Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Aloha. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us for this joint committee with the Committees on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs and our good friends from the Committee on Water, Land, and the Arts on this March 19th at 3:00 in Room 224. This hearing is being streamed live on YouTube. If there's any kind of catastrophic ending to it, we will bring you up to speed with the public notice as to when we will reconvene. We ask that everyone limit their testimony to one minute. First on our agenda is HB 1619 HD 2, relating to electric vehicle infrastructure. First on our testifiers list is Johnny Timor or someone from the PUC.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and members of the committee. Ashley Agcaoili, on behalf of the PUC. Available for questions.

Thank you, Ashley. That's all I have for those indicating desire to testify. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to testify on 1619? If not, members, any questions for Ashley from the PUC?

If not, we're going to. Oh, the next one's mine as well. The next measure is 1728 HD1 relating to rainwater catchment systems. On our testifiers list for this measure is Lee Wang from the Housing Hawaii's Future. Okay. Members, he submitted testimony in support.

Ted Kefalas from the Grassroots Institute.

Aloha, chair. We will stand on our testimony in support.

Great. Thank you, Ted. That's all I have for those who have indicated desire to testify. Is there anyone else in the room that wants to testify on 1728? If not, members, any questions for mister Kefalas?

Okay. If not, we will move on to the next measure which is my illustrious co chair is in charge.

Thanks. Moving on to HB 1844 relating to Land Use Commission, which except for important ag lands requires LUC to reclassify lands that are designated, for urban growth and makes other conforming amendments. Testifying first on 1844 is the Land Use Commission.

Thank you chair, vice chair, members of the community. Daniel Orodenker.

Thank you. Sign up to testify next is Housing Hawaii's Future in support. NAIOP, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony providing comments. We have concerns with this measure. We support affordable housing.

We know it's needed, but not at the expense of agriculture. This bill seemingly, just bypasses LUC and requires LUC to reclassify based on the county general plan or county development plan. Again, we support affordable housing, but not at the expense of agriculture. We have so many agricultural goals, doubling food production, farm to school, our regional kitchens, our farm to state program. Why are we considering reducing productive agricultural lands or agricultural lands in general?

So, again, we have some, some real concerns with this measure, as long as the other measures that are proposing to remove ag land out of ag for housing. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Testifying next is the Sierra Club.

Good afternoon. Chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Wayne Tanaka with Sierra Club of Hawaii. We're in a position to this measure, you know, for a number of reasons that the previous testify I pointed out. You know, these county general plans twenty years ago, it may have had informed a very different, you know, understanding of, you know, of water availability, of food security needs, of food security opportunities.

And so just to force the land's commission to urbanize these lands based on, you know, on on these these old county plans that did not necessarily account for the things that the lines commission is tasked with speaking about could result in a lot of negative unintended impacts to our long term resilience. I do wanna, again, reiterate that you know, the lands commission has already approved tens of thousands of units that have not been built.

And so really if the desire is to encourage a production of housing, we should maybe look at giving the lands commission enforcement tools to encourage those units to act developers to follow through on the development commitments.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Signed up to testify next is the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii.

Aloha chairs, vice chairs, committee members. We'll stand on our written testimony in support of this bill.

Thank you. That is everyone who had signed up to testify on HB 1844. We have a number of other written testimonies, mostly in opposition. Is there anyone else here in the room with us wishing to testify this afternoon? Seeing none, are there questions?

Senator Richards.

Ted, if I could ask you to come up please. Real quick in support. I get the part of housing, but you've heard the pushback from agriculture. What is the solution?

Sure. I certainly appreciate that question, Senator. And just for the record, Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute. I think it's important, I guess in the bill, I believe there's protections for the rural and agricultural areas. It specifies that the process would only apply to the areas that the counties have already identified for urban development.

So it wouldn't just necessarily be a skipping of the LUC necessarily. This is already land, excuse me, that the counties have at least identified as where they want future growth to happen.

Okay. Alright. Follow-up? Brian.

I'm not trying to have a point counterpoint on this conversation, but just getting the opposing side. So you heard what Ted has talked about. We run into this, and I'm on the side of agriculture when it comes to this, but we struggle with this. What's your thoughts on this, Brian?

Thank you, Senator. Brian Miyamoto on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. And and there are an exemption in here, and it may seem like it protects ag. IAL is not included. IAL, I think, is roughly maybe a 140,000 acres.

We still have another 800,000 or so acres of agricultural land. So although lands may not be designated IAL, they still have high agricultural value. And again, we understand these aren't plans when you stand the need for affordable housing. But why are we again looking at agriculture? Agriculture shouldn't be the only lands available for everything.

Affordable housing, renewable energy, landfills. If we really want to support agriculture, we need to preserve land. So there needs to be guardrails if this is going to be considered. Again, ag land is always under tension for competing uses. IAL is included.

IAL is not the only quality lands that we have out there. So, again, there are some protections, but we are always hesitant whenever we're looking at converting ag land out of agriculture. How do we produce the food, feed, fiber, field and floor culture that we all want with less and less land?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Question. LUC. Thank you. Are you aware of the four counties position on this bill because none have submitted testimonies so far in support of the bill?

I haven't had excuse me. Thank thank you, Senator DeCoite. Daniel Orodenker, Executive Officer for the Land Use Commission. I have no knowledge. They have not communicated with me with regard to it, but the fact that they don't support it, I think, is kind of telling.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Are there questions? Oh. Senator Fevella. Okay. Yeah.

So just a little bit, you know, you said earlier about what the counties had designated as their urban core. What part of the island do you live?

I live, like, in Al Moana area.

So you know where I live? That's the urban core of the destination for the new city. You know how much of that was agriculture?

Most of it.

All of it. Okay. So, again, went to the land use commission. And, of course, you know, we need progress.

But, again, like how Brian said, it's always, again, coming after the ag land to to feed the appetite of affordable housing. And we use that as a token, affordable housing for the less fortunate and all that. But really, really, who's making it into those homes? Ocean Point going for $3.5 million. But none of us in here can afford that.

How much of that is helping the actual problem of housing? None. Are we gonna go against again, after the farmland and putting a Band Aid on what we really need to do? So before we start doing this and saying, oh, because a city had already designated this area, If I was born 30, 40 years ago, things would have been different. I don't care if the city had designated urban core because we lost all of that prime land to development.

