Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUD 2023/02/07 (2022-2024) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development 3`'d Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii February 7, 2023 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Development was called to order at 10:50 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, 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: The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Dwight Vicente: Bill 194, Draft 2 (Comm. 898.21), comment. Mark Van Pernis: Bill 194, Draft 2 (Comm. 898.21), in support. Cherie Griffore: Bill 194, Draft 2 (Comm. 898.21), in support. Cindy Freitas: Bill 194, Draft 2 (Comm. 898.21), in support. Claire Loprinzi: Bill 194, Draft 2 (Comm. 898.21), in support. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much. Let's move on to Bills for Ordinances. Mr. Clerk, let's start with Bill 194. PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 194: AMENDS CHAPTER 25 ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, SECTION 25-2-44, OF (Draft 2) THE HAWAI I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), (2020-2022) RELATED TO CONDITIONS ON CHANGE OF ZONE Provides the County Council exclusive authority to grant an initial time extension for the performance of conditions within a change of zone ordinance and increases the filing fee from $250 to $500 for any request for a time extension, change, or alteration of conditions within a change of zone ordinance. Reference: Comm. 898 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba Referred to Planning Director and Planning Commissions: August 16, 2022 Postponed: January 5 and January 24, 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. (Note: Comm. 898.22, from Council Member Holeka Goro Inaba dated February 1, 2023, and Comm. 898.23 from Council Member Holeka Goro Inaba dated February 2, 2023, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 194 were circulated.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I see that we have a couple of communications related to amendments here. So, I'll leave it to you to get us started. MR. INABA: Thank you. We have Bill 194, Draft 2 before us today, and also in your pinkies, Communication 898.22. So, I'd like to make a motion to amend Bill 194 with the contents of Communication No. 898.22. Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 194, Draft 2 with the contents of Comm. 898.22. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. Page 2 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I have a motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Kimball to amend Bill 194, Draft 2 with the contents of Communication 898.22. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. Within this communication, we further specify the process of how a time extension request is to be handled by the department. So, it reads that when a request for an initial time extension is received by the Director, the Director shall recommend approval or denial and submit a notice to the Council through the Mayor. In the case of a recommended approval, the Director shall also submit a resolution to Council through the Mayor for consideration and action. So, this really spells out what the department's kuleana is. Later if they want to create Administrative Rules around this procedure they can. But, at least so, we have an idea of who creates the resolution, and that we would then know how we take action to grant or not grant a time extension. I'm happy to hear from my colleagues and answer any questions you might have. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. We also have leadership from the Planning Department here, Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Director Jeff Darrow if folks have questions for the department. Council Members? Ms. Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Just a quick question. So, is it usual that any director would need to go through the Mayor in this way, or is that just another step that may or may not be needed? MR. INABA: This is kind of how things work in the Chapter. So, similarly to rezoning bills. They go to the commission, and then are transmitted to the Mayor and to us, if I have that correct? MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, I just didn't want to be creating extra steps for no reason, but if that's the way it's written, then I understand. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? I'd like to hear from the department. Gentlemen, if you could come forward,please? We've had extensive discussion on this particular bill. Curious as to your thoughts on the amendment that is before the Council. I just want to confirm that you have a copy of it and you've read it. Okay, great. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. We have reviewed that amendment. I still stand on my previous testimony on how I Page 3 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 feel about it. But, if that's what the will of the Council is and that's the process, then that's what shall be done. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, Director. Anything to add Deputy? MR. DARROW: No, I appreciate Council Member Inaba adding in Communication 898.23. Has that been ? Okay. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: No Deputy, we're still on 22. MR. DARROW: Alright, 22 first. Again, we share the same concerns we had previously, that it's limiting the Council from their ability to be able to take action. If they feel that it's a necessary action or a reasonable action in the future, this bill will not allow that action. That's been our testimony from the beginning. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you for your mana`o. Anybody else? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you and I think just recapping again what this amendment does. It specifies how we get through the process of an initial time extension that the Council would grant. So, I ask for your support on this amendment, and then we have one more amendment to take up after that. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, seeing as there are no other folks wanting to make comments or ask questions. There is a motion on the floor to amend Bill 194, Draft 2 with the contents of Comm. 898.22. All in favor please say, "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 194, Draft 2 with the contents to Amend: of Comm. 898.22 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bill 194, Draft 2 is amended. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to make a motion to further amend Bill 194, Draft 2, as amended with the contents of Communication No. 898.23. Page 4 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 194, Draft 2, as amended with the contents of Comm. 898.23. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. This was pointed out by Deputy Director Darrow regarding par language for the fees. So, as it was written, everybody including those seeking an initial time extension would be charged the $500 fee. Right now, when people come to the department for an initial administrative extension, as granted by a rezoning ordinance, they don't pay the $250 fee. So, we're putting this in line with current practices. So, if someone comes back specifically for the time extension via resolution, they won't pay the $500. So, thank you, Deputy Director Darrow for making that clarification. I ask for my colleagues' support. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any comments, questions? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Just a quick question to the department. You know, the filing fees are assessed when there's resources from the department necessary to make something happen. I presume you're comfortable with not collecting any fee for this action, you know, moving forward even though there might be some administrative cost to the department? MR. KERN: Yeah, keeping in the spirit of how it has been and that way I'm fine with that in this case. So, oftentimes the fees don't match up to the hours spent anyways. So, it's fine. But this will, out of clarification, when a rezone time extension comes in when it's completely expired, and they have to submit it. That goes through the department and makes its way to the commissions. Then that fee will be up to $500 instead of the $250, which makes sense. