Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN COUNCIL 2021-08-18 2020-2022 Hawaii County Council 21" Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii August 18, 2021 INVOCATION: Rabbi Levi Gerlitzky of Chabad Jewish Center gave the morning's invocation. CALL TO The regular meeting of the Hawaii County Council was called to order at ORDER: 11:01 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Vice Chair Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member PLEDGE OF The Chair directed the Council to the next order of business, Pledge of ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance. (At this time, Mr. Richards led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.) PETITIONS, The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Petitions, MEMORIALS, Memorials, Certificates of Merit, and Expressions of Condolence. CERTIFICATES OF MERIT, AND (There were none.) EXPRESSIONS OF CONDOLENCE: STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Daniel Bona: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), comment. Dean Au: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), comment. (representing Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters —Big Island) Paul Norman: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), in support. (representing Community Alliance Partners) Mark Van Pernis: PC-24 (Comm. 183), in opposition. Keith Unger: PC-24 (Comm. 183), comment. Maki Morinoue: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314), in opposition. Nancy Carr Smith: PC-24 (Comm. 183), in support. Kiyoko Nanni: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314), in opposition. Barbara DeFranco: PC-24 (Comm. 183), in support. Patrick Hurney: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), in support. (representing Habitat for Humanity —Hawai`i Island and Community Alliance Partners) Jaime Funakoshi: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314), in opposition. Meredith Buck: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314), in opposition. Sandy Akaka: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314), in opposition. Erik Funakoshi: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314), in opposition. Patrick Kahawaiola`a: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), comment. (representing Keaukaha Community Association) Page 2 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Janice Ikeda: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), in support. (representing Vibrant Hawaii and Holy Island Housing Coalition) Mike Vitousek: PC-24 (Comm. 183), in support. Joe Belisario: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), comment. Shaun Roth: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), in support. Christopher Delaunay: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), comment. (representing Pacific Resource Partnership) Valerie Poindexter: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), comment. Point of Personal MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair,just a point of personal preference. Preference: CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I had a question for the testifier. CHR. DAVID: Yes, hang on, I'm thinking about this because I'm not sure. We can ask them to stick around till we're all done with the rest of our public testimony and then you can ask the question. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It's actually more of just a personal question for the testifier. MS. POINDEXTER: Is it a clarification of testimony? CHR. DAVID: Excuse me. Ms. Poindexter, can you hang around? We have only a few more testifiers, and then before we close, I'll let Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder ask you his question. MS. POINDEXTER: Will do. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Nathaniel Kinney: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), comment. (representing Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters) Page 3 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Kaikea Blakemore: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), in support. (representing Neighborhood Place of Puna) Darryl Oliveira: Bill 44, Draft 2 (Comm. 281.32), in support. (representing HPM Building Supply) CHR. DAVID: Before we close public testimony, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, what is your question? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask, is this Valerie Poindexter, the ex-representative for District 1 and for the Hamakua District? MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah. I hate the word "ex"because I'm very much involved yet. I mean,people still call me from the community. My family home is there. I'm still very involved with the Hamakua community and have been in close contact with Heather Kimball about a lot of stuff that is going on, and I appreciate Heather. So, yes, I am the former Council Member for District 1. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It's wonderful to hear your voice, Ms. Poindexter. I believe that we all miss you. So, nice to hear from you today. Thank you for making time in your schedule to be present for our meeting. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. Aloha. Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Aloha. CHR. DAVID: Aloha and mahalo, Ms. Poindexter. And thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. I am closing public testimony at this time and, Council Members, we are going to have a long day. So, I propose that we take a half-hour break for lunch and then when we come back, I just want you to keep in mind that here's my, hopefully, unless people object, that I'm going to do all the resolutions first and then take the two items out of order, which are Bills 52 and 53 and Mr. Van Pernis's appointment, the report. And then we can move forward with the rest of the agenda. So,just keep that in mind. And if you folks have any MS. LEE LOY: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Yes, go ahead. Page 4 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. LEE LOY: Could we also advance Communication 334, Ms. Kristy Cruz? She's been waiting in the Zoom, and she didn't appear at our Committee meeting. And so, it was with the understanding that she would be available here at the Council. CHR. DAVID: Would you want to do that before we take our lunch break then? Thank you. Yes, thank you for that, Ms. Lee Loy. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the of Business: following items were taken out of order: PWMTC-9 NOMINATION OF KRISTY CRUZ TO THE TRANSPORTATION (Comm. 334): COMMISSION Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to adopt Public Works and Mass Transit Committee Report No. 9. Seconded by Mr. Richards. (Note: At this time, Kristy Cruz, nominee, came forward to address the members of the Council, via videoconferencing.) MS. LEE LOY: Just to remind everyone here Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder was also absent at our last Committee meeting, and Kristy actually would be coming from his district, and we just really wanted to hear from her. We did advance her name with the understanding that she would be here to answer any of our questions. So, I would actually maybe ask Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder because it is for District 5. (Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder stated his appreciation for Ms. Cruz wanting to make a difference in the community and suggested that she read the 2019 master plan for transportation on the island and to watch the video of the August 17, 2021, Public Works and Mass Transit Committee meeting. Mr. Richards stated his support of Ms. Cruz's nomination and felt that her background in organizing and coordinating would be beneficial being that the bus system is about coordination.) (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward to address the members of the Council, via videoconferencing from Hilo.) CHR. DAVID: Pomai, if you would like to say anything, please; I know we didn't get an opportunity in Committee. So, if you would like to say something, please come forward. Mahalo. MS. BARTOLOME: Thank you, Chair, Council Members. Actually, no, I didn't want to, unless you had any questions about Ms. Cruz. But I think that she went ahead and introduced herself and answered your questions. Page 5 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: I think she did an excellent job too. Thank you very much. (Ms. Lee Loy spoke in support of Ms. Cruz's nomination.) MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, I have a follow up, sorry. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Pomai, the Transportation Commission has received a few nominations this year. What is the purpose of the Transportation Commission? MS. BARTOLOME: So, currently, the purpose is to regulate passenger-carrying motor vehicles buses, taxis, other vehicles exempted by the Public Utilities Commission—and to serve as an advisory commission on mass transit and other transportation-related matters. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Other transportation-related matters. Does it include build-out of roadways or suggested transportation routes? MS. BARTOLOME: That, I'm not sure of. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I was just watching some of the last few candidates, and they don't seem very aware of our Mass Transit master plan or a number of things that are very crucial to how we build-out infrastructure. And as far as regulating our other transportation needs, I'm just wondering what criteria you're basing the nominations on. MS. BARTOLOME: Yeah, well, as you heard Ms. Cruz, she knows that in her district she sees a lack of bus stops, lack of transportation. And so, she's aware of that. And I think that even for the other applicants, they're also aware of that. And then, too, it's just them wanting to serve and then educating themselves as well as far as MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's crucial. MS. BARTOLOME: Getting the information that's needed. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It is crucial to have people who want to make a difference. And I think I asked this of the last applicant, too: Have you ever read through our Mass Transit master plan? The answer is no. So, it's two people on our Transportation Commission who've never seen or heard of the 2019 Mass Transit Master Plan, which is a pretty integral piece to the Transportation Commission, I would assume. So, I'm just again wondering as far Page 6 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 as these nominations are concerned, what is the guidance on nominating people, who may or may not have any idea of a Mass Transit master plan, to the Transportation Commission? MS. BARTOLOME: Well, and perhaps now that I know that that's a concern for you, I can let them know ahead of time. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Was that not a concern for the Administration? MS. BARTOLOME: Well, it is a concern. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. BARTOLOME: But I'm not in control of what people do or not do. So, I can remind them. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It's just more for the education. I mean, ultimately we want to see a very well-formulated plan for our transportation across the island. MS. BARTOLOME: Right. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, it's in everyone's best interest to have people who are motivated but also very well-informed. MS. BARTOLOME: Sure. I got that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Beautiful. Thank you, Ms. Bartolome. MS. BARTOLOME: You're welcome. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I appreciate you being here today. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. And again, Ms. Cruz,thank you very much for your volunteerism, and I see you come from a different perspective of grassroots, a residential perspective. And I think some of those issues that concern Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, you will definitely have a finger on that too. So, I will support your nomination as well, and thank you for being here. Thank you, Ms. Bartolome, for making yourself available. All those in favor of confirming the nomination of Kristy Cruz to the Transportation Commission and filing Communication 334, please say "aye." Page 7 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Vote on PWMTC-9: The motion to adopt Public Works and Mass Transit (Adopted) Committee Report No. 9 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: And so now, Council Members, I'm going to put this meeting in recess, and we shall take a half-hour break and be back here at 1:05 to start the agenda again. All right, we're in recess. Thank you. Recess: At 12:33 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 1:05 p.m. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, I think we can proceed. I would like to proceed with PC-24 first. PC-24 RECOMMENDS REMOVAL OF MARK VAN PERNIS FROM THE (Comm. 183): LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to adopt Planning Committee Report No. 24. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Council Members, I want you to note that Mr. Van Pernis is available if we have any questions for him. Otherwise, if any discussion on this matter? Seeing none, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, no discussion either? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, I have one question for Mr. Van Pernis. CHR. DAVID: Okay, I think he's on our Zoom. MR. ARACELEY: Kalamai, Council Chair. This is Relley. CHR. DAVID: Yes, Relley. MR. ARACELEY: Mr. Van Pernis was in the Zoom room. Unfortunately, he had some technical difficulties. He is trying to call in at this moment. CHR. DAVID: I see. Call in on your side? Page 8 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. ARACELEY: Call in to the Zoom. CHR. DAVID: Oh, calling in to Zoom. Okay. Well, we'll just wait. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: You know what, Chair? That's okay. I'm okay. You can move forward. I'm all right. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Relley, can you advise him that there were no questions if he does Zoom in? And so, seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk. MR. HENRICKS: I'm sorry. Are you calling for a roll call vote? CHR. DAVID: Yes, roll call, please. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, excuse me. CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry. Vote on PC-24: The motion to adopt Planning Committee Report No. 24 (Adopted) was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Richards —5. Noes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Villegas, and Chair David—4. Absent: None. Excused: None. (Note: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder voted "kanalua"then "no.") CHR. DAVID: The recommendation for removal has been voted in favor. Okay, thank you, Council Members. Let's move to Bills 52 and 53. MR. HENRICKS: Would you like me to read 52 and 53 in conjunction? CHR. DAVID: Yes. Bill 52: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT KALAOA 5TH, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-005:015 Negative: PC-25 (Due to a vote of 3-ayes, 5-noes, 1-absent) Page 9 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 ; and Bill 53: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA DISTRICT ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL—ONE ACRE (A-la) AND AGRICULTURAL—FIVE ACRES (A-5A) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—22,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-22) AT KALAOA 5TH, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-005:015 (Applicants: Timothy Joseph Ward and Kay Lynn Ward) (Area: approx. 3.992 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to the State Land Use Boundaries Maps and change of zone, which would allow the Applicant to apply for subdivision of the property into six buildable lots with a minimum of 22,000 square feet for each lot. The property is located at 73-4350 Hawaii Belt Road, south of its intersection with Kaiminani Drive. Reference: Comm. 314 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Negative: PC-26 (Due to a vote of 2-ayes, 6-noes, 1-absent) (Note: At this time, Timothy Joseph Ward and Kay Lynn Ward, applicants, and John Pipan, applicant's representative, came forward to address the members of the Council, via videoconferencing.) CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Motion? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I just want to clarify. Both measures were read into the record. CHR. DAVID: Yup. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. But I can only make a motion CHR. DAVID: But we can do a motion for Bill 52 first and then deal with that. Right, Mr. Clerk? MR. HENRICKS: You may choose which one to make a motion for, but not both at the same time. CHR. DAVID: Okay, right. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Got it. Okay, thank you. Page 10 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to pass Bill 53 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. We had some pretty robust discussion in Committee, and I first want to apologize. I thought it was quite odd that the Wards were not part of the discussion. I did reach out to Mr. Pipan after the meeting because I felt they needed to be there, and they were in fact there via Zoom, which just wasn't brought to my attention. So, I apologize. I'll do better next time to make sure that everybody that is supposed to be a part of the conversation is included. We also didn't hear from Planning Department. I wasn't aware that Jeff Darrow was outside waving, trying to get in. I usually expect to see Planning in chambers. So, I think it's important to recognize and elevate that because they were critical contributors to the conversation. I know that Jeff is running from Planning Department now to chambers, but I want to give him an opportunity to talk to this body about why we need to make a good land use decision here. I spent a lot of time over the last week and a half walking through this applicant's request with him, looking at the planning principles, connecting with Leeward Planning Commission, which forwarded a favorable recommendation on this. And I have to say I do think the Wards can do a much better job at connecting with the Kona community and really understanding their values. However, we are not here to make a decision on whether or not they are connecting with our community the right way. I think it's our responsibility as leaders to show them that way and find ways in which we can move forward. Because when you take a look at the plans the General Plan, the CDP (Community Development Plan)—it makes it very clear these are the pockets in which we want to be encouraging and fill. So, with that being said, there's Jeff. Aloha, Deputy. If you could come forward. And wanting to note for the record that we do have the Wards participating via Zoom, as well as their representative, Mr. John Pipan. (Note: At this time, Planning Deputy Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Council, via videoconferencing from Hilo.) MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Jeff,just want you to talk all of us through sort of what you should have been presenting during Committee. Page 11 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. DARROW: Sure. Aloha, Council Chair David and members of the County Council. Jeff with the Planning Department. This is a tough one. I was able to hear the passionate testimony of the adjoining neighbors as well as others. When it comes to land use applications from a planning standpoint from the Planning Department, we have certain criteria that we look at. In this particular case, one of the main criteria that we look at is its consistency with our long-range plan, as well as its consistency with the development plan for that particular area. In this area, this is the Kona Community Development Plan. The General Plan for this entire area within the Kona urban area is low-density urban, which calls for urban growth, these residential uses. There's been a lot of talk about how this area is agricultural and meant to be preserved for agriculture. We've had a lot of discussion about the preservation of a lava tube on this particular property. This property consists of lava soil; that's what it is. In soil classification, it's what they identify as Class E, which is very poor. There is a swat at the mauka portion that's (Class) D, which is poor. But for the majority of it, it's in very poor agricultural soil. It's unclassified in regards to our review of prime ag (agricultural) lands. Normally, they'll identify areas that are made up of prime agricultural lands. This is not one of those areas. Again, this is what we look at. We look at the long-range direction that we want to see growth in a particular area. This is slated for low-density urban growth. When we look at the CDP, they've identified a large area in Kona called the "Kona Urban Area"where they are trying to move and direct growth to. That's this area. This area is within the Kona Urban Area. There are other factors in this particular application: 1) It is right at the edge of where we see the urban State Land Use Boundary, as well as the agricultural. So, you slowly see that transition from agricultural to urban as it begins to expand and grow this area towards urban growth. This is right at that edge. Everything north or a majority north, even the adjoining subdivisions, are State Land Use urban. You'll notice when you look at the land designations to the north for the County zoning, they're very small lots. They're 10,000 square feet or a little larger, but they're zoned Ag-5, which makes no sense. That was something that happened in the mid-'90s when there was designation for a lot of lands around the island called "unplanned." And they hadn't determined what that zoning should be, so they just named it"unplanned." There were permitted uses in that area. In the '96 Code, in December of'96, inside our current Zoning Code, you'll see one reference to unplanned and it was because they had changed the designation from unplanned lands to agricultural five acres. And so, you'll see these large areas that are all zoned Ag-5 that were originally unplanned. And it could be Page 12 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 large lots, but a lot of the areas in Kona that are zoned Ag-5 but consist of residential sized lots, these were most likely part of that switchover from unplanned to Ag-5. But again, when Planning looks at an application, they look at its consistency with the plans that were asked to make sure that it's consistent with. And again, that's the General Plan, the Community Development Plan, which we've done and we've gone into great detail within our recommendation. We brought it before the planning commission. They agreed; they forwarded a favorable recommendation. There are times in the past where we got hung up on what somebody's proposing. And this happens on too much of an occasion where, like, somebody comes in and they request a commercial zoning but they say, "Oh, I'm just doing a couple of offices." They get approved and then, a short time later, they sell the property and somebody comes in and does a much higher use, a use that has greater impact. In this particular area, to go residential, we know what the outcome's going to be. They're going to be creating six lots with six dwellings. That is regardless of whether it's this person or if it's sold; that's what's going to happen. Six lots, six houses. There is a request for a seventh, but that hasn't been determined yet. This is unlike a commercial zoning where we have to look at—regardless of what the applicant is saying they'll do—we have to look at the highest and best use. At this stage with this request, we know what that use is. Anyway, I think I've pretty muchI believe the conditions are addressing a lot of the issues that have been brought up regarding preservation, regarding the neighbors. There were added conditions to be able to address the issues of the neighbors regarding construction, those kinds of things. But I'm able to answer any questions if you might have some. Sorry, I got winded. I didn't realize. I thought you were going to go into resolutions, and next thing you know, I'm running over here. So, I apologize for that. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: You're quite the sprinter. Thank you, Jeff, for that very detailed overview. I also wanted to get, Judge Strance, your opinion here. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. KIERKIEWICZ: At Committee, the Wards did talk about—and maybe it was a mistake on their part to say that they intended to build affordable housing without really recognizing what that means to us. And I think they've kind of taken back that statement here. Page 13 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 But I'm bringing it up because any contribution to our housing inventory is a step in the right direction. And I was concerned about sort of like the conversation that was happening at Committee about rejecting a project on the basis that it is not affordable. And so, I just wanted, like, to understand. Are there any legal ramifications or liability for us to be making decisions with that sort of, like, perspective and lens? MS. STRANCE: Thank you, Council Members. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. I think this is a situation where words matter and that it was unfortunate that the Wards used that term because it's a term of art; and then it was picked up on. And the project envisioned is not an affordable housing project. And so, the conversation took a left turn rather than focusing in on MR. CHUNG: Judge, excuse me. Can you take off your mask so we can hear you a little clearer? MS. STRANCE: Reluctantly, I'm doing that. I'll start with "the words matter." So, this was not—this project did not walk through the Land Use Commission as an affordable housing project. It was a term that was thrown out, I think, without the words having been schooled on that kind of language. So, the project that was approved is not an affordable housing project. It is a zoning change and a subdivision application. And so, the focus should not be on whether or not this is an affordable housing project. It's whether or not this body wants to approve the land use designation and wants to change the zoning. I think the other piece I wanted to mention is, on the residential zoning piece and Jeff can correct me if I'm wrong you have residential zoning that has certain uses. And then you'll see next to a residential zoning RS-10, RS-25. And this is an RS-22. And so, the lot size is larger than the lots on the Kaiminani street side and smaller than on the Kona Acres one-acre size. So, the size of lot that's being sought is kind of a transitional size where it's not as small as the intensive residential use that you see along Kaiminani Drive. But it's not quite as they're not as big as the lots in Kona Acres, which are zoned, I think, Ag-l. And my understanding is that we no longer have an Ag-1 designation zoning. And so, history hasn't been a straight line here, and so there's been this kind of mix and match. And so, I think what you folks are facing and struggling with is, one, an unfortunate use of terms in an initial conversation and then, two, not necessarily dealing with round pegs and square holes, but you're dealing with a piece of property that is part of a development process that isn't a straight line—if that's helpful and answers your question. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Judge Strance. Chair, that's all I have. I appreciate the latitude. I just wanted to make sure that we're making, at the end Page 14 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 of the day, a good and responsible land use decision. I really take heart in the fact that many years many voices were elevated through the CDP process. And I just want to make sure that at the end of the day, we're making decisions that align with these plans that community spent so much time contributing to. And so, I just thank you for allowing me to invite Jeff to share and for Judge Strance to provide her perspective on this as well. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. And, Mr. Darrow, I'm sorry that you had to sprint because I did say before we broke for lunch that I was going to do resolutions first. I just thank you for your understanding. MR. DARROW: No problem. I could always use a good sprint. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to say sorry. All right, Council Members, anyone else? Mr. Inaba, go ahead. MR. INABA: Thank you. I just want to follow up. So, there's mention about us making a decision regarding their claims of affordable housing. That's not what this is about. Our CDP talks about community character, which would be changed here, as pointed out by all of the testifiers today. And I think we need to recognize that there was one testifier in support of this bill. Our CDP also talks about preserving agricultural lands to support family farms, which we still have those in that neighborhood. So, yes, there's a process. With the department and the commission, we are part of that process, and we make a decision when it comes to these rezonings. I want to caution this Administration from, what I would say, trying to convince this body of whether something is good or not. There's a recommendation put forth based on what comes through the department and through the commission. We make a decision when it comes to us. If we want to talk amongst ourselves and argue our points, that is our duty and that's for us to do on this Council, not for a department to come afterwards and try and force a viewpoint on this body. So, with that mana`o, we need toI'm going to ask for us to oppose and vote "no" on Bills 52 and 53. I think it's very clear what the community has talked about. And I completely agree when it comes to preserving our community's character, regardless. If it's in the General Plan or in the CDP, that guides what we do. If it was to just grant everything a rezoning, we wouldn't have this process and we wouldn't have a vote today. So, I ask that we vote "no." Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Mr. Inaba, for expressing so eloquently where you stand. I appreciate the General Plan and the Kona CDP. A lot of people worked long and hard on that. My understanding of what's included also, though, Page 15 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 requires infrastructure. And I have deep and lasting concerns about lands being rezoned from agriculture in West Hawaii when we don't have the urban infrastructure we need to support them, be that sewers or roads, electricity, a myriad of different things. So, I appreciate the designation as an urban core and being identified as areas to fill in, but during our current housing crisis that we continue to talk about, this is not a solution to that. This is real estate speculation, which is not illegal and it's part of a capitalist economy. But when we as a community are suffering and struggling from lack of infrastructure, this is not a solution to that. And taking our ag lands out of ag zoning is not a solution to that either. So, I will be supporting my fellow Councilman Mr. Inaba, and I can't support this today. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I listened very carefully today, and there was a lot of compelling testimony. And I voted for this project because I really took that logical approach. But I've been around this industry for a long time, and I actually looked back a little bit. And I think Ms. David was a member of staff, just like former Council Member Karen Eoff, when Kona put a temporary pause on any change of zone application until the Kona CDP was developed. And so, back in 2006 or around that time, a lot of applications were put on pause because the community felt that they needed a bigger voice in all of that. And so, they did. The Kona community took a pause. Along with the development of a concurrency law that required that if change of zone applications were to be advanced, you had to have had either water or be able to meet the basic infrastructure. And I share that because that's how long I've been around planning. And those were the two safety nets that were advanced at a time when there weren't those assurances. And so, I'm listening very carefully to these guiding principles that were advanced by this community. And so, to now hear the Council Members who represent the area not want to follow through on that is challenging for me because we've heard a lot of argument about the CDPs are an ordinance. It is law. Our concurrency is law. And now, I'm hearing it's more of a cherry pick information to fit. And so, I now begin to question so many of the other community development plans that we have advanced that lifted up community voices; Ka`u being one of them, Hamakua, Puna. And I'm just looking for a bright line of understanding. We put in these safety nets with a vision, and now we sit to advance those visions. I want to hear from my other colleagues. Like I said, the testimony was compelling but now we're at that crossroads to move forward what—it was 2006 and now it's 2020. That's 14, 15 years of vision that was put forward on all the different things that Kona needed. It's a change of zone application that fits with Page 16 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 all of those pieces. And that's where I am. I'm listening to looking back and reading—Angel Pilago, Karen Eoff just so many previous Council Members who envisioned this. And now we need to advance that. I'm going to yield at this time. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I listened very carefully to testimony, listened very carefully to Jeff Darrow, listened very carefully to Council Members and trying to seek the way forward. Just some of the points that Mr. Inaba brought forth, I don't disagree. I'm glad we addressed the—and I'm going to call it a misunderstanding about the statement of affordable housing. In our County, that means something very specifically, and I think the Wards made that statement not realizing how specific. But I think we put that to rest, and we're talking about housing in this area. We need housing and we need all scales of housing. And I don't think that's arguable on any level. Looking at the CDP and that this adjoins the designation going from agriculture to urban, this is a logical evolution. And looking at the CDP, the direction of where we need to go I think is pretty self-evident. That being said, I'm also sensitive to the community and what they are talking about. And I'm concerned that almost everything that we deal with this goes back to when I was first elected; I know that some of us were first elected—it comes down to being neighbors. And if we don't reach out to our neighbors and try and go forward, then I think we end up starting to have problems. And I think that's a good portion of what's going on here. Very sensitive to the concerns about the historical sites on the property and what has or has not been done as far as taking care of them. That bothers me a lot because there's some stuff there. I want our communities to go forward, and I don't think categorically eliminating any type of development going forward is the right thing. But I do recognize that this is problematic. And I'm also very sensitive to what the community is saying about trying to go forward. As Councilwoman Lee Loy just said, this is a tough one. Because, I'm listening to the members of this community and echoing their concerns, but there were also previous Council Members who worked hard to get this to where we are at this stage. And so, this is really a conundrum for us. So I, too, am going to yield, Chair, because I want to hear other Council Members weigh in. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Seeing none MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, if I can, please? CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. I didn't see your hand. Page 17 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Because you can't. I listened to testimony this morning and the testimony from Jaime Funakoshi. It was very, I would say, not compelling. It was extraordinarily compelling. We represent the people of Hawaii. We get paid by the people of Hawaii through property taxes. Our responsibility is to our community. Our responsibility is to the people of Hawaii. That was said by another testifier later on. Those are all extremely accurate statements. We're looking at a bill. And I'm from Puna. So, my knowledge of Kona is limited. I have been in many of these areas. But what I heard today was we're looking to increase the density of the property and the community is concerned. And that is their right and they voiced their concern, and that's why we have this process, as Mr. Inaba stated. Again, it's our responsibility to speak up for our community. If the Kona Council Members feel that their duty is to uphold the community concerns and vote the way they do, then I would hope for the same for each of our districts when we have a concern in our own community about how we're using and creating land density. So, I'll be voting in accordance with the Council Members from Kona. And I think that we Council Members should take a sharp look at how we gauge our community concern and how we respond to it, and remember that we work for them. They don't work for us. I yield, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Anyone else? MR. PIPAN: Excuse me, Chair, John Pipan. May the applicants and I have a chance to speak and address some of the testimony against us? CHR. DAVID: You sure may. Thank you. MR. PIPAN: Now? CHR. DAVID: Go ahead. MR. PIPAN: Okay. Thank you very much. Aloha, Chair David, Council Members. Thank you again for your dedicated service to your communities. I want to thank Council Member Inaba again and Council Member Kierkiewicz for taking the time to meet with us. While we haven't suggested any amendments to these bills, we hope to convey that there will be a net benefit to the community as they stand. The intent of these bills, as we've been discussing, is to provide additional housing options in Kona. There are several objectives and policies within the Kona CDP that point to the suitability of this project, excuse me. I'm not going to go into detail on those. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Kona CDP. Page 18 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 I would go down the list in the same way for the General Plan, but in the sake of time, since it's already been documented in the public record, I'll forego that. But isn't the purpose of these documents, the General Plan and the CDPs, to guide decision-makers like yourselves on the highest and best long-term uses of land to benefit the public? If we're not relying on these guiding documents established by ordinance, what are we relying on? And that's not a rhetorical question. I really need assistance if we can't use the General Plan and the CDPs. People have to live somewhere. And if not here, then where is better? If the answer is "no growth,"we need to prepare new guidance for evaluating the consequences of that decision. We are in a housing crisis. The bills we're discussing would create additional housing. If these bills are voted down, I would ask please tell us why. Given that they have been demonstrated to comply with and implement those plans, if there's not sound reasoning for denying the bills based on land use and planning principles, what reasons are we left with? If the reasons for voting against these bills include where the applicants are from, who they were previously represented by, or who I was previously employed by, please ask yourselves if that's consistent with fair and impartial treatment. I worked for Kern and Associates for about two years before Mr. Kern took his position as Planning Director. And the core Kern and Associates team was then given an option either to become unemployed in the middle of a growing pandemic or form our own business and offer our services going forward. We chose the latter, obviously. We respect the firewalls established by the Planning Department and worked with Deputy Director Darrow and not Director Kern. Deputy Director Darrow provided the recommendation for these applications, which was then independently reviewed and conditions amended by the Leeward Planning Commission. And then more to the point, regarding testimony alleging bullying or bribing behavior on my part, I strongly disagree. So, following community meetings to hear of potential concerns, I've worked toward getting these community concerns addressed, leading to the planning commission meeting on the applications. The Funakoshis had submitted written testimony in opposition of the project at that point and were requesting the applicants formally commit to several items, which have since all been added as conditions of Bill 53. My call with Mrs. Funakoshi was to request for supporting testimony in light of the commitments the applicants would be making. And as soon as I was made aware of her discomfort on the call, I apologized profusely and followed up with this email "Aloha Jaime, I apologize sincerely. If you got the impression or feeling of being bribed or bullied, that was not my intent. I have a young Page 19 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 daughter too three years old—and I understand your safety concerns and understand the Wards are open to implementing the measures you proposed. "I was simply asking for your support in light of the willingness we've shown to work with you. I want to reiterate it is our suggestion and the preference of the Wards to preserve the sites in place, but at this point"this was in May and, since then, data recovery has been removed from the condition; sorry, interjecting that—"preserve the sites in place, but at this point, I don't think they have enough information to definitively rule out the possibility data recovery will be performed." And that has been ruled out at this point. So, to be accused of bullying or bribing is deeply hurtful, to say the least. I may be just socially awkward and I'm working on that. I maintain that I was simply seeking to broker compromises, and I sincerely apologize again if that call made Mrs. Funakoshi uncomfortable at all. Here we have the opportunity to contribute to the range of housing options available in Kona in an area designated for low-density urban use and provide a net benefit to the community. And if it would please the Council, Chair David, the Wards may like to speak to you a little more on their vision for the project and the concerns expressed by the testimony. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. And, Mr. and Mrs. Ward, you may go ahead. MS. WARD: Thank you. Mahalo for allowing us the opportunity to address the concerns of the Council and the neighbors regarding Bills 52 and 53. I apologize. This isn't our normal. Sorry, I'm just stressed. The preservation of the artifacts is understandably a major concern for the neighbors and for us. We know how much passion and desire there is in the community to keep the artifacts on-site, and we're fully on board with the on-site preservation. Another common concern of the neighbors that testified was the request for the `ohanas. I do want to say we did go back. I'm going to go off of what I was going to read. We did go and we read and we read and we read. And we appreciate and understand the fear that the neighbors have. They don't know us. We don't live there yet. We're retiring at the end of the year. We're moving there in the spring. We're bringing my parents and our daughter with us to live all together in our home. So, they don't know who we are and what we represent. And as John had said, hearing some of the things that were said, it misrepresents who we are as people. We are hard-working, honest, fair people who want to give to the community. That is our goal in retirement, is that we will finally have time, after working two jobs for over 30 years, to finally have the time to put effort into the community and to become part of the Kona community. Page 20 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Since we're not there and we haven't been able to reach out to the neighbors, we haven't been able to create relationships. And I think Mrs. Kierkiewicz was very target-on when she said early on that we haven't done the outreach that we need to do to prove ourselves, that we're there not to take advantage of the situation but to add to the housing crisis that's there. We don't fully understand the housing crisis. Obviously, we're not there. We're not the experts on it. All we know is when we were there a couple of years ago, when we looked around and heard from other folks that there's no place to rent, we have rentals here. We know how to do that business. The land became available. We thought we had a place to make an opportunity. We have the ability to put the investment into that piece of land, to put the road in, to put a fire hydrant in, to put the infrastructure and use the six water rights that are there, to use that to develop that piece of land so that six homes can be developed. We're not big-time developers. We've never done this before. We've gotten and purchased existing townhomes and then used those for rentals. This whole thing of the development is a new opportunity for us. And I do apologize profusely for ever using that word "affordable." I had no idea when I said that word that that had some kind of meaning other than the simple use of the word. So, it was never our intention to show ourselves as one kind of person to do something and then go away and do something different. That was never our intention. Mahalo for your consideration. Councilman Chung, at the last meeting that we were at, you said something that was very impactful to us. And you talked about the mentoring that you do with someI think it was some drug counseling that you were doing. And you said that it's their job to prove the others wrong, and you must prove people wrong with your actions. And so I'm hoping regardless of how this vote goes, when we move there next year, we will prove with our actions what kind of people we are and that we are there to help and better the community and not be against the community. So again, mahalo for your time and your consideration. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much for that. Council Members, any Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, and I did say that. I think it was in the context of Mr. Van Pernis's situation. But it certainly can be related to this matter as well. Jeff, can I ask a question of you? MR. DARROW: Sure. MR. CHUNG: What can presently be developed on that parcel right now? Page 21 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. DARROW: Presently, it's zoned agricultural five acres. And a small little sliver is zoned ag one acre. The State land use is agriculture. So basically, it would be a farm dwelling. We'd have to look at the actual date when the lot was created because there's semantics regarding the term "single-family"versus "your first farm dwelling." And then, depending on the agricultural use of the property, there could be possibly an additional farm dwelling built on the property. MR. CHUNG: But at the most, two then. MR. DARROW: I would say two would be at the most. MR. CHUNG: Okay. You know what? I've been really thinking about this thing, going back and forth. Of course, I pledged my deference to Mr. Inaba the last time. That doesn't mean I can't break my promise, but I really would not like to. But at the same time, there's others like Mr. Richards who said it's our responsibility to try to help people find a way through. This is really a tough situation because I listened to some of the speakers today and now I'm going to use another analogy—it's almost like what we faced yesterday with regard to should we vaccinate or should we not vaccinate. There are people who they'll say all kinds of stuff but ultimately they're not going to change their minds. And I really can't I don't want to come to any conclusions regarding the neighbors over there, but I don't know if they're really amenable to a zone change. Maybe they just want this thing to stay the way it is. I really don't know. But at the same time, what I also gather from the neighbors, though, is their perceived unneighborly treatment towards them. And all of this really comes down to a matter of feel. Technically speaking, there's every good reason to support this rezoning, and those things have all been brought up. But at the same time, as Mr. Inaba said, there's a level of discretion that goes into these types of decisions, and it comes down to feel, intuition, and other things like that that cannot really be quantified. Now, when you try to develop a community or a neighborhood, you have to have that buy-in, and I just haven't seen that happen. Now, I'm just wondering if it's at all possible, since the Wards have said they haven't had the chance to come and talk to the neighbors face-to-face, and they're not going to do that for at least a year,people in Hawaii I'm not trying to draw a distinction between people in Hawaii and from other places, but in Hawaii in particular, I would say you want to see a person face-to-face and really be able to talk it out. And I have a situation right now. We've got all these COVID (coronavirus disease)protocols in place, but some people wanted to meet with my wife and I, and they were willing to do it by Zoom. I told her, "No. We going meet them in person." We going find a way to meet because that's important to me. And I Page 22 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 think it would be productive if the Wards could actually meet their neighbors and talk to them so that the neighbors can get a feel for who they're dealing with. And for all we know, they might change their minds. I really don't know. Would the Wards consider deferring this until they come here? I don't know. That's really up to them. I would make that suggestion. Give them a chance to talk to people. This might be their way of finding a way through. But as it stands right now—and this is not because I'm deferring to Mr. InabaI think I've got to vote "no" on this because of the neighborly aspect of all of this. You want to build communities. We're here for the purpose of building communities. There's been a lot of red herrings like the agricultural use of this thing. Come on, now. You know what I mean? But at the same time, we don't want to see hakaka already, as much as possible. That's my thoughts. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. I wasn't going to chime in today, but I want to thank Council Member Chung for kind of summarizing what I was ruminating about in my head. When this first came before us, my comment was this just doesn't quite feel fully baked, and I still have that sense to it. My inclination is to support some sort of delay of this process. I think there's other homework yet to be done, whether it's reaching out to the community, more conversations between the Wards and Council Member Inaba. Appreciate the points that Council Member Lee Loy made, but I would also add that the zoning, in and of itself, is a part of that compilation of documents and agreements that the community has made. Whether or not those were based on historically wrongful decisions, they are part of and actually the fundamental basis of how we say we're going to use a particular piece of land. And that's why we have these discussions. So, my inclination is the same as Mr. Chung's, to find a way to delay this for further discussion at a later time. I don't feel there's any need to rush. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Anyone else? Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Darrow, are you stilloh, there you are. Question, Jeff: The zoning around the property, I know north, Waimea side, that is urban. On the Kona side, Ka`u side, what's the generalI think I'm reading the map right, but can you just fill that in,please? MR. DARROW: Going south from the subject property, the adjoining properties just to the south are Ag-l. Further south, there's Ag-3 and then Ag-5. But again, if you keep continuing towards the Kona, going makai, you're going to run into that urban core that's expanding out. Today, this morning, we dealt with one of those propertiesHonua`ula—which is right on that edge coming north. That whole area is urban. Going south is ag. This whole area north is urban. Coming Page 23 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 south is ag. So eventually, they're going to fill in. It's what the CDP and the General Plan are trying to achieve. They're trying to direct urban growth into these particular areas. The State Land Use, it's the same. To the north is urban with some slots of ag. Going south, you have a majority ag but you have large areas of urban as well that have started to fill in. I hope that answers your question, yeah. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, it does. Thanks, Jeff. And then across the street, Matsuyama's, what is that zoned? MR. DARROW: Matsuyama is commercial. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, all right. Thank you on that. And I like what Mr. Chung is stating, as Ms. Kimball, about trying to seek a way forward. And I agree with what Mr. Chung said about meeting face-to-face, talking story. I won't speak for the rest of the counties, but I know Big Island's a very "show me" culture; you have to kind of prove it, you can't just say it. You've got to actually do it. And so, I'm thinking that maybe a way forward is to have that face-to-face and have that community "talk story." That would certainly support further talk story to see if we can find that way forward. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I want to make sure that you also have a chance to chime in, but I'm happy to put forward a motion to postpone to the call of the Chair. I don't want to set an end date as to when conversations need to be had by, but I do agree that the Wards just really need to ingrain themselves in the Kona community; have that talk story and figure out is this going to be a good fit or not. And this, what we have before us, might not be the best fit. We might see a new iteration of something that works well for all partiersneighbors, communities. So, I'd like to put forth that motion when you are ready to entertain it. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: I'll second that motion. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Were you making that motion now, or you're just talking about it? Oh, okay. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to postpone Bill 53 to the call of the Chair. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR. DAVID: Discussion on the postponement. MS. VILLEGAS: I just want to highlight that through conversations that have happened, it's become apparent that Mr. Inaba has taken quite a bit of time to talk Page 24 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 to them and talk to the land representative. And so for me, it seems ironic to have representatives of other districts continue to push that on somebody who is representing his district, abiding by the testimony that we have been given today from that community. And I really struggle with it. I have people coming to me with things in my district, and it feels inequitable to have it constantly be shoved, that our decisions for our districts somehow aren't in compliance. The General Plan is under review. The CDP is currently a living document, and those meetings have just resumed. And it doesn't sit well with me to not support the efforts of the Council Member that represents this district. And I don't see that happen conversely for other members on this Council and that concerns me. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: You know I've got to address that, right? I don't think anything's being shoved down anybody's throat. I did state specifically that if this thing had to go to a vote, I'm going to vote "no"today. And it really is up to the Council as to what they want to do, whether they want to defer or not defer. But I don't think that's a real nice suggestion, that people from outside of the district are trying to shove things down anybody's throat. That's not right. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Anyone else? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I really do bow to Mr. Inaba on this. I just wanted to make a quick comment before we go to a vote to postpone. The affordable housing aspect, I mean, we thought we had a fairly large affordable housing project in front of us today. Maybe a misuse of words on the words part—and I don't hold that against them at all. But reality is, and from the testimony we got this morning, which is absolutely true for the whole island, everyone's complaining about property taxes going up. They haven't been raised. The property values have gone up. So, this need for more housing has to be coupled with housing that's affordable for local people. I think that's the confusion. You want to develop? Develop. I don't think anyone here is anti-development but we are pro-housing that's affordable for people who live here and don't have extra income or resources that a lot of people here don't have. We just work one job, maybe three jobs,just trying to break even. I don't know that everyone understands that. I mean, we have so much in front of us: affordable housing, affordable housing. Reality is people here can barely afford to buy anything. And the more Page 25 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I'm sorry to interrupt you but we're on the motion to postpone. And I can call you right when we get back to the main motion after we vote on the postponement because I still haven't spoken. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I would like the chance to say what I was going to say. So, once we pass this motion, then I'd like a chance to speak. Thank you, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Okay. I will call you once we deal with this motion to postpone, okay. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mahalo, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Anyone else on the postponement? Go ahead, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Real quick, thank you. I've met with the applicant, or their representative, three times over the last month; two times where it was just me and Mr. Pipan, and the last time where all four of us were in a Zoom meeting. We keep discussing the CDP, and I had cited places where the CDP falls in line with what the testifiers spoke about today. As long as this same bill comes back to us with the same request, it's not in line with what that community is, which is what I discussed about the CDP. So, I'm not sure that this is going to work. And I have a hard time supporting a postponement when I've met with this parry three times. And I just want to point out, to bring up this fair and impartial treatment I think is tasteless and unprofessional because I've gone above and beyond numerous times to meet with this parry. So, I just want to point that out, in light of I just don't think it's right when we have a potential for not getting what you want and a threat of unethical conduct by this board, citing this fair and impartial treatment from our Charter and from our Code of Ethics. So, I can't support this today based on what this bill says and based on what the community has shared via their testimony. It has nothing to do with affordable housing. It has to do with what the community character is there. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Anyone else on the postponement? Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I concur, Mr. Inaba, that the bill in its current format is something I can't support either,based on the testimony and the conversation we've had. However, my thought is—and I appreciate you've invested a lot of time on this already there's clearly a need for—well, one comment that was made today by the applicants was that they didn't particularly understand the housing needs in our community. Page 26 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 I think that maybe without that information in trying to have this conversation, they weren't fully prepared. They have, at this point, an uphill battle, and I would say that it is reasonable to consider future conversations could result potentially in something good if they were to truly understand the community needs, the interest in the CDP. Just want to leave the space for that. And I understand your frustration. You requested those first two meetings. The applicants weren't there. I'm glad to hear that they did actually meet with you the third time. I can see pushing this another year; give them time to come here and talk to people and if they would feel comfortable with that. I want you to know that I'm speaking directly to you, Holeka; that I do really respect your opinion on this. And I just feel like there may be, somewhere deep down, a potential for something good to come out of this. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Anyone else before I ask a question of Clerk Henricks? MR. CHUNG: I have a question. CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: And this is for Jeff. Jeff? MR. DARROW: Yup? MR. CHUNG: Just hypothetically, let's say the Wards came here and now they wanted to change their request to, for example, whatever it is, Ag-5A, to now IA or something like that. What would be the process from the department side? Would this have to go back to the planning commission or ? MR. DARROW: As Corporation Counsel Strance had mentioned, there's no longer a designation of Ag-l. It would be what we call "family agricultural one acre." It's basically the same but they would not need to come in for a State Land Use boundary amendment because the property is currently agriculture. They would resubmit. We wouldn't want to—we would want this bill to be withdrawn, or these bills, and then resubmit a change of zone for agricultural one acre, or family ag one acre. It would allow up to three lots because this property is just shy of four acres. MR. CHUNG: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Jeff. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Go ahead, Ms. Kimball. Page 27 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. KIMBALL: Apologies Chair, as this is a question for Mr. Clerk. I'm still learning in my position here. I understand that if we vote "no" on an ordinance, we cannot bring something substantially similar back within a year. Does that apply to these rezonings or not? MR. HENRICKS: It would apply to any bill. With that being said, I mean, I don't know that you're asking this but these types of bills are unique in their structure. But I think the better point was brought forward by Mr. Darrow as far as the whole process when it comes to land use applications and their routing. There's a lot of layers, yeah, to that process, yeah. So, whether or not something is substantially the same, fair question but I'm not sure. I'm not sure of what kind of scenarios you're envisioning, so it's hard to answer that question. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, because I'm just trying to understand. Is it better to defer this, or is it better to have a resubmission of a different ordinance? Or are we limited in our ability to do that through the procedural process? It's really just a question of what's the cleaner mechanism here. I think we have majority consensus that this is not the bill in the format that we want to see it right now. If anybody, either Mr. Clerk or Mr. Darrow, you have a recommendation on the cleaner process? MR. DARROW: Well, as mentioned, as far as if the applicants were amenable, it would this position we're at right now, they may consider withdrawing both bills and reconsidering to come in for a change of zone to change the zoning from Ag-5 and Ag-1 to Family Ag-l. Again, that would allow the possibility of three lots for the property. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Deputy. I yield, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. On the postponement still, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah, I think these questions that Council Member Chung and Council Member Kimball just—or these statements really got me to think. We can't change the purpose of a bill. Is that correct? MS. STRANCE: That's correct. MR. INABA: Okay. So, as long as it remains in this form and the intention is to change the zoning to residential, 22,000I mean, we can postpone that, but if that comes—I've already shared my piece on this. The intention is the intention. If we're going to change the intention, then we need a new bill. So, I just can't support a postponement, again. Sorry, Chair, I know you haven't spoken. So, I'm done. MS. STRANCE: I guess it's like the kind of Page 28 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: Corp. (Corporation) Counsel Strance, go ahead. MS. STRANCE: If there are substantial amendments to a bill—and I think the question is, does it change the purpose if there's a substantial amendment to the bill. Under the Charter, there would be the bill should be postponed so that the amendment can get fully addressed. If you'd like, I can pull theI left my Charter at my desk. But the Charter does envision, whether significant amendments, that the bill should not be voted on at the time of amendment. CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. Mr. Inaba, is that—okay. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead on the amendment I mean, postponement. MS. LEE LOY: On the postponement. CHR. DAVID: Yes. MS. LEE LOY: I just want to throw it out to my colleagues: rocks in hard places; sometimes having this as a way for people to dig in and think harder. Because, I actually heard right now there might be another option that would take this off the table and re-envision the community and what the community wants. But if there's nothing to talk around, then there's not going to be an opportunity to engage community. I just want you to think about that just as a tool to keep everybody at the table. Because, it can come back out, vote down, and they can reintroduce or reapply to something that fits within the community. That actually was the most profound thing. We all want to create community. And the applicant came forward based on some zoning requirements, and they admitted to not really getting a feel of community. But at least this gives you, Mr. Inaba, a tool to keep talking to community. Because if it comes back that community just doesn't want to see this property ever move into the infill, then we going know and we going know how to dispose of this or whatever comes forward. On the postponement, I just want to take a deep breath and just think about it as a tool. But I will follow. I like it. Community. You're trying to develop community. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Inaba, go ahead. MR. INABA: Thank you. The Wards are coming to the table for good, apparently. So, at such time that we can continue this conversation with something that might be better for and more in line with what the community is talking about, I'm always here. They're going to be living in Council Member Villegas's district, but this property that they own is in my district, and I Page 29 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 can support something like this Family Ag-l. That makes sense. It's in line with what is in that neighborhood. We can't have that with Bills 52 and 53, and we can't amend Bills 52 and 53 to be that. So, that's all I can say. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. So, on the postponement, everybody spoke. I appreciate the Wards. I appreciate—and thank you, Corp. Counsel, for reminding us of what we have before us is a zone change. And so, the other issues that we're all talking about do apply. But the fact that Mr. Inaba raises a really good issue about this going back, what he can support I think paves the way for another discussion with the applicant. And for me, I feel that given that, I think since we're at first reading, we should just move this forward however it goes and allow Mr. Inaba some time till the next meeting. And if he so chooses to make a motion to amend at that time, given that he had a conversation with the owners, the Wards, then so be it. I do have a question, though. Sooh, wait. Yes, there's a motion to postpone. Clerk Henricks, if we act on that motion to postpone, will we be able to just keep discussing? We're done, right? And it just gets postponed to the next meeting. MR. HENRICKS: If the motion is approved, then it is postponed. It's postponed till whenever. CHR. DAVID: Till whenever. Okay. MR. HENRICKS: Under this particular motion, it's a postponement until the Chair's discretion. CHR. DAVID: Right. So, if I can, Council Members, can I just be given some latitude to ask a question? Even though it's not really directed to the postponement, I'd like to ask a question of Mr. Darrow. Mr. Darrow, a lot of talk has been going around the CDP and the direction of the CDP as it relates to development. But in my understanding, and I think Mr. Inaba raised that issue, the CDP also has policies that directs the community on where they want to go with respect to land use. But at the same time, it mentions certain things that are very valuable in our district, in the Kona district that needs to be incorporated into any decision- making, as opposed to just a change of zone. So, there are policies and goals that go along with the decision-making process outside of just—it says it's an urban, you know, it's good for urban than just do it. I say that the CDP is such a comprehensive document that you have to look at that and the rest of the policies and goals contained in that document, because it took years for the people of Kona to develop it. And to me, it wasn't a document that totally addressed development. It addressed the people's desire on how they Page 30 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 wanted to see this place developed, and some sensitivity that needed to go into our decision-making as the decision-makers for this body. And so, I just wanted to make that clear because that's my understanding of the CDP. And I also know that while the CDP directs it, we have not always followed the CDP because there have been issues that raised that particular question. And I think I'm not going to mention anything, but there have been cases that have arisen because the CDP was not followed. So, to me, it's not a black and white for us to make a decision whether this is a good thing because the CDP says we need to expand urban. There's a lot of other things. And also I just wanted to ask you: The Kona CDP, it was adopted as an ordinance. Are there still sections of the Kona CDP that the Planning Department still has to initiate bills for adoption that were left, not hanging, but the whole CDP was adopted but there were certain segments of it that still needed to be worked on by the Planning Department? And I believe the CDP Action Committee has been trying for a while to get that connection and that implementation done. Is that completed yet? MR. DARROW: Chair David, the original CDP was adopted in 2008. As a result of some of the language that was in the CDP, there was the court case that came out Missler that we're all familiar with that kind of said that, "You know, because this is an ordinance, then what's in that is law and you have to follow that." Some of those statements said something like, "This amends Chapter 25." "This amends Chapter 23." Our understanding in the Planning Department was that a document making a statement such as that cannot change it without going through the process of changing it. Based on Missler, there was a different take on that. They were saying, "Because it said in the ordinance this statement, then it becomes law." There was another series of amendments that occurred in, I believe, 2016 that attempted to address, if not all, a majority of those languages those statements that were in the CDP. I'm sure that there are still actions that the Planning Department will need to address in regards to the CDP. I'm not sure right now what they are in regards CHR. DAVID: Oh no, I don't expect you to know that offhand. Thank you, Mr. Darrow. MR. DARROW: Yeah. I mean, if I'm not mistaken, that was the whole intention of the amendments that came before the Council in 2016, was to address a majority, if not all, of those statements where it said, "this amended" and "that amended" and "This shall be done" and "That shall be done." There were a lot of changes. Page 31 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: And I understand. It's complicated to make all those pieces match up together. And that was my question, whether that was completed for the Kona CDP. If there is still a little bit more to work on, then thank you for that. I just wanted to find out where you guys were with that process. MR. DARROW: Yeah. That was CHR. DAVID: And sooh, I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. DARROW: No, no, I was just saying it was a pretty rigorous amendment process that had tried to address all of those matters that were brought up through Missler. CHR. DAVID: Exactly. Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Darrow. MR. DARROW: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: And so in that respect, I really support the position of Mr. Inaba because I really believe that this is a lot more than what is just before us today. And I would love to see that the Wards work with the community, and I hope that will happen. So for me, I won't be supporting the postponement at this time because I feel we're at first reading and we can move forward. Thank you. MR. CHUNG: I have a question. CHR. DAVID: Sure. MR. CHUNG: So, if the postponement fails and we go because, Madam Chairman, you said you wanted to see this move ahead. Move ahead to the second reading or move ahead to being dead? CHR. DAVID: Oh, well, I MR. CHUNG: I don't know. Because, Mr. Clerk, what happens at first reading if ? MR. HENRICKS: I understand where you're going. If there's not five votes for first reading, there is no second reading. MR. CHUNG: There is no second reading if it's defeated, right, at first reading? Yeah, so I'm just I wanted to get some clarification on what you meant by you wanted to move it. Page 32 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: Yeah, thanks for that clarification because I would have to defer to Mr. Inaba because, for me, I would not want to support the postponement if that—if this body feels that—if it fails, then we still move on. But if it doesn't, then I thought I heard Mr. Inaba say he was wanting to move on. MR. CHUNG: Well, let me—do I still have the floor? CHR. DAVID: Yes, you do. MR. CHUNG: Yeah. And I do apologize. I know the protocol is to have the Chair be the last. So sorry. Given the information, though, that was provided to us by Mr. Darrow regarding you cannot really change this thing, it has to be withdrawn. It's kind of interesting. And I really didn't expect this idea to gain any traction over here, but I just threw it out just to talk story. Talking story is always good. And the Wards have made representations as to if they have the chance, if they were there, people would see that they're good community members. I figure, well, okay, let's give them the chance, right. I think that's always a good thing. And I will say this: I agree with Mr. Inaba, and that's why I brought up this, could they change it to one-acre lots. Because, if was one acre, I would support it because it's totally in character with what's there right now. And I will go further to say if it's not today, it's some other time, I'm going to have a real hard time voting "yes" on what's being proposed very difficult time. But at the same time, it's always good to have—and they could always withdraw it. They could withdraw this thing at any point and come in with something else. But just give them the chance to talk to people. If this is not the avenue, so be it. I think we still should defer, though. MS. STRANCE: Council Chair? CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Go ahead. MS. STRANCE: I think if I could just have a minute to talk with my colleagues about what the consequence of voting this CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry, but we really can't understand you most— MS. ostMS. STRANCE: Yup, I'm sorry. I'd like to—if you would indulge me with just a short break, I'd like to talk with my colleagues about what the consequence of voting this measure down is, whether they would be free to, for example, turn around and make a new application for, like, a Family Ag-1, or whether the denial would be for a longer period of time. CHR. DAVID: If that's okay with my colleagues, then, we'll take a five-minute recess? Okay. Page 33 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. STRANCE: That should be good. CHR. DAVID: All right, we're in recess five minutes. Thank you. MS. STRANCE: Thank you. Recess: At 2:29 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:41 p.m. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Corporation Counsel Strance, go ahead. MS. STRANCE: Thank you, Chair. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. I appreciate the opportunity to huddle with my colleagues. If there was going to be another stab at a residential use and this body voted down the bills that's before it, then the Wards would not be able to bring the matter back before you as a residential matter. If they were to consider the Family Ag-1 or any ag change, it would be a substantially different process because you would not be looking at a change in the land use designation, and the analysis would proceed from there. So, with the thoughts that are before the Council, they're not open to a residential classification but they are open to an ag classification. The defeat of the bills today would not prevent the Wards from pursuing something in the ag classification if that was something that they were interested in doing after the Council voted down the current bills. And I'm just going to refer to Jeff because I know he chimed inI'm pulling a little bit of telegraph but I just want to make sure that we circled around completely with the resources in the Corporation Counsel office and the Planning Department's input. MR. DARROW: Aloha. JeffChair, I mean CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead. Mr. Darrow MR. DARROW: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: I just wanted to know if you concur with Corp. Counsel. MR. DARROW: Yes, we concur. CHR. DAVID: I see. MR. DARROW: Thank you. Page 34 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Okay. Council Members—Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yes, me again. As you and I were talking during the break—and we are able to do that, right; two people—and that's what we figured, right, what you came up with. And I also mentioned to Maile that my suggestion of having this deferred was really based on flawed presumptions that maybe they could change it along the line because that would have been my hope. But even given that, though, I would hope that the WardsI mean, they can still have their chance to now talk face-to-face with the neighbors and explain their commitment to providing a greater inventory ofI know I going use the term, though—affordable housing units, but it's still going to be a rough one, I mean. And it might beI would suggest to them to on their own withdraw it and come back with something. But at this point, even if I said I would vote against it—and I still would vote against it if this deferral motion is defeatedI would prefer them doing it on their own instead of us downing this thing. That's my thoughts, though. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Anyone else? MS. STRANCE: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Judge Strance. MS. STRANCE: Based upon the testimony that I heard, it appears that there may be misunderstandings about what the Leeward Planning Commission approved. So, for example, there was a lot of discussion about the archeological remains. And there still appears to be some public misunderstanding about what the Wards have agreed to. There still seems to be misunderstandings about how densely the property can be built out, where there's a provision that the land use planning commission inserted that there could be no `ohanas. And so, a concern that I had listening to some of the community input was that the objections were not based upon what's in the record and what the requirements are. And so one of the, I think, challenges when people are upset or they hear things and we're not referring to the actual document during the discussions of a bill, there is not an opportunity to set the record straight. And whether that would have made a difference or not, I think that there's, from what I'm hearing, there may be a disagreement on the Council about whether the proposal is in line with what is on the north side of the property versus what is on the south side. And so, there were certain assumptions made by the Leeward Planning Commission that I think, from my discussions with Council Member Inaba, is a disagreement on the very premise of what the planning commission, how they marched forward. Page 35 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 But a particular challenge in legislation like this is that it's pretty lengthy. And if there's not a focus on what is said or not said in the document, then just from a fairness standpoint, if there's a denial of a piece of legislation that is not based upon what the document itself says, that would be unfortunate. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Judge Strance. MR. INABA: Thank you. And I think we have CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Inaba. Call for the MR. INABA: Gone in circles with this at this point. And we get—thank you, Question: Judge Strance, because we do get false testimony sometimes, and that's for us to do our job ahead of time and do our homework. So when we come here, yes, we want to hear the community's input, but we make an educated decision, and we should do our homework prior. So, we've heard a lot of falsehoods in some of our testimonies recently. Whether some of it today was false, we need to know what our kuleana is and we need to do our homework. So, I'd like to just call for the question at this point. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. And that's on the motion to postpone. Mr. Clerk, roll call,please, on the motion to postpone to the call of the Chair. Vote on Motion to The motion to postpone Bill 53 to the call of the Chair was Postpone: carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Chung, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Richards –5. Noes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Villegas, and Chair David–4. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Then this matter is postponed to the call of the Chair and that takes care of this item. Thank you, Council Members. Do you want to say anything? Your light's on. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: No, Chair, but I'm wondering if we should also take up Bill 52 at this point and just close out this matter entirely. CHR. DAVID: Okay. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So, I believe it's been read into the record. CHR. DAVID: Yes, he read it in. Page 36 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Bill 52: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT KALAOA 5TH, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-005:015 Negative: PC-25 (Due to a vote of 3-ayes, 5-noes, 1-absent) Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to pass Bill 52 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? Vote on Motion to Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to postpone Bill 52 to the call of Postpone: the Chair. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the (Approved) following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Richards —6. Noes: Council Members Inaba, Villegas, and Chair David—3. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, everyone. Mr. Clerk, I think we can just move on to Bill 44, Draft 2. Page 37 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Bill 44: AMENDS THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS (Draft 2) AMENDED), RELATING TO THE COUNTY CONSTRUCTION CODE, BY: 1) ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS 5B (RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE) AND 5C (EXISTING BUILDING CODE); 2) AMENDING CHAPTER 5 (CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE): SECTIONS 5-1-2, 5-1-3, 5-1-5, 5-2-2, 5-2-3, 5-2-4, 5-4-21, 5-8-4, AND 5-10-1; 3) AMENDING CHAPTER 5A (BUILDING CODE): SECTIONS 5A-1-3, 5A-1-6, 5A-3-21, 5A-3-22, AND 5A-3-27; 4) AMENDING CHAPTER 5D (ELECTRICAL CODE): SECTIONS 5D-1-3, AND 5D-1-6; 5) AMENDING CHAPTER 5E (ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE): SECTION 5E-1-6; AND 6) AMENDING CHAPTER 5F (PLUMBING CODE): SECTION 517-1-6 Reference: Comm. 281.32 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy (B/R) Postponed: July 7 and 21, 2021 First Reading: August 4, 2021 and Comm. 281.19: From Council Member Rebecca Villegas, dated July 30, 2021, transmitting a proposed amendment to Bill 44. ; and Comm. 281.20: From Council Member Rebecca Villegas, dated July 30, 2021, transmitting a proposed amendment to Bill 44. ; and Comm. 281.21: From Council Member Rebecca Villegas, dated August 2, 2021, transmitting a proposed amendment to Bill 44. ; and Comm. 281.22: From Council Member Rebecca Villegas, dated August 2, 2021, transmitting a proposed amendment to Bill 44. (Note: Comms. 281.50, 281.5 1, and 281.52, from Council Member Rebecca Villegas dated August 16, 2021, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 44, Draft 2, were circulated.) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to pass Bill 44, Draft 2, on second and final reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. Page 38 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. LEE LOY: I don't have anything. Mr. Rodenhurst, if you want to bring us up to speed on where we are and what the department's position is on Bill 44, Draft 2. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Steven Rodenhurst came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. RODENHURST: Yes, Ikaika Rodenhurst, Director of Public Works. We stand by this draft of Bill 44. We believe it incorporates the intention to put forward the IRC (International Residential Code) 2018, as amended by the State, as amended by us, into the Code as well as the Existing Building Code as previously discussed in our meetings. I would like to point out that in some of the testimony, it was brought up— factory-built housinga lot, and that is not the sole intention of this project. Factory-built housing is already part of our County Code. It's under the 5A. Part of the purpose of this bill is to house factory-built housing under the Residential Code. And I just want to put forward there that we haven't made any changes to factory-built housing other than its location in our Code. So, putting that out there. And to stand by, what I guess was mentioned last time, what hard work my staff has done and DPW (Department of Public Works) staff prior to me being on board, as well as the coordination between Council Member Lee Loy's office as well as Leslie Chow and her staff and her team to help out with this. It's been a lot of work, a lot of time spent going into this. And I'm hoping to get this passed today as it is right now because, as we discussed, we're looking at a possible default into the 2018 IRC and the 2018 IEBC (International Existing Building Code), as amended by the State, at the end of this month at the end of the administrative pause. So, I support this draft as it is. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Director. Anyone? Council Members? Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for being here and for your continued vigilance in following through. This is a very complicated piece of legislation. And the work that's been put in by everyone is exemplary, and it really indicates the dedication and commitment from DPW and from Planning and from members of this Council. I think it's unfortunate that it's tarnished by the questions around the dates and the timelines and this consistent push. My emails and my voicemails, my texts blowing up from people in the industry that don't agree with the timeline that was provided for when the deadline is. It's my understanding that all of the other islands are defaulting and are working on their amendments and taking that time to really make sure that the community Page 39 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 and we, as Council Members, have an opportunity and other people have an opportunity to weigh in. There's a lot of concern for that pressure and that appearance of a self-imposed deadline for August 31 st I obviously have amendments that I can touch on as we get to there. But I also want to point out that much of this conversation around Bill 44, in talking about our Building Code and the housing crisis we have currently on the island, I'd like to just recognize that there is a housing crisis nationally right now. And it was really interesting on Civil Beat this morning. There was an article which talked about—we keep talking about housing shortages, but we're not talking about I mean, our census just came out. We have a lot more people. So, we just talk about building more. And so, there's just this interesting balance that's obviously a part of the dialogue that we have the wonderful pleasure of sitting on this dais and having conversations about what and how and where. A lot of the hot topics, because the amendments are related to them, relate to factory-built housing. I appreciate factory-built housing and it being a part of this and it being a part of our—ideally becoming a part of our inventory, and how we can patch some of the gaps and the holes that we have in providing homes for the people on our island. So, with that, I want to try and stay clear on talking about the bill right now, as opposed to going into amendments and communications. And I have some questions for you guys. But I, in general,just kind of wanted to start it off with that tone and that understanding that I know myself and a number of people here have a heart for our homeless and our houseless people. And we are in full support of ways in order to provide safe and healthy shelter in the best way possible, taking into consideration everything that we can learn from municipalities and places who have utilized the International Building Code; then it goes State Building Code and now here for our County. So, best practice is to take into consideration what's been done elsewhere—what works and what doesn't. And with that, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Any other comments from Council Members? Seeing none, no one has any comments. Do you want to proceed? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes,please. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Now, correct me if I stumble on this one. Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 44, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 281.19. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Ms. Villegas. Page 40 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. As many of you will notice today, I took the opportunity to take my amendment that came forward before and split it up so it could be kind of tackled in each of its little pieces. And this one relates to the seal and it remains the same. It's recommending the language related to factory-built housing in this section be removed or deleted. The manufacturer's label has nothing to do with the pre-approved plans process CHR. DAVID: Excuse me. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes? CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry, Ms. Villegas. It's MS. VILLEGAS: It's in your board. CHR. DAVID: I know but we're on your proposed amendment 281 we said "19"but isn't it the "50"that was in our pinkie (folders)? MS. VILLEGAS: No, "19" is in your board. CHR. DAVID: Okay, you're going to go with those and not the one in our pink folder. MS. VILLEGAS: I have all of them. But the ones in your folder were the ones that were presented before CHR. DAVID: Okay, the "19". MS. VILLEGAS: That weren't edited or amended the amendment. CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you for clarifying that. MS. VILLEGAS: Sorry about that. CHR. DAVID: All right, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: So, that's the purpose of that, is making sure that the terminology is in alignment. It's kind of just a housekeeping, and it would include the elimination of, in Section 11 of Bill No. 44, amending Section 5-4-21 on page 63. Subsection (c), Application for model plan pre-approval, would be amended to read as follows—and essentially, it's the removing of Section 2, which states that the factory-built home shall include a manufacturer's seal as required by Appendix L of Chapter 5A in the Building Code. The manufacturer's label has nothing to do with the pre-approval of plans processes. Therefore, the language can be removed. Page 41 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: (Inaudible.) MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, I yield. Sorry. CHR. DAVID: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear you yield. Okay. Now, who is first? Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Villegas, for this. I think it was covered in amendment 281.23. But I do have a question for either Judge Strance or maybe Dalilah. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Dalilah Schlueter came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Dalilah, for being here. This amendment was developed when Bill 44 was at Draft 1. And so, I'm just wondering about the compatibility of this amendment as now that bill has been amended to a Draft 2, and if this amendment actually is stale at this time. MS. SCHLUETER: Good afternoon, Council Members. Dalilah Schlueter, Deputy Corporation Counsel. It's kind of a procedural question whether it's stale or not based on the fact that it was introduced based on the original version of the bill versus the second draft of the bill. I don't have a specific rule to point to. I don't know if the Clerk has one. This was discussed MR. HENRICKS: If I may interject, I think—don't get me wrong, but I think what Ms. Lee Loy is asking is if the word changes that created Draft 2 make this amendment viable; not any procedures that it—am I wrong or ? I think that's probably moreI don't think it matters much that the transmittal says, "amending Bill 44." I don't think the fact that it doesn't say "Draft 2" I don't find that to be an issue. MS. SCHLUETER: Okay, I apologize (inaudible). MR. HENRICKS: The concern is whether or not they're viable because of the changes that were made to the original draft. MS. SCHLUETER: And to a certain degree I have to defer to the department because this bill is so technical that the changes and variations in certain terms in language really is something that I do need to lean on them for as to if it affects other portions of the bill. MR. RODENHURST: Yes, so, my initial response would be this does affect Appendix U, 101.8, where it goes over manufacturer's label as defined under factory-built housing. And I guess my understanding is I don't understand why we would strike out"factory-built homes shall include a manufacturer's label as Page 42 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 required by Appendix U, Chapter 5B." Furthermore, in the draft we had at the last meeting, we changed it from "seal"to "label." So, my question is, why will we take out the entire thing now? MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director Rodenhurst. Ms. Villegas, it's incredibly complex. And I've had to try and crosswalk your amendments against Draft 2 now. And what's contained in "19" deletes factory-built too. When we amended with Communication "23,"we actually cleaned it up that factory-built homes shall include a manufacturer's label as required by Appendix U. However, your communication, if I'm reading this correctly, deletes factory-built homes in its entirety. Unless MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, could you speak up just a little bit? It's just— MS. ustMS. LEE LOY: Sure. Communication "19" deletes factory-built homes in its entirety when Communication "23"that brought it up to Draft 2 actually clarified factory-built homes shall have the manufacturer's label as required by Appendix U. The way I understand this, amendment"19" deletes factory-built and Appendix U. So, I'm not going to be supporting this. