House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Good morning.

Good morning.

Before eleven, by the state.

Committee on Waterland. This is Thursday, April 23. It's 10:00AM agenda and Conference Room 430. We're we're not gonna have a time limit as a very few few people here. So let's begin with SCR 8, urging the counties to act on any building permit application for for modification of

a residence that is prescribed by a licensed health care provider and found by the county to be central to the safety and health of an older adult or person with disability within forty five days of receipt of a complete application. First step, we have state health planning and development agency. John. Is John here? John Jacqueline, not present.

I don't show anyone else. Saying they'd be here. Is that the area of whoop? Nope. Okay.

We have three, four other organizations and individuals in support. There being one here, we shall move on to SCR 40, urging the county of Hawaii and city and county of Honolulu to adopt ordinances granting the sale, rental, and distribution of disposable body warts. First, the only one I have is Todd Bolin who is not here. Anyone on Zoom? Anyone here in the real mind to testify on this measure?

Seeing no other testifiers, we shall move on. Numbers, we are on SCR 83 requesting the city and county of Honolulu to consider developing a facility to discard lithium ion batteries. First stop, I don't show anyone here. Be present or on Zoom. Anyone in the room?

Nobody? Let's move on. Members, SCR 179, urging the county of Maui to enforce provisions of the fire code of the county Of Maui relating to fire hazard, brush clearance, fuel breaks, roadside vegetation clearing, and emergency access. I don't show anyone being present here. No one on Zoom.

Anyone in the room wanting to testify? See no one. Let's move on. SCR 90. HD one.

Requesting the planning or planning and permitting department of each county to establish kupuna friendly building permit requirements for parking accessibility and private businesses operating hours. Okay. Stating they'd be here in person is State Health Planning and Development Agency. John Lewin. Not here.

I don't show anyone else here or on Zoom. Anyone who want to testify on this measure? Wow. Okay. Just say something.

Sorry, members. No questions. We are on SCR 90.

Yes. 94.

SCR 94. Endorsing Waikiki as a world surfing reserve. In person, University of Hawaii. Hey. Welcome.

You're the first testifier.

You can you can lose ten minutes if you want to.

Okay. I'll make this brief. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. My name is Dolan Ebersole on behalf of University of Hawaii. We will stand on our testimony in support, but I will make myself available available if you have any questions.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah.

Is there anyone else in the room that oh, I'm sorry. Do we have someone on Zoom?

Oh, no? Okay. Anyone else in the room wanting to test fund this measure? So you know other testifiers. We have one opposition from Godfrey Akaka and three other organizations and individuals of support.

Not now.

Members, any questions?

I have a question just because we have time for University of Hawaii. What does this designation bring to Hawaii? Is it do we get to apply for different grants, funding?

That's a very common question. It's an excellent question. I I would say simply it brings recognition of the importance and the value of surfing to this particular area and to the community. As far as what it would bring, potentially additional grant money, by bringing recognition to the importance of surfing, it can generate additional grant interests and things like that.

Most importantly, in my opinion, it would require, if we were to apply to this organization to become a World Surf Reserve, through a organization called Save the Waves, it requires you set up a stewardship committee of which we've already started the process and develop a management plan to protect the surf sites.

So that would be maybe the most notable outcomes is a management plan to protect surf.

Thank you.

I got a question.

Yeah.

Since we have all the time.

Yeah. It's 2010.

Oh, that's 10. No. We often do dredging of or dredging, yeah, dredging of Waikiki because the sand always gets washed out. Will that affect will this affect the the beach nourishment projects that we have?

That is the second most common question that we get on this with the title reserve. No. It doesn't bring any additional limitations or restrictions. Unless that was to be something that's developed in the management plan. We don't foresee that because the ongoing beach restoration activities in Waikiki are so important as a regular maintenance cycle.

We don't anticipate that it would interfere with that. There might be some small tweaks that would be done over time to ensure that surfing is protected, but we don't anticipate that it would cause any immediate restrictions or anything like that.

Okay. That's the right question.

Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? Members? Yes.

Reps.

