Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUD 2023/01/24 (2022-2024) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development 2nd Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii January 24, 2023 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Development was called to order at 1:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if we could please take up the item on our agenda, Bill 194. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 Bill 194: AMENDS CHAPTER 25 ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, SECTION 25-2-44, OF (2020-2022) THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATED TO CONDITIONS ON CHANGE OF ZONE Clarifies that the Planning Director may not extend the time allowed to satisfy conditions within a change of zone ordinance unless specifically authorized by the County Council. Reference: Comm. 898 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba Referred to Planning Director and Planning Commissions: August 16, 2022 Postponed: January 5, 2023 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. David, to recommend passage of Bill 194 on first reading.) ; and Comm. 898.11: From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated November 7, 2022, transmitting for Council's consideration and action, the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions' letters and enclosures. ; and Comm. 898.12: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated November 14, 2022, transmitting the transcripts from the Leeward Planning Commission's October 20, 2022, meeting. ; and Comm. 898.20: From Council Member Holeka Goro Inaba, dated January 18, 2023, transmitting a proposed amendment to Bill 194. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And I just want to acknowledge that we have our Planning Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Director Jeff Darrow joining us in Hilo Chambers. Thank you, gentlemen, we appreciate your presence. Mr. Inaba, you have the floor, please kick off discussion. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. In our board today, we have Communication No. 898.20, and this is an amendment that was put together based on our discussion at first reading in Hilo for Planning Committee. So, at this time, I'd like to make a motion to amend Bill 194 with the contents of Communication No. 898.20 Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 194 with the contents of Comm. 898.20. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. Page 2 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. Based on that discussion in Hilo, I did to kind of walk our way through this amendment. So starting in Subsection (c), actually in Subsection (b), I readded the language that said, "unless the Council authorizes the changes or alterations to be made by the director." So initially, that former discussion we had, I removed that, but we're going to leave that just in case there are certain circumstances or conditions that we do want to grant the director, you know, the authority to make certain changes or alterations without having to come back to us. So, that was readded. Now, the meat of this amendment before us, is Subsection (c), and I heard loud and clear, the concern of not being able to grant any time extensions where other conditions might be altered by another Council down the road. So, what is being proposed in this amendment is the ability for an applicant to come and get a time extension. That time extension, however, is granted by the Council via resolution, and this helps to preserve the integrity and the original intent of the original rezoning ordinance. So, a future Council can't come in and say, "hey let's look at Condition (c), and say, no, you have to build this road 20 feet wider than what the original goal was." So, this allows for public input, and the only time the Council should be granting a time extension is when, again, those same circumstances that the Planning Department currently uses, that being unforeseen circumstances; circumstances outside the control of the applicant, that it wouldn't be contrary to the General Plan; wouldn't be contrary to original reasons for the original rezoning. We couldn't grant a period longer than the original. So, if an applicant only needs one more year, there's just one condition that needs to be completed. It's up to the Council at that time, and based on the request we receive, we really shouldn't be granting a ten-year extension if there's just, you know, one tiny piece left to the puzzle needing completion. If you look at Subsection (c) (5), it makes it very clear that an applicant needing a time extension needs to put that request in to the department prior to the expiration of the original rezoning ordinance. So, if the applicant does not, say it's five years they've been granted, they need to come in before year-five is up. They can't come in at year-six or year-seven asking the Council for a time extension. Also, thanks to our department and Council Member Lee Loy, we increased the filing fee to $500, to be kind of in-line with other requests of that type in this Chapter. So, happy to hear any questions or concerns my colleagues might have, but this was the attempt to allow for time extensions for unforeseen circumstances, yet having that be a public process. Page 3 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 Being that this body is the original granter of the rezoning ordinance, we should be the one to review it, if in fact, there are those conditions, or those unforeseen circumstances requiring a time extension. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Any questions or comments? Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. This is for Planning Director. So, if this passes, when people come in to ask for an initial time period for building out their project, do you think this will have an effect of it going for maybe 10 years or 15 years, for example, and would that be allowed? I mean, I don't know enough currently, to know if you can go up to 15 years. But, if you could go up to 15 years and that's allowed, would that become maybe the new norm? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Aloha, Zendo Kern, Planning Director here in Hilo. Thank you for the question. The timing on within any of those conditions can be adjusted. We've seen in certain cases, maybe there's no timing condition. So, as I mentioned at the previous hearing, there are may applications that a longer time period may work; there are some that no time period may be needed. The condition is dynamic, and it can be adjusted pretty much in whatever way is workable and usable for the project. Does that answer your question? MS. EVANS: So, it kind of does. So, if this passes, would there be a change in the way we do business today? MR. KERN: If this passes, I think there would be a change in how business is done. I think it would create a lot more uncertainty for somebody who's going through the process that's already very uncertain. When they go through and get their approval, we'll look at a timing that would possibly be longer than we have our initial timing done now, which is consistent with what Council Member Inaba was talking about prior. Like, you know, he was saying if it's 10 years, let's make it 10 years. So, it would be taking that approach. But, as I also said, depending on what kind of will is of the Council, we can have that, you know, condition pretty consistent with what that is. MS. EVANS: Okay, I have another question but I'll wait. Hopefully, there's more discussion. