House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Okay. Good morning, everybody. This is the Committee on Water and Land. My name is Mark Hashem. I'm the Chair. To my left is Dee Morikawa, the Vice Chair. Today is February 10, 2026. It's 9:00am we're in Conference Room 411 at the State capital. Before we start, there are some ground rules that I need to inform everybody.

Oh. In order for us to have everybody testify, please stand on your testimony. If can we have. Like I said, by contrary belief, we do know how to read, and I have read all of your testimony. Anyways, we do know how to read, so we did read your testimony.

And if you can just sum it up or testify in your own words, please don't stand up and read your testimony. We do need to get to an 11:15 hearing this morning. There's another joint hearing that we have. So if we don't make that.

All the bills on this agenda are today, and we do need to make the floor session. So we do have a time constraint. Please be aware of that when asking questions. Members, thank you very much. Next. So for those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting.

When you are called up, you can turn. Please turn on your camera and your unmute yourself. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the staff only. As you can see, I don't have a computer in front of me, so I'm not going to be able to see your chat function or anybody else.

If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing and we will post another hearing notice at that time. Please avoid using any trademark materials or trademark or copyright materials in your Zoom background or on your Starbucks. Oh, yes, thank you. I'm not a Starbucks drinker.

Please refrain from using profanity or uncivil behavior. If so, we'll have Sergeant Speed you up and drag you out. Okay, first up, we have HB 1881 relating to land use. First, we have Waimalau Neighborhood Board. Wait, hold on. Do we have anybody here wanting to testify in public for this? No. Anybody on Zoom? One person on Zoom.

You'll review. Representative Emeritus Gary Ver. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. Thank you for having this hearing today and hearing this bill. I'm Gil Rivier Waialua. I'm testifying on behalf of myself and also Keep the North Shore Country. And I just want to share. We'll stand on our testimony. But I want to add one quick thing.

Back when we were fighting the Turtle Bay development, the massive expansion, some years ago, one of the developers for the resort came and he said, you know, we're so excited about this property. You know, there's nothing here. There's so much potential. We just. We just really see a lot of stuff that we can do on this land.

And all of us in the room just rejected that phrasing of the situation. And it was. We said, you know, that nothing to you is everything. That's what makes the North Shore so special. That's why we fight so hard. Because this nothing that you see is why people love this place.

I say that because these developers come through, they see a mountain, they want to put a tourist attraction on it, they want to improve it in their image, and they're not improving it. It's already the way it's meant to be.

So with your support, hopefully we can just nip this in the bud and stop coming up with these dumb ideas to over exploit our Mauka lands. That's my testimony. Thank you for listening. And you guys take care.

Okay, thank you very much. Good to see you. He's our fellow. Him. Yeah, he and I. We entered the Legislature at the same time. Good to see you again. Anyways, anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Nobody else on Zoom Members, any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Rivier, thank you for your testimony. Included in this Bill is a prohibition of funiculars. And I'm sorry if I'm not saying that correctly. Funiculars. I mean, in other districts such as Waile'ki, there are private homes with funiculars already in existence. And I think they also are.

There are some in Pacific Heights, but in different residential mountainous areas, there may be funiculars currently installed. Does this, as you read this bill, does it. Do you think those funiculars will have to be removed? Would this prohibit any future residential owner who lives on a very steep incline from having a funicular? That's my question.

How do you read this bill with regard regarding funiculars on private residential land?

I appreciate that question and I think you're wise to ask for clarity on that. I'll leave that to the. To the, you know, the legal folks in, you know, in the Legislature. I think the move would be to prohibit these items going forward. So if there was a grandfathered in item that might work. It could be.

If for personal use only. I don't know. There's probably a way to keep this bill going and continue to flesh out that question.

So it sounds like maybe using the term commercial funicular might be a reasonable amendment.

Yes. How you word it, I think is to be determined. But I do think you're right to say if somebody's got a personal elevator or some form, then maybe that should not be swept into this bill. Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. Good question. Thank you.

Mahalo.

Any other Members, Any other questions? Say none. We are moving on. Next up we have HB2218 relating to the Department, relating to DLNR. First up, we have Hoha in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. OHA stands on its support. We have a long history of supporting existing community based management structures, including helping to set up community based fish sustainable fishing areas. So we are in strong support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. DLNR, do you want us. We don't have you registered for some reason, but DLNR.

Yeah. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Alan Carpenter, acting administrator for the Division of State Parks. The Department will stand on its testimony in strong support. And I'll just say that based on the overwhelming supportive testimony, I think this is a bill whose time has come. I think we have a little bit of tweaking to do.

But yeah, this is going to really enable a lot of, a lot more community management across our system, not just for state parks, but for our entire Department. So it broadens what we're currently doing to all our other divisions. And we'll be here for questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have KUA in support.

Committee Members, Kevin Chang, Executive Director of KUA . We stand on our testimony. I just wanted to make 1.0. I saw that there is one opposition. This colleague of ours, Phil Fernandez, he doesn't, I think he just doesn't note that within the bill.

He says that this is an activity that will just give some rights over to activists. But we're talking about doers, people doing things who have long term commitments to their place. And this bill actually allows the state to vet the communities that it should work with. So I just wanted to make that point.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Nature Conservancy. Okay, thank you. Next we have Wana Ohana in support. In person. Nope. Is there anybody else in person wishing to testify on this? See, none on zoom. We have 60. Okay. Kirk Cottrell. Kurt. Wait, Kirk Cottrell is with DLNOR. zero, wait.

Kirk Cottrell, individual Okay, as an individual D. Leonor emeritus, then. Kirk, are you on?

I am. Good morning, Chair Hassam, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Yeah. This is my first legislative hearing as a civilian, so I'm appreciating the comfort of my home. But I just you guys for hearing the bill and for this opportunity to testify with the caveat that you guys now know how to read.

