House Standing Committee on Housing

Good morning. I'd like to call to order our House Housing Committee hearing for Friday, March 20. We are on our 9am agenda, and it's currently 09:04AM. Before we dive in, I just want to recognize that there is potentially catastrophic flooding occurring around the island right now. A number of our committee members are in their communities, helping ensure the safety of their families and community members right now.

So I wanted to take a moment to wish everybody the best who's been impacted by that flooding. Committee members, community stakeholders and as we go through the committee, it's not clear that we will have quorum to take the vote. If that's the case, we will likely end up deferring decision making until the time that we do have quorum.

But certainly for people taking care of health and safety is, is primary importance, so hopefully nobody rushes to make this committee hearing and does what they need to do for their own families and communities. But that said, we will dive into the agenda and do, do what we can today.

So first up on the agenda is SB2069 SD 2. Relating to Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund. Vice chair for the testimony.

HHFDC with comments.

Mister chair, vice chair. We send our testimony and offering comments.

Thank you. Hawaii Community Foundation in support. Homamua Collaborative in support. Anyone in person or online wishing to testify on SB2069 SD2?

Seeing none, Chair.

Vice chair, any questions?

No question.

Alright. Seeing none.

Next item on the agenda is SB 2177, SD 2, related to housing.

HHFDC in support. Thank you. Anyone in person or online wishing to testify on SB 2177, SD 2? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Seeing none. Next item is SB 2342, SD 2, related housing. Vice Chair for testimony.

Hawaii Public Housing Authority with in support.

HPHA stands on its testimony in support.

Thank you. HHFDC with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair. I'm actually the house person of this measure. We do have serious concerns about this, this bill. The QAP is required to be updated through an open and public transparent process, which requires a public hearing. So we have some concerns with the bill which mandates certain changes to QAP without undergoing public review before our working group is even formed. And for the working group, we do just note that under our current process, we do invite all stakeholders to participate when we update the QAP. And forming your working group could exclude, you know, certain stakeholders if they are not part of the working group.

Thank you. Department of Housing and Land Management, City and County Honolulu in support. NAIOP Hawaii in opposition. Not present. Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Thank you. Mark Development in opposition on Zoom. Not present. One individual in support. Ben, there's another HPHA testimony in support here.

Yeah. Sorry. I did apologize by accident.

Oh, sorry. Okay. So I'll clarify. HPHA is in support. Thank you. Anyone in person or online wishing to testify on SB 2342, SD 2? Please.

I'm Betty Lou Larson with Catholic Charities. We did provide some written testimony. Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair. I am Betty Lou Larson from Catholic Charities Hawaii. And we have strong concerns about this bill. We feel that there will it will increase or could possibly provide tension between the process that HHFDC is mandated to do by the feds and what is in this bill.

We also feel that that open process is really what we want to see. We've agreed that there is a need to revise and conduct QAP regularly, but it should be open to the community. We have a lot of projects that are struggling, and they need to have input on how could we improve the process.

But we also wanna point out that some of the points in the bill where we have strong concerns about. One, for example, is increasing the points for the shorter term. If you have a mortgage and you pay a five year mortgage or a thirty year mortgage, you're gonna have to pay a lot more money. Well, where does that money come from? Once a building is built, it's only from the rents.

So that means the rents have to be there and they have to be much higher than it would be. And I think the whole point of the Rental House Revolving Fund and these programs has been to try to keep the rents affordable. And as you know, people seem to say, but the affordable rents aren't affordable to us. So we're already having that truly affordable issue, which, you know, is caused by many reasons we're trying to solve.

But really, we need to keep these rents affordable for the whole term as much as we can. We also are concerned that this will really damage the long term partnerships that have been developed over the years. In the 1990s, there weren't many developers interested. There weren't many non profits. Now you have 29 to apply. So there's a big group that's developed who are interested, who built thousands.

So damage by limiting to, you know, the priorities limiting who is going to develop, I don't know that you wanna put all your eggs in one basket. It's like, you know, it's only the state and the county. What about other developers who would have good products? We do agree that there's a need to look at permanent affordability. And, you know, Catholic Charities in our projects or Catholic Charities Development Corporation, of course, wants to maintain perpetual affordability.

It's a matter of how do you do it. And again, in an open process, we'd like to see different ideas for how can you accomplish that in an effective way, in a way that would be good for the projects as well as for the developer and for especially for the state to keep these projects affordable past their sixty year, you know, affordability period. So I think this is all, this is why there's a public process.

This is why we can bring, you know, information from all sides so that issues have to seek and hear what the community has to say as well as the legislature. We'd love to have a discussion with the legislature in this kind of open process. So thank you very much for listening to us and we ask that you consider these strong concerns in your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Betty. Anyone else in person or online wishing to testify on SB 2342, SD 2? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions?

Sorry for my tardiness, Chair. So was that our only testifier for the, for this bill?

Dean Minakami from HHFDC also testified.

So Mr. Minakami, did you testify? I'm sorry. I have questions. Yeah. Okay. Can I ask can I ask? Thanks. Morning. Sorry for my tardiness, sir. I just was curious about the need to create the working group in revisions and the main points, I guess, why you need to get revisions done and what...

We update the QAP, you know, periodically. Typically, every two years, we will take a hard look at it and we need to update the QAP. We typically do not form a working group. We do have a, we invite stakeholders to participate in meetings and provide their input. So it's not in the form typically of a legislative working group.

So this would be different from the normal process. And so my testimony was that we had, we have concerns with forming a work group, which is a legislative working group. At a minimum, that would delay the process, and that could very well exclude certain stakeholders who would want to be part of the update process.

Okay. Thank you. Chair, a follow-up? Thank you. And then in the bill, it says reducing number of points. I was just curious exactly what does that mean? Is that just the criteria, criteria, the point system, I guess.

There's like, the QAP is a point system. So building or projects receive certain points if they meet certain criteria. So, for example, there are points awarded for affordability may vary on length of commitment. So projects that commit to longer periods get more points than projects that commit to a shorter period of affordability.

Okay. And, yeah, and that's a couple of my clarifying questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Minakami.

Follow-up. So the language of this draft and the language of the House draft says that the working group shall, quote, revise the HHFDC QAP. And then second, it says make recommendations. So how would that, given that the mandate is to revise it, how would that interplay with the QAP process? So the working group comes up with recommendations for the revision of the QAP, and that would force these revisions outside of the normal QAP process without a public hearing. Is that what would happen? Or how do you envision?

The working group could propose recommendations. Recommendation still must be approved with our public hearing and be approved by our board. So I don't believe that working group could mandate on its own changes in QAP.

And that's because of interaction with federal law? Or...

Yes. Which requires a public hearing. So if it's mandating changes, that defeats the intent of having a public hearing.

So it's likely that the language in both the House and the Senate drafts where it says... You know, so in the House draft, we did pair it down significantly and just come up with, you know, a working group without defining, you know, the proposed, like, outcomes of the work group. But that revised language is still in there. So, like, so that current language to revise the QAP likely conflicts with federal law. And that as I read it, it would force you guys to update the QAP.

Yes. There would be a conflict there where the intent of the federal law is that the QAP is open transparent process.

