House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Thursday, February 26th, at 2pm here in Conference Room 325. My name is David Tarnas. I am the Chair of the Committee, and we have here Vice Chair Poepoe, and our Member Garner Shimizu. Other Members will be here presently.

If you're testifying by Zoom, or if you're testifying today, because we have a lot of testifiers, we'd like you to limit your testimony to two minutes, and I'll ask you to summarize at that point. We have a new system with microphones in the ceiling here. It picks up all your, everything you say, including whispering to your neighbor.

And so I would ask you to keep that to a minimum, but just come up to the podium, use your regular voice, articulate, and everything should work out fine. If you're on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while you're waiting to testify, and then turn it off again after your testimony.

If you need any IT, any technical support, use the Zoom chat function. If you're disconnected, just rejoin when you can and I'll try to fit you in to finish your testimony.

If the power goes off in the building here and we have to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted image on the background. And please conduct yourself with aloha, as we always try to do here.

Refrain from profanity or any uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. Let's go ahead and get started. First up on the agenda, House Bill 2592, relating to the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority.

This measure clarifies the powers of the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority so that it may carry out its intended duties regarding land use on Mauna Kea. And it has multiple parts. First up, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Lauren Yasaka. I'm the Acting Administrator for the Land Division. We're support, we support the transfer of the rural property interest. However, we do have concerns with the transferring of the conservation district use permits. CDUPs normally run with their land.

They're kind of like a covenant, so they don't change hands from applicant to applicant or permitting to permitting. It runs with the land. So in this bill, it's proposing to move from, UH, straight to the telescopes themselves and observatories, which it goes against kind of what normal practice is. That's kind of their process.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, we are trying something new here. Appreciate that. Next up, Mr. John De Fries, Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority.

Mr. Chair, Madam Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I am John De Fries, Executive Director of the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority. We have submitted our testimony in writing and stand by that testimony and we'll be available for any questions that may follow. Thank you.

Thank you. University of Hawaii. On Zoom. Mr. Chun, please proceed.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, Gregory Chun, University of Hawaii Center for Mauna Kea Stewardship. We have submitted comments related to HB 2592 HD1, which we will stand by and be available to answer any questions. I would like to just highlight a couple of points. Our testimony includes a previous draft or a letter.

November 20th letter from University President Hensel and University Board of Regents Chair Gabe Lee to MKSOA Chair John Komeiji and was copied to the Governor. I encourage you to review that draft letter as it lays out a lot of our concerns.

Regarding the bill itself, House Draft 1, we believe that, as does the DLNR, there are questions as to how the transfer of real property assets can occur without the related obligations and liabilities. We believe that the proper time for the negotiation of the transfer of the CDUPs is at the time that new leases are negotiated with the observatories.

Second thing I'd like to point out is we do encourage the inclusion of meaningful milestones for all parties, including the University, BLNR, and MPH Oil so that the progress, timely progress, can be evaluated fairly as we near the transition date. We believe setting clear and mutually agreed upon milestones will promote transparent decision making and trust building.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you very much. Next. Demont, welcome. Good to see you, sir.

Aloha. De MONT Kalai Manaole, Co-Manager of Ho`omana Pono, LLC, Native Hawaiian corporation operating on the Waianae Coast. Good to see you guys. Okay, so for me personally, this is about access road for us that belongs to Hawaiian Homelands, belongs to the trust beneficiaries as was ruled upon by the Hawaii Supreme Court last year.

And so when I look through this bill, I don't see nothing in there about anything dealing with DHHL property for trust beneficiaries and all these deals going on about Mauna Kea without any mention about DHHL. So what caught my eye was on page 6, line 5 the last paragraph, they talk about on general Lease, 299746 or something.

That general lease, I got them written down. And I was trying to look for where that general lease is at. Who holds the General Lease 4697 and there's nothing that explains General Lease 4697. You have a bunch of general leases in there, but you don't have that. What, what explains that?

So my concern and a lot of our people's concern is that it seems like everything being rammed through without any consideration or mention about our property DHHL, that's on the DHHL management, you know that access rule. And we know like we're not a monarch 3.0, you know what I mean?

So maybe they should make a mention about that, that this has nothing to do with our lands. Because there's gonna come a time when we gonna put forth our ability to assert ourselves on our land and we're gonna have to be able to deal with people that already claiming ownership up there.

So if you can just look at my testimony. You see that I'm asking in my comments that you guys address our lands that's there and the significance of these deals that's going on, whether it pertains to us or not, we need to know so we can take next steps. Aloha.

Thank you very much. Next. Ilihia Gionson.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, distinguished Members of the Committee. Ilihia Gionson from the W.M. Keck Observatory here today on behalf of the Mauna Kea Observatories in strong support of this measure and in strong support of the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority.

This measure helps to add a lot of clarity to what we believe the intent of the authority is. We view the authority as the best shot that we have at building a model of mutual stewardship for Mauna Kea alongside the community and us and the many folks who love Mauna Kea.

I'll be here to answer any questions you may have. You have our written testimony and we stand on that. Mahalo Nui.

Thank you very much. Next. Melinda Healani Sonoda-Pale, on Zoom. Not present. Next. Ohana Unity party on Zoom.

Hello, Chair. It's Pikachu, Shelby Billionaire, back again. I love you guys. I got an appointment at 2:30. I'm not scheduled for this one. I do want to support this bill because I'm actually the only guy who adopted Mauna Kea. All these people you see in that room, they did not adopt Mauna Kea on the highway.

And so I'm still there with the Lions Club, with the Moa MOU, with the county of the Big Island. So they might say Mauna Kea is stewardship, but they're not actually protecting Mauna Kea. I know exactly who's living at the sheep station. It's Elton Manuka and his wife. They've still been there since 2019.

I built a post office up there with Mauna Kea up there. So whatever they're talking about, make sure it's legit. If you can pass this bill, Chair Tarnas. I know you're Akamai, you know, if it's good enough, pass it with technical amendments, clarity and consistency. But we got two more bills similar to this.

If they can't show you guys proof because I clean up the highway by myself, ain't no way coming up there. They're not doing it, so do what you can. Appreciate you all.

Thank you very much. One more try for Melinda Healani Sonoda-Pale. Still not available. Okay, anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2592? Yes. Please introduce yourself and come on up.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, aloha Leinaʻala Ley on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. I have with me today three of our trustees. Trustee Hulu Lindsey, Trustee Brickwood Galuteria, and Trustee Kalei Akaka in the audience. I believe that our comments were not showing in the record.

They might have been submitted late.

They're here.

They were submitted late, but we do have them.

Okay, great. We are generally in support of the intent of this bill to strengthen the structure of the Mauna Kea Oversight Authority which we are fully in support of.

We did flag a concern with language that might have been unintentionally over broad with respect to the rights of beneficiaries to assert claims with regard to the management of the land. And that's at page four to five.

That it appears that it may have been overbroad in the waiver that it's applying as far as all future claims that might be had. Much like the well known Ching v. Case that was brought against Department of Land and Natural Resources to ensure adequate management and oversight of leases at Pōhakuloa.

With the military, we would similarly expect that the statute would not be attempting to waive the right of beneficiaries to bring that nature of claims to protect the crown and government lands that are there.

Okay, thanks. Thanks for pointing that out. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Oh, back again to Melinda Healani Sonoda-Paleon Zoom. Please proceed. We cannot hear you. I'm sorry, we cannot hear you. I'm sorry, we cannot hear you.

Okay. Do we have written testimony? I believe we have written testimony from her. So I urge Members to make sure you have reviewed that. She's apparently having technical difficulties. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, Members?

Question, Chair?

Yes, Rep. Shimizu.

DLNR please. Thank you for testifying. You know, you're in your testimony, you're concerned about the permits. Sorry for my unfamiliarity, but what, what is the adverse outcomes or consequences that, that you guys would be concerned about with these permits being transferred

Historically and across the board, the permits run with the land. There are no instances currently in which the permits run with an individual entity. By practice, it would pretty much kind of overhaul the entire CDUP process and the current permits that we currently hold and that we hold the landowners accountable for.

In our testimony, we tried to make it clear that in their capacity, MKSOA is basically replacing the board and their powers and their duties.

And by doing so, they do have the power within their leases and their subleases to require compliance with the permit conditions and put that burden on the sub lessees or their lessees, similar to how we do now.

So if we went to the board with a lease that was subjected to or subject to a CDUP, we would have conditions within the lease that they are responsible for compliance.

So that's kind of a big thing then, right?

I would like to think so.

Yeah, I guess the way that you guys word your testimony, it's pretty nice how you did it. Ask a question. So if this bill goes through and that happens, you guys are able to work with it because you just said you guys don't have to overhaul your whole system.

I don't know if we're gonna have to over, it's gonna depend on the number of requests that come in. I mean, it's gonna open up basically what I would call a can of worms, right? People are gonna call. People are gonna now try to put liability on the permit holder rather than the landowner themselves.

It's going to change how these permits function and operate.

Yes, Vice Chair.

So correct me if what I'm hearing is right or wrong, that this, in regard to the CDUP permits, it could be precedent setting broadly across all CDUP permits in trying to address this narrow, more narrow, specific issue in the bill.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay. And just so it's clear this measure deals specifically with certain land only?

Correct, it does, but again. Right. The precedence that it gets met.

Yeah. So this is very narrowly focused. Any other questions?

Thank you, Chair.

If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2593 relating to Mauna Kea. This authorizes the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority to extend existing leases and subleases for up to an additional 10 year term.

First up we have Mr. Komeiji, Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority.

Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. We've submitted testimony, we're going to rely on that testimony. But I just wanted to make clear because in reading some of the comments people seem to be still looking at the old bill that was before Waterland.

So the bill that was originally submitted created an automatic 10 year extension. Waterland, the House Waterland Committee clarified it and changed a bill, House Draft 1, which says that we would have the authority, Mauna Kea Authority would have the authority to extend the leases. This bill itself does not extend the leases.

