SB3008 amends Act 289, Session Laws of Hawaii 2025, which authorized the conveyance of certain state-owned parcels in Honolulu to the City and County of Honolulu. The bill makes three main changes: it replaces the Senior Residence at Iwilei parcel with the Westridge parcel in the list of properties to be transferred, extends the effective transfer date for the affected parcel to December 31, 2026, and extends the deadline for Honolulu to finalize approval of the transfer terms to December 31, 2027. It also updates the repeal date to January 1, 2028, if the city does not complete approval by that deadline.
The measure continues to direct the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Department of Accounting and General Services, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, or other relevant state agencies to convey fee simple interests in the listed parcels to the City and County of Honolulu, subject to existing ground leases, easements, and encumbrances. The transfer remains limited to the fee simple interest in the identified parcels and excludes submerged land, accreted land, and land makai of the shoreline. The bill also preserves the requirement that the governor notify the legislature and the revisor of statutes once the transfer is recorded.
The bill’s impact is to revise the timing and parcel list for a previously authorized state-to-city land transfer, rather than create a new transfer program. It would affect state land administration, public real property holdings, and the legal status of the specific parcels identified in the act, including land used for civic, public safety, and social service purposes in Honolulu. If the city does not approve the transfer terms by the new deadline, the amended act would be repealed and the prior version of section 171-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, would be reinstated.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill materials is procedural and administrative rather than controversial. The bill appears intended to keep the transfer process moving by substituting one parcel and extending deadlines to accommodate approval and conveyance logistics. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of strong support or opposition in the available record.
Notable potential points of contention are the substitution of the Senior Residence at Iwilei parcel with the Westridge parcel and the extended timeline for final approval and repeal. Those changes could matter to stakeholders tied to the affected parcels, including state agencies, the City and County of Honolulu, and any existing leaseholders or parties with encumbrances on the land. The bill does not indicate substantive policy disagreement, but it does alter which property is transferred and how long the parties have to complete the transaction.
SB3008 would amend Act 289 (2025) and, by extension, affect the implementation of Hawaii Revised Statutes section 171-2 as it relates to the transfer of specified state parcels to the City and County of Honolulu. It changes the parcel list, extends the transfer and approval deadlines, and adjusts the repeal trigger if the transfer is not finalized. The bill primarily affects state land management agencies, Honolulu, and any entities with recorded interests in the listed parcels.
The available record suggests a neutral, administrative tone. The bill appears designed to correct or update a prior land-transfer act and give the City and County of Honolulu more time to finalize the transaction. No committee testimony or vote history is provided, so there is no documented opposition or strong debate in the materials supplied.
The main points of potential contention are practical rather than ideological: which parcel should be included in the transfer, whether the transfer timeline should be extended, and whether the city can complete approval by the new deadline. Stakeholders most likely to care include the City and County of Honolulu, the state agencies responsible for conveyance, and any tenants, leaseholders, or other parties with existing encumbrances on the affected parcels. The bill materials do not identify any formal opposition.