So instead, if the scope of the working group is to, one, make recommendations to more effectively allocate federal and state LIHTC credits to update the QAP and make recommendations to revise the prioritization of our HRF, then that will likely be in compliance with federal law. Is that?

That would be acceptable. Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members, further questions? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is SB 2060, SD 2.

Hawaii Public Housing Authority in support.

HPHA stands on this testimony in support.

Thank you. HHFDC with comments.

Stand on our testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii YIMBY, in support. Anyone in person or online wishing to testify on SB 2062, SD 2? Seeing none, chair.

Members, any questions?

Chair.

Yes.

Or final comment. For Mr. Minakami, please. Thank you.

Again, so, this one, I'm just curious if you have, like, a list, I guess, of the, the perpetual affordable commitments, along with the history of early repayments? Do you already, like, have particular developers or projects or that you could, like, list that fall into these categories?

No. Not at this point. We don't.

Okay, and this is a newly created subaccount?

It was created last session. Yes.

Last session. So, you've been utilizing it or you're...?

No. There are no funds in the subaccount.

And that's what you're asking for now, to put money?

Asking for funds, as well as the ability to transfer funds between a subaccount and the rental also involving funds.

And, I mean, is there a guesstimation at all of what type of is it? Did I see a—I know we always blank our numbers out. But I mean, as for your department, did you have something in mind at all?

We would wanna at least put the what's called the "tier two monies" into the sub account.

Okay. Is there a a figure attached now in the tier two?

There's basically—I think there was 50,000,000 appropriated last year and 50 this year.

Okay. So, possibly a total of a 100. Okay. And the—and there's a part where you want to shift the AMIs higher? I mean, the person...

That was the intent of the subaccount.

Okay. And that—in order to create more revenue?

Workflow—create workforce rental projects. Right now, the rent to house revolving fund supports YTech projects, which are generally capped at 60% AMI. So, the intent of a mixed income sub account was to fund mixed income rental projects for households above 60% AMI.

Okay. Is that to help address—I mean, because we have, you know, like, our, our fireman and police force and people, they, you know, know, they're not low really low, but they're in that little more upper, price ranges. This is hopefully to address, that type of...

So exactly. An example is front street apartments where we're rebuilding it now. A portion of the project will be a live tech project similar to what was there before. It was proposing that a portion of the project be a mixed income rental project. So, that would be for households of who are more than 60% A and Y.

And one follow-up, Chair. And, and hence the need to add another story. Right? Your, your plan, you think you're hoping to put on another story to the two story. Okay.

Okay. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Mr. Minakami.

Thank you, Rep. Coshran.

Members, further questions?

Seeing none. Next item agenda is SB2544 SD2, relating to Housing. Vice chair for this one.

Hawaii State Council of Developmental Disabilities in support.

Not present.

State Procurement Office with comments. HHFDC in support.

Sending our testimony in support.

Thank you. Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. Unite Here local 5 in opposition. Office of Hawaiian Affairs with comments.

Aloha, chair, vice chair. Deja Ostrowski for the Office of Hawaiian affairs. We had comments in particular about the exemptions to chapter 6E. One of the biggest issues that we have, our Native Hawaiian beneficiaries come to talk to us about is e v kopuna and making sure that we have appropriate safeguards for what is actually our constitutionally protected and mandated, responsibility.

And so we actually think that these exemptions, including is particularly the mandatory 60 day, mandatory 60 day project review.

There is already a tiered approach with chapter 6E that makes sure that when we do have properties that are not likely to have those EV, there is already a mandatory ninety day approval process, whether or not SHPD responds.

OHA has been heavily invested in making sure that the burial councils work as well as that they are not, what people see as what gets in the way of affordable housing development. And we just think that this is not really the appropriate place to put these exemptions. We've been investing in the speed task force as well as their recommendations.

And I think what's important to think about is that the IBCs or the burial councils, all those mean is that you are able to say we are making an agreement that the lineal descendants and native Hawaiian people have a voice in what happens to Ibi Kupuna if they are discovered. And I think there's been a lot of history of those councils being seen as barriers.

And a lot of that's just because of disagreement. OHA has done a huge multiyear investment in making sure IBC's work. We also have a package bill about making IBC bills IBC's work, and we think that is what needs to happen, not have broad exemptions to these really important, review that we have. We're and effectively this is just adding 30 days to process that already exists. I think we see a lot of these affordable housing projects.

People say they need time to speed up, and a lot of times it's the financing delays or its other implementation as the speed task forces at .We give some examples of some amendments we think that needs to be removed. And so we, follow you for those considerations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on SB2544 SD2?

I need to call recess.

Reconvening our House Housing Committee hearing. Sorry. We wanted to clarify something on the testimony.

I have a question for OHA.

Hi. Thank you for being here. So I do just wanna clarify you're right on page six of the bill. It's set a mandatory 60 day completion review time.

But it's not an exemption from 60. So just to clarify, an inadvertent discoveries would still go through the normal process, and still the 60 process would occur within that time frame. Correct?

Yeah.

Okay.

We just wanna make sure that we're not having that, you know, any kind of mandatory timelines proposed outside of what we are really invested in working on the process we have now.

Yeah. Okay.

Members, further questions?

I'm sorry.

Yeah, not for OHA though, for mister Minakami. He's given him his exercise today.

So this five year Hawaii build pilot program, who's in the program? I mean, like who will be or how does how's this program gonna?

Well, the way the program would be rolled out is we'll identify one project in each county and would invite, you know, relevant agency stakeholders that have a role in processing approvals to be a part of the program.

So at the onset, we'd have, I imagine a kickoff meeting everybody agreeing to the project, its scope, schedule, and identifying the milestones and approvals that are needed, getting commitments from the different agencies that they can achieve, you know, their role in getting the project forward.

So and do you have an inkling maybe of maybe where in Maui County, or do you already have a project in mind to start discussing?

There are some projects that we are looking at on Maui. You know, one of course, is Front Street Apartments. It's our project that would make a lot of sense. There are others also that are requesting funding that might also be good candidates.

And Chair, follow-up on that one. So Front Street, am I to understand that you are partnering, with that one with the county, with Hale Mahaolu since the property is a butt and you're sort of making a connecting the two with the roadway and things?

Hale Mahaolu was selected as the developed or to redevelop the property departments. They also own the adjacent property, which they are rebuilding. And Hale Mahaolu has since partnered with Harish Costa, so they're jointly rebuilding washing apartments.

And believe they are applying with the county for affordable housing funds also to leverage county funds for the rebuild.

And, this could possibly be a project that will go through this pilot program, so to speak. Right?

Right. Hopefully, it's moving so far along that maybe it's not needed.

Right. Yeah. I hope that too. And, yeah, I think this oh, and then again, maybe a estimation or a thought of roundabout their funds that, you know, anticipate that you might anticipate needing.

I will say at least 1,000,000 for personnel. But in terms of other FERC funding, we're not looking at right now.

Okay. For the for the program itself, you're figuring around 1,000,000. Okay. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Chair.

I have a quick follow-up. Given OHA's testimony requesting us to delete that Subsection K, which says, OHA, I mean, SHPD shall complete its review within sixty days. If the division fails, the application shall be deemed approved.