It would have to be a decision by the Mauna Kea Authority. What I wanted to make clear is that if and if we decided to do so, we would do so in a very in terms of extending leases, we'd do it in a very transparent and responsible manner.

Thank you very much. Next, University of Hawaii on Zoom. Mr. Chun.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. University of Hawaii submitted comments which will stand by and be available for questions. I just want to note that we do support the intent of this bill to create a pathway for lease extensions. Particularly given the impending expiration of the University's general lease and the subleases to the observatories.

We do note that it is unclear however when those lease extensions are intended to occur. And that's important detail from our perspective because it, not knowing when the 10 year extension is effective would possibly affect the level of investment and motivation by the observatories to obtain additional outside funding continue their operations.

We also note that we believe there are some legal requirements to extend the leases particularly regarding HRS 17136 and HRS 17195. And finally we do call once again and recommend once again for encouraging the inclusion of meaningful milestones for all parties. Setting clear mutually agreed upon milestones we believe will promote transparent decision making and trust building. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, Ilihia Gionson.

Aloha Hou Kapu Chair, Vice Chair Distinguished Members, on behalf of the Mauna Kea Authority, I, the Mauna Kea Observatories, we stand in support of HB 2593 HD1, that important distinction of HD1 to provide the Mauna Kea Authority, the option, the authority to extend leases up to 10 years, should the authority feel that necessary through a transparent process.

You have our written testimony. I just wanted to emphasize that the Mauna Kea Authority has been going through a very thorough public process with planning workshops across the islands. Sixteen workshops over last year and this year.

And so, and many of our observatory staff members and leadership members have been participating in those, as well as members of the community. And so as that planning process continues, as we get a better idea of what the transition timeline looks like, we'll have a better understanding of what sort of extensions, if any, might be needed at all.

And so, in our view, this bill gives an important tool to the authority to have some flexibility if needed, because paradigm shifts take time. But this is an important paradigm shift for Mauna Kea and for all of Hawaii. Mahalo.

Next. Melinda Healani Sonoda-Pale.

Aloha. Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you. Please proceed.

Okay, great. Mahalo. I'm testifying on behalf of Ka Lahui, Hawaii Hawaii Native Initiative for Sovereignty. We are in full opposition to this measure. The conservation lands have the highest protections. These are conservation lands. This is actually a slap in the face to all the thousands of people who stood on the Mauna. Does this lease extensions allow for contested cases?

Do they? It doesn't matter if you went into the community to tell people about this. It doesn't mean that people gave their consent to this. We've already had many decades of fighting to protect this place, and we need to follow the state laws which is supposed to preserve this place. It has endangered species.

It is the most sacred site. It is. It should have the highest level of protections because it is conservation. Providing extend extensions to leases, they've already had, what, 65 years to take care and to plan ahead. Why are we going to give them 10 more years?

Why should any telescope or any center for astronomy want or need 10 more years? This is really an insult to everything that Hawaiians have stood for on the Mauna. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Maki Morinoi, on Zoom. Not present. Ohana Unity Party on Zoom.

Oh, yeah, it's me. You already heard from my cousin, Healani. So I'm going to oppose this bill as well, following her suit because we did fight on the Mauna. We lost a lot of lives, a lot of things, and they're not telling you the truth. Can you actually go to the telescope and see the aliens?

What are you doing this for? They can't talk about the Anunnaki, the graves, Epsilon Eradani and the aliens are 44 light years from here. They couldn't do it, the Three Eye Atlas Comet. I'm not sure what those telescopes are doing because we can do it here with our hand with our cell phones.

We got over 8000 people on Kuki Mount are watching this stuff now because they don't know what the heck's going on. I can guarantee you Moku Cav does not know what's going on right now because I just texted the people who live on the Mauna So everyone's going to be watching this after the fact

So do the right decision defer this bill. Thank you a lot.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2593 please come on up sir.

Aloha. De MONT Kalai Manaole, Co-Manager of Ho`omana Pono, LLC, Native Hawaiian corporation operating on the Waianae Coast. And I didn't submit testimony because I was confused about this bill. And judging from the comments from the Mauna Kea Authority, I like, I love this guy. This guy is good people, nothing against them.

And DLNR it seems like they don't even know if this thing gonna be leases, can, no can, when can, whoever can.

So what I'd like to be able to express is in support of what Healani had talked about. A lot of our people was on the Mauna, fighting to protect the Mauna and it seems like people just saying let's go get a couple of Hawaiians together on a group and we can go make a decision for everybody.

I don't think so. I don't think that's gonna happen. We have a right to know exactly in the bill if lease is gonna be able to be extended or not. You gotta be clear on the bill otherwise the bill should be dead. Why would you allow a bill to pass without clarity? Right?

We have a right to clarity. And the reason why I say that is because we stand ready. The trust beneficiaries have waken up. We stand ready to be able to litigate in any time anywhere against anybody without the need of lawyers. We have the ability to do that on our own per se. So we will continue to monitor everything that is happening.

So I'm asking you guys, you just need to kill this bill because this bill is not ready. Because you guys not even clear on who can issue leases or if the lease is going to be issued by the authority or not when how you already had a disagreement right here in this hearing. So I think this bill should die. Aloha.

Aloha, thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? If not, questions? Just one question for Mr. Komeiji. Now, this bill clearly states that this does not extend leases.

Correct.

This provides the authority to the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority to be able to initiate a process, if you choose to, to extend leases. And that would have to be a deliberative process with opportunity for people to participate.

Correct.

All the people who were protesting on the mountain who have very legitimate, strong feelings about it, they would all be able to participate.

That's what I meant by transparent. That if we do so, it'll be public and we'll have public hearings.

Okay, Yeah. I just want to make sure that's clear for everybody. This does not extend leases. It gives the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority the ability to do that. But you would have to go through a public and a transparent process that would include participation of anyone who chooses to participate.

Correct.

Okay. Just wanted to assure that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2047 relating to the Aha Moku Advisory Committee. This measure amends the process for the hiring of the Executive Director of the Aha Moku Advisory Committee.

And it does other things as well. You can read it on the the hearing notice. First up, we have Kaimi Kaupiko on Zoom. Not present. Anyone wishing to testify in House Bill 2047. If not, no one's here to ask questions of. Oh, sure. I don't know if. Is the Department ready to answer, but you can try.

Maybe, I can try.

Acting Chair. Ryan Kanaka'ole.

Thank you so much, Chair, for being here. So my question is, in the HRS, the oversight of the Committee does fall under the Department of Land and Natural Resources. And I don't know if you are able to review the testimony from the last hearing, but my questioning has been around.

First of all, maybe you can speak to the department's oversight and how you view that advisory role.

Yes. So Aha Moku is administratively attached to DLNR.

For those who don't know you. I know you're a famous guy, but everyone on TV land doesn't know you.

Ryan Kanaka'ole, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources

And people who are watching the camera up there on tv, they now they know who you are. Thank you.

So just to recap, AMAC, Aha Moku, they are administratively attached to the Department of Land and Natural Resources. So as far as our administrative support, whether it be human resources, fiscal support for procurement of matters, I'm chief procurement officer and our DLNR staff help support, which is right now paid staff of one, the Executive Director.

And so that's, that's where the oversight falls. And as far as the statutory rule, I believe it's the verbiage in the act is Aha Moku sits as an advisory capacity to the chair of the board.

Yes. So in that advisory role, do you believe that at least, at bare minimum, the Department or the chair's office should be overseeing at least the basic legal functions, like to ensure that the Committee is following like the Sunshine Law and reports to the Legislature?

Or do you, in your opinion, does that completely fall within the Committee itself to be responsible for that?

So that's actually a good question because that, it falls in part on the, the commission. Is it a commission? Commission, it's the Committee to follow the rules. Right? To implement. But on our side, we're lending support on those questions today, like now regarding Sunshine Law because it's coming in recent times.

Sunshine Law responds if UIPA requests come in. It's actually our office and provides the support to go and help with those responses.

And then so for the, for the budget of the Aha Moku, because in the previous Committee the Executive Director said that the po'o go to the communities and that's how they formulate the budget and then they themselves adopt the budget.

But my question has been like, how are you adopting the budget or any advisory decision in the absence of Sunshine Law meetings, which I believe they are subjective to. So I'm just trying to understand how the oversight from the Department works or if it doesn't.

Because in my previous conversation with Chair Chang, it did seem like a more hands off approach in that aspect.

No, it's generally hands off on the operations side. But when these questions of compliance come through because they're administratively attached to us, we will send those legal questions regarding Sunshine applicability to our DLNR serving attorneys.

Okay. And when those opinions come back, then what happens?

Then we try to implement according to the advisement. So for this situation regarding Sunshine Law itself, I'm not, I don't have a handle on the conclusion yet, but I know that that question that you just raised, whether it's up to AMAC is falls under Sunshine. That has come up and I think that that's our attorneys right now.

Okay, thank you. I guess I'll leave it there. I think you're aware of my concerns and I appreciate you being willing to look into it and being here to answer the questions.

And if it does come out. So for example, KIRC, that's a good example. So KIRC.

Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission.

Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission. They fall under sunshine law and so, you know, they have the capacity to do the, the notices and agendas and everything. So in this situation we would complement. Hopefully if, you know, it comes out, we have to help them. We'll provide the support to get those notices, help Executive Director to get those prepared.

I think the intention was to be similar to KIRC, but KIRC is a very high functioning board and committee and the makeup of it as well. Right? It's a lot of designated from the government and people, so. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's. If there's no more questions, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2231 relating to island burial councils. This measure transfers the appointment authority for Island Burial Council Members from the Governor and Senate to the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. First up, Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Lena Olale. On behalf of Office of Hawaiian Affairs, we'll stand on our written comments. We're generally supportive and willing to accept the kuleana of appointing the geographic Moku reps. OHA already nominates candidates for these seats and submits them to the Governor for appointment and confirmation by the Senate.