You mentioned, applying to save the waves organization. So just if, and I I don't anticipate this, but if this reso doesn't pass, would that prevent you from still applying to this organization?

It would not prevent us, although having this resolution would certainly strengthen our application.

Alright. Thank you, judge.

Thank you. K. Anyone else?

I do have a question.

Go ahead.

So I do surf in that area in Waikiki. So you know when there's certain, shoreline mitigation restoration y kind of structures, usually perpendicular. Is there any way because, obviously, when you're surfing, there's waves that come and those are the ones you wanna surf. But then sometimes, the waves hit the shore and then they come back. Could the shoreline structures change that the power of the waves returning out to ocean that also affects things?

Does it have a yeah. Does it have an impact?

The short answer is yes. By design, what you're referring to is called a groin. It's a short perpendicular structure usually made out of rock. By design, they're meant to transform waves that come in and change the angle of the waves approach the shoreline. It's a very sophisticated engineering approach and we have a very good understanding of what groins would do by computer models and things like that.

The benefit of building groins is you can, in my opinion, you can stabilize a shoreline region that then you fill with sand. And that's the approach in Waikiki rather than trapping sand that would naturally be going by. Your question about surfing is a very common one, is how will this impact surfing? In the case of the proposed Tee Head Growings in the Halekalani Cell, in front of Sheraton, that area, The surf sites are very far offshore. They're about 1,500 feet offshore.

And, any work that's done right on the shoreline would be very unlikely to affect the surf that far off beyond the reef even. In addition, the groins being composed of rock, they absorb a lot of wave energy. As opposed to the current condition, which is vertical seawall, if you were to go down there now, you would see a highly reflected wave environment. Even with that, currently, we still don't see a reflected wave out into the surf line and pops and threes.

I'm a surfer too, so I I'm I'm familiar with that.

What you're referring to is that reflected wave.

Thanks. Sure. K. Any other questions? Alright. Thank you.

Okay.

Let's move on. We are on SCR159 SD1 HD1, urging public and private stakeholders to adopt shared guiding principles for the planning, financing, and undertaking of efforts for the restoration, improvement, and maintenance of the beaches, shoreline, and coastal areas of Waikiki. K. First up, we have Mary Alice Evans, state office of planning and sustainable Development. Thank you for being here.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members. I'm Mary Alice Evans, director of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Thank you for hearing this resolution. It is one that, we participated in, drafting and we're really pleased that it has come before you. My testimony, includes some, request for clarifying amendments.

There were some amendments, that were made, in the previous hearing, that we, feel we'll turn to page two on our testimony, suggesting which two of the Clorozelle, lines 33 to 41, reference to very specific legal agreements, from 1928, 1929, and 1965, and reference to, the Supreme Court that was being deleted and replaced with a more general, space despite those legacy contractor agreements and more recent judicial intervention, which I think is in line with the idea that these are shared guiding principles. And it's a resolution.

And on page three of the resolution, lines 40 and page four of line 15, we also have some suggested requested amendments for you to consider. We'd like to add to, 40 on page three, collaboration with all relevant stakeholders, including private interests and the community, and consultation with coastal science experts. And then on page four, we'd like to, amend item five, which is starts on line 13.

Again, to delete the reference to the specific, historical, legal and replace it with pursuant to jurisdictional authority and in accordance with controlling law. And then we also, recommend that, number six be deleted in its entirety. I'm available for questions. Thank you. Sure.

Thank you. Okay. I also have, YTV Special Improvement District Association. Ivan Lui Kwan.

Hello, Chair Hashem and Vice Chair Morikawa and Members of the committee. My name is Ivan Lui Kwan. I've submitted written testimony on behalf of the Hawaii EPA Specialty Dispersion Association to support the resolution. I'll repeat it as soon to answer any questions you may have. Waikiki Special Improvement District Association supports the resolution for the following reasons.

One, the association believes that collaboration through sharing guiding principles for restoration of Waikiki beaches is critically important. Two, Waikiki, the association's core values align very much with the objectives of the resolutions. More specifically, ongoing replenishment, maintenance, and coordinated management to preserve the beaches. Two, continuation of opportunities for public enjoyment of the beaches. And three, protection of Waikiki beaches is Hawaii's enormously valuable economic engine.