There's a number of different mandatory review time frames in Chapter 60 currently with the max as far as I can tell being basically 90 days. How much does that make a difference for you guys?

I can see why this would be confusing having a sort of a 60 mandate in this section outside of Chapter 60 where we already have mandatory due time in 60. How critical do you think it would be for the success of this program to have that provision there?

I can understand the concern. SHPD, SHPD to your due time many times is the critical path to projects moving forward. So I would prefer to keep it in, make it clear that there is a deadline for SHPD review.

Alright. Thank you. Members, further questions?

Seeing none.

Next item on the agenda is, SB3011 SD1, relating to Public Housing. Vice chair of the testimony.

Hawaii Public Housing Authority with comment.

HHA stands on its testimony, appreciating the intent.

Thank you. Hawaiian Humane Society in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, committee members. Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. Apologize for not being able to get down there in person today, but this bill is very important to us. You have our testimony and strong support. This would open up hundreds of new units for low income pet owners.

And I understand from the department's testimony that many of those units are dedicated for our Kupuna, who have particularly strong benefits from the human animal bond, which pet ownership has been proven to reduce social isolation and all sorts of things that can help with poor aging.

So pets are a great support for long, healthy lives, and we think that this measure would go a long way toward allowing more of our residents to have that animal companionship in your in their lives and more in strong support. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Maui Humane Society in support. Hawaii Island Humane Society in support. Animal Interfaith Alliance in Britain in support. Fur Angel Foundation in support, 15 individuals in support, and 1 in opposition.

Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on SB 3011 SD1?

Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions?

Chair. Oh, I don't have anybody to never mind. I don't have anyone to ask a question of.

Oh. Okay. I don't want HPHA. Oh, do you have HPHA? I'm sorry. But they didn't did they say they stand on their testimony?

Yes.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

And could you come up? Thanks.

I just heard, Humane Society. I'm sorry. Morning.

Thank you for being here. And, yeah, I'm a pet lover, so I and I'm also a landlord that allows pets because I know and it means a lot. I'm just curious about the amounts potentially that you're asking for here, for administrative and potential maintenance costs. I think the dollar figure is 10,000,000 and 290,000. I mean, again, I'm a landlord.

I have several units with pets, and I don't I mean, I trust them, I suppose, but it's the same. I haven't had to expand my resources in order to allow my tenant to have pets, you know? So I'm just wondering, why such astronomical prices?

Well, the 10,000,000 would be going towards creating actual dog parks, also making them ADA accessible, which is gonna be quite a lot. And also to ensure that we have a study to make sure which properties could actually accommodate these ADA partners. The other, portion of the for the positions would be for laborers. Help, I know we have a lot of responsible pet owners, but not all of them are responsible.

So they'd be assisting with the remediation.

Okay. And yeah, I think that's what I believe one bill was mandating, I guess was there a bill that that mandated monthly charges or extra a fee charge at all? Is that you're not gonna upfront ask for more, you know, like in your deposit fees or what if you have to add more because you're having pets or a pet?

Well, on our federal public housing side, which has the majority of the units over 5,000 units. We have a pet policy. Pet deposit would be $75. We can't make it a full month's rent or anything like that because of our the people we serve. And I believe it's, I think, $5 a month in addition for potential cleanup and remediation.

Okay. Thank you for that.

Chair?

Rep. Muraoka.

So I just wanted to piggyback on what, Rep. Cochran was asking about especially about the 10,000,000 part. You know, your explanation of the 10,000,000 ask is update ADA's subpart possibly. Is that gonna be a one time ask?

Because 10,000,000 in what you described is gonna be used for isn't a lot of money.

I think it's for, like a first phase for like, 50 sites. That's what the committee report, was from the Senate.

And you feel that allowing people to have pets would force you guys to have to make a dog park? Wouldn't it be on the owner's responsibility to take their animal to the dog park?

I mean, at some point, we gotta we we have to have a responsibility placed on their on their lap as well. Right? You're already doing a convenience by allowing them to have that animal there. So, I mean if they have our cake and eat it too, can we?

I mean, I agree.

The taxpayers.

I agree with what you're saying Representative. I think we're just trying to make sure that if we do have pets, in public housing that we try to accommodate them as best as we can.

The reason I ask is this came up there was a house bill that had some of the similar wording, and I asked about about parking. The answer at that point was no.

I think that was for, HHFDC.

It could have. You could be right. And if I, if I'm wrong, I apologize to you. But I mean.

That was I, like that. Okay.

So at the end of the day, it still comes out of the same pot of money as a taxpayer's accounts. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, Sorry. I have a follow-up. So is there any type of requirement to have if it's like, a cat or dog, spayed or neutered?

Yes. There's actually, Like 2425 requirements in our pet policy for our federal Senate.

Okay. So we don't add to more, you know feral.

Okay. Great. Very responsible. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Yes.

Follow-up to that question. Is there a prohibition on animals being at large in your complexes for those who have say, cats?

I think it's 25 pounds. If you're talking about size, that's what we try to limit it to. It's not a lot of our units are not that big. So

One cat.

Thank you.

I'm not responding.

Okay. Members for the questions?

Alright. Seeing none, thank you.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is SB 2061 SD 2, Ladies Residential Condominium.

HCDN support.

Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Craig Nakamoto, executive director of Hawaii Community Development Authority. We stand on our written testimony. Thank you. And open for questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Olayla LLC in support. Okay. We sent our testimony. Thank you. AARP Hawaii with comments.

OHA in opposition.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair Deja Ostrowski for the office of Hawaiian affairs. We wanted to clarify that our opposition is something that has long standing talked about the use of ninety nine year leases on, non ceded lands or the former Hawaiian Crown and government lands. We understand in 2023 that the Legislature made sure that this project is a demonstration project on non seated lands. Our position is based on the, We see the committee here expanding what the original intention of this project was.

And so we have suggested amendments in our testimony that if we're gonna do that, we should also strengthen the protections for the Hawaiian Crown government lands that we had talked about previously.

Thank you. And William Yuan in support?

Stand on my testimony.

Thank you. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on sb 2061 s d two?

Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Sure.

Yes, Representative Cochran

For let, me see here. Hang on. Sorry.

I suppose it'd be for the, Mr. Nakamoto?

Good morning, Representative Cochran.

Hi. Morning.This is about the condo, right, that we've been I've been asking information on? Yes.

That's the same one we're revisiting this week. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure.

Thank you.

Yeah. And so, no. No. Hang on.

That was just so I have the questions to ask

Okay.

Specific to that. So, I mean, you heard my concerns from the last time we spoke. And the I think the the flipping of units into market rate, you know what I mean? Because isn't that eventually potentially what will happen with this project in on a certain percentage, you know, of your units.

So right now, the way and this is still a pilot project. We don't know whether this is gonna be extended beyond the pilot, this one project. That's our directive. With respect, I can only talk about this project. So this project will have is proposed to have at least 60% of the units income restricted, and they're gonna be restricted to the 21 h rules.

40% of the units will be market market units, market price units without any restrictions. And really that that's to make the project feasible so that we can provide this, you know, leasehold units to the public.

Chair, I'll follow-up.

Yeah.