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I'm not sure that the fee is not aligning up to the real cost of doing things is a great justification for this, but I'm happy to support this amendment. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none. There is a motion on the floor. All in favor please say, "aye." Page 5 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 194, Draft 2, as amended with to Amend: the contents of Comm. 898.23 was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bill 194, Draft 2, as amended is now amended with the contents of Communication 898.23. We are back to the main motion. Any final comments on Bill 194, Draft 2? Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Chair, the bill, as amended. As I shared at our last committee meeting, I was working with the department on this kind of stop-the-clock position where, if an applicant was going through the process and an agency review took months and months and months, that the applicant would not be penalized because it's out of their control, right? But agency review with the Department of Public Works or for example, having to submit letters for a LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) or CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision), which we know can take many, many months. And it's been my position that that's not the fault of the applicant who is trying to satisfy their conditions of approval. I actually authored an amendment and working with the department, but in light of these two new additions, I've got to fix my amendment again. So, I just wanted to bring the rest of my colleagues up to speed as to where I was with additional language. I was ready to go, but these edits kind of threw me off tilt a little bit. That being said, it's like nailing jello sometimes as we shove in these amendments. So, I'm of the mindset, I'd like to see it set a little bit so I know where I can insert my edits. So, I'm willing to go with the will of the body as far as where they want to see this land, but I would like an opportunity to advance this amendments for conversation, because I think it would provide another pathway specifically to applicants so that they're not penalized for delays that are outside of their control. Thank you for letting me share, Chair. I will be supporting, as amended. Would look for another opportunity to advance this amendment now that I have to edit it one more time. Thank you, I yield. Page 6 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: When I read the whole thing collectively, it looked like there is language for things that are out of their control, and I'm just wondering if the author is thinking maybe through the Administrative Rule process, there'll be more of that clarity of what we mean in terms of what's out of their control. Because I think sometimes when you have terminology, sometimes people get very nervous about what that means. So,just a question. Because I was just listening to what Council Member Lee Loy said, and I'm kind of thinking you'd address that. But maybe the concern is not enough, and would that be through Administrative Rules? And you say, "may" or maybe "we shall" I don't know. So, I'm just questioning. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I think we're muddying the waters here. I appreciate the sentiments that were shared by Ms. Lee Loy, but we need to keep the conversation focused on the time extensions as it relates to changes of zone. Stopping, starting, restarting the clock I think is meant for a different discussion. And we can talk about it should we see amendments, but we don't have anything right now. Any other questions or comments? Ms. Evans? Okay. Anyone else? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I'd like to say that I'm going to support moving this to Council now. I think that there's a possibility for further discussion, but I also think there is potentially opportunity for us to do a better job when we discuss rezonings. Understanding when we set timelines that we may need to anticipate some of these unforeseen circumstances and be a little more judicious and thoughtful as we review rezonings. Because in my mind, a rezoning change is something that in these conditions, if it makes sense once it should make sense once, it should make sense in perpetuity, right? I mean that's kind of the fundamental concept. However, I like this sort of preview opportunity or review, I should say, in light of applicants not being able to meet their requirements. I think there is enough in here to give the applicants some relief should there be delays in these other outside things. But I think that falls on us to do a better job of setting the timelines and working with the department to do that. So, I'm happy to have further discussions, but I think at this time I'm comfortable with moving it forward. Thank you, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: We've had a lot of discussion over it, and I sort of understand the impetus in some respects of having this bill, in that I think there's some frustration in certain parts of the island. Page 7 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 I'm understanding or feeling like projects are happening that they're not aware of, but I worry that this isI think we have, you know, one of our biggest issues is the lack of affordable housing, and those can't be addressed as sort of one by one. There needs to be affordable housing projects, and those are very difficult projects to pull together. There's just so many different parts of an affordable housing project. So, I just worry that this is going to sort of increase the uncertainty for all developers, but especially for affordable housing project developers, and I wish we could almost pull those apart. But I think given that overarching need that I don't support this bill. So, that's the way I'll be voting. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Galimba. Anyone else? Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: I have a question for Director Kern. Anyway, will this in a way, when you evaluate the length of time that it might take to do a project—will we now see the initial time possibly go from 10 years to 12 or 13 years? MR. KERN: Yeah, in summary, so if we thought it was a five and a five, and this was kind of what we had originally talked about with Council Member Inaba, was that, if we think it's 10, we're going to come in with that 10. So, we're going to adjust that on our end and present the applications with whatever condition is on there with whatever time that we believe that might be. It's very much like nailing j ello to a wall, but that would be the methodology that we'd move forward with. MS. EVANS: So, there will be adjustment,probably? MR. KERN: Yes. MS. EVANS: Okay, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. I think that adjustment regardless of this bill should have been happening already to make sure that people have adequate time without having to request whether it be an extension through the Council or through the department. So, what we have now just makes it very clear. Your time is your time if it is. To answer Council Member Evans' question. If an agency has an application that results in five years of delay for a project, that would fall under (c)(1). Nobody could have foreseen that. An agency would have kept the project for five years. So, it would then make sense for the Council to grant it because it meets these circumstances. So, with that, again asking for my colleagues' support in this bill that really just makes it nice, clean, and cut; and keep everybody on an even and level playing field. Thank you. Page 8 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Mr. Inaba for the time and attention to detail and real determination you have exhibited with going through any and all potential iterations for this bill. I will be supporting this amendment today. I agree in having seen just in my short tenure here on the Council, the number of property owners that just let their zoning expire. It's never been—in my already, just this small period of time serving in this role, there's not been an impetus for them to have to actually take it seriously. Because there really aren't very many repercussions. I wholeheartedly agree with Council Member Galimba, that affordable housing, workforce housing is our number one priority. However, under the existing frameworks of a lot of the different