Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Good afternoon. It's 1:03pm welcome to the joint hearing of the committees on Housing and Water, Land, Culture and the Arts. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. In the unlikely event that we have to end this hearing due to technical difficulties, Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 1pm Thursday, Feb. 17 in Room 225.

This room and a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website. We have a one minute per time per testifier time limit. This meeting just has one agenda. The 1 pm agenda. Joint agenda between the committees on Housing and Waterland, Culture and the Arts.

I'd like to welcome our vice chair, Senator Hashimoto and Committee Members, Senators Rhoads and Elefante, as well as Chair Lee from the Committee on Water and Land. Any those members here?

Not yet.

Okay. Well, our first measure today is Senate Bill 2068 relating to affordable housing, which establishes the Affordable Housing Land Inventory Task Force within the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development to conduct a study subject to legislative appropriation on how to maximize housing development in Transit Oriented Development zones or other areas on state and county lands.

Requires a report to the Legislature and appropriates funds. Our first testifier is HHFTC with comments.

Mr. Chair and Member, HHFTC stands on its testimony and offering comments.

Thank you. Our second testifier is HPHA in support.

HPHA stands on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. Followed by HCDA with comments.

Craig Nakamoto, stand on our written testimony and comments.

Thank you. OPSD with comments.

Stand on our written testimony.

Housing Hawaii's future in support. Thank you. AARP Hawaii in support. Jacob Wenchek in support. Johnny May, El Perry in support. Sarah Lenzer Medeiros with comments. And Rebecca Cowe in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2068, if not Members? Any questions? It sure does have a question for OPSD.

Chairs. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. So you mentioned in your testimony that you are leading this internal working group. Will it produce a list of priority parcels for redevelopment? How many units listing how many units to be built at each and when?

We are working on a list. And as you know, OPSD is also one of the co chairs of the TOD Council. So they have a list of projects that we want to move forward in the TOD areas. My understanding of the Bill also expands it into other areas as well.

Right, neighbor islands, and also other state and county lands. Those we have. We need to get the list from these other areas that have their own list. The Governor's office has a list of pipeline projects, et cetera. So we need to take a look at that and come up with a comprehensive list, if you will.

Kai, that is ongoing. I can't tell you how many units on there and I can't give you a time frame at this time.

How much money would you need to complete?

If we were to look at this Bill in 2060?

Well, be more specific. To produce a list of parcels that would produce enough housing capacity for the entire State for 100 more years.

For 100 more years. I would say that effort, if I were to look at a position and possibly some contractual services, the ballpark I can give you now is 250,000.

Thank you. Members, any further questions? If not, thank you very much. Our next Bill is Senate Bill 2227, relating to rental assistance. Requires HPHA to award monthly rent supplement payments on behalf of qualified tenants under the State Rent Supplement Program, prioritizing certain tenants, including Kupuna.

Authorizes HPHA to enter into memoranda of agreement for rent supplement payments with the counties or specialized nonprofit organizations. Amends provisions relating to the State Rent Supplement Program. Establishes the State Rent Supplement Program Special Fund.

Requires DLNR to assess a transaction fee for each applicable recording in the office of the Assistant Registrar of the Land Court or the Bureau of Conveyances to deposit to be deposited into the State Rent Supplement Program Special Fund and repeals the existing separate State Rent Supplement Program for Kapuna. Our first testifier is HPHA in support.

Thank you. Department of the Attorney General with comments.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Chase Suzumoto. We provided our written comments on Senate Bill 2227. In our testimony, specifically, we recommend amending the Bill to properly describe the transaction fee as a tax. I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Policy Advisory Board on Elderly Affairs with comments. Aloha United Way in support. John A.H. Tomoso in support. Johnny May L. Perry and Veronica Moore in support. And Rebecca Coway in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2227? Okay. If not, Members, any questions?

Just one. HCDA. 2061.

Oh.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Not there yet. Well, speaking of which, why don't we.

My mistake.

Why don't we.

Ahead of myself.

Yeah, we'll hand it over to you to get to that very Bill.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Let's move on to Senate Bill 2061, relating to residential condominiums, which clarifies the 99 year leasehold program to require at least 60% of the residential condominium units within urban redevelopment sites to be set aside for owner occupied residential uses. And makes a number of other amendments related to this project. So up first testifying on 2061 is HCDA. All right, got my timing right now.