And so the ones with the ten year, I guess, the ten year restriction, I mean, that's gonna be lifted. Right?

So, the ten, so, the 60% of the units, they're income is restricted and they're gonna have the ten year restriction for owner occupancy. Once the ten years is is done, then those restrictions will be gone.

And I think that's why my concern is and I mentioned it previously where it starts out to be great, affordable in nature. Then, after ten years, it's not. And there here we go. We're starting from scratch again back to square one trying to get the inventory for affordable housing. So that's, oh, still my concern here.

And, you know, and I really so exemption you want from procurement codes.

So, the exempt because this is a real estate transaction, these, kind of real estate or land transactions are already exempt from 103 d procurement. It's not that we're not gonna, you know, in the future, not use, you know, some kind of 103 d like procurement, but they're already exempt procurement.

Because you're saying that as long as you use prevailing wages and things of that nature, then you don't see really a need to

Not just that representative Cochran, but even though we're seeking exemption from 103 d because this is a real estate land transaction, you're also gonna use, as I mentioned103 d like requirements, like advertising and and soliciting potential developers in the in the future to do it. So we we just wanna be able to avail ourselves of that. So for two reasons.

Okay. I am sorry, Chair, the last question. It is about the calculations of your buyback pricing. Like, what's that formula? What what's that look like?

So, I saw the testimony from AARP and it's I think it's possible that the AARP testimony was drafted or submitted without the benefit of having looked at the rules that we drafted. So there's the rules that we've drafted went through public hearing and was were promulgated, has buyback provisions with the formula in it.

Sorry. Then that's so that's in the bill?

No. It's in, it's administrative rules.

Oh, existing.

Existing. Right.

So I think the testimony of AARP was probably written without having seen those rules. And many of the things that, are in the ARP testimony have already been addressed in administrative rules existing. Existing.

Okay. Alright. Well, thank you again for your time.

Thank you very much, Representative Cochran. Appreciate it. Yeah.

Representative Muraoka.

Did you know, I don't wanna repeat. You know exactly what I'm gonna say because this bill is almost a mirror of the other one.

Did you

have any influence or input when this was written? Did you talk to the introducer? Yes. We did. And you you you still think that the sixty day, buyback pause is a good thing?

You mean the initial offer? The initial offer?

Correct. If it doesn't sell within sixty days, then it's open to fair market.

So, I think there's been some discussion about that particular provision, and maybe it's not as clear as it should be. And on that, I think I'm open to suggestions to make it clearer or address it in some way. I think, representative Morocco, when we were working with the introducer of this bill, there's kind of two parts to it.

One is the sub, you know, the parts where we're trying to remove some of these restrictions that we felt affected the marketability of leasehold units, as compared to a comparable fee unit. Then there's this provision that you're talking about that kinda offers initially all of the units in the project to owner occupants for sixty days.

And then after that, then they'll be, you know, offered to others. It was meant to kind of show that removed some of the owner occupant restrictions. So I what I what I guess I'm saying, representative, is I'm open to suggestions to amend it to make it clearer.

Can I interject you real quick for a quick clarification? Because said sixty, after sixty days, they'll go to Yeah. For the open market. Just wanna clarify Yeah. 60% of the units will be income restricted.

Regardless, even after that sixty day period. So if Even after sixty Yeah. So if you could just clarify what happens what happens after the sixty day period?

Yeah. So, it was it was intended, Representative Muraoka to make this initial offering just to buyers who will use it as a owner occupant owner occupied residential unit. Once that sixty days is over, then it will be made available to non owner occupied resident uses. But in no event, at least for this project, in no event, will there where there will be less than 60% of the units set aside for owner occupied use with income restrictions.

So at the end of the day, after this sixty day initial what I'm saying is that at least 60% of the units will will be two zero one h units, and we'll have income restrictions and the ten year owner occupant restriction.

And 40 at least 60% or more, and 40% or less will be market rate.

Well, yeah, thank you for that clarification because I think that was my confusion. But I'm still a little bit confused, so I'm I'm gonna I'll try and ask it in a way. Hopefully, I can get a yes or no. After sixty days, if, let's say, seven of the units that are designated 60% and the 60% haven't been purchased, they're gonna sit vacant until someone who fits the criteria of that 60 percentile set aside can get it.

I I think that's right. I think that's right.

So it will sit vacant. It won't be pushed to the open market.

I think that's right. I think that's right.

Thanks. What is the difference? And this is what I forgot to ask when the when the House bill signed was. What is the difference between the units of the 60% and the 40% as far as I haven't seen the plans, but what is the interior?

What is the the overall construction of the units? Is there differences of the 40% versus the 60%? More countertops, flooring, that kind of stuff. Is there a difference?

So I'm gonna try to answer that as simply as I can. So at this point in the development process, I don't think we've got into the details of countertop finishes, what's gonna be there. But I believe that in

some sense, the the sixty percent 201 h unit set aside is gonna look very similar to the market price units in terms of finishes, but we haven't gotten there yet.

That's fair fair enough. And then the final one, if I may, sir. Again, you know, the last time, like, we talked about this. I brought up a perfect example out there in my community with that ten year deed restriction. I know mister Menacami, he he knows exactly what I'm talking about.

And I asked for that one that I'm a I'm a strong no, but with that ten year removal to or change to perpetuate perpetuity Then I could be a yes because that guarantees that it'll be forever affordable homes. Because at ten years, an investor can come in now buy, and that inventory just went out for a year.

But if it was perpetual for the life, we have affordable homes for the life of the unit.

So, Representative Muraoka, I'm sorry you feel that way. Aye, I think if we change that or made it 10, owner occupant sort of in perpetuity, I think it would have probably a negative effect on on sales and marketability of that unit. That's a that's a long time.

Are we are we are we trying to fix the housing crisis or are we trying to create sales?

Well, both. I mean, we we if we don't if we can't sell a unit, then we can't get anything in the market. Right? So we'd you know, we we need to sell something to get it to address the housing shortage. So both, representative Morabka.

I but I understand your question. I think I would look at it maybe maybe the logic here or the way you're thinking about it is if ten years is good, then thirty years is better, fifty years is better perpetuity. But I think in the marketplace, it it just doesn't work that way. I think if we had it in perpetuity, I'm not sure I I think we'd limit the marketability of those units. And therefore, those units may not end up in the market where they should be.

I disagree but Okay. I I we we can I I respect you? I know you disagree and I I think we're respectfully disagreeing. Absolutely. Absolutely.

Thank you for your questions.

I appreciate all the respectful disagreement. Sure. Good modeling. Respectful. Sure.

Yes, Representative Cochran.

Oh, thank you. So, yeah, I have con similar concerns, and I we've already I've already shared this to you previously, Mr. Nakamoto. And so I guess at the end of the day, because you're gonna drop the unit sold 100% to 40% if there's no sale made. So a 100% to 40% if there's no sale made in in that sixty day time period.

Yeah. You know?

Right? So we're losing No. And then you're removing. And then on top of that, you're removing the requirement, for individuals, just individuals there there was a, a requirement that you could not own other properties. Right?

So now you wanna remove that.