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Evans, do you yield? Okay, great. Thank you. Anyone else? Chair Kimball. Page 4 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Director and Deputy,just, if you can delve into your thoughts on this proposed amendment? Then, I just had a procedural question for either you or for the Clerk, as to whether or not this is significantly different enough from what was presented to the Planning commissions, that it would have to be referred back or can we proceed forward at this point? MR. KERN: Thank you, Council Member for the question. So overall, my feeling is that this isn't necessary because right now the Council does have the ability to adjust these conditions to be dynamic, and we can really cover a lot of this. There are additional concerns about additional processing, red tape, and procedure. That's concerning when we are in need of housing; when we're in need of good projects, and that's for us to vet out on the onset of those. When Hawaii County is on top of the list from the UHERO (University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization)report on the most restrictive; the most hardest to work with; the most onerous process. I don't think that's moving in the direction that we want. That's my personal opinion and as a Planning Director, that I think that the way it is now allows us to make the conditions whatever they should be in collaboration with the Planning Department and the County Council. I believe that it is substantial enough. This is very, very different than what was originally proposed, but that's my opinion. I would like to hand it over to Deputy Director Jeff Darrow for his, you know, opinion and insight on this, as he has worked on these applications for many, many years. MR. DARROW: Thank you, Zendo. Aloha, Committee Chair and Members of the Planning Committee. You know, we've taken a good look at the proposed language, and we have a couple concerns. Number one is whether or not in regards to this process, that it's circumventing the County Charter in regards to the duties and functions of the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. Under Section 6-7.5, Subsection (3), one of their duties and functions is to, "Review proposed subdivision and zoning ordinances and amendments thereto and transmit such ordinances with recommendations thereon through the Mayor to the Council for consideration and action." It's just a concern. We realize that this particular process is using something that is different. That is, an applicant would submit a request, and it would be approved through resolution. So, another question in regards to legality is whether or not a resolution can be used in that manner as far as changing an ordinance or extending a time of an ordinance. The other concern that we had, there's some, you know, areas that if this does move forward, we'd want to adjust as far as sections in the code. But when it comes to process, we're trying to figure out the process of how this would even work in the sense that, you know again, we talk about how it works on the ground. Page 5 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 So, an applicant receives an ordinance, it has a timeframe. The initial extension is requested. It appears that it would have to come into the Planning Department. From there it is unclear. Does the Planning Department provide a recommendation? Do they do a background report and a recommendation? Do they provide all the information of the criteria to the Council for the criteria listed for an initial time extension? Does it go to the planning commissions? Does it not go to the planning commissions? Again, is it approved by changing the ordinance or through a resolution? Again, those are some of the concerns we have with the proposed language moving forward. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Director and Deputy. Director, I'm sorry I didn't say so before, but I hope you're feeling better. MR. KERN: Thank you, 95. MS. KIMBALL: Oh, good. My follow-up question then to you both would be, you know, how many time extensions are we granting on a quarterly basis at this point? MR. KERN: I don't have the exact number, but I haven't signed anything this year, but it's very minimal. Most of them that we see are the ones that ultimately have lost all their time and are stale and have come back through the entire process. But very few administrative time extensions. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Mr. Clerk, can you weigh in on, if you don't mind, whether or not this is different enough that it would have to be referred back, or are we okay moving forward under the rules? MR. HENRICKS: The County Code is silent on what would occur if a bill that's already come through the commission and Director is changed. It just talks about referring the bill to the director and commissions prior to first reading, and that has been done. MS. KIMBALL: Great. Thank you. I'm just finally—Council Member Inaba, I want to thank you for really listening to everybody on this committee and making some significant adjustments to the language, which I think really clarify your intent. It definitelyI feel heard, so thank you. Just wanted to ask, so you had somebody from Corp. Counsel working with you on this, and did you talk about the legal issue that the Deputy raised at all? Then, after that, I'll yield Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. Page 6 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 MR. INABA: Yes, I did work with Corporation Counsel Strance, the County Clerk, and others in LRB (Legislative Research Branch), regarding because the resolution doesn't amend the original ordinance. But if we're putting into code now, that resolution can grant the extension, then it's possible. But if you'd like to hear directly from Corporation Counsel, we can do that. Again, we went with this resolution route to preserve the integrity of the original rezoning ordinance. If not, if someone comes in at year-five for a time extension and we're only doing it as an amendment to the original bill, the whole original bill is fair game for further amendments, which is not what we necessarily want here. We want to only be able to grant them additional time to meet the original conditions of the rezone. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member. I yield, Chair. Mahalo. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Just real quick, I like what you brought before us, and I like that you've done so much balancing between what the Council said and what the department has said what Corporation Counsel is looking for. You have a good product, and I think it's ready to go to Council. I'll be supporting this today. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. When I read this, there's one thing that's not in here that concerns me, and that is what is considered when a developer or someone is working on the conditions. Let's say they get 80 percent of them done, and they just need the last 20 percent. There's nothing, no language or no consideration in here for how much the person has actually done to achieve the conditions of the ordinance. It's missing and I would love to hear your opinion on that. MR. INABA: Council Member Evans is that a question for the department? MS. EVANS: I'm sorry, for the department. MR. KERN: If I understand the question right, as the way it's written right now, there is no provision to take into account how much work was done, how many conditions were done, how much investment has been made. The way it's written, that would be at the purview of the Council. MS. EVANS: So, to me that's the thing that's missing that concerns me because I don't want this to be kind of a red flag for someone who wants to develop property, and then they see that maybe if they worked very diligently, but somehow something happens and they only get 80 percent of it done; and they ask Page 7 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 for an extension to finish the last 20. Then we have this uncertainty that we're putting in this language. I have concerns on that. Do you want to comment on that? MR. KERN: I do believe it will affect applicants and how comfortable they are with making the investments and going through the process, because they get something pulled at the last minute. It could also be additionally politicized potentially. It makes it very challenging. We see that now. We do not see a lot of projects going on. We see a lot of projects that are trying to figure out how to make them work. So, I think having more uncertainty creates additional challenges to solve the problems that we need from housing to economics. And this creates another level of uncertainty. MS. EVANS: Okay, so, I was doing some research in State law that looked at how we give the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) the ability to do time extensions. And one idea that didn't show up here, but