House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Wednesday, March 4, at 2pm here in Conference Room 325. Thank you all for being here and providing testimony. It really does help us do a better job as legislators. So thank you for taking the time out of your busy, busy day for being here.

If you're testifying today, please limit your testimony to about two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point. That would be helpful so we can get through all the testimony. We have a new microphone and sound system if you haven't already learned about it.

So just stand at the podium, speak regularly, articulate, and the mics will pick it up. But the microphones also pick up side conversations between you and your neighbor, so if you keep those to a minimum, that would be great. If you're testifying by Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify.

And then again after your testimony is complete, use the Zoom chat function to chat with technical staff on technical issues only if you're disconnected and you're testifying remotely. Just rejoin as soon as you can and I'll try to fit you in if time permits to finish your testimony.

If the power goes off in the building here and we have to reschedule, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you know what we're doing and when. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. And as always, when you testify, just pretend your great aunt is in the room.

So don't use any profanity. And please be civil and use aloha. Unless your great aunt was kind of salty and. And then maybe you heard some of those words. But anyway, you know what I'm saying. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

First on our agenda today, House Bill 2395, House Draft 1, relating to the taking of marine deposits. This bill authorizes the Department of Land and Natural Resources to approve permits for research, education, management, or propagation purposes that include the taking of marine deposits seaward of the shoreline as long as the resources will be returned to the beach and pose no risk to the environment.

First up, we have the University of Hawaii in support. Next, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2395? If not, thank you very much. We'll move on to the next item on our agenda, House Bill 2585, House Draft 2, relating to agricultural tourism.

This measure establishes statewide uniform standards to promote agricultural tourism activities in the state for all counties that have adopted an agricultural tourism ordinance.

It requires agricultural tourism activities to be registered by the county planning department. Requires these agricultural tourism activities to coexist with an agricultural activity on a farming operation and to be accessory and secondary to the principal farming operation.

And it establishes a process for the termination of an authorization for agricultural tourism activities upon a determination that the ag activity has ceased. First up, we have Hawaii Tourism Authority with comments, Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Welcome.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Leo Asuncion, administrator with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We'll stand on our written testimony in support of the intent of the bill, in support of the bill.

But we do draw one item that we are concerned with that was added on in the previous committee regarding establishing the rebuttable presumption that the agricultural tourism activities are secondary to the principal farming operation. That's on page four, lines six through nine.

We feel that this might put some onus on the county, make it harder for them to enforce. Because it would be like the farmer, the landowner saying this is secondary. And to prove, the county would have to try to prove that it's not versus the other way, proving, right, that it is secondary from the beginning. That way, right, enforcement would be a little bit easier. Available for any questions that you may have.

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Asuncion. Next, Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Hello, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. Ken Nakamoto on behalf of the Agribusiness Development Corporation Executive Director Gady. We stand on our written testimony providing comments. And like the previous speaker, we just want to make sure that there's no inadvertent effects on bonafide agriculture production producers as well as we don't want to make it too stringent process to train it.

Thank you. Next person said they wish to testify is Ted Kefalas, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Next, Brian Miyamoto. Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Member Shimizu. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our testimony supporting the intent. We absolutely support ag tourism, but ag tourism done the right way. Ag tourism is meant to complement the primary activity of agriculture on ag lands.

And we believe this bill goes... It's going a long way to try to require that. But anytime that we're looking at Chapter 205, the Farm Bureau, we always have to pause. And there's also some caution because it is our statute that allows permissible uses in agriculture.

So again, we want to make sure that ag tourism is complementary to the primary activity of agriculture, but also we don't want to create additional administrative burdens. So what we're trying to do is make sure that those legitimate bona fide farmers and ranchers are allowed to do ag tourism, but not allow those that want to use ag tourism as their primary activity.

So again, we appreciate some of the guardrails that put in there, put in the bill. But we're also concerned, again, we want to make sure that there's not overly burdened requirements. We saw the Department of Agriculture Biosecurity's amendments, and we do agree that accessory facilities maybe should be left up to the county to determine.

We also want to make sure that the county oversight and their zoning is what drives with the standards. We understand that we want some uniformity, but we want to also leave it up to the counties to determine what they want to do as far as the standards for ag tourism.

And we also support the department's amendments to restore the guidance language that references 205-2. 205-2 kind of says what's allowed, what we consider agriculture. So again, we support the intent. We think that there's still a little bit of work.

We don't have any specific amendments, Chair, but we always cautious when it is Chapter 205 because people find the way and they find the loopholes to do non-agriculture activities on our agricultural land. So again, we appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Mr. Miyamoto. Next we have a couple people on Zoom. Heather Korotie, please proceed on Zoom. Heather Korotie.

Hi. Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. Can you hear me?

Yes, we do hear you. Thank you.

Great. So my name is Heather Korotie, and I'm an owner operator of a small working farm in South Kona. We grow tropical fruit, supply the local food system through distribution, CSA, and markets, as well as running a hosted farm stay as part of our integrated agri-tourism business.

So on our farm, agricultural work takes more than twice the labor hours of our farm stay but earns only a small fraction of the income. So the hosted farm stay is really what makes us, makes it possible for us to stay farming. And I'm in support of the bill and I think it's a good bill and strongly support the intent, like the Farm Bureau.

But I'm asking for four targeted amendments that I think would support small working farms. The first is a definition that ties agri-tourism to bonafide agricultural production and to activities that are truly farm based, including tightly regulated hosted overnight farm stays. The second one, which the Farm Bureau brought up, is on the definition of secondary.

So many farms like ours, the farm stay income has to be higher than the crop income just to survive. So if secondary is defined only by gross revenue, you'll unintentionally be shedding out the farms that you're trying to help. So I'm suggesting that you could base secondary on the predominance of agriculture on the ground.

So the land area, like requiring 85% of the farm to be ag, the labor, and daily operations. So revenue being only a supporting factor. The third is statewide guardrails for the hosted farm stays. So limiting accommodations, of course, to the bona fide farming operations, requiring hosted use only, prohibit use in additional farm dwellings, and allowing automatic termination if agriculture stops.

And then fourth, giving the counties... And this is probably the most controversial, but I think this is really important. Giving the counties explicit authority to create alternative health and safety focused standards for modest farm stays, structures that currently are on farm. So farms don't have money to build and embark on $200,000, $400,000 projects.

So if there are buildings on the farms, like yurts, pavilions, farm buildings, letting, letting farms keep these buildings because they preserve the character of the farm and it helps farmers utilize what they already have on their land to make themselves profitable. So letting the current counties work that out.

And finally, I ask that all four counties be required to adopt agri-turism ordinances consistent with a statewide definition that includes hosted overnight farm stays. My written testimony has a lot more details. And thank you so much for considering these amendments and for your work on behalf of Hawaii farmers. And yeah, I just would love to see this open doors for farmers to do good work and be able to stay on their land. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and thank you for your detailed testimony. Very useful. Next, James McCully on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. I've been farming in Hawaii since 1976. I've never been involved in any of these secondary activities of agri-tourism. I never thought it was central to the way I farmed from a vegetable farm, through greenhouses, through orchard and orchid breeding.

But in the last five or 10 years, I've started to change my perspective, and I now see these as vital to verticality, the ability of a farmer to add value by moving vertically up the chain. To tell the story, which is where so much value is garnered nowadays, especially in my newest crop, which is coffee in the Ka'u region.

So I would like to express my full support for HB 2585, HD 2. I'd like it to have a very, encourage a very simple registration model. Have more of a ministerial registration with county planning rather than discretionary permitting. I think it's difficult to have revenue comparisons.