So the change in this bill to transfer the actual appointment to OHA would be something new for us, but something that we are willing to accept. We do have concerns with accepting that role with respect to the large landowner seats because it's not directly within our statutory mandates or constitutional duties.

But as far as appointing the Moku reps, who are primarily Native Hawaiian practitioners and lineal descendants, that aligns directly with OHA's core areas of operation and existing duties. Thank you.

Ohana. Unity Party online. Mr. Billionaire, are you there? Okay, anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2231? If not questions, Members question chair for OHA.

You know, your testimony is kind of like deferring on the large landowner seat. So would you guys. How would that happen or what would happen with those seats in your viewpoint?

They could remain in the current appointment process, which is through the Governor and the Senate.

Okay, so that language would have to be stated in the bill because I don't think it's written that way right now.

Yeah, correct. I believe it would require an amendment.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much. No further questions. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2582 relating to Hawaiian affairs. This amends the membership and respect responsibilities of the Public Land Trust Working Group that was established in under Act 226 Session Laws of Hawaii 2022 and it goes on to list the responsibilities.

First up, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

DLNR stands on. That way everyone can see you on TV. Brian Panakwale, DLNR we stand on our testimony and support and are here to answer any question. Thank you.

Next, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Mahalo again. Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee on Behalf of Office of Hawaiian Affairs and I would like to highlight that two of the trustees in the room are currently Members of the Public Land Trust Working Group. That's the subject of the bill.

Trustee Lindsey and Trustee Galateria and Trustee Lindsay is actually served and is the current acting chair of the working group since its inception in 2022. So she's available to answer any questions and to clarify the iterations of our testimony.

OHA's primary first of all, we greatly appreciate the introduction of this Bill, the intent to advance the important work of the working group.

As this body is well aware, OHA has had to fight over the years its Native Hawaiian beneficiaries have had to fight for the constitutionally designated pro rata share which this body has confirmed in statute is 20% or 1/5 of all public land trust income and proceeds as Native Hawaiian.

The betterment of Native Hawaiians is one of the five purposes enumerated in the Admissions act for the designated use of public land trust revenue. So this is a constitutional mandate. It's long standing.

So we greatly appreciate the goal and intent of Act 226 in 2022 to try and get a comprehensive inventory and audit which is long overdue, and this Bill would help to advance that. Our concern in our comments was with the composition primarily of voting Members.

We certainly welcome the participation and the insight and expertise of legislative Members unity Members. But our concern is ensuring that OHA continues to have a parity of voting Members. Right now the working group is six Members, three from the Office of Hawaiian affairs and three appointed by the Governor.

So there's that parity and it's also a very functional size as far as quorum and needing to make meetings and publish them on the notices. So we would like to stick with that model that has worked and again, Trustee Lindsay can speak to that. It has been an effective collaboration over the past few years.

And then we do recommend that there be an additional amendment that we did have in our supplemental written comments about the election of the chair being from among the OHA designated seats and finally, we did have some technical amendments with respect to the deadlines because the experience that OHA already has with having conducted a very comprehensive review of financial audits in 2016 that took a full year, that wasn't counting the contracting, the procurement, that was just one year for a well done professional expert review of agency receipts, which is essentially what we're being called upon to do again.

So we think the proposed timelines just providing. We actually stick with the timelines but we propose it's just a progress report until we actually get to 2028, which is a more reasonable time frame for having actually produced anything that could be put in a useful form for this body's consideration. So we're available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Mr. Billionaire Ohana Unity party on zoom. Not present. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2582? If not questions, Members, we're going to go with Rep. Cochran first.

Okay. For oha, please. Yeah. Thank you. Aloha. Yes. So I thank you for your testimony and the proposed amendments. So I'm wondering the other in respect to I guess Maui County particular, have you gotten inventories from Maui County to be, you know, reported their numbers question more appropriate for the Members of the working group.

But there were initial outreach done and there was a report that we cite to in our testimony that summarized some of the responses with respect to.

Oh, okay. I would urge Members to take a look at the work products that have come out with the details of what they have because this Bill really deals with the composition of the group, not their work product.

Okay. Okay. Thanks. Thanks.

I would, I would actually.

Yeah.

After your question, I would urge all Members to really take a look at the work product. Sure. Of this group. It's doing very important work and I think we all should be aware of.

Very good.

Thank you for your question.

Thank you.

Chair Represent Mizu.

I just wanted to clarify the ratio. So you guys would have four and the Governor would have two to start off with. And then the Senate would have one additional and the officer reps would have another additional. It'll be four, you guys got four and then one is a neutral that you guys vote on. Right.

So there'll be nine totals. That is that the math.

So we've had. So I apologize. Our testimony is somewhat confusing. We've had further conversations with the introducer and we're fine with leaving the club. Current three to three. That's what it currently is.

The working group is three OHA and three Governor designated seats and then any additional appointments for the Legislature or for community seats we understand would be non voting and that would be fine. And really any, any reasonable size would be acceptable to us. But we do think the current 3 format is working well.

You can stick with voting Members within that 33 structure. That would be our preference. And any additional seats to be ex officio, non voting. So still participating.

But just to clarify, your latest testimony, your racial numbers, would that be a total of nine?

That had been our original testimony. Correct. That had been our original testimony because

I'm looking at the one they just handed out and it's, I'm not sure if, if it's nine because it says two Members appointed by the Governor and three of whom shall be. That's my confusion. I wasn't sure.

So I think the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Members of the Committee have been meeting to try to work that out. And so we actually have a proposal I can present in decision making that would lay out how that would work. But I think it's probably best for us to wait for decision making to do that.

You have valid questions? Rep. Shamizu. It was a moving target. Thank you. We got two different versions from Office of Wide affairs, but. Okay. I hope to bring clarity to this and decision making.

Okay. I'm glad you got it figured out.

Okay.

Thank you. Other questions, Members, if not, thank you very much. The testifiers and thank you to the trustees for being here. I know you also want to get over to Finance Committee, so Godspeed. We sent all of those bills over to finance committees, so please cheer them on. We want them to pass, so please do.

Thank you for your advocacy because this Committee certainly advocates for the Office of Wine and Bearings. So mahalo. Okay, let's move on to the next measure. House we're now we're moving from water and land issues and we're moving now to transportation issues. House Bill 1523 relating to the statewide traffic code.

This removes references to countdown timers as it relates to pedestrian control signals, including the requirement that pedestrians must be begin crossing a roadway before a countdown timer begins. First up, we have Department of Health.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, employed employee, Members of the Committee, I'm Lola Ervin with the Department of Health. And the Department of Health offers comments on this transportation bill because promoting physical activity and promoting optimal opportunities for physical activity is part of our well being.

And only one third of adults and less than one out of five high school students meet physical activity recommendations. And so being physically active also means a built environment that supports it. Practically speaking, if I stand at South Britannia trying to cross the street, which I do at noon every day if I can.

If a car comes in my way trying to make a right turn and blocks my green light and the countdown timer starts. If I start walking and there's 24 seconds left because now the driver finally sees me, I can get ticketed. $130.

And so this is where HB 1523 HD1 says there won't be a violation if I start walking because I can at this point in my life reasonably walk across with 24 seconds left. So that's what HB 1523 HD1 would allow. And that's why from a public health perspective, we're providing comments. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you for speaking up for pedestrians. Yay. Thank you. Next, Abby Seitz, another person who speaks up for pedestrians.

Thank you, Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Abby Seitz and I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed in support of this measure. As the last testifier just explained, this would remove the requirement to start crossing the street before. Before the countdown timer begins.

And currently if you do so, you can be fined $130, which is quite high even compared to many driving related violations.

We'd like to emphasize that this current law goes against most people's conventional understanding of countdown timers, which I think most of us understand them too, not tell us to not cross the street, but rather to provide us with important information, mainly how much time remains to safely cross the street.

So we support this Bill as we believe it is a step in the right direction to simplify our overly complex pedestrian regulations. Thank you.

Haha. Did you get that? A step in the right direction. I like that. That was good, Abby. That was good. Okay, next. Hawaii Public Health Institute in support on zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Patty Hazeta Vrakis and I'm the active transportation specialist with Hawaii Public Health Institute and Hawaii Public Health Institute as well as the Healthy Eating and Active Living Statewide Coalition. We support this measure and stand by our written comments.

Updating the statewide traffic code to remove this language at designated crosswalks would provide additional freedom for pedestrians to cross safely using the entire walk cycle, improving the safety of all road users. We ask that you please pass this measure and I thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1523? If not questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's hope we can move this along so we can move more steps in the right direction. Okay. Next, House Bill 1524 relating to pedestrians.

This establishes that fines for pedestrian violations under Chapter 291-C shall not exceed unspecified amount. In the original bill, it was $25. So, keep that in mind. The bill requires state and county agencies to revise applicable shop schedules of fines, rules and procedures to comply with the monetary limit. First up, we have the Department of Health.

Thank you and good afternoon members of the committee, Chair Tarnas, and Vice Chair Poepoe. I'm Lola Irvin of the Department of Health and, as I mentioned in the Department of Health, I'm Public Health. We want to promote health and promote this activity as part of it.

It means then that in terms of how our built environment is designed, rather than just relying on education and enforcement, we also think engineering and that built environment is really important.

So, we would like to see that rather than using enforcement and a punitive approach for pedestrians using our roadways, that pedestrians be considered part of the users of the roadways and that we move away a more punitive approach to one that looks at better road designs; that supports all of us in our movement.

So, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you very much. Ms. Seitz, Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice.

Thank you. Testifying, again, on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed, in support of this measure. We believe current fines are for pedestrians are overly excessive and vastly disproportionate to the action at hand. As I mentioned before, pedestrian violations can start at $130 and go up to anywhere to $180.