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. The question I have is I don't understand what's the big deal if we have a seal or a label. What's the big deal? It just says who manufactured it. And I'm thinking there are other jurisdictions that probably require that it be affixed there. So, if we are mandating that it can't be there, then are we mandating that we can't take those? I mean, it's like when you buy a shirt and you have a label on your shirt. You buy a mattress; by law, you're not allowed to remove that label. So, I don't understand what's the big deal with a label—and that's the question. Chair? CHR. DAVID: Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: You want me to answer that? CHR. DAVID: Are you posing that question to Ms. Villegas? MR. RICHARDS: Yeah because I don't get it. I asked this previously. I don't get it. It's a label—so what. MS. VILLEGAS: Exactly. I think that's great that you point that out. Thank you, Mr. Richards. It's actually included in Appendix U. So, it's not necessary to include it in here because an application for a model plan pre-approval, it doesn't relate to it. So, it's essentially a housekeeping thing. And perhaps if it's already in Appendix U, it's not required that it's here, and because it's not actually a part Page 43 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 of the pre-approval process and it doesn't have anything to do with that, of the approval of the plans or the process. Therefore, so, the language is unnecessary. It's not needed for that part of this bill, and that's the premise of what I'm MR. RICHARDS: So, I still—it—so what? MR. RODENHURST: So, the department's main concern is that by removing the ability to have factory-built homes with a manufacturer's label on top of that as part of the plan pre-approval process, you effectively remove factory-built homes with a manufacturer's label from that process. MS. VILLEGAS: No, it still exists in (Appendix)U, and the label is affixed on completion of a factory-built home. MR. RICHARDS: It doesn't make sense to me. So what if there's a label there. I mean, I'm hearing from the Director andso, if it's labeled, it's labeled. It's labeled—great! Now we know where it's from. End of story. MS. VILLEGAS: That's not relevant. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, I have a question. I don't know who has the floor. That's my question. MR. RICHARDS: I do. CHR. DAVID: Hang on. Mr. Richards has the floor. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thanks. MR. RICHARDS: Unless there's a reason to not have a label that would preclude a manufacturing and some other jurisdiction that we have no oversight, no jurisdiction in those, maybe the manufacturing, they cannot ship it unless they have a label. So, I don't see—and it doesn't affect us to maintain the label. And I think spending time discussing about removing a label is a waste of the Council's time. So, it still doesn't make any sense. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thank you. And, Madam Chairman, as you know, I have to be back in Hilo in an hour and fifteen minutes, which is going to be very difficult. But I would have voted against any and all amendments today, not just Ms. Villegas'sanybody's because as I stated the last time based on my review of all this situation, because I wanted to amend this as well as it related to sheathing, but I think I'll use the word"risky"—it's just too risky. I would Page 44 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 prefer to have Bill 44 pass or be defeated—one way or the other. Either pass or get defaulted back to whatever it's supposed to be, and then make amendments to whatever is in place. That's not I mean, I cannot say for certain that's legal either, but I would prefer that process rather than trying to do it right now. That's just my thought. So, I'd be voting against them anyway. My vote really wouldn't matter today, quite frankly. So anyway, I must leave. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. So, what I understand this amendment to request is a little bit different than I can tell you're interpreting it, Mr. Richards. The way I think that it's intended is that the seal this language about the seal, label, whatever—is not actually required as part of the approval process for the design. So, this is amending Division 2, pre-approval model plans for residential dwellings, and pre-approval Section 5-4-21. I guessI mean, I don't think it's actually substantive from the standpoint of it's just saying that it's got to have the seal, but does that belong in the pre-approval place? Maybe not because it exists as part of Appendix U as to what we require for factory-built. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but it seems like a semantic. I'd actually like your opinion, Deputy, on that but it seems non-substantive. It just seems to say that this isn't required as part of their approval process. MS. SCHLUETER: So, if there's other technical aspects of it, I'm going to again defer to the Director. But I absolutely understand what you're reading because we're looking at pageI apologize; I just had it open -63-well, versus page 46 where it does that's where it's in that appendix. (Appendix) U requires it. Because it's very clear on page 46, U101.8, what the manufacturer's label is that's required on the to be on that manufactured housing. So, basically what I'm getting at is I believe you're correct, and I'm going to let the department as well chime in on this if they have another technical item with it. But it does seem it's required in the finished product, period, per the appendix. Whether there's any need for some sort of a seal or a label at pre-approval, it does seem semantics. And that's where I kind of have to defer to the department if there's some other necessity for it. But I agree with your assessment. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Deputy. And maybe is it that the design of the seal is approved at the time of pre-approval? I'm not clear. It does seem superfluous. (Note: At this time, Public Works Acting Deputy Building Chief Neal Tanaka came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. TANAKA: Good morning, Council. Neal Tanaka, Acting Deputy Building Chief. As indicated in Appendix U, the manufacturer's label is a critical element to identify factory-built housing or factory-built house units, right. U101.8-1 can Page 45 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 go through every single word in this to make sure that it's clear. But to paraphrase, it identifies the manufacturer's name, serial numbers, dates, load criteria, several other things that are required for review at plan review as well. So, we want to make sure that this proposed label matches what's on the plan. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, so, you're confirming the points that I've just made, that in the plan pre-approval process, you actually want to verify the information that the manufacturer intends to put on the seal. MR. TANAKA: Correct. MS. KIMBALL: Got it. Okay. Then, I have to say I would oppose this amendment because I think we do want that. I yield, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: That's a creative answer, Mr. Tanaka, because in the way I read—and first off, I'd just like to respond, Mr. Richards. With all due respect, there are a lot of things that we bring forward and our colleagues do bring forward that we may think are a waste of time but that's just not cool to say. If this is a housecleaning thing and somebody else has done housecleaning things on this amendment and brought it forward, that's my job. And that's why we're talking about this. Because, it is not necessary, per say, to put it in here. And if that was the purpose for having a manufacturer's seal as a part of the pre-approval process, then it should say, "so it can be checked and clarified and compared to the seal that is put on at the end"because that doesn't— MR. oesn'tMR. RODENHURST: So, if I may, like I mentioned early on, this is part of the factory-built housing part of our Code that's existing. Right now, regardless of this meeting, it's part of our Code. It's been agreed upon. This is what's part of our Code. We're using that here today. Our previous conversations were amongst"seal"versus "label,"which was addressed in the draft. Now, yes, I understand your responsibility to discuss these amendments, but he communication, the collaboration, the consultation with our department did not take place outside of these Council chambers aside from a short half-hour meeting that was delayed from the initial meeting. We haven't had time to work this out, and we're more than willing to work this out with your office or any of the other Council Members' offices. And to have it come before us on second reading, the last minute, that's why I say `a`ole to this. MS. VILLEGAS: That's interesting. This is a part of the process. I'm fulfilling my role to the constituents and the people that have expressed concerns to me and helped submit suggestions to create amendments on Bill 44. I'm presenting the Page 46 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 reason why, and based on legal verification that I have an understanding of, that this statement is unnecessary because it's already contained in Section U and a manufacturer's seal is put on at the completion of a home. MR. RODENHURST: As discussed, we want to make sure of this concurrence between the pre-plan approval process and the manufacturer's label that will be affixed to the structure. So, that's, as Neal Tanaka explained, that's the intent of having this here—and as explained by us. MS. VILLEGAS: But the purpose of a seal or a label is to communicate to the parties that be, that a home is complete and it's been affixed with a stamp that it's done. MR. RODENHURST: Not by the definition of"manufacturer's label" in U101.8. MS. VILLEGAS: Can you read me that definition? MR. RODENHURST: Yes, of course. So, there's actually two. "U101.8(a), Each and every factory-built housing manufactured outside of this County shall have a manufacturer's label on a metal plate showing the manufacturer's name, serial number of the building, manufacture date, design load criteria, and an inspection stamp by a governmental or inspectional agency approved by the building official securely fastened on the factory-built housing; (b) Each and every factory-built housing manufactured in the County of Hawaii shall have a manufacturer's label on a metal plate showing the manufacturer's name, serial number of the building, manufacture date, design load criteria, and building official inspection stamp securely fastened on the factory-built housing." MS. VILLEGAS: Once complete. Correct? MR. RODENHURST: Complete structure as far as a factory-built, yes. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, exactly. So, that's what I'm saying, is this label is used at the end to show that the product was made and it aligns with the plans. MR. RODENHURST: Correct and it's concurrent with the pre-plan approval plans. MS. VILLEGAS: But the seal doesn't indicate if it's concurrent with the pre-plan approval plans. The seal is like, "Boom! We're stamped. We're done." The seal is not, I mean MR. RODENHURST: It meets the pre-approval plans. Page 47 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: If the question—if what I think you're saying—correct me if I'm wrong—is that you're interpreting the seal being provided in pre-approved plans being like the logo or the brand of the housing so that you know that it's the same housing manufacturer? MR. TANAKA: So, when we spokeI'm sorry. MS. KIMBALL: Sorry, Mr. Tanaka. I think I CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kimball, hang on. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. CHR. DAVID: I think Ms. Villegas still has the floor. So, will you recognize Ms. Kimball? Will you defer to her? MS. VILLEGAS: I just am going to state, this is probably one of the simplest of the amendments that I'm bringing forward today, and the level of opposition is amazing to me in light of so many of the other issues around Bill 44. So, for me, the purpose of this was fixing a semantics thing, which is not a waste of time because this is a law. And so, it's the intention to clean up something like that. I appreciate the respect of my colleagues for taking the time to listen to this because I do the same for theirs. With that, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. I'm going to—Ms. Kimball, you wanted to respond to ? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I think I can help clarify what I understand here, which is you would need the details that are intended to be on the seal or label on the final product. You need a copy of that in the pre-approval process in order to verify that what was produced matched with the plans. That is the intention of that particular wording of code. That's kind of what I'm hearing. What I'll say to Ms. Villegas is I think that the wording—if that is the intention, then the wording certainly is unclear. So, I don't know that it needs to be removed but maybe clarified. Am I understanding that correctly? MR. TANAKA: So, a couple of things. I'd like to at least address Ms. Villegas. In our first, or excuse me, our second first reading, you had discussed the difference between the seal and the label and the semantics there. And we heard that. So, when we introduced our amendment for Bill 44 to make it Draft 2, we did change it from "seal"to "label"because we saw that inconsistency. But that's what we were using as our process, right. I appreciate your input on how we do our pre-approval plans. It matters and we're hearing that. However, it is part of our process when we do pre-approvals to look at everything that's applicable to a plan, inclusive of the label. Page 48 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, could you take off your mask? It's really hard to hear you (inaudible). And I apologize. MR. TANAKA: I appreciate that but I'll just speak louder if that's—is that better? MS. VILLEGAS: That sounded great. MR. TANAKA: Okay. So,just to repeat, in our first reading of the bill, you brought up the inconsistency between the seal and the label, and we heard that. And when we brought up the housekeeping amendment at last reading, we addressed it. We changed it from "label" [sic] to "label" for the concurrency, right? And so, what we are saying is that while we appreciate your input on how we do our job for pre-approval review, that is something that we look for. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: If we do move down a road of maybe rephrasing this a little bit, I actually want to suggest,just so that it's on the record, that the metal seal actually be stamped. But just in case we do go through, I want to have that out there so you can do that, too, at the same time. It's not a different thing. I'll yield, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry. Just to clarify CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead, Mr. Tanaka. MR. TANAKA: We're no longer referring to it as a seal. It is the label, right? CHR. DAVID: Thank you. I'm going to go to Ms. Kierkiewicz first. She hasn't spoken yet. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. And I think, too, some of our frustrations lies in the terminology that's being used. This amendment refers to what is now known as the label as a seal. I'm not seeing "seal" anywhere in Appendix U. Am I understanding of why we should be keeping this particular section in the draft? As along the lines of Council Member Kimball, the label has the information that is super critical. It's like the VIN (vehicle identification number) number, essentially, of the factory-built home. We use that to verify within the plan approval process. And removing this means that factory-built cannot go through this pre-approval process. Is that correct? Page 49 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. TANAKA: It could be interpreted that way. Yes. The pre-approval process, the reference to factory-built housing in that pre-approval process is there. By removing it, it could be interpreted that is no longer available for the pre-approval process. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Director, anything? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah. Our reason why we find it important is that concurrence from the pre-plan approval to the final label that is affixed onto the structure so that it's concurrent from the pre-plan approval process to the label process at the end. That's where the language lines up, and that's how we see that language. So, that's why we feel it's important to keep that in that pre-plan approval section. And again, this is what's currently in our Code. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. So, the label is essentially like a tracking tag. Okay, yeah. I really appreciate the hard work and effort, but I can't support this particular amendment. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Just a quick comment. I support what Councilman Chung just said. Very happy to entertain all these amendments, but we need to get this (Bill) 44 done so we can go forward. And I'm very happy to come back and entertain and listen to all the amendments later, and they can be brought forth as other legislation because, again, this is theoretically a living document. So, I think Councilman Chung has the right approach to this. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else before we take the vote? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, if I could? CHR. DAVID: Yes, go ahead. MR. INABA: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Real quick,please. Okay, we're going back and forth again. So, I hear the concurrence of the language between—what is this the Section 5-4-21 and Appendix U. But I do understand—we obviously don't want to remove it, but it's not clear as it is. I can see that. So, what would you folks recommend, as DPW, to make this very clear? Because, as it's—and like I said, I know it's to match up, but the purpose at this stage is how are we going to have a labellabel, right?—label affixed to something when it's not pau yet. This is plan approval but it needs to be included. How were we doing that? So, that's why I think we Page 50 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 have this amendment before us. I can understand the idea because there's a purpose, according to you folks right now, but the language is not clear. So, what language would be clear? MR. RODENHURST: Off the top of my head, I don't know what language would make this clear at this time. Can we find some language? Definitely. I think I'd be willing to work with anyone that wants to find that language, but I don't have that in front of me today, and I don't have the answer to that today. Is this something we can do down the line? Happy to do it. MR. INABA: Got it. Okay, well, that's kind of where I stand. I mean, I understand the intention of why it is where it is, but I also understand what Council Member Villegas is saying here. Council Member Villegas, let me just address this. I don't think I can support the amendment as it is because we want the consistency, but I don't agree with how it's currently listed in the bill. MR. RODENHURST: I would like to point out, too, back to my original point, that this was taken from our existing legislation and put into here. There were no intentions to change anything regarding the factory-built housing. It was to house it in the Residential Code. So, we can have that conversation as far as addressing some of that language, but it was not the intent of this bill to do so. At least this was expressed to me through my staff through Sue's office, and I'm working with the review branch on this. MR. INABA: Thank you. And yeah, it comes before this body, and it's going to be picked apart. So, that's what we should expect. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Anyone else? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, if I could? CHR. DAVID: Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Just my final statement and thank you, Mr. Richards, for pointing out that they're living documents and they can be worked upon—and as we should. Because, some of my personal frustration comes from other documents I've brought forward and utilized that rational kind of common-sense reasoning and it wasI was basically told, "No." So, there's a little frustration, I will admit, on my part from that. And so, I would just say that I don't see any harm in removing this now, and then the burden would be to bring something back. But until then, there is no, in my understanding, no harm from passing this amendment and removing this portion from the bill as if or when or how Bill 44 goes forward and then working on it afterwards. Page 51 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 But I'll just kind of stick to my guns that it's not necessary in the pre-approval process, not relevant to this portion; still exists in Appendix U. But that's my opinion, and so that's what I was here to share today. So, thank you, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Anyone else? Seeing none MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ms. David, if I could? CHR. DAVID: Then, Mr. Clerk MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ms. David. CHR. DAVID: Please, a roll call vote on amending Bill 44, Draft 2, with the MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I don't think they can hear. CHR. DAVID: Contents of Communication MR. BROWN: Excuse me, Chair? CHR. DAVID: 281.19. MR. BROWN: Excuse me, Chair? MR. HENRICKS: Mr. Chung. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Kanalua. MR. HENRICKS: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Can you hear me? CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, can you hear us? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I can hear you but you cannot hear me. MR. BROWN: Excuse me, Chair? Chair? CHR. DAVID: If he'd look up, I'd waive to him. We can't hear you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, I know. MR. HENRICKS: So, apparently we're not getting audio out of Hilo right now, which is obviously problematic. So, we would ask for a recess, please. This is clearly important. Page 52 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: Thank you. How long? Five? MR. HENRICKS: If I knew how long it'd take, I would be thrilled to tell you. CHR. DAVID: Okay, I'll just take a five-minute recess, okay? We're in recess. Thank you. Recess: At 3:33 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 3:43 p.m. CHR. DAVID: I believe we were at the roll call vote. MR. HENRICKS: So, where we're at right now is Mr. Chung has been recorded as absent on the vote to amend Bill 44, Draft 2, with Communication 281.19, and Mr. Inaba has voted kanalua. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I would just like to say, actually I was trying to say something for the last item and then this item as well, but I guess you weren't hearing me. So, with that said, I will be voting "no" on this amendment. Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 44, Draft 2, with the contents of Amend: Comm. 281.19 failed by the following roll call vote: Failed Ayes: Council Member Villegas — 1. Noes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, and Chair David—7. Absent: Council Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. (Note: Mr. Inaba voted "kanalua"then "no.") CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay, move to you read in all the communications, didn't you? MR. HENRICKS: I did. Now, we are back to the main motion. CHR. DAVID: Back to the main motion. MR. HENRICKS: Which is to pass on second and final reading. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? Ms. Villegas, go ahead. Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 44, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 281.20. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. Page 53 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. This communication and proposed amendments to Bill 44, Draft 2, relates to inspections as related to factory-built homes. I wanted to just, first off, point out that the intention of this amendment and my express desire for on-site inspections is to mitigate any future issues for homeowners and to ensure the health and safety of the people who will live in factory-built homes. By no means is this amendment meant to eliminate factory-built homes from becoming a part of the building inventory opportunity that we have for the County of Hawaii. In doing quite a bit of research, I found a number of instances in different municipalities where owners of factory-built homes have issues. And, in essence, in one state, in California, in Lake County, they actually came together and did a survey. And what they were trying to demonstrate through their survey—and they did so, and this is printed in the Lake County News; it's called, "Manufactured Housing Group to Survey Buyers"—is that they're asking for their county to upgrade the inspection and permit criteria for new manufactured homes or to pass an ordinance requiring the local dealers disclose to buyers and give them the right to hire an attorney. My point being it has no references to the national survey of mobile homeowners. And mobile home, factory-built home, manufactured home included, is that there are issues and people have struggled. And my intention for adding another inspection is that we, as we navigate our way into including factory-built housing into the opportunity of homes because we don't currently really have any, correct? There's one project being built in Puna—but that we avoid the pitfalls that have happened in other places. And allowing for an on-site inspection is one of those things. I have a couple of questions, real fast. Would you agree that inspections are an important part to ensure the safety of an occupant of a home? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. MS. VILLEGAS: Are conventional homes inspected at the building site before the walls are closed up? MR. RODENHURST: Typically, yes. MS. VILLEGAS: Each and every home? MR. RODENHURST: I would say each and every home is inspected. MR. TANAKA: I'd like to correct that really quickly. Permitted homes generally are inspected. Page 54 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. TANAKA: Permitted MS. VILLEGAS: Good catch. Permitted homes are inspected MR. RODENHURST: Permitted homes are inspected. Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: Before the walls are closed up and they're permanent on-site. So, the County requires inspections to protect the lives of people. Yes or no. MR. RODENHURST: I would say that's the intention of inspections. MS. VILLEGAS: Great. If a home is not inspected and somebody's killed, who's liable? MR. RODENHURST: I would say that's a good question. I would like to default that to Corp. (Corporation) Counsel. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, I'll go on to the next one. If a home is not inspected and damages occur because of lack of inspection, whether damages to a person's health or home, is it fair for the homeowner to bear the burdens because the County did not want to inspect it? MR. RODENHURST: I would ask Corp. Counsel's opinion on that. MS. VILLEGAS: You're going to ask Corp. Counsel—is that what you said? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. MS. SCHLUETER: Dalilah Schlueter, Deputy Corporation Counsel. So, the discussion regarding liability, I know it's come before you folks on a number of occasions, and it's not a question that you can give us all a"yes" or"no" answer to because there's the multiple findings and steps towards the causation and the duties and the damages. So, it's not an easy question to answer, especially when it's a broad, general question. MS. VILLEGAS: So, it would kind of tie into, also, warranties and how long and how those last and how people could get—if there are issues that they could get resolved through warranties, correct? That's going to be very dependent on the manufacturer and if it's the builder or the person putting it on-site or whatnot. MS. SCHLUETER: YeahI mean, I can't really answer a question as to, like, what would be covered under warranty. As we know, it depends on the Page 55 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 manufacturer, what's offered, things like that. Sometimes, what's contractually paid for and things like you kind of start moving into a little bit more contractual grounds when we're starting to discuss manufacturer warranty. MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. And I know that there have been lots of concerns about this amendment then making it that the homes have to remain completely open and couldn't get closed up until on-site. That's not what it says in the amendment. It says that the areas could still be inspected and able to be seen by an inspector. Now, in this age and era of technology, when we can create pad homes and then build them in factoriesI mean, the Empire State Building was built so that the electrical and the plumbing and everything was in the center so it could be accessed at one point if it needed to be fixed or inspected. I have confidence in manufactured housing that the same could be done. And there would be ways to mitigate the need to leave something completely open, but that certain areas could still be open to be inspected to make sure that nothing shifted or changed on the way from the factory to the site once it's placed there. So, those are my reasons for bringing this amendment forward. And in my mind, it's for the best interest of the people of our community who are going to, most potentially, be of lower income and who could not afford the mitigating circumstances if things go wrong. So, I appreciate. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Anyone else? MR. HENRICKS: Madam Chair, I'm sorry. Just procedurally, with no comment whatsoever about the merits of this amendment, we talked a little bit earlier about any concerns about this language being in concert with Draft 2. I just want to make it clear that amendments "50"through"52" I have great confidence are in alignment with Draft 2 because that's the mother document we are working with.. To be honest, when placing these amendments on the agenda, I don't know if anybody performed any analysis if they then revert language that was, or changed anything that was added or removed when we went from Draft 1 to Draft 2. Because, these "19"through "22" are written with Draft 1 as the mother document. So, I really don't know and I just wanted to point that out. And it could beI don't know if anybody performed that analysis. And it could be problematic if they're approved. And where they don't align, we probably would have to just put whatever the amendment says, and that may not have been the intentions of this Council. So,just wanted to point out that. So, I do apologize to Ms. Villegas. We did not give any forethought. Our normal practice is if an amendment isn't defeated and it exists in enough time to put it on the agenda, we put it on for public notice. So, I wanted to make that clear, that again we didn't provide any analysis to whether or not these amendments, I think was what Ms. Lee Loy's original question was, if they're free and clear of the well, better put, if they match up with the language of Draft 2. Page 56 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: Draft 2. Thank you. MR. HENRICKS: So, I do apologize for not being more clear about that and maybe having more forethought about that prior to this meeting. MS. VILLEGAS: Was anything changed? I'm sorry. MR. HENRICKS: Please. MS. VILLEGAS: But Appendix U wasn't touched. MR. HENRICKS: No and I said I don't know. I'm not speaking to any one of these in particular. I just wanted to make that clear. I don't know if theI have not been keeping track of what the changes are between Draft 1 and Draft 2. Like I said, I have absolute confidence that the newer proposals are clearly worded based on Draft 2. I just don't know which ones these are or aren't, that's all. CHR. DAVID: Okay. And, Ms. Villegas, so as I understand Clerk Henricks' question is that these existing amendments that's on our agenda and not in our pinkie (folders), have these, in adopting Draft 2 of Bill 44 as it came forward, are these amendments still appropriate? Or have those references for amendments in your communication changed at all before when we jumped to Draft 2? You said you verified that? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, Appendix U was not touched in the amendments made by Ms. Lee Loy between Draft 1 and Draft 2. CHR. DAVID: And so, you're saying that all these communications are still intact with the Draft 2 document? MS. VILLEGAS: Mhm. CHR. DAVID: Okay. MR. HENRICKS: If that's the case, then I don't think there's any problem with them being viable. The concern would be if they touch language that if they were not in concert with the existing language of Draft 2, which is what's on the floor. CHR. DAVID: Exactly. MR. HENRICKS: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you for that clarification, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Inaba, go ahead. Page 57 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. INABA: Thank you, Clerk. Just to clarify, the motion right now is to amend Bill 44, Draft 2, with this amendment before us, right, Communication 281.20. MR. HENRICKS: ".20," correct. MR. INABA: Thank you. Okay. Ms. Villegas, for Section (b), what was the intention of including "within this County," as opposed to "all manufacturing work"? MS. VILLEGAS: (Inaudible.) MR. INABA: Sorry. Section (b) in this amendment specifies "within this County." There's an addition of those words. What was the intention of that, as opposed to leaving it so that it was "all manufacturing work"? MS. VILLEGAS: Sorry. In Section (a), under U101.7 under"Inspections,"that outlines the provisions for factory-built housing manufactured outside of the County. And so, Section (b) creates the parameters for manufactured housing created within this County and aligning that the inspection processes corelate between both of them. Does that answer your question? MR. INABA: Yeah. I'm not sure if I—yes, you're answering my question. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. MR. INABA: But I'm not sure I understand that because, to me, "(b)"right now covers everybody. So, I don't knowI mean, I hear what you're saying because "(a)" covers just those built outside of the County,but right now, "(b)"would cover those outside the County and inside the County, if I'm reading it correctly. MS. VILLEGAS: No, it says "within this County." All manufactured work, including building, electrical, and plumbing, "within this County" shall be inspected at the factory and at the site by the building official to ensure compliance with requirements of the construction code. MR. INABA: Okay, yeah. So, sorry, I see what your amendment says, but reading that paragraph unamended would apply to both inside and outside the County. So right now, if we added "within this County,"we're excluding Section (b) from applying toI know "(a)"has outside this County but—okay. Let me ask this question: "(A)" and "(b)," are we talking about the same thing here? "(A)"readsI'm sorry; I'm just going to take this opportunity to go slow, okay. MS. VILLEGAS: No worries. I wish you'd gone slower on this bill to begin with. Page 58 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. INABA: Each and every factory-built housing manufactured outside of this County shall be inspected by a government or inspectional agency approved by the building official in conformance with the quality assurance standards approved by the building official and in compliance with the County of Hawaii codes and regulations. That's as it reads currently. And then, "(b)"reads, "All manufacturing work, including building, electrical, and plumbing, shall be inspected in the factory by the building official to ensure compliance with the requirements of the construction code." MS. VILLEGAS: "(B)" says, "and at the site" my amendment. MR. INABA: Yeah, sorry, I'm just reading "(a)"and "(b)" as it currently exists in Draft 2 because I want to understand the difference between "(a)" and "(b)"to start off with before we try and amend it. I'm going to ask DPW if you can weigh in on the difference between "(a)" and "(b)"not the amendments now,just what's before us in Bill 44, Draft 2. MR. RODENHURST: So, the difference between "(a)" and "(b)" is in regards to the requirements for inspections for factory-built housing and manufacturing outside, which would be "(a)," outside of the County. And "(b)"would be manufacturing work that's done within the County. MR. INABA: Okay, I'm going to just yield at this time because I think I need to read this a few more times. If"(a)" and"(b)" if the only difference is inside versus outside this County, is that what you're saying right now? I'm asking you. Sorry, Director. MR. RODENHURST: Nah. Yeah, so as far as U101.7, on page 46 of the Draft 2, yeah. So, "(a)"reads, "Each and every factory-built housing manufactured outside of this County," and "(b)" is " all manufacturing work, including building, electrical, and plumbing, shall be inspected in the factory by the building official to ensure compliance." That's our understanding of this. In fact, when we do have procedures, which we do for inspecting factory-built housing, there's an inspection at the factory or the manufacturing site as far as the interior. And then, there is the move-and-set permit. And when it's set on-site, there is an inspection as well, as far as the connection from that factory-built housing to the site. MR. INABA: The wording that's in here right now, where did it come from? Was it already in our Code, or is this something that we've revised based on the 2018 amended version from the State? MR. RODENHURST: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's currently in our Code under 5A. Page 59 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. INABA: Mr. Tanaka, if you can answer that when you get the chance, please. MR. TANAKA: Yes. This language was modified when we were having our discussions with the previous bill in November. There was discussion specifically on the limitations of our jurisdictional authority in areas outside of our County. So, "(a)"was added to be specific to outside of our County. MR. INABA: Okay. Well, I'm going to yield for now because this amendment I mean, these sections, to begin with, they seem to be saying the same thing. One specifies that it's those built outside of the County have to be inspected by a government agency. And then, "(b)" is saying all manufacturing work has to be inspected in the factory. So, I'm not sure what— MS. hatMS. VILLEGAS: Mr. Inaba? MR. INABA: Is going on with the current language, much less the amendments that's before us right now. MS. VILLEGAS: Just for clarification CHR. DAVID: Hang on. Are you ? MR. INABA: Yeah, Ms. Villegas, if she wants to answer. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: This was essentially cleanup after Bill 179. And so, this was a way to make it very clear about clarifying what's happening outside of the County and what's happening inside of the County. And it does tie to whenI mean, if manufactured housing is coming from the Mainland or somewhere else, it's indicative that it needs to be inspected at their warehouse and then also on-site here. And then, same would go for those built within the County. So, based on Bill 179, I get it; it's confusing. My apologies. All of this has been really confusing, even with Bill 179, which is once again another reason why I believe it would have been good to take some time to work more on this before rushing through with Bill 44. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. Chair, I'm going to yield at this time. Mahalo. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Anyone else? Page 60 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Thank you for just— MR. ustMR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yay, I am heard. CHR. DAVID: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate Rebecca bringing this amendment forward. I believe this does a lot to clarify what we did with Bill 179. It upholds what we need for public safety, and it also creates a very clear level playing field for our contractors who spoke out very clearly. And I have 150 letters in my email right now saying, "Please keep the playing field level"—and that's what this does. And I think that we can go back and forth, but if you look at it, "(a)" is about outside the County and "(b)" is about inside the County, period. And the addition of the language "at the site" includes an inspection at the site. I live in Puna. If you take a manufactured home and drive it down Road 1 right now, you may not even have a home when you get to the end of Road 1,period. So, having an inspection at the site is beneficial to the homeowner, and it may be beneficial to the manufacturer. It does a world of good in upholding public safety. Now, from the beginning when Bill 179 came around, we discussed inspecting both in the factory and—well, not at the site at that time, but in the factory. And it was a major sticking point in Bill 179. The reason for that was we want to make sure things are being done right. Periodic inspections leave a lot of room for questionable work. I'm an electrician, okay. I'm speaking from ten years of experience installing stuff in the field. Every one of my jobs gets inspected. It's crucial because once in a while you miss something. This clarifies, removes all ambiguity on language, and makes sure, that we're inspecting that we're inspecting at the County level work that's being done in a factory at the site and in the factory. I think it's very clear. I think Rebecca did a wonderful job of putting this together. And if anything, it just clarifies what we put down in Bill 179 the last time, and we all voted to affirm the passing of Bill 179. So, I'll be supporting this today. To me, this is well done and well written, and it just increases public safety and inspections by the County. So, mahalo, Rebecca, for bringing this forward. MR. RODENHURST: Director Rodenhurst, Director of Public Works. I want to comment on that. We do currently under our current Code and our Construction Initiative Code require site inspections at the installation of factory-built housing. It's in part of the foundation inspection for this work. To say that we don't Page 61 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 require that is not an accurate statement, and furthermore, this inspection section under the Draft 2 of Bill 44 is the inspections as they are at the—what covers the factory inspections, as well as references our Administrative Code under 5A-1-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. And that's just for the draft. As far as the amendments, one of the problems that I have with this that we've discussed with DPW is letter"(c)"requiring all the special inspections as it's listed here. Special inspections listed under Chapter 17 are required in addition. Not all of them are always required, and I think that's a point to be made there. To say that they are required, to my interpretation it would mean that all those special inspections are required but that's not always the case. The special inspections are for special circumstances. So, that's our stance from DPW. That's why we say `a`ole to this amendment as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Would you like me to respond to that, or you just want to make the statement? MR. RODENHURST: I'm happy to take questions or responses. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No, I don't have too many questions. If you were going to ask, I'd say maybe "are required"you could change to "may be required," if that would make you happy, for Section (c). That's a very simple change, but I would stick with the wording in this. I think there's nothing wrong with getting it in writing. And if it's redundant, sometimes redundancy is good. Because if it says in the other section and we're requiring it in this section and it's doing the same thing, then we're just ensuring what we want to see as far as public safety, health and well-being of our residents who are going to be in this building, especially if you take it into any of our private subdivisions—because we don't know where these buildings are going to go. This is a good thing. And it just clarifies what we already know. For "(c)," if you think that"may be required"versus "are required" is something you'd like to see, that is a very simple amendment that I think Rebecca's staff could do very quickly for you if that was a game changer for this. MR. RODENHURST: I would agree that is a simple change to that, but again, we talked about the redundancy. It is covered in 5-8-6 regarding special inspections. And then, further in the rest of the 5-8 section, we do have those requirements in there and they are in writing. I'm not sure this is a particular one that needs to be highlighted but happy to take comments on that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Again, Director, I appreciate your comment. I just like to see it in writing, and Section (b)puts it in writing and makes it solid, and doesn't have to be referenced in another section of the Code because the point Page 62 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 of this was to clarify and to put things in that really clear up any ambiguity. We don't like that in our Code. And a lot of this Code was done by Leslie. She did an amazing j ob. And she went through this, and it took months for her to put this together. I hate doing little changes to it, but sometimes it's good to have many different eyes looking at something. And in this case, I think what Rebecca put forward is helpful, and I'm going to stand by that. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Director. Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. This might be a question for Corporation Counsel but, Director, maybe weigh in. I'm just looking for clarity. And like Mr. Inaba said, go slow because slow is smooth and smooth is fast, and we've got a few more of these that we need to take a look at. So, inspection, Section (a). This is dealing with stuff outside Hawaii County and the addition that next section, or the next sentence that's being proposed to be added. I mean, do we have jurisdiction to do that to mandate what is happening outside the County? MR. RODENHURST: It is my understanding that we do not. But as put forward in U101.7 of the Draft 2, inspection is approved by the building official in conformance with the quality assurance standards approved by the building official and in compliance with the County of Hawaii codes and regulations. So, we are able to require that they comply with our codes and regulations. As far as telling them how they come into compliance with that, I would ask that of Corp. Counsel as far as the extent of which can be required of them. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So, for instance, if a factory in California wanted to create factory-built homes for Hawaii County, they would have to be in compliance with this section of the Code. MR. RODENHURST: They'd have to be in compliance and prove they're in compliance. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. And so, the second sentence about work being accessible and exposed for inspection purposes, is that something we can be directing other jurisdictions do? That's what I'm trying to get clarification on because that is my reading of this. And I don't know if we're stepping out of bounds. I see Deputy Corporation Counsel Schlueter. MS. SCHLUETER: Yes, so, like any other product coming in to the State of Hawaii, the State has laws and regulations regarding what kind of products can be imported and sold here and whatnot. We can put regulations on what that product is, whether there's manufacturer specifications. If we're putting a law regarding what can be here, we can say to these manufacturers, "This is what our laws are: The products that are received must comply." Page 63 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 And so, no, we don't have jurisdiction to say, "This is how you have to build in your place. But if you want to sell at our place, this is what you must comply with in order to be sold here. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Is this addition, in your legal opinion, necessary? MS. SCHLUETER: Excuse me? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: In your legal opinion, is this the best addition that Council Member Villegas is proposing for Section (a)necessary? MS. SCHLUETER: I guess the question would be if the intent of that section isif I just answer the question, that essentially would negate it. Or if I'm making senseI guess what I'm saying is if the additions are something that is already required by passing these laws, then no. Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm answering the question correctly. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Judge Strance, do you have anything to add to this? I'm speaking as clearly as possible. I'm just wondering legally if this is helpful, the addition that you are recommending for Section (a). It's just all of it just seems very redundant to me, and I'm just wondering if our County of Hawaii has jurisdiction on regulating what happens in other areas that look to service us with factory-built homes. And so, I'm just wondering if your proposed addition is beyond what we are able to do. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. STRANCE: So, the County of Hawaii can enact a provision about doing business in the County of Hawaii. The danger is that if the County of Hawaii goes off the rails, then nobody has to build for us outside of the jurisdiction. And so, part of the purpose of having some sort of uniformity in a code is that builders and manufacturers everywhere have reasonable expectations of what will be done, and there'll be some sort of uniformity without adding cost to a product. And so, if you want a short answer to your question, it's "yes." Is it a wise decision? We should talk to the manufacturers and the experts to find out whether or not they're going to be willing to do business with us if there are very many unique requirements to get product to Hawaii. And so, I think in talking to our experts or talking to manufacturers then, we should ask that. But if the—if one of the ideas of having manufactured homes or portions of homes is part of a mass production type of work environment, any time we take the product off the assembly line for something that is unique to us, it's likely to add expense. And so, in balancing what you think is required or important, some consideration should be given, or some discussion should be held with people who we're Page 64 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 expecting to do business with to find out what that consequence is. So, being mindful of unintended consequences is important. And I don't want to say "yes" or "no." I want to go back to what the purpose of the Uniform Building Code is, and that is to have some level of uniformity so that there are not differing expectations from different places to the point where there may be some reluctance to do business in the County of Hawaii. And that's just aas a general statement, I don't have an understanding of the manufacturing. I don't have an understanding of effect on safety. But I do think that it's something worth having a conversation about and knowing the answer to if it's something that may add time and expense to something. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. That's extremely helpful. Thank you, Judge Strance, Director. MR. RODENHURST: If I can add, one part of"(a)" for U101.7 for inspections highlights the conformance with the quality assurance standards approved by the building official and in compliance with the County of Hawaii codes and regulations, and I believe is under this quality assurance plan, or quality assurance standards, I apologize, where we could identify were these steps taken, did it come into compliance with what we expect here in the County. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I mean, it just seems to me we need a more thorough assessment of factory-built homes, and doing it at the 1 Ph hour at second reading of this bill is maybe not the best time. Anyway. So, moving on to Section (b) of the proposed amendment, I don't see the need to add"within this County," and I say that because this is our Code. So, I just really don't see the need for that. And my understanding of the process is the County's inspecting in the factory. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this; I want to make sure I'm accurate. So, inspection happens in the County. And then, inspection is also happening at the site where the factory-built home is being installed; that we are ensuring there's structural integrity and that the utilities are connected and work properly and safely—and that the current draft we have before us ensures all of that. MR. RODENHURST: Correct. It's the same thing we have in place today. We do have the site inspection as part of the factory-built, under the Administrative Code, Chapter 5, which applies to the codes lettered from 5A to 5F. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I see what you're trying to do here. I can't support it. I want to keep things as clear and simple as possible because this is already very complex. But I do agree at some point we, as a body—and maybe we should be discussing this with other councils across the State about where we want to go with factory-built housing. But I appreciate Judge Strance's comments about Page 65 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 wanting to have uniformity across the codes. That makes total sense, right, so everybody knows how to operate in these spaces. And it's just maybe premature right now to be bringing this up. Anyway, thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Ms. Villegasoh, Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. Thank you for allowing everybody to just work through it. It's the uniformity for Hawaii County. Why I continue to value the way our Construction Code works is that it allows that inspection even when it's in other municipals because other municipals don't have similar licensing to construction, electrical, and plumbing. And this is the assurances we get if those municipals don't have those requirements. I know Ms. Villegas pointed out one particular county. And I would venture that they more than likely don't have the similar licensing requirements that we hold very dear here not only in Hawaii County but our entire State, that people who are doing this type of work is certified and licensed. I'm not going to be supporting this amendment. I don't want to strap more bureaucratic red tape around another housing option. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. In response to some of your questions, essentially it is necessary so that we are all operating at the highest safety as things transport and do get damaged. In one of our prior meetings talking about this, I was kind of told that things were done—we didn't need the on-site inspections and they didn't need access, and it wasn't done in other places. Some of the things that have been brought up by our testifiers today. I had a gentleman come by my office yesterday and hand me 201 letters signed by local construction workers, our local people yes, some union but not all union. And they're electricians and stone masons and carpenters and contractors, and they all signed them. But they asked that they not be submitted as testimony because they were concerned about retribution. And to me, that's one of the animals in the room. To me,that's one of the challenges with what's going on here today. In doing some research, the State of California has a factory-built housing handbook for local enforcement agencies. And in it, it specifically says, under responsibilities of local governments,permit issuance and inspection of the installation and assembly of factory-built units at the building site: The city- county or city and county department having authority for the proposed construction of residential structures within its jurisdiction shall inspect the Page 66 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 factory-built housing assembly and installation at the building site in the same manner as it normally would be performed on any other site-constructed residential structure. To me, that says the inspection that happens on-site for factory-built housing should be the same as for homes built specifically just on site. So, in my research and in my humble self-education process here, once again the truest intention is to make sure that the homes that our people end up in—and I'd also like to clarify that adding this inspection by no means eliminates affordability—is done by the County. I have full confidence in our one factory-built housing manufacturer on-island to be able to streamline that process and procedure, that it not take more time and it not cost that much more, but that ensures the health and safety of our people that will be living in these homes. MR. RODENHURST: I'd like to clarify the statement that was brought up in that previous statement of mine, that I was unaware of counties that required a second inspection of the interior of the building on-site. And I'd be happy to discuss and review one if it was brought forward. So, happy to take in any information you have and look at what it has. I'm not familiar with their building codes or their handbook or their definitions of some of the words used there, but happy to take a look at it. As I put forward, we do have an inspection on-site and the factory. My understanding, in reading this—my interpretation of reading the amendment is this would require us, as the Building Division of DPW, to inspect that the factory manufacturer cite the interior and then inspect it the exact same way again on-site, which in our typical construction we don't inspect the interior and then at the final reopen it up and inspect it again. And that's where we differ in our viewpoints of this, and I think that's where DPW MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. I appreciate you clarifying those things. It's a little disappointing, though, after all this time. And I'm no expert and I'm not a director of a department, but it's challenging for the pushback on something. And I'm bringing evidence. I'm bringing examples. I'm bringing people's testimonies of their desire to work with this model. But there hasn't been that's not really been reciprocated. And so, we could go round and round once again on this, but I find it disappointing yeah. And that's the intention and it's been so transformed and worked to be something else. And it's unfortunate that that's the elephant in the room for the reasons there when the true intention is to ensure the health and safety of our people with the resistance and the clinging to the notion that this somehow negates factory-built housing from being able to be established as a viable housing solution in our County when that is not the case. With that, I yield. Page 67 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Anyone—Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. First of all, let me just say to Council Member Lee Loy and Mr. Tanaka and all of those—you worked on this too—all of those who invested countless hours, I'm sure, in getting Bill 44 just right. And what I'm going to say is no judgment on your work. And let me also say that I always operate from the standpoint of everybody, at some level, is coming from a place of goodness. There's a lot of special interest, if you will, in the conversations that we've been having. The carpenters union, they want to make sure that their guys got jobs, they've got fair pay, the playing field is level. That's a place of goodness, okay. HPM, they want to make sure that there's housing for people in our community. That's a place of goodness. You guys, you've got an official job: liability. That comes from a place of goodness. Our contractors out there, people submitting their permits. They're trying to do the best j ob that they can. That comes from a place of goodness. And we, the Council, we don't have expertise in this area, but we're looking at this language primarily, where do things get misinterpreted? Where are things unclear? And while we don't have the expertise, the suggestions that we make come from a place of goodness. So, if we can all, like, operate from that, I think that's a good place to start. So, I'm going to ask you, I want more time on this particular amendment. So, Neal and Ikaika, on practical terms it's been made very clear if we don't pass this by the end of the month, we default to the State-amended Residential Building Code. In practical terms, what does that actually mean? Is that going to be a huge deal or could we weather it for a little bit longer and keep working on this? MR. RODENHURST: So, I'm going to use a term that was expressed to me through Leslie Chow, is that this was worked on. It's kind of a custom job. If we default to the State Residential Code, that's kind of just"off the rack." It's not customized to our County needs. And so, there becomes the problem, is it could get wonky on that as far as the today, we're discussing some of the minutia of definitions and few words here and there, few sentences here and there. That may be more prevalent in this default to the State Residential Code. I don't know for certain the full extent of it. But a lot of these items that we're talking about here today could be affected by the default. And I give it up to Tanaka, if you have any specifics you may have off the top of your head on this. I know you talked about this is a robust and technical Code. So, to get the specifics and a list right now, I apologize I don't have that available. MS. KIMBALL: And, Mr. Tanaka, I want to hear from you on this as well. And I understand that Bill 44 is a series of amendments to what's been provided. They're based on information and data. They apply to our Code. They're more Page 68 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 strict as per the requirements of the International Building Code than what's been agreed to. I just want to understand. Like if I'm a contractor and I am looking at submitting house plans right now, how is deferring this going to affect me and my operations in practical terms? MR. RODENHURST: Well, I would say, at least off the bat it would make it confusing as far as the designers on what to design to. For us to notify them and also our own staff of what to review against, we're going to have to get that out as soon as possible regardless of the outcome here today. And we are waiting on the outcome. We're here today to get that message to the public so we're on the same page that the design professionals and our staff are on the same page when submitting and reviewing plans. It would cause confusion there and possibly cause some confusion on the line as far as inspections. There's a possibility of that. As far as if we were to adopt an amended IRC down the road after defaulting to the State Residential Code, our inspectors would have that to differentiate between State Residential Code from September 1st, 2021, to whenever that Code is, versus the County-adopted 5B when reviewing and inspecting construction of a residential home. So, it would likely cause some confusion at the very minimum, the extent of which I don't have an estimate of right now. MS. KIMBALL: Right. I think that goes without saying, that having multiple versions of a code of our own in the small amount of time is going to cause confusion. What I'd love to hear is this going to be 10 a month, 20 a month, 100 a month? I mean, how impactful in terms of real numbers is this? And I know we're in a strange time because of EPIC (Electronic Processing and Information Center) being introduced and maybe the flow is not as it would normally be. I'm just trying to consider my alternatives, and I apologize if this is taking us a different way. But I just want to understand how do we give ourselves a little more time,particularly on this amendment? Because, I do support it but I'm a little worried that one clause in here might do something bad. I need more time and I'm trying to figure out how to best get it. MR. RODENHURST: That's part of the reason why we had that accelerated timeline that started before I came on board as Director. And we continued that timeline going up into this with the understanding of the default to avoid that confusion. We're staring at that confusion right now. Just to touch on, not to get into it, but for our Building Code and our Energy Conservation Code, we're looking at default at the end of the month because a subsequent bill is reliance on the completion of this bill being passed, however, whatever form it's passed in. And we are looking at default for that. We're possibly looking at default for the State Residential Code and the State Existing Building Code following today if this isn't passed or whatnot happens. And so, it's to avoid that confusion. Page 69 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 So, there is possibility to have further discussion after this, of course. I mean, regardless of what happens, I'm happy to discuss what we can do to improve what we do at Public Works, what we do with the Building Code and the Building Division, but I'm just stating that we do have that timeline. And regardless of the agreement of that timeline, that's the timeline that's been—we've gotten the opinion of Corp. Counsel and that's also our understanding of the adoption timeline through the HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes). MS. KIMBALL: Mr. Tanaka, do you have anything to add? MR. TANAKA: I think what we're really trying to do, as evidenced by the Code, primarily with the installation requirements of the Code which is primarily the body of this ordinance, excuse me, bill is to provide the clarity, right. We're not trying to confuse the public, our staff. By postponing, by going default, I think Ikaika said it best: It's going to cause confusion. Our community is already confused with all of this language with the 2012, right, and we're just trying to get to a point of clarity. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, appreciate that. Mr. Clerk, question for you: Procedurally, if we adopt any of these amendments proposed today, it means that we do defer to the first week of October to finalize. Isn't that the procedure? Even though we're on second reading, if we amend today, there's still another approval or no? We amend and we approve today and, boom, done deal. MR. HENRICKS: The Council Rules state any bill or resolution that is amended on final reading is held over for the next regular meeting. Those are our Council Rules, or the Council's Rules, I should say. I'm not sure if that's what you're asking me. MS. KIMBALL: That is exactly what I am asking. MR. HENRICKS: Those are the Council's Rules. MS. KIMBALL: All right, thank you. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, I have a quick comment if I could. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair David. There's two ways of thinking about this too. I was thinking about it just now. One, you can say, "Hey, this amendment isn't good. Let's not pass it." I don't agree with that. Two, can pass the amendment and I could say bring forward an amendment that Page 70 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 amends the part you don't like. This was sitting in our files for two weeks. Nobody proposed any amendments to it. Anybody can amend anything that's made public. So, with that in mind, there's always a possibility to fix things. I didn't see any solutions being brought forward. I hear a lot of criticism, but I'm not seeing any solutions that have been brought forward. So, I would say to those against this today, if you don't love it, feel free to amend it. I would push to move it forward. That's the opposite of this coin. So, I'll be supporting this like I said in the beginning. If it is held over two weeks, you could amend this. You could have amended it two weeks ago as well. So, that's my two cents. I appreciate the conversation. And, Ms. Kimball,you did ask some interesting questions. I like them. And I'm hearing from many other people that the other counties are not rolling out this Code and they're taking their time on it, which tells me we're different—and I don't know why. But we're different. So, thank you, Chair. I yield. That's my two cents. I think everyone knows where I stand on this so far. Mahalo again, Rebecca. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to offer to Ms. Kimball who's thinking about it, there is actually another option which is have the maker withdraw it because it keeps it alive. If it was to fail, you can't reintroduce it. If it goes forward, we're not providing clarity, which is what we're trying to avoid. And I take exception because I've been trying to listen to what these amendments were intended to do and we only heard it today, which is nobody's fault but the process that we have. And so, as we're listening,we're also listening to each other and gathering input. And so, this idea of"just push it in and we can amend it later," if we want to be smart about it, set Bill 44. Take the feedback that we're hearing right now and preserve the option to move something in that makes sense because we still have more amendments to look at. That was my point from the beginning, is how these things work as we further refine and amend. And the irony is the department is asking for clarity, but we're not even going to be able to provide that if we keep trying to amend and not understand how they work with one another. So, again, I'm not going to be supporting this amendment. But if there is some stuff that people want to maybe move in later, acknowledge that there's going to be a risk to further refine later on. And so, yeah, we saw it for a long time, but it was never explained to us until right now. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. I can't see your light when you're no, Ms. Villegas—when your mic's facing lying down. Okay, nowI don't want it to seem like I'm ignoring you—Ms. Kimball, go ahead. Page 71 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. I mean, I also understand that another option is to pass Bill 44 as is and then come back at it with some ordinances, right. We could do that to amend the Code further. But I want to speak to this particular amendment that you proposed, the part "(b)." So, the way I read this is that part "(a)," every factory-built housing manufactured outside of this County, blah, blah, blah. And then "(b)," all manufacturing work, including building, electrical, and plumbing, within this County shall be inspected in the factory and at the site. And I'd love Corp. Counsel's opinion on this. My concern here becomes that these would have applied to both County and stuff that was produced outside of the County without the words "within this County" added. And now—and I think this is where Holeka was going—and now because this is added, it actually excludes those produced outside of the County, which would have previously fallen under the requirements of the rest of the content of"(b)." I am not an attorney; that's why I'm asking for your input, Corp. Counsel. But that's one of the concerns I have about that language and potential interpretation. CHR. DAVID: Are you asking for Corp. Counsel? MS. KIMBALL: I am asking Corp. Counsel, and it looks like they're conferring. MS. SCHLUETER: I do apologize. I didn't catch your entire question but I'm MS. KIMBALL: Okay. This proposed word change for Section (b) where we are now adding "within this County,"previously the way that the wording was, "(b)" would have applied inherently to both factory-built that came from within this County and from outside because it's not specified. But now, with this language "within this County,"we may inadvertently be giving a loophole so that those produced outside of the County would not have this restriction "requirement" is a better term placed on them. MS. SCHLUETER: Ikaika, if you've got an answer, you're welcome to jump in. Sorry, I'm comparing both just to make sure what I'm answering. I believe your assessment may be correct because "(b)" also states, "to begin with" in both the amendment as well as Bill 44, version 2. It states, "all manufacturing work." So, adding that"within the County" seems to specify that we're discussing the work that's done within the County; we're not discussing or including outside of the County. That's my reading on it right now. I will let Ikaika jump in. MR. RODENHURST: Yes, so, one of the thoughts in reviewing this is that I understand where we're coming from with the "inside" and "outside" of the County. For "(b)" I mean, I feel that's something that could be required of the QA (quality assurance) standards. They are addressed in "(a)"but it says, "all manufacturing work." So, it could be used as a template to show that what we require in our QA standards in "(a)"matches what we require of our factory-built Page 72 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 housing in the County in "(b)." And that concurrent language that we discussed with the consistency shows that we are requiring the same level in and without the County. MS. KIMBALL: So, I think you're agreeing with me? I'm sorry, Director; you've just made that less clear. But the way that I would interpret these two clauses together is that there's a specific condition in "(a)"that applies to anything produced outside of the County and then "(b)" applies to all of them except that, with the addition of these three tiny words, we just may have excluded that level of inspection for stuff that came from outside the County. MS. SCHLUETER: It seems like the—and I apologize; I'm not trying to put words in your mouth—it seems like the intent may have been parallel-drafting like we're seeing in U101.8 using a paragraph regarding "outside" of the County requirements; a paragraph regarding "inside" of the County requirements. I mean, that's kind of what it looks like, that that was the intent. It's just to make sure that we're parallel-drafting these. Council Member Kimball, yeah, I believe you're correct here. Section (a) specifies additional things for outside of the County, and "(b)" is everything. MR. RODENHURST: I would say, yeah, I would agree that there is some confusion in the language as it is in the draft and in the current Code as far as "within this County"would provide guidance as is in U101.8, where "manufactured in the County"versus "manufactured outside of this County." MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. It's (inaudible) the intent of this I really doI'm concerned that there's a Pandora's box in just those three words. And I see you shaking your head but I think there's a possibility for interpretation that it could be very detrimental. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. Just in closing, we were directly told by Leslie Chow that the timeline is wrong for this. Maui County decided to put a pause on this, and then they went back and decided no, that it would cause more damage to shove something through than to take the pause and work on it together. Honolulu has deferred; Kaua`i as well. I have a list here of what's new in the 2018 Code. Nothing in here is so detrimental. So, I am astounded by the ability—and disappointed—for something that is so clear and black and white to be pulled apart and yet, in the context of so many other things, we're not taking into account the other circumstances. And as my colleague said earlier, taking it slow. There are a lot of trust issues when it comes to this, perhaps concerning to me. It's sad. I've done my best to make this very clear, very simple, and very apparent that it's for the best interest of our island and our community. But as is the case, I get one vote. And so, I'm doing Page 73 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 my best to present this, and I'll respect the votes of others. But I—yeah, it's interesting to me what people decide to have courage about and throw their hat behind, and yet—it's just interesting to me. So, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Inaba, go ahead. MR. INABA: Thank you. Going back to the point Ms. Kimball made and that I made earlier. Procedurally, Mr. Clerk, is there an option to amend an amendment? MR. HENRICKS: In what method and manner? MR. INABA: Striking something that's proposed and need to be added. MR. HENRICKS: Do you mean through a verbal mechanism or ? I'm just not clear what you're asking. MR. INABA: Oh, yeah, verbally here today, right now. MR. HENRICKS: Yeah. I think Rules require that proposed amendments be submitted in writing, but there's no guidance that those amendments can't be modified. The only thing, of course, would be ensuring that and, as best as possible, that it's abundantly clear how the amended amendment reads. That would be the concern, is without something for everybody to look at, that we're literally on the same page not"we,"but the Council and the Administration and everybody involved. That would be the concern. But, no, it's been done before. MR. INABA: Okay. Ms. Villegas, my concern stands just with the words "within this County"because I feel it narrows it down and excludes those outside, even though "(a)" has its own section on that. The intent of"(b)"was to cover everything, and it'll still cover those within this County without those words there. So, is that something I'm just going to make that motion because I kind of understand what the intention of this was. So, Mr. Clerk, so I do this correctly, how do I proceed? Do I just make a motion? Point of Information: MS. KIMBALL: Point of information. Would it be appropriate to take the CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I'm sorry. Point of information. Would it be appropriate to take a recess to provide a written copy of the proposal brought before ? It would only take a minute to write it up. Page 74 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: Actually, before you answer that, I think we can take a recess if that's the prerogative of this body. But depending on how this amendment goes, if it goes through, then this carries over because it's at second and final. We'd have to bring it up again, right? MR. INABA: Yes. That's what we discussed earlier. CHR. DAVID: It'd have to be held over. MR. HENRICKS: The Council Rules require that bills amended on final reading are held over for the next regular meeting. CHR. DAVID: And that's in September. MR. HENRICKS: September 8h, I believe. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Just wanted to make sure that that was on the table. Go ahead, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Ms. Villegas, I'm just trying to come back to you first. Ms. Villegas, I've expressed just my concern with this part of this amendment. I don't have this working document, so I don't—is this something that you'd be interested in or not? No. Okay. Well, I don't have anything then at this time. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I just want to clarify something Ms. Villegas mentioned about other municipals, specifically Maui County, Kauai. And, Director Rodenhurst, maybe you can help me with this. All the other counties took an administrative pause just like we did. Is that correct? MR. RODENHURST: That's my understanding. MS. LEE LOY: What version of the IRC are the other counties on? MR. RODENHURST: I'll have to confirm that real quick. MR. TANAKA: City and County of Honolulu has adopted the 2012 IRC. Kauai and Maui are defaulting to the 2012 IRC. MR. RODENHURST: And I could put a clarification: Oahu—Honolulu, as far as I know, did not have an administrative pause. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. What version of the IRC are we on? MR. RODENHURST: We currently do not have IRC adopted at the County. Page 75 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. And I had to drive that home because I know Ms. Villegas just like me, I'm confused with all the dates and the different timelines and when we can amend, what administrative pauses were afforded, which ones are not. The bottom line is Hawaii County doesn't have an IRC in their family of codes. Is that correct? MR. RODENHURST: That is correct. MS. LEE LOY: And because we don't have one,where would we default to? MR. RODENHURST: The State Residential Code for the 107-28. MS. LEE LOY: And that would be what year? MR. RODENHURST: 2018. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks. And so, Bill 44 grabs the 2018 and makes amendments for Hawaii County. Is that correct? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks. So, again, I'm trying really hard to keep it bright and clear. As Aaron said earlier, I don't think we can amend. We can refine. It's very limited, our options, but doing some of this stuff on the fly is not helpful for our County. It's not. We'll have another swing at it. I just would hate to see some of my colleagues who want to see some stuff moved in have their amendments shot down or moved in and it ends up hurting Hawaii County, or we cannot bring something similar to help us. Thank you for that information, and thank you for allowing me to clarify. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Is that it, Council Members? Okay. Thank you, gentlemen, for enduring with us this afternoon. And I want to say thank you to Ms. Kimball and Mr. Inaba because the questions that I had were surrounding "(b)" also because the way I read this without any amendments was that it was inclusive for everything, all manufacturing work, wherever that manufacturer resides. That's the way I took it. And so, that question was answered and thank you very much. And I think without the amendment, to me in my mind, it's clear that this section addresses outside manufacturers, factory-built; "(b)"represents inside. And I think "(b),"that refers to everybody: "It shall be the duty of the permit holder" whoever that is, right—"or their agent to cause the work to remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes." So, both at the factory and at the site I think is sort of saying the same thing. Page 76 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 So, to me, I appreciate Ms. Villegas trying to streamline and clarify things, but in reading this plain language of it, I believe in my mind, it accomplishes what she's trying to say. I'm not talking for you, Ms. Villegas; I'm just saying, in my mind, I think it accomplishes that but it doesn't actually say it. And so, in interpreting laws and stuff, it seems like there's some breathing room that has to happen in order to be a total global inclusive kind of rule. So, for me, I see this as being what Ms. Villegas is trying to accomplish; I see it as in here already. Maybe people don't agree with me, but that's the way I see it. And so, I just wanted to make note that I think someone brought this up again however this bill moves forward or not, it doesn't preclude us from bringing amendments later on. And I think that's what Corp. Counsel told us. So, with that, Clerk Henricks, please, a roll call vote on amending Bill 44, Draft 2, with the contents of Communication 281.20. Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 44, Draft 2, with the contents of Amend: Comm. 281.20 failed by the following roll call vote: Failed Ayes: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Villegas –2. Noes: Council Members Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David–5. Absent: Council Members Chung and Richards –2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I guess we can move forward. Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Villegas. You have the floor. MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 44, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 281.50. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. A couple of questions here, and perhaps the best—feel free to chime in if you'd like to, Mr. Rodenhurst, but I'll be directing them to Mr. Tanaka. Isn't it true that the definition of"building"under the 2018 International Residential Code, 2018 International Building Code, and the 2018 International Existing Building Code does not include any language referring to structures on wheels? MR. TANAKA: To answer your question, yes. Page 77 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Isn't it true that Honolulu's definition of "building"under its residential code is found under the 2012 International Residential Code? MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry. You're asking me what Honolulu's residential code definition says? MS. VILLEGAS: Aha the definition of"building"under the Honolulu residential code. MR. TANAKA: My understanding is that in the residential code, it is the same definition as the model code. MS. VILLEGAS: It's the same as, I'm sorry, what? MR. TANAKA: The model code. I believeI can't speak to that specifically, but my—yeah. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you. At the August 4h Council meeting, isn't it true that you said that Honolulu's definition of"building"under its residential code includes structures on wheels? MR. TANAKA: I may have said that. I don't recall MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you. MR. TANAKA: Specifically if I had said the residential code. But Honolulu's building code does have that. So, that's what I was looking at. I apologize. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you. Yes, because let me read to you Honolulu's definition of a building, which is found under the 2012 IRC. "A building shall mean any one- and two-family dwelling or portion thereof, including townhouses that are used or designed or intended to be used for human habitation for living, sleeping, cooking, or eating purposes or any combination thereof, and shall include accessory structures thereto." Does this definition say anything about structures on wheels? MR. TANAKA: The way you read it, no. MS. VILLEGAS: But you told us that Honolulu's definition of a building under the residential code did include this. MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry, I don't recall specifically if I said residential code, but I did say the Honolulu code says "building" includes structures on wheels. Because,just for the record, in checking that, the IBC (International Building Code) definition for the Honolulu code does have that same definition. Page 78 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, but my amendment is specific to the Residential Code and the Existing Building Code, not the Building Code, which sounds really hokeyI get it. That's part of the dance of all this terminology. Isn't the Residential Code different from the Building Code? MR. TANAKA: I believe your amendment, if I'm reading this correctly, also addresses our Admin (Administrative) Code definition. MS. VILLEGAS: Your what? MR. TANAKA: The definition of"building" in our Administrative Code, Chapter 5. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. This definition of"building," according to this amendment, basically brings the definition of"building"back to your basic definition of"building" and removes the language as it relates to wheels. MR. RODENHURST: So, if I may—and I do appreciate you bringing these forward. I don't want that to be confused. I do appreciate this. I would appreciate some more communication and collaboration ahead of time, but we are where we are. For this one, and as Neal Tanaka mentioned, we have "building" defined under the similar language under our(Chapter) 5, Administrative Code; under our(Chapter) 5D, Electrical Code; under our (Chapter) 5E, Energy Conservation Code; under our(Chapter) 5F, Plumbing Code. And as previously discussed, the intent was to provide that consistency across the codes, that interaction. And so, that's my understanding of the purpose for these definitions that are different from the model code but provide consistency across our codes. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. I can appreciate that but I don't think it accomplishes that, and it's created a lot of confusion. Builders can transport homes from the factory to the site without changing the definition of"building"to include structures on wheels. I don't see the necessity; hence, I've brought it forward. For why you're trying to include structure mounted on wheels for businesses or living purposes under the Residential Code, isn't the Residential Code for living purposes, not businesses? MR. RODENHURST: Correction, we're putting "sheltering" into that definition. So, that's one of the differences there as far as our definition, and that would provide concurrence across that. Like I mentioned previously with the IRC, if it doesn't meet the IRC prescriptive methods, we would have to review under the IBC for formulated methods. And so, it provides us the ability to understand "building" as building across that and it's very similar. Furthermore, it provides clarity to the design community. If they have questions on what is considered a Page 79 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 building, this gives some guidance. And it says, "not limited to" as well. So, there are some definitions that are allowed beyond this. This is to provide clarity to the community. MS. VILLEGAS: Interesting. It doesn't provide clarity in my mind, and I see some irony in the statements of—it doesn't seem to work both ways, reciprocally, with reciprocity when it comes to what things—should be very specific in what things can be whatnot, at least when I'm bringing forth amendments. So, I feel a double standard in some capacities on this. And it's concerning to me that we weren't given the full definition of"building code," of"code." There have just been a lot of discrepancies in the story and how this is moving forward. And I feel my questions are valid. And I don't understand why we would have in the definition of"building"that it's on wheels when it's not stated anywhere else other than specifically for our, or for your purposes in this case. And so with that, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy and then Ms. Kimball. MR. TANAKA: Excuse me, Ms. Lee Loy, if you would. Ms. Villegas, I just want to address the definition of"this code" and the indication that I'm trying to hide anything. When Ms. Kimball asked for that definition, right, I pointed directly in the code that's sitting in front of you—the bill—where it exactly is. And I'm sure you could have followed me when I pointed you there. But I was trying to support the Director with what was being said. So, I wasn't trying to intentionally be hiding anything, which I just don't appreciate that you're pointing that out. That's not the intention here at all. So, thank you but let's try and not do that. I'd appreciate it. MS. VILLEGAS: Once again, reciprocity. CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry, can we take a recess? I'm going to take a ten-minute recess. Thank you. Recess: At 5:15 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 5:26 p.m. CHR. DAVID: Let's see. Where were we? Okay, I believe we had a motion by Ms. Villegas and seconded by Mr. Inaba on amending Bill 44, Draft 2, with Communication 281.21 [sic]. Ms. Villegas, did you have the floor again? Or did you yield? Okay, did you have the floor? Go ahead if you want to continue, or you yield? Okay. Ms. Villegas has yielded. Any other Council Members want to weigh in on Communication 281.50? Ms. Kimball, go ahead. Page 80 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Just want to hear from you folks, Ikaika and Neal, on the need, if you will, to include all of this additional language. I'm assuming that if it were not included, does it exclude factory-built because they were moved to the site? Does it exclude mobile homes? Does it exclude tiny homes if it's not expressly stated in here? Or if we keep this definition really general, are those not included? I'm just wondering why the level of—is there some need for that level of specificity that I don't understand? MR. RODENHURST: For us—and again, I want to point out this isn't about factory-built houses. This is about the Residential Code, right? And for this right here, we're talking about definition of"building,"which is touched on in multiple codes, as we've said here, multiple existing codes we have with the County, as well as these pending ones with 5B and 5C for the residential on the existing building. The intent was to clarify some of the applications which would be considered buildings. I do believe that the original definition is broad. And I would like to have Tanaka speak up some more on that. He was here when this was implemented in Ordinance 20-61. But it has been explained to me, like I said previously, it's for the consistency across the codes so "building" is a building and we can have some similar language across our codes. But, Tanaka, if you want to take it away. MR. TANAKA: Yeah. This definition of"building," as it's written—as proposed in Bill 44 and as it's written in our Administrative Code, it's the same definition that was the definition for "building"prior to the Administrative Code. And so, what we've been trying to do throughout all of this is provide that consistent definition, not change the definition of"building"whenever we want, right. The Admin Code is how we administer our permits, our inspections. And it defines what a building is and how we do our actions or our jobs specific to a building. By consistently having that same definition across all of our codes, when someone were to ask, "Where in your code does it say a building, or a structure on wheels is a building,"we can say it's there, right. By eliminating completely, that just adds further confusion. And the way we implement our individual codes, whether it's the IBC Building Code or the IRC Residential Code or the Electrical Code or Plumbing Code or Energy Code, it's consistent throughout all of those codes. So, that was the intent. By changing the definition for each code, to me, inherently sounds confusing as it is. But that was how we arrived to where we are today. MS. KIMBALL: I don't want to decouple the consistency question from the definition question, but I certainly understand you wanting one word defined the same way everywhere. It seems that makes total sense. My question specifically Page 81 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 is for definitions for this particular term. I don't quite understand—and I know you said this is for clarity but I actually don't understand the necessity of this level of specificity for this term. So, rather than asking the consistency question, can you just respond to the necessity for these specific terms and the need for them in our Code when they're not included in the international code or the amended State code the international code, as amended by the State code? MR. RODENHURST: For our understanding, it's pretty much just the clarity for what's put forth and, as Tanaka mentioned, what's a building. Does a building include a structure mounted on wheels? Does a building include—and that's where it comes from. It comes from clarification for applications of the use. My understanding is this is a general, broad definition as it is part of the IRC. So, definitely not something that—and I'm talking about the amendment—that inherently is going to be damaging, but we're providing clarity to what's already in our Code. And the intention of this definition in the Residential Code is to continue that clarity. MR. TANAKA: The example where I gave you,we get challenged all the time: "Tell me where in your code you can do this, where you can enforce this,"right. Nowhere else in our Code does it specifically say a building on wheels, or structure on wheels is considered a building. So, it's there for intent. It's always been there for how it was written way back in 2012 or even beyond, to define that. I cannot speak to that. But it was intentional at that time, and we were just carrying on that intention. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, that gets me actually closer to understanding because would I—what I want to know is if we're fixing something that is actually a real problem or if it's adding a level of complexity that's unnecessary. And I don't have that quite worked out in my brain yet, but I think there's still opportunity to work it out. I yield, Chair, for now. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Anyone else? No? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much, ma'am. I feel like I'm missing something here. I've been looking this over. I'm looking at these amendments. Neal and Director Rodenhurst, is there some kind of housing on wheels being created from someone local that's going to be used as a housing of some kind? MR. RODENHURST: It's possible but I don't have any specifics at the time. Page 82 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You have no idea of specifics? I mean, we're arguing over all this stuff. I mean, this seems very pointed. We're looking at some kind of a building or structure that's going to be on wheels that can be dropped off somewhere. I mean, you don't have any specifics for me? MR. RODENHURST: I mean, there's various types of buildings and structures that could be on wheels that become permanently affixed to a foundation and become a building to be permitted in this County. There's various applications. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That's something. So, I mean, you have something floating around. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, thereI'm sorry, Matt. This is Neal Tanaka. Yes, there are examples of homes on wheels. I think that we turn on HGTV (Home and Garden Television) all the time, and we see the trend for tiny homes on wheels. We see—as you know, HPM (HPM Building Supply) has their modular house proposed to be on wheels. So, there is a trend for structures on wheels. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Does that tie into affordable housing at all? MR. RODENHURST: It possibly could. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm trying to think back. I think in the last Administration, we touched briefly on some kind of experimental affordable housing section in our HRS code which would allow for factory-built or modular homes. And it basically would allow us to bypass the need for paying union wages and provide affordable housing all at the same time. I mean, is that what this discussion is about? I mean, is that where we're headed with this? MR. RODENHURST: No, this is about a definition that's been defined in this Code previous the last year. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I get that but I'm looking at it, and I'm looking at the wording. The language is being changed the language that's been put forward as far as MR. RODENHURST: The language has not been changed. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What a building shall be—and I'm just trying to put it all together in my head. Rebecca definitely has a purpose here, and I'm just trying to understand the purpose so that we all can understand the purpose and what's really at play here. So, we have a possible housing option on wheels,possibly, that could be delivered potentially to sites across the island. And it sounds like that possibly could be HPM who is also one of the biggest retailer distributors of building Page 83 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 goods on the island and who controls pricing for our contractors. I'm just trying to pile this together. I mean, no wonder the contractors are a little bit worried about what's going to happen. I would be worried, too, if I was a contractor. I'm a journeyman but I'm not a contractor, but I would be concerned. You know what? This amendment in front of us, you're wanting to keep the building definition open? Or you don't like Rebecca's amendment that's put forward? So far, I'm getting you guys have some very good arguments for why Rebecca's amendments have been not good, but I hate it when it's just roadblocks instead of solutions. So, does DPW have any solutions going forward to kind of meet in the middle, or is it just going to be, "No good. Come back to us later"? MR. RODENHURST: As previously MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Because at that point I mean, that seems like where we're headed today. MR. RODENHURST: As previously discussed at the beginning of this meeting, these amendments were put forward without communication, collaboration, or consultation from DPW. It's brought forward today. We're going over it now. This is a bill that took years in the process. It's taken months of review. We took public comment. We asked for comment from the Council. And we're taking some of that comment right here and right now. So, to ask us in this brief amount of time here today how this interacts with the entire Code and are we confirmed that this is not going to have any negative consequences, intended or unintended, throughout the Code, I cannot do that with a level of confidence. And that's why I said `a`ole to this and to some of these amendments. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And you've said it to all of them so far, sir. MR. RODENHURST: Correct. And I brought that up. I'm willingI really appreciate these conversations. Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful we're here to discuss these and I appreciate it. I touched on some areas. There is some confusion and some things maybe we should address in the future on some of our codes. Like I mentioned previously, this definition here has been part of our Code and part of multiple parts of our Code. And we're doing this for consistency's sake. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm doing this for one particular person. And you saying also, by the way, that you're not an electrical contractor, I appreciate that. I do recall a time when you mentioned you were an electrical contractor. So, I just want to put that out there. But as far as this Code goes and as far as this bill, this amendment, I'm not fully saying that this amendment isn't right. Like I mentioned, this is the IRC definition of"building," and that's something that's in the model code. Well, what I am saying is that we're trying to keep it consistent across our codes, and Page 84 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 that's why we're using the language that we have defined in other chapters of our existing building codes. That's all I'm saying. But I am happy to discuss this further, and I am available for these discussions today and in the future. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think that as we see things with merit, it makes sense to pass them through that's all—instead of pushing them off and saying, "You should have contacted us first." The Council doesn't have to approve anything through any department before it brings legislation forward. That's very clear. I think that needs to be stated. I have no further comment on this. I just—it's good to see communication. We really ran that this year we'd be communicating, but I want to make sure that that's a two-way street. And again, I have been through this a couple of times; different places, different code altogether. And excuse me, Chair, a little bit of latitude. But I've seen this again and again where the solution is just a roadblock. And unfortunately, I've seen this too many times. It doesn't matter if the legislation is brought forward; there's a roadblock. There's an inherent roadblock in the system. And there's got to be solutions, not roadblocks. I appreciate it. I can kind of see where this is headed today. Rebecca, I think you did a good job. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Anyone else before Ms. Lee Loy before Igo back to Ms. Villegas. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Just real quick, Director. We're just trying to stay consistent for right now. And it helps not only with how we do business here, but how other people will choose to do business here in Hawaii County. And then, this also helps with the family of codes we have throughout Chapter 5. Is that correct? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks. So, I'll not be supporting this amendment. I really want to help, Ms. Villegas. Very complex. And I put a lot of work into this over the years. And so, I think if we reach out to the department, our design professionals, everybody, even the unions—I've engaged them tooI think, like Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder, there's ways to find solutions with everybody at the table. I just hate to have these amendments die when they could become vehicles later on because we might need them. So, I'm not going to be supporting this amendment at this time. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Villegas, go ahead. Point of MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. Just for a point of clarification, I want to just state that Clarification: Leolynne Escalona from Kauai Public Works said that they did not do an Page 85 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 administrative pause due to legal concerns. So, I wanted to clarify that. I also want to just clarify that in this definition, adding the wheels, this has only been added since Bill 179. Correct? MR. TANAKA: No, this has been in our Chapter 5 prior to Bill 179. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you. I also there were some concerns expressed about how and where. I have here, from our County Code, mobile dwelling provisions. So, that's covered under mobile dwellings; there is that already in existence. We also have things in existence for tiny homes. So, I want to point out the purpose of this amendment is to clarify a building is a building, and there are allowances in other spaces in our Code for mobile homes and mobile dwellings—and that's the intention of this. Because to me, it's unnecessary to add all the extra terminology about structures on wheels. And I appreciate Mr. Kaneali`i-KI einfelder's comments and questions about future planning. And I don't think that by removing those terms—once again, this is kind of a"what's good for the goose is good for the gander." It's not okay if in certain amendments we add terminology or replicate things, and yet it is good in other ones. And so, I see disparity and discrepancy in that. And so, that's why this was brought forward. And I hope my colleagues can take that into consideration because they're adding a lot in that definition of"building." So, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Anyone else? Seeing none, I have a question, then. Oh, Mr. Inaba, did you want to go? Okay. So, I noticed in this proposed amendment the references to the last paragraph on most of these sections, yeah: to the extent otherwise permits and/or requires the definition of "building." That incorporation that you folks reference after that paragraph, what is the purpose of that incorporation reference paragraph? Is that toI see it in all the ends. I think it's the last paragraph in each section when it defines "building." Ms. Villegas is actually deleting that as well. So,what was the purpose of the incorporation by reference in the original? MR. RODENHURST: I'm sorry, which page is this? CHR. DAVID: This is on her proposed amendment on—well, it starts on the second page before Section—No. 2. It says: To the extent context otherwise permits and/or requires the definitions of"building" as used in Chapters 5A, the Building Code; 513, the Residential Building Code; 5C, the Existing Building Code; 5D, the Electrical Code; 5E, the Energy Conservation Code; and 517, the Plumbing Code, are incorporated herein by reference. What is the purpose for that language? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, so, for that one, as I described previously, that's for consistency, as I mentioned, across our family of codes under Chapter 5. Page 86 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 CHR. DAVID: So, those references are just to cover any possible, not conflicts but I don't know what you call this. If you're referring to one—in one code has the reference, another one doesn't, this takes care of all of that. MR. RODENHURST: So, then, when we're talking about a building in one, we're talking about a building in another. A building is a building. CHR. DAVID: I see. Okay. I just wanted to for me, that makes sense that we have an incorporation language on something this complicated because just in case we didn't catch everything. So, I see the justification in that paragraph. Okay. All right. Clerk Henricks, can we do a roll call, please? Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 44, Draft 2, with the contents of Amend: Comm. 281.50 failed by the following roll call vote: Failed Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, and Villegas –3. Noes: Council Members Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David–4. Absent: Council Members Chung and Richards –2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Moving to Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 44, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 281.51. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Great. This amendment takes into consideration a little bit more clarification on where and how things are applied, and not adopted unless otherwise provided. And this chapter allows for that. Mr. Tanaka, at the August 4h Council meeting, you read the definition of"this code." Correct? MR. TANAKA: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: You said that"this code" is defined as Residential Building Code, Chapter 5B. Correct? MR. TANAKA: Correct. I pointed you to the definition. MS. VILLEGAS: Now, isn't it true that you but I don't think that— MR. hatMR. TANAKA: It's on page 3. Page 87 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: You read the entire definition of"this code"to Council Members during our August 4h meeting. And in fact, you only read a portion of it to the Council Members. Correct? MR. TANAKA: I recall pointing you to Section 513-1-6, definition of"this code" on page 3. And I did read, to answer MS. VILLEGAS: So, let me read the definition of"this code." "`This code' means the residential building code, contained in chapter 513, or the construction administrative code, contained in chapter 5, or both, as the context requires." Is this the definition of the code as you understand it? MR. TANAKA: That's how it's written and proposed in the bill. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Is the Residential Building Code contained in Chapter 5B the same as the Construction Administrative Code? MR. TANAKA: Clearly, it is not. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. So, since the term "this code" means more than the Residential Building Code and we are in fact trying to amend the Residential Building Code, I'm hoping that there won't be a problem with this proposed amendment. MR. RODENHURST: So, "this code," as defined in (Chapters) 5A, 5D, 5E, and 517, also includes: means the building code contained in chapter reference which one of those we just discussed—or the construction administrative code contained in Chapter 5, or both, as the context requires. It is to maintain consistency across our lettered codes. MS. VILLEGAS: So, all appendices in Bill 44 are included under Residential Building Code, Chapter 5B. So, the amendment should say, "not incorporate language that confuses and misleads us as Council Members." I'd like to point out that Ms. Kimball, in our last meeting, had some concerns about that. And she recommended that we use the term "the Residential Building Code, Chapter 513" language, but you guys told her that"this code" means the Residential Building Code and the department wants to keep the language consistent throughout the Code. But it wasn't communicated that"this code" also means Construction Administrative Code, which is the umbrella for all the building codes. So, in my proposed amendment, it makes it very clear that the appendices of the International Residential Code are not adopted unless otherwise provided in this chapter. And this is my intent to clarify those concerns. And with that, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Anyone else? Any questions? Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. Page 88 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I actually have a question for Ms. Villegas because she mentioned it's not adopted unless we move it into the code. That was what you just stated. CHR. DAVID: That was—Ms. Villegas, would you want to respond to that question? MS. VILLEGAS: I'm not sure what you're MS. LEE LOY: If I heard correctly, you said, "the appendices, those portions, not adopted into this code." MS. VILLEGAS: I was reading in Section 1 of Bill No. 44, Draft 2, that adds a new Section 513-2-1. MS. LEE LOY: I'm sorry, you're reading from Bill 44 or from your amendment? I'm sorry, I was just trying to track. MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. It's actually listed on my amendment(inaudible). MS. LEE LOY: Okay. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. And that's what I was reading. Because that last sentence because that's what we had gone over. In the first round on this, there were attempts on my part to create clarification that administrative rules weren't going to trump what was written in the Code, right. So then, I believe you made an amendment to that as well. And this is my attempt at further solidifying where and how things reside, and that it relates to the IRC. And you can read the rest of it remains in the same verbiage. MS. LEE LOY: I don't know, maybe this is for, or maybe I'm just tired or over- thinking. Because when I read that, it says, "the appendices of the International Residential Code are not adopted unless otherwise provided by the chapter." Director, go ahead. MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, that was the original. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. MR. RODENHURST: And then I think, if I recall at the last meeting we had, we changed it from "this chapter"to "this code" as defined in the bill—and concurrent with the definitions that we have across the other chapters in our Code. Page 89 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 And I also want to point out the importance of"subject to any amendments set forth in this chapter." If there are amendments that are put forward for the Residential Building Code, that part is taken out in this amendment that you put forth. I believe that would be important to have. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, so—okay. MR. RODENHURST: Sorry. MS. LEE LOY: No. MR. RODENHURST: But yeah. So, that's where we're at, is that it was originally "this chapter." Now, it's "this code." Now through the amendment, we're looking at the Residential Building Code, which is defined as part of the definition of"this code"under the bill and is concurrent with the definition of "this code" across the chapters. And like I mentioned, there isI believe it's important to note that"subject to any amendments set forth in this chapter" is removed in Ms. Villegas's amendment here. MR. TANAKA: I'd like to add just quickly what it originally said prior to the amendment that led us to Draft 2 was, "subject to any amendments set forth in administrative rules." And we heard you, Ms. Villegas, with regards to that. And so, we made an intentional effort to eliminate that because we understand, as does anybody, that amendments are not subject to administrative rules. It goes before this body through bill to ordinance. MS. LEE LOY: So, Director, again—well, I'm confused but I don't know if this was necessary—again, could you elaborate on that, Director? MR. RODENHURST: I'd hate to add another level of confusion. I really hate to do this, but if we go back to what's put into the State Residential Code, which is what this is based off of because we amend it off of what the State amends, theirs identifies "this code": "is made a part of this chapter, subject to any amendments provided in `this code."' So, they also use similar terminology in that. We made adjustments to try and clarify that. We heard feedback that it wasn't clarified. It was changed back to "this code." Now, we're hearing that it's not clear again. MS. LEE LOY: So, our housekeeping measure was to stay consistent with the Stateoh, wait. Did I read that right? MR. RODENHURST: The intention MS. LEE LOY: Go ahead. MR. RODENHURST: Of Draft 2, as we discussed in the last meeting was to keep consistent with our lettered codes from (Chapters) 5A, 5D, 5E, 517, which are Page 90 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 all currently part of our County building codes. It just so happens that the Residential Code at the State level incorporates this language as well. And that's where we're at as far as the beginning and where we currently stand without having to go through the confusing ups and downs of between Point A and the point where we are today. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Director. Again, I'm not going to be supporting this because I like where we are, where we're actually consistent not only to our family of codes but other codes. Thank you, Director, I yield. CHR. DAVID: All right. Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Mr. Tanaka, where was "this code" defined in our Code? I'm sorry, where was "this code,"the term that is being referenced? Is it—? MR. TANAKA: The definition of"this code" is in the proposed bill, Draft 2, page 3, after the definition of"chapter." MS. KIMBALL: Okay, thank you. Actually, I like this amendment and I'll tell you why. Because, I'm looking at definitions under the first chapter of the County Code and the very first one is: This Code shall be known and may be cited as the Hawaii County Code, the County Code, or in provisions which follow as "this Code." This is another chapter. So, I just think that this is cause for ambiguity. I think there is because this is defined elsewhere. Are there any problems with this definition that Ms. Villegas is presenting? Does it do anything we don't want it to do to be—have this level of specificity? MR. RODENHURST: I'm sorry, can you clarify where the definition is of"this code"that you're citing right now? MS. KIMBALL: Chapter 1, the County Code, General Provisions, Section 1-1. Does that apply to the full Code? I don't know. But here you have another definition of"this code." That's why I had the problem with that language before because it's the kind of thing that you might see frequently within the Code itself with other definitions. My question again stands: Is there any unintended consequences with this level of specificity in terms of the Code being referenced when we say, "this code"? Is the way that she's got it worded here the intention of what using the definition that happens earlier in the revision of—in Bill 44? MR. RODENHURST: From this brief review right now, I don't see any places where it would necessarily cause any issues I can identify. It can cause confusion as far as our consistency across the codes, as far as what"this code" is in reviewing the chapter and the use of"this code"throughout the language of the bill, and as far as it interacts with the other lettered chapters of the Chapter 5 Page 91 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Building Code and Administrative Code. But as far as would it cause significant impacts to this chapter, I don't see any at this moment. But again, this is off the brief review we have here today. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Mr. Rodenhurst. Mr. Tanaka? MR. TANAKA: Yeah, not specific to that question—and I think the Director responded to that question to the point. I mean, it's a family of codes, right. "This code"—our Chapter 5 and all our additional sub—well, other chapters, 5A through 517—it's our family of codes. What would be problematic—and the Director mentioned it—is in this amendment it does strike the language "subject to amendments set forth in this chapter." And we have amended "tiny houses," specifically, as well. So, this amendment, by the way it's written: The following appendices in the IRC code are adopted by reference and made part of the Residential Building Code not with any direction to any amendments, right. So, as written into the model code, is that what's intended to be once we are adopting and adding to the IRC as this is written? I don't know. Right? As I read that: The following appendices of the IRC code—appendix—are adopted by reference and made part of the Residential Building Code contained in Chapter 513: Appendix H, Patio Covers; Appendix M, Home Day Care - R3 Occupancy; and Appendix Q, Tiny Houses, of which we have made amendments. Similarly, in the leading chapter to that or, excuse me, the leading paragraph to that Subsection 1, Subsection A, right, it does say, "The International Residential Code for one- and two-family dwellings, as published"would you like me to read the whole thing so I don't get called out?—"in 2017 by the International Code Council" MS. KIMBALL: Sorry, my MR. TANAKA: "Is adopted, by reference made part of this code, subject to any amendments set forth in this chapter." It's very specific to say that we have made amendments to that code, right. And so, that language that we have in the appendices the adoption of the appendices is intentional to say any amendments to those appendices are included in this code as well. MS. KIMBALL: I yield, Chair, for now. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. Page 92 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much, Ms. David. I appreciate that. I thinkI just wanted to say something. When I started doing legislation, Ms. Leslie Chow taught me that when we make code and we write code, it has to be absolutely clear and it has to be simple. I think this amendment is creating clarity and simplifies what was written. Instead of referring to "this code," it just clarifies what code it is. And that's something that I've always kept in my head: create clarity, must be read by anybody anywhere, and be readable and understandable. And our job as legislators is not to write complex code that is confusing, but to write complex code that is simple and understandable. And so again, I think Rebecca just clarified this. The conversation so far has been confusing, but I think the amendment itself is pretty straightforward. I'll be supporting this today. Mahalo. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mr. Inabaoh, Ms. Lee Loy, you had your light on first. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah, I just want to say that reading through this one, I had a problem in one of the previous meetings with this very section. And I can read it a little bit clearer now, so I'll be supporting. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, and I really want to thank Ms. Kimball because she pointed to Chapter 1, right, the definition there. As a user of the Code, when you're a planner you're going to go straight to (Chapter) 25. In this situation, you're going to go straight to (Chapter) 5. That's why we decided to house all of our construction codes together. And so, what I hear the Director saying is we're staying consistent with our construction codes under this Chapter 5, along with what else which is in construction. I didn't want to mix up the definition as it's defined in one chapter for all our codes when I've just had experience with using it—you just go to the one you need and then you look at the definition there, and then you apply that to what you need it for. You're not going to apply a definition from our construction codes to animal control. Right? That's a whole other chapter. So, thank you for helping me understand where you're that up and down. But that's why I'm just trying to keep it consistent for the users who only going go straight to Chapter 5. Whether you're an electrician, whether you're a plumber, whether you're a contractor, you just going look at(Chapter) 5—and they're going to keep pointing there. They're not going to back all the way out to Chapter 1. So, thank you, though. Thank you for helping me. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Kimball, go ahead. Page 93 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. I certainly understand what you're saying. When I want to find something on subdivisions, I go to that chapter. The only problem, this is Chapter 1, right. And so, like, that's just General Provisions. And I'm looking at this from, like, a legal standpoint. And again, I don't have a law background like you do, but I think because this is defined in General Provisions and then we have it defined again in the chapter, I would like to seeI don't like this reference to "this code" in that way. Yes, go ahead. MR. RODENHURST: I had a quick question under the draft bill,page 2, Section 513-1-6, Definitions. It does cite: as used in this chapter, unless it is apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended. And by no means am I an authority on the MS. KIMBALL: I'm sorry, can you point me to the reference again? You said it really fast. MR. RODENHURST: Sorry. So it says: As used in this chapter—citing the definitions—unless it's apparent from the context a different meaning is intended. And then it lists down all the definitions. Would that identify it being "this code" as used in this chapter? MS. KIMBALL: I see where you're going with that. I don't think that that solves my problem with the particular language. And I guess again my question was I don't understand that anything negative happens by putting this additional specificity in these places. And I'm sorry, Mr. Tanaka, that I did not understand some unintended consequence that you pointed out earlier, and I just ask you to explain that again because I was trying to ruminate about it here, and I didn't come to clarity. Thank you. MR. TANAKA: Sure. It's late. We're tired. Okay, so my only real concern with this amendment is the stricken out language that says, "subject to any amendments set forth in this chapter"because we have made amendments to these appendices—Appendix Q, Tiny Houses. But as it reads: The following appendices of the IRC, excuse me, International Residential Code are adopted by reference and made part of the Residential Building Code contained in Chapter 513—with no reference to the amendments that we made for Appendix Q as being allowable. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Okay, yes. Again, I think we have another thing where weI support this. I absolutely support taking out those words—"this code"—out, but that actually does open another can of worms without that. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Tanaka. I yield, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. If no one else, I just would no one needs to say anything? Could I have Corp. Counsel really quick? Thank you, Ms. Schlueter. Speaking to that, can you explain—if we leave out"subject to any Page 94 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 amendments set forth in this chapter," could you explain what would that mean? I know Mr. Tanaka explained that. Because there is that general language, to me it covers anything that we don't know at this point in time that might have been done or any amendments. But if we strike this out,just the "subject to any amendments set forth in this chapter." MS. SCHLUETER: So, my understanding here is that when it says, "The following appendix is added to the International Residential Code and made a part of this code subject to any amendments set forth in this chapter,"I believe we're referring to—and I apologize that I'm going to defer to these guys because they were involved in drafting it—the intent in the reference is to refer to the actual amendments in the bill. So, we're saying that we're adding and incorporating these appendices, subject to any amendments that this Bill 44 is putting forth. CHR. DAVID: Okay, so, it doesn't go forward than that. It's current, subject to any amendments that Bill 44 currently has. Right? MS. SCHLUETER: Set forth in this chapter. Yeah, so, that would be correct currently. So, say in the future, beyond this billso, say this passes and, as we're discussing, a future amendment was proposed that would affect these appendices, then that future ordinance would be an amendment to this chapter. HoweverI guess that's a hypothetical for another day, but currently it will be CHR. DAVID: It will be continuous then. MS. SCHLUETER: Subject to the amendments set forth. CHR. DAVID: It will be subject to any amendments, whether an amendment comes now or later. MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. CHR. DAVID: Okay. All right, I got it. Thank you. So, Mr. Tanaka, without that language, what would that mean for amendments that have already been brought forward? Stricken? MR. TANAKA: It could be interpreted or argued that our amendments would not apply. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Thank you. And thank you for explaining that. That was my only question on this general language about"subject to amendments" is something that's like a catchall—safety to cover everything that might have been done. Okay, I like the rest of the amendments, Ms. Villegas, but this one just is really concerning to me because of the amendments provision. So, okay. Mr. Clerk,please, roll call. Page 95 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 44, Draft 2, with the contents of Amend: Comm. 281.51 failed by the following roll call vote: Failed Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, and Villegas —3. Noes: Council Members Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—4. Absent: Council Members Chung and Richards —2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. All right. Next item, Ms. Villegas. That's it? Okay. All right, on the main motion, Mr. Clerk, Bill 44, Draft 2. Roll call. Vote on Bill 44: The motion to pass Bill 44, Draft 2, on second and final Draft 2 reading was carried by the following roll call vote: (Adopted) Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—5. Noes: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Villegas —2. Absent: Council Members Chung and Richards —2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. Okay, I think we can go to the top of the agenda. Return to Order The Chair directed the Council to return to the order of business. of Business: APPROVAL The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Approval OF MINUTES: of Minutes. (There were none.) COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 311.1: REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED FACILITIES FOR THE HAWAII COUNTY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1-2021 (KALOKO HEIGHTS PROJECT), FILED WITH THE COUNTY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO SECTION 32-21 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE From Environmental Management Director Ramzi Mansour, dated July 30, 2021, transmitting the above report pursuant to Resolution No. 158-21. Page 96 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Vote on Mr. Inaba moved to accept the report and close file on Comm. 311.1: Comm. 311.1. Seconded by Ms. Kimball and carried by Filed the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung and Richards —2. Excused: None. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of RESOLUTIONS: Resolutions. Res. 170-21: AUTHORIZES THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO ENTER INTO (Draft 2) NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF WAI`ELE IN THE DISTRICT OF PUNA, UTILIZING THE PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION FUND The County seeks to acquire the properties to protect archaeological structures, raised trails, and a rare grove of kala trees and to provide access to the shoreline for gathering, educational, recreational, and cultural practices. These parcels consist of approximately 165 acres of land with 2,000 feet of shoreline. Reference: Comm. 333.3 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz Approve: FC-59 Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to adopt Res. 170-21, Draft 2, and Finance Committee Report No. 59. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? MR. BROWN: Excuse me, Madam Chair? CHR. DAVID: Yes, go ahead. MR. BROWN: Just wanted to let you know that Director Sako let me know she's on her way down to the chamber should anyone want to ask her any questions. CHR. DAVID: Oh, thank you very much. Tell her thank you. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of approving Resolution 170-21, Draft 2,please say Ic aye. Page 97 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Vote on Res. 170-21: The motion to adopt Res. 170-21, Draft 2, and Finance Draft 2 Committee Report No. 59 was carried by the following (Adopted) voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung and Richards —2. Excused: None. Res. 171-21: ACCEPTS THE DEDICATION OF ROADWAY LOT A, AREA 2,086 SQUARE FEET, BLOCK 46, WAIAKEA HOUSE LOTS EXTENSION, BEING IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF TAX MAP KEY 2-2-050-043, SITUATED AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, ISLAND AND COUNTY OF HAWAII FROM TREVOR L. RODRIGUES The landholder seeks to dedicate the roadways and all improvements for public roadway purposes. Reference: Comm. 335 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy (B/R) Approve: PWMTC-10 Vote on Res. 171-21: Ms. Lee Loy moved to adopt Res. 171-21 and Public (Adopted) Works and Mass Transit Committee Report No. 10. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung and Richards —2. Excused: None. Res. 172-21: SUPPORTS THE NAMING AND DEDICATION OF THE PAHOA ROUNDABOUT IN MEMORY OF RENS SIRACUSA TO HONOR HER LIFE, LEGACY, AND SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO PUNA Requests the State Department of Transportation to officially name and dedicate the Ren6 Siracusa Pahoa Roundabout. Reference: Comm. 336 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz Approve: PWMTC-11 Page 98 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to adopt Res. 172-21 and Public Works and Mass Transit Committee Report No. 11. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I just want to thank my colleagues for their support on this and community members for really elevating the exceptional person that Rene Siracusa was. And I do want to report that the Department of Transportation moved rather quickly on this. They actually already erected the sign, so I'm really grateful at how speedy everything was. I think they were under the impression that once it cleared Committee, it was a done deal. I don't think they realized that we, as a Council, needed to approve the resolution. So, I appreciate how proactive they were in making this happen for community. So, thank you. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much for that, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Anyone else? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, if I could? CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Rene was a force in our community. I mean, from the first day I stepped into this job until she left us, she was always just an amazing person. So, mahalo. Mahalo for this, Ms. Kierkiewicz. And I just think it's a great way to honor her memory. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Yes, thank you very much for that, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving Resolution 172-21, please say "aye." Vote on Res. 172-21: The motion to adopt Res. 172-21 and Public Works and (Adopted) Mass Transit Committee Report No. 11 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair David—7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung and Richards —2. Excused: None. Page 99 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Res. 174-21: AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Funds in the amount of$48,880 would be used to continue the Cooperative Flood-Monitoring Program, which consists of the planning and designing of flood management systems such as bridges, culverts, and levees. Reference: Comm. 338 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Approve: FC-60 Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 174-21 and Finance Committee Report No. 60. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I do have some questions. I looked over the Committee report for this; I wasn't here for the first reading at Committee. I just had a follow-up question for the Director if he's still there. CHR. DAVID: Yes, he is. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Wonderful. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Director Rodenhurst. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Let me know when you're ready. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Steven Rodenhurst came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. RODENHURST: Yes. Ikaika Rodenhurst, DPW Director. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, sir. Okay, I looked over the Committee report, and I think this is for island-wide flood monitoring programs. Is that correct? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. At the existing stations that we currently have. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, that's a yes or a no? Correct as in the existing stations island-wide, or correct as in this is only for existing stations? MR. RODENHURST: It's for existing stations that are island-wide in that they're not restricted to one district, but do not encompass all the districts. Page 100 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, what districts does this cover? Because if you're looking at the report, it looks like it was from Hilo to Waimea. Is that correct? MR. RODENHURST: Yes, that is correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And does this flood-monitoring program only cover streams, or does it cover any flood-prone area? MR. RODENHURST: It covers the eight stations covered. I apologize, I'm having some technical difficulties pulling that up. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Take your time. MR. RODENHURST: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, yes what? MR. RODENHURST: Yes, eight. I'm sorry, was the question, "eight"? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Does it cover seasonal streams or does it cover permanent streams, that amount? I don't know if this is correct, the language for that, but what is it covering the stations? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, I apologize. I'm having a hard time bringing up my files. So, I don't have the exact locations pulling up just yet, but they are in selected streams that we monitor the annual peak stream flow in each stream. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then as you stated, that's from, sounds like, Districts 1 and 2 maybe—maybe 3. I'm just going from what I got in the Committee report; it says from Hilo to Waimea. I was just interested in this because I know we have flooding across the island. I was just wondering what those funds were being expended towards. MR. RODENHURST: And I apologize; I don't have a list right in front of me. I did list it off at the last meeting, so let me grab that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I guess I can give you some reasoning behind where I'm going with that. The Puna area, I mean, we have constant flooding. And a lot of my district, actually, is a flood zone; not exactly represented on maps, but it is a flood zone. So, I'm wondering if these funds could be applied towards the other districts other than the eight stations that we use data to collect. Page 101 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. RODENHURST: So, as discussed at the Committee meeting, we are in talks in collaboration with Civil Defense as far as getting additional study sites as according to our Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. When are these talks occurring? MR. RODENHURST: I don't have the meeting dates specifically in front of me, but we are in current conversations with them with our Engineering Division. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Well, I think the Engineering Division is quite aware of the flood study for Puna that was done in 2006. I would be remiss without mentioning to you that it is of extreme importance to Hawaiian Acres as well as Fern Forest, Fern Acres, all the way down to Orchidland and to the highway where the stream crosses. And any data that would be collected would be amazing and helpful for the district that you have good knowledge on. MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, and I totally agree with that. We are working with Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate that study that you brought up. I understand it's been around and needing attention from them for some time. And so, we are asking Army Corps of Engineers to help us with that. They were not able to get to it this fiscal year, but we are in talks to see if we can get their support in this coming fiscal year. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, 2019, I put out a resolution to do a floodplain management study which is free with the help of Army Corps of Engineers, and we did not receive funding through their agency that year. So, I just would really push that you guys look at that—sorry, that the Administration, DPW (Department of Public Works), Engineering, whoever it is, look at that area because it'swe have existing problems that need to be addressed. And it's just going to get worse the more we infill. So, thank you for answering my question. Just please take those comments with urgency back to this group so that you can hopefully get some forward progress on doing flood monitoring in the area. MR. RODENHURST: Thank you. And if I can clarify, you are correct that these eight stations really do go from Hilo to Hawi. They don't necessarily cover areas of Kona, Ka`u, and Puna, as discussed. And like I mentioned, we are in talks to get more monitoring stations under possibly future contracts with USGS (United States Geological Survey), or seeing what else we can do. I know there were some questions that were brought up at the last meeting. Some of them I can answer right now, or I can wait to have some comments coming forward. If you don't mind, I can get into some of those questions now. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, I mean, I don't want to take up too much time. We're running over tonight. Page 102 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. RODENHURST: Okay. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But if you have some good information for us that is good to share, then yes, please go ahead. MR. RODENHURST: Well, I'll wait till we get the (inaudible) questions and then I'll answer from there. So, I do hear what you're saying, and I do recognize that we have that outstanding flood study in Puna. And we are working towards getting that addressed with the Army Corps of Engineers and in talks with them to encourage them to study that as well. So, appreciate that. Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. And just what caught me was it says, "island-wide funding,"yet it's only being applied to part of the island. So, that's what got me. That's what drove my questions. MR. RODENHURST: I appreciate that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Rodenhurst. I yield, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I got a call from Mr. Thompson and Ms. Matsumoto because some of the questions that we got into last time were philosophical questions about, "Is this data actually being used to make decisions," and the bottom line of our conversation was, yes, data is used. It is important and we need more of these monitors. I reassured them that we weren't going to vote against taking this money, but it was more of a philosophical discussion about thinking about what data we actually collect. And in cases like this where the data is important and is used to make decisions like how to design bridges and whatnot. But we should make sure that we are collecting, and collecting them adequately. So, you guys can either trust me on this or ask Mr. Rodenhurst to explain in more detail how they use the data. But it is pretty clear that this is one of the cases where we collect data, and it is highly useful for decision-making. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving Resolution 174-21, please say "aye." Page 103 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Vote on Res. 174-21: The motion to adopt Res. 174-21 and Finance Committee (Adopted) Report No. 60 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Res. 175-21: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR LEASE FOR ONE MULTI-FUNCTION COPY MACHINE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a five-year lease agreement with an approximate monthly cost of$250, and would be used by the department's Real Property Tax Division in Kona. Reference: Comm. 339 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Approve: FC-61 Vote on Res. 175-21: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 175-21 and (Adopted) Finance Committee Report No. 61. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. Page 104 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Res. 176-21: AUTHORIZES THE ACCEPTANCE OF ALL DONATIONS OF SECURITIES OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TO THE COUNTY OF HAWAII WITHIN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR (FY2022) THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE'S CAPITALIZATION PROCEDURES Authorizes the Council to accept all donations of commodities not covered by the Finance Department's capitalization procedures,provided that at the end of each fiscal year the Finance Director shall submit a report of the donations received to the Council. Reference: Comm. 340 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Approve: FC-62 and Comm. 340.1: From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated August 4, 2021, transmitting a proposed amendment to Res. 176-21. Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 176-21 and Finance Committee Report No. 62. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Motion to Amend: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to amend Res. 176-21 with the contents of Comm. 340.1. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. DAVID: Discussion on the amendments? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, is Ms. Sako there? MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: The amendments are very simple. Ms. Sako is here and she did wait patiently all day in that chair. She has not moved, waiting for this moment to come forward. CHR. DAVID: Well, by all means let her speak. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Council, via videoconferencing from Hilo.) MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Okay. We would love to hear from you, Ms. Sako, if you want to explain this simple yet firm amendment you brought forward. MS. SAKO: Yes. So, as was discussed last time, since this is the first time we're doing something like this to accept the smaller items and some of the cash Page 105 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 donations, we thought it would be better to report quarterly, as mentioned by the Council Members. So, this is the amendment that was discussed at Committee. And so, we're happy to bring it forward. If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Sako. Anything else from Council Members? All right then. On the amendment amending Resolution 176-21 with the contents of Communication 340.1,please say "aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Res. 176-21 with the contents of Amend: Comm. 340.1 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. MR. HENRICKS: Madam Chair CHR. DAVID: Back to the main motion. MR. HENRICKS: Would you like to entertain a motion to suspend the rules? CHR. DAVID: Oh, by all means. Vote on Motion to Ms. Lee Loy moved to suspend Council Rule 24 to waive Suspend Council the holdover for the substantive amendment of Rules: Res. 176-21. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the (Approved) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. MR. HENRICKS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Now you'd go to the main motion, as amended. CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry? Page 106 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 MR. HENRICKS: Now you can proceed to take further discussion or vote on the main motion, as amended. CHR. DAVID: Right. On the main motion, as amended, any discussion? Ms. Kierkiewicz. Oh, I see your light on. Okay. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, I talked to Deanna briefly about this. Just trying to wrap my head around it, but also I was liking the efficiency of it. I mean, even from my office, I'm going to start moving forward with waiving some of the donations and the copier machines straight to Council from now on. I discussed this with Laura and briefly via email with you, Chair,just to create less documentation. Not to be skipping the transparent process of our democratic process but just to make things a little bit quicker and move things through that are fairly benign, like copy machine leases and donations, you know, for the Fire Department, things like that. So, I think this is a good step towards being a little bit more efficient and creating smoother flow throughout the County process. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, for that statement. Given that, all those in favor of approving Resolution 176-21, as amended, please say Ic aye. Vote on Res. 176-21: The motion to adopt Res. 176-21, as amended to Draft 2, Draft 2 and Finance Committee Report No. 62 was carried by the (Adopted) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. Page 107 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Res. 188-21: AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND FINANCE, PURSUANT TO HAWAII REVISED STATUTES SECTION 46-7, FOR A GRANT TO THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Allows for the receipt of$9.5 million in Federally-derived funds, which would be used to implement a homeowner assistance fund program for households impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Reference: Comm. 357 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Waived: FC Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 188-21. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: This is a great opportunity for our County. And I think as we look at this Delta variant and what it's doing and looking at possible restrictions, whatever that may mean, I think the homeowner assistance program or any funding back into our community will be much-needed. So, I think everyone will support this today. Thank you, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. And I note before I call on Ms. Kierkiewicz, I noted that this was waived from Finance. So, Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I'm not sure if Director Sako is going to be fielding questions on this one. If she's still there, I just have a couple. CHR. DAVID: Is Ms. Sako still there? MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: She's coming. CHR. DAVID: Okay, great. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Council, via videoconferencing from Hilo.) MS. SAKO: Hello. I can answer some questions. This is primarily coming through the department of housing but we're happy to help. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thanks, DeannaI mean, Director. I really appreciate you being here. And just grateful that our Federal partners were listening to a lot of us who saw that the ERAP program, Emergency Rental Assistance (Program), was certainly doing its job. But there were a lot of homeowners that also needed Page 108 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 assistance, and this is what this program is designed to do. Deanna,just help me understand the mechanics for this program. So, we have third parties that are helping to administer ERAP. Are we looking at the same model for distributing funds for this program, or is this something that's going to be handled in-house by Housing? MS. SAKO: No, I'm pretty sure we're doing the same program with the third parry. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Do you have a sense of when this program would be set up? I know that there's a lot behind the scenes logistics-wise to coordinate, but do you have a timeframe? MS. SAKO: We can move fairly quickly, especially if this resolution is approved today. Then, what we did with some of the other programs is we did a shortened RFP (Request for Proposals)process. So, we didn't leave it out there for the whole 30 days. We left it out there for, like, maybe ten days or two weeks or something. So, we would try to do the same thing with this as well. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And my final question, I'm sorry. It's been a long day, so I might have glazed over it in the resolution and the B-52, but how long do we have to spend this money? MS. SAKO: The State has been trying to spend both their CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act and their rescue plan money. So, I do not have that one in front of me. So, I don't remember which bucket of funds this is coming from. CARES Act, we have a much shorter timeframe to spend it. If it's the rescue plan, then it'll be 2025, I think. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, three years. Okay, great. That's helpful. And so we'll look to details, I think, coming from Housing on this so we can help to promote this program to a lot of folks in our community that certainly do need a little extra assistance. MS. SAKO: Yeah, and I think a lot of people are waiting for this program. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, excellent. Thanks, Director. I appreciate it. Chair, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving Resolution 188-21,please say "aye." Page 109 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Vote on Res. 188-21: The motion to adopt Res. 188-21 was carried by the (Adopted) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, can I make a motion to waive the five-day hold on Resolution 188-21, please? CHR. DAVID: Sure. Vote on Motion to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to suspend Council Suspend Council Rule 15 to waive the 5-day hold for reconsideration. Rules: Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mahalo, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for ORDINANCES Ordinances (First Reading). (FIRST READING): (Note: Items in this category were taken up previously, out of order.) Page 110 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Bill 58: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL— 7,500 SQUARE FEET (CG-7.5) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-2-024:022 (Applicants: John Wagner and Charlene Iboshi) (Area: 19,295 square feet) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicants to formalize the existing commercial use of the property as general office space and allow for future land uses permitted in the General Commercial District. The property is located at 1290 Kino`ole Street, southwest corner of Kino`ole and Lono Street intersection. Reference: Comm. 332 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Approve: PC-27 Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to pass Bill 58 on first reading and adopt Planning Committee Report No. 27. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I don't believe that the applicant or the representative is on, but we did have, I think, a very thorough discussion in Committee. Very straightforward request. And so,just looking for everyone's continued support on this measure. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving Bill 58 at first reading, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 58: The motion to pass Bill 58 on first reading and adopt (Approved) Planning Committee Report No. 27 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. Page 111 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Bill 61: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 21-38, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 Appropriates revenues in the Federal —Hawai`i Island Homeowner Assistance Program account($9,500,000); and appropriates the same to the Hawaii Island Homeowner Assistance Program. Funds would be used to implement a homeowner assistance fund program for households impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Reference: Comm. 357 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Waived: FC Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 61 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: We just discussed Resolution 188-21, I think, which really goes over the details of the funds in Bill 61. So, I think everyone should be more than happy to proceed with this bill as written. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving Bill 61 at first reading, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 61: The motion to pass Bill 61 on first reading was carried by (Approved) the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of THE DAY the Day (Second or Final Reading). (SECOND OR FINAL READING): (Note: Bill 44, Draft 2, was taken up previously, out of order.) Bill 54: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 21-38, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 Appropriates revenues in the Federal —Housing Choice Emergency Housing Voucher Program account($1,250,000) and the Federal —Housing Choice Page 112 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Emergency Housing Voucher Program Administration account($650,000); and appropriates the same to the Housing Choice Emergency Voucher Program account($1,250,000) and the Office of Housing Other Current Expenses account ($650,000), for a total appropriation of$1.9 million. Funds would be used for immediate start-up costs, payment of rental assistance for eligible participants, and administrative fees. Reference: Comm. 322 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) First Reading: August 4, 2021 Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 54 on second and final reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Any other discussion, or any discussion? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I just wanted to follow up with you, Chair David. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You had asked Ms. Kunz for a list of partnering organizations for the program. Did you receive that? CHR. DAVID: I'm not sure if I got that yet. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It was in our Committee meeting. I just wanted to follow up on that. CHR. DAVID: Right. Okay, I will make a note and send her an email tomorrow. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I yield, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving Bill 54 at second and final reading, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 54: The motion to pass Bill 54 on second and final reading was (Adopted) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. Page 113 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Bill 55: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 21-38, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 Appropriates revenues in the Federal Grants —Block Grants account($41,851); and appropriates the same to the Kiheipua Emergency Shelter—Certified Kitchen Construction account($2,082) and the Administration, Planning and Fair Housing account($39,769), for a total appropriation of$41,851. Funds would be used towards housing and related needs of persons of low and moderate income throughout the island. Reference: Comm. 323 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) First Reading: August 4, 2021 Vote on Bill 55: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 55 on second (Adopted) and final reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. Bill 59: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 21-38, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 Appropriates revenues in the Federal Grants —Section 5311 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act(CRRSAA) account($8,000,270); and appropriates the same to the Section 5311 (CRRSAA) account. Funds would be used by the Mass Transit Agency for operational costs and to purchase five buses. Reference: Comm. 344 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) First Reading: August 4, 2021 Page 114 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18,2021 Vote on Bill 59: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 59 on second (Adopted) and final reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: I think that brings us to the end of our agenda. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ms. David? CHR. DAVID: Yes? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I would like to waive the five-day hold on Bills 54, 55, and 59, if possible. Vote on Motion to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to suspend Council Suspend Council Rule 15 to waive the 5-day hold for reconsideration on Bill Rules for Bill Nos. 54, 55, and 59. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by Nos. 54, 55, and 59: the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just want to make sure we expedite that funding into our community. CHR. DAVID: Yes, good call. Thank you very much. REPORTS: The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Reports. (Note: Items in this category were taken up previously, out of order.) REFERRALS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Referrals EXECUTIVE for Executive Session. SESSION: Page 115 Hawaii County Council-21 August 18.2021 (There were none.) OTHER The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Other BUSINESS: Business. (There were none.) ANNOUNCE- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business. MENTS: Announcements. (There were none.) ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 6:55 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members hlaba. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy. and Chair David—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Chung, Richards, and Villegas—3. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: All right, we are adjourned. And thank you so much, everyone, for this long day. Council Approval: SEP 2 2 2021 COUNTY ---1.4"41°11. JH/dg Page 116