So, you know, representative, you know, unfortunately, this particular provision has engendered, I think, a lot of confusion. But and and maybe this is something, you know, that has to be clarified at this hearing, at this point for this bill to go on. But let me see if I can explain this.

So that sixty day initial offer period that's in the bill was in almost intended to give owner occupant users or purchasers kind of this first look first look at these units and and allow them to have this sixty day period to have a sort of a first look at this. Right?

And whatever unit and and after that sixty day period, then it would be opened up to other buyers, you know, non, you know, owner occupant residential use buyers. But at the end of the day, there will be at least 60% of the units that are set aside for owner occupant residential use, and then the rest will be market units. Does that make sense?

Right. I mean, I like the 100 just to stay at 100. But so and now you're saying I mean, I just think sixty days isn't long enough, but that's just me. The requirement I it's really opening the door, though, for other people. You know, I got people in Kapalua and and very high end places who are investment property owners, and they own multiple homes all over the all over the world.

This is also something that can, open the door for. You know, and I've seen I've been asking for conceptual renderings. I've been asking for floor plans and stuff to get a grasp and get a grip on what exactly is the $700,000 unit gonna look like.

Yeah. And and right now, as I mentioned to representative Morocco, we're not at that point where we see finishes. We see, you know, all that interior. The yes. For conceptual plans, so I sent you what what we have.

I think if there's flexibility that's desired in this sixty day period, to give, you know, this this first look. That could be revised in the bill, you know, longer period, you know, and other provisions. But it's really a kind of a first look giving owner occupant residential use buyers first look at this. Thank you. Yeah.

Okay.

We can go around and round in circles. Thank you, chair and Mr. Nakamoto.

Thank you, representative.

I have a quick question. You mentioned that a lot of ARPs concerns are already addressed here in your rules. Yes. One of their recommendations was to direct a CDA to include clear mandatory exemptions for medical treatment or recovery, caregiving responsibilities, and other reasonable life circumstances in any rules pertaining to occupancy or access. It's already already addressed in your phone calls.

I don't know if that's just specifically, but we can I mean, I think if the maybe if the committee report notes that, I think what we'll have to if this bill gets enacted, chair, we're gonna have to do revised rules anyway, so we can look at those and take those into account? It's kind of hardship requirements. Right? Yeah. Hardship requires.

And one of them was hardship requirements for military transfer and and, you know, deployment. So we can look at some of those things. I think we wanna although we wanna keep it that Kinda hardship requirements and not as not so specific where we list each one. I think we wanna be a little bit broader. So we say for reasons of hardship that they cannot occupy, that it'll be, considered by the executive director.

Okay.

And Given that there is some concerns here about the affordability restriction. And what is essentially mirroring the current to an inch process where that affordability restriction would expire after, like, ten years? You know, we're currently contemplating changes to two on each that would allow for this limited appreciation every year permanently beyond the ten year process. Do you think that type of model or that type of flexibility to implement that model, you know, could be beneficial?

I don't know. I it's hard to say, Jared. I just haven't really been keeping track of all those changes.

Oh, okay. Sorry. You know, one thing I'm just contemplating is if we give you broader authority to just follow 21 h. So as we had just a 21 h program to allow for that type of thing, you know, then it could be applied here. We could ensure for for rent affordability with, you know, long term equity appreciation.

Okay. And I appreciate all the dialogue here. I'm rep where Oka, when you, you know, were confused as the intent of the bill. We we spent an hour yesterday, me and director going through this because we are very confused also. So there's a lot going on here which we, you know, we're working on trying to clarify it and and and I think we're getting there.

I'm happy to work with you to further clarify. Okay.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Sorry. Real quick, and it's not a big long drawn out thing, hopefully. Yep. HPHA Yeah. Sorry. Again, HPHA funding, do you have your own dedicated funding source for CIPs and things like this?

We we in in last year's budget, there's an amount that was so there's a whole financing stack for this, and it's in the testimony. But we have in the budget $15,000,000 that is for actually the state's equity for this. So, yes, the answer is we have to count them.

5015? 15.

15. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Members, any further questions?

Alright.

The last item on our agenda is SB 2552, SD 1, relating to the individual housing account program. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Department of Taxation with comments. Thank you. Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii in support. Hawaii Realtors in support. Chamber of Commerce Hawaii in support. Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments. Not present. Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Deja Ostrowski for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. I know in the interest of time, but I just wanted to say that to explain a footnote in our testimony. This is something that OHA has a lot of skin in this game. And I think in this committee we see a lot of support, subsidies, tax breaks going to developers to build housing, including things from the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund to lower the price of the unit.

This, there is a promise in this program of giving those tax breaks as well as matched savings to individuals. OHA has funded millions of dollars since 20, I think, 15. And in the footnote, we talk about how we had this bill in our package in 2018. There's a lot more promise, and I would love to work with folks in the off season.

So with OHA, on making sure that we're giving those tax breaks, not just from tax liability, but actual funding, dedicated funding to individuals so that we can put on the other side of the equation, which is making sure people like me, Native Hawaiians have the economic capacity to buy those homes.

Then we don't even need to worry about the details of these other programs. So really passionate about this. OHA's passionate about it. We've won awards for putting money into match savings accounts. So putting actual money into this, and so has the state of Oregon. So mahalo. We're really great to see this bill moving.

Thank you. Housing Hawaii's Future in support. Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. Holomua Collaborative in support. Anyone in person or online wishing to testify on SB 2552, SD 1? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, any questions? Alright. Seeing none. Brief recess so we can figure out what...

The first item on our agenda is SB 2069, SD 2. Quick recess.

Reconvene for decision making for our House Housing Committee hearing on our Friday, March 20, 9am agenda. First item is SB 2069, SD 2, related to dwelling unit revolving fund. I recommend that we move this out in an HD 1 and that we replace the contents of this bill with the House draft, which is broadly similar, HB 1724, HD 2. That version is cleaner. It's not tied specifically to TOD zones, and there's no sunset in there. So prefer that we use that language. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Yes. Representative Cochran.

HD makes it a permanent thing. Yeah? That is one of the big differences. Right?

Yep.

And wait, you said it removes TODs?

Sorry. The Senate version is specific just to TOD zones, whereas the House version can be used outside of TOD zones. It's broader.

Oh, okay. Got it.

Members, other? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2069, SD 2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair votes aye. Representative Brandon Eddy. Aye. Representative Keeler is excused. Representative Kitagawa. Aye. Representative Lechika. Aye. Representative Cochran. Reservations. Reservations. Representative Marlona. Aye. Representative Perry. Aye. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 2177, SD 2, related to housing. I recommend that I move this out in HD 1 with just the effective date. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2177, SD 2, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Representative Kila for the remaining of this hearing. Are there any reservations? Reservations for Rep Cochran. Any no votes? Seeing none. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 2342, SD 2, relating to housing. I, similar to my comments, which I made when we reviewed the House version of this bill, I have really strong concerns over this bill for reasons that were brought up in testimony today. One, I think that the creation of a working group could be less honestly transparent and have less public input than a QAP process does currently.

Because of the interactions with federal law and what I think is possibly a preemption issue even here or at least a contact with federal law and that this would force revision to the QAP. And then even more so concerns with that we're sort of mandating the outcomes of the working group in terms of permanently affordable and in terms of rapid revolving time, which would incentivize, I think, the development of luxury units.