I think it's important that all agri-tourism be able to pass a checklist. But I think it's difficult to do the valuations between some activities because there's a lot of overlap in how monies are earned. Somebody checks out from a lunch and buys a whole bunch of goods and maybe future services or subscription.

That's all very difficult to break apart on a day to day basis. So I'd like that to be a concern of concern. I think the flexibility allowed for what determines cessation is important since sometimes a crop will go fallow. We can stump our coffee trees and go a year before we harvest again.

It's for the best to improve our overall yields and our crop processes. But it does lead to what looks like cessation. So it's important that we be able to not have to have an onus with a county inspector. So thank you for the ability to testify, and I'm available for questions. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. McCully. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2585? Yes, sir.

Aloha. De Mont Kalai Manaole, co-manager of Ho`omana Pono, LLC, a Native Hawaiian corporation operating on the Waianae Coast. And I apologize for not submitting my testimony in time. It's been a very busy week. However, this is one of the two bills that I got many calls for from people I work with in Waianae and that we're concerned about this bill. We support this bill and intent of this bill.

And like Brian was talking about and Leo was talking about, we had issues regarding this because we on Hawaiian homestead lands, we have subsistence ag, we're doing subsistence ag. But what we don't want to do is create an environment where we're running like the gentlemen farms. You know, they say it's a farm, but it's not a farm.

It's just an estate for rich people to be able to have lots, lots of land and not do nothing. I've had people in Hawaiian homestead, Hawaiian homestead land on agricultural land say they're doing agriculture, but they say, oh, I get one plant over here.

And so I doing agriculture. You know, when you get two acres of land but you get one plant on a farm. So we want to avoid people gaming the system like that, and having our counties control it in their own environment I think is a good thing.

I don't think Honolulu should tell Molokai or the independent nation of Molokai what to do. So I believe the independent counties should be able to do on their own however they like. However, the intent of the state bill should be clear, that this is actually for agriculture as a primary thing and tourism as an aside to that.

The wording should be clear. And that if you violate that, then you know you'll be held accountable for that. So how you, how you do that? I think the number 85% of your shouldn't be gone... Shouldn't be, should not... This should not be based upon how much income you bring in from your agriculture.

Because what happens if you get on flood and your whole crop is wiped out, you know, then you don't have that number. But if 85% of your operation on your property is agricultural, then obviously you're a farmer, right? But if 85% of your property is about tourism, then you're really not one farmer. You're just using agriculture as an excuse. And that's my testimony. Thank you. Aloha.

Thank you very much. Mahalo. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, Members? No questions. We'll move on to the next measure. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 1728, relating to rainwater catchment systems.

This measure requires the counties to allow for the installation and operation of rainwater catchment systems for portable and non potable uses on all properties. It requires the counties to regulate and enforce standards for the use of rainwater catchment system systems. First up, we have Department of Land and Natural Resources. Welcome. Deputy Director,

Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Kira Kahane, Deputy Director, Commission on Water Resource Management. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I want to acknowledge the intent of this measure. As we all know, we've been suffering through quite a severe drought as a state for the last few years.

And so of course we appreciate any measure that encourages the use of alternative water sources.

We do defer to the counties and to other regulatory agencies like Department of Health to determine, you know, what is safe and manageable as far as placing more requirements on them or giving them more responsibility to regulate rainwater catchment for potable and non potable uses. So with that I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Ted Cavallas? Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1728? If not questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 1881 relating to land use. This measure prohibits passenger ropeways on mountain lands within all land use districts.

First up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Gil Rivier on Zoom

Aloha, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Gil Rivier, live in Waialua, and I'm testifying in strong support of this measure. Speaking today on behalf of Keep the North Shore Country. We submitted testimony and I'll stand on the testimony. But I do wish to add just a couple of quick comments.

And I would be remiss, with my past efforts on the tourism bills, to not thank you for the earlier efforts on HB 2585. Keep that thing moving, and please help address the abuse of ag lands.

Now, that ties in to why I'm so passionate about this bill today, because there's a real problem with the exploitive development disguised as agritourism. There's that project that's very controversial and very, very vehemently opposed by everybody that's going up the side of Mount Kaʻala. They're pretending to be ranchers.

There's been ranching going there for 80 years, and they say that they need gondolas now to continue to operate the ranching which has been going on there. So that's just not right. It shouldn't happen. They disguised it as an agritourism business, so now they've created this issue.

And I'll cite something Councilmember Tyler Dos Santos-Tam said when the Honolulu council unanimously approved a resolution in opposition to that project, he said, "Why do these developers keep coming here and proposing gondolas?" There was the one in Waimea Valley. There's one up Diamond Head. There's this one. They always flame out spectacularly.

So this bill helps get ahead of that. It takes away the temptation for these developers to come in and just exploit our lands and put things that nobody wants. And I applaud you for hearing this measure, and I hope you will pass it on today. And I thank you for listening to my comments. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1881?

Co manager of Monopono LLC, a native Hawaiian advocacy corporation operating out of Wai‘anae Coast. And this is the primary bill. Again, apologies. We've been busy.

You're a busy guy.

Yeah. But this is the one bill that I've been getting phone calls about for the last week almost. Throughout Wai'anae because we live on the other side of Ka'ala, right? You know, we got Ka'ala Farms on the other side of Kala on the Wai'anae side.

And our people is extremely concerned and distraught about this type of activities, especially like zip lines and all that. Right? Like Gil had said, all this is just a cover for people just trying to make money and put things in our, in our forest that don't even belong there.

And to me, it's an abomination and it just desecrates our land and we just don't want it. And I believe that this b ill is necessary to put a stop to all of that because everybody got a right to make money, but not at the expense of our pristine forests and whatnot. So I just.

And then to act like it's an agribusiness. So, the bill was just testified against, you know, that kind of mentality. You know, we should not have that here. So we'll stop to it by just passing a bill. Appreciate it. Thank you. Aloha.

Thank you very much. If you could provide your name, even though you're a famous guy, could you provide your name to our staff there so we can keep a good record? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1881? If not questions, Members? If not. Thank you very much to the testifiers.

Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1990, House Draft 1 relating to residential real property. This measure establishes penalties, including fines and liens for an owner of real property's failure to remediate zoning violations.

It permits a county planning or permitting agency or the Attorney General to commence foreclosure proceedings if the owner fails to satisfy certain conditions. First up, we have the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Members of the Committee, my name is Gurudev Allin and I'm a Deputy Attorney General offering our testimony on this. We've offered comments. The Department has offered comments and recommended amendments to the Bill, including the removal of all references to the Department of the Attorney General.

The reason for that is we simply feel that this is better left up to the counties, as this is enforcing county zoning ordinances. Corporation councils for the various counties are regularly initial initiating foreclosure actions for other things such as property tax, things like that.

So we have specific amendments to address that and also to clear up the process of procuring the lien and priority and recording the notices of violation with the Bureau of Conveyances. There's more specific details in our testimony. I welcome any questions if the Committee has them.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And I appreciate your detailed testimony. It was very helpful. Thank you. Next, Lindsey Garcia. Welcome to. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, my name is Lindsey Garcia from the Hawaii Association of Realtors. So we are standing on our comments. We appreciate the intent of this Bill. However, we think there could be some unintended consequences.

Especially the quick timeline raises some concerns especially for homeowners that may be ill, traveling temporarily absent or otherwise unaware that the notices have been added issued. Because it's a very quick 30 day timeline.

Thank you, thank you very much. Next, Ted Kapalis. Okay, not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1990? If not questions, Members? No. Thank you very much. Of the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1712 House draft 1 relating to the State Building Code Council.