But in comparison, for some driving related violations such as speeding on Oahu, those fines can start at around $62. So many people, especially those not relying on a vehicle and who rely on walking, cannot afford these steep fines and often left unpaid, they can lead to bigger consequences like debt collection, damaged credit and the like.

So we, you know, again, we believe that this, this bill is important for to mitigate the harms caused by our overly excessive pedestrian fines. And we also offer some suggested amendments mainly to restore the original language of the bill with the cap of $25 for pedestrian fines. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on 1524? If not, questions? Members? Thank you very much, the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure: House Bill 2021, relating to transportation. This measure relates to the regulation of electric bicycles.

And it goes - it has a lot of different parts to it and I will leave it to you to read in the hearing notice: House Bill 2021. First up, Department of Transportation on Zoom. Not present. Next. Mr. Hernandez, Hawaii Bicycle League. Not present. Next, Zach Goodman. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2021? If not, oh, yes, please come over.

I have the Kauai Police Department, but you're not with Kauai Police Department. Please introduce yourself. Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon, Chair, vice Chair, Committee Members, I am the acting captain with the Honolulu Police Department's Traffic Division. Right now we are in support of House Bill 2021 as this Bill establishes a clear and updated regulatory framework for electric bicycles, Electric Micro Mobility Devices and other emerging electric transportation devices.

It also strengthens the public safety by establishing clear rules for the electric bicycles and other micro mobility devices, providing officers with consistent and enforceable standards. It helps to reduce collisions, protect minors through age and helmet requirements and prevents high speed devices from creating hazards in pedestrian areas.

The updated definitions and labeling requirements also improve clarity for enforcement and future planning. Overall, the Bill supports safer roads, clearer regulations and more effective communication between riders, pedestrians and law enforcement. Thank you for allowing me to testify.

Absolutely. Thank you for being here. And Members, we did get the testimony which we just passed out to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're open for any questions.

Appreciate it very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2021. If not, questions members? Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 233. This is the last transportation bill before we move on to housing.

This measure authorizes the Department of Transportation to designate airport special district zones with airports statewide. First up, Department of Transportation. Yay, you're here.

Good afternoon Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, committee members. Curt Otaguro, the Deputy Director for Airports.

He runs all the airports. This is an important guy.

Thank you, Chair. Department stands on the testimony and strong support of HB 2333 H21 with amendments. Just to highlight a few things, and my apologies for the late testimony.

We did receive your late testimony, including your proposed House Draft Two and thank you.

Thank you Chair for hearing the bills.

60% of our security related issues today represent security related problems that involve unauthorized individuals, what have you. Just tracking it with the sheriff's department, over the last three years, if you count 2023 and 24, we had about 180 incidences that were registered. In 2025 alone, it was 198. So almost double.

And so what we're after with this measure is to really improve public safety, employee safety, which is much of a concern, especially for employees that are departing late at night since airports are 24/7 or have operations that way.

And so, we believe that establishing the special district will tie in the penalties with strong reinforcement that our sheriffs can - so, happy to answer any further questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Deputy Director. Thank you for being here. Next person that said they wish to testify is the Airlines Committee of Hawaii; Ms. Lori Lum, welcome: please proceed.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Lori Lum, on behalf of the Airlines Committee of Hawaii, we will stand on our testimony in strong support of the bill, and we also support DoT's requested amendments. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for very much for being here. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2333? If not, questions members? Seeing none. Thank you very much. The testifiers: let's move on now to housing related measures. House Bill 1777 relating to housing.

Relating to housing, This measure requires developers developing a housing project under the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to assist certain tenants who are subject to displacement or eviction by the proposed project by granting those tenants the right of first offer of a comparable unit in the housing project and providing replacement housing payments and providing information either directly or through a contracted service on how to obtain assistance and exercise the right of first offer and establishing procedures to track and maintain communication with those tenants and establishes consequences for a developer's non compliance.

First up, we have the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Mr. Minakami

Chair, Vice Chair Members. Good afternoon. Dean Minakami ... Corporation. We signed our testimonies in support of this measure. Most of our projects do not displace households. When they do, our board has in the past required that education assistance be provided. So this Bill assess uniform standards our project must meet.

I do note that there is one aspect of the Bill which is not included in our testimony and that is that speaking to the introducer, the intent is not to require that all projects provide comparable units.

For example, if there's a for sale project displacing renters, it is not the intent that that for sale project must include rental units. So we would ask that they'll be amended to address that aspect.

And thank you for working with the Housing chair to come up with some language which he provided to me.

Yeah, thank you. Okay. Office of Hawaiian affairs submitted written testimony. Should we leave it at that or you want to come up?

Thank you.

Mahalo, Chair. We can stand on our.

If you're going to stand up, you got to come to the podium.

Mahalo Chair Leina'ala Ley, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, we stand on our written comments in support the escalating cost of housing that is displacing local residents as. As well well as native Hawaiians is of great concern to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. And we support this Bill as one policy solution to that problem.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. N.I.O.P. hawaii not present. Parents and Children together, Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Tina Porras-Jones, Executive Vice President of Community Building Programs at Parents and Children Together. I stand in support of this Bill. I want to share more about my testimony.

PACT was founded in 1968 at Kuhio Park Terrace, where parents gather to talk about the future of their keiki. For nearly 60 years, KPT has been our home where we have supported families through early childhood education, workforce development and comprehensive family services.

As residents are relocated, we must ensure they receive intensive, kind and caring stewardship throughout the process and that they are guaranteed the first right of return to KPT Kuhio Park Terrace. Many residents have come to our family center feeling afraid, in tears and overwhelmed with the next steps in relocation.

The more transparent the process is, the more residents can be at ease. I can tell you firsthand, they simply are afraid of what comes next. Some families have lived at Kuhio Park Terrace their entire lives. It is their village. If any of us were in this position and had to move, we would ask the same questions.

Where would my child go to school? Where will I see the doctor for my children and my family? And how do I access services? Supportive relocation is critical, but equally critical is guaranteeing residents the first return of right. Families at KPT have built a community that shows up for them.

They can walk across the street and meet their case manager, take their child to Head Start, see their medical provider. The network of support cannot easily be replaced. Kuhio Park Terrace is not just housing, it is home.

We must ensure residents are afforded kind, caring and intensive support during relocation and are given the opportunity of first right to return to the community. they know and trust. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify. I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you very much for coming in testifying. McKinley Eads Avalon Development Company on Zoom.

Aloha. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, we stand in our written testimony in support with comments of a on HB 1777 goal of reducing tenant displacement, protecting residents during redevelopment is essential. However, as drafted, the Bill may create duplicative relocation obligations and financial burdens that could unintentionally delay affordable housing projects.

We respectfully urge the Committee to clarify exemptions for tenants already receiving federal or state assistance and to refine the relocation compensation structure to better reflect actual displacement impacts. These adjustments Bill can protect tenants while preserving housing feasibility. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next. Arjuna, you're here. You're able to get the other things done?

I was. You're able to plug the hole in my wall at the house. Arjuna Heim on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed, we stand on our written testimony and support and I just would like to add that we're in support of the amendments submitted by HHFTC.

Thank you. Thank you very much Arjuna. Next. Dina Shek, Medical Legal Partnership for Children in Hawaii.

Thank you. Good afternoon Committee Members. Thank you for hearing HB 1777 today. My name is Dina Scheck. I'm the legal Director of the Medical Legal Partnership for Children in Hawaii and the co founder. For over 16 years our medical legal partnership has provided free direct legal services. At Okalihi Valley Health center.

We have served many public housing residents including tenants of the KPT low rise where 64 units were recently demolished to build 304 affordable housing units. I witnessed a lot that went wrong during this redevelopment. Children being relocated far from their home, school districts, elders being sent to inaccessible units and uninhabitable boarded up units offered to numerous families.

I also witnessed some things that showed promise. HPHA While they repeatedly stated that they were not required by federal law to offer a right to return, they did actually commit to a right to return.

I believe this was also required by HHFDC and in fact HPHA has promised to provide 65 project based vouchers which would allow low rise tenants to return under the same rent scheme as they had before. Initially it was 80 Project 8 vouchers. The last time I looked at the documents it was 65.

The problem is that these are only promises and there's no oversight for the execution of these promises. And as we head into the Governor's massive plan to redevelop nine more public housing complexes, a lot of Oahu's public housing complexes, most of which seek a five fold increase in the number of units.

We must have stability and accountability and clarity. And for that relocation and return process, the Governor's redevelopment project is poised to displace nearly 2,000 public housing residents to build over 10,000 new affordable units. Codifying those promises will ensure some basic accountability and enforcement when low rise tenants are displaced by redevelopment.

I thank you for your consideration and urge you to support HB 1777. Thank you.

Thank you very much Ms. Shek. And thank you for your work. Kathy Martin, welcome.

Aloha Mr. Chair and Vice Chair and the rest of the Committee. My name is Kathy Martin and on behalf of Micronesian Health Advisory Coalition, I strongly support HB 1777 to protect local families facing displacement due to redevelopment.

This Bill prevents the permanent displacement of long standing local residents by providing a clear right of first offer of comparable unit in the new development. This Bill ensures that all displaced tenants get comprehensive relocation assistance, including replacement housing payment, individualized relocation services and and ongoing support throughout the redevelopment process.

This Bill also provides accountability measures to ensure compliance with the requirements that they provide. And these people are not only tenants, but they're also my family Members, relatives of my own. So again, I strongly support Bill HB 1777. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1777? If not, questions. Members, questions represent Shimizu.

Mr. Minakami, you mentioned that you had some amending language that wasn't in your testimony, but it's been communicated and worked out with Chair. I communicated with Chair, with Chair Epsilon of the Housing. Chair. Are we going to get that amended language in decision making? I'll provide it to you. Okay. That's all I wanted to clarify. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, thank you.