If I may, I'm prepared to comment on the suggested changes made to to be made by PSD.

Sure.

Some of those, items in the resolution that we are subject to to change was suggested for change by, by OPSEU and once that we submitted. And and, basically, what we're trying to do was to bring clarity to the discussion, more specifically into specific areas. One is that, there's a whole body of law with respect to, the the obligations and rights, of the government and property owners with respect to repair and maintenance of of of the Waikiki Beach walls.

And, those are pretty well defined in the Hawaii Supreme Court cases, the most recent of which is a 2017 Gold Coast case. And there are a whole bunch of cases before that.

And the and then there's also a bunch of, opinions from the attorney general's office. 02/27/1975, 02/12/1988, 06/10/1986. And all these authorities see the same thing. I don't need to get into that, but my only point is that if we're gonna have a discussion on developing shared principles, it should be based in accordance with the law. And and so what OPSDA suggests is more general description of reference to law.

We're okay with that. The other is the in the original resolution, it references decades of discussion. That's in one of the suggested changes by OBSC, and that's on page page two on line 33. And what what the original draft of the resolution described was decades of coordinated efforts.

And so what we suggested is that if we wanna talk about decades of coordinated efforts, then it would be make would make sense to incorporate some of those discussions, which are the 1928 agreement between the territory and the private property owners, the 1929 agreement between the territory and the property owners, and the 1965 agreement between the state of Hawaii and the property owners.

As long as it's that is part of the discussion in in that with the the that the private property owners are gonna be having with the OPSD and the event, you know, we're okay with that. That that was our our main concern is that it's part of the discussion because a number of the members of the association believe that those those agreements are valuable and good as for guiding purposes.

And that's the reason that we we we asked the prior committee, the tourism committee, you know, to incorporate those those references. We're okay, you know, with with what it is. And I think at the end of the day, we're just here to collaborate with with OBSC.

OBSC. We just wanna make sure that the guiding principles, address those those authorities that are important. Thank you for hearing my testimony.

Thank you. Okay. We also have registered to testify David Arakawa, Land Use Research Foundation employee, but I don't see him here. Is he on Zoom?

No.

Zoom. Okay. He's in support. Is there anyone else wanting to testify on this? Come on up.

Just state your name for the record.

Vice chair, and members of the committee. I'm Francine Murray on behalf of Craig Nakamoto, executive director of Hawaii Community Development Authority. We support this resolution because it helps to protect our beaches and coastlines, which we're very interested in.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wanting to testify? Seeing no other testifiers. Members questions?

Yes. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair. For the gentleman who's representing the possibly private landowners along with Charlotte. You make couple references to restoration of beaches.

You're not referring to breaking down those sea walls and restoring beaches for public acts. Is that what you were referring to when you kept saying restorate we support restoration of beaches, or do you mean replenishing sand onto the left the beaches that are left?

What I was referring to, setting for you, what was the authorities, the Supreme Court authorities. And the Supreme Court authorities being the the most recent being the the court goes Supreme Court case, and there were a number of decisions prior to the Supreme Court authority. And also, opinions by the attorney general's office which address the rights and obligations of the private property owners and the government with respect to repair and maintenance of the existing seawalls in Waikiki.

And what the authorities say is that even if those existing walls are on private property, because the public uses the top of the walls as a as a pass pathway that, what what the law imposes is a, an easement, either an express easement or implied dedication, easement, because public uses it. And as a result of that easement being held by the government, that the government should share is has a duty under the law, has a duty to share the, the cost for repair and maintenance.

All this that's all we wanted to make clear. In the in the original draft of the the resolution, you know, it suggests that because it's on private properties, the total responsibility of the of any private property owner. That's not the law.

But the wall is protecting the private property. Because in other parts of Hawaii, I think there's some there might be a move towards adaptation, which then would require removal of that seawall, which would then remove private property and make it once again, it would restore the beach to the public citizen, which means you would have to surrender your private property. So to me, it behooves the private property owners to maintain the status quo. Right? I mean, doesn't it make sense that we Yeah.