This measure makes both the representative of the Building Industry Association of Hawaii and the representative of the General Contractors Association of Hawaii permanent standing Members of the State Building Code Council, instead of members who alternate the terms every four years

It adds one representative of the Plumbers and Fitters United Association Local 675 and one representative of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1186 as members of the State Building Code Council. First up we have Mr. Bukoski. Welcome.

Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Kika Bukoski, on behalf of the Plumbers and Fitters UA Local 675. We stand in support and stand on our written testimony.

Thank you very much. Next, Stefanie Sakamoto.

Good afternoon. Stefanie Sakamoto on behalf of BIA Hawaii. We'll stand on our written testimony, testimony offering amendment.

And could you just describe what those amendments are, those that didn't have a chance to read your testimony?

Okay. We have a couple amendments proposing that the basically we added some language that would add the words "licensed contractor" to the BIA line, the GCA line, the plumbing and electrical contractors lines. That's pretty much it.

Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next. Reid Mizue on zoom. Please proceed.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair. My name is Reid Mizue. I'm a local licensed architect in the state of Hawaii and I stand on my written testimony in strong opposition to the Bill.

I'd like the Committee to kind of take note of my testimony that right now the SBCC, the State Building Code Council is something that licensed professionals meaning architects and licensed design engineers, structural engineers, mechanical electrical engineers, civil engineers, we all really, really, really rely on the good work of the State Building Code Council.

Right now the council is 12 voting members strong. It's a very critical balance of those 12 members. There's in my testimony, I list them all. There's one from each county that sits on this council. There's one from DLIR, there's a State Fire Council member that sits on there.

There's one from the Department of Business and Economic Development and Tourism, the Structural Engineering representative on the council. And then there's an architect member on the council from the American Institute of Architects. And then the BIA and the GCA share a seat. And then we have a Subcontractors Association member on the council as well.

And the final one is a Hawaii Emergency Management Agency person that sits on the council. That's 12 voting members. This bill is asking to increase it to 15 voting members. And in my opinion, that's well beyond an efficient operating committee to decide building amendments, code amendments, and code adoption.

So the SBCC has had issues with making quorum in the past. That's partially because, you know, the SBCC is not funded quite yet. There's many measures this session that include funding for the State Building Code Council.

So if the idea and intent of this bill is to make the effectiveness of the State Building Code Council better, this bill is not one. It's going to make it worse. Adding more voting Members, adding more issues related to voting on code amendments. It's going to take longer.

It's going to hamper the system as it is, which is already a well balanced system of people that hold seats on that council. Just 15 is just way too many people already. Asked the Legislature and especially the House to take a look at HB 1964 and HB 1725 also in my testimony.

Those are related to making the State Building Code Council a lot more effective. HB 1964, by the recommendations of the Speed Task Force, creates funding and training by the SBCC to individual state and county permitting officials. That makes it super effective.

And HB 1725 increases the code cycle from 3 to 6, allowing the State Building Code Council more time to deliberate on needed items instead of rushing it through. So those two bills, we, I definitely think that those can be supported. But this bill only hampers the situation for the State Building Code Council.

Thank you very much, Chair and Vice Chair. Appreciate the time for my testimony.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mizue. Next, Daniel Chun on Zoom or in person? In person. There you are.

I'll summarize my rather lengthy testimony. Chair and Vice Chair, my name is Daniel Chun. I'm an architect with, I say, three to four decades of experience. And I was also the lobbyist for the American Institute of Architects from 1995 until a few years ago.

And so there's a long list of bills that opponents of the SBCC smooth operation have tried to pass. And AIA has been the defender of the State Building Council with success. Okay. You can see if you had time, there's a long list.

And every time we get a new, I'll call it a different kind of missile or drone attack, and we've been able to defeat it. The last one, there was a claim that building codes impede the promise processing of permitting, and it didn't even get a hearing at Senate Judiciary because there's not a strong connection.

Anyway, my concern of this particular thing is that increasing the size of the council is, as Mr. Mizue said, it will make quorum more difficult. And right now, we're not having. The Governor has put the thing on emergency hold.

So there's like, there's no ability for the industry to have a, you know, a forum for discussion for what needs to be done. So that's really a problem. And so we, we just think that's a problem. You know, the bills would fund it.

And I think the other thing you should consider doing is that, you know, AIA and the architects have been the chief supporters, okay, of the council, both legislatively and it's in operation under volunteerism. So that their and our testimony needs to receive the strongest consideration. And you should defer this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1712? If not, questions members? Seeing no questions. Thank you to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2151 House Draft 1, relating to building materials.

This measure specifies that no state or county building code shall prohibit the use of hemp cre. Crete authorizes building officials to approve hemp creek construction that meets applicable safety and performance standards.

First up, we have Harvey Stone on zoom in person. Oh, there you are. Welcome. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, I'm Harvey Stone, I'm from the island of Hawaii. I'm the Executive Director of the Kohala Coast Community Fund. We support workforce development. One of the programs that we support is training carpenters on our island and one of their projects has been to work with this new material, training people in the use of industrial hemp.

Industrial hemp has a variety of advantages for our state, not the least of which addressing our strong need for it to become a more resilient, self reliant state. There are economic advantages, there are societal advantages, and there are. I'll start with the economic ones.

In the pursuit of a circular economy, industrial hemp allows us to create a variety of economic advantages. One is we support agriculture in the process of growing this, we support farm jobs. There's also a decline in the cannabis industry, which is oftentimes associated with industrial hemp, but it's a completely different product.

However, those that are struggling with growing cannabis now could easily transition over to into growing industrial hemp using the same techniques that they use for their current crops. And it has greater economic advantages to them. So we've got the agricultural sector that this supports.

Once the the hemp is harvested, it then goes into a manufacturing sector, creating more jobs. And these jobs are processing the hemp for a variety of economic functions, one of which is the development of hempcrete. Hempcrete is a material that has been used for hundreds of years around the world as a building material.

It is 100% fireproof, it is 100% mold proof, it is insect resistant, it draws down carbon, and in the growing process it bioremediates the soil.

Ultimately though, it is used as a building material, creating jobs in the construction industry and finally is able to produce homes for our population that doesn't require us importing raw materials, building materials from the continent or from other sources. So the carbon footprint of this is significantly lower than the use of other materials.

But the real benefit ultimately is homes that are safe, healthy and affordable. In terms of an impact on our community. We're focused on trying to find ways to stimulate the economy, to provide meaningful homes for our families and to support the long term viability of our state to be able to stand on its own.

So I thank you for considering this. I encourage you to support this. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you very much Mr. Stone. Next we have Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you. Chair Vice chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bill. You have our written testimony and support. I'm not sure if we could testify any better than Mr. Stone did. We come from the agricultural standpoint, we support the production of hemp and we hope this results in increasing hemp production.

You heard them talk about all the benefits, regenerative crop carbon sequestration, soil remediation, pest resistance, all the great things. What we do hope comes out of this also if we increase our hemp production, and this I believe is the woody core that we also increase, or at least we have the production the hempcrete here in Hawaii.

What we don't want to see is necessarily hempcrete coming from the mainland. If we're going to support a measure like this, we like to see it support local hemp production and utilize a local raw commodity to create this amazing product that we can use in buildings.

So again, we come from the agriculture standpoint, support production of hemp, hope this increases the production of more hemp. But also we would like to see that manufacturing done here locally using, using a locally grown hemp product. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much, Mr. Miyamoto. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2151, please?