I appreciate you working with Chair Epsilon on this issue. That was actually brought up by one of the other testifiers, Ms. Dina Scheck, about you know, what is a comparable unit. So we'll address that in decision making. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on. House Bill 1741 relating to housing.

This deems a county inclusionary mandate as a form of development exaction and treats the mandate as a housing affordability impact fee with certain exemptions. And it prohibits a county from adopting, amending, or enforcing an inclusionary mandate or inclusionary mandates for residential or mixed use development under certain circumstances.

Establishes additional requirements for a needs based study for a county imposed inclusionary mandate and establishes a criterion that allows luxury residential projects or projects that receive certain discretionary value increases to be subject to inclusionary mandates. First up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs,

Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee.: we're here to offer comments. The first thing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs wanted to know is that the court case that's cited in the bill is something that is not about what inclusionary mandates are. It's about an exaction and a fee that we have.

The inclusionary zoning, which is basically requiring that if you build something, you have an affordable housing set aside for our community. That is how government works to make sure that we are delivering things for our community.

So, we think that we would like the committee to take a careful look at saying that the way our counties do business, which is saying that if we have a hotel that is built, that we need to have a comparative requirement for them to have affordable housing or workforce housing for our community, is something that allows us to have housing in our community that's accessible to our community.

We understand that there are folks that believe in the model of trickle down housing, that the more housing we built, that we will have a market based solution that delivers housing at the upper level where folks can climb up the ladder.

So, that new luxury unit means that someone, sorry, someone can leave their current housing, move to that luxury unit, and then that vacant unit means that someone else can move into it. That does not work in Hawaii.

And we've discussed in our testimony how we need to make sure that we're protecting our community here on an island and not going all in on market based solutions that at a state-level tell counties that they can't do what they need for their communities. Our counties have nexus studies. They have inclusionary zoning that they consider proportional.

And so this bill is actually saying that any kind of inclusionary zoning on a luxury housing development would be considered a fee or an exaction. And that's simply not true with how the counties in Hawaii do it, in particular Kauai. So mahalo for the opportunity to provide comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Ted Kaphalas, Grassroots Institute of Hawaii

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute. We are in support of HB 1741. I can see why on the surface, affordability mandates sound enticing to the legislature and to the general public, but the fact is they don't work.

So, there's lots of studies out there that show that these kind of inclusionary zoning mandates, affordability mandates, they actually reduce incentives to build housing, they shrink the overall supply, and they actually increase prices overall. Think of it like this: so, if you own a business and you had to sell, let's say, three out of every 10 products at a loss, well, you're going to have to raise the prices on the other seven products that you're selling in order to make ends meet.

And so, that's exactly what we're seeing here in Hawaii's housing market.

It's one of the many reasons why we have such high housing prices. And HB 1741 recognizes this is a basic reality. You can't mandate affordability by making housing more expensive. So, mahalo for the opportunity to testify. We hope you pass this today.

Thank you very much.

Arjuna Heim on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed. Hawaii Appleseed is in full support of this measure. I, on a personal side, did my master's research on all of Hawaii's inclusionary zoning programs, including the state and the counties.

Three out of the four counties have conducted impact studies like this Honolulu, which I've included a table from that study done in 2016, in my testimony that shows that regardless of whether there are affordability requirements or not affordability requirements; most forms of multifamily housing are actually infeasible to build and the only places where they are feasible to build was in the Ala Moana district.

And that is when you include the community benefit which actually pops up the luxury demand in Ala Moana. Other counties - Kauai, had done a impact feasibility statement after the fact of passing the inclusionary zoning mandate and found that it was negatively impacting their housing affordability and have since exempt all.

Well, they adopted a form based code and exempted all areas except for hotels and resort development from inclusionary zoning mandates. And Hawaii county is in the same effort. So, I just respectfully would like to see this bill can continue to move forward and bring light the data that we have from our own counties. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? House Bill 1741. Please -

Aloha Chair.

Hold on, hold on a second on zoom. Just a moment. We've got someone in the room and then I'll come to you.

I thought I registered his testify. Sorry. Richmond Lazar testifying on behalf of Housing -

I did get your testimony, I just didn't know you'd be here.

Oh, got it. Richmond Luzar on behalf of housing wise future. Sorry I missed the last, the last couple ones. I had meetings come up at the same time. But we testify in support of this measure. You know, housing is a, is a systemic issue and the number of units that's going to be needed is in the tens of thousands, not in 50 unit increments. So you know, to address that, part of it is increasing supply.

Part of it is ensuring that local people are the ones who are going to be accessing the one that the new housing that's created, which can be done through a number of other tools. Inclusionary zoning requirements, while they're well intentioned to a previous testifier's point, they can increase the cost of the other housing that's created in addition to kind of constraining the supply as well.

So, we're in support of this measurement. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Richmond. On Zoom, McKinley Eads.

Aloha. McKinley Eads on behalf of Avalon Development. Hawaii cannot close its housing shortage without significant increasing home building, especially in already urbanized areas. That's why we support HB 1741 because it recognizes that inclusionary housing mandates function as development exactions and must comply with constitutional requirements of the central nexus and rough proportionality, as clarified by by the recent U.S. Supreme Court case in Sheetz vs. The County of El Dorado.

This bill does not eliminate affordable housing tools. Instead, it requires that those tools be grounded in transparent data, feasibility analysis, and a clear connection between a project's impacts and the obligations imposed.

When mandates are imposed, without this discipline, they can render typical housing prototypes infeasible, suppress production, and ultimately worsen affordability by delivering fewer homes. This bill protects non-luxury buy right housing from price increasing mandates while still allowing proportionate requirements on luxury products, projects or developments that receive discretionary value increases.

This is a balanced, legally sound approach that supports both affordability goals and housing supply. For these reasons we respectfully urge the committee to pass HB 1741-HD1. Mahalo.

Thank you very much for everyone. That was McKinley Eads with Avalon Development. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions members? First we'll go to Rep. Sayama.

Thank you. For Hawaii Appleseed. No, no no, you're good. So, the, as to I understand it, the bill would require assessment study and you mentioned in your testimony and in your research that three of the counties in Hawaii have conducted similar studies already.

I believe the one study mentioned for Honolulu from 2016 determined that it was infeasible for most part. So, I like to understand how this bill, if enacted, would be different from the current system that we have.

Thank you. Great question. So, 2019 actually was when Honolulu implemented their inclusionary zoning requirements. So, that's after this study, not that study. This bill, if it were enacted at that time, noting the infeasibility, I believe they would not be allowed to pass the inclusionary zoning requirement or instead cater it specifically to not have that impact fee set on.

Since Honolulu passed the inclusionary zoning requirements in 2019, there hasn't been a project, I guess with the exception of all of this Alamana Development.

In the interest of not getting too intense on this, Honolulu has an affordable housing requirement. That's the AHR. It's supposed to be a ministerial approval process. No projects have gone through it.

They have a secondary inclusionary zoning requirement called the IPDT, that's targeted in the TOD areas and it's supposed to make cataclystic, what you want to see in TOD. So big, beautiful projects. If you look at the list that DPP has provided on their website, IPDT projects, I believe 13 have been approved and only three have been constructed.

And they also require a lot of luxury to subsidize the kind of environmental benefits that they're also substantial supposed to bring to the neighborhood. So, they're only working in IPDT because they have an increased community benefit, but they're not really working that well.

Noting that there are projects that are approved in 2016 all the way, or 2019 to 2025, and the majority have not been constructed.

Chair, may I follow up? Okay, thank you. So again, if passed, I would imagine that this bill would create an additional bureaucratic process for these studies to be approved. Right. I don't, again, don't really see how that would be so different from what we have right now. Sure, current status quo, we have a broad pre approved inclusionary zoning policy. In this new scenario, we would have a case by case study for each development that would need to be approved by the county. Is that correct?

No, it would be a study on the proposed legislation that would set the inclusionary zoning requirements.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that.

Thank you. Thanks very much. Other questions? Rep. Shimizu.

You know the way that I'm trying to understand this: is there a time frame on when the benefits will kick in? Because I see this as being a more of a, a long term market driven and consequence that happens.

So do you have studies or data that show from the time this change would be made, when would you see the benefit? Does that make sense?

By benefit, do you mean like if...sorry, can you explain like what you mean by benefit?

Benefit would be what we're trying to accomplish, lowering the cost of housing and, and providing "affordable housing" based on what the argument is, that the market will come down because we're not having to pay for subsidized units.

So, right now, the way that inclusionary zoning is set up is we all pay for these subsidized units. And I think, or I would hope, everyone would agree that we're not really getting a very, very much of a subsidy when the units, and particularly the for sale units are only, you know, tens of thousand dollars off.

If you're lucky, a couple 100,000 dollars off from market price. I would say if we wanted to see deeply affordable housing, and if we wanted to see more targeted affordable housing, that requires an investment and a different set of legislation.

But as it stands now, the inclusionary zoning requirements are kind of splitting our market towards high end luxury which subsidize then higher end for sale reserved housing units or it incentivizes towards low income housing tax credit projects which are then for the very low spectrum.

So, we have this gap in between 80 to 120% AMI: that's desperate and a lot of this could be solved by you know, increased amount of housing in particularly in our TOD areas.

Follow up question, Chair: I'm sorry, can you, I still don't, can you explain how this, this new bill is going to provide better housing prices that will be affordable?

It would require that the counties pass legislation that's based on data and doesn't increase the cost of housing. So, studies from the mainland show that for every year an inclusionary zoning mandate is in place, it increases the cost of housing across the spectrum, regardless of external factors by at least 1 to 5%.

So, it's not really, it's not going to create a bunch of affordable housing but it will create opportunity for much more housing, which creates more competition. The higher end of the spectrum is more satisfied.

So, what I heard you say is if we pass this bill, we're relying on the counties to pass further legislation. Is that what you said?

