HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUD 2024/01/23 (2022-2024)Policy Committee on
Planning, Land Use, and Development
9th Session
West Hawaii Civic Center
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
January 23, 2024
CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and
ORDER: Development was called to order at 1:17 p.m., in the Council Chambers,
Kailua-Kona, by Ms. 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 (came in later)
Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member
Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member
Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member
Absent & Excused: Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, 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 individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by
the Chair:
Robert Golden:
Randy Golden:
Cathleen Matsuda:
Linda Swanson:
(West Hawaii Association
of Realtors)
Jennifer Wilkinson:
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment.
Bill 125 (Comm. 679), in support.
Bill 125 (Comm. 679), in support.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Kimberly Bearden: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
Christi Mallicoat: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Jenipher Jones: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Pamela Traylor:
(representing Ohia Hideaway
Bed and Breakfast)
Melanie Lee:
Patrick Todd:
Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Bill 125 (Comm. 679), in support.
Bill 125 (Comm. 679), in support.
Mary Jo Lake: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Ryan Neal: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Chuck Flaherty: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), comment.
Joy Dillon: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Brian Daniel: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Gabrielle Naughten:
(representing Hale Ohu
Bed and Breakfast)
Linda Halbritter:
Terry Richards:
Jim Petersen:
Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Bill 125 (Comm. 679), in support.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Page 2
PCPLUD-9
Ashley Lake:
Sebastian Lancelotti:
Aina`aloha Ioane:
Su Champeny:
(representing Lele`iwi
Community Association)
Lory Hunter:
Lee Heintz:
January 23, 2024
Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Tracy Leverone: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Heather Korotie: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), comment.
Jeff Halbritter: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment.
Claudia Rohr: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); in opposition.
John Holl: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
David Glasr: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Alayna Wiley: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Harry Kim: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in support.
Dash Kuhr: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Mark Wong: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition.
Dr. Marcia Ledford: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
(representing the Edge of Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Paradise, LLC Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Page 3
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
Richard Henderson IL Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Jason Eisert: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Trey Livingston: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition;
Bill 125 (Comm. 679), in support.
Claire Bajo: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Mattias Kusch: Bill 125 (Comm. 679), in opposition.
Yonnell Farias: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Lorna Larsen-Jeyte: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), comment.
Gordon Lindquist: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Kris Adair: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Robert Henry: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Patti Tew: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Chuck Barker: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); in opposition.
Axel Kratel: Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Robert Shane Rohan:
Joshua Montgomery:
Jessica Carter:
Lee Kim:
Megan Magdalene:
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675); and
Bill 122 (Comm. 676); and
Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
Page 4
PCPLUD-9
Recess:
Kazuo Todd:
(representing Hawaii
County Fire Department)
Raechel Jacox:
January 23, 2024
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment.
Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition.
At 4:24 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
The meeting reconvened at 4:36 p.m.
Relinquish Chair: At this time, the Chair relinquished the chair to Vice Chair Inaba
BILLS FOR
The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
ORDINANCES:
Bills for Ordinances.
STATEMENTS
The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next
order of business,
FROM THE
Statements from the Public on Bill 121.
PUBLIC ON
BILL 121:
The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by
the Chair:
Tarek Antaki: Bill 121 (Comm.
675), in opposition.
Lisa Hall: Bill 121 (Comm.
675), in opposition.
Donna Herbst: Bill 121 (Comm.
675), in opposition.
Mary Begier: Bill 121 (Comm.
675), in opposition.
Jessica Gauthier: Bill 121 (Comm.
675), in opposition.
Martina Wing: Bill 121 (Comm.
675), in opposition.
Nick Benoit: Bill 121 (Comm.
675), in opposition.
Page 5
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
Bill 121: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES 1, 4, AND 5, OF THE HAWAI`I
COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO
TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATION RENTALS AND HOSTING PLATFORMS
Repeals Section 25-4-16 through Section 25-4-16.3 relating to Short-term
Vacation Rentals and establishes new provisions for Transient Accommodation
Rentals and Hosting Platforms for Transient Accommodation Rentals.
Reference: Comm.675
Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Kierkiewicz
Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to forward Bill 121 to the Planning
Director and Planning Commissions. Seconded by
Ms. Kierkiewicz.