might work, is they or the board or department gives the Administrator the ability to do an extension times-certain. So, what they said is, you have the ability to extend but you can't do it—let's say, in this particular section of the law, it was two years. So, if they came back to you and say, "we want to grant the extension." They said, "okay, Administrator, you can do it based on what you know, but you can only do it up to two years." After that, all bets are off. You have to go to the Chair of the DLNR Board; you have to go back through the process with the Chair of the DLNR Board; if you're going to do what they would call another extension on an extension. So, that's not here, so there's not ability for you to use your personal judgement, as an Administrator saying, well, based on what I know, I have the authority to give you up to two years, let's say. After that all bets are off. You will have to go, you know, back to the board and through the process. That's not in here as an interim. What do you think of that idea? MR. KERN: Well, actually that is exactly how it has been administered for probably as long as I've been alive where there's an initial time given. Let's say five years in this case or in the case that you mentioned of DLNR, the two years. The administrative time extension that is approved by ordinance in the rezoning only gives the department the ability to extend for the same period that was originally granted. So, if it was for five years, you could only be admin time extension for an additional five years and only one time. If it was two years, then it's only for the two years and only one time. Once that one time is up, as you say, all bets are off. The zoning ordinance is stale as we call it, and it needs to go through the entire process again. It comes back through the Planning Department. We do a full review for concurrency, and then look at it again, you know, all the plans. Then it goes back to the appropriate planning commission and back up to the County Council for approval or Page 8 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 non-approval. So, the way you explained the process is the way that we've currently been doing it. This takes that ability away. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: You may or may not have this. But, could you give me an estimate of how many stale ordinances there are? MR. KERN: That's a good question. I don't actually have that data right here. I'd say that there's a good number of those, probably more that I would say than having an admin time extension. Because again, we get very few admin time extensions each year. Anyone that's stale, again, has to come through the entire process. I know that there's a number in Kona; maybe a couple in the Waikoloa area. They're around. MS. GALIMBA: So, like less than 100, more than 12? MR. KERN: I wouldn't be doing a service to give a number on that. I can try do some digging though, and see what we can come up with. MS. GALIMBA: That would be great as well as those that would be eligible for administrative time extensions. MR. KERN: So, I touched base with my program manager on the admin time extension, and on average we might see like three to five in a year. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Director, I'm just not quite understanding this, so help me, sorry. Why are you saying that this would be more uncertain? Is that because currently, if people ask for an admin time extension, they're virtually guaranteed one, so they're certain of it orI mean, I don't understand why it's more uncertainty than it is currently. MR. KERN: Because, generally speaking, if the applicant meets the criteria, and they can show that that criteria is there, then you know, it's granted and they can keep moving forward with the project. Page 9 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 As soon as you take in another public hearing side of it. No offense because we're all in politics to some degree, but you bring the political element in there. Anytime you bring a political element in there, you're going to have uncertainty even if it's meeting the criteria. Just as we've seen prior applications and meet all the criteria that would be suited for a project, but still wasn't voted in favor of when it was voted down. So, I think when you have an applicant looking at it or a landowner from seeing that and having the political element adds a huge level of uncertainty versus working with the department. Hey, here's what I've done; here's what we've shown to be able to do it. Then move forward with that. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, so currently if they meet the criteria, they basically know they're going to get the time extension. Is that what you're saying? MR. KERN: Yeah, if they meet the criteria, the time extension is granted. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you for clarifying that. I yield. MR. KERN: No problem. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: I suppose, I'd just like a little bit of clarification, Director Kern, when you talk about political and then your example, it kind of seemed to imply that, you know, the voting is based on political whether or not a project goes through or gets that time extension. MR. KERN: I think anytime you're in front of a body, there's politics in it. And if you're in front of a body for an approval—come again? MS. VILLEGAS: I said, the definition of politics is the science of government. So, I supposed I'm a little confused, you know, having the challenging role of sitting up here, and it's our job as elected officials voted into office by the members of our constituency and our districts. Our job is then to make decisions based on the information we have at hand for the greatest good of the people and the place that we represent. The challenge I see with allowing for most commonly—and thanks for your question, Council Member Kagiwada. It does point out the difference. It's almost just a given that you would get an administrative time extension, which allows a certain amount of comfort and security. But a decade, which is the norm; a five-year period and then an additional five years. A decade is a long time. Page 10 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 What we are navigating as representatives of our districts and in this tumultuous time of constant change. I know in my district we are having perpetual flooding episodes in corridors that weren't known to flood,but every 100 years. Sometimes a lot of dynamic change is happening, and we look at, you know potential for a property to go from five years to ten years. That puts us in a whole other decade which also changes those circumstances. I feel, for myself, and this is why I'll be supporting this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Inaba for going back and really diving deep into the nitty-gritty, as it relates to this legislation. I don't think that it should just be a given, and as we look at ranges of capacity in our communities based on infrastructure restrictions, I think we really have to get down to the nitty-gritty and make sure we aren't moving things forward as a guarantee. Historically, the instances of prospecting and developments; buying large lots of property for relatively inexpensive and banking on, you know, theoretically building things, but they end up selling it at massive profit margins. The community doesn't get what we need, and those things are still on the books. I suppose to me, three to five administrative time extensions a year is kind of a lot. So, those are just kind of my views on that and with the challenges of being in a position of leadership and government. Politics is the science of government. We're in a constant dynamic hot seat of representing our constituents and the Administration as well. So, thank you for listening to my musings here and help in clarifying a little bit on this, but I will be supporting this legislation today. Mahalo. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I'm going to go back to my discussion about what the DLNR does with extensions. It just seems tome that what we're missing is a little bit more guidance on you making decisions about extensions. So you know, it's one thing that someone is in at five years and comes back maybe two years. But it's another thing when someone has it for ten years and comes back and asks for ten years. So, I think that there's kind of a rub going on right now about, you know, how long do we really give the person to develop something before it's really unreasonable? That, you know, somehow this is just an unreasonable request, and without the guidance to you as the Planning Director, it seems more subjective; like personal versus like guiding decisions on what it would take for you say, "yes." As a matter of fact, it should be an extended base because it's met this bar so to speak that we've said, if you meet these conditions, bam, bam, bam. Of course, they should get an extension. So, it says to me that what we have right now isn't working, but I must say, as it's written right now, I can't support this language as written. So, thank you, I yield. Page 11 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. To respond to what seems to be unclear language, numbers (1)through(4)under Subsection (c) come directly from the language that the Planning Department currently uses in each bill for a change of zone. The only difference here is the addition of number(5),which says, "the applicant needs to come and request the time extension prior to the expiration." Because right now, we have applicants coming in after the five years are up, and then we're granting them up to whatever your 10 was going to be. So, it's really for the Council to determine. I don't think there are any parameters or framework that we could apply that would be universal to any change of zone ordinance. So, what we look at is, if an applicant comes forth to the Council saying, I've met Conditions A through Y, and Z is the only one I didn't complete. I originally had five years, I'm asking for five years. That would be for that Council at the time to determine does Condition Z really need five years, or is the resolution amended and you get two years to complete Condition Z? I just don't see, however, where we can put a framework that is all encompassing on whether an application say, meets the 80 percent check-off mark, and yes, we're going to give them the extension, or no, we're not. Right now, however, these determinations are being made outside the public purview by the department. We don't know who has gotten administrative time extensions and for what reason. So, the point of putting it in this resolution format is that nine people on the Council will evaluate the progress of the conditions being met and so see, is the request for a time extension realistic, and were attempts made to meet the conditions in the original timeframe? If they were, then it's more than fair to grant the time extension. In the public process and there's a resolution tying it to the original rezoning ordinance. Right now, there's no record of anything, except record between the Planning Department with a letter to the applicant, saying "you have another five years." But doesn't get tied to our rezoning ordinances in our recordkeeping. So, if we go to look at something, we won't know. It seems like it's expired, but they could have gotten an extension. I don't think that's good transparency for government, not even for private landownership. So again, this makes it very clear and it brings the authority of granting time extensions to the Council who is the body in charge of the original granting of a change of zone. Chair, I yield. Page 12 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Galimba, did you have your light on? MS. GALIMBA: I guess I think there's a part of this that I really appreciate. I guess the part that I'm a little worried about is that, I think that there's all kinds of change of zone requests, and some of them are for large projects and some of them are for really small projects. You know,just like a couple of acres and very appropriate. It might be someone that doesn't have a lot of money to come back to it, you know, get a consultant and go back to this whole process. They are actually doing things that are helpful for their community as far as providing more housing for their rural community by subdividing. So, that's something that is a little troubling for me about it. We'd be creating especially more friction for someone like that. So, that's just something perhaps to think about in this process. I think there is definitely some room for more—on the extension process, I would agree with you on that. So, those are my thoughts. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, you yield? MS. GALIMBA: Yes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, Chair Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Listening to the conversation, I have a question that's sort of philosophical, I guess. What is our purpose when we originally set up a zoning ordinance and established these requirements, these conditions of putting a time on it at all. It's not to give the developers a deadline to complete the requirements that we're giving them. I mean, in your mind, what is the purpose of the timeline at all? MR. KERN: My understanding is that, you know, the purpose of having the timeline is as you say, is to try to push things to keep them going, right, if you're going to be in here you're going to take up that space; you're going to use that infrastructure; you're going to, you know, take up those water units. Let's keep it moving forward. So, those time conditions generally, you know,push towards that. But I would say that what we've seen is, that hasn't been consistent. We've seen many that have been stale, many that have—that just didn't work. So, the concept around that is to—for folks to take action. MS. KIMBALL: So, how much padding. I mean, is the fault of these timelines not being accurate actually the process or is it maybe the inappropriate setting of the timeline in the first place with the ordinance and not anticipating the need for some potential padding? Or I mean, there's always uncertainty, right? They hit a lava tube, things are going to change, right, but maybe is the process prior to the ordinance even being passed for the rezone initially? Is that potentially where we Page 13 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 need to look for better alignment between the timeline that is required and what is possible? MR. KERN: It's possible that padding has been that admin time extension. What happens, though, after a rezoning is approved, that really begins the process of an entire new project, right, of possibly having to go through SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division), DPW (Department of Public Works), etcetera. So, there's all these agency types of reviews that can take a long time. There's economics, there's supply chain, things happen. When they do, there needs to be additional time put on that. So, you know, when we're looking at it we can try to broaden that out and try to look into the crystal ball and see what happens and see something like COVID coming down the line that changes everything, or another recession or the great recession and try to look at those things and anticipate those, as well as delays from agency review and their processes. But, there's no science to that, and historically, it looked like the five and five, the overall ten has worked for quite a number; and then for quite a number it hasn't. On other larger projects, it's been, you know, more years, like ten years. MS. KIMBALL: I mean, I guess just in my own thinking, I'd actually like to see the administrative extension process not be the mechanism to produce that padding, but that's actually included in the initial estimate at the time in some way or form. I guess a greater investment up front and predicting what that time might be, and I realize it's not possible all the time. I do appreciate what Council Member Galimba said about there being a lot of variability in both the types of projects as well as the times that they're associate with. There are five-year projects, there are 20-year projects. I'm amenable to some standardized extension by the Administration, like a two-year extension regardless of what the initial timeline is. But I do like this proposal of Council Member Inaba to give the Council an opportunity to just have a public conversation about what's going on with the project. I think of the resolution solution because it doesn't require that revisit to the planning commissions, but it's just a public hearing before Council. So, it wouldn't be too burdensome in my mind. I like the idea of that opportunity to have conversations about why things may have stalled out. I have faith in my current colleagues and my future colleagues that they would be able to deliberate rationally and make reasonable decisions. Now, you may think that they but do think that the Council serves up the best which is to provide public input under current circumstances. Page 14 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 So, I'm going to support this going forward today, but I'm willing to have a conversation about, you know, a short administrative time extension that's not just the doubling of the original time. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks Chair. Thanks, Mr. Inaba for adding in the $500. I think that's one piece that's consistent throughout the entire Zoning Code. Having had a little bit of experience in this area, I can appreciate all of the comments and questions that are being asked by my colleagues in this very dynamic situation. I'm going to ask a couple of kind of rapid-fire questions to hopefully maybe bring a little bit of clarity. Director or Deputy Director, when the Council passes a change of zone ordinance, does that zoning effect translate to the collection of real property tax? So, for example, if it went from Ag to Commercial, does their next real property tax bill reflect a Commercial designation whereby the tax rate changes? MR. KERN: Yes, Council Member. If not the next one, then the one right after that. But yes, it is taxed on the zoning that it has. Same for a special permit. For example, there was one that was approved by Council in Pahoa a while back, but it originally had a special permit for a medical facility. Once that special permit was issued, they were taxed at a Commercial rate for ten years, even though they didn't build anything. Then they came through and got the rezoning to establish it to be entirely Commercial, and they were continually taxed at that Commercial rate. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for that. I think Ms. Kimball kind of really focused on what I touched upon at our last meeting—was the realistic timelines attached to these projects? I tried a little bit to ask that question. Do we have any information, data, or evidence of the realistic timeline of dong what would be a condition of approval, a subdivision application? Do we have that, Deputy Director or Director? MR. KERN: We have guesses on what it should be for an approval . But again, it's a lot of uncertainty, and I wouldn't feel comfortable saying it's guaranteed "x" amount of years. You know,permits take a certain period of time sometimes. I was in here a few years back, and at one point it was held up at SHPD for six years. You know, we've seen things that are way outside of our control. So, we try to within that kind of ten-year range. You would think you'd be able to get everything complete from a permitting standpoint,but you also through economics and other factors in there as well. Page 15 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director. This question is for Judge Strance. Judge Strance, you know, very out-of-the-box thinking this resolution process. I have a question around that because this seems to deviate from kind of an expected process. We heard the Director and Deputy Director kind of discuss that, and Mr. Inaba, I know has worked with you. I just wanted to understand the mechanics of that, because it does take it into a political realm. So, I wanted to hear from you, Judge Strance about that kind of next layer or deviation from a process adding in this resolution in front of the Council for a time extension. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good afternoon, Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. I guess, what I would start with is going back to Chair Kimball's question, and it's kind of the extensile crisis of why are we here? So, we're really talking about a policy matter here. As a matter of policy, what is going to be delegated authority and what is going to be retained authority? So,just to contextualize this a little bit more. The bill grew out of a bill that came up last session where the language of the bill was, no extensions unless it's allowed by the ordinance, and the Planning Department was fine with that. Because, as a standard practice, there's a provision in the zoning ordinance changes that delegates that administrative authority to the Planning Director to grant a specific period of time. So, the next part was Council Member Inaba was intending that the Planning Director not have authority to grant administrative extensions of time. So, at the last meeting, there were concerns raised about the length of time it would take to take a time extension request through the commission process. So, my understanding is that Council Member Inaba heard that concern, and it wasn't an intention to delay a process for a time extension. I believe that the number used was up to 18 months for something like that, and that the stalling out of a project for time extension wasn't what was intended. So, these amendments are intended to shorten that process by an administrative time extension process by resolution. I think, you know, questions have been raised about ordinance versus resolution. I think we need to rethink about that, but you know, right now there's an administrative extension granted; the department doesn't need—it doesn't constitute a change in the ordinance. So, if there were, for example, a provision in a change of zone ordinance that says, extensions of time will be granted pursuant to whatever the new code number is, and that would insert that new process into the zoning review process. Page 16 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 You know, this really is a policy consideration. You know, my understanding is that the provisions in Subsection (c) are provisions that are currently used. If there's not and there's uncertainty, you can change "may"to "shall." I guess instead of imposing that criteria on it you can leave it open. Those are matters of policy. I think Council Member Inaba wanted to make sure that the criteria that is currently being used, is codified, so that you're not setting up a new process. But I do think that it really does come down as a matter of policy. What does this Council want to retain, and whether this Council is willing to delegate. That's really the conversation that I think you folks are having. If there are statistics that need to be looked at, then you should ask for them, so that you can review them. Another group of statistics if you're going to look at them, you might also want to look at the number of times and what percentage of time does this body deny zoning ordinance amendments when developers are coming in after that extended period of time. But as I say, the questions that you're asking and the discussion that you're having right now are really less about the "why"than they are about policy. MS. LEE LOY: Judge Strance,just one other question, and Ms. Evans spoke about it. You know, through this resolution I think they got 80 percent done. I know Ms. Kimball has a lot of faith in future Councils, but things do get very political. Would there be a potential for a takings challenge where they had satisfied 80 percent of their conditions of approval and came before a body; then denied them their time, when they've invested all of the costs associated to complete the project to 80 percent and a future Council said, "sorry, no." Would we open ourselves to liability for a possible takings issue? MS. STRANCE: Yeah, I mean those would be discussions that you folks would have to have about whether and at what point in a process are there vested rights. So, the zoning change in and of itself is just permission to use land for a different reason than it currently is. Then it's conditioned upon certain things, but as it normally appears to be associated with a development process, which has its own process. So, when you're