracts going forward?

I don't believe it should. I think these are more targeted for situations like. Denise, I'm sorry, that Dean Antolini had mentioned where contractors are removing licensed and unlicensed contractors are moving sand from the shoreline and they're moving it up Malka to protect. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

There's no further questions. We're gonna. We have just a couple minutes here. So we're gonna go into decision making while we get our paperwork. We'll take just a quick recess.

All right, Reconvening the Committee on Water, Land, Culture and arts on our 1:00pm agenda. Thank you, everybody, for your patience as we got through this agenda. Up first is SB 2982 relating to campaign finance. I Want to move this forward with amendments adopting the AG recommendation to clarify advertisement wording and the disclaimer to read.

Some of the funds used to pay for this message may have been provided by foreign corporations or foreign influenced business entities as no certification disclosing foreign influence was provided.

Secondly, we'll amend the measure to provide an exemption for those entities engaged in transporting cargo and subject to Section 27 of the Merchant Marine act of 1920 and third will adopt the Campaign Spending Commission recommendations that the Measure take effect January 12028. Any questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair's recommendation on SB2982 to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Measures adopted.

Chair, thank you. We're going to defer the next measure, SB2367 relating to state voting facilities for decision making. Friday the 13th in this room at the end of our 1pm agenda. Friday the 13th. SB2818 relating to boating. We'd like to move this forward. This goes to Judiciary Committee. So we just like to add in a defective date.

Any discussion Passing with amendments on SB2818.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2818 to pass with amendments with four Members present. Anyone voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted. Mr.

Chair, thank you. Moving on to the next measure, SB2944 relating to conservation. Like to move us forward for consideration, but add in a defective date so we can get some additional conversation in the next Committee. So sb2944 with amendments in discussion. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2944 to pass with amendments. With four Members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted and one excused, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2022, relating to state water code penalties. Similarly, we'd like to move this forward for discussion to the next set of committees. This goes to Judiciary, which can dive into some of the fines. So we want to, at this point, blank out the fines and add in a defective date. There's no discussion.

It's 2022?

Yes, with amendments.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2022 to pass with amendments. With four Members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? One is excused. Mr. Chair, measure is adopted.

Thank you. For SB 2240, relating to land use. We'd like to defer this for decision making along with the other measures to Friday the 13th in this room at the end of our... Excuse me. In Room 224, in this room, at the end of our 1pm agenda, so we can consult with stakeholders.

Up next is SB 2986, relating to the Land Use Commission. We'd like to move this measure forward. This goes to the Judiciary Committee, but I know there's some tech amendments that need to be made, so we'll make some tech amendments. Any discussion? If not, Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2986 to pass with amendments. With four Members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Mr. Chair, one is excused. Measure is adopted.

Thank you. For the next measures, SB 2547, SB 2401, SB 3031, we'll defer till Friday the 13th at the end of our 1:00pm agenda here in Conference Room 224, so we have time to work those out.

That was 2547?

Yes.

That's to Friday?

Yes. The next one is 3035. SB 3035, relating to real estate transactions.

Excuse me. What happened to 2401?

Deferred till Friday as well.

2401. Okay. Okay. 3031.

Also, we're deferring 3031 to Friday the 13th at 1:00pm. And then for the last two, SB 3035, relating to real estate transactions. Appreciate the discussion. We'd like to move this forward to Consumer Protection Judiciary with one amendment allowing for a website link in advertising to the appropriate disclosure, along with the words, this property has an erosion disclosure. So any questions or comments? Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB 3035 to pass with amendments. With four Members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? One. Yes, one is excused. Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. And the last measure on the agenda, SB 3032, relating to beaches. Would like to move this forward also to Judiciary adopting the AG's clarifying amendments. There's no discussion. Okay. Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB 3032 to pass with amendments. With four Members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Mr. Chair, there's one absent, and measure is adopted.

All right. Thank you very much, everybody. We're adjourned.