One of them is the largest was Gentry. It took out the biggest chunk of our agricultural, nurseries and everything that we had. So, again, there should be an the the decision that we when are we gonna stop the bleeding? That's what I would like to know. I mean, I I don't think you have the answer.

But the reason why I asked you that question is you gotta go take a ride in the place that used to be called a country. Now it's a new city. Yeah? Because it's no longer country because they took away all of our ag land. So we need to be careful when it comes to housing and saying that we're gonna do affordable housing and try to curve that appetite.

It's it's not gonna happen. We're gonna go until we don't have any farmland. So that that's my spiel. Sorry, chair.

I certainly appreciate that, Senator.

Thank you,

Any further questions? Seeing none. Thank you, everybody. Let's move on to the next measure on the agenda, HB 1990 relating to residential real property, which establishes penalties, fines and liens for an owner of a residential property, who fails to remediate zoning violations and makes other amendments.

And testifying first is the Hawaii Association of Realtors.

Thank you, Chair. We stand on our testimony.

We'll stand on our testimony, Chairs, but just a quick note, we offered an amendment. Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute. I think the biggest thing for us is, you know, we do oppose this, but it's not necessarily the foreclosure aspect of it. It's more that we wanna make sure that the home is sold at fair market value and that any excess is returned back to the homeowner, rather than just pocketed. So that's kind of our big holdup there. So appreciate the consideration. Mahalo.

Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Grassroots Institute.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1990? Seeing none, are there any questions? Alright, seeing none. Thanks.

Thanks. Let's move on to the next measure, HB 2424, relating to land use, which authorizes each county planning agency to petition the LUC for a district boundary amendment to reclassify certain lands within the Ag district to the rural district for a period of time. Testifying first on SB 2424 is the LUC.

Thank you, Chairs, members of the committee. Dan Orodenker. We stand on our testimony.

Thank you. Up next is OPSD.

Chairs, members. OPSD will stand on its written testimony in support, providing comments for <unintelligible>.

Thank you. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony providing comment. Same argument.

Thank you. That is everybody who had signed up to testify on 2424. We had a few other written comments. Is there anyone else here in the room wishing to testify on this measure? All right. Seeing none, other questions? Senator DeCoite.

Thank you, Chair. OPSD. Thank you. So, except for Hawaii County, Hawaii County council member, none of the counties have weighed in on this bill. Are you aware of their positions on the bill?

I do not. Sorry. Leo Asuncion, administrator with OPSD. No, Senator. I am not aware of their positions of the counties themselves.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any further questions? Just real quick for the LUC. In your testimony, you note there's a declaratory ruling process that would be used hypothetically under similar circumstances for reclassification. Is there a speak to this that would provide for the same kind of, I guess, evaluation?

Thank you, Chair, for the question. Dan Orodenker, executive officer for the Land Use Commission. This is problematic. I think that the declaratory ruling process is definitely the wrong process. At the very least, the special permit process could be utilized. However, that really doesn't lend itself to this either.

The only process that we have-- other process that we have available to us is the contested case hearing process, and that would be the most palatable from a legal standpoint rather than declaratory ruling process because at some stage, there has to be-- in order to meet due process, there has to be a contested case hearing and it has to be an ability for affected landowners to present their case.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. There's no further questions?

We're gonna take a brief recess.

We are reconvening our joint committee with the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs and our Committee on Water and Land and Culture and the Arts. The two chairs have conferred and have decided to move these measures forward, first one being 1619 HD2 relating to electric vehicle infrastructure.

We do want to pass this measure out as is to help with the deployment of more EV charging stations throughout our state. So the recommendation is to pass it as is. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for House Bill 1619 is to pass as amended. Chair votes yes, vice chair votes aye. Senator DeCoite?

Reservations.

Senator Richards?

Reservations.

Senator Fevella?

Reservations.

Recommendation is adopted.

Thanks for the Committee on Water and Land. Same recommendation.

For the Committee of Water and Land, voting on HB 1619 HD 2. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Chair goes aye. Vice chair, excuse.

[Roll Call]

Chair, your measure is adopted.

Thank you. Okay.

The next measure is House Bill 1728 relating to rainwater catchment systems. We would like to create a kind of a regulatory regime around this opportunity, but think that it's probably better to have the Department of Health be designated as that kind of regulator for this measure. Also wanna make a second amendment, which is to take into account the amendments by, this is a long name for an organization, It's called the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and the American Rainwater Catchment System Association International.

Those two entities have given suggested amendments to help out, you know, clarify the standards that are wanting to be achieved with this measure. So those are the two substantive amendments. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for HB 1728 is to pass with amendments, noting all members present. Are there any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on. Oh, sorry. Waterline Committee, same recommendation.

Same recommendation. Committee on Water and Land and Cultural Arts. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair goes aye. Vice Chair excused.

Senator Chang?

Senator DeCorte, aye, Chair, your measure is adopted.

Aye.

Senator Lamosao?

Aye.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1844 relating to the Land Use Commission. Appreciate the discussion and questions from some of our colleagues. It sounds like there's not the support at this time to move it forward, so we're gonna defer this measure. There are other measures moving in this space. So perhaps we'll come back to continuing the conversation. But for the moment, let's move on to HB 1990 relating to residential real property, establishes penalties and fines and liens. Recommendation, I'd like to see the committee's indulgence to move this along.

This goes to a couple more committees, but passing with amendments adopting the recommendations of the, or addressing the recommendations of the Grassroots Institute. So that, if there's a property owner who fails to comply with whatever the zoning is and all that stuff, yes, the city can take action, but we're gonna change this to read, provided that the county sell the property at no less than the market value of similar properties and that revenues received from the sale that exceed the amount of any liens, penalties and costs to the county for related actions be refunded to the property owner.

And we'll keep the defective date on the measure. Any questions, discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

Okay. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments HB 1990 HD 2, Chair goes aye, noting the excused absence of Vice Chair Inouye. Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no? Chair, your measure is adopted.

For members of EIG, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

The Chair's recommendation for HB 1990 is to pass with amendments. Noting the presence of all members. Are there any objections or reservations? Hearing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 2424 relating to land use. This one as well, I'd like to recommend moving with amendments, but to address some of the issues raised, we'd like to adopt OPSD's language allowing time for conformance.

And also I think to the point, I forget which testifier raised it about there being 45,000 or 50,000 unbuilt units that have been previously approved by the LUC where the landowners did not follow through and actually build the housing, like to add in reasonable LUC authority to impose penalties for non-compliance. So, no, this also has an effective date of 3000.