If, yeah, if we pass this bill then we're relying on the counties to pass evidence based legislation.

Good. Thank you. Thank you Chair,

thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1700 House draft one relating to housing. This measure includes housing projects for individuals with disabilities and individuals with access and functional needs as eligible projects to apply for expedited permits.

First up, Daintree Bartoldis Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support not present. Next, Richmond Lazar, you're here. Navian Hawaii.

Thank you. Chair Richmond Lazar testifying on behalf of Navian Hawaii. So as many of you guys know, Hawaii's demographics are changing pretty rapidly over the next 10, 15, 25 years. By 2035 we expect a huge increase in the amount of people 65 and older with the majority of that 85 and older.

These people are going to need a lot of health care as they go through the course of aging. So Navian, we have a home in Kailua for hospice.

We have a home we're trying to build in Gulic and these are the types of things that capacity that we need to build as the demographics change and as the healthcare needs change as well. So we support this Bill. Thanks.

Thank you very Much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? House Bill 170 please come up.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, my name is Perry. Perry Arrasmith. I'm the Director of Policy at Housing Hawaii's Future.

We did get your testimony. I just didn't know you'd be here. Sorry.

Mahalo, Yeah, all the sitting in the same corner. So struggling to get out Housing Hawaii's Future. We strongly Support House Bill 1700.

I just want to note that this measure is seemingly minor but simultaneously consequential. It targets. Hawaii Revised Statutes HRS 46-90. This section of HRS deals with eligibility for county permits for either single or multifamily housing. This measure makes a minor amendment to HRS 46-90.

It also provides the same permits which expedite single and family or single and multi family housing may also apply to those housing projects which are targeting individuals with disabilities or individuals with access and functional needs. Our mission is to expand housing options for folks, young folks, typically millennials and Gen Z.

There are many folks in our generation who deal with disabilities and there are also folks who have to take care of their kupuna. And so for that reason we humbly ask that you make this minor, rather that you advance HB 1700 and that you provide more housing options. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Arrasmith. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not questions? Members not. Thank you very much. The testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1738 related to land use decision making.

Related to housing, This measure authorizes the construction and occupation of self Contained relocatable housing units with certain restrictions specifies that a manufactured home is considered real property, requiring its transfer, conveyance and mortgage to follow the same recording enforcement requirements as other real property. First up, we have the Department of Health.

Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jon Nagato, Department of Health ... Branch. The department stands on its written testimony just wanted to note that the Department would like to note that self contained relocatable housing units, they operate independently of permanent utilities using integrated portable wastewater.

The wastewater system would be considered a holding tank and according to our administrative rules, holding tanks for non government facilities is not allowed and therefore the only fluent disposal options are contracting, continuous and frequent pumping and hauling by a registered pump or hauler service company or becoming a registered pump or hauler themselves and frequently pumping.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Lindsey Garcia,

Aloha Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Lyndsey Garcia from the Hawaii Realtors. So we stand in support of the intent of this measure to provide more housing options for the people of Hawaii. Thank you.

Thank you. Perry Arrasmith,

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Perry Arrowsmith, Director of Policy at Housing Hawaii's Future. Just to build on our testimony, we strongly support this measure and more specifically, we support the amendments that have been made to specify and clarify that this form of housing shall be classified as real property.

That's very consequential for Hawaii residents who are looking for more housing options. These forms of housing can be much cheaper than other forms of housing and by classifying them as real property, we allow residents to more easily attain the financing required to purchase this form of housing. So we ask you to advance this measure. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Kika Bukoski,

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Kika Bukoski, on behalf of the Plumbers and fitters local 675, we stand in strong opposition to this measure. Chair we have, we submitted written testimony, but we just wanted to say that we have strong concerns with this, with this, with this Bill, we're not opposed to off site construction.

We are actually promoting, advocating for locally built off site construction. This Bill will actually undo what was just done on Maui in Maui County to address Lahaina residents that were affected by the Lahaina fires. With Bill 15 that passed unanimously by the council, this Bill will actually contradict what was just done there.

The previous testifier just brought up real property. There's a lot of unanswered questions, Chair on this particular, this particular Bill, one of which real property, my understanding, is real property needs to be permanently affixed to the land. But this by definition in this Bill, the structure needs to remain relocatable.

So I'm not quite sure how that works, but it seems a little contradictory to me. Even more so, it shifts liability to the homeowners. It provides indemnification for expedited permitting. I just heard a previous Bill for Bill 1700. This will severely impact potential homeowners of those types of homes for disability from recourse from errors and omissions.

So I guess my point is in a nutshell there's a lot of unanswered questions with this Bill. There's bills that were dropped in that didn't quite make the cutoff. 1719 didn't make the cutoff. Real property got dropped in here. There's other bills that are going to impact this 1721 that speaks to the expedited permitting process.

I don't think this Bill is ready to come out of this Committee and I was hoping that this Committee could address some of those questions that I think is within the jurisdiction of this particular Committee. So for those reasons, Chair, we strongly oppose this measure and available for questions.

Thank you very much. Ted Kafalas.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee, Ted Kafalas with Grassroots Institute. We are in support of this Bill but I did want to note we had just a couple comments and suggested amendment and that is striking the language from Section 2 about manufacturing these in the state and or procuring them by a state approved distributor.

I understand the want to focus on local but I think there's just a lot of questions as to whether there are those sort of facilities here in Hawaii to build these homes as well as what really a state approved distributor looks like and you know what that ends up being. So we are supportive of this.

We do hope you pass this. But just a couple of issues with that language. Aloha.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Building and Construction Trades Council not present Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1742 if not questions? Members first representative, go ahead.

Thank you Chair for Hawaii Realtors and you might not have the answer to this but my question is relating to the use of these self contained relocatable housing units. I understand manufactured home homes being permanent, installed and connected to utilities.

But for these new units, these self contained relocatable housing units, they're not connected like in what situations are they being used? Is it more emergency scenarios or is it more long term housing?

Thank you Rhett for that question. I actually don't have the particulars about that particular portion of the Bill, we support the intent of both, but I think, you know, when it comes to the concerns that were brought up by previous testifiers, we totally understand them.

You know, in that case, if manufactured homes is the way the Legislature prefers, you know, to push this Bill forward, then we wouldn't be opposed to that.

But appreciate that. I was just curious, Hawaii Housing future, you guys have an answer to that? You know, how are these units used?

Yes. Representative Sayama, again, Perry Arrasmith, Housing Hawaii's Future, I'd be happy to forward a study that was just conducted. It was just issued by Pew charitable trusts on February 17th of this year and it actually covers the topic of where and how these self contained relocatable units become classified as real property across the country.

It's pretty typical for an individual to acquire plot of land and then affix the self contained relocatable unit to that land and then it becomes titled as real property in that process.

I can't speak to the scenarios where this could be the case in Hawaii, but I'd imagine that in many rural communities this could especially be an option.

Okay. No, I appreciate that. Okay. No, thank you for clarifying that. Chair.

Thanks. Rep. Sayama. Rep. Shimizu

Plumbers yes, sir. So that information goes to chair. You're going to give it to us then? Yeah. Hawaii Housing Features.

Sure. Could you, if you could send that to me, then I can share it with the, the Pew Charitable Trust study, then I can share it with the Committee.

Thank you. Thank you. Question is, you mentioned this Bill would undo Bill 15 that happens on Maui. Can you briefly explain.

Yes. Conflict on that. We believe that there are resources here locally that can address the demands for off site construction homes. This Bill, I think to the earlier question, you know, the concerns from the Department of Health are still unanswered as well. When these relocatable homes become permanent, what does that mean for wastewater and sanitation?

Some of those questions are still not answered.

Yeah, I understand. But I'm just asking specifically regarding Bill 15 in Maui that you made the statement that this Bill would undo. What's what Bill 15 accomplished on Maui?

Bill 15 is going to address Lahaina concerns. It was passed unanimously by the council, but it's going to be done locally. The homes are going to be constructed, inspected according to local inspection standards, local codes and standards done by local licensed contractors, local licensed electricians and plumbers.

And they're going to be done and they're all going to be done here in Hawaii. And, and what this Bill would do would allow foreign imports from we just heard in the paper recently Vietnam. We don't understand. We don't know if they have code and standards. We don't know if they have licensing requirements.

We don't know what they follow. I can provide you with pictures of houses, temporary houses that were brought into Lahaina that didn't have. Didn't pass, would not pass plumbing code because they didn't have the proper P traps. They had S traps. Those are those. They don't pass health and safety standards

Follow up question, sir. Okay. I don't know if you're aware, but the House draft two Committee report did state that the requirement added the requirement that it be manufactured in the state or procured by state approved distribution. So if that's part of the Bill now, would that satisfy your concerns?

I agree with one of the testifiers. I would agree to strike the second part of that and just take out or procured because the way I interpret that that allows somebody to procure foreign based manufactured homes and import them into Hawaii, which basically defeats the whole purpose of a Hawaii based construction facility.

I want to also add that

if we could focus. Just answering the question.

I am focused on. On that. Chair, there are other measures here. This basically undermines the work of the speed task force.

Yeah, let's ask the question and then respond to the question. I appreciate you want to bring in other bills, but I want to focus on this Bill and your questions.

I think I got the answer. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you. Sorry. I got it. I understand. I understand your concern. I agree.

Vice Chair

For Mr. Bukowski. Yes. Sorry. Thank you. Similar. To Rep. Shimizu's question just really quickly for Bill 15 because that caught my ear too and I wouldn't want to undermine the work that the county just did.

So is it in your interpretation of the Bill right now this Bill that we're talking about would supersede and Potentially nullify Bill 15.

Yes, It circumvents county home rule. It requires. It's a mandate. It's not. It doesn't give counties, like it says in the preamble counties, the authority. It will mandate this for the counties with very little oversight.

Thank you. Just want to make that very clear.

Thank you.