We we we It's protecting your investment. If you're representing the private land owners, it's it's protecting your investment.

We're not we're not different on that perspective. I'm not that's not what we're trying to say. We're not seeing them. Yeah. All we're saying is that when we have these discussions

Right.

That the discussion should really include reference to existing law Okay. Laid out by the Hawaii's report and by the attorney general's office. We're not in we're not in dispute on your your your point of view.

Thank you. Can I

ask a question, sir?

Please go ahead.

To to mister Yukon. Yukon. Excuse me. No problem. So those agreements that were noted in the resolution which OPSD adjusted.

Yes. Those are current law then. Is it still standing as precedent that has been established and recognized?

Well, those those are existing agreements between the territory of Hawaii and the private property owners back in 1929 '28 and '29, and also between the state and the private property in 1965. And those agreements are still in place. They're still in place, and that's what we're saying is that since they're still in place, they should be referenced in our discussions. Clearly, what's happened, you know, from 1928 up until today, the law has changed with respect to where the seaward boundary is.

And and those those those agreements were premised on the location of the seaward boundary.

But as we all know, with the Hawaii Supreme Court decisions by chief justice Richardson's court, you know, the seaward boundary was was moved. But those agreements were premised on the seaward boundary being at the mean high watermark at that time. Now it's at the high wash of the ways, which is evidenced by the the the vegetation line.

But but the the your provisions in the agreement notwithstanding the change in the law with respect to the location of the Seaweed boundary, there are provisions and agreement that we believe is still operative. I remember a number of members whose properties are very much associated with the these agreements.

I feel feel very strongly that this agreement should be respected.

Thank you. Chair, can I ask another question to, PSC?

PSC, sure.

Thank you for

Asking my questions.

Oh, you're welcome. Thank you for thinking the same things. I guess my question would be because I didn't I didn't see it in the resolution. This is a great idea. How do we get these stakeholders together and organize them and herd cats, so to speak, and and make sure we all get along?

How does that happen?

Well, let me say, first of all, that the existing seawalls in Waikiki are legal non conforming structures. And OPSD does not, although we oversee Chapter two zero five a, which is the coastal zone management law, which currently updated by the legislature in 2019, I think, made hardening of shorelines illegal. You know, the these seawalls and this beach are unique. The beach is not a natural beach. It was a constructed beach, engineered beach, and the seawalls have been there for, some cases, over a hundred years.

So they we think that they're part of the solution, not something that, from a planning perspective, that we would want to, see removed and we think that they are part of, can be part of a design that, restores public access, through the full stretch of Waikiki. We'd like to see that as a dry sand lateral access. That's a challenge during, high tides. It's a challenge right now because there are parts there, especially the Kekekekeke sector, that are never dry.

And that's that's dangerous for the public and the residents who want to use that beach.

So our goal is, with these shared principles, is is not the only thing. We're also very grateful to the legislature for considering our green fee request for 7,000,000 to, get started. Planning has already started. Design has already started. Permitting is going to be, you know, the next step.

There are the EIS, which was accepted for, five projects along Waikiki's shoreline, lists the required permits and there's I counted nine. That's, you know, that takes a bit of work. But then we think we can start construction on the Kubehi Baye sector. That's the one where right now the waves are washing right up against the foundations of, the hotels, and we just need to restore, you know, some sand and stabilize it, and then get some dry sand access, lateral access

for the public. Okay. That's our goal.

Yeah. Thank you for offering you, you know, your, very substantial perspective on that. I I don't know if I got the answer to my question regarding how how would we organize this and would OPSD be taking the lead on this and so forth?

OT is taking the lead on the planning portion at the request of DBEDT. And DBEDT took the lead on at the request of DLNR. DLNR is the regulator. DBEDT is the, advocate for a sustainable economy, and our office also protecting public trust assets and, natural resources. So we have that job of balancing those two, you see, because advocates on either side, you know, balance doesn't make them happy.