We'll keep in there for further discussion. Any questions?

Chair, I still got an issue with this, you know, knowing that, you know, the other counties are leaving weighing in on it. It's sending me a message that, you know, they're not in support of it. So, I I'll be honest, I don't see, you know, Maui County on there. And for that reason, I'm gonna go no this measure.

Understood. Any further comments? If not, Vice Chair.

Committee on Water and Land, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments HB 2424 HD 2, with the Chair going aye noting the excused absence of Vice Chair Inouye. Any members voting with reservations? Any no votes? Chair, your motion has been adopted.

Chair.

Thanks. For EIG, same recommendation. Any discussion?

Yes. Senator Richards.

You know, I know Big Island weighed in on this, but I'm concerned that we don't have all the counties weighing in on that. So, for that reason, I'm gonna be voting no on this.

Okay. It's gonna be close. Okay. Chair's recommendation is set to pass this measure out with the suggested amendments by our WLA Chair. I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for HB 2424 is to pass with amendments. Chair votes yes. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator DeCoite?

No.

Senator Fevella?

Senator Richards?

No.

Recommendation is not adopted.

No.

All right. Keeping it real everybody. That is the end of our 3PM agenda. I'll note we have one more joint agenda between the other committees of housing. So for the moment, I'd like to thank our illustrious EIG chair.

Thank you. That was a really real committee hearing. Adjourn.

Good afternoon. We're reconvening our Joint Committees on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs, Housing, and Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts on our 03:01PM agenda here in State Capitol conference Room 224. We have a few agendas excuse me, a few bills on the agenda. We'd ask folks to be succinct in your testimony so we have time to get through everybody. Make sure your written testimonies have been submitted.

And with that, we'll begin with HB 1738 relating to land use decision making, which authorizes counties to amend district bounties involved, district bounties, district boundaries. That's a different bill. District boundaries involving land areas greater than 15 but no more than 25 acres for the purposes of housing. Testifying first on 1738 is the Land Use Commission...

Thank you. Next is OHA on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committees. My name is Kamaile Puluole-Mitchell with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs stands by its comments for HB 1738 HD two. OHA appreciates the intent to facilitate housing production. However, this measure is not necessary to expedite affordable housing, and the Land Use Commission already processes these projects on the 45-day timeline.

The LUC plays a critical role in ensuring that protection of agricultural lands, Native Hawaiian rights, and public trust resources through this transparent process that allows community and culture practitioner participation. So expanding the county authority over largely, larger parcels risk weakening that consistency oversight. And also OHA would like to emphasize that increasing supply alone does not guarantee affordability. So without these enforceable requirements, like the income targeting and long-term restrictions, these projects may not serve the most in need.

We encourage further study through the working group before making structural changes to the LUC authority. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Testifying next is the Sierra Club. Good afternoon again.

Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club Hawaii. We are in opposition to this measure. I think as, you know, the previous testifier pointed out, you know, the Land Use Commission already processes affordable housing, district body amendments within the 45-day deadline. Like, they've never missed that deadline.

So you're really only shaving off a small fraction of the affordable housing development timelines. And, again, given what we've seen over the years of tens of thousands of units not being developed despite being approved under district ... amendments, you know, I think this measure is kind of barking up the wrong tree if the intent really is to promote the production of affordable units. I'm happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, I respectfully ask that you oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Good afternoon, again.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chair, members of the committees. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our testimony. We respectfully oppose this measure. And we have the same concerns as previous measures.

Once you convert ag land out of ag, it's never coming back. We're gonna lose that production forever. Our concern is that we're increasing from 15 acres now to 25 acres, and it seems like a small ask, 10 additional acres. Ten acres can maybe produce 14-15 houses. How much food production can we produce in those 10 acres?

Hundred thousand, five hundred thousand pounds of food a year depends on the crops. Again, whenever we convert land out of ag, we're going to lose ag production. In a time when we're trying to increase our ag production, why are we considering potentially losing more? Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you.

Testifying next is the Grassroots Institute.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee, Ted Kefalas Grassroots Institute, we'll stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Hawaii Farmers Union on Zoom.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, committee members, Hunter Heaivilin here on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We submitted our written testimony offering support of the intent of this measure to increase affordable housing stock, but similar to the myriad concerns we add to the choir there and would maybe like to zero in on one of the particular thresholds that's in place in the bill as written. It relies on the Land Study Bureau's productivity rating, which were first produced in the nineteen sixties.

And by matter of example, the Mililani Ag Park and the adjacent parcel are currently rated A and D. When the first measurement was done, they were both rated A.

But when the second was done, the adjacent parcel, which is now a solar farm, was rated D because it was unirrigated and used in pineapple production. And in that way, our regulatory structures are currently still being based on mid-century economics that determine which crop you were going to produce. Relying on that to determine which lands we want to move out of the agricultural district is a misapplication of that tool and one that further risks loss of our agricultural lands. Mahal for the opportunity to testify. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Let's see.

That is everyone who has signed up to testify. We have another around six pages of testimony maybe like 50 or 60 individuals both in support and opposition. Is there anyone else, in the room here with us wishing to testify on HB 1738? Please go forward. Good afternoon.

Hello, Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. Riley here from the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. We stand on our written testimony with comments.

Oh, I apologize. I must have missed. Oh, yeah, I see. Okay. Thank you very much.

All right. Anyone else? 1738 going once going twice? Seeing none, are there any questions?

Thank you, Chair. Office of Planning. So, Leo, I believe you guys support this bill.

Yes. We do.

So as a support of the bill, are you guys aware of any of the counties that support the bill?

I do not.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure.

Further questions on 1738? All right. Seeing none, let's move on to the next measure: HB 1739, relating to transit-oriented development, which requires the development of transit-supportive densities to be allowed in any county-designated TOD area and 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. And testifying first on HB 1739 is--drum roll, please--DOT. Online?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. OPSD.

OPSD stands on its written testimony offering comments.

Thank you. And Grassroot Institute.

Aloha, chairs. We'll stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. That's, I believe, everybody who had signed up on 1739. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Please come forward.

Aloha, Chair. Tim Streitz, representing DPP, and I stand on our testimony.

Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? If not, do we have any questions on 1739? Just real quick for OPSD.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee.

Thanks. In your testimony you raised timing issues.

Yes.

If the effective date is pushed off and/or if there's adjustments to the various dates within the bill providing for time to change admin rules and/or ordinance and that sort of thing, is that the only concern you guys have? Would that resolve that?