I will my written testimony and strong support with just the simple thing that's in my testimony. That piggybacking on the success of haena, there's a great opportunity to replicate this fairly quickly at Kealakekua Bay state historic park. So I'm anxious to see this piece of legislation move forward. And once again, thank you so much for hearing it.

Mahalo. Okay, thank you very much.

Next, we have Sierra club in support.

Chair, Vice Chair Wayne. Wayne. We'll stand our testimony in support of this measure. Thank you.

Wayne. We got to shut off your Zoom link so you come in again.

Yeah, I'm actually jumping between multiple hearings this morning, so apologies if I missed another Bill. I'm jumping into CPU right now.

All right, next we have Hui Maka Aina o Makana. In support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, this is Chipper Wickman.

I'm the Vice President of the Hui Makainano Makano, and I stand on my written testimony and but just want to emphasize the incredible collaborative process that occurred over the last six months to prepare this bill and draft it, including strong support from speaker Nakamura's office, but most importantly, the community that really pulled together.

And I really thank olan Fisher and kuo Kevin Chang for really using their networks to reach out to hundreds of individuals across the entire paina. This bill is, as you can see from the amount of positive testimony is something, as Kurt said, whose time has come and very appreciative.

So thank you for hearing it and thank you for your strong support. Aloha.

Hey, thank you. Next we have Billy Kenny support.

Aloha. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm also with the Hui Makaʻainana o Makana. I'm the current assistant Director. I just wanted to mahalo you folks for hearing this bill as well. I the hui the is the org name in much of this. Much of the support of this bill in the testimony.

But I wanted to elevate also all of the other powerhouse hui and organizations across the way doing the same work. And one note I will make. One point I'll make is that in our journey to get to Co management.

We found that we get to a point where the pinnacle of co management and legally and the pathway stops at this point where the highest point is concession, where we are also where we're deemed vendors. But that's very at the very least, you know, not what we do in terms of Malama ina.

So I think this bill is very important for the replicative care across the way to help DLNR and the state and all you folks to do and us to do the best work that we do to steward all of our resources.

So I think the HUI is very in huge support of this bill and I hope that you will be too. Paulo.

Thank you. Next we have Joell Edwards in support.

Aloha. Good morning, Chair and Members of the community Committee. I stand by my written support and I just want to just add that as a community member and a small business owner here in Wainiha, something that wasn't in my testimony is how the this initiative has not only strengthened the shared responsibility for Malama Ina but has.

Produced real on the ground results. Safer and more respectable access, stronger community trust and most importantly is good jobs for local residents. Community co management creates employment rooted in place, allowing our local people to care for their home while supporting their families. And that economic stability strengthens stewardship and keeps knowledge and responsibility right here in our community.

So for communities like mine, this is not theoretical. We're seeing it first place. What a difference it makes. And I appreciate you hearing the measure today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Hanalei Initiative.

Hi, my name is Joel Guy. I'm the Executive Director of the Hanalei Initiative. Thank you, Chair, Members of the Committee. For hearing this bill. It truly is an important part of our work out here in Haena. We do stand on our testimony and. Strong support and available for any questions. Thank you.

Okay, that's all the registered testimony that we have. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair, could I get the DLNR please?

I. I'm in agreement with this bill and I want to thank you for your testimony because you answered some of my questions. I just have one question. 60 year, 65 year term.

Could that present problems as far as locking in arrangements that may not adapt well to future conditions, reduce flexibility for future DLNR leadership or create legal complications if the organization dissolves or fails?

Good question. And I think we were actually discussing this just before the hearing and I think one of the provisions we'd like to build in is a periodic review and Report back to the board. And I think the current proposed term will be every five years. So it would give.

You could have a long term agreement, but subject to review and approval by the board, kind of like a status report so that there's a regular check in which I think, I think is a good idea anyway.

Awesome. Thank you.

Great job. Chair. Very good. Anybody else? Representative Poepoe.

I guess the parks. What would happen in the event that there are multiple community organizations wanting to do similar work? How would that be vetted through?

Well, first of all, that'd be a nice problem to have. But we. These would be non exclusive. Right. In fact, that's one of the issues with the. The current AG opinion that we cannot offer leases for this because leases have a degree of exclusivity built into them.

So non exclusive means you could have overlapping or similar activities going on at the same time in the same park. Right. But I don't see it as a conflict. I see it as an opportunity to. If there's a group that's more interested in taking care of dunes and plants and another one that's more interested in.

Doing, I guess they're both interested in doing the same thing.

I would probably. Well, not sure how precisely would work, but I would say that they could probably both be offered a partnership to work together.

I mean, but I again, it's a good problem to have want to work together. So I'm just trying to figure that part out.

Okay.

It's a hypothetical, but it's, you know, I was just curious about that part of it because the bill doesn't speak to that specifically.

Okay.

And it's, it's negotiated. It's not like the public auction part is removed, which is probably good. But then how do you deal with the like conflicting proposals?

So there are. You could potentially do what we do now, both formally and informally is take a request for proposals and have it vetted in a competitive process. Take the one that you think is best suited. Ultimately though, the board would have the say. Right.

Then I did have a question, but it's more pertaining to the ocean. But I was. Because I think that this could also cover areas of ocean or nearshore water. So I'm wondering, like it's not land. It's not easy to really delineate a boundary in the ocean depending on where it is.

So my question would be like, how would. Because this is so expansive across DLNR that in all the different agencies there are like so many different ways that this could apply. You know, how would it apply In a game management unit, how would it apply in the forest or.

I know parks, we know that it works really well so far. But I'm just wondering how it applies across like the broader scope of DLNR and specifically to near shore waters. Because they just think that that's a little bit of a harder area to put management into, like a boundary.

I agree. And we have folks from DAR and DOFA here. I think we're all excited collectively about the bill. But I think some of the other divisions, we've been the most proactive at parks. Right. We've been kind of the tip of the spear on this one.

I think we do need to get together and we are getting together regularly to figure out how it will apply to the other divisions. But you're right about the water, but we have, you know, we have marine life conservation districts that are defined with boundaries and things like that.