property owners and the prior belief systems and requirements around affordable housing components have been proven to be quite laughable. I mean, we have someone coming in for a time extension on their zoning for the fourth phase of a project that they haven't even ever built or handled the affordable housing component on the first three sections of it. So, you know, and I honor, you're in a fairly new position as well and can't be responsible for the Planning Directors who served before you. I recognize this being an odd kind of vulnerable position to be in, to be that person in that role right now and have this. You know, people perceive our jobs have a lot of authority and power, and they have less than most people think. But to even have any component of that challenged or potentially removed during your tenure in this office, I have empathy and I recognize that that wouldn't be fun for anybody. But, I do think based on the longevity of the need for more accountability and for transitioning the belief systems and operating, modus operandi for how landowners and potential prospectors and land bankers, and all the different experiences we've had on the Big Island as it comes to development that this is part of making a statement that those elected to represent the constituents in their district have the opportunity to weigh in on these extensions and that the process be edited in this way in order to mitigate us continuing to head down the path that we've been heading down which got us where we are now. So, I'll be supporting this today, and thank you for your honesty. Of course, I'd be surprised if you were like, sure, yeah, take away my authority to do that. But moving forward, we don't know who the next Planning Director would be, and humans are interesting creatures. So, thank you for your service and for the Page 9 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 conversation. And thank you again, Mr. Inaba, for bringing this forth and I will be supporting it today. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much, Chair. I'm just going back over the document and I just wanted to reiterate, Mr. Inaba has spent a substantial amount of time listening to everyone. He also had unanimous ayes from both Planning Commissions, and listened well to the department and to the Council Members and really brought forward a really well put together document here. And I'll be supporting that today, and I appreciate everyone's time and energy to get us thus far. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to bring some clarity around some of the statements made. Director, when a Change of Zone application is granted, the zoning is established at the time the Council approves that zoning. Is that accurate? MR. KERN: That's correct. MS. LEE LOY: And real property taxes will actually reflect that change of zone. MR. KERN: That's correct. MS. LEE LOY: So, despite an applicant failing to comply with our conditions of zoning, the trigger to return that piece of property has a process, correct? MR. KERN: That's correct. MS. LEE LOY: And if that process is not followed, that particular property continues to maintain that zoning? MR. KERN: It continues to maintain that zoning yet, it's actually unusable. In its zoning that it was changed to as well as its original zoning. It becomes a property that you can't do anything with, unless you rezone it with the time extension. Not an administrative time extension. There's a big distinction between an admin time extension versus a rezoning time extension. Unless they go through a rezoning time extension which you folks as a Council have seen, you know, quite a number of those. Those ones come through the department. We give it a full evaluation. It goes to the perspective commission. It comes to Council for a decision. Page 10 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 Now, if they wanted to go back to its original zoning, they have to go through that same process, and they will request to the director to revert it back to its original zoning or they'll take it through that process to revert back to its original zoning. Which in that case, the Planning Department reviews it, it goes to the Commission, it goes to the Council. So in either way, you're looking at six to 12- plus months to get it either back to its current zoning that it was rezoned to, or back to the zoning it was rezoned from. I hope that makes sense. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, and I just don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole. I think they're paying taxes on the zoned, even though it hasn't complied with its conditions. MR. KERN: That's correct. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, and I just wanted to provide that clarity, because some members of the Council, I think what they're wanting is these conditions to be satisfied. Then people sit on it, when really, it's kind of nothing can truly happen unless it comes back around. I think the other one I wanted clarity was both Planning Commissions gave favorable recommendations. MR. KERN: They gave favorable recommendations, however, the proposed amendment has changed substantially, and I'll let Council Members speak to that, but it's changed. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, it's morphed from their original approval. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to provide that clarity and context for the record. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: For my own clarity, thank you for that, Ms. Lee Loy. So, in essence, that's limbo, right? I've heard it called limbo. MR. KERN: Limbo, stale. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, exactly. So, wouldn't that be impetus for the property owners to not let it expire? MR. KERN: I was going to say that. Yeah, there is impetus. I don't think an applicant, or a landowner wants to go through that. It certainly leads to a lot more uncertainty and yet they haven't, you know, for various reasons I'm sure. MS. VILLEGAS: Percentage of time it happens in your experience? Page 11 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 MR. KERN: That's a tough one. MS. VILLEGAS: But it's more than 50 percent. Jeff, in your years, are we talking a high percentage of people that go ahead and let it expire? MR. DARROW: I wouldn't say it's 50 percent. And again, like Director Kern had mentioned, there's countless reasons that these things happen. Whether it's the economic situation, pandemicI mean, I can't even—all the time we hear about something that's happened within the family; someone passing away. MS. VILLEGAS: Those are reasons that the conditions don't get met, but not reasons to not pay attention to the timing of the expiration and not file an extension until after it's expired, correct? MR. DARROW: Well, there are times that financially, they cannot move forward. So they can't, they would, you know, but they don't have the money. That's basically what it comes down to. MS. VILLEGAS: So, then they could file for an extension before their current allowance expires, correct? MR. DARROW: They usually do, yeah. MR. KERN: It does range, you know, from small families to a business to a developer type. We see definitely a range of those. MR. DARROW: There's another area that I'd like to bring to the attention of the Council, that when we speak about reversion or revoking, even the administrative time extension, there's conditions or criteria that need to be met. One of those is that it needs to be consistent with the General Plan, right? When we talk about revoking to its original zoning, many times, if not a majority of the times, the General Plan is not consistent with the original zoning. That's why this zoning got approved because it was consistent with the General Plan. So, that zoning may be appropriate for that area versus sending it back to whatever zoning it was previously. MS. VILLEGAS: I get that, and I respect that. For me, for this legislation and my support is based on the value system of holding the landowners accountable for paying attention to when that expires and to actually filing the paperwork within those timeframes. Because it's my understanding that historically, there hasn't been any negative to not doing it. So, they can come back ten years later and then file for an extension to get them to there. There's just been a history and a legacy of a little too much play in that capacity. At