Yes. Our biggest concern was allowing the counties the timeframe to adopt ordinances that would fall within this bill.

Okay. Thank you. And then real quick for DPP. Really, same question. If there's adequate time for counties to take action on this, or at least for the City and County of Honolulu, is that sufficient for meeting some of the concerns you raised?

Hi, Chair. Again, Tim Streitz with DPP. It's really-- our concerns really deal with the details of this, so I believe we meet the intent of the definition. So there's really three key parts which deal with the ministerial processing, the floor error ratio minimums, and then this part about no imposition of development standards that render it impracticable to build.

And so, our concerns are with how that would be affecting our current TOD framework. So I mean, I could give some examples, you know, a few concerns just to better illustrate to you if you'd like, but to get to your point about-- or question about the timeframe, I'm not sure what timeframe was proposed.

I believe it was, I think, a few years to take a look-- to go through the process and so forth.

Yeah. I guess-- I'm not sure.

Or we could make it any amount of time, really, right? So is there-- is time an issue that can resolve most of the concerns you have, I guess, with the right timeframe?

No. Not really. You're-- because this bill is really talking about something different from the structure of our current TOD framework.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions?

Yeah, Chair. DPP.

Oh.

Sorry.

Senator Fevella.

I understand how we try to build, I guess, more homes like that, but my concern is that if we're gonna be bringing in certain homes or certain lodging, whatever the situation to try to accommodate in getting more shelters, my concern is that we're not cut-shorting on the plumbing, electrical, those kinds of things and making sure that we stay within the building code of the measure because we had an issue.

We wanted the projects in my community, the manufacturer was China, and when they came to put it together, they had issues with plumbing and then electrical because it didn't fit the standards of quality of what is for the Hawaii, you know, trades and stuff like that to be covered. So when you guys looking at this, are you guys looking at that, making sure that these things are gonna be checked or we just worrying about sheltering people?

Well, I believe what you're referring to would be a separate--

Oh, okay.

--process related to, like, the building permits and building code.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Chair. Sorry about that. Thank you.

Senator Lamosao.

Thank you, Chair. For DPP, I have a question. So how does this law or bill-- if passed, how does that interact with areas that have adopted a TOD plan?

So, again, I think we comply with the intent, but really our concern is with the details. So, for example, the city's allowable floor area is determined by zoning district, and within zoning districts there's different intensities that are low, medium, high, as well as the permit type, whereas this bill is based on distance from a rail station. So it would appear that this would require an additional burden of calculating the distance each time and having different allowances for the same zoning district and permit.

Another issue is with the permitting themselves. So director approval is allowed for certain permits and that's dependent by the project activity and use, but the definitions requirement for ministerial processing may have some adverse impacts. So, projects seeking the specified FAR, would that override the required permitting triggered by other components of the same project?

And with the project seeking the specified FAR override, our ability for conditions of approval which not only mitigate the impact of increased floor area and height but also specify the project's community benefits which support livable communities in exchange for this increased FAR and height. And that was really-- that community benefits portion was a fundamental part of the TOD plans that were community vetted.

We negotiated with the community. And then the other one related to development standards is that, you know, those not only ensure the pedestrian-oriented environment through design considerations such as like where the building is placed on the property, but they're also intended to create these livable spaces in high-density development areas, so for example, like setbacks between building towers.

And then they, of course, serve safety purposes for, like, fire containment and then air and light access and so forth. And so we're not quite sure, like, if this bill would-- projects seeking the specified FAR would override these standards. So that's kind of the the gist of our, you know, where our concerns lie.

Got it. Thank you.

Other questions? Senator Chang. Chair Chang.

Thank you, Chair. Do you know how many parcels or what the general areas are in TOD zones that don't meet the transit-supportive density standards in this bill?

Well, as it stands where the TOD is established, which is three TOD neighborhoods right now--working on the fourth--there is the option to achieve the 7.0 FAR in all of those, but again, it depends on what the property is zoned as and the type of permit that would be required or if they came in for that level of FAR. So I don't know the number offhand, but in every-- it is possible in every--

Not by right, necessarily.

It-- not by right. It would be director-- it could be director review. There is one permit that is required to go to city council for approval. Those are, like, the high-impact type of projects that seek the most, I guess, relaxations of the development standards and seek the highest types of additional height and density.

That was determined as part of the TOD, establishing the TOD that those would go before council just because of the potential impact those have on the community. But for the ones that the director approves, those would be just reviewed internally within the department, and then if they were seeking height or additional density, they would have to provide some sort of community benefit because that is one of the major trade-offs that we worked out with the community through the TOD planning process in exchange for that additional development potential impacting the communities.

Well, you're assuming that the housing that's being built is bad for the community which I would argue is--

No.

--a false premise. But you were also referring to these discretionary city council reviews of certain densities. We had an info briefing here where we were told actually that-- and I don't know if you know off the top of your head, but the stadium would be an example of this where the height limits were actually deliberately kept very low so that any redevelopment efforts would have to go back to the city council for raising those height limits. Is that correct?

Not-- well, so the city's policy is to add any additional height that comes through the TOD zone change process as a bonus, and so in order to achieve the bonus, you would go through that discretionary review process because, again, it ties back to the community wanting to have something in return to mitigate that additional height and density.

So we are separately working on a study to quantitatively allow for developers to come in, provide the bonuses without having to go through that same, like, case-by-case review in order to achieve that extra height and density, but the minute you give it up and just, you know, like, I guess rezone it without it counting as a bonus, you basically forfeit that right to get back again because it's much harder to change the bonus or entitled height down back to a bonus than the other way around. But we are trying to make it streamlines for the developers.

But you earlier objected to my characterization of the housing as a benefit to the community, say those extra however many 10, 20 floors of housing. You-- can you explain-- can you reconcile that with what you were just saying?

Well, just to be clear, housing is a benefit that we can-- we consider it a benefit to the community, so it's in all of our TOD plans as such, and I was just referring to the development impact itself, whether that's housing, commercial offices, so forth, but one of the benefits that the community can get is that above any requirement for affordable housing, they can provide additional affordable housing and count that towards their benefit that they would provide in exchange for any bonuses they get through the TOD program.

Thank you, Chair.

Further questions?

Yes. Okay. And I'm sorry I was late, but we did have a transportation meeting earlier committee, and I'm not sure if this question I'm gonna raise was asked earlier. With several of the TOD areas that already has been made, like, on the West Side, Pearl City and other areas-- and I understand most of the development in TOD is going to be managed by the city and county? Is that correct?