There are discrete units of ocean, I think that have particular management in place. Or I could let Brian speak.

I really like this concept and the goal and I agree with it 100%. But then I just try and think through like the scenarios applied and like in practice, what does it actually look like. And so I have a lot of questions which I can get together with you folks after too, but I'm in support of it.

I just have a lot of questions about what it looks like applied across the Department.

I appreciate that we need to be internally, need to be less siloed as well and work together. So I think we're all excited for the collaboration.

Thank you. Thanks. Representative Shimizu, for the second time.

Thank you, Chair. DLNR, please. Sorry. DLNR. Poepoe brought up a concern that I also had. So piggybacking off the five year interval. So after any five year interval, as you evaluate it and somehow it's not working, do you have the authority to cancel the arrangement and restart?

Absolutely. The board would have the. The power, right? So there's an automatic review. It would. I'm not sure if it would be an action item every time, but if someone's not performing, usually we, we would mutually agree, right, to terminate the agreement. There's always. Those are always built in. Thank you very much.

See? No more questions. We're moving on. Next up we have HB 1956 relating to fresh water waves. Give me a minute to catch up to myself. First up we have the Attorney General. Comments.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair Alyssa Kyle, Deputy Attorney General. On behalf of the Department, the Department offers several comments to improve clarity and reduce legal risk so the first is the definition of residing is not very clear.

And so to promote uniform application and to have adequate public notice of the conduct, we would recommend providing a definition for residing. We would also recommend providing a definition of fresh waterway, especially because most of our streams, freshwater streams, do interact with some brackish water. So that might pose some issues with the, with the definition there.

And most importantly, our third and fourth comments talk about this timing of citations that's also not very clear. So we it would benefit from some clearer drafting as to when a citation and arrest could be issued. And finally, the bills arrest authority, penalty structure and procedural safeguards. Particularly, there's no written notice for personal protection of personal property.

So those should be clarified, especially in light of the Davis v. Bisson case that came out this past year from the Supreme Court. And I think the bill would also benefit from some delineated agency roles since there is interaction with our law enforcement agencies both at the state and county level and with DLNR.

I stand available if you have any questions. Okay, thank you very much.

And we have one individual in support, Jean Shimabuku. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up we have HB2151. Relating to building materials. First up we have Crime Bureau. We have anybody.

That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Anybody on zoom? See nobody on Zoom. Anybody in the room? Seeing none Members, Questions to nobody. Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up we have HB 1845 relating to the Land Use Commission. First up we have the Attorney General, the AG.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. The bill we would recommend a clarification.

So to avoid any constitutional or statutory conflicts with the IL or important AG lands provision, we would recommend amending the bill to clarify that lands that are IL lands would still require six affirmative votes in line with section 201 or 205A 2051 of HRS and the Hawaii Constitution. I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Next we have Office of Planning. Okay, we have. Next we have Sierra Club in opposition. Is there anybody else present? No, that's all the people that we have registered to to testify. We have a whole bunch of testimonies in opposition. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

No, we'll go with Representative Belatti since it's her first question.

For the attorney Generals, please.

I tend to agree with your amendment. That we should maintain the protection for the ials. Can you explain more why that would. Be something that needs to be constitutionally protected?

So I think so. I think that the current bill would only require a simple majority of the affirmative votes, and the bill alters the. The Bill Alters Article 11, Section 3 of the state constitution, which provides that IL shall not be reclassified unless there's those 2/3 votes.

So I don't think that the state statute could override that constitutional provision.

Thank you. I think. And again, that's because of the IALs. Being something of great importance to the state.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair AG, since pretty much nobody else is here, do you know if the commissioners are able to vote via proxy?

I'm not sure of that, but I know that Chair Orodenker is here, so you might be able to answer that question.

Thank you, Chair. Members of the Committee, Dan Hardancher. I'm the Executive Officer for the Land Use Commission. We did submit testimony. I'm not sure why, may have come in late. I'm not sure why you don't have it, but we would echo the agent's concerns with regard to proxy. No, commissioners are not allowed to vote by proxy.

I think in addition to the constitutionality, we have a couple of concerns. One is that it could result in only three commissioners approving a district boundary amendment, which is kind of a scary thing given importance of District one.

Number two, with regard to the attorney general's testimony on important agricultural lands, One of the S22s that we have right now is that not all of the counties have designated important agricultural lands. So we don't know whether the lands that were being brought forward in a petition would qualify until that process is done.

So just changing it to important agricultural lands is only going to work on Kauai, which is the only county to have designated important agricultural lands.

Follow up question, Chair? Yes, go ahead. So you answered no to the proxies, but in light of the purpose of this bill, could you see language that might, you know, be crafted to address this concern and still address maybe your concern?

You mean by allowing commissioners to vote by proxy? Yes, I would defer to the ag on that. I'm not sure we have a anything in place that would allow that to occur. It might take a larger amendment.

Thank you, Chair Shimizu, for your question. I think that pursuant to the Sunshine Law, it that or which is in Chapter 92 of HRS. Proxies aren't generally allowed for boards and commissions, and the LUC would be. Would fit under that provision.

So I don't think a special provision could be crafted for that, but I'm not certain at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Members, any second question. Representative Belatti, we do have a go.

Ahead for the Chair of the Land Use Commission. Can you in, in very briefly summarize what was the testimony that you would have submitted?

And then would you be open to an amendment that says that maybe that this, this kind of simple majority would apply only to those lands and not any, Any county where IAL has not been designated?

Summarizing my testimony, I think I did that. Okay. Previously. Thank you, Representative. As far as amendments, I understand if. I understand properly that, yeah, I mean, if we're going to, if we're going to do that, I mean, I still have concerns that, like I say, only three members out of a nine Member commission.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, sir.

Stay up there. So you said only Kauai put in ial. Kauai has completed its IAL process. So from my understanding, IAL is a voluntary program. Right. For private land owners, actually. Is it a requirement because that would be a taking if it was forced upon the landowner? Is that correct or no?