Thank you. Questions If not, thank you very much. The testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1739. House Draft 1 related to transit oriented to development.

This measure requires the development of a transit support supportive densities to be allowed in any county designated transit oriented development area prohibits the counties from enacting an ordinance rule, regulation, development standard, zoning provision or other land use control that restricts the development of transit supportive densities. First up, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Rachel Beasley with Office Planning Sustainable Development. We stand. Our testimony supports the intent of the Bill of promoting transit supportive densities and county designated Transit Oriented Development Areas. We do have some concerns.

We have been in the process of talking with the author of the Bill, the City and county of Honolulu. So the concern mostly lies with the implementation time frame of the Bill. And then we also offer some amendments regarding the statutory language for the definitions and standards that are.

Thank you very much. We have your testimony. Appreciate your amendments. Next up, Ted Kefalas.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ted Kefalas, Grassroot Institute will stand on our written testimony. Just saying that we support TOD density. So aloha. Thank you very much.

Perry Aerosmith

Chair, Vice Chair Perry Aerosmith will stand on our testimony and strong support this measure. Thank you. Thanks very much. Angela Young.

Stand.

Thank you. McKinley Eads on zoom.

Aloha. We with our written testimony. This Bill ensures that TOD development areas actually deliver the housing and ridership outcomes they were created to support. Public investments in transit only work. Public investments in transit only work. When zoning allows transit supportive density. Regulatory uncertainty and discretionary down zoning delay projects and drive up costs.

This Bill provides needed clarity and predictability while preserving County County health and safety authority. We respectfully urge the Committee to pass. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1739? If not questions. Members, question. Yes. Representative Shimizu, Sitting colony here. No. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thanks to the testifiers. Let's move on to the last measure. House Bill 1919 relating to development standards.

This measured beginning July 1, 2027 prohibits counties from imposing minimum parking mandates for certain developments. First up, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development,

Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Rachel Beasley with Office of Planning Sustainable Development. We stand on our testimony in support of this Bill. We believe that aligns with TOD goals. It lowers housing costs and it helps create a transit friendly environment.

Thank you very much. Matt Pearlberg. Matt Pearlberg, not present. Okay. Lyndsey Garcia.

Hello. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Lindsey Garcia from the Hawaii association of Realtors. So we stand in support of the intent of this measure. We believe that this measure does create flexibility for a developer to decide whether and how there needs to be parking required in a development.

Really all it does is remove the minimum requirements on the county level, but still allows the developer flexibility to determine if parking is needed, which can help lower housing costs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Bicycling League not present. In support, Perry Arrasmith

Aloha once again chair. Vice Chair Perry Arrasmith At Housing Hawaii's Future, we strongly Support House Bill 1919. This measure is about giving residents more options to decide how much parking they want in their lives. Whether you are renting or whether you own your home, you should be able to decide how much parking you want to budget for.

We don't think it's fair that government arbitrarily mandates parking. We've heard different figures come out as this measure has advanced concerning just how much a single unnecessary parking stall can cost for any new development. We personally estimate that the median cost of a new parking stall is about $68,000.

However, on February 17 this year, during a hearing on Senate Bill 2061, the Hawaii Community Development Authority suggested that new parking stalls for new construction in communities like Kakaako can cost $100,000 or more. Again, this measure is not about eliminating parking. I come from a household in Waipio where folks compete for parking.

My household has four parking stalls. This measure does not target households like mine. It targets new development, and it reduces the cost of new housing units. We want to reduce the cost of housing, and we want to do so in a manner that ultimately benefits residents.

If residents need parking, they should be free to decide how much parking they want in their lives. Please advance this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Ted Kefalas,

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute. We are also in support support of HB 1919. This Bill does something very simple. It just stops the government from forcing people to build parking that they don't necessarily need. Minimum parking, as some of the other testifiers have mentioned.

They just really drive up housing costs. Every stall costs money, and those costs don't disappear. They get baked into rents, mortgages, whatnot.

So I won't go into all the numbers, but the research clearly shows that when cities get rid of their parking mandates, again, not getting rid of parking altogether, but when you get rid of these government mandates, you have more land that's freed up for housing. You have more money that goes into housing instead of parking.

And in a housing crisis, that really matters. Parking mandates work against the communities that we all say that we want. And they make these neighborhoods that are much less walkable than people want. You can't build these sorts of communities if zoning rules force you to pave over half of the lot.

So if we're serious about addressing the housing crisis, we have to stop mandating costs that do nothing but just increase the cost of housing. So mahalo for the opportunity to testify today here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Abby Seitz,

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Abby Seitz and once again testifying in support of this measure on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed.

As shared by the other testifiers, parking adds immense cost to building housing and this is not only passed on to homeowners, renters and tenants, but can just stop housing projects altogether from being built.

I'd also like to emphasize a point that's been made is that, you know, maybe against common misconception, this type of law does not stop parking from being built, but just rather gives developers the option to not build parking.

As I mentioned in our written testimony, Hawaii Appleseed recently did a study about areas where in on Oahu where parking mandates have been eliminated and found that there's been, you know, fairly small to modest reductions in parking, but that affordable housing developers have taken advantage of this and it has allowed them to build more housing in those areas.

So we strongly urge the Committee to support this measure. Thank you,

thank you very much. Damian Waikoloa in support not present. McKinley Eads, please proceed.

Aloha. McKinley eats on behalf of Avalon Development in strong support of this Bill. As the other testifiers have stated, mandatory minimum parking requirements significantly increase development costs without providing corresponding community benefit and in often cases are an inefficient use of our of land, especially in high density urban areas.

This Bill takes a smart targeted approach by removing parking mandates only where they clearly undermine housing, small scale development and community serving uses. This Bill lowers costs, supports walkable and transit oriented communities and gives counties appropriate flexibility. We respectfully urge the Committee to advance this important measure.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Yes, please come on up, introduce yourself.

Yes, my name is Dale Vanderbrink, second vice chair of the Ala Moana Kockaako Neighborhood Board. I'm providing personal testimony, but my neighborhood board also submitted late testimony as well. I am in strong support of HB 1919.

As all the other testifiers said, it just makes sense to remove these parking minimum requirements because areas like Ala Moana and Kakaako don't need these onerous requirements of parking lot or parking requirements. They need more housing units.

And when you build more housing units instead of parking spots, you can reduce the overall cost of Housing as well as the rent that people pay. As a young person, I really much want to continue living here and thriving here.

But I had to make sure when I moved down here to the Ala Moana area, I didn't have a unit that had a parking lot attached to it because, because that will increase my rent by hundreds of dollars. And when I don't drive, I utilize public transportation.

That very much helps save me the money that I need to pay for housing, pay for my everyday needs. So please, I urge you to pass this to keep people like me here living on the island instead of being forced off to the mainland where housing is significantly cheaper. Mahalo

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify if not question as Members? Rep Belatti

Ms. Seitz, you know, I heard Mr. Arrasmith say that this is a Bill targeted for only new developments. Based on that representation, the provision that says that there should be no prohibition imposed on existing buildings, changing use, including vacant buildings, isn't that a contradictory statement? And shouldn't we strict strike that?

I would need to look specifically at the Bill language. My understanding of the bill's intent is that is for new development or redevelopment for certain uses, including affordable housing, senior housing, child care facilities and the other uses that are listed in the Bill. So I think if there is a unclear Bill Language in there.

Thank you. One more follow up question. So, you know, I didn't introduce over this Bill and I generally support this.

When I look at the things that they're trying to not mandate parking spaces for things like child care facilities, commercial spaces and mixed use projects and any commercial building or facility with no more than 3,000 square feet, that raises a lot of concerns for urban dwellers in very dense places like Makiki.

And so I heard a, I heard an earful yesterday from a lot of residents because they're just feeling that they're really like their, their, their interests are not being heard and then developers are coming in and then we see these things go up and it's just causing so much, so much terrible congestion.

So I'm really concerned that this language may be too broad and if you guys want to tie it to affordable housing, I think that might be something that I'm hoping the stakeholders might consider. Is that something because you just said that this is about building affordable housing, right?

Yes, that is the, you know, among the other benefits, one of the main purposes of this, of this Bill, as I understand it, the other testifiers and the introducer.

Okay, thank you. Thank you Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? Rep. Sayama and then Rep. Takeama

thank you for housing Hawaii's future. In your testimony you mentioned that this Bill wouldn't apply to say your house. Right. Can you elaborate on that statement a little bit more?

Right. This measure is focused on new developments and my house is already built.

Right. And so I want to clarify the application of this is residences under 1200 square feet. What's the average size of a house in Honolulu? Do you, What would you estimate?

Well, an apartment unit is probably less than 1000 square feet, but if you're talking about a 2, 3 bedroom home, you're probably starting to move up towards 1500 square feet or more.

Okay. So safe to say that if passed, this Bill would not apply to the traditional housing unit, two to three bedroom, just for these new apartment units.

Yes. It's targeting any new form of construction in an urban district that meets the specific. The specific. I believe there's nine different forms of housing that are specified under the first part and the second part is two other specified forms of construction. And it's by the way, the first nine do not just include housing.

It also does apply to things like child care facilities. And that language is based off of Washington State's own parking reform measure which passed last year.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Rep. Takayama

For the Office of Planning Sustainability, I have a question. I think this Bill has a great deal of merit for new developments and particularly those in TODs. My concern stems from an established urban area because as I read this Bill, if a neighbor were to add an ADU or renovate the house and expand

the capacity of the house, thereby adding more residents to the neighborhood without any commensurate increase in parking spaces on that property, it would add to on street parking, which is already at a premium, at least in in my neighborhood. Is this something that you intended or is this an unintended consequence of the Bill.

I would have to go back and review the Bill. I don't know if Mary Alice.