Now it's my turn. So Chair, Vice Chair, Vice Chair. Regarding my testimony, it's submitted. I think with this amendment what we're trying to do is kind of balance the and maintain some of the owner occupant requirements that were in Act 97, but at the same time remove those restrictions that we thought were that could inhibit the sale of units in this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Signed up next to testify on 2061 is Ko Laila LLC in person. Oh, good afternoon.

I'm project manager for Ko Laila LLC, and I have to look at my statement. Sorry. Yeah. My name is Henry Chang, and I'm in support of SB 2061. The bill provides important amendments to Act 97, the 99 year leasehold program enacted to promote creation of affordable housing. HCDA and our team have assessed the feasibility of a demonstration project and believe these amended development criteria will support the success of the project.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify on SB2 061. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Oh, please come forward. Good afternoon.

Thank you, Senators. My name is William Yuen. I'm also testifying on behalf of Ko Laila LLC. As their attorney, I am testifying in support of SB 2061. I believe the proposed amendments are necessary to keep the demonstration project both affordable and attractive to Hawaii residents while assuring its financial feasibility.

I'm also suggesting that one of the proposed amendments be further amended. The amendment to Section 206E-283A be amended to make it clear that the restriction on owner occupant residential use is also applicable to the affordable price units that are priced for households with an income of up to 140% of the area median income. I submitted the written testimony late, and I'm not sure if it got in or I have one copy I can give to someone.

We'll make sure it's added to the record.

Yeah. Can I give this?

Staff will collect that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else wishing to testify in 2061? Seeing none. Are there any questions?

I have a question for Ko Laila. For Ko Laila.

Yes.

Well, thank you for being here.

Thank you.

If this Bill does get passed, would the project move forward?

We have to go through construction documents and final pricing, and we are hopeful that it will. There are indications that other commercial projects that are subject to the same kind of construction pricing that we're subject to are close to being able to proceed. And so, that gives us some confidence that we will be able to proceed.

But we just need to get through the process and, you know, avoid any strange market bullets that may come past us, because that's happened in the past. But generally, we're, we're intending to go full blast at it and make the project happen.

Is there anything else that you would be asking the Legislature for to change this to a green light?

Not that I'm looking for. At this point in time, I think we probably have adequate support, based on this amendment, to proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. Further questions?

Yes, for the developer. In your—in the testimony from HCDA, it mentioned about you folks completing market studies. Have you done market studies regarding parking?

We have not conducted a specific market study regarding parking, but our experience is that so long as you have standard stalls, say two parking stalls for two bedroom units and larger, and one parking stall for one bed, one bedroom units, basically, that tends to satisfy buyers so long as they don't have to deal with tandem stalls, which we expect in our past project.

So, the intention is to look at developing parking stalls for your—some of your units?

Yeah. The price program intends—I believe I've got this right—intends on the parking stalls being owned by HCDA.

Sorry, Senator Elefante, let me elaborate on what Mr. Chang said. So, as we're contemplating the project right now, the parking stalls will be.

Sorry, I can't hear you quite well.

Director Nakamoto, if you could speak into the mic, please. Thank you.

Sorry. Just to elaborate on what Mr. Chang said, right now, the plans for the parking or is the parking stalls will be sort of unbundled from the unit. So, people will be able to either lease a parking stall or not lease a parking stall. The parking garage, with the $15 million equity that we're putting into the project, will be, in essence, to purchase the parking garage, which, purchase the parking garage and the commercial spaces and to, I think, the project's initial parameters, we were hoping that the revenues from the parking garage and the commercial will kind of seed future projects like this.

If we can replicate it, the revenues from the parking garage will seed other projects. Okay.

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Chairs.

Then, I have a question. So, that means that if the condominium becomes available for purchase, then the option for the purchaser is out there, whether you want to pay for parking or because you're saying you're going to charge the parking lot. It doesn't come with a development.

So, Senator, just to clarify, this will be a 99-year leasehold for sale product. So, it'll be all for sale. 60% of the units will be made available for buyers with an income of 140% AMI or lower. 40% will be market. So, they'll all be for sale.