We would review the permits.

Okay. On the permit side for development?

Yes.

Okay. The question I raise is, during the implementation of rail that I've been following since I've been here, there were some areas that the parking issue was deleted. I was there for the grand opening of the parking area for--I think it was Aiea or Pearl City--and was deleted from the development. So that means that whoever develops the area within that particular region is not going to have parking for those riding on the rail. Now, when it comes to the development on the permitting, so I guess it depends whether it's going to be condos or residential.

So, if it's residentials, then I would assume that on residentials will be allowed parking within that particular area if there's rezoning to-- I'm not sure how many acres or square footage, if it's 10,000 feet of land area or 12. And I believe there's some areas that we have passed measures disallowing on street parking. So how is that going to be addressed as you move along?

Well-- so just to be clear, in all the TOD areas, we've removed the minimum parking requirement to encourage developers to provide less because each stall, you know, costs tens of thousands of dollars. That gets passed on to the purchaser or renter. We don't require a maximum number. We really leave it up to the market, so whatever the developer determines. So they can provide parking.

And then in addition to that, there's also city initiatives that are through the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation that is providing parking structures associated with the rail itself as well as in conjunction with the Department of Transportation Services.

Okay. Well, it doesn't seem like-- I think probably parking is gonna be an issue, but I guess we'll look forward and I won't delay, you know, the communications today, but eventually, city and county, I think you're gonna have parking as a problem going forward. But anyway, that's it, Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Senator Elefante.

Thank you. Hello, Mr. Streitz.

Hello. Yeah.

So I don't know if this was answered previously before, and I'm sorry if I missed this. How many currently TOD zoning plans has the City and County of Honolulu currently enacted into law?

We've-- so all of our eight TOD plans under the city jurisdiction outside of HCDA Kakaako are adopted, and we've implemented the zoning and established the special district recommendations in the Waipahu, Aiea, Pearl City, and Halawa, and we're within weeks, hopefully, of submitting our proposal for the East Kapolei TOD neighborhood to our planning commission that then gets passed on to the city council.

And as a follow-up--one last question I have, Chair--as a follow-up to that, DPP's interpretation of the bill is that this would limit the flexibility of all the hard work that goes into TOD area plans and some of the ones that have already been passed at the county level. Is that a correct assumption?

Correct, yes. We wanna achieve the same goals. We just have a different structure than what this bill is proposing.

Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Streitz. Thank you, chairs.

There's no further discussion? Let me-- oh. Let me turn it over to my better dressed, illustrious chair.

Woah. Thank you. Wait, is that me?

House Bill—we're on to House Bill number 1742, HD 3, relating to housing. On our testifiers list, we have the Department of Health. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Kika Bukoski from the Plumbers.

Afternoon chair, vice chair—chairs—committee members. Kika Bukowski, on behalf of the Plumbers and Fitters Local 675. We submitted written testimony in opposition to this bill. We stand on our written testimony. However, we'd just like to highlight our concern. One of our concerns is that there are fundamental differences between the types of homes that are referenced in this bill versus modular homes.

The main difference is that manufactured homes are two HUD standards, which are federal standards, which are not consistent with our local building code standards. And, modular homes, which we've been working on, actually require local standards, local building codes. We are pursuing local construction. We, we think that we can help address the affordable of—the housing situation, utilizing local vendors with local modular, local constructed, local building codes.

This—the bill would also, may also potentially frustrate a bill that was just passed on Maui, Bill 15, that was intended to address the Lahaina victims, and getting them into their homes.

So, with that, we, are available for questions.

Thank you, Kika. Ted Kefalas from the Grassroots Institute.

Aloha, chairs. Ted Kefalas, Grassroots Institute. We'll stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you, Ted. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1742? If not, members, any questions? Senator Fevella.

I asked a question at the wrong time, but I guess, DPP. Who? Tim or DPP, but of Tim. Thank you, Tim.

Yes.

Tim. Tim. Anyway, so, you, you, you guys heard what the, what the plumber said? I guess I was talking to you about this bill that was coming up.

But again, with, with these concerns, what was, what would be the stance—your guys' stance—as the Department of Planning and permitting when it comes to what the plumbers suggest addressing—what I was saying about the building code, being certain requirements with these, with these company name, besides not being local.

Oh, I apologize, Senator. I'm not familiar with this bill. I was only coming to speak on the last one, but I, I can...

Yeah. Just if you can't be—the only reason why I'm saying is with the Department of Planning and Permitting, we're gonna have to approve the planning and permitting for these structures.

And if it's not up to building code, again, if you look in my district, one of the housing in my district wasn't up to billing code because they brought it in, there was delays on the project because the people that was gonna live in them is low and moderate income, and it was gonna cost them their lives not having the right building code.

So, because you guys are building permitting people, I just wanted to know if this would be on you guys' radar to kind of be consistent with a sense of making sure that these homes are put together if it's not to the standard of what our statewide standard is and not the continent, moving forward.

Okay. I, I can follow-up if you'd like.

Yeah, please. Yeah. Thank you.

Have someone reach out to your office.

Oh, Senator...quick question. Are plumbers—plumbers are you in, please? So, Kiko, why, why you believe this bill ignores the enforcement of local building codes and standards?

Because this is primarily for manufactured homes, manufactured homes, by definition, follows HUD requirements, which are federal requirements and do not follow local codes and standards. A lot of them may be dated, so the codes and standards may not even be consistent or up to up to par with the current codes and standards that we recognize here in Hawaii.

Not just the Plumbing Code, but the Electrical Code, the Building Code, the Residential Code, the IEC, Energy Efficiency Code. I mean, every single code in Chapter 10725.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thank you.

Yeah. Follow-up.

Yes.

Thank you, and thanks for being here as well.

What happens—there are manufactured homes that are built here in Hawaii. And as an example, HPM does sort of manufactured homes, but it's all built in Hawaii and using the, I guess, all of the wood that they import, no different than ordinary developers would build. So, but are, are we saying that any manufactured home, whether it's built here in Hawaii, does not apply to the standards of HUD's regulations or?

Thanks for that question, Senator. So, the, the difference between a manufactured home and what you're referring to is a modular home, which we actually support.