talking about, oh they need two more years just to finish a manini piece of the project or something like that, you know, I would expect that at that late stage of a development, you would have vested rights and taking concerns that if this body passes something like this, it would have to think about—in the same way that it has to think about that in other zoning ordinance requests that come before this body where that extended period of time has already passed. Page 17 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Judge Strance. So, I like what Mr. Inaba is doing, but I also want to give the ability to stop the clock when it's not on the applicant. Oftentimes, these change of zone applications have to go through agency review, and they take a long time. It's not the applicant's fault, which walks back to, if they need more time, give them all the time up front. I'd like to see a balance between time and a check-in to make sure that they're getting it done rather than just sitting and getting it done. I can move this forward right now. I'm going to let Mr. Inaba know, I'm going to be advancing something along what we talked about at our last meeting, where if the applicant is in good faith trying to satisfy their conditions of approval and an agency is delayed; a review from Department of Transportation is delayed; SHPD. There are so many uncertain timelines. We're hearing from our Director and Deputy Director that they too can't get their arms around it. It shouldn't be the fault of the applicant. We have one Council Member who's very concerned about people just buying it and flipping it. Yeah there is that, but I also want to honor the people who are trying to get it done to provide the infrastructure, housing, parks, traffic lights, curb-cutter-sidewalks that create community. I think that's the real balance that we're after, because some of the infrastructure dollars that we need is going to get tied to some of these projects. I sat here for a long time now,just my time on the Council and before this. It's a complex and dynamic situation. There's times where, yes, an applicant is failing. But another time when they're trying their best, and they're just running into roadblocks, not the fault of their own. So, Mr. Inaba, happy to support this right now. I will be advancing legislation around stopping the clock, which gives more tools to everybody in this process whether it's small two-acre, three-acre to the complex 1,000-lot subdivision. I think that's how we really help create certainty for everybody who's getting into this process. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. I just want to chime in real quick on—we've had a conceptual discussion about the point of rezonings and conditions. Conditions are what the Planning Commission and the Council put on rezonings based on the impact of the rezonings. So, if there's no impact, rationally there shouldn't be a lot of conditions being imposed on an applicant. But, conditions imposed on an applicant comes because the zoning or the use of the property changes. Page 18 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 So, there's going to be a greater impact on the community, and it's our job to make sure that those conditions we imposed there's a rational access, and it is proportional to what the impact is. That's what our job is as a Council, as a Planning Department, to make sure that the change of use, based on the change of zone is balanced out if you owe with conditions. The time conditions are put in to ensure that these, whether it be a new road, gets put in because if not, the existing infrastructure is going to be overused. That's the point of conditions and the time association with these conditions. So, I just want us to think about the reason why we have the time element. It's because there is an impact, and we need to counter the impact of what the applicant is going to do with the property. Again,just wanted to point that out, because that's kind of the meat of rezones and the conditions that come along with them. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, wow, we've gone deep diving and around and included all other kinds of issues in this. In all the different ways that it might affect by creating policy. It often does. I suppose to me, the purpose of this legislation, to just break it all down, this potential change is removing the power from the Administration, and essentially from the Director of Planning, to without real checks and balances from the Council a grant, a time extension to a project. Anytime you remove power from the Administrative branch, and you bring it back in some capacity to the legislative branch, I can see how that's going to ruffle feathers and cause concerns. I suppose to me I see the areas of vulnerability. You know, this goes beyond the property owner or their projects, this goes more to who gets to make the decision when that time expires? I very much like the part of this legislation that requires that these property owners, if they are working so hard on their projects, they will know when their deadlines are, and they will come and file for an extension whether or not, be it an administrative extension or it does end up having to go through this process. But, they'll stop letting things expire. It's just an assumed norm that they can let things expire and that exceptions will be made for them to eventually get time of extensions. Whether or not administratively or going through the process. To me, I feel like the areas of vulnerability forI suppose I don't have the same concerns, and I hear what you're saying, Council Member Lee Loy about those incredible people that are working on projects and doing their best to get them built and it's taking a long time because of agencies outside of their control. I have faith in us as a Council, that should they need to come back to us and plead that case, then by all means timing extensions would be granted by the Council. Page 19 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 However, I think it's also relevant to point out that when they come back to the Council, the representative of that district gets to chime in on that extension, as does the community, which opens up an arena of vulnerability. Because sometimes in a broader government and in any organization of humans, there's collateral damage, and there is greatest best outcome. And sometimes disregard for accidentally, the people that live in the district who are directly affected by a potential development, or the progress, or lack thereof, or experiences with that. I guess for me I just want to go down to the bottom of it, which is passing something like this, removes a certain power from the Administrative branch and from the Director of Planning and brings it to the Council. Then after a timing extension expires, the people that want to do the project have to come back in front of the public. And then in a public place, continue to get approval to move forward with what they are doing. Not to me, is the value system behind all this. So, I understand why it's going to be not something that the Department of Planning would necessarily want to see transition. In my experience from what I've heard from many of my constituents, it is why, and there have been concerns. I don't know and I'm assuming if I asked, you know, based on district, what are these timing extensions? You know, automatic administrative extensions in percentage of where they happen around the island. Just in my limited experience in the last four years, serving and having District 7 be my kuleana. There are a lot in my district. And I know there are a lot more coming up. So, that's my personal concern, and that's why I will be supporting this and why I think it is important. I have faith in our Council. This is the next step actually to be able to serve these people and these investors, and ideally, partners in the future development and regenerative economic growth of our communities. So, that's kind of my mana`o on the purpose and intentionality here and where the vulnerability actually would lie for those who wouldn't be holding forth to what they've committed to. So, with that I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you, Chair. I have many things to