The parking though will not come with be attached to the units like they are in some other projects. They'll be unbundled. So, if you.

Why?

Well, we just kind of, it keeps the cost of the unit as low as possible and you know, in a project like this where margins are tight, we want to, want to try our best to keep the cost low. And when you have parking that goes with it, it just increased the whole overall cost of a unit.

So, you know, the developer and HCDA work together to say let's just unbundle the parking. If you want it, you can buy it or lease it. If you don't want it, you don't have to lease it. But it's all, both parking leases are going to be coterminous. Right? You have 99-year parking leases. 99-year apartment unit.

Apartment leases. Did I answer your question or?

Not really.

Okay, don't tell me...

Well, you're saying, okay, you're, you're going to build a parking garage.

Yes.

Okay. A purchaser will be able to buy their condo but you're giving them an option whether they want to buy a parking stall.

That is correct.

Or both, if it's a two-bedroom, three-bedroom, whatever. So, so, with that said, you may have parking empty, empty stalls, if people don't buy the parking.

Lease of parking. Not buy, lease it. Yeah. So, you're right, you could, you can buy a unit but not by parking or lease parking or you can buy a unit and lease parking.

And didn't we just pass a measure, a bill, that we're telling people that we're not allowing them to park on the city roads just recently. So, that means that they're going to end up in—yeah, in TOD areas. Is this project in TOD areas?

It's going to be, it's going to be.

It will be, right, because aren't we trying to address the home occupied for certain income?

But I think, I think it gives—like the parking situation gives people the option to lease or not. And if they don't want a car, they don't want, they don't want to drive and they don't have to lease a unit, a parking stall.

Okay.

Well, I want to comment for the Ward Jack in the Box location, there's really nowhere for anybody to park on the street. So, really, I think—most people, they want a place to put their car. So, most people will rent.

Yeah.

I agree.

Okay, interesting. All right. Now, also, if this is a lease project, didn't we also say that if they want to purchase.

What do you mean? I'm sorry.

Purchase—there was something, was it in your testimony with regards to purchasing the unit, purchasing the land area. But this is leasehold, right?

No, I don't. If that was in testimony that I—that's not correct. This is going to be.

That's part of the, I guess the clarification of the measure.

It's gonna, it's gonna be a leasehold, 99 year lease.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Senator Rhoads.

Oh, thanks. I'm just curious, so, when you do build a parking stall for somebody in a, in a condo tower like that, how much extra does the—do you charge for, I'm sorry, this isn't exactly the situation you're talking about.

If you, if you are buying the park, the condo and the parking stall, buying them both, not leasing the second one, how much extra does it, does that to the—does the park, one parking stall, add to the price?

Well, we, we don't have a program to sell the parking spaces because the parking space will be owned by HCDA and an income stream for HCDA.

Okay, well, let me ask the more specific question then. So, when you're building the parking structure, how much does each unit cost, each parking unit cost?

And maybe Henry can add to this, but when I, when, I've heard that in order to—the per stall cost to build a parking stall, I think it's but a 100,000 per stall, is that?

I think I'd have to, I'd have to.

Yeah, but it's tens of, it's tens of thousands of dollars anyway. So, so, I mean, I guess my question. The other question is why not just let the market decide if the, if the person buying or renting doesn't want to, if they—look, if they really, really want to have a car, then this isn't the place for them. Isn't that a fair?

Right.

They just have to go somewhere else. I mean, plenty of places have parking stalls.

Yeah, if they, I mean if, if the person who is going to enter into this 99 year lease, doesn't want a car, maybe this is the place for them because they don't have to get, you know.

And it'll be cheaper.

It'll be cheaper for them.

Yeah, yeah. And so, but now, but in terms of the 99-year lease—I'm sorry, this is probably in the Bill that I haven't read completely. So, you can sell it at some point, or you can—how does it, because people move up, right?

They—maybe at first you can't afford a place with a parking stall and 10 years from now, you can.

So, one of—so, there is a right of first refusal, Senator Rhoads, that's built in, and the right of first refusal is at a prescribed formula price and it's, I think the term for that right of first refusal to the HCDA is five years, and then there's a process for.

Okay, all right, thank you. Thanks, Chair. Thank you.

And another question since you're up here. Are there plans for you, are you a developer?