least I hear of this from my constituents, which have a lot of concern. Page 12 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 This piece of legislation removes—it's already highlighted, the need for more stringent attention to be paid by landowners, and that the community is getting savvy to the practice of land-banking, and that we as a Council are paying more attention to that and want to be more involved with what's going on as far as time extensions for large properties or any properties. The time extension needs to be given more attention by more eyes and removed from the opportunity for it to just happen, administratively, and that the responsibility and the message is going out to those who own land on the Big Island, to pay attention to your zoning timings and don't come back just assuming that, "oh, we're just going to file this now"ten years later and then it's going to go further. Depending on who's in your role, they'll you know, rubberstamp it and move on. So, I'm just going to yield now, but for me that's that value system and why I firmly support what's happening here. So, thank you. MR. KERN: If I could respond real quick, not in a challenging manner. Most of the projects that I see are the more contentious and have actually expired the overall timeframe, not the administrative timeframe. Once they expire, that overall timeframe—let's say they had a five and a five which will give them ten overall. Once it hits that ten, they have to come back through the entire process. So, oftentimes they'll just wait until they're ready, and then they have to come to the Council. Then you folks can ask, "well, why didn't you come in at your nine to come through versus coming in at year-157 That being said, I want to make it very clear that I have never, in my knowledge—directors don't just go grant administrative time extensions, and that's something that I keep hearing. That's not something that happens. I don't think that gives the County a good look. When I keep hearing that, it's challenging because I don't see that. It's very convoluted when we talk about time extensions because often those are coming in and say, that was rezoned 15 years ago, and they're coming in now to go back through the Council. Directors don't give administrative time extensions beyond what was granted in the ordinance. But thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Director, one more question. Ms. Villegas had pointed out this perception in community of just the Planning Department rubberstamping these time extensions. Can you just describe for the public, the thorough vetting that takes place by your staff to go through, you know, the diligence that was made by the applicant to satisfy conditions in the existing ordinance, that you're not just handing this out like candy, that there is thorough review and consideration before granting the extension and making your recommendations? Page 13 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 MR. KERN: In either case, whether it's an administrative time extension or a timing extension overall for the entire ordinance to come back through Council, the applicants submit their reasons why. Our staff looks at it, they review it based on what's being presented, then the decision is made. Many have been approved and some have not. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that, and all of that information is actually available for the public record in the background reports that are accompanying with each of these filings. So, thank you. MR. KERN: Correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba, I just want to acknowledge all of the incredible hard work that you have put into this particular bill. You know, I think during my tenure as Council Member, we saw a number of time extensions. So, you saw that as well and moved to do something about it to rein those in. I'll be incredibly honest, I was most comfortable with the first version of this bill, the version that was approved by the Planning Commissions that was created in partnership with the Planning Department. But it's morphed to a point where I just can't support it. It's already incredibly difficult to do business in Hawaii. We've got the highest level of regulations in the Country, and as Council Member Galimba pointed out, folks need certainty and consistency in how the processes work, and I think that this just adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already onerous process. So, I appreciate again, all of the hard work, but I cannot be supporting this measure as it is before us today. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, we have motion on the floor. If we could please do a roll call vote? Vote on Bill 194: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 194, Draft 2 Draft 2 as amended to Draft 3, on first reading was carried by (Approved) the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, and Villegas —7. Noes: Committee Members Galimba and Chair Kierkiewicz—2. Absent: None. Excused: None. (Note: Ms. Lee Loy voted "kanalua"then "aye.) Page 14 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Bill 194, Draft 2, as amended, moves forward to Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Clerk, if we could please move on to Bill 18? Bill 18: AMENDS CHAPTER 11 ARTICLE 1, SECTIONS 11-3 AND 11-13 OF THE HAWAI I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING Adds definitions for"Qualified Resident", "Qualified Returning Student", and "Qualified Worker", and establishes affordable housing eligibility preferences for applicants who qualify under these new definitions and who are seeking to rent or own County-funded affordable housing. Reference: Comm. 77 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Mr. Inaba and Comm. 77.1: From Council Members Heather L. Kimball and Holeka Goro Inaba, dated January 26, 2023, transmitting Appendix G of the 2021 Maui County Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan. Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 18 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Who'd like to start the discussion? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. So, to quote our former colleague, this bill is not quite ready for prime time. I'm going to call it a"kitchen sink"bill which is a new term I'll call it right now, which means I've thrown everything in here that I think we can possibly do legally. You know, Holeka and I spent some time talking about this, kicking it back and forth, and decided we needed smarter minds than us to help finalize this bill. So, we want to just put it out here with the understanding, you know, if it needs to stay in Committee a little bit for negotiation, that's fine. But we wanted to get folks' ideas around this. So, the overall intent of this bill is something that we've discussed for a long time, which is making sure that we have affordable housing units available for residents in the County for people that live and work in Hawaii County. We only have jurisdiction over a certain number of these units. So, I want to make sure to call attention to the first paragraph under the proposed Section 11-13, which is, this preference will only be triggered when it is the Office of Housing that is responsible for the selection process and allocation of these units. Page 15 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 So, for example, we have other affordable housing projects where the County may contribute funding or we do infrastructure and whatnot, but it's actually a non- profit that does the selection process for the units, and the Office of Housing just provides confirmation of the eligibility status. Those would not fall under this preference ranking system. It's only going to be triggered when it's us that is managing the waitlist. That said, you know, I think once we have these rules in place, we could potentially encourage our partners to look at these preferences as well. The other thing here then to look at is the preference order, which is in Section (c) (B). Again, these are just thrown in as placeholders. The first preference then is to this potential for up to ten percent being set aside for income eligible County employees. I just wanted to mention that, you know, I did work with the Office of Housing. We went back and forth on some of the language on this. This was one that they were concerned about just because it might look potentially