This is the subject of a Supreme Court lawsuit right Now. What happened was that Kauai started into its process and it takes years to get through that process because it requires a lot of public outreach and notice to all of the landowners about. When.

By the time Kauai was done with this process, they were aiming at a certain percentage of their agricultural land to be designated ial. By the time Kaua' I County was done with their process, the landowners on Kauai had voluntarily put that amount of land into ial.

So they said, okay, well, we don't need to complete this process because we've met our goal. The city and county of Honolulu then started up its process, and when it came to the Land Use Commission, after they had completed going, it took them seven years to go through the council and do all the rest.

There was a concern raised by the landowners of exactly what you just said.

That's why we put the tax credit in place, right?

Yeah.

Because it's a voluntary process for private landowner.

Did Mahipono put in there? Didn't they designate their land as IAL?

Well.

Some. And I was actually.

So your testimony that saying Kauai is the only place that has IAL not correct. Is that correct?

No, it is correct.

So Maui doesn't have IAL .

If I may, Chair, there are some lands that have been voluntarily put into IAL by landowners, but there is a process under the IAL statute that requires each county to designate lands within the county that are supposed to be designated IAL. That is not a voluntary process. The counties are given power to do that.

The lawsuit that I was referring to put that process in question because some of the landowners came in and said, you're changing our ability to use our land in certain ways. It had revolved around the ability to build farm housing and for the ability of non agricultural workers to live on the land.

And so the LAN Use Commission balked and sent it back to the counties. The counties then appealed to the Supreme Court for clarification of that issue.

Okay, thank you very much. Yes.

What is the status of that Supreme Court case now?

They've had oral arguments, but we. That was like.

When was oral arguments?

Like a year or two ago. I'm not sure exactly, but we have not gotten a decision.

And what is the name of the case?

I think it's City and County of Honolulu versus Land Use Commission. I'm not sure.

Thank you.

I could be wrong about that.

Okay, thank you very much. We need to move on. We have an 1115 deadline. Next up we have HB 1844 relating to the Land Use Commission. Oh, you might as well stay up there. First up we have. Attorney General. Your comments.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, the Department offers comments on the bill. We offer two major comments. First is that the bill doesn't allow for public notice or participation requirements. So we would recommend adding in a requirement for notice and a public hearing.

And second is the same issue that I had mentioned in the prior in the previous bill is that both Article 11, Section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution and Chapter 205 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes impose specific standards and voting requirements for reclassifying ial.

So to avoid those conflicts, we would recommend for this Bill that you would clarify that IALs are excluded from this process. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have. Anybody else President wishing to testify? Seeing none. Sierra Club on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chairman, Committee Wayne Tanaka, Sierra of Hawaii. We respectfully oppose this measure. You know, there are a number of other vehicles moving that will address, you know, like go to the heart of the permitting delays.

And you know, I think what this bill is trying to address, we just ask that maybe the community and Legislature explore those rather than pursue this path which could lead to inadvertent significant impacts or cultural resources, public trust resources, food security and so forth. Otherwise have to answer any questions. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Members I Mean, sorry, is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members? Are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. For the Attorney General's office, you mentioned public input. Wouldn't the public have an opportunity to provide input during the county's process of developing a general plan?

I can't speak to the, you know, the protections that are available at the county. I would assume that if the County Planning Commission or whatever body is presenting it to, if there is a.

If there is a body that is attached to county government that is approving this to send to the Land Use Commission, there probably should be some sort of sunshine meeting that could be able to provide notice. In this case, it may be more of an agency itself that's submitting the comments, so that period might not be available.

I think the rec. The comments that we are recommending are more so in alignment with the public notice and hearing requirements that are reflected in like a district boundary amendment, because those are available. So we would replicate having those same sort of protections in this for this process as well. Thank you.

There's any other questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair. Am I able to ask the LEC Chair a question?

Just a point of clarification on the Executive Officer, not the Chair. So sorry. Sorry.

I'm sorry, I'm not that familiar with this process and situation, so indulge me, please. Are there examples or reasons why the LUC would deny the county? Just agreeing with them and you know, going along as this bill is proposing.

If I understand this bill correctly, it's a shall. The bill says shall. So we don't have any discretion. The concern, and this is staff's testimony, not the commission's, the concern that we have is that this bill may be violate due process. It goes beyond simply what's contained in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court decided the towne case back in the 90s which requires contested case hearings for all district boundary amendments. Because U.S. constitution states that you can't deprive someone of property rights without due process.

In the towne case in the 90s, the Supreme Court concluded that Chapter 91, which provides for 91 or 9291 which provides for contested case hearings, is the best way to ensure due process for each landowner and neighboring landowners on a district boundary amendment proceeding.

So simply requiring Millennial Commission to do a district boundary amendment based on a General plan doesn't meet those two process requirements. There is some concern that there is an issue there.

Can I ask a quick question? Can you summarize? We are on a time constraint here, so can you summarize the difference between your. What your process that you usually go through and what this bill is proposing so that way Members can have a better idea?

Okay. The contested case hearing process is similar to a cart hearing. People come in, they present evidence. The Office of Planning and the counties present evidence, and there is an opportunity for intervention.

Say you're a neighbor who doesn't want to see this change, or you're the Sierra Club who has concerns about what's on the property or even about cultural resources. They have the opportunity to intervene, present evidence, and explain to the commission why the district bombing amendment shouldn't proceed.

The Millennial Commission then, as a judge would, weighs the evidence and then makes a decision. There's also a couple of other constitutional issues. Kapaa Kai analysis needs to be done, which revolves around cultural resources and public trust doctrine. The General plans are just that. They're planning documents. They go out.

My understanding is, and I'm not representing the county on this, is that the county goes out and it says, okay, we're going to amend the General plan. And they hold hearings, meetings around the state. People come who are interested. There's no opportunity for cross examination or for defense of positions or anything like that, or introduction of evidence.