And what was supported in Bill 15 that we supported on Maui to help address the concerns of the Lahaina victims. Modular homes are required to follow local codes and standards, and we've been working with local vendors here to keep the economy here, built by local contractors according to local contracting law, according to local building codes and standards, and, and still address, the, the issues of, of providing alternate housing options.

Okay.

And we believe that if we, you know—I mean, part of the reason we don't support this particular measure because it circumvents, in our opinion, it, it preempts the work done by the SPEED Task Force, which called for other recommendations to take closer look and involve all the stakeholders to look at off-site construction, which part of the discussion would be modular homes, keeping the work here, keeping the local workforce here, keeping the, the, the economy here rather than exporting it out of state.

Those kinds of—I don't think this bill contemplates the potential long-term impacts that bills like this would have on our apprenticeship programs when we start to lose the apprenticeship hours that our apprentices are, are licensed to, which could have long term impacts to our workforce pipeline when we try to address some of the ebbs and flows in construction, which would result in us having to import labor from other, other states to address those, those increases in construction activity.

So, all we're asking is to hold or defer this measure so that we can look at other bills that are asking to, to discuss these important issues that could have a tremendous, consequential impact on the construction industry in, in, in the future. And, again, you know, we believe that, the homes were, you know, local vendors like HBM and others that, that are contemplating creating a facility here are viable options that we can consider and we feel that they might be able to handle the demand.

And if we can't, then we can take a look at—at expanding it to outside of the state. But I think we should try, at first, to keep it within our state, keep the economic viability here, keep the workforce here, and make sure that it's done according to our codes and standards, which are very different from the HUD standards.

Okay. And I think I missed a little about what's happened in, on, in, on Maui and, and Lahaina. Is it my understanding then modular manufactured homes were brought in just for our information?

So, the—so, Bill 15 was a compromise, and it was unanimously supported by the Maui County Council. And what it did is it allows local vendors on the Big Island to work with Maui County and have a reciprocal agreement where it's built and inspected, on, on the Big Island by, by Big Island inspectors, but inspected to Maui code.

So, there's a reciprocal agreement that the two counties are gonna, are gonna work on, and have the, the, the units built, modular units, not manufactured, modular units built, according to local code and standards by local contractors, licensed contractors, and then shipped over to Maui. That's, that's what the Bill 15 allowed.

Okay. Prior to that, that came out of the county council, but were any manufactured homes delivered to Maui County?

Yes.

Okay.

And, and just for the record, some of those units were not up to code and were not safe and had to be retrofitted. As an example, you know, not, not to get too technical, but, you know, under your sinks, there's a p trap. There's a reason for that p trap.

And if some of you had tried to do a DIY and change the p trap and the water falls in your face and you get all upset, there's a reason for that water to be there. It's to is to prevent toxic gases from entering the living space.

So, some of these units that were manufactured came in with s traps. So, if you can imagine what an s trap looks at, it allows the air to, to flow right through into the living space. And these are waste—wastewater—toxic fumes that are entered—that are allowed to enter into the living space. Some of these manufactured homes came in with s traps from foreign countries or wherever they came from.

But we had—they had to be retrofitted in order to meet our code to—our minimum, our basic goal here is to try to achieve as much cost savings and expedience as possible in, in creating housing opportunities, but not at the expense of public health, safety, and welfare.

And there is no value that we can place on one life. And I can give you examples of where these kinds of situations occurred in other countries where they did not follow proper codes and standards, specifically to plumbing systems.

Okay. With that said, those that had bought the manufactured homes, for those living in Lahaina, has there been complaints or any—they have been sold, right?

I don't know if they've been sold. I, I...

Or they've been used just for temporary housing ordered by Maui County?

I, I couldn't answer that specifically, Senator. My apologies.

Okay. Now, you did say that with those homes coming out of Hawaii County, and you're talking about Maui County's code, don't we have a state building code that conforms to our state standards? So, do we have a Maui County just having their standard codes, differ? I, I'm not sure if that's...

No, I, I appreciate that question, Senator. So, the way 107 is set up is, is once the codes are published by the, by the various code publishers, and there's, there's at least three different ones, right? ...,Publishes the state—the, the uniform plumbing code which, after it's published, the State Building Code Council, when it was active, had two years to review, adopt, or amend the code. And at two years, if there was no amendments, the code was adopted as published.

From that point, the counties have another two years to review the state codes that were adopted by the Building Code Council to review it and amend it to fit the county specific needs, whether they're geographical. Yes. So, the counties may have some variances of the State Building Code.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any further questions?

Thank you for being here. Appreciate it.

Yes. Senator DeCorte.

Department of Health, please. Hi. In, in a case like this, who, who would be responsible for, like, a sewage leak or those kinds of health risk? Would that just be on the owner?

Okay. And for the record, Kevin Ewoo from the Department of Health. Yes, and that's where most of our concerns are that when you take it away from the counties or the utilities and you put it more on a smaller and small—the smaller scale you get, the more you put it on the homeowner. Yeah.

The responsibility will be on the homeowner, and that kind of is where our comments are about the, the sewer, the wastewater treatment aspect.

So, have you found—have you found many cases where you're struggling with the owner to hold them accountable? I don't know if that accumulates into multiple fines or what something like that looks like.

So, we haven't—the, the best example, and I hate to bring it up, but the best example is, like, cesspools. Right? That's the best example is we don't regulate—the Department of Health regulates utilities, regulates bigger scale. We don't regulate the individual owner. So, it'll take, like, a, say, assessment, it'll take, it'll take a significant spill or a significant event that would create a health hazard and a complaint that comes in, and then, the Department of Health would go and investigate.

Yeah. So, we don't, we don't regulate at the individual homeowner level. So, in other words, we're, we, we won't follow-up that you're doing everything you're supposed to be doing. That's, that's not the department.

That's—we don't go down to that.

Who, who would that be? Would that be DPP?

Well, so, most—that's why most of the utilities are municipal, and that's why most of the utilities are centralized. And that's why—so, like, even, so, for example, like, I'll, I'll, I'll bring up Hawaiian Electric. Like, a lot of people are putting PV up now. So, what you don't realize is that you're actually taking the responsibility of that electrical utility, you, as the homeowner, but you hire somebody.

Right? It's—you're not gonna go up there and wipe it or maintain the PV; you hire somebody. So, in this case, you would have to hire somebody for whatever utility that you're taking the responsibility for. But in essence, you're taking the responsibility for.