Hello. De Mont Kalai Manaole Co-Manager, Ho'omana Pono LLC, a Native Hawaiian advocacy corporation operating on the Waianae Coast. And like, I don't know, Mr. Stone's testimony hit the mark. And then of course Brian capping on with having it stay local and that's what we want, especially on Hawaiian homelands where our Kuleana is.

We was a part of a two day course in Wahiawa at Whitmore Village with friends of Waimanalo when we went through this with hemp crete and learning about hemp crete. And I've been involved with the hemp crete thing years ago where nobody wanted to listen about hemp crete.

I had meetings with DJ Cho, oha, even Kamehameha Schools and everybody said it was a great idea, but nobody would jump on that bandwagon. But now it's taking off. It's a great thing for our state and especially if we keep it local like Brian is talking about.

If we can insert in the Bill that we're making sure that it is a locally grown product and manufactured locally. It's a great thing. Aloha, mahalo.

Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, Members? Okay, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2424, House Draft 1, relating to land use.

Between July 1, 2026 and December 31, 2028, this measure authorizes each county planning commission to petition the Land Use Commission for a district boundary amendment to reclassify certain lands within the agricultural district to the rural district through the declaratory ruling process. First up, we have Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Leo Asuncion, administrator with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We stand on our written testimony supporting the intent. And we do provide a preferred alternative, if you will. I think the main item that we are say concerned with is using the declaratory order process through the LUC. To the... Yeah, the LUC. Sorry, having just been on the PUC, I got to...

Am I saying the right word? LUC?

Yeah, with the LUC. Because the declaratory order process or the ruling process, right, it's supposed to take care of addressing applicability of statutory provisions and or, you know, issuing an order to terminate a controversy or to remove uncertainty.

There is a novel one that they use to designate IAL lands through the declaratory order process. However, one must remember that designating IAL doesn't change the district boundary underneath. Right. It's still agriculture. So trying to do this district boundary amendment through that process. Right.

Kind of is not the right way to do it. That's why we prefer having just a regular DBA process, but having it based on, say, county plans so that they can move. Right. There's some justification and some analysis that has been done to make sure it's moving from ag to rural. So with that, available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next person that wishes a testimony, next person that says they wish to provide testimony is Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our testimony providing comments. We support the intent. We get it. We do. But again, we bring up caution. Once lands are taken out of ag, they'll never recover in ag, they'll never go back in production.

We understand some of these areas are already rural in character, and we've supported efforts to utilize rural a little bit more as a buffer between urban and agriculture. Because in rural, agriculture is an option, not a requirement like it is in the agriculture district. But again, caution is something we'd like to see.

It's got about, I think, a two and a half year window to do to accomplish this. So we support the intent. We understand, we get it. But we're also very protective mindful whenever we're even discussing taking lands out of the agriculture district and re-designate as something else other than agriculture.

But we also understand agriculture in the past was the default district, right, or maybe weren't sure where those lands belong. And some of those lands, regardless of soil quality, may be not best suited for agriculture. So in the past we have supported efforts looking at agricultural land and determining whether or not it is feasible.

The other caution we have is in these these these areas that we may be considering, the county may be considering put into rural, they may abut true agriculture. And if they do, we want to make sure that that 165 or right to farm is not infringed upon because now these areas that were previously in agriculture are going to be rural right next to agriculture.

Again, they work as good buffers, but we're always protective of productive agricultural lands, which is a primary activity for these, for agriculture designated lands. So again, Chair, our testimony support or comments, but we actually do support the intent of this. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, James McCully on Zoom. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2424? If not, questions, Members? If not, we'll move on. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 2197, relating to property.

This measure specifies a process by which property owners may utilize law enforcement officers to remove unauthorized individuals from dwellings. It establishes the criminal offenses of squatting and fraudulent sale or lease of residential real property. Classifies the type of property damage typically inflicted by squatters as a form of criminal property damage in the second degree.

Classifies the falsification of documentation typically performed by squatters as a form of unsworn falsification to authorities. First up we have Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department submits testimony just providing comments for House Bill 2197. Go over all the what the bill does is that was really long restation of what it does. But we will point out first this bill appears to create a new removal process.

It will, appears to run concurrent with the current processes of a court or hearing officer. We suggest amending the language on page 6, line 18 to just provide some more safeguards as this new process relies more on just affidavits.

This will ensure that law enforcement officers that are enforcing these affidavits feel more comfortable that there are safeguards in place and that they can rely on them properly. Second, Department would just suggest to the Committee reevaluating the term "immediate family members" on page 3, lines 1 through 2. It may not adequately cover such relationships as romantic partnerships.

And that runs, that possibly creates unintended consequences of utilizing this removal process in domestic disputes.

Lastly, the intent of the measure is to, if the intent is to create class C felony offenses for some of these actions that are proposed in this bill, Department suggested some language that could be utilized by the Committee within existing statutes, criminal statutes, to make sure that we utilize those to effectuate what this bill is in.

I will be here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Lyndsey Garcia,

Aloha chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee.My name is Lyndsey Garcia from the Hawaii Association of Realtors. So we support this bill with some friendly amendments. I just wanted to say this bill is not about tenants with a legitimate rental agreement. Obviously, it's important to protect tenants rights when it comes to those that have real rental agreements.

What we're, what this bill is really talking about here are squatters. And we have come across situations, we've heard situations from our members and from our clients that, for instance, you have a property owner who calls law enforcement to say, this person's trespassing on my property. They're not supposed to be there.

And then when law enforcement arrives, the person who is there presents a fraudulent rental agreement or says, oh, I have a rental agreement. I'm actually a tenant. This can cause the law enforcement officer to hesitate to trespass the individual because they don't know whether or not there actually is a true rental agreement or not.

And so this bill is actually attempting to provide a balanced process for addressing this particular type of concern. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Ted Kefalas, Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2197? If not, questions? No? Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2458, House Draft 2, relating to surveillance pricing.

This measure prohibits persons from using surveillance pricing and the sale of food exemptions for certain discounts, loyalty programs, and restaurants. On this measure we have Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Office of Consumer Protection.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Dom Jancaterino, I'm an Enforcement Attorney for the State of Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection. The State of Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection submitted written testimony highlighting the need to remove the exemption for loyalty programs. In requesting a General Fund allocation for three different positions.

One, a technologist, a staff attorney, and three. Sorry, one, a technologist Two, a staff attorney and three, an investigator to enforce this bill that passed. Thank you for your time and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next, the Hawaii Public Health Institute.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Chris Caulfield from the Hawaii Public Health Institute. We are in support of this measure. We're all familiar with those situations where you call an Uber and it costs $10 and you wait 10 minutes more and suddenly it costs $25.

And think about that, but with regard to SNAP and WIC, and that's really why we're very interested in seeing this bill move forward.

Surveillance pricing allows companies to use information, certain information in conjunction with one another, like your purchasing history, your browsing history, items you've left in your cart, demographic data in order to change prices, charge different prices for different consumers.

There was a report that came out from Consumer Reports recently that found that the difference could be as much as 23% for the same goods between different consumers.

There's other studies that have come out from consumer advocates that found this is happening specifically for SNAP users when they are most in need, when they're most in need, or most, when their hunger needs are most acute.

So, for example, at the beginning of the month when SNAP cards are filled, or at the end of the month when hunger needs can be most acute, they're seeing those surveillance pricing kick into effect and seeing those price variations where their prices are being, they're being targeted with price increases.

We also think that this state corrupts our state safety net. Even though we're focusing very much on the SNAP individuals, we try to, we look at this as a measure that is distorting through artificial and algorithmic price fluctuations, our efficient allocation of resources through our social safety net, through food benefit programs.