It's like a. I mean, a neighborhood board proceeding for the most part. And so there's no opportunity for due process to be met in those proceedings.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead. So I just wanted to clarify. You made a statement about it's kind of like a taking without due process. When I read this bill, I thought it would allow greater opportunities for the landowners who are now considered part of the urban.

Because I don't know why I always think of, if it's part of an urban zone now, suddenly the value goes up because now instead of just, you know, raising chickens, now you can build housing. That's what I thought.

Well, that is correct, Representative. There's an increase in value, but there's also an increase in tax liability. And that we've actually had this happen with us a few times where we had concerns raised by landowners who maybe have had land in their families for generations, never built anything on it, don't want to build anything on it.

There's a house on it. They might vacation on it once a year. And if it was moved into urban, they couldn't afford the property taxes. They can pay the agricultural taxes, but they might not be able to afford the urban taxes. There's concerns there about the change in the valuation, which is what due process is all about.

If you're going to change it so I have to pay more money, I need to have the ability to contest that.

But I think the argument would be that if you do develop it, because I think some of the concerns are for some communities is that there isn't enough housing, affordable housing, for instance. So these urban areas are trapped by non urban areas in a way. And so there's nowhere for them to build out.

And so if those lands, if everyone's like, no, I refuse to build, could the county. Well, that's another question. Could the county take the land through eminent domain? Just saying. This is a General plan we have.

Eminent domain is a complicated process and there are constitutional issues associated with eminent domain name. There has to be some nexus between a legitimate government interest and the reasons for. Okay. Property. Thank you. I'm not sure just growth is. I, I wouldn't defer to the.

Moving on. Sorry, Representative.

Attorney General, please. Your testimony is absent of reference to Town and Kapaa High. Is there a reason why you folks did not look at those issues?

I think that our general concerns about due process and notice, though it didn't cite the litany of case law that because Town is the case from 2000 or in the 90s, I think the last public notice, an opportunity to be heard case probably was in the late 2020 or the late 2000 and tens or the early 2000 and twenties.

So we didn't provide that litany of case law. But I think that our, our testimony about those two elements are being necessary or there.

And I think we would defer to the LUC on any Kapaa Kai analysis because we didn't see those, we didn't see those concerns present in this bill because this bill mainly concerns the efforts of or the LUC's ability to grant the county powers without being, without affording landowners that opportunity to be heard and to provide notice to those owners.

Okay, so then a general amendment based upon that comment would be. You're actually asking for two amendments, both the IAL amendment, but then also a very clear specification requiring a public hearing process and notice. Correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. See? No more questions. We're moving on. Next up we have HB 2103 relating to land Use Commission. First up, we have DLNR support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Katie Roth with the Commission on Water Resource Management. We stand on our testimony and support.

Next we have OHA support.

Yes, I would invite questions. This is an OHA package bill. So if there's anything to clarify. I'd be happy to do so. And we believe these are modest amendments that we're requesting, but would address some of the water issues that have come up in a number of other bills this year.

Okay, thank you. Next up we have Van Fisher. Okay. Sorry.

Is easier to say. And we stand on our testimony and strong support of this measure. Thank you.

I apologize for butchering your. I apologize in advance to everybody when I butcher your name. It's not intentional. Okay, next up we have. We'll do Sierra Club on Zoom.

Sierra Club Hawaii will stand in our testimony and strong support of this measure. Thank you very much.

Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to testify on this? See, none. Are there nobody else on Zoom Members? Are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Can I ask you see a question? How does the current LEC setup consider water and OHA concerns?

There are two ways in which we consider water and OHA concerns, mainly through the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development who is tasked with talking with all the other agencies with regard to their concerns. And that information is taken into consideration in the decision making process. The water issues are extremely complicated.

Sustainable yields and things like that are often highly contested. And we don't have the expertise as staff. So we rely on the commissioners to understand what is being testified to. And often the hydrology and all the rest is very complicated. So we don't have did submit testimony, but once again, I don't know, got lost in the ether.

I mean, we just welcome any expertise on anything on the land Use commission because we get such complicated things coming. In front of us.

So. I'm sorry, follow up question. Go ahead. So do you see a benefit for this proposal to add to slots that are expertise in their respective areas?

Yes, I do. One of the things that, I mean, I can give you examples of other areas of expertise that we've had on the commission. Coincidentally, engineers are very valuable because they understand the principles involved with infrastructure. Attorneys are valuable because they understand the contested case hearing process.

We have had water experts on the commission and they've been very valuable because they understand the complexities of hydrology and. All of the rest. Any expertise that is associated with land use is welcomed on the commission.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

There's any other question? I have a question for Oah. So the way I read this is there's two things. You want a water Member and you want to point through your OHA process. The Hawaiian. The Hawaiian. How do I say this? Traditional Hawaiian land usage and knowledge of the Cultural land practices.

Correct. So the water expert seat, there's currently no designation for any Member to have that expertise. So that would be one. And then the second, there's already the traditional Land Use management expert. But we're asking that we provide the nominees to the Governor, much like we do for the Island Burial councils.

Okay. Thank you. Simple question. No other questions. Seeing none, we're moving on. Next up, we have HB 2424 relating to land use I need to catch up with. First up, we have Office of Planning. Comments, Chair. Next, we have Department of AG in person comments.

Aloha, Chair. Members of the Committee, Cedric Gates here. On behalf of DAB. DAB stands on its written testimony offering comments and amendments to this measure. We're here for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you, Attorney General.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, the Department offers three major comments for clarification and reducing risk. First is the comment that I've mentioned in my two previous measures about the IAL. So to avoid any statutory or constitutional conflicts, we would also recommend an amendment that would exclusive.

That would exclude lands that are designated as IAL from this process. We also have a concern about the due process requirement in this bill. So the bill currently requires counties to provide required due process, but it's unclear whether what or what additional procedures are intended beyond notice and the public comment already specified.