So, when we regulate, say, the, the sewer, the sewer utility, we regulate the sewer, whoever is the owner of the sewer utility operator. We have, we have our regulations in place. Yeah. Certified operators. We—to put that type of requirements down at the homeowner level is not practical for the homeowner.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Any further questions? Kika, I have a couple of questions. I understand what this bill is trying to get at. Right?

At the cost of housing in, in Hawaii to get people cheaper options. Not everybody can afford a brick-and-mortar home. Someone might want to be looking at a modular prefab manufactured, whatever type of, of home that is put together primarily on, on the Mainland. But I know you come at it from a standpoint like, no, we're just gonna shut down this option for the public. And I'm trying to find, like, there has to be a happy medium here.

We should be giving the public an option. But I understand safety is, is a concern. But your testimony makes it sound like all of these things that are manufactured outside of Hawaii are all going to be substandard. But there are clear—there's clear language in this bill that talks about how the county level, the house can be rejected if it doesn't comply with applicable building codes.

So, isn't there enough safeguards here to to allow for a safe home to be brought in from outside rather than just, say, point blank?

I mean, no, we're not gonna allow any of these in, into our state.

Okay. So, first of all, Senator, thank you for that question. We're not saying no. We don't wanna allow any of this into our state. What we're saying is this bill is premature because we haven't gone through the process that the SPEED Task Force recommended, which is let's have a—let's have a larger discussion with all the stakeholders about this modular homes, which is what we support, versus manufactured homes, which is what we have concerns with.

There is a—the, the, again, manufactured homes, which is contemplated in this bill, by definition, follows HUD requirements, which circumvents state and local building codes standards. So, I don't believe that these homes, manufactured homes, would be subject too late to local or state standards. They're—they are, they are preempted by federal standards.

And, and again, you know, we, we, we understand that there's a lot of attention being given to overregulation, but the primary purpose, and it's in Section 101.3 of at least the Plumbing Code, and I know it's in pretty much every building code that I can think of, the primary intent of the Building Codes is to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

If that is the consequence of that regulation, then I think it's a good consequence to have. Because when we talk about resilience, when we talk about disasters that we just faced, when we talk about what happened in Lahaina, we always talk about resilience after the fact. What we're saying is we gotta have that discussion before the disaster occurs.

And if we start to eliminate these types of regulate—regulations—that specifically protect public health, safety, and welfare, then we're not providing resilient homes and dwellings for our, for our residents. And so, we're not saying we're opposed to it.

We're saying, let's have the discussion first. There are other bills that are moving through the legislature that create those opportunities so that everybody, all stakeholders, can weigh in. My understanding is that this bill was drafted pretty much independently. There was no input from stakeholders that I can think of. Nobody from the construction industry.

Nobody from the licensed trades, electricians or the plumbers, that I can think of. Nobody asked for our opinion on these types of, of manufactured homes. And, and I do wanna say that although we're the only construction trade that submitted testimony, there are other construction trades that share our view. They just haven't been able to come down and testify to that fact. So, we're not saying we're opposed to it.

We're saying let's have the discussion, and let's hold this because we don't believe that all of the potential impacts have been thought out or thought through. And I think the benefits, the small benefits that you might have—that you might realize through this bill—are not gonna—are gonna be far outweighed by the potential consequences that this bill could cause. And there are counties that I understand do not support relocatable. So, this is a one-size-fits-all.

It grants property owners, by right, to, to have these types of units.

It bypasses county over home rule, something that we, we, we don't support. And, and so, for those reasons, Senator, again, we're not opposed to it, but we think that the discussion should occur before these types of broad sweeping consequential policies are passed.

Now, I understand that the Carpenter's Union is actually okay with this bill, and you mentioned how you're the only union that is out against this bill, and I kinda don't buy the fact that somehow they haven't been paying attention for the two previous hearings that it's been front of, and the fact that this is probably a third committee that's heard this bill and they're nowhere to be found.

The only trade union is you, means that—seems like everybody else except the plumbers are okay with this bill.

Well, Senator, with all due respect, I mean, the carpenters are the only ones that came out in support of it. So, where are the other ones in support? I can tell you, and I didn't wanna mention by name, but I have talked with the IBW 1186 and they share our concerns. They gave me their permit—they gave me their permission to mention it. I didn't wanna mention it, but since you bring it up, I'll mention it.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Any further questions? If not, we're gonna take a brief recess prior to the vote.

Oh. Actually, you're in charge now. I'm sorry.

Oh. We're reconvening the joint Committees on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs, Housing, Water, Land, Culture and the Arts on our 3:01 p.m. agenda for decision-making on several bills beginning with HB 1738 HD 2, relating to land use decision-making. As much as we have discussion and would like and probably need to move something forward, there are not the votes in support on this, so we'll be deferring this measure at this time.

Same for EIG.

And Housing Committee will also defer this measure.

Moving on to SB 1739, relating to transit-oriented development. Will be the same recommendation. We'll be deferring this measure.

Same for EIG.

And the Housing Committee will also defer this measure.

And for the last bearer of bad news, for House Bill 1742, the recommendation is to defer this measure as well.

The Housing Committee will also defer this measure.

And with--

No, no, no.

Oh, I'm sorry. Same recommendation for Water, Land.

Thank you. We're adjourned.

Thank you for your patience. We're convening the joint hearing between the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs and our good friends from the Committee on Housing on this March 19th shortly after 3:02 in Capitol Room Number 224. We have two items.

Actually, no. I'm sorry. Four items on this agenda. The first is House Bill 1721 HD 2, relating to housing. On our testifiers list, we have Perry Arrasmith from Housing Hawaii's Future.

<unintelligible>. Stand on our written testimony.

Thank you, Richmond. Charles Jury from the American Council of Engineering Companies might be joining us via Zoom.

Actually, Chair, it's Janice Marsters, here to testify for the American Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii. This bill has a number of amendments that were made in the hearing on-- that created HD 2. They were proposed by the American Institute of Architects and additional comments from our professional liability insurance companies.

We agree with those amendments. We just note, and I wanna explain further a little bit in our testimony, that there remains a typographical error that was actually in Act 295 and continues to get passed forward. That should be changed, and that is the reference to naming the state and the county as additional insurers. That should be an additional insureds. That's on page 3 of HD 2, line 2, and I just wanna explain that a little bit. It's--

Janice, we got your testimony, and the members understand that. Your time is up.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Janice.

And just one other comment--

Janice, we have a very full agenda. We need to move on.

I understand your testimony. Kika Bukowski, Plumbers.

All right. Thank you.