Given all of that though, I do wanna move something forward for continued dialogue and discussion. So my recommendation will be to move forward in HD 1, that we will insert the language of House draft, HB 1868, HD 1, which removes all of the, you know, delegating the outcome of the work group. And it just clarifies that we're just creating working group.

That will add each county housing director to the working group as suggested in testimony. And that will amend paragraph one, page four to clarify that the working group is just coming up with recommendations to revise the QAP instead of forcing a revision to the QAP. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Yes, Representative Cochran.

Yeah. I mean, I appreciate you trying to make sense of it all. Yeah. Just yeah. I'll be going with reservations at this time.

Okay. Thank you. Further questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2342, SD 2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting Representative Cochran's reservation. Any other reservations? Reservations for Rep Muraoka. Any no votes? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is SB 2060, SD 2, relating to the Rental Housing Revolving Fund. I recommend moving this forward as an HD 1 and replacing the contents of the bill with the House version, which is HB 1723, HD 1, which is a cleaner and better version in my opinion. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns?

Chair... Oh, no. Go ahead. Sorry.

Okay. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2060, SD 2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Reservations for Rep Cochran. Any no votes? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

For SB 2544, SD 2, related to housing. I recommend that we move out an HD 1 and with some amendments. On page four, lines 9 to 12, clarify that all of the units in the project must be consistent with the purposes and intent of Chapter 201H.

And on the page seven, line 3 to 11, clarify that it'll be deemed approved if not approved within sixty days by the Department of Health and no extension was asked for. That we adopt the proposed amendment from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to remove the sixty day SHPD review period on page six. And tech amendments as necessary and defect the date. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns?

I'm trying to... Chair? Yeah. Thanks for incorporating OHA. I think Local 5 Unite Here had some issues. Were any of those taken into consideration, or no? We have a few bullet points here, I guess. And they don't support at all. So I was just...

No. I will say that the stated concerns in their testimony have not necessarily been addressed. So I would personally object to some of the rationale underlying their arguments.

Okay. All good. Just, yeah. I was curious.

Thank you. And, actually, I just wanna clarify a little bit on the OHA testimony and why we removed that, right, that we already have mandatory review times in Chapter 6E. And I'm a little bit, you know, I don't wanna have this piecemeal effort where we have mandatory review times in other parts of section. And I think If we want to ensure that, say, government projects have faster due times, and we should be doing that through within the confines of Chapter 6E. Members? Alright. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote

Voting on SB 2544, SD 2. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Reservations for Rep Cochran. Any no votes? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. The next item on our agenda is SB 3011, SD 1. I recommend that we move this forward. I will say, I appreciate the intention to give flexibility to have pets in all forms of housing. I do obviously have some concerns with, like, the cost associated with this bill. Five positions and I believe, you know, announced for $10 million.

To be honest, I have very little confidence that something like this would get funded in a year like this. And whether in a year with so many financial constraints out there that this, you know, probably shouldn't rise to to the necessity of getting funded. That said, I do wanna move something forward because I respect the idea, and I wanna give the Finance Committee the opportunity to review it and make their own determination as far as funding.

So I do recommend that we move forward in HD 1, that we amend the bill though to prohibit any animals on in public housing projects from being at large and that we define at large to clarify that at large means an animal is not confined to its owner's property or physically restrained by a leash or lead held by a competent person. And that would defect the date. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Yes.

Is there not a leash law here already?

This would apply to cats as well. So dogs, in general, I understand, have to be on leashes. Oh. But I don't...

Yeah. Not necessarily cats right here.

Chair. You know, I my concerns aren't the same as yours, the amount of money, positions. But I'm doing reservations because I do support animals, as an animal lover myself. I have six dogs, a horse, and two goats. And then you can throw in my children. But, yeah, you know, I absolutely support anything animal wise and feel that people, animal lovers should have at least a space. But when it comes to that kind of ask and that money, reservations.

Great. Any questions, comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 3011, SD 2, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting Rep Muraoka's reservation. Any other reservation? Reservation for Rep Cochran. Any no votes? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is SB 2061, SD 2, relating to residential condominiums. I think there's still a lot of ambiguity. I think there's—I think I'm clear as far as the intent of the bill, but there's some ambiguity on the best way to write this.

And, and so, I will be recommending that we—or we will be deferring decision making on this till next week, Wednesday, March 25th. Give us an opportunity to ensure that we can get this drafted right. My hope is that I can provide a proposed HD 1 to members so we can get a lot of more, more clarity on what exactly it's doing. Next item of the agenda is—or final item of the agenda is SB 2552, SD 1, related to individual housing account programs.

I recommend that we move forward to HD 1, that we blank out all the proposed rates and add those rates in the committee report, and that we defect the date. Member, any questions, comments, or concerns?

Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, members. Thank you for being here today. I know this is a hard day for everyone. Again, as I said at the beginning, our hearts go out to everybody affected by the flooding and, stay safe this weekend. Alright.

Seeing no further debate, this hearing is now adjourned.

Good morning. Happy Aloha Friday. Starting the House Committee on Resolution—for Resolutions. Just gotta read this—rules—real quick. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two-minute time limit per testifier.

I'm pretty sure we're gonna have a lot of time because morning hearings must have adjourned prior to the, the noon session—we don't have noon session today, so skip that one. Please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting.

If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note that the house is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a neck—network—failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarks or copyrighted images.

As Chair Evslin always say, please refrain from using profanity as well. Such behavior may be ground for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. Alright. So, we'll start off with HCR 38, HR 36, declaring the intent that affordable housing credits are perpetual and remain valid until redeemed, and requesting the counties to recognize these credits without expiration dates. Vice chair for the testimony.

Office of Planning and Sustainable Development in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Diana Sundis with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. OPSD stands on its written testimony in support...for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Hawaiian Homelands, in support.

Good morning. Kali Watson, department. We have submitted testimony—comments.

Thank you. NIAAA Hawaii in support.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Evan Ouwai, on behalf of NIAAA Hawaii. We sent out our testimony in strong support. We did just wanna highlight the importance of this resolution to clarify that the affordable housing credits created under Act 31 of 2024 remain perpetual and remain valid until they are redeemed. I think this is an important tool to continue to incentivize affordable housing development in our state.

And we'd like to see, you know, this intent be clarified so that it doesn't affect the valuation and it doesn't affect efficacy of what the intent of the bill was in 2024. So, we appreciate you hearing this resolution. Are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to testify? Anyone online? Seeing none, chair.

Members, any questions?

Chair. Mister—NIAAA. Morning. Mister—NIAAA. I mean, Mr. Ouwai. Sorry. How you pronounce that?

It's like O-U-W-A-I. It's kinda how you phonetically say it. Ouwai.

Ouwai.

Yeah.

Ouwai. Ouwai. And so, can you explain to me how these are redeemed? How does that process work?

Right. So, what happens is when a project, for example, goes and starts to build a project, right, and it has the affordable housing units that meet certain requirements, they are awarded credits when it goes to the council. And those housing credits are, are, are essentially awarded on a one-to-one basis for every unit that they create. And then what happens is that there's a—there can be a market in which a developer looking at, you know, for example, market rate unit or market rate project.