So we see this as something that is undermining predictability and stability, both for the state level in terms of resource allocation as well as for individual families when they're trying to meet their hunger needs. So we see this as a predatory practice, and we hope that you'll pass this measure to renovate. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Caulfield. Next, Joell Edwards on Zoom.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Joell Edwards. I'm a resident of Wainiha on the North Shore of Kauai and an owner of a small rural community grocery store.

And I'm testifying in strong support of this measure. Predictability and food pricing matters, especially for Hawaii residents who are already facing extremely high food costs. As you know, one in three households In Hawaii, experiences food insecurity and many families are working incredibly hard just to stretch their grocery budgets.

As a small grocer, surveillance pricing raises concerns not only for consumers, but for our small businesses like mine. Large national retailers have the ability to track shopping habits and change prices to customers. They can offer lower prices to some shoppers while charging others more. Those same companies also have much greater buying power with suppliers.

They can buy food in huge quantities and often get better prices than small stores. And that advantage is combined with pricing technology, it becomes even harder for us small community grocers to compete. Small stores like mine already face higher shipping costs and small smaller orders.

Surveillance pricing would only widen that gap between large retailers and the local stores that serve our small rural communities. In my small rural community, my customers are my neighbors. They should know that the price of the food they place on their tables is transparent and the same for everyone, especially our SNAP customers.

This measure helps protect fairness and transparency in food pricing while supporting the small community grocers that many neighborhoods rely on for access to food. Thank you for your support.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Robert Singleton on Zoom.

Good Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Robert Singleton and I'm with Chamber of Progress. We're a left leaning technology trade association.

Today, I'm here testifying today in respectful opposition to HB 2458 because, because it risks eliminating the personalized deals, loyalty program, promotions, and discounts that help Hawaii families afford groceries and food item. And because of the expanded scope called for by recent amendments that no longer limit this bill to items, eligible items pre purchased using federal programs and instead now applies to virtually all non prepared food items. I'll mainly defer to my written testimony as submitted, but I'd like to emphasize a couple of points.

While we sympathize with the core intention of this bill that hopefully to make food cheaper, the way in which this Bill defines surveillance pricing would inadvertently capture many pro consumer practices like personalized coupons and preferred memberships which presently help people save money.

The bottom line is that these types of personalized loyalty programs, which are explicitly not exempted, are popular and well utilized. At a time when every single local, regional, and national poll lays bare the cost of living as the single most important issue to voters, this bill would further increase the amount of money households are having to spend to make ends meet.

In fact, a global survey of 23,000 consumers found that the vast majority are not only comfortable with personalized offers, but expect them, saying that personalization helps them find better prices and save time. And finally, I'd like to call your attention to the written testimony submitted by your own Department of Commerce and Consumer affairs, which asks that all loyalty program exemptions be removed from the bill, effectively ending any practice of discounting any food items for any reason, stating that there is little to no consumer benefit from exempting loyalty programs to begin with.

That is certainly a bold interpretation and one that we do not think most consumers would agree with. The Department then further asked for a close to half a million dollars in annual General Fund allocation just to enforce the bill, implying that it would be largely unenforceable without that money.

So our position to this bill can thus be summarized as, please do not use additional taxpayer funds to go after loyalty programs and discounted food coupons. That would be a markedly anti consumer approach to pricing. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Genevieve Mumma on zoom.

Yes. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Genevieve Mumma from Hawaii Hunger Action Network. We are a coalition of more than 20 local organizations with the mission to advocate for food security. We are in strong support of this bill. Hawaii has some of the highest grocery prices in the nation. That's a fact.

And knowing this, protecting food affordability is more important now than ever. This bill would actually get ahead and prevent companies adjusting food costs based on things like personal data and shopping behavior and profiling. These are harmful tactics by large companies.

And with this bill, Hawaii has the opportunity to protect food affordability, particularly for SNAP and WIC users, and just the cost of basic necessities in general. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. We have received lots of testimony on this one. Total of 49 in support, 2 in opposition, 2 with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2458? Welcome. Please introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I am Daniela Spoto from Hawaii Appleseed. I believe you have our testimony. It may have been.

Yes, we do have your testimony. I just didn't know you were going to be here. Sorry.

Oh, okay. Yes.

Please proceed.

In person. Yes. I just would like to reiterate that we support this bill and we're concerned about the high grocery costs that Hawaii is experiencing. A corporate crisis that's led to one in three households experiencing food insecurity, meaning they struggle to afford enough food to survive.

And surveillance pricing, we believe is a predatory corporate practice. It's already rampant across other industries and has no place in our food industry. So thank you so much for supporting this bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions Members, if not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1877, House Draft 1 relating to the Hawaii State Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus Commission.

This expands the membership of this commission from eight voting Members to 11 by adding one seat for a person under the age of 29 and one seat each for the appointees of the speaker of the House of Representatives and Senate President, respectively. First up, we have Hawaii Civil Rights Commission in support. Next, Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission on Zoom.

Good afternoon. Michael Goloulia Jr. He, him pronouns for the Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission for Hearing this Bill. This is one of our priorities. The impetus behind this Bill is that we have eight Member commission. Usually you have boards and commissions with an odd number.

So we, instead of just going through all this, all the processes to add one Member, we looked at trying to add the diversity of thought and giving the speaker and the Senate President made sense to us as well as our introducers. We thank you for hearing this Bill and it just makes sense and we encourage you.

We're not asking for representation for every Member, for every Member of the LGBTQIA+ community. We're just asking for a diversity of thought as well as making sure our somebody under the age of 29 has a seat at the table. I will be available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Do you want to change your background and speak on behalf of Pride at Work Now?

No, thank you, but I appreciate the offer. Certainly stand behind the Bill.

Thank you. We received written testimony support from Pride at Work of Hawaii also. Next, Hoku pack on Zoom. Not present. Let's see. Laura Nakanalua. Laura Nakanelua. Not present on Zoom. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1877? If not questions. Members, I have a question. Represent Shimizu.

Mr. Golovich, I was just wanting to clarify, are these positions volunteer and unpaid?

Like almost every board and commission in the state of Hawaii, they are all volunteer.

Follow up question? So this wouldn't cost any more money for the state then just confirming that?

No, it would not.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2375, House Draft 2 relating to towing practices.

This measure establishes a uniform Towing practices for public parking Facilities working group within the Department of Transportation to examine existing state and county laws, ordinances, rules and administrative practices relating to towing from public parking facilities and develop recommendations for uniform standards applicable to towing from state and county parking facilities and requires a report to the Legislature.

First up, we have Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Office of Consumer Protection.

Mr. Emery, testimony in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Could you explain highlights about why you opposed this, please? Sure.

I would just note that OCP does take complaints about towing very seriously. This. Our opposition isn't meant to come off as unsympathetic to the concerns raised by the community Members. But towing is regulated by state statute. It sets forth rates, requires that towing companies accept payment by cash, credit and debit card, requires adequate signage.

We believe that the issue here is that state agencies should be required to incorporate towing statutes into the contracts when they're soliciting vendors. State agencies procuring parking enforcement should also be monitoring their vendors for compliance and taking steps to debar the vendor if there are continued violations or complaints about conduct. And that's the bulk of our testimony.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. Next. Kate Thompson, Save Surf Parking Coalition.

Hello. Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poipoi. Maybe she's in her office. And Members of the Committee.

My name is Kate Thompson and I am speaking on behalf of surfparking.org I'm also a voter at Ala Wai Small Boat harbor and a Member of the public who regularly pays for parking at government facilities, such as being able to testify and, you know, parking at a DAX parking lot. So I understand that.