My brother is a developer. I'm his project manager.

Okay, so this is project specific then. You already have a developer, correct?

Yeah. Kulaila finished the—all the predevelopment work under Act 97. There was a 1,000,005 that was appropriated for predevelopment work. Mr. Chang and his brother, the developer finished.

Where is the project?

At the corner of Ward and Kapilani. The Jack in a Box site and the old Gallaher Office, law office, where the Obama mural is on the corner of Ward and Kapilani.

So, you're in the heart of actually.

Kakaako.

Kakaako. Okay. All right. Well, as Senator does say that if one is looking for a reasonable priced condominium and it doesn't include parking, they'll just go somewhere else.

If I could say that there's, there will be a—the ratio of parking is approximately one parking space per one bedroom unit and two parking spaces for the availability of two parking spaces for two bedroom or large units.

So, I don't think it's actually been defined in the sales program, but one would think that there could be a first opportunity for unit buyers to exercise their right to rent two parking spaces for the two bedroom and larger units and one parking space before there accrues like an excess of parking space that people could get say three, three parking spaces if they wanted to.

So, if available, they can rent instead of purchasing, are you saying?

Go ahead.

I think there should be adequate parking spaces for everybody who wants parking spaces to be able to rent them.

Is this pretty much what HCDA does or is this the first time that you're actually in control that if they want to buy a parking stall or they won't—but is that part of HCDA's policy in all of the building?

This is not the first time that we've developed a project in Kakaako that has a parking program like this. The Nahona Hale Affordable Rental Project that's on Cook Street has no parking, as an example.

I think we've, in our Mauka area rules, we've revised them to take out the parking minimums, offsite parking minimums, to be consistent with how the city is looking at offsite parking, off street parking. So, it's not the first time we've done, you know, a different kind of view towards parking.

But I think as we said, we wanted to try to keep the cost down to the.

Yeah, I understand that, but it's in Honolulu—well, in Kakaako, the goal was you can live, work, and play within the region, so no need for a car. But it's just, I'm not sure, it's sort of kind of like something we're trying to have people not to park, you know, on off street.

Yeah. And Senator, I think the reality though is we can say that the parking is going to be separately leased and not bundled with the unit. But as you go with marketing and sales for this, the market may tell us that they really want a parking stall.

The reality is I don't know if people are yet willing to give up their parking, I mean, their car, just yet, even in a neighborhood like Kakako. So, only marketing will determine what's going to work and what's not going to work.

Yeah. We could not proceed offering less parking spaces, less than two parking spaces per two bedroom and larger units. That's the absolute minimum.

Okay. Thanks, Chair.

Sure. Other questions?

In terms, because there is sort of a middle ground here too, which is car shares. So, I mean, I've used HUI for years and I don't need a car very often, but some things you really need a car for.

So, if you dedicated like 10 of your units to a HUI car share, that would cover a bunch of people who really don't want to buy a car but feel like they need one sometimes. But have you considered that?

Yeah, actually, we have direct experience with that on UV Lani where we partnered with Servco to put HUI's cars on site. They actually—for 328 units, around half of them are one bedrooms, the rest are two bedrooms. They have enough demand for one car on site, and we were shocked.

We thought people would love in having their Hui cars on site and just using them. But the demand was lower than expected. So, I think what this type of product affords is perhaps the flexibility to expand or share car, a car share, as demand increases.

Yeah, which I think is quite possible, and if you're just leasing them, then that makes perfect sense because then you can just move the leases around. Okay, thanks, Chair.

Other questions? If not, just real quick on this question, how many beyond—so, the number of stalls in the proposed project are equivalent to what you said, one for, basically one per bedroom. Basically, right? Yeah. Is that right?

Yeah, up to two bedrooms and then two bedroom—larger than two bedroom units get two. Two. Right. Shot at two stalls.

And then for HCDA real quick, the $15 million you said, does that cover the full cost of that garage or is it a chunk of it?

It's a chunk of it. A chunk of it.

And where's the rest of the funding come from?

From the other part of the financing and capital stack.

Yeah. The 15 million is not direct construction costs. It's equity to be applied against the construction loan. So, it's, so, the rest of—it's basically part of the equity financed by the full project.

On page six of your testimony, I think the capital stack is all listed there.