But at the we see how important Waikiki is for the 22,000 residents who live here, how important it is for the thousands of local residents that have jobs that are free, and the fact that it's it's not a natural beach. It is a construct. So we we want so our role is to be the advocate for the planning sector. We work with our partners, D'Lanor for the permitting, hopefully HCDA for, finishing design and construction.

So we're gonna be together and we will work with the private sector.

Absolutely. They those property owners are very important to making this a successful, project.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Okay. Go ahead.

In reference to the 1928, 1929 agreements and then the the later agreement with the state, I'm just curious if in regard to the private property parties in those agreements, were those agreements tied to the land and not the owners? Or how over time as the properties may have changed ownership, did these agreements still apply?

Representative, first of all, I'm not an attorney, I'm a planner. Second of all, I haven't researched the history of those as thoroughly as your question might require, so you might want to address that to counsel there for the property owners. I wish I could answer that, but I don't know that.

Do you know if they're publicly available somewhere? I haven't looked into it very much myself, but like to review the agreements.

I believe they are. I'm not sure, so I'm just asking. I personally do not have.

You can send you a call.

There we go.

Okay.

Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone?

Send that to the committee.

Sure.

Yeah. Thank you. Senator Chair.

I don't know if there's a an answer.

I'm not a planner, but not a lawyer. And the answer to your question is that the parties are are still bound because, a standard provision in these agreements, which is in these agreements, it says that the agreements are are, bound by the successors in the sides of the agreement.

Here's wait. Stay there. So because OPST is deleting that language referring to the nineteen twenty eight nine nineteen twenty nine portion, So does the various legal legacy contractual agreements and more recent judicial interventions cover everything that and more perhaps?

I believe so. Yeah. Okay. We're trying to be collaborative here. That's the whole nature.

And we wanna be more broad than specific. So, you know, if we can Yeah. Make sure we income encumber everything that might be.

Yeah. So the language that that we offered, which are it's just now in the current draft that's being considered says including but not limited to. So it is, but it's just a matter of language, and we're okay with the language submitted by by Okay.

I think yeah. Alright. Okay. Good.

Any more questions? Sure. Yeah. Please come come. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

K.

For the record, I'm Rick Agate. I'm the president of the Waikiki Beach Special Improvement District Association, and we do exactly what the representative is asking, you know. Can you herd all the cats? They're all our members by law. In other words, we're an improvement district established.

Improvement districts were created by the state. City Of County Honolulu has improvement districts. Our beach improvement district includes all commercial property in Waikiki. So, we represent that. And, we meet regularly, and so we enunciate the policy representing commercial properties in Waikiki so that nobody has to herd all the cats.

We get to do that's our job. And so, and, actually, the reference to these agreements was one of our very prominent members says, hey. You know, is the state forgetting about these agreements? And so they wanted to make sure that the language is in there to make sure that that it's understood that the agreements were still in effect. And as long as it doesn't contradict current law, then the the porch portions of the agreement still have an impact.

So, obviously, the Supreme Court rulings both, you know, are the rule land the land law of the land. And so the and and no no previous agreement would be able to change that, you know. And so but there's still parts of those agreements that are pertinent today. And, but I we agree with, OPSD's language change. Okay.

I I believe it encompasses everything.

So Yes.

Yes. I just wanted to make a point, and Ivan Lee Kuan represents us, that Okay. We're we're at the table.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you. And members, any more questions?

The

last last questions here Sure. For, mister Lily Kuan. Mister Louis Quan, you mentioned the shared, cost sharing possibly or maybe the the state should be paying for the repair and maintenance of these structures. Is that is it shared or is it just the state's financial responsibility to maintain these?

What what the aren't you a lawyer?

Yeah. I'm just asking questions.

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry about that. What were what the law we're just saying that the discussion should reference the law. And what the law says is that under the Supreme Court decisions and the attorney general's opinions, what the law says is that every case is different based on the facts.

But what these all these cases say, the principle is that when the the state as a holder of an easement, either expressed or implied dedications, the holder of the easement because of the people who use it, even though it's on private property, the state has an obligation to share to share the the cost of maintenance and repair.