They could, you know, acquire these affordable housing credits and then utilize that towards the requirement.

But what that will do is it'll allow for capital for the affordable housing developer to then go ahead and develop another project. So, it allows and incentivizes affordable housing projects to be developed first and prior to working with them. So, that was the intent of the bill in 2024.

Okay. And sir, Chair, can I get a follow-up? I was looking at you...I'm sorry. And so, how, how much usage has this gotten and how much housing has it created, I guess?

Right. And so, I think the, the program took a little bit to kinda get off the ground. Right? So, 2024, you kinda have, like, a year to get the, the program up. And there took some administrative time in order to kinda work things out between you know, HHFDC and the county and how that would be essentially tracked and played out. And I think we had our first project kinda go through this year. I don't know the exact number of units—apologies—off the top of my head.

But I can get you that information.

This county? City of Honolulu?

Honolulu. Yes. Yes. Yeah.

And then, lastly, chair, if you don't mind. In your testimony, what you mentioned something about clarity needed for the lenders, investors, and developers to understand how they can rely on this credit program for future. What is that—what, what point you're trying to make as for what type of clarity do you need?

Right. Right. And I think with some of the agreements in which these credits are being administered, there's maybe consideration of potential time frames in which the credit is valid for, which would affect essentially the purpose and the intent of the bill, which is for—to create a free market and the valuations to continue on until the credit is actually redeemed.

So, the clarity is kinda needed to make sure that these these credits are supposed to be, you know, able to be—continue on to be valid until they're redeemed. So, creating—kind of removing that time frame...

Don't expire.

Gives it a little bit more stability in terms of the market. Yeah.

Okay. Alright. No, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Okay. Moving on. HCR 85, HR 77, urging the Department of Land and Natural Resources to transfer parcels that make up the East Kapolei Transit-Oriented Development Project to the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, and urging the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to partner with the Hawaii Community Development Authority to facilitate the development of non-housing community development portions of the project. Vice Chair for the testimony.

DLNR, with comments. HCDA, in support.

Aloha. Francine Wright for HCDA. We stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. HHFDC in support.

Chair, vice chair, members, we stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. OPSD with comments.

Morning. Kali Watson for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. My only comment is, you know, in this particular resolution, it completely ignores the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. We're developing right adjacent to that area. You know, that's—I'm not so much interested in the revenue-producing activity.

It's more in the housing portion. We have 11,500 people on our Oahu waiting list. Obviously, even with the development we're doing in there, that's not enough. So, we would ask that you maybe include us in that resolution requesting that these entities work with the department to see whether they can accommodate our needs, as well as maybe coordinate with the development we're doing adjacent. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience wishing to testify? Is there anyone online to testify? Seeing none, chair.

Members, any questions?

Chair.

Rep. Cochran.

Yes. For OPSD, would that be Mr. Ascension?

Oh, okay. So, I know you had comments. Right?

Yeah.

I don't think—you folks didn't take a stand one way or the other, right, on this?

No. We were just offering comments. Correct. Yes.

Okay. And so, your—not concerns, but your comments are in relation to the parcels.

Correct. Yeah.

And so, can you elaborate a little more as to...

Sure.

...Comments on parcels?

Yes. So, they're in the—I'm gonna shut it up. They list the parcels. Right? And so, the first three parcels, the first one, 9-1168 is—I have, like, one map here. A map, if you want it.

No. Was this in your testimony at all?

This map? No.

I'll take a picture.

This is from the EIS—DLNR, EIS.

I'll take a picture and then you can have it back.

Or if—unless anyone else wants to see.

You guys could—if you wanna just pass this down.

Thank you.

Okay. So, the first TMK, which would be—let's see here. It's called the...sorry. I'm gonna...Parkway West. Yeah...Parkway West. So, that would be part CMK 911608. Right? And so that one is—looks like it's completely light industrial business park. Right?

And so, that one would be one of the process about that is industrial. Right? The others one, Kula Kai West portion—or am I mixing the two up? Yeah. No.

West is the—let's see here. Looks to be—yes, okay. That is also—that's also West. So, that one also is light industrial.

The page is pointing north?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sorry about that. Yes. So, West, so, that's gonna be on your left-hand side. Right?

Yes.

So, most of that is Light Industrial Business Park. A little bit is a portion of land that is, was being proposed to be exchanged, land exchange, but the rest of it is Light Industrial Business Park. Now, on the other side, on your right-hand side, is the East, Kula Kai East. And that parcel is not—that's TMK 9-1, 1814. And so, that's bifurcated.

So, it's important to realize that's bifurcated by a vault. Right? And so, on one side is the industrial mixed-use portion, and then, the other side is what is going proposed to be residential. Right? And so, those are—that's what's in play there, where we're looking at the different elements of the, the parcels there that are industrial and then, also housing.

Okay. Chair, a follow-up?

Yes.

Okay. And so, you're also stating that with the sort of collaboration of all the entities listed, that there may not need—a need necessarily require a transfer.

Correct. Correct. We recognize that there is new deal in our leadership at the land division and that there has been conversation occurring. So, we do believe that there is potential for collaboration to continue in such a manner that is, you know, beneficial to all departments and the state as a whole.

Okay. Alright. Well, thank you for your further insights on this. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Question for HHFDC. Morning. Did you see Local 5's testimony in opposition? Their, their concerns were just stating that HHFDC would be pushing projects without input from the county, or proper public input and then weigh in from the city and county and other agencies.

But doesn't all projects go through some kind of approval from the counties?

It depends if there was called a 21H38 project where they're seeking exemptions from zoning standards and, yes, it does go to county council approval.

Okay. Thank you.

Oh, okay. Sorry. Don't go away, Mr. Minakami. If I may, Chair.

Yes. Go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Minakami. So, are you—I know H, HCDA, is not here. Right? HCDA?

Oh, sorry. You are. But, anyways, HCDA—and I'm just trying to figure out if you two chimed in on this testimony about all the revenues being generated from four parcels go to DLNR. And if your—I guess your entity is okay with that.

Yes. We're—we would just seek enough to cover our administrative expenses, and, but the...code revenue could go to DLNR.

Okay. Alright. That's—yeah, my main question. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I have a question for Chair Watson. Hi. Good morning. Thanks for being here. So, you folks, as far as I can tell, you don't have any land directly adjacent to this proposed budget area, do you?

It's closer to the last TOD station, by the cross center. But if you go...yet on the right, we'd like to know, the...is primarily an ag, and we also have ag. Let's see. So, it's gonna be kept in ag with— have one, different entities, consider maybe conveying some of that lands to us so we can do some subsistence ag.

But it's more of the residential. That's the area that's the highest demand. We have 11,500 on our wait list just for this time.

And, you know, you mentioned in your oral testimony your desire for, I think, partnership or collaboration with you folks on this development. Is that, like, in terms of shared infrastructure needs, or where do you see that partnership?