Yeah. Have you guys looked at other means of financing for that portion which is the garage and I think you said commercial space, is that right?

We have not. But I think, you know, we considered, as part of the capital stack, like private equity financing. But I think we discussed it.

We're trying to minimize the amount of private equity because it's very costly.

And that's what I was going to say, the cost is too...

I guess, I mean on the state side, we have a number of different funding mechanisms and potential options.

And as to that 15 million in state equity, it's not a subsidy, it's state equity. It is—it was in last year's budget. It's there. We just haven't drawn down on it yet pending this project moving along.

Yeah. And that amount covers, I believe, the state HCD also owning commercial e-commerce space. Commercial space.

What was the full cost of just the parking structure portion?

You know, I'm going to say it was about 40 million or so. That's what I invested.

It sounds about right. We're funding like a third roughly.

Yeah. And we're going to get the profits. I mean we're going to get all the revenues from the parking garage and the commercial space. So, we're, in effect, buying an asset.

Yeah. So, my point, that is, if we funded the entire, that portion of the project, using whatever other mechanisms and so forth, and you guys would be able to decrease the per unit cost by that additional two thirds of that parking structure cost.

I'm not sure of exact math, but ballpark, that's sort of the idea. Well, we'd love to work with you and HCDA's opportunities. Yes, we're looking for that. Whatever we can do to help reduce buyer's costs.

Yeah, maybe we can look at some of that math later. Okay, thank you very much.

Is this leased land state owned?

It is, it is owned by HCDA. We acquired the land.

Was that the Mauka portion?

It is, yeah.

The Mauka side.

It's awarded...so it's Mauka. We did acquire it.

Okay. That's part of the property then. Okay.

Yeah.

No, I'm just saying if you were able to do that and whatever that, that Delta is, let's say for the $15 million, you're, I don't know, whatever you're reducing, how many units is it in total?

370. About 370 something.

Yeah. So, 15 million divided by that many units, right, is theoretically what is being saved by the state coming in for that portion. So, multiply that by three, roughly, and you'd be able to reduce that additional cost per unit by that number. Just generally speaking, back of the napkin, which means.

Well, I guess the question then is, could some of the concessions that the Bill is here for to make the project viable then, such as terms of affordability and so forth, be extended and increase? You have greater affordability and more access for people in the long run by going that route.

Yeah, maybe, first things first, I think we're looking at what we're focusing our efforts on getting.

Yeah. Okay. We'll follow up later.

Yeah, yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, that's a great idea.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, everybody. Let's move on to the next measure on the agenda, SB 3327, relating to HCDA. Which requires HCDA, when planning and developing housing, to plan for complete communities that include various aspects supporting quality of life. On 3327, testifying first is DLNR. Thank you. Up next is HCDA.

Chair, Vice Chair. So we, you know, we had, obviously we had the opportunity to review Senate Bill 3227, and we understand the intent of 3227. So we really offer comments. Some of the, you know, goals and projects that this bill envisions are definitely good projects.

But what we have concerns about is a lot of these things would normally be part of some kind of planning effort. What does the community want? Do they really want these things? And then we would try to implement it, rather than it being implemented or directed by legislation.

Also, with respect to one of the projects that we're working on, a supportive housing project, if we were to implement some of these things, it could end up having resulting in more cost to that project and also some delays. So those are the concerns we have, Senator. But appreciate the intent.

Up next is Housing Hawaii's Future. Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify on SB 3327. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Members, questions?

I have a question for Director Nakamoto.

Good afternoon, Senator Elefante.

Thank you. And thank you, Chair, for allowing me this question. HCDA's current policy now on open space and parking, does that include, does open space or a park on the development project count as your open space park requirement?

So we have an open space requirement for developments. It has to be, I think, unobstructed, you know, space. I don't know if it counts. I'm not sure whether it counts for park space, but it does count as open space on the project. Parking, as I kind of mentioned in an earlier bill, the current Mauka area rules, I think we took away parking minimums for a project. Took away parking.

If you can find out what the current policy is on open space and park. If HCDA does count open space and park requirement to be built on property as part of their park dedication or open space. Or does HCDA look at other means and alternatives, working with the respective county to funnel projects that way in terms of their open space park requirement that way. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Further questions? If not, Director, if you can come back. We had this conversation too many times to let you off that easy.