Chair, Vice Chair, committee members, you know, the plumbers, we support expediting the issuance of permits. The issue that we have with this bill-- and there were amendments made to its companion, Senate Bill 2378 in CPN, that included language that addressed our concerns that in order to get a certificate of occupancy, you have to go through the proper inspections to ensure that the dwelling is safe to occupy. This bill removes that requirement and makes inspections for occupancy voluntary. And basically, certificate of occupancy is automatic upon completion of construction.

Our amendments are just asking to replace these proposed amendments to ensure that these homes are safe to occupy. The Housing Committee in the House did not move this measure out with those amendments and we're asking for the Senate to place those amendments back in. There's a difference between-- and I did have a chance to speak with the AIA.

Can you summarize?

I can summarize, sir. Thank you, Chair. We're trying to support this bill by-- in our opinion, we're not affecting the ability to expedite permits. We're just saying before you issue a certificate of occupancy, which certifies that this home is safe to dwell in, to occupy, that you have the proper building inspections to ensure that everything that was built as built was to design. And there is a distinct difference between the two.

Thank you--

Thank you.

--Kika. Ted Kefalas from Grassroots Institute. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1721? Sandy?

Thank you, Chair Wakai and Chair Chang. So this is Sandy Wong. I actually represent ACEC Hawaii, but I'm here on my personal. I just wanted to emphasize that this bill is really a clarification bill. So the engineers support Act 295. However, as written as Act 295, engineers cannot get insureds, and so the engineers would like to participate, but we need to tweak the bill a little so that they're able to get insureds, and so, to actually make Act 295 that you passed last session a success. Thank you.

Thank you, Sandy. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1721? Okay. If not, members, any questions of those who are here or online? Okay. We're gonna move on to the next measure, that being House Bill 1741 HD 2, relating to housing.

On our testifiers list, via Zoom, Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha mai kakou. This is Deja Ostrowski for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. OHA is submitting comments that we caution a bit against the legislature, basically getting rid of the tool that our counties have to require affordable housing as part of development when, for example, a hotel or a luxury developer comes in and builds a hotel. This is government at work. These are the regulations that our counties use every single day to make sure that when we have development, there are affordable housing set-asides.

This bill is premised on the false theory that if we have more housing simply more housing it will trickle down and so OHA is offering caution that if we want to make sure that we have more Hawaiians in Hawaii that we are giving the counties the regulatory tools they have to make sure that we have affordable housing. Mahalo.

Thank you, Miss Ostrowski. Housing Hawaii's future, Lee Wang? Yeah. Thank you, Richmond. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1741?

If not, members, any questions? We're gonna move to the third bill on this agenda. That is bill number 1799 relating to the counties. On our testifiers list, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs via Zoom.

Aloha Chair and members of the committee. Deja Ostrovski for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The office of Hawaiian affairs opposes this measure. We believe that streamlining regulatory, processes are a subsidy given to the appropriate public purpose. This bill would actually expand the demonstration projects for the for the counties, not just for affordable housing, but for commercial use.

We caution against using this demonstration approach. I think many testifiers have mentioned on other bills, there is the speed task force that is looking into what are the regulations that regulations, not this expansion to commercial use. Mahalo.

Thank you, Ms. Ostrowski. Gavin Thornton from the Department of Housing on Maui excuse me, City and County of Honolulu. Thank you. Thank you, Gavin. Perry Arasmith from Housing Hawaii's Future. Thank you. And Gino Sequena from the Hawaii Building and Construction Trades Council has submitted submitted testimony opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1799?

Pick up my glasses too. Chair, vice chair, Kiko Bukowski on behalf of the Plumbers and Fitters Local 675. We did not submit written testimony on this measure, but we like we would like to voice our opposition. We wanna, we share the same concerns that OHA has shared here. And- and we wanna note that, you know, the- the first, this act, I think it was first adopted in 1970 and there was a clear purpose to support housing.

But in this, in this, in this bill, it, it basically says to support commercial, development. So we don't, we don't know if that, if that's a clear public benefit, to, to have this type of, of, broad sweeping bill that, that exempts these types of, large commercial projects from all state laws, all, all ordinances. And again, all building standards, which includes permitting and, and building codes and standards.

Thank you, Kiko. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1799? If not, we're going to, oh, pass it on to my illustrious co chair for the last measure.

Thank you. To my even more illustrious Co-Chair, HB 1718 relating to housing, repeals the sunset date of Act 45 SLH 2024 thereby making permanent the authority of the counties to share in facilitating the development, construction financing, refinancing, or other provision of mixed-use developments, including low and moderate income housing projects, and issue county bonds for this purpose. First testifier is HHFDC in support, followed by OPSD in support. Thank you. Department of Housing and Land Management, City and County of Honolulu in support. And on our written testimony in strong support, but happy to provide additional details.

Thank you. Housing Hawaii's future in support. AARP Hawaii in support. Leading Age Pacific West in opposition. And Maui County Council chair Alice Lee in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House bill 1718? Okay. If not, do we have any questions? City?

So I guess in instead of outright repeal on your sunset, what because my understanding is you can't use this at the current moment because of the sunset.

Correct. It's a little bit of a complex legal question, but yeah, that's our that's our concern. So, by the way, for the record, Gavin Thornton, housing policy director at the city and county of Honolulu in the Department of Housing, and Land Management. So if I can just maybe provide a overview real quickly. So pre act 45, all the city could do was issue bonds to build just low income housing units.

This allows us to move past that outdated model that we don't like, like concentrated public housing essentially. And move to being able to create more diverse communities that include commercial, like retail, so you can have livable, walkable communities that people actually wanna live in. And for one, I don't really understand the the purpose of the sunset in the first place. It wasn't in the legislative history. And and I don't know why you'd wanna go back to an outdated model that we know doesn't work.

The problem with doing that is that, we have we provided in our testimony an example of evil center by a rail station where we want to do mixed use development. Really important to develop walkable communities. We might be able to do a project, but it shouldn't stop there. Like, that entire community needs to be developed.

Okay. So so with with the sunset, you know, if if we do figure out, you know, okay. Because because other than the day, we have to figure out how to get this passed. I think I think there's merit in it, but I think there's different parameters we have to figure out.

So can you do you know off the top of your head if we put in a provision that just allows you to float bonds before a sunset and not prohibit the continued expenditure of those bond proceeds, would would that be helpful? Or was that something that you'd have to go back and check with your bond counsel?