We strongly support HB 2375 establishing uniform and Towing Practices Working Group. And our testimony shows that there are many people testifying, like 20 people in favor of this. And we want to have towing practices more the same. And what leads to the tow is important. So originally in this Bill, it was about.

About parking enforcement and towing, and it sort of morphed into just about towing. And we're concerned about that because what leads to the tow is really our issue, whether there are citations, whether it's police there and who's signaling the tow. And we have a. The enforcement can vary dramatically.

For instance, the Department of Accounting and General Services manages 35 public parking lots statewide and averages roughly one tow per year. Some small state boat harbors, including the Ala Wai and Maalaea and Maui, have towed thousands of cars per year. And we have proved this in previous testimonies and in my testimony today.

2,589 cars towed last year and only 25 parking tickets given the year before. That was four tickets. Now, DLNR has told the legislators that do care gets the tickets, but they don't staff for the tickets.

So there is a vacuum, a loophole, which leading to this instant towing when the meters expire, which from a Department of Consumer Affairs advantage, we think is not right. So it's not just about, you know, does the tow truck ruin the car's front end or something like that. We're talking about what leads up to the tow.

So we are asking for four amendments and I'm happy to speak to those if you'd like.

If you could just summarize them that would be great

Just summarize is that one, you have the towing company on there as a rep and we feel like we need to have a public access person such as myself or Surf Parking Save our Surf people that care about public access to the lands and including ADA, which I think we have a speaker for that.

We're also asking to basically sort of put a citation phase back in and to call this Bill instead of parking facilities. It started out as state lands at state lease lands and we would like to add that the name go back to public parking areas because there's a lot of times it's like dirt lots and things.

It's not like a building structure. And also we would like to have a six month comparison report. You'll see in your testimony like a Excel file comparing lots. For instance, the tow ratio at The Harbors is 600 tows to one parking ticket, whereas DAGS would probably be 600 tickets to one tow.

So we'd like to have those kind of things laid out for parking facilities. And I just wanted to tell you thank you for, for, you know, moving this along. I think it will move.

Hopefully it will move along and this is very important to people to access to public lands and we have some other testifiers and I'm available for questions. Very well, thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Ms. Thompson. Next. Margaret Halahan. Not present. Next. Louis Erteschik. Welcome, sir.

Hello. Good afternoon Representative Tarnas, Members. I'm here as a private citizen, not for the Hawaii Disability Rights center. In my spare time, I'm also the vice chair of the Waikiki neighborhood board and I've been in that position for about as long as I can remember.

So this Bill started out actually it was brought to us by Kate and a few others because of people at the Ala Wai boat harbor that were getting towed for meter violations. The meter would expire and instead of getting a ticket because there's no mechanism to give tickets, they just come along and get towed

even if you're only 10 minutes, a half hour or over, so they came to us. Our board formally voted to support writing a letter to the chair of DONR saying, you know, we don't think this makes any sense. We'd like you to stop it, we'd like you to discuss it with us.

Out of that discussion came the idea that perhaps Kate and others ought to go to the Legislature and see if they can get, you know, pass a law to prohibit that or, you know, something along. So that's how the original Bill started out.

It kind of then morphed into this large work group, which is obviously a call for the Legislature and maybe not a bad idea to look at all the parking spaces and have some uniformity. But the makeup of the work group is. Seems like it's very government heavy. It's got a lot.

It's got the AG and DCCA and a lot of police departments. It seems to me that somebody like Kate or somebody that it ought to include somebody that's actually been towed, especially somebody that's actually been towed out of the Ala Wai, which is kind of how this thing started out. So if you're good.

So I haven't had a chance to talk with DCCA, but if you're going to do all that, I think there ought to be some sort of representation from people down there at the harbor, because that's really where the goal came from. So thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Erteschik. Next, Brittany Penarosa on zoom.

Aloha. My name is Brittany Penarosa, and I'm a surfer who grew up in Ewa Beach. I'm here in strong support of HB2375 because I believe creating a working group to review towing practices is an important step towards making public parking more fair and consistent across Hawaii.

I also respectfully ask that this working group include somebody who understands coastal access, like a surfer, harbor user, or a coastal access advocate. For many of us, public parking is not just about parking. It is how we access the beaches and ocean spaces that are a big part of our daily lives.

I personally grew up surfing Bowls from a really young age. It was one of the first places my dad pushed me into waves, and that area has always felt like home to me. My community is tied to hanging out in that parking lot and that lineup.

So in places as expensive as Hawaii, I believe we should leave with fairness and common sense. So, tickets first, tow last. A tow can be a serious financial hit for local families. And access to the ocean is one of the few affordable ways people can reset, connect, and find peace. So that is why I support HB 2375.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Ms. Penarosa. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 2375? Yes. Please.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. I'm Brian Mick here on behalf of the Disability Communication Access Board and Executive Director Christine Pagano, we submitted testimony in support of the Bill.

And in the testimony we asked to be added as a Member of the working group. Staff had concerns with the original draft of the Bill, which may have unintentionally incentivized people to abuse disability parking permits at state parks. A most surprising number of our public calls that we get about accessible parking involve county state parks.

So we would like to participate with the working group to make sure that those concerns that get raised to us are reflected in any recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, if not. Questions members?. Representative Shimizu

I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name.

Melissa.

And you're with DCCA?

Yes.

You gave a very concise and factual reasons for your opposition, which makes sense to me. So does DCCA, are you folks enforcing that or holding those things that you stated? Is there accountability to that?

Because you laid out, you know, what's already in place and the reason this Bill is not really necessary because all of these things are in place. So are you folks following up on making sure what you stated is actually happening?

We do have probably a disproportionate number of complaints coming into our office regarding towing. We do spend a lot of resources investigating towing complaints. We have been trying to work out, resolve consumer complaints with individual towing companies as they come to us.

As you can imagine, sometimes dealing with the towing companies can be difficult, but we do try and reach out. We have gotten restitution for consumers where we have found that there are violations of towing consumer protection laws. So we do try and reach out and resolve complaints where we substantiate that there are violations.

Follow up question. Yes. So based on the challenges that you just shared and you experience, would you be able to see or consider any benefits from this Bill as far as reanalyzing it with comprehensive oversight and possibly a reset of some things? I don't see any problem.

Would you see any benefit with this working group to help with the current problems that you are facing?

I think there could be some benefits in that. If we are able to get a room full of stakeholders together and to explain, you know, our interpretation of what the law requires so that agencies can be better advised about what should go into their contracts, that could be a benefit.

We're not unsympathetic to the concerns of the community. Most of what we deal with is just the facts surrounding the tow, Was there signage? Was did they demand cash only payment? Things of that nature is generally what we're looking at in far as towing complaints. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions? I do have a question. Do you have a licensure program or requirement for towing companies?

Towing companies do not have licensure.

Have you considered establishing a licensure system? Because, you know, there's the legislators that I speak with get regular calls about bad and rogue actors in the towing industry and you indicate you get a lot of calls and complaints. So why haven't you set up a licensure?

I'm not sure that's within OCP's. Kuleana. I know that in a previous legislative session there was a Bill, I believe it was on the Senate side, to require licensure of towing companies within the dot, but I don't believe it made it very far in the process. So I know.

Do you need legislation in order to set up a licensure system for towing companies?

We're the Office of Consumer Protection. That might be something for another Department to consider, like PUC or something like that.

I had understood that the Transportation Chair in the House and the Attorney General had requested DCCA develop such a licensure framework, and you had chosen not to.