I was wishing.

Yeah. Thanks. We can follow up on this offline. But you had said basically a minute ago that these sorts of things, community amenities and infrastructure and so forth, ought to be part of the kind of broader planning process a community. Is that right?

It should be. Yeah, it should be.

The way I'm reading the measure, and I quote, whenever the authority determines to undertake causes to be undertaken, planning and development to include in a district or community, to include housing in a district or community, the authority shall endeavor to plan for complete communities that include, to the extent possible, various sundry things in the bill. Is that not the planning process that you're talking about?

That is. But you know, what I'm saying is that some of these things, the community may not want. The community may not want some of these things, and that has to come out in the planning process.

Sure. Can I just ask, when you're planning Kaka'ako at the time, when it was still industrial. Back... Well, not you. Your predecessors, initially...

My way back predecessors.

Right, right, right. How did they know was going to be or what the community wanted when there was no community that was there?

Yeah. I'm not sure what kind of part of the planning process, how they engage with the community. But I know it went, the plan for Mauka went through a lot of iterations over the years, starting from 1982, and then it was amended many times after that.

But I'm sure the looked at generally what things might be in the community, what the community might want, and probably had some outreach to community at some point. Not maybe necessarily people who live in Kaka'ako because there wasn't much of a census tract in Kaka'ako at the time, but maybe outside of the district. And I think that's valid.

And then secondly, in say more modern iteration, where there is someone living in the area, how would they know or be able to comment on something if it's not being put in front of them in some sort of proposed plan that includes different elements that they could weigh in on?

You know, I think many of these elements as part of a planning process could be put in front of them, and they could, as part of, let's say, kind of a visioning exercise, it could be. And kind of come out organically out of that planning process. But I think in legislation, I have a little bit of concerns that it feels too mandated.

So the last piece I'll touch in on specifically is that, I'll go back to that language. That's the actual operative language in the bill. Which is whenever the authority determines to undertake or copy causes to be undertaken, planning and development to include housing in a district or community, the authority shall endeavor to plan for complete communities that include, to the extent appropriate. Meaning none of this stuff is actually mandated. You just have to consider it and try and incorporate what would be appropriate. Is that right?

Aspirational? Aspirational, you mean?

Well, do you read the bill that way?

I don't... I don't... You know, when it's in statute like this, I think I see the word endeavor, but I wonder how that's going to later on turn into something more mandatory and directive.

And then lastly, to some of the comments that say this could... Or specific elements or something, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Could increase the cost of housing?

Could. Yep.

How does that work?

Well, I mean, to the extent some of these things have to be put in by infrastructure for utilities and all that, it could have an impact on housing, on the cost of a particular project if the developer has to do it.

But isn't the intent of this entire measure to absolve developers of having to do that in the first place and use alternative so sources of financing?

But then, you know, where's the, where's the financing going to come from to do it?

Reading through the preamble of the bill, aren't there about six or eight different described paths?

I'm just not... Yeah, I'm just not sure if that's practical.

Are you aware this is best practice in most other places outside of Hawaii?

It may be best practices elsewhere, but it may not be the right practice here.

You know, a year ago, and I thank you for the committee's indulgence on this because we had an extensive set of conversations around these kind of strategies. At the time you said you hadn't talked with a counterpart at a similar agency anywhere else in the rest of the country at that point. Have you since had an opportunity to?

I have not because I think I was looking for the other counterpart agency to talk to. If we're given an agency, a counterpart agency to talk to about this, we're glad to talk to them or visit them.

Okay, thank you very much. Any further questions?

Yes. Well, we talked about where we are today, and I think you were here. I was here during our Cayetano's time when the development for the aquarium, and I think Mary Alice knows this as well. The aquarium was to be built on the Makai side, where the buildings on Makai, that includes the Cancer Research Center.

And the issue at that time was always parking. And the aquarium development did not include parking at that time. And the urge was to move parking on Mauka of the street. And so the need there for parking was always an issue. And I'm looking at the bill right now too, is we're also encouraging commercial spaces, retailing, food trucks, temporary business fronts.