So we would like some greater specificity so that there is consistent implementation. And finally, the bill talks about OPSD's role to appear at both the county and the state levels. While OPSD's role is very clear at the state level, it's not very clear what it would do at the county.

So we would recommend some clarity on OPSD's role. I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Hey, that's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there any. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Nobody else on Zoom Members. Are there any questions? Seeing none?

Wait, I'm sorry. Is Sierra Club not on zoom? Not here.

Okay.

I have a question.

Sure.

Maybe for the AG. Can you expound on what the rural designation is, what the rural district designation is, and what kind of protections it might have that jeopardize IALs or lack of protections that we have? Because this bill is calling for designation to rural, right?

Yeah. So it would. It allows the county to reclassify those lands within AG to. To rural. And so because of those, AG lands may be. Wait. Sorry. Sorry, Chair. I mean, I'm sorry. Member Bellatti. I want to make Sure. I answer your question. So the question is whether is why this IAL language is needed.

So the, the reason why is because it's not clear that these ag lands that would be transferred to rural are whether they're AG land, IAL lands or just regular ag lands.

So we want to make sure that to protect those AG lands, we would say that it's protected from that process and that it meets the requirements in both constitution and statute. With that two thirds vote.

Okay. I guess moving forward, the rural designation and it's not explaining it into the testimony would far allow far greater development that might threaten agricultural lands. And that's the concern. That's. That's okay. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. There's any other questions seen? None. We are moving on. Next up we have HB 1650 relating to environmental assessments. First up we have Office of Planning comments or supports thinking.

Good morning, Chair Members. Tom Eisen with the Environmental Review Program of the Office of Planning Sustainable Development.

Thank you. Next up we have, I think that's about it. Anybody on Zoom? Nobody else? We have nobody else on Zoom. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? I have a question. Office Supply. So reading the testimony, one concern came up. This is the Waikiki, right? Yes.

So one concern came up that if it's along, like if it's along the shoreline, that it doesn't. Taking this out will be a concern. But from my understanding, anything that's along Waikiki shoreline is already triggered for a 343 review by an SMA. Right. So. So if it's an SMA, it doesn't take out anything in Waikiki.

Yeah. The county has their own requirement for SMA permits to go through an environmental review process. SMA is not a 343 trigger. But city and county requires applicants for major SMA permits to go through process and we support them in that.

Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you, Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. Most of the land. Is most of the land that this bill covers, is it technically in a coastal flood area?

It's the Waikiki Special District, which more or less what we know of as between.

Ala Wai and the ocean.

Yeah. It's heavily urbanized and I think the notion was most land that goes through 343. Most of the triggers are for land to still have some, I don't know, naturalness, but with the cultural resources and all there. Some. Yeah, there could be some issues okay. There.

But it's, I guess city and county could require environmental review on their own. But.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair. I have a question. My understanding is county already requires a EA and. And. But the state also requires another ea. So this, this bill is trying to remove some duplicity and streamline the process. So are there things in the state EA that is above and beyond the county CA that is valuable?

They're the same processor. It's not duplicative. One process, one EA to satisfy either their needs or 343 needs. So there's no two EA processes for the one project.

Follow up question, Chair. So I also read that this bill is reinstating EA requirements for historic sites. So is it the current situation that historic sites don't have to do EA?

No, the current situation is historic sites identified on the state list or the federal list are they do trigger 343. The first draft, the first iteration of this bill removed both the historic site and the Waikiki Special district. This House draft one essentially reinstates the historic sites trigger or doesn't remove it, doesn't propose removing it.

So it's in there now and House draft one keeps it in there now because if it wasn't for this bill, it would be taken out. Is that what you're saying?

No, if it wasn't for this bill, it would stay in the first draft. The original 1650 proposed taking it out. House draft one deletes that taking it out. So it keeps it in as it is now.

Okay. All right. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you, Chair.

Representative Bellatti.

I'm sorry sir. You're with what group?

The office formerly known as OAQC. The Environmental Review Program.

Okay. Okay. So I think you're the right person. I've always understood the EA EIS process to be one where you have to clear the EA first in order to get the EIS. So by removing the Special District of Waikiki from the EA process, does it then eliminate it from all of the EIS process?

Well, so a project can go direct to EIS. It doesn't have to go through EA first then EIS. But this bill would propose removing any requirement for any 343 treatment for project.

So even the EIS, it's actually eliminating the EIS for Waikiki Special District. So that all the, all the residents who've been upset about and I. Look, there's all kinds of people upset about the Alawai. Basically, they would not have had a voice if this bill is enacted.

Well, there's other triggers. State lands, state funds, county lands. County funds are still triggers. So a whole lot of public projects would still trigger 343.

But, but say something in Waikiki that didn't have state lands but would have been triggered under this is now going to be swept out.

Correct.

Okay.

So unless for some reason the city, county chooses to create their own requirement to go through the process.

Okay. All right, thank you.

If there's an environmental trigger, it will still trigger. Right. Just because it's in Wankie Key, it doesn't trigger. I should say clarify that.

Right? Yeah. The. If the trigger, if the only trigger is because it's in the initial, that will go away. But all the other triggers stand. Right.

So all the other environmental triggers that would. Environmental reasons that would trigger a 343 still exist. It doesn't mean that it's exempt from 343. It's just saying that just because it's in Waikiki, it's not a trigger anymore. If any of the other trigger. Is that correct? Okay, I think you should clarify that.

Can I ask another question then? A private property, like a hotel that wants to do something that could be swept out of it now. So like if they wanted to build a seawall now, there might be other triggers, but potentially the building of a seawall by a private entity could be.

That's an environment. The use of the. Within the shoreline setback area is. Is a trigger.

Okay, what about some kind of. If they're far enough away from the setback, but within.

Yeah. I'm not sure where the SMA boundary is because SMA is a trigger for the city and county, but in theory there could be some islands that are outside of the shoreline setback area. Outside of, Outside of any other trigger. Yeah. And they would not go through.