You know, we, we are getting pretty good at going in for various funding sources. So, I think, you know, we're active. I wouldn't, you know, try to undermine or be critical of the different entities, but we have a more urgent need to act. So, we are being very active. That particular area, we're doing—we just recently awarded 700 homestead leases. We put out an RFP for Lot 2A in Kowloka High.

That's going out. That's generating about 400. Then, the strip for LDA 3, adjacent to the parkway, we're gonna go out and do a mixed use. So, just extended Mauka. That's where you come into.

And that conflict, but the expansion that is talking about under this resolution. We'd like—with respect to the industrial, and all that, that's fine, it stays with whoever is going to develop it. But with respect to the residential, we'd like to be considered for that. Historically, what we've had to do is go and buy lands from an HHFDC or, you know, just kinda as well as pay for the infrastructure.

I don't have an objection to that, but, you know, with such a huge demand and urgency regarding our beneficiaries, we need, I think, as part of the state's obligation, to really consider the native Hawaiians when you're doing this master plan as well as development in the area, especially this area, as we have four homesteading communities in that area.

Okay. That's helpful for me to understand. So, it's not necessarily just infrastructure to enable development of your nearby lands. It's possible to share a collaboration for potential development of DHL parcels within the proposed project area here.

And I think the, the real concern is they just sold—there's a limited infrastructure in the, in capacity with utilities. As you start to do developments, you know, that's a concern for us. We're also looking at the adjacent lands that the University of Hawaii has, and we're looking to maybe acquire those to do the residential development there too.

But with all this development we're doing, as well as being proposed by this resolution, there needs to be some collaboration and integration with the two—all these developments, and we're not even mentioned in this particular resolution.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Chair? Oh, sorry. It's done. Oh, okay. DLNR has a representative here?

Hi. Morning. Morning. Sorry. What was your name?

Yes.

Saint Hugo. I'm the new Administrator for Land Division.

Oh, okay. Welcome.

Thank you.

Okay. So, I was just browsing through your deal and your testimony. So, currently, the final E, EIS, is not complete at this time.

Is that what you're saying? And do you and you're you would like it to be by this summer of this year?

Correct.

It's targeted to be this summer. I was just on the phone with our consultant this week, and they're waiting on the market study. Sorry. And once that market study is updated, then they're ready to publish.

Okay. And as for the transferring of parcels, you folks—I mean, your, your thoughts are that it should be on it, base, you know, as needed basis, and also go through the regular DLNR process, right? Because are you saying they're not—that's not how it's anticipated to both?

We don't—we don't know. That language is pretty broad in this result. But in order for us to secure our revenue share agreement, that's the process we wanted. We wanna make sure it goes through that, or no—normal process.

Okay. And, and another, chair?

Yes.

And so, your disagreement here is about the non-housing portion development—portions—not being delegated to HCDA. So, you know, and not coordinating that. So, you feel there's better entity to pursue that?

I think it's—it might be cleaner if it's just one centralized entity doing the master development of, of all these sites.

Okay.

But yeah. Like, I mean, you know, HHFDC does housing. Right? Then they can do commercial at the same time and light industrial. Or if they cannot, then it goes back to that language of as needed, then—we, we've been doing industrial commercial before my time, and so, I feel like we, we could do some of those too.

Or so, you're thinking you folks should be the entity to be spearheading them?

At least on light industrial. You know, that's the bread and butter for DLNR is light industrial, commercial.

Okay. Okay. Alright.

Right.

Right.

Well, welcome to the...

Thank you.

...Playing field. Thanks.

Hey...I have a follow-up question. Good to see you here in a new capacity. So, even if this were to pass, it would still go through the normal DLNR process. Right?

There's nothing that possibly circumvents that process. Correct?

Right. Okay.

And so, a lot of this could be discussed through that process, as I understand.

Right.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

At least I hope so.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other members, any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on to HCR 98, HR 90, requesting the Department of Housing and Land Management of the City and County of Honolulu to develop an--to develop a countywide housing pattern book to streamline permit approvals and reduce regulatory barriers for sale affordable and well-designed homes. Let's share for the test.

Department of Housing and Land Management City and County of Honolulu with comments. Is there anybody else in the audience who can testify in person?

Is there anyone online wishing to testify? Seeing none. Chair?

Moving on to HCR 182, HR 172, requesting the Department of Health to establish a working group to study accessibility barriers for multifamily housing not covered by the Federal Fair Housing Act and governed by condominium associations and community associations. Vice Chair for the testimony.

DCCA with comments? Aloha Independent Living Hawaii in support. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to testify?

Hi. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. My name is Brian Mick. I'm here on behalf of the Disability Communication Access Board and executive director, Christine Pagano. We are in support of the intent of this bill.

However, DCAB does have what's called the facility access unit that's responsible for reviewing construction plans for state and local government projects to make sure that they comply with accessibility laws. We do not have any interface with private development, such as the ones that are obviously contemplated in this resolution. And therefore, we're not sure if we are actually the best entity to serve as the chair and be responsible for convening the working group.

We are in the process of reaching out to some of the other entities mentioned to see if anyone else feels like they would be more responsible, but we are not at the point yet to suggest anybody. So I was hoping that perhaps just the committee report could reflect our concerns.

And hopefully, before it gets its next hearing, we'll have someone that's agreeable to it, but we don't wanna suggest anyone without their concurrence. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the audience who should testify? Anyone online?

Seeing none. Chair. Members, any question?

For a DCAB, sir, thanks for being here. So, I guess this working group--and I guess--I just kind of have issues [with] working groups, but there it's trying to address, I guess the prevalence and the nature of accessibility-related disputes. And I'm just curious, I mean, has it risen to the level that this, you know, we gotta compile this big working group to discuss it?

Well, I would say, from my knowledge, we do occasionally get calls. This is really king of the issue of people, in older condominium units that did not have to be constructed as accessible since they predated the Fair Housing Act. And the Fair Housing Act did not require these places to go back and do modifications when it passed. And so the Fair Housing Act does say though that someone can make a modification at their own expense for accessibility.

And so the require--the difficulties that you're finding, especially seniors on fixed income, low-income, can't really afford to do that.

And so sometimes they're surprised to find out that they're responsible for the cost. And that serves as a barrier. So there was a bill two years ago that was sort of contemplating setting up a grant program, which, I think conceptually we thought was a great idea to assist. That bill didn't pass, so I think this is sort of sort of the next step in maybe making a work group.

And that's one of the things that perhaps this working group would end up recommending would be a grant program, how much money they think would be needed, things like that.

There are some of the counties do have grant programs, but the city and county does have one. But because it uses federal funds, I've talked to them. It's actually a difficult process to apply or, I can say difficult, but there's a certain length of time. So if when somebody has, say, just become injured and needs the accessibility modifications, that's really not a program they can avail themselves of because they wouldn't get reimbursed for potentially for up to a year through that process.

So, I do think a state grant program that could be a little more swift, might be something the state wants to look at in the future.

But I think the working group would be the first step.

Okay. Yeah. And thank you for that, insight to this grant. I think it'd be an awesome program.

And so, why is it that I mean, you may not know this, but why is it that I mean, we, the government, we had to go back and become ADA compliant. I mean, eight years with the county council. It was just nonstop trying to retrofit our old buildings. And so why private, you know, identities are not held to the same standards?