Okay. Got it. So you're not but if there is a crack or something, a wall is tilting, like it's gonna collapse, the private owner would jump in and repair it and protect their property and then hand over part of the bill to the state. Is that true? I don't understand this.

But

Yeah. I think the principle is there that they have to share, and the mechanism of how they do it is kind of up to them.

I know.

And it and it depends too on the facts of the case, you know, how much is being used by the by the the general public and all measures.

Thank you. You're welcome. Alright.

Let's move on, Members. We are now on SCR 165 SD1. Does it name the month of March as March for water, a month in the state. I don't show anyone who could be here to testify. We have Board of Water Supply and support and two other organizations in support.

Anyone in the room wanting to testify on this? Seeing none, let's move on to test our last measure, SCRs 177, requesting the Department of Accounting and General Services to convene a cooperative working group to address state projects that require county permitting. I also don't show anyone being present here to testify. Oh, I do. Mary, are you gonna testify on this one?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

My apologies, Representatives. I didn't bring, our testimony on that. So I think this comes out of the speed task force.

Yes.

That the House has been working on. It's supporting the staff support. And, of course, it supports our goal of looking for ways to expedite, for, state projects and housing projects. And some of the state projects are housing projects. So, anything that brings the parties together to look at ways of expediting permitting.

You understand that all four counties are unique. They've all established their own electronic permitting, you know, routing systems, that poses some, you know, some challenges, but we think DAGS would be, you know, because they have the state building code council. That needs to be stood up. It doesn't have any staff right now, so it hasn't been meeting. But it should be part of the solution to getting those more standardized approaches that the developers key for doing work across all four counties.

So, you know, we do support this approach. Okay.

Excuse me.

Anyone else we're doing? Anyone else wanted to testify? No one else here. Okay. Questions?

Thank you, Chair, for miss Evans. You you did mention the speed task force. So would this be overlapping the speed task force that you already do it?

This is actually part of the discussions that, this evolved out of the back finding that the permitted interaction group on building permits chaired by representative Lehigh, did. And so so we'll just map it all. It's it's actually will help us establish this, approach.

Chair, follow-up question if no one else has any questions.

Go ahead.

There is I don't know if you're aware, but there is currently a a SB 2543 that's in process of hopefully or maybe approved and and that is regarding standing up a permanent in the DAG. So I guess if that bill passes and and is signed into law, there would be coordination, of course, with that.

Yes. The legislature has given us another year's funding to staff the speed of this course. We're gonna continue to be working legislators through December 26 and later if, if the legislature so chooses. So we'll make sure that, you know, depending on what the legislatures, you know, is our is coordinated. We will continue to work.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Oh, you can stay there. I just have a quick question because I don't wanna put any extra language into the result to change or have any consequences. But when you when the working group sits on to talk about these permitting and do you do you guys take into consideration disability access and independent living perspectives?

I wasn't I didn't attend that particular permitted action. I think it met many times over the course of the fall.

Yeah.

So I can't just tell you what that which law?

It is law, right? Yeah. So it has to be considered.

Listen. The goal of the speed task force was not to delete, you know, law, premise that speak to public safety or accidents, it was to expedite. Right.

Okay. That's all I got. Thank you. Thank you very much. K, Members any other questions? Okay. We can roll right into the decision making. Okay. First up, let me get my sheet.

Four, SCR 8. My recommendation on this is to just pass it out as is. Members, any comments, questions? Vice Chair. Please take the vote from me.

The Members are voting on SCR 8. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. For SCR 40, urging the county I believe the first time. I'm sorry. Urgent the county of Hawaii and City County criminal leaders to adopt ordinances, banning the sale, rental, and distribution of disposable body ports. My recommendation is to pass unamended.

Any questions? Comments? Okay. Please take them.