But the fact that the language is in the statute at some point means that some Legislature thought that there were pressures in Waikiki that deserved the trigger to begin with. Correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, it's in the. If you read the testimony. It's in the testimony. It says when it was put in. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Next up, we're moving on. And next up is HB 36376 relating to cesspool. First up, we have Department of Health here, University of Hawaii. Not here.

Support. City, Hawaii County. Realtors. I don't see the realtors here. Oh, there you are, hiding in the back.

Standing on our comments.

Comments brief. Hawaii Reef Ocean Coalition. Oh, anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members?

Oh, right, Chair. Members of the Committee, Nahilani Parsons, here on behalf of Hawaii State association of Counties. Forgive me, I don't see the testimony online. So I'll check where it's at and make sure your Committee has a copy of it. But we're in support of this measure. Oh, yes. Sorry. Sorry.

Mature.

Okay.

Members, are they that. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody else on zoom. Members, are there any questions? Now you can go. Yes, thank you.

For the county person. So this previous. This Bill previously had money allocated. So the counties or your positions at the counties support this Bill without the funding?

Yeah, I think the way the Bill addresses some of the nuances that like addressing if people have financial hardships, they might need to delay. Or there's certain, like topography. If the soil's not right, then there might. It just, it makes it a little more appropriate to all the different people that will be, this will be relevant to.

So in that regard. Yes, still supportive. Thank you. Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we're moving on. Next up we have HB 2599 relating to aquatic protections. First up we have CLNR support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Nielsen, Administrator of Division of Aquatic Resources. We stand on support of this.

Next we have is Mike Lakachi. No. Anybody? Nobody on zoom. So that's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. We have 1015 testimonies and support. Members, are there any questions to DLNR. Representative Shimizu, DLNR.

Thank you, Chair. This Bill says you can extend or provide a five year extension granted for financial hardship. How would that be determined?

Guessing we would submit budget requests related. Related to this Bill if it were to pass in terms of appropriations for, you know, whatever type of capacity needs were needed to implement this. That's my guess. I'm sorry, say again? My guess. We didn't. We didn't, you know, submit this Bill.

But my guess would be submitting budget. Requests as part of the legislative budget process.

We passed. 376 or I'm sorry, that's. Oh, other stuff. 376, Mike. Excuse. Sorry about that, Chair.

Request to go back denied. This is not like floor session. Sorry. What do you want to ask though? Seriously?

I just actually I wanted to ask how many numbers are there for level one and two. Oh, what are we considering?

Oh, I know where you ask, why Realtors? You have it in your testimony. Okay, thank you. Is this relating. We're going back to cesspool. You know what? It's in the testimony. Okay, thank you. I'll point it out later. Very, very gracious of you. Thank you. Request denied. Sorry, I got overruled by the Vice Chair.

Sorry about that, chair.

No problem. Okay. Seeing no more questions. We're moving on. Next up is HB 1861 relating to counties. First up, we have Department of City and county of Honolulu. Okay. Are you here? No, Epp is not here. Is there anybody. Is there anybody here wishing to testify? See None. Anybody on Zoom? See none.

Members, any questions to nobody? Seeing none. Jesus. Okay. They should be here to defend their Bill. Don't pass it. Okay, we will recess.

What?

Okay, thank you very much. We're reconvening our Committee on water and land. First up we have HB 1881 relating to land use. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD one. Before I start, if I forget all the bills will be deferred to 7-1-3000. They will all have technical amendments.

So in the event that I forget to mention that. Anyways, going back to HB 1881 relating to land use, Chair's recommendation is to add or to ban commercial funiculars rather than just funiculars. We take Representative Iwamoto's comments and we'll add that to the Bill. Any comments or concerns see none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, we're voting on HB 1881 recommendation to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Rep Belatti. Aye. Rep Ichiyama. Aye. Rep Iwamoto. Aye. Rep Poepoe. Aye. Rep Woodson. Aye. Rep Shimizu. Aye. Rep Souza. Aye.

Okay, thank you very much Members. Next up we have HB 2218 relating to DLNR. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD one. We're going to add a five year review. We're going to take outdoor circles amendments and make a five year review under DLNR.

And in the Committee report we'll put in for the Next Committee to see what happens. To look into the issue of two competing organizations wish to do the same thing. Is that correct? Do I get a yes vote now?

Yes.

You always had a yes vote.

Oh thank you.

Extra yes.

Well bold your check mark. I think. Yes, that's it. Effective 7-1-3000. Any concerns or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB2218 recommendation to pass with amendments noting all Members present. Are there any reservations? Any nos? Recommendation adopted.

Okay, next up is HB 1956 relating to fresh fresh waterways. The Chair's recommendation is to defer this for now. I will work with the introducer to look over the AG's comments and we may bring this back maybe next week, Tuesday, or after. So this is the firm. Next up HB 2151 relating to building materials.

The Chair's recommendation is to pass this up with an HD1 within HMSL pointed out that we don't need section 107 so I'm going to delete that. I guess that's a tech amendment. And defect date to 7-1-3000. Any comments or concerns?

Yes. Chair. Yes, thank you. I really, I had questions but there were no testifiers for me to question. I'm concerned. One of the concerns I have is that I couldn't imagine counties regulating just concrete in General. And to exempt hemp crete.

I support hemp crete, but I think that to just deny any kind of regulations around something that has hemp in it where other materials might be regulated is a little bit strange. So I'm going to be voting with reservations.

I understand. Yes.

Any other questions? Concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Good.

Okay. We're voting on HB 2151 recommendation to pass with amendments noting the, all Members present reservations by Rep. Iwamoto. Any other reservations? Any other notes? Seeing none. Your recommendation adopted.

Okay, next up, we have HB 1845 relating to land use. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD one. We're going to clarify that the LUC will still need five members to get quorum. And we will exempt out.

We'll take the AG's amendments stating a AIL will not be a part of this process because you still need a 2/3 vote. And adding language to Section 2051a that the LUC, well, the LUC still needs five Members to get quorum. I just said that. And defect 8 to 7/1/3000. Sorry, I said that last section twice.