say, so please bear with me. First of all, there's no testifiers. It kind of disturbs me that we have no written testimony; we have no one zooming in; we don't have anybody in the audience. So, for anybody that's going to watch this or watch the recording later, it's astonishing to me that we have this, what appears to be really philosophical discussion on how we're going to manage these changes of ordinances and there's nobody testifying. So, to me something's wrong with that picture. I hope this gets in the front page of the paper tomorrow and people chatter, chatter, chatter about it. That disturbs me. Page 20 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 Okay, the second part of it is, there's been this consistent comment about transparency. So, what that says to me, the way I interpret that is, we don't trust what decisions are being made. If trust is the factor, is there something we can do Planning Director and Deputy Planning Director to get out that people—how many extensions and why extensions, and who the developers are? Is it consistent that, you know, Joe is the one that always asking? You know, is there something going on here that people just don't trust these extensions and why? Is there something you can do about transparency? MR. KERN: Thank you for the question. So, I kind of think it's kind of two-fold on that factor. I think there's a lot of convoluted understanding between an administrative time extension and a rezoning time extension. A lot of the applications that come through for a zoning time extension are the ones that you folks see. The ones that are mainly talked about; the ones that have the most discussion around. The administrative time extensions generally don't have a lot of discussion around. My understanding is that a past practice was to send to the Council. When an administrative time extension was granted, to send that to the Council notifying them that an administrative time extension was granted on the ordinance for whatever reason. It is also my understanding, at some point, the Council said to stop doing that. So that would be one practice that we could do. If it were to be kept the same, then we could do that practice. My question to that is that we have, and this isn't for the new Council Members, but we've put forth at least a half-a-dozen rezoning ordinances with the five and five, and they were generally approved with no discussion around it. So, if it was a huge problem, why weren't we handling it on a case-by-case basis as we could? So, that's my answer to that question, Council Member. MS. EVANS: Thank you. The other thing is I think there's, at least in my district, there's a lot of confusion about the idea of flipping property. It boils down to, years ago in Waikoloa there was land developed. I believe it was Castle and Cook, and they came in with their change of ordinance with all the conditions. They actually I think, met all the conditions and then the property sat there for 25 years. Then all of a sudden they sell. You know, maybe they had like 500 and some lots or something and they decided to sell 50 or 100 to some developer who wanted to develop that amount. What bothered the community is they didn't have to come in and do anything because they got that entitlement, and they got all those conditions 30 years before. So the community gets extremely angry, but this isn't what we're talking about. Page 21 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 This is a totally different thing. So, I don't want people out there that are pushing for this to get confused. This isn't what we're talking about. But my community is really angry that 30 years later, they're able to develop and they don't provide any more. No traffic impact studies; no community benefit stuff, no intersection improvements. Why? Because they met all the conditions 30 years before. Now, that's a different topic. I hope what's driving this bill and this idea that's being floated is not because of that situation. So, it's really important to me to point that out because my community is livid about this, and I don't know what to do about it. If you have any idea on how to change that, I would. MS. LEE LOY: Chair? MS. EVANS: I'm done with my three minutes? MS. LEE LOY: I didn't mean to interrupt. Just back to the CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We're at 2:10, so if folks can have wrap-up comments, because I still have some questions for the Planning Department and Corporation Counsel? Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yes, so I think it's pertinent to this discussion, because I think the community needs to know what's driving this. I think there is confusion out there what the change of ordinance really means. Then lastly, I hope what, five minutes? Lastly, please go online and read our Governor's proclamation relating to homelessness. He is eliminating all the laws that impact people for developing housing. That will point out to you that so many laws that impact the timing is out of the County purview. It's State law that could get changed and add more time to developing housing. The Governor understood how hard it was to develop housing. He has actually, through emergency proclamation removing all, and the laws are listed here. So, anybody that wants to know how hard it is to build housing, I suggest you look at that. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Last comments for the day,just in response to the question about why this Council hasn't removed conditions for administrative extensions in the last few we've seen. I don't think any of us intend to fight five battles when we have a bill here to amend the code to address that specific problem. So, we all knew that time extension language was in all those rezoning bills. It would have been silly to have to fight every single one. So, that's why we have this Bill 194 on our desks today. Thank you. Page 22 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And I'll speak to the amendment before us. Corporation Counsel, I just wanted to get your opinion on this new language. I'll be frank, I was totally fine with the original bill, because I think it was simple, to the point. We don't want to allow the Director to grant administrative time extensions automatically. We wanted to have the wherewithal to insert that condition if we believe it made sense for that particular project that we were reviewing. Judge Strance, the first sentence in (c), "A condition granting an administrative time extension by the director shall not be included in any change of zone ordinance." Does that cancel out what's suggested in (b)? Is this now limiting the Council from being able to provide a condition related to administrative time extension in the event that we want to? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel, Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good afternoon, Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. As I understand paragraph (c), it's limited to administrative time extensions. Where paragraph (b) is discussing changes or alterations of conditions of change of zoning ordinances. If your question is, does subsection (c)prevent a time extension if the normal process is followed? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I guess my question is, if Council Members want to grant the Director and the Planning Department the ability to have an administrative time extension element, does (c)preclude us from doing that going forward? I can understand the original language of not wanting the department to include that in these draft bills for ordinances, but I think some of the rub or reservations we were having was eliminating a tool, that we may want to be able to leverage in times of a pandemic or a downturn. There could be a business partnership that's dissolved. There could be a death in the family that I think, we don't need to be discussing, and I think that could easily be handled by the Planning Department through the administrative time extension element. MS. STRANCE: As I understand the amendment, in an original zoning ordinance placed before this body, it could not include an administrative time extension grantable by the director. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, that's clear. So, we're removing a tool. Got it. Then one of the things that the Deputy Director had mentioned earlier was related to not being clear about what happens when this request is submitted to the director. MS. STRANCE: Yes, I heard that. Page 23 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Are you able to resolve that now? I want to be really comfortable with what I'm voting on, because it's not super clear, and what we're changing here will have implications in this process going forward, and I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure we as a legislative body know what we're doing; that the Planning Department is clear, and that members of the public, large developers, and families that are just doing estate planning are very clear on how we are going to proceed. MS. STRANCE: As written, the request for administrative time extension would be submitted through the Planning Department. I think it would be up to the Planning Department to send that up to the Council with any type of recommendation. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Our Deputy Director is not clear on that. He mentioned that. Not clear what happens after it's submitted to us. Do we provide a recommendation? Do they prepare the resolution? That's not clear. I don't know if we've resolved the issue of doing this through a resolution, and I can appreciate Council Member Inaba in wanting to make sure we're not making this process over the regulatory and burdensome. But again, if we are directing the department to act, they need to know what they need to be doing; what the expectation and kuleana is moving forward. So, maybe that conversation needs to be had after this committee wraps up. To Council Member Evan's point earlier about taking into consideration, how applicants have satisfied conditions of approval. That's got to be part of their guiding criteria. If we are now going to be putting it in the hands of Council Members to be granting time extensions, we have to take that into consideration. So I'm just going to suggest, Council Member Inaba, there have been a lot of I think really great mana`o. Even Chair Kimball had mentioned earlier just, you know, couple-of-year administrative extension could be a tool that we want to be able to leverage. Taking all of that into consideration further massaging this, and I think that would resolve a lot of the concerns that we are bringing forward today. MS. STRANCE: Understood. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And please coordinate with the Planning Department? I don't know if they were included in discussions with the amendments, but they seem to be a little bit confused today. I want everybody to be on the same page. Because at the end of the day, the public just wants government to work. I want government to work. I don't want people to say, "Oh the County," and roll their eyes. I want them to say like, "Yes, the County, they know what they're doing, they're all coordinated, Legislative and Administrative Branch.:" Thank you, Judge Strance. Page 24 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 Council Member Inaba, can we make some amendments to your amendment? MR. INABA: My recommendation today would be, I think we understand what the intent of this amendment is. So,perhaps where the pukas are is that we want further clarification as to how a future Council would evaluate whether or not to grant the extension via a resolution, and to be clear as to the process once the Planning Department receives a letter requesting a time extension. Do they prepare the recommendation to accompany the resolution to us? So, I can definitely work on that. I do think, though, it might be more beneficial for us to vote on this today so we have a clean version to look at, at the next reading. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I think there's going to be so many changes. I would recommend a new amendment be floated and be considered by this body. That's my recommendation. I cannot support this as written, but I can based on the proposed amendments that you have just suggested today. I want to carry this forward. So, if you want to keep it in Committee one more time, again, I just want to make sure we're getting it right. Because there are implications for anybody that are going through this process and our folks at the Planning Department. MR. INABA: I would like to hear from the rest of my colleagues. If my intent would be that we have a cleaner copy, because we're on the tink in amending right now. But if we have Draft 2 at first reading of Council, that's clean, and we have an amendment accompanying it? But it's up to you folks how you want to proceed. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Inaba. I see the wisdom in setting the foundation again. I can support that, but I want to hold it in Committee. Only because, if there's going to be more tinkering with it, I stand firm on stop the clock when it's not the applicant it's on the agency. I absolutely think it's a brilliant idea to provide that criteria because despite, you know, hope in Council. I'm going to say it because I sat on the Council, and I had something in Ms. Kagiwada's district. Other Council Members from another district voted, "no". And you know, it was a condition of time extension. I don't know how it all got muddied when that property has been in that use since the tidal wave. We were contemplating more time for them, and so despite what Council Members might say, that's not the case going forward. We want to support Council Members and their goals in their districts. We have times when they're listening to other constituency but that's our role too. Page 25 PCPLUD-2 January 24,2023 So Mr. Inaba, absolutely I'm willing to vote on this with the understanding that it's going to stay in Committee and we're going to tinker with it some more. I yield. MR. INABA: Yes, sorry I misspoke. We would like it to stay in Committee. MS. KIMBALL: I concur with Council Member Lee Loy. Let's get the amendment that was discussed today and then hold it here. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Yeah, I also concur. I fully support the intent of making sure that the public is aware when these extensions are requested. So, I really support that, but I would like to see the changes you've discussed. Thank you, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Okay, I just have to say, I have to vote on words on paper and not intentions. So, I cannot support the amendment today. But, make the changes and bring it forward in Committee, happy to support it 100 percent. Anyone else before we take the vote? And again, what we're voting on is to amend Bill 194 with the contents of Communication 898.20. Okay, there is a request, a motion for Call for the Question. Mr. Clerk, I believe we just have to see if there are six votes. Roll call vote, please? Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 194 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 898.20 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Villegas —6. Noes: Committee Members Evans, and Chair Kierkiewicz—2. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. MR. HENRICKS: The motion carries. The bill is amended. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Bill 194 is amended with the contents of Communication 898.20. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 194, as amended to the February 7, 2023. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion on the postponement? Seeing none, all in favor please say "aye." Page 26 PCPLUD-2 January 24, 2023 Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 194, as amended to to Postpone: February 7, 2023 was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz— 8. Noes: None. Absent. Committee Member Kaneah`i- Kleinfelder— 1 Excused: None. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 2:24 p.m., Mr. Inaba moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy, and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— I. Excused. None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: We are adjourned Thank you. Appro e`E 1f Li -, Q.6 3/0 ) 3 Ms Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Da e) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development AK/dt Pagc 27