Okay Members we are voting on SCR 40. Chairs recommendation is to pass unamended. Is there. Noting the excuse absence of representative Belloti, Ichiyama, Woodson? Are there any reservations or noes? Seeing none. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members for SCR 83, requesting the City and County Honolulu to consider developing a facility to discard lithium ion batteries. My recommendations passes unamended. Any comments, questions? Yes.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Just I'm gonna be voting with reservations. My understanding as an electric car owner is that when I get a replacement battery for my car, the company who does the switch out, they sell me a new battery, and they take the old battery, and they ship it back to the factory wherever they get batteries from. So there is a disposal that's already connected to the, I guess, the marketplace.

And I'm concerned that if we ask our municipalities for for some kind of Honolulu to start being open to collecting instead of I think the move generally is it about is extended producer responsibility.

It's about saying if you buy anything with a lithium ion battery, whoever sells it to you should be receiving it. They should have we should the state and and the government should require them to take it back in some form. So that's my concern.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. Yes.

Sure. Because there was no testifier to clarify some of these questions that Representative Iwamoto just brought up. I agree with her concerns, and it's a good idea. I'm I'd like to support it with resolutions.

Thank you. Any other concerns? Seeing none, Chair, please take the vote on this.

Okay. Members are voting on SCR 83. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Noting the absence of Belotti and Ichiyama, the presence of Woodson. Is there any reservations or noes other than the two mentioned earlier?

Seeing none, Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. Now we're voting on this year January, urging the county of Maui to enforce provisions of fire code of the county Of Maui relating to fire hazard, brush clearance, fuel fuel breaks, roadside vegetation clearing, and emergency access. My recommendation is to pass unamended. Any questions, comments? Okay.

K. Members are working on SCRs e r one seven nine. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Chair and Vice Chair. I are there any knowing the excuse absence of Representative Belatti and Ichiyama, are there any reservations or no's?

Take the vote, please.

Seeing none.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. SCR 90 HD1 requesting a planning or planning and permitting department of each county to establish Puna friendly building permit requirements for parking accessibility and private business operating hours. My recommendation for this one is to just pass it unamended. Any questions or comments? Okay.

Seeing none, please take the vote.

Any Members are voting on SCR 90 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Avoiding the excused absence of Representative Belatti and Ichiyama. Are there any reservations or noes? Seeing none. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. SCR 94 endorsing Waikiki as a world surfing reserve. I recommend that this pass unamended. Any questions, comments? Please take the vote.

K. Members are voting on SCR 94. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Noting the excused absence of Representative Belatti and Ichiyama. Are there any reservations or noes? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. For SCR159 SD2 HD1 , urging public and private stakeholders to adopt shared guiding principles for the planning, financing, and undertaking of efforts for the restoration, improvement, and maintenance of the beaches, shoreline, and coastal areas of Waikiki. My recommendation is to incorporate the amendments from OPSD. Any comments or questions?

Chair.

Go ahead.

I just wanna thank the testifiers. I think we had for me personally, it was a very informative and valuable discussion, and I just really appreciate them making time to be here. So thank you. I definitely would be supporting this resolution.

Thank you, Rep. Shimizu. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Please take the vote.

K. Members are voting on SCR 159 SD1 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Oh pass with PSD's amendments. Noting the excused absence of Belatti and Ichiyama. Are there any reservations or situations? Reservations for Iwamoto. Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. SCR 165 SD one designating the month of March as March for water month in the state. Recommendation to pass unamended. Any comments, questions? Seeing none, please take the vote, Chair.

Members are voting on SCR 165 SD1 Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended knowing the presence. Wait, Noting the excused absence of Ichiyama and Belatti. Are there any reservations or no? Seeing none. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And last one is CR177 requesting the Department of Accounting and General Services to convene a cooperative working group to address state projects that require county permitting. Recommendation to pass unamended. Any comments or questions? Okay. Seeing none.

Chair. I just, again, wanna thank, the testifier for the time. Appreciate the PSD. Thank you.

Thank you. K. Please take the vote.

Okay. Members who are voting on SCR 177. Chair's recommendation is to recommendation is to pass unamended. Noting the excused absence of Belotti and Ichiyama. Are there any reservations or no? Seeing none. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Members, this is the last hearing that we are gonna have for one and This we are adjourned.