self-serving. Just so you know, I did pull this from Santa Clara County, which has a similar issue in that they have pretty severe income disparity and challenges in the housing market; very high housing values being there in Silicon Valley. So, one of their solutions to the recruitment issues, similar to what we have is to ensure that teachers and County workers, and police officers, you know, have some housing available. So, we as the County don't have any direct ability to impact the salaries of these workers that work for the State and the County. But, if we are looking at attracting workers to provide the services that we need to provide for the community, then making sure that we have some level of housing is important. So, the example here is, if there's ten units, we're setting one aside for a teacher. You know, that's the idea. I don't think it's self-serving. I think it's a service to the community. The other things here have to do with a qualifying student. I think a qualified resident is pretty straightforward. They have an ID (identification). The returning student was something that I talked about a lot with Housing, and we talked about this wanting to make sure our kids can come back home. But, I think that maybe we want to look at this wording a little bit to see but what about the scenario where it's a student and they go and they work a couple years and then they want to come back. The wording as it is now wouldn't put them up on the preference list. Or, maybe it's just a returning resident in general, and maybe we want to expand that, not just to students but more broadly. So, I encourage everybody to look at that. Page 16 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 The other item here to look at is (c)(2), which has to do with preferences related to the sale of the units. So, the first three, (A)(B)(C)(D) under(1) have to do with the rental or sale, but specifically, when it's regards to sale, the preference would also be ranked based on the time that they've lived in the County. Which is something I think that we should talk through as well. My intention is to have you folks review all of this, look at the attached Appendix G. I included this. This comes from Maui County's Affordable Housing Plan. They did a pretty thorough legal analysis. This bill is mine and Council Member Inaba's sort of interpretation of their legal analysis, but I'd like everybody else to review it as well and see if they interpret things the same way. So, I will pass it on to Council Member Inaba, unless Administrator Kunz is here to answer questions from the Office of Housing side. Thanks Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. I think Chair Kimball did a good job of covering pretty much the whole bill. So, Administrator Kunz, if you want to chime in any thoughts at this time, go ahead, as you're joining via Zoom. (Note: At this time, Office of Housing and Community Development Administrator Susan Kunz came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. KUNZ: Thank you very much. My name is Susan Kunz and I'm the Administrator for the Office of Housing and Community Development. Yeah, thank you very much for the opportunity to work with both of you on this bill. I think Chair Kimball has framed our working together very nicely. We had a chance to chime in, I think, on a couple of drafts of this and definitely support the intent of this bill, no question. However, I cannot support this bill in its present form, so I appreciate you preferencing the discussion with the bill needing all eyes to be looking at this thing and considering also, because I did get a chance to review Mau`i's Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan, as well related to this bill. I have several concerns throughout the bill, and I don't know if this is the appropriate time to kind of go off the road. Some of those concerns CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Administrator Kunz, this is the time. MS. KUNZ: Okay. So, regarding the—starting out with the definitions. I think for the "Qualified returning student,"there is language in there for temporary departure. I just would like a little bit more clarity on what exactly that temporary departure would be. Page 17 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 I am concerned about us being able to provide housing for our keiki who are leaving to go away to go to school perhaps sometimes, you know, spend sometime working before returning home. I think it would be better if we defined what that temporary departure looks like a little bit better. "Qualified worker." I understand what has been written there as far as the definition. I'm thinking that if we are intending to provide housing for workforce, we might consider things like a mile radius from the area that we're producing the housing to qualify what a"Qualified worker"might look like. We utilize this language in our work at Kamakoa Nui. It worked out very nicely. I think for that particular project, we used the 15-mile radius. But maybe considering language such as that. Moving on to Section 11-13 (1). I'm wondering if addition of language like County-owned Affordable Housing project. We're basing the eligibility of these projects that we're looking at solely on our response to receive and evaluate applications. I'm going to point out that there are other Federal programs that we run where the Office of Housing is responsible for waitlist and application vetting such as the project based voucher program. So, I think that there is also the need for language that excludes the Federal-funded programs. I cannot utilize this criteria to run those programs. You know, being further along in that definition, you talk about a selection process. And so we specifically note here and ranking and rating by first come first served. I would like to be able to consider other methods of selection. Over the years and for the last couple of years especially, we've been utilizing a lottery system. We've had housing choice vouchers, project-based voucher programs. In this situation, we would open a waitlist for a certain period of time, allow applicants to get on to that waitlist, and at the end of that period, we would take the entire applicant list and by lottery, select who comes up on the list first, second, and so on. The reason for this is because we don't have people applying for the program. We might have a disparate access to internet; electronic access capability. We might have elderly folks who cannot get to the application process in a timely way compared to others. So, the lottery system provides a more, I think, equitable method to getting on the waitlist. So anyway, consideration for other selection process. Item 11-13 (b)(2), says, "The administrator may allow households with incomes up to twenty percent greater than the income on which the maximum sales price was based to be qualified to purchase a unit." I don't understand the intention of this, but I think this makes a whole lot of problems. I don't understand why the Housing Administrator would use that authority. I'm really concerned about that Page 18 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 language and I actually recommended that just totally be removed unless there's some reason for that one. Item (c) "Preference for rental or purchase of County-funded affordable units." It's slightly different from what we're identifying in Section (a). And I think we should align that language a little bit better to be the same. So, here we're saying "County-funded affordable units", and in (a) we're saying, projects where the ,'OHCD (Office of Housing and Community Development) is responsible for receiving and evaluating applications." So, I just think that has to be aligned a little bit better. Moving on to the preferences. I have huge concerns about Item (a). As Chair Kimball mentioned, I think it could be an issue where you're using County land and public funds to preference government employees. I think we really need to look into that a little bit further. In Item (2), I get the sense that there is a possibility that we are excluding highly skilled workers where we are in need of recruiting—say for example, nurses, but teachers as well. So, these categories of workers that we are having difficulty recruiting locally, we may be excluding them from housing opportunities with this language. So, I will be more than happy to answer any questions but thank you very much for allowing me to express some of my concerns. Thank you very much. MR. INABA: Thank you, Administrator. We will definitely be taking a look at some of those suggestions. Just to respond to two of them regarding what's either already existing in the bill or in the Code. When it comes to Federal funding, I know you had concerns about not being able to apply these criteria. So, in Section 11-13 (a) it says, "unless otherwise prohibited by a grantor to the County." So, if there is a prohibition from Federal funding to apply this, then we wouldn't need to. Then regarding let's see, the twenty percent sale price. That's existing language in the Code already, so you know, we didn't want to change that, but if that's something that this body wants to remove so that the sale price AMI (Average Median Income) is exactly what it is, and we cannot go above that, then I think, you know, that's an amendment discount. So can take it up, but that's existing language in the Code. With that,just want to hear from my colleagues, other comments, or questions, or ideas that we can kind of, you know, mix into this and improve it so it is ready for primetime baking or whatever we want to call it. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Ms. Kagiwada. Page 19 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Council Members Kimball and Inaba for the kitchen sink bill here. And thank you, Administrator Kunz. I also had the question about considering preference based on proximity to work, because I think that's something that could be useful in many ways including reducing, you know, transportation, emissions, things like that. So, couple of other things. Just wondering what happens if somebody changes jobs and they're in a rental in this situation? If they leave the County? For instance, they were working for the County, and all of a sudden they took a job in the private sector. Do they lose their apartment? Do they lose their rental or is there anything that they need to do? That's one question I have. And the other is, if these are for sale, is there anything that would limit the resale for amounts of profit? Or is that just something that could happen after this? Those are my two main questions, thanks. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Administrator Kunz, did you want to answer that question, or should I ask Ms. Kimball and Mr. Inaba? MS. KUNZ: No,please ask the Council Members for clarification? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. To respond to the first question, the application of the preference would just happen at the time that the rent, the lease, or the purchase is awarded to the applicant. So, it's just a one-time thing. You don't revoke it at a later point. That's pretty typical. As far as your other question. This isn't the appropriate section of Chapter 11 to deal with resale and terms of affordability. We do have some of that language in Chapter 11 already, but that's another item that Council Member Inaba and I have been considering about the restrictions with respect to sale. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anything else, Ms. Kagiwada? MS. KAGIWADA: No, I'm good. Thanks. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thanks. Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Good morning. Actually, it's high noon. So, Administrator Kunz, when I look at this, they're combining rental or purchase of units. Would it be better to separate those into two completely separate categories? Page 20 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 Because I'm thinking renting when, you know, clearly we have teachers and policemen and firemen that sometimes have to live or hopefully they live closer to where they work. That might be far more in a rental category versus a purchase category. Would that help in terms of—as we try to sort this through? MS. KL NZ: I think there needs to be consideration for both for sale and rentals, because you are considering different eligible populations. That is true. I believe in Chapter 11, it is separated. With the sale of lots and units as opposed to rentals. So, we might want to consider separating that. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, then it says up to 10 percent of County-funded affordable—how did we get to the 10 percent number instead of up to 20 percent? MS. KIMBALL: Chair, if I may, I'll respond to that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: So, again, that was some language that we came across in our research that they've utilized in Santa Clara County. That 10 percent is what they've used. We're again throwing this out here for the purpose of conversation. So, that's certainly something that, if that doesn't seem like the right percentage, we can talk and discuss around that. But, I did want to again highlight that there is precedence for that particular clause in Santa Clara, and after everybody else has a chance to speak, I will talk about the Fair Housing Act and how that all plays into this from a legal standpoint. MS. EVANS: Okay, so this bill looks like it's workforce housing focused, because we're not talking about like low-income senior housing and other types of qualifiers that might get people in housing. So, it looks like a workforce housing bill. So, my question is, is there other eligibility like, if you're disabled or if you're a veteran? Or is there other qualifiers that we should be considering? MS. KIMBALL: Those are not included at this time, and it's not specific to workforce housing. This is just for all of the housing that is administered as far as the selection process by the County. So, when considering this, you should consider it in that broad context that this would apply to whether—I mean, there may be other restrictions that exists on a facility that we administer, like it's a senior housing facility. This is an addition to that qualification, and it's not a requirement, it is a preference in the selection process. MS. EVANS: So given what Council Member Kimball just said, would there be any other potential qualifiers that would go underneath, like for example, rental affordable units? Because the way I'm reading it, it looks more like workforce. I'm sorry, it does look like workforce housing, because it's eligible employees. Page 21 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 Income eligible qualified, that's interesting. Income eligible qualified residents. So, we need a little bit more details on some of this or guidance from you, Director Kunz? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Administrator Kunz, can you hear Council Member Evans? MS. KUNZ: I can. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, I think she's looking for a response. MS. KUNZ: Okay. So, my thinking is depending on the project, we would identify the AMI of the potential community members, right, that we're trying to house. And we would make that determination at that time. The bill does not seem to be limiting me on what the AMI levels would be. Is that correct, Chair Kimball? MS. KIMBALL: That is correct. MS. KUNZ: Okay. So, I mean, I understand it would be affordable, but it's not limiting me. So, depending on the characteristics of a particular project. If it's 80 percent where we're deciding it's going to be workforce so we're going to go up to 140 percent. Those would be the criteria that we would use when we're receiving applications, and those would be made public, right, in advance? MS. EVANS: So basically, it would be sight-specific? MS. KUNZ: I'm thinking so. MS. EVANS: Okay, alright. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Evans. MS. KIMBALL: If I could just stay on topic. You know, it's important to notice here we have under(b) Eligibility requirements. "The administrator may establish additional eligibility criteria in administrative rules ...". You know, this is not meant to be—it's an addition to the process that they use now, and it's just a preference that would be added on to any of the eligibility requirements that the office might establish. So, let me just describe it as a scenario. We built some affordable units. The Office of Housing establish what is the eligibility requirements for those units as far as income. Maybe it's a designated senior housing facility, so there's an age limit. Then once it's put out there to the public that they can apply, a waitlist will be established, and then they would use this preference system to select the Page 22 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 candidates as far as allocating those units. So, that's how this is intended to work in response to your question, Council Member Evans. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: I was just looking at the (c)(1)(A). I thought that perhaps you could change that to public sector workers so we cover Federal? We could say County, State, and Federal. Yeah, public sector might be good. I don't know if that would work, but I think Federal workers are also underpaid and work for all of us as well. That's all for now. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. This is a very good bill. I like what you guys have done. It is a kitchen sink bill. I like that term. I do appreciate you attaching the Appendix G, Communication 77.1. That is helpful. I'm reading over the Fair Housing Act too, to kind of understand where this came from and why different municipalities have done different things. I would like toI don't know if this is a question for Corporation Counsel or for the makers, but if there's inability to provide preference to single-parent households without discriminating in any sense under the Fair Housing Act? We're at Committees so, if you don't know, you don't know but— (Note: ut(Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good morning, Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. So, I don't know. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. STRANCE: But I have Sylvia Wan in chambers who's assigned to Housing, and we're both taking lots of notes during this discussion. So, we will be prepared as we move forward, and you folks have raised some issues. Administrator Kunz has raised some concerns. We have some different concerns that we need to vet out, you know, sometimes there's a gut reaction to something that once placed in a broader context isn't so worrisome. So, like I said, we're taking good notes and we'll be able to talk more about this sink and try to help you as best we can to kind of sort it out. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Strance. Director Kunz, do you use any of these preferences currently? You know, in Housing, when you provide housing to folks? Page 23 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 MS. KLJNZ: We use income as a criteria, but we do not specifically use any of these others. I take that back. In another fashion we have. For example, Kamakoa Nui, when we did the first phase of the single-family home sales there, there was income criteria set, and we also required that families or applicants were working within a 15-mile radius. So, when you look at that language, I was kind of considering these four preferences in this bill. Just that mile radius and that the individuals are working kind of covers some of these preferences here. So, in that sense, yes. We use some of them. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm really appreciating the direction of this bill towards making residents primary. I believe that in prior discussions, and I can't remember if it was Council or not, that we've discussed, normally affordable housing is open to anyone in the nation who lives here or not. Specifically, who lives in the State of Hawaii, or in the County of Hawaii. But it being open to anybody. If they get it, they can move from Oklahoma, they can move from Texas, New York to Hawaii, and then take up affordable housing. And not that it's a bad thing, but I do like the direction of making this County residents preference. MS. KUNZ: You know, as I stated, I really do support the intent of this bill. I think it's necessary. I just want to be very careful about how we craft this. In the discussions like prioritizing families, you know, how do you say? So, you had mentioned, right, single mothers with children. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Or fathers. MS. KUNZ: True. Single parent. You know, that starts to lean into Fair Housing issues because of the "single" status, right? we cannot prioritize based on that. So, these are the types of things that I would like to have an opportunity to dig into with Corporation Counsel, and just make sure that we are protected in our good intentions, right? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I agree. So, Corporation Counsel, I know you're listening, but I'm interested to know if we can provide preference to single-parent families. Mother or father, because they're going to fit. I'm assuming, and this may be a big assumption, but they would fit the income eligibility due to one parent working. You know,probably, in my mind, 60-70 percent of them. But, I can't think of a bigger better sector to apply this to folks that are struggling with children and trying to make ends meet and needing housing. Page 24 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 I'm a little bit hesitant on (A), that we're providing it to eligible employees of the County or State. That may shoot me in the foot, but I feel like this should be open to everybody. Anybody and everybody, whether you're a County employee or a State employee, or you work at McDonalds or you work at wherever. This should be open to anyone and be more income-eligibility based. But, of everything I liked, I liked that we're actually going for a qualified resident, and given that other municipalities have done the same thing and without any lawsuits that we're aware of floating around out there. Okay, we don't know, okay. Or without any lawsuits that I've seen listed here or that I've heard about, then that gives me the feeling that these are acceptable and that they haven't been brought to court. So, with that, I like the intention, kitchen sink or not, I think you've done a good job and you've provided us good information to base our decision on. I'm interested to see what you do today, but those are my thoughts going forward. I yield, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Administrator Kunz kind of nailed it on the head with, you know, why we wanted to bring this to Committee now for a discussion. Because, we've all, at one time or another, expressed kind of an interest in this, but we want to be very, very careful. So, I wanted to make sure that there was full deliberation of what we might consider with respect to this. I will say that the other counties have at least what is there, the qualified resident. So that's County ID, that indicates that they live in the County. So, we would be Number 4, in introducing that bare minimum. So, I think all of us should consider that as the baseline. With respect to the Fair Housing Act. What the Fair Housing Act does with publicly-funded housing, you cannot discriminate on the basis of any of the protected classes. So, race, ethnicity, national origin, family status, things like that. So, as was mentioned in the Appendix here, but in our own research, you know, these preferences—they're not requirements, they're preference. They've been done in other jurisdictions where housing is an issue. San Francisco, D.C. (Washington), New York City; as I mentioned, Santa Clara County. As long as the preference doesn't result in any exclusion of any protected class. That's what you have to consider in terms of fair housing. I believe it was San Francisco, but San Francisco has a preference system like this. They were required at one point to do a study to insure that their preference system wasn't excluding any protected classes. It was determined not to, and so you know, that has been legally challenged. Page 25 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 My guess is with as diverse of a County as we are,the likelihood that a preference for residency would result in some sort of discrimination against another protected class would be highly unlikely. Like I said, the other counties already have that as the bare minimum. So, appreciate everybody's thoughts, and again usually I like to get things a little bit more dialed in by the time I bring it to you folks, but we thought that this was important to initiate this discussion at this stage to get a pulse for what the appetite was from the rest of the Council. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. You know, I think one thing about things that go into the kitchen sink sometimes they end up on the garbage disposal, and I think that's what we're trying to refine at this point. I had a couple of questions for Susan. Director, if I'm understanding the applicability of this particular legislation that we looked at, it would be for properties, right? County-owned properties, right? MS. KUNZ: That is what I'm trying to understand as well. MS. LEE LOY: Because I had a question of what if it's like executive ordered from the State, or if we bring in money from, you know, other entities? Like what defines County projects? And that's for Sylvia and Judge Strance to take note of. The other question I had was if we have any idea of how many projects of that type that we have planned or are in the pipe? Do we have any of that information on how many projects this would be applicable to? MS. KUNZ: Right now, I would say that the one that's most ready would be Kamakoa Nui. Not 100 percent ready, but I think that one will be up and coming very shortly. We have several other County properties that we're looking at to develop, and I think those would apply as well. You know, there's several State land, properties that we submitted for consideration to DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources). Until such time that a deal is executed and our Corporation Counsel clears that those properties can be considered. You know, I would think those would be in the lineup as well. So, there's just a handful at this time. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. And maybe the Swiss army knife we need is to make that applicable and the deed restrictions of the County's project. I'm trying to find a way to open up this pipe and make the housing happen as quickly as possible without it kind of clunking up through and kind of a policy ordinance place. I'm just trying to figure out other pathways. Page 26 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 MS. KUNZ: Council Member. MS. LEE LOY: Yes. MS. KUNZ: If I may. The other discussion that we've been having internally, of course, is say for example, it is a County property or State property. We go out to RFP (Request for Proposal), right? Now, we have a development agreement with a nonprofit, for example. So, if I'm not responsible for maintenance that waitlist or doing a selection, then that's not going to count. Even if it is a County piece of property. So, again I think in situations like that we have to consider, and I would like to get clarity on. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for that. And I think this is turning into a spitball session. So, maybe Judge Strance, I think what I hear my colleagues saying about these "Qualified Residents" or "Qualified Returning Students,"this definition. Could you please explore a potential definition of residents who will be owner occupants and who own no other real property. Because if they own in another state or if they already own somewhere else, what we want to try and provide is ownership to residents who haven't had their first shot at housing, I think. And I would love to hear some feedback around that particular definition. I think in technical terms, I'm trying to qualify local housing, right, for locals. Those are my thoughts right now, and I'm sure we'll get a whole lot more feedback about the fairness about this particular bill and any other liabilities related to not only this piece of legislation, but how it braids into our Fair Housing Act and some of the other funding that we have available. Whether it's CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) monies and/or has the monies. And I'm always thinking about DHHL (Department of Hawaiian Home Lands). So, thank you Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Just a couple responses to Council Member Lee Loy's comments. Just under eligibility requirements (b)(1). There is that language that comes actually from Housing's rules about not having ownership already in another property. So, we have included that language. Then, as far as, the specification of, you know, when it can be used, I think there's two approaches to this. One is to say basically, when it's a County property accept when we can't, which is very general, but that's basically how the other counties handle it. It's like when it's ours, accept when we can't do it, for whatever reason, and it may be because of the grantor or you know, the process or whatever. But it's very general like that. Page 27 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 Or we can go the other way, which is, it meets this criteria, this criteria, this criteria, and then it applies. While that provides more clarity, I think the other option is actually a lot easier to manage. It's just that, we will apply this preference when we can, unless we're not allowed to. And that's kind the simplest approach. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: I just wanted to say, a pickup on Director Kunz's idea about wanting to have it be a lottery rather than, you know,just because of access. So, just wanted to support that suggestion first. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kimball and Mr. Inaba for putting this forward. Great to start the conversation. I'm supportive of the concept and direction. Lot of really great feedback from, you know, our colleagues today. Hope you were able to see clarification from Corporation Counsel and work with our Housing Administrator, who has an abundance of experience in this area to resolve some of the concerns that she's brought forward. How much time do you folks need. When would you like to postpone this to? MS. KIMBALL: I think we're looking at March 7h. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: One month? MS. KIMBALL: Just because we have a lot on our agendas already in February. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 18 to March 7, 2023. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion on the postponement? Seeing none, all in favor please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 18 to March 7, 2023 to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 28 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, our final item on the agenda, Bill 19. Bill 19: REPEALS CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 2, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO DANCE HALLS Reference: Comm. 78 Intr. by: Ms. Kagiwada Motion to Approve: Ms. Kagiwada moved to recommend passage of Bill 19 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Sure. This really is just cleaning up some outdated Code that I came across with my staff. Something I checked out with Department of Finance. It's not anything we use. We don't have any dance halls that have licenses. It seems like something originally written in 1937, I believe. So, some of the language is kind of offensive. So,just thought taking it out would be good. If anybody has any questions? Somebody asked me, "is this like a footloose thing? You don't want dancing?" No. It's not a"footloose"thing, and probably maybe a little bit more of the opposite. It's taking out some of the morality and outdated clauses in there about dancing, and just, yeah, taking it out altogether. So, if anybody has questions, please ask? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Kagiwada. Any comments, questions? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I'll just make a comment. Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada for taking the time to review the dusty back corners of the Code and finding some things that really are outdated and don't need to be part of that anymore. Most of us spend a lot of time looking at what we can add, and I appreciate you and your staff for taking the time of looking at things that are not appropriate anymore. So, thank you for putting this forward. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Alright, there is a motion on the floor. All in favor please say "aye." Page 29 PCPLUD-3 February 7,2023 Vote on Bill 19: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 19 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bill 19 is forwarded to the Council with a favorable recommendation. We are at the end of the agenda. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 12:26 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Inaba, and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Committee is adjourned at 12:26 p.m. Thank you. Approve.• G I ;o;27 Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development AK/dt Page 30