But if we're not going to be building parking anywhere within the area, what's going to happen to the commercial sector if we're going to continue to have the benefit of a developer to come in, spend their money, build something, and try to get their monies back with college commercial centers. But parking is to me, is always going to be an issue in Kaka'ako no matter what.

So Senator, I can speak to Makai. Ever since the JABSOM was built, Cancer Center was built, there was, you know, always a need, now a need for more parking. And so we own lot C in Kakaʻako Makai, where the Entrepreneur Sandbox is. And we're trying to push for funds to build a district parking structure and transit hub on lot C, where the Entrepreneur Sandbox.

Well, that's good. At least someone is providing parking somewhere, you know, close by within the region. But just to share that because then it's, to me, someone wants to purchase the project. A place like the Changs, you know, it kind of makes sense. But we always have to remember that there's going to be need for parking somewhere within the region. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the last measure on the agenda, SB 2423, relating to zoning, which prohibits counties from imposing certain lot requirements and dwelling specifications on process of land located within the urban district. It does a few other things. Testifying first on SB 2423.

Is Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, in person, if not, Housing Hawaii's Future. Thank you, Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. And that is everyone who had signed up to testify on 2423. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none, other questions?

I'm surprised that we don't have counties' inputs on this measure. Did you? Do we have some late testimony from the counties?

I'll just note, there are Council Members who have submitted written testimony on this measure, and the City Department of Planning and Permitting, as well.

Not neighbor islands, though. I only see names. It doesn't say. Sorry.

Yeah. So, for the record, Kauai County Council Member Felicia Cowden testified on this measure, as well as, yeah, City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning, Permitting, and so forth. Okay. If there's no questions for anyone, that is the end of our agenda. Why don't we take a recess?

You want to go ready?

Okay, why don't we. I'll turn it back over to my co-chair.

Okay. So, we're ready to do some decision making. We'll start with the first Bill, Senate Bill 2068. Having conferred, chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure with amendments.

Amendments include requiring a list of parcels to be redeveloped, the number of units to be developed on each, and dates to be developed, sufficient to meet Hawaii's housing needs for the next 100 years. Same. And the Committee report will also note the appropriation request for $250,000. Any discussion, any question? Okay.

So, again, for Senate Bill 2068, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes I.

Members SB 2068. Chairs recommendations passed with amendment. Chair votes I. Vice Chair votes I. Senator Elefante. Aye. Senator Rose Rhodes. Senator Favela is excused. Chair recommendations adopted. Thank you.

Thank you. Committee on Waterland, same recommendation.

Okay. For the Committee on Waterland Culture and the Arts, Chair's recommendation to pass SB2068 with amendments. Charity Aye. Vice chair goes aye. Senator Chang? Aye. Senator Lamosal? Aye. And Senator Decourt? Aye. Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Our next measure is Senate Bill 2227, relating to rental assistance. Having conferred, Chair's recommendation again will be to pass this measure with amendments. We have technical, non-substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency. We'll take the Attorney General's recommendation to describe the fees instead as taxes.

We'll insert a blank appropriation per HPHA to establish four FTE permanent public housing specialist 2 positions and one FTE permanent public housing specialist 4 supervisor position to support the administration of the program. On page three, line seven and 20, we'll double the transaction tax. We'll also defect the date.

And in the committee report, we'll note the request for an appropriation of $284,748 for the four permanent public housing specialist 2 positions and one permanent public housing specialist 4 position. Any questions or discussion? Seeing none. Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2227 is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Members, SB 2227. Chair's recommendation is pass with amendments. With the noting the presence of all Members. Any Members voting with reservations? Any Members voting no? With all others voting aye, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Committee on Water and Land, same recommendation.

Okay. The Chair's recommendation on SB 2227 to pass with amendments. With five Members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Hearing none. Mr. Chair, measure is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to Water, Land, Le Bills. Up next is SB 2061, relating to residential condominiums. This is the 99‑year leasehold program, making various amendments. I'd like to recommend, with the Committee's indulgence, moving this forward with amendments. First, we'll note AARP's comments in the Committee report.

This measure goes on to the Consumer Protection Committee, so we'll flag for them to take a look at the penalties for violations and as AARP noted, secondly, we'll make an amendment again pursuant to ARP's comments to establish rules requiring buyback pricing.