Any questions or concerns? Representative Shimizu?

Chair, I support this, this bill. But there's so many negative testimonies. I'm going to be voting with reservations and take it up in JJ where we can vet it thoroughly. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Same comment.

Okay, thank you.

Similar comment. But just that I appreciate the amendments and looking forward to seeing the J on a new draft.

Thank you. Same question.

Same comment.

Oh, yeah, right. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, we're voting on HB 1845 recommendation to pass with amendments. All Members present. noting reservations by Rep. Belatti, Iwamoto, Poepoe, and Shimizu. Are there under any other reservations or no. Seeing none. Your recommendation's adopted.

Okay, next up, we have HB 1844. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD 1. I'm going to take the Chair's amendment and exclude out a AIL. So and this instead of making an expedited process, I will make the process. So the city will apply to the Land Use Commission.

And they still have to go through the regular process. But they could be the applicant to change the Land Use Commission boundaries based upon their general plan. But they don't get an expedited process. Oh, and the LUC shall use the data from the public hearing in the city.

So in other words, if the city does an EIS or other studies, they can use that in the LUC's process. They don't have to redo it again. Any comments or concerns. Seeing, none. No. Sorry, I missed.

Sorry, Chair, I'm just clarifying that. This is not. You're not requiring the Land Use Commission to automatically, you're not mandating them to reclassify.

Correct. They still have to go through their regular process.

Okay, thank you. With that, I'll be voting with reservations instead of no.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair, for your thoughtfulness. You moved me from a quick reservation to yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Della, are you a yes?

I am a yes. Thank you for your amendments.

Okay, good. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1844 recommendation to pass with amendments. All Members present. Reservations by Rep. Iwamoto. Any other reservations, any nos? Recommendation adopted.

Okay, thank you, Members. Next up we have HB 2103 relating to land use. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with a HD1. I'm going to defect date to 7-1-3000. I wanted to make changes, but I don't think I have enough time now.

So Judiciary, it's going to go to Judiciary so they can review the Bill even more. But I want the conversation to continue. So that's it. Members, any comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2103 to pass with amendments. All Members present any reservations.

Reservations.

Shimizu, any nos? Recommendation adopted.

Okay, next up, we have HB 2424 relating to land use. Chair's recommendation is to defer this for now or work with the. Work with the introducer to figure out the issues on that Bill. Next up, we have 1650 relating to environmental assessments. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out as is. It's already defect dated to 7-1-3000.

Any comments or concerns? Representative Iwamoto?

Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to express my concerns with this Bill. I. You know, this is, in a, as I expressed earlier during questioning, I. This is a coastal flooding area that will be. And I think any development needs to be suspect or very.

A lot of attention needs to be put on to any kind of development that's going to be happening in this area. So I'm going to be voting no. Okay.

Representative Shizu

Chair, I. I like the, the positives of this Bill. It is a serious concern, but I believe it should move forward. So I'll be voting yes with reservations.

Thank you, Representative Belatti.

I'm going to vote with reservations. It really concerns me that typically with these types of bills we should have a JHA referral and there is none. And so that's what what concerns me. And we'll see what can do.

Okay, I'll vote with reservations as well. Thank you. Okay, Members, any other questions? Seeing none.

Okay, we're voting on HB 1650 recommendation to pass with amendments. Noting reservations by Rep. Belatti, Shimizu and Souza and no by Iwamoto. I'm sorry. As is HB 1650 to pass unamended, as is. Reservations by Belatti, Shimizu, Sousa. Any other reservations? Any nos. No. Yes. I'm sorry. Recommendation.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have HB376. HD1.

Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD2 defect date to 7-1-3000 and add for the Department of Health to prepare and submit to the Legislature an inventory of every remaining cesspool in the State as of January 1st, January 1st, 2045 including the cesspools granted exemptions by the Director of Health pursuant to the subsection B recommending whether or not any whether or not and by what date the cesspool should be upgraded or convert a 11 upgraded or converted to a Director approved wastewater treatment system or two connected to a sewage system.

Any comments or concerns? If you want to see the detailed language, I have it here. See none. Members Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 376 recommendation to pass with amendments. All Members present. Are there any reservations? Any no. Recommendation adopted.

Okay, next up we have HB 2599 relating to aquatic protection. Chair's recommendation is to just pass this out with an HD1 effect date to 7-1-3000 and that's it. Comments? Concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2599 recommendation pass with amendments. All Members present any reservations? Any nos. Seeing none. Recommendation adopted.

Okay, next up we have HB 1861. The chair's recommendation is to pass yourself with an HD1 defect date 7-1-3000. I'm gonna. I recommend that we take the grassroots initiatives amendments so that way the city has to, if there's excess funds, the city has to give it to the landing. And I think this conversation should continue.

This is the city one, right? Yeah, I know we all had a lot of questions and nobody was here to answer them. But hopefully and JHA they will be there. And Della, you're in JHA as well as Richie.

So the Committee has subpoena powers. You can subpoena them just like a lot of things.

Play. Play.

Chair.

So can we. We did it last. Well, you threatened to do it last year. Office of Planning showed up, Right?

Are you daring me?

Okay. Yes. No, I'm just joking. For the record, that's just a joke. Anyways, Vice chair for the vote. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Unless you're voting yes.

So if I'm voting no, then. Comments?

I'll skip over you. Okay. No, go ahead.

No, I'm just. I know my concern is non judicial foreclosures. Just as a, as a concept, it's, it's, you know, it lacks the kind of. It lacks to process.

Shimizu. Yep. Chair. Yeah. I have serious concerns about this. I'll be voting no. Okay.

Any comments, any other comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB 1861 recommendation pass with amendments noting the no. Are there any other nos? No. Okay. Are there any reservations? Poepoe. Any other reservations? Any recommendation?

Thank you very much, Members. I believe we are adjourned.

We have an SA.