DCCA is made up of eight or nine different divisions. I can't speak to that request.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Other questions? Members, move on to the next measure and next measure. No, I'm sorry, we're going to keep on going. Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. House Bill 2417. House Draft 1, relating to administrative license revocation.

This measure clarifies administrative driver's license revocation procedures by establishing the notice of administrative revocation as official notice of the starting date for administrative driver's license revocation. First up, we have the Attorney General. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Michael Morayama, Deputy Attorney General, Department of. The Attorney General has proposed several housekeeping amendments to eliminate statutory inconsistencies and clarify procedures regarding administrative review procedures of administrative revocation of a driver's license. So the Department respectfully asks that the Committee adopt the proposed amendments to HRS chapter 291E.

Thank you very much. And I appreciate your detailed testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2417? If not, questions, Members? Seeing no questions. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 2442, House Draft 1, relating to parking for disabled persons.

This measure, beginning July 1, 2027, increases the number of required accessible and van accessible parking spaces in parking lots with more than 25 parking spaces that are covered by Title 2 or Title 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. First up, we have the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. Disability and Communication Access Board.

Hi. Once again, I'm Bryan Mick, here on behalf of DCAB and Executive Director Kristine Pagano. We support this bill, as it is probably the most common complaint we receive from our program permittees, especially as it pertains to larger parking facilities.

That makes sense because the ADA formula trends down the larger a parking lot is. This bill ensures that the percentage of accessible spaces would never fall below 4% of the total parking spaces. Keep in mind that about 7.5% of Hawaii residents have a disability parking permit. We did offer two amendments in our testimony.

The first is to correct what appears to be a computational error for the required number of van accessible spaces in a lot with between 100 and 150 total spaces. That number should be two, not three. The second is to change the phrase parking lot to be parking facility throughout the bill.

The ADA regulations use parking facility and states that this is to be clear that both parking lots and parking structures are required to comply with the section. Goes on to say the number of parking spaces required to be accessible is to be calculated separately for each parking facility.

The required number is not to be based on the total number of parking spaces provided in all of the parking facilities provided on the site. The second part of that guidance makes the University's request to be exempted confusing to us. They said the bill does not account for campus wide or zone based aggregation. That is correct because the ADA does not account for that. It requires every parking facility on a site to be calculated on its own.

Guidance from the US Access Board explains that parking facilities are to be treated separately when it comes to scoping purposes if they are either structurally different, dedicated to and separately serve different facilities on the site, segmented and separated by guardrails, fencing, or barriers, particularly when they serve different users, or separated by streets or roadways.

UH Manoa, as an example, has many parking facilities and each one of those would have to have been required to be scoped separately in the past. All this bill does is require UH to go back and re-scope them and recalculate the number. The only time the zones would matter is if you were putting two zones into one parking facility.

Then each zone has to be scoped separately. For example, if you take a parking structure and assign floors one to two to faculty and floors three to five to students, you have two parking facilities in that structure. Now, each one has to have its own set of accessible parking. DCAB will be happy to assist UH in determining what constitutes a separate parking facility on their campus if they need.

We don't think it would be fair to exempt the university system while requiring Ala Moana's, Costcos, DOEs, and private educational facilities to add additional accessible spaces for disabled people, but not require the university to do it. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Louis Erteschik.

Thank you again. So on behalf of the Hawaii Disability Rights Center, we're in support of this bill. As far as the specifics, I would tend to defer to Bryan and DCAB. I mean, they know way more about this, about the intricacies and the regulations I think over at DCAB than we do.

But from our perspective as a matter of law, the ADA is really a floor. It sets a minimum for how many parking spots have to be ADA compliant. But nothing prevents the state from being more protective of people with disabilities.

And I think we've seen over time that there's more competition for handicapped parking spaces, there's more placards being given out, so there's a greater need for these. So I think that the idea conceptually of having a state law that requires more spots is a really good one. So we support it.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2442? If not, questions, Members? No questions. We'll move on to our last measure where we're taking, for which we're taking testimony. House Bill 1737, House Draft 2, relating to farm employee housing.

On this measure, the measure clarifying the allowable uses within the agricultural district with respect to farm dwellings and farm farm employee housing. First up we have Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Chair Vice Chair Members, Leo Asuncion, administrator with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We'll stand on our testimony. It's a part of the Bill. We think that it's a good Bill. The provisions in there really will help our bonafide farms deal with their employee housing, but it also small part helps our housing goals as well. Right.

I think I said it in other, other venues around pod like it's akin to having the university kind of build more student housing so you can get the students out of the regular market. Right. Looking for rentals and the like that would open it up to other residents that you know, might need a rental.

So feel that this is a good Bill, urge you to pass it and that available for any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much. Next. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. He's busy in another hearing. Next, Ted Kaphalis, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He's probably busy in another hearing, too. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1737? If not questions, Members seeing none. Let's move to decision making now. Top of the agenda. Okay.

House Bill 2395, House Draft 1, relating to the taking of marine deposits. On this measure, I would like to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

And then on page three, lines six to ten, I want to make sure that we make it clear that I'm going to add the words to one sentence so that it reads, provided that the resources will be returned to the beach if possible.

And that the taking poses no more than a minimal or negligible risk to the environment. We think that. I think that would be more accurate than just saying there's no risk. So that the taking poses no more than a minimal or negligible risk to the environment. So that. With technical amendments are the changes I recommend.

Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote

voting on House Bill 2395 HD1 with amendments. Chair and Vice chair vote. Aye [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. On the next measure, House Bill 2585 relating to agricultural tourism. On this measure, I would like to move it out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. I would like to adopt the amendments in the Department. In the testimony from the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

And also the recommended amendments and the testimony from Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Questions or concerns Members. And I want to acknowledge and thank the introducer of the Bill to help me with the consideration of the amendments. If there's no questions, Vice chair for the vote

the vote voting on House Bill 2585 HD2, with amendments. Representatives Pilotti and Cochrane are excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations? Reservations? Reservations for Representative Shimizu. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1728, House Draft 1. I'd like to keep this conversation going by moving this Bill out as is. It has a defective date, so it still needs more work. But I want to get the counties more involved with this and the Department of Health involved. So let's move this along. As is.

Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair

Voting on House Bill 1728 HD1, as is Representative Spilati and Cochrane are excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1881, House Draft 1. This does have a defective effective date. I am going to move this along. I recommend we move this along as is. Questions or concerns, Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote

Voting on House Bill 1881 HD1 as is. Representatives Bilati and Cochrane are excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure. House Bill 1990, House Draft 1, relating to residential real property. On this measure, I would like to adopt the amendments recommended by the Attorney General in their testimony and that's it. Questions or concerns, Members?

Chair?

Yes.

I'm a little concerned that some people might have unintended effect of this. But I think we should move it forward. So I'll be voting with reservations.

Understood. Thank you. Other comments? Concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1990 HD1 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Cochran are excused. Are there any voting no?

No vote.

No for Representative Garcia. With reservations for Representative Shimizu. Any additional reservations? Okay. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. On this next measure, House Bill 1712. You know, we have a lot of measures that are moving that relate to the State Building Code Council. You know, we have two bills, House Bill 1964, House Bill 1725 that are seeking to strengthen the Council providing appropriations, you know, implementing certain recommendations of the Speed Task Force.

And 1725 has a wide variety of things that they're that are being proposed for the Building Council. I. The State Building Code Council is a very important council.

And while I appreciate the suggestion that we got from the Plumbers and Fitters United Association, I personally would prefer that we pass the other bills and and see how that works out before we start changing the membership. So my recommendation is to Defer House Bill 1712 in the hopes that we can move forward with these other bills.