And, for the moment, we'll put in a placeholder and just say, similar to other existing state agency buyback pricing formulas. We'll note this already has a defective date on it, and we'll make tech amendments, and hopefully get this on to the next Committee so that conversation can continue. Any comments, and questions, or discussion? If not, Mrs. Chair.

The Committee on Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts, Chair's recommendation on SB 2061 is to pass with amendments. Any, with five Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. And for the Committee on Housing, same Recommendation, Senate Bill 2061 to pass those amendments. Any discussion or comments? Chair votes Aye.

Members SB 2061 Chairs recommendations to pass with amendment. Chair votes I Any Members voting with reservations? Any Members voting no with all others voting I Recommendations adopted. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to the next measure, SB—where is it—3327, yes, SB 3327, relating to the Hawaii Community Development Authority, which is requiring HCDA to plan for complete communities that include various aspects supporting quality of life, and, similarly, I'd like to recommend moving this forward with amendments, with the Committee's indulgence.

Send this on to the Ways and Means Committee for further discussion. Appreciate the discussion from the Chair and the agency.

I think the intent here is to really take advantage of a lot of the proven best practices employed by just about every other development agency around the country, that can help do some of the things that it's great to see.

I think, in the first conversation, HCDA started to do, looking at, for example, flexible parking and commercial leasing that you had mentioned. But do that from a planning perspective, to be able to take advantage not only of those singular opportunities, but to provide for much bigger potential savings, as we had mentioned.

For example, if HCDA does find innovative financing tools, which you've been empowered with, as well as other things like lease, rent, and stuff, you should be able to finance, without additional cost to taxpayers, additional infrastructure, which can help lower the cost of a lot of these units, as we had seen.

For example, if that parking garage was fully financed that way, then you'd have three times as much theoretical savings that could be applied to the actual units and the project itself. So, it seems there's quite a bit of opportunity there for HCDA to consider.

So, with that, I would just like to move it along with amendments, making change on page five, line 18, and amending that to read, “from which minimum parking minimum requirements for non‑ADA parking stalls shall be prohibited, provided that,” which is basically a technical fix, and then adding in a defective date.

So as this goes on we can get more conversation going.

Chair's recommendation on the SB 3327 for the Committee on Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts, with five Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Okay, measure is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Same recommendation for the Committee on Housing for Senate Bill 3327 to pass with Amendments.

Members. SB 3327, Chair's recommendations passed with amendments. Chair votes I, and Members voting with reservations—reservations from Senator Favela. Any others? Any voting, no? Without others voting I, recommendations are adopted. Thank you.

And then finally moving on to the last measure on the agenda, SB 2423, relating to zoning, which is making a number of amendments to the counties. We'd like to move this forward with amendments addressing some of the concerns raised by DPP and the county and their testimony.

So we'd like to recommend or we'd like to clarify the provisions in section two regarding lot size, first of all, are applying to zoning for housing, so the questions raised about industrial zoning and commercial and other things are not the intended target of this measure.

Secondly, amend the requirements for minimum lot size to 2,500 square feet, which should be fairly simplified for the counties to handle. And so we'll remove the width and depth requirements in B and C accordingly.

We'll also add language that would have the counties permit ADUs up to 1,250 square feet, especially for those families where you have a lot more people in a house. We'll also add in a new subsection E, which is limiting county's ability to restrict solid fences or walls inside or backyards to less than 7.5ft in height.

The intent here is if you're having additional folks build ADUs or other things up to their lot lines, it provides a little more ability for residents to maintain privacy and other things that we've seen some of the neighbor islands do. Finally, we'll remove subsection H, regarding open space in permeable surface requirements, and remove subsection 2, regarding minimum stories and height.

And add in a defective date. And hopefully this simplifies the measure enough that we can move it along for further discussion in the Judiciary Committee, should it be taken up there. So with that, are there any questions or concerns on this measure? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

For the Committee on Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts. Chair's recommendation to pass SB 2423 with amendments. With five Members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Same recommendation for the Committee on Housing for Senate Bill 2423 to pass with amendments. Any discussion or questions? Chair votes aye.

Members, SB 2423. Chair's recommendation is pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Any Members voting with reservations? Any Members voting no? With all others voting aye, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. I believe that takes us out. We're adjourned.