Mary Alice Evans for the Office of Planning and Sustainability. Thank you. Representative Takayama. Most of our existing neighborhoods are not in TOD districts on Oahu. On the neighbor islands we have TOD corridors and bus hubs and the neighbor island counties are being asked to identified by a previous Bill that passed last year.

I'm sorry, I agree with that and I agree that this Bill would be applicable in a good way for tods.

What I'm saying is in established urban areas that are not close to a rail station which already have on street parking problems, you may be, as I read the Bill, aggravating our problem by having neighbors increase the size of their houses and increase the number of residents without a commensurate increase in parking.

It is not intended to apply to existing non TOD residential areas. Okay, thank you.

Thank you for that. Any other questions? Thank you very much to all the testifiers, all the questions. That's the last of the testimonies. Let's move to the top of the agenda and do decision making. Okay. House Bill 2592 House Draft One.

I would like to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style and place in the Standing Committee report that this Committee believes that the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority with this measure can extend the lease without triggering Chapter 343 as long as there is no change to the footprint and use. That's my recommendation.

Questions or concerns Members? So we're just passing with technical amendments only in that language in the Standing Committee report. Questions or concerns Chair? Yes?

I know this is like a very controversial but I want to support my colleagues. I do have concerns but I want to support my colleagues.

Understood it is. It is complicated. Other comments if not Vice Chair for

the vote voting on House Bill 2592 HD 1 with amendment. Chair Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes no. Representative Belatti represent Cochran is excused. Representative has Representative Kahaloa Aye. Representative Sayama Aye. Representative Takayama Aye. Representative Garcia no recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 2593 relating to Mount Nekea. I'd like to pass this out as is. This does have a defective effective date. I have made it clear that this to when I spoke about this and asked questions. This is not by through statute extend the leases.

It authorizes the Mauna Stewardship and Oversight Authority to extend existing leases and they have made it clear that that will be done through a public and transparent process. So my recommendation is to move this out as is with the defective date. Questions or concerns Members?

Chair yes, similar to 2592 I I I will be forwarding my present. Understood.

Other comments? Questions if not Vice Chair for the

vote voting on House Bill 2593 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. All other Members are present. Are there any voting? No. No vote. No for Representative Garcia. No for Vice Chair. Any in addition to Rep. Shimizu voting with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 2047 relating to Aha Moku Advisory Committee. On this measure I'd like to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. I'd like to make the necessary amendments to clarify that the Executive Director position is to be permanently exempt from Chapter 76.

I want to clarify that five Members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum to transact business and the concurrence of a simple majority of the Committee Members present shall be necessary to approve any action of the Committee. I want to insert a new section before Section 4, the states.

Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the Chairperson shall initiate an open recruitment process for the position of Executive Director of the Ahamoku Advisory Committee within six months of the effective date of this act and shall appoint an Executive Director within 12 months of the effective date of this Act.

In current Section 4, on page 9, delete line 18 and on page 10, replace line 7 to 13 with the following.

The Executive Director of the Ahamoku Advisory Committee serving on the effective date of this act may continue to serve on an interim basis from the effective date of this act until the appointment of an Executive Director pursuant to this act, provided that the individual meets the qualifications required for the position and will be considered for appointment together with all other qualified applicants and without special favor or preference over other applicants unless sooner removed by the Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources.

And we also would make any technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. That's my recommendation. Questions? Members, if not Vice Chair for the

vote voting on House Bill 2047 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. And thank you to Vice Chair for working on that Bill. Next Bill. House Bill 2231 relating to Island Burial councils. I recommend we move this on as is with the defective effective day questions or concerns. Members, if not Vice Chair for the

vote voting on House Bill 2231 as is Representative Cochrane is excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure on House Bill 2582 relating to Hawaiian affairs. This relates to the Public Land Trust Working Group. I would like to move this forward with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. And we studied the Vice Chair and I studied the Vice Chair and our Majority Caucus leader.

Kahaloa and I studied the Office of Hawaiian affairs amendments and input from the House Majority Staff Office. And thanks to Rep. Kaholo who met with representatives of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Together we came up with these recommendations which I'll read to you now.

And some of these are based on the amendments suggested by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and others were after discussion. First, under Section two, we want to recommend revising language to the language amending Section 3, subparagraph E as follows.

Subparagraph E says in addition to the report required under subsection C, the working group shall submit to the Legislature one no later than August 1, 2027 a first interim report on the progress toward the preliminary financial reporting and accounting related to Act 178, Session Laws of Hawaii 2006 required pursuant to subsection D2 and then 2 no later than December 12027 a second interim report on the progress toward the Public Land Trust inventory required pursuant to subsection D1 on pages 16, amend Section 3 to adjust the membership makeup of the Public Land Trust Working Group so that it would be three Members appointed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Also on page 16, amend section 3B relating to paragraphs 3 to 6 regarding the makeup of the Public Land Trust Working Group that the community Members and Members of the Senate and House appointed by the President of the Senate and the speaker of the House be non voting ex officio Members.

If you remember the comments from Office Hawaiian affairs that was important on pages 17, lines 11 to 12, we want to change the language to say, quote, the Office of Hawaiian affairs shall appoint a chairperson of this working group pursuant to paragraph two.

And the reason why we're doing this because we want Office Hawaiian affairs to oversee the Public Land Trust Working Group process and continue to take leadership on this role. So those are my recommendations.

Just so everyone understands, There will be 11 Members of this Public Land Trust working group, seven of them will be voting three appointed by the Governor, three appointed by Office of Hawaiian Affairs and one non government community Member that appointed by working group Members. Two Senate appointments and two House appointments will be ex officio.

That way we can be involved in it. But we're ex officio. We're not going to be able. So so that's the purpose and that that's the result of these amendments questions or concerns Members. That's going to be in the Committee report. Yes. That's great. Thank you.

Any other questions or concerns if not Vice Chair for the vote voting on

House Bill 2582 HD 1 with amendments. Representative Cochrane's excuse. Are there any folk you know ending with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. On the next measure. Thank. Thank you, representative. House Bill 1523 relating to the statewide traffic code. I recommend we move this out as is. Questions or concerns Members if not Vice Chair for the vote as is. So 1523 as is voting on House

Bill 1523 HD 1 as is. Representatives Belatti and Cochran are excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservation recommendations adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1524 relating to pedestrians. I'd like to move this out of the House draft 2 and insert back into the Bill the the amount of the fine which would be 25. So we're just putting back in the original language of the Bill.

I'd like to move that out with that House draft 2 but keep the defective effective date. Questions or concerns Members if not Vice Chair.

Yes. I don't want to encourage jaywalking but I want to take steps forward. So I'm going to go with reservations.

Oh, you're a funny man. Thank you, sir. Any other comments or concerns? I stole it from you. Vice Chair for the vote voting on

House Bill 1524 HD1 with amendments. Representative Belatti and Cochran are excused. Are there any voting? No. No vote. No for Representative Garcia. Any in addition to Rep. Shimizu with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. The next measure, House Bill 2021. This is a measure that we had passed last year. It was vetoed by the Governor. This is now cleaned up and we addressed the concerns and I've got some recommended amendments that I think will do everything we can do to meet the concerns of the Attorney General and the Administration.

So I am going to recommend that we move this out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. I would like to. On page 8 lines 19 and 20 the depth the term high speed electric device. I want to incorporate the definition into 249.

So I want to incorporate the definition in there on page eight lines 16 to 20. I want to. Which is at the very bottom of the page there. I just want to add the words for Violations under Chapter 291C Hawaii Revised Statutes to the end of subparagraph B. So it would read the Directors of Finance.

Any person authoritatively acting on behalf of the Director of Finance or any Member of the police force of the several counties of the state may seize any non road legal non conforming electric bicycle or high speed electric Device for violations under Chapter 291C, Hawaii Revised Statutes. I would also would like to insert a clean date upon approval.

Those are my recommendations, questions or concerns. Members, if not vice chair for the

vote, voting on House Bill 2021 HD1 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Cochran are excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservation? Reservations? Reservations for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 2333 relating to transportation. I'd like to move this out with the House draft two with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. And I would like to adopt the recommended amendments presented in the testimony from the Department of Transportation they provided.

Proposed House Draft 2 that incorporates their amendments, which I would like to adopt with any additional technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Yes, that's what I would propose to do. Any questions or concerns, if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Putting on House Bill 2333 HD1 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Cochran are excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1777 relating to housing. On this measure, I'd like to move it out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. I want to amend the Bill to incorporate the changes that were made in Act 294 in 2025. I would like to.

Specify that the right of first offer is extended to displaced or evicted tenants before displacement or eviction or as soon as practical thereafter. So the amendment would read as follows.

Page 7, lines 17 to 19 offer the displaced or evicted tenants the right of first offer for a comparable unit in the proposed housing project before displacement or eviction or as soon as practicable thereafter to be exercised upon availability of the unit.

On page 8, lines 10 to 12 quote how to exercise their right of first offer when a comparable unit becomes available upon completion of the proposed housing project. And then again on page eight, lines 21, to page nine, line one, at which time the developer shall implement the right of first offer.

I would also like to include the term A definition for the term comparable unit.

The term comparable unit means any dwelling unit that is A decent, safe and sanitary B adequate in size to accommodate the occupants, C within the financial means of the displaced person, d functionally equivalent, E in an area not subject to unreasonable adverse environmental conditions, and F in a location generally not less desirable than the location of the displaced person's dwelling with respect to public utilities, facilities, services and the displaced person's place of employment.

And then I want to add language stating that nothing in this section shall require that the proposed project include comparable units to those that previously existed. So I think that should address the concerns that were brought up in testimony. I want to make it clear if people. People had read the testimony from NIOP about overlapping benefits.

I think that we agreed Housing Finance and Development Corporation and the Housing Chair met and they agreed that the current language in the Bill is sufficient to address those concerns. So we're not proposing any amendments. So with that, I propose we move this out. Questions or concerns? Members Vice Chair for the vote voting