Comments or concerns? Questions, anything from the Members. If not, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2151 relating to building materials. On this measure, I'd like to just adopt technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Any questions or concerns, Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote voting on

House Bill 2151 HD1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran and Bellotti are excited. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next. House Bill 2424 relating to land use. On this measure, I'd like to move this out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. I would like to make it clear that pending petitions may continue to be processed and decided to even after repeal of the Act.

So on page five, line six, I want to modify it, say or add to it, saying quote, shall be repealed on December 31, 2028 provided that any petition filed with the Land Use Commission pursuant to this act on or before December 31, 2028 shall be processed and decided in accordance with this act as if the act had not been repealed.

So I want to make sure that we don't get into a mess. We should include that amendment. I would also like to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style and adopt the recommended amendments from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Those are my recommendations, questions or concerns. Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote

Voting On House Bill 2424 HD1 with amendments, Representatives Bellotti and Cochrane are excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations? Vice Chair votes with reservations. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next Bill, House Bill 2197, House Draft 1 relating to property. On this measure, I would like to move it out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

And then I want to make some amendments to make it clear the I want to clarify the offense to distinguish squatting from existing trespass laws by expressly requiring intent to establish the dwelling as a residence or place of habitation, supported by objective indicators of such occupation. So I propose that we add the language quote.

A person commits the offense of squatting if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling that is unoccupied or that is occupied only by other persons whom the person knows or reasonably should know are unlawfully occupying the dwelling with the intent to establish the dwelling as the person's residence or place of habitation, as evidenced by one or more of the following 1.

Remaining in the dwelling after receipt of written notice to vacate from the owner, the owner's agent or Law Enforcement Officer 2. Sleeping in the dwelling or storing personal belongings there 3. Changing or attempting to change locks or access controls 4. Representing to another person that the dwelling is the person's residence or 5.

Creating, altering or presenting documents the person knows to be false or fraudulent for the purpose of establishing a claimed right to occupy the dwelling and then I would also like to adopt the amendments from the Attorney General on this measure and from the Hawaii Realtors. Those are my recommendations, questions or concerns. Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote

Voting on House Bill 2197 with amendments, Representatives Bellotti and Cochrane are excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. On the next measure, House Bill 2458, House Draft 2, relating to surveillance pricing. On this measure I would like to adopt the first amendment recommended by the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.

I am not able to add the second amendment or the half million dollars appropriation for positions as this measure does not go to Finance Committee. So we're not. It's bad form to add appropriations at this point to this bill. If the Senate decides. If the House. If you're.

If you on the Committee decides to move this out and the House chooses to move this out and it goes to the Senate, they can decide if it's something that we need to have additional personnel at that point.

So now my recommendation is only to adopt the first amendment and the testimony from the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, thank you very much. Rep. Shamizu. If there's no questions. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2458 HD2 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Cochran are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations?

Reservations.

Reservations.

Reservations for Representatives Garcia and Shimizu. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. On the next measure, House Bill 1877, House Draft 1. I'd like to move this out as is. Questions or concerns Members. If not Vice chair for the vote

voting on House Bill 1877 HD1 as is. Representatives Bellotti and Cochrane are excused. Are there any voting? No.

No vote.

No for Representative Garcia. Any with reservations recommendations adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 2375, House Draft 2 relating to towing practices. After consultation with the House Transportation Chair, he expressed his frustration with the Department of Commerce and Consumer affairs for not following through on establishing a licensure framework for tow operators. But we'll have to follow up with the Department of Commerce and Consumer affairs separately on that.

I did not get prior concurrence to take any of the amendments that were offered by DCAB or the other testifiers. Safe surf parking. So my recommendation is to keep this alive because I think it is useful. It still needs more work, but I would like to move this on as is. Questions or concerns Members. If not Vice chair for the vote

voting on House Bill 2375HD2 as is Representatives Bellotti and Cochrane are excused. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 2417, House Draft 1, relating to administrative license revocation. I recommend we adopt the amendments recommended by the Attorney General. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2417, HD1, with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Cochran are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, after consultation with the Transportation Chair, I will recommend that we move this out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. I want to make it clear that we want to establish a clear floor while also ensuring where additional accessible spaces are provided. At least one out of every three is van accessible.

So I want to make the following recommended amendment. For a parking lot with one to 25 spaces, the minimum number of total accessible parking spaces shall be one, provided that at least one accessible parking space shall be van accessible and that if additional accessible parking spaces are provided beyond the minimum required, at least one of every three accessible parking spaces shall be van accessible.

On page three, lines 13 and 19, and page four, lines six to 12, these ratios don't actually follow the one to three rule. So I think for six total accessible parking spaces, the minimum number of van accessible spaces should be two. So we'll make that correction. We'll include technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Transportation Chair at Greece. He recommends that we should adopt the recommended amendments from the University of Hawaii and from the Disability and Communication Access Board. Those are my recommendations. Questions or concerns, Members, if not Vice chair for the vote, voting on House

Bill 2442 HD1 with amendments. Representative Spilati and Cochrane are excused. Are there anybody? No. Any with reservations? Reservations? Reservations for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1737. I recommend we move this out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. That's it. Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote,

voting On House Bill 1737 HD2 with amendments, Representatives Bellotti and Cofferner. Excuse. Are there any voting? No. Any with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. We're now going to move to reconsider prior decision making on House Bill 1516. So we'll take two votes. I recommend that we pass the first vote, which is the vote to reconsider, and then the second vote.

I want to move this out the same as we did before, but I want to insert a defective effective date so that we can keep a leash on this Bill and that but allow it to move forward for further consideration. So that's my recommendation. Questions or concerns, Members? Sure.

I voted no and I didn't change my mind, so I'll be voting. Understood? Understood. Any other comments or concerns? Okay, so we're going to do two votes. First is the vote to reconsider, and then the second vote is the is to make amendments.

So, Vice Chair, could you please proceed with a Vote to reconsider our previous decision making.

Voting to reconsider previous decision making on HB 1516. Representatives Bellotti and Cochran are excused. Are there any voting? No. Vote no for Representative Garcia. Any with reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. I recommend now we. We pass House Bill 1516 with amendments specifically to defect. Excuse me, Defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. Questions or concerns, Members?

Sure. Sir, I just want to say I was rereading the testimony on this Bill and I do want to commend the Hawaii County Prosecutor. I think he lays out very clear points of why this Bill is not necessary. So for those reasons.

Sure, sure. Mr. Walchen has been adamant about that, even though I've been adamant about trying to move it along. So we disagree on this, but I appreciate you bringing up his testimony as your rationale. Yeah. Any other comments? Yes.

You know, I. I signed on to this Bill because in concept I believe it's a good idea. But when Keldrin from Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney verbally testified and brought up the. The practical point of how would we know who is a able to.

Just thinking about the practical aspect of it, I just thought that there needed some kind of more analysis on that. And that's the reason I voted no on it and changed my support in the initial signing on to a no. I hope the concept does work out, but that's my main reason for voting no.

Sure, I understand. I would welcome any suggested amendments that you can think of that would help this address your concerns. But in the meantime, I'd like to move it forward for continued discussion. Sure. Thank you. So recommendation is to move this forward with a defective effective date as the only amendment. Other comments or concerns? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1516 with amendments. Representatives Bilati and Cochrane are excused. No votes for Representative Garcia and Shimizu. Are there any additional no votes. Any with reservations? Recommendation is.

Thank you. There being no further business before this Committee. We are adjourned.