ACTING CHR. INABA: We are going to be taking a presentation from the
introducers of this measure so that we can all level set and get an idea of the most
recent version of this bill. So, Council Member Kimball and Council Member
Kierkiewicz, go ahead.
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I'm going to ask if Charlie, he needed a
minute to get our presentation up on the screen. We have some slides. Okay, it
looks like we're there. Alright just to level set for everybody where we are today
is we are doing because this is an amendment to Chapter 25, the Zoning Code,
our Charter requires that this go to the Planning Commissions for additional
hearings, public review, feedback, with their recommendations. So, that is the
first step that we're taking today.
I want to acknowledge that even though, as one of the testifiers said, we've been
working on this bill for over a year and a half actually. It is still imperfect, and
we are aware of that. We will also acknowledge that it is very complicated and
while we understand that, you know, this is not unfortunately the kind of piece of
legislation that you can do piecemeal. You have to kind of take a wholistic look
at things and address it altogether. While it is quite complex, we understand that
as a result of that, there may be some significant misunderstandings about what
the bill does and doesn't do. So, Council Member Kierkiewicz and I are going to
just do a very brief overview of the bill today. Also, happy to answer any
questions but the objective here is just to move it to the Planning Commissions for
additional hearings. So, with that let's check if this technology works. Alright.
(Note: At this time, Council Members Kimball and Kierkiewicz provided
a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing
of the subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings
on file in the Clerk's Office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is
made a part of the record, see Comm. 675.3.)
Page 6
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: You know, I just want to end with thanking Council
Member Kimball for allowing me to be part of this process. You know, I'm a
born and raised local girl and Hawaii, I think, is an attractive destination to folks.
But this is a place that I was born and raised, that I get to call home, and I'm
raising my kids here, and we have just seen a proliferation of transient
accommodation rentals. And so, these bills aim to help restore island lifestyle and
prevent the hotelification of our communities.
Each of these bills in it of itself do not cure our housing crisis. It's been a crisis
that folks have been dealing with for decades, but I think each of these bills in
addition to programs that this body has adopted, like the affordable housing
production program, and our work on things like zoning code changes and
improved permitting processes, investments in critical infrastructure; all of these
actions working together in concert will help to increase housing opportunities for
local families. We are trying to strike the right balance: housing, economy,
lifestyle. And I'll be the first to admit, not everybody that was part of this
working group to introduce these bills were in 100 percent alignment. Like I
don't agree with the 180-day thing. And I also think that we can have a broader
discussion on where owners live and host their rentals, and that's why we are
having this discussion today. We want to get more community feedback and also
hear what our commissions have to say so that we can reconcile differences and
do what's best for our community. Thank you very much, Chair Inaba, for the
latitude and allowing us to do this presentation.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that, as it was mentioned here, we
will be referring this. The motion on the floor is to refer to the Planning Director
and Planning Commissions. With that in mind, and with the other hearings, and
then it will be back in Committee, I just kind of want to, you know, let the
Committee know unless there are specific amendments that somebody has ready
today, we perhaps might not want to be picking apart the bill at the nitty gritty. If
there are major thoughts that we think the makers should know already, that could
be included prior to it coming back, that might be a good opportunity to share
now, but again the motion is to send it to the commissions for their
recommendations and we'll hear it back here. So, Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: I need further discussion on this. Obviously, when you send
something from the Committee to the Planning Commission, I think there is
implied that we've vetted it, we've thought about it, and we're moving it to you to
continue the discussion. Guess what, I've never seen it before. So, I'm feeling
like you're asking me to send it to people as if I've had a chance to look at it, that
I've had a chance to vet on it, that I've had a chance to provide amended
language. I've had none of that. So, I think you're saying take it forward to the
Planning Commission, I think it sends the wrong message. If this has been the
way this Council has operated, I'd like to know from the Clerk is that in our rules
Page 7
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
that we have to pass it forward to the Planning Commission without giving us an
opportunity to amend it or have public discourse?
MR. HENRICKS: Are you asking me if the rules state that?
MS. EVANS: If the rules say that we just send it off to the Planning Commission
after one
MR. HENRICKS: No, the rules are not that succinct or that directive. The rules
state that basically it's a the Council rules are based upon the Charter and the
County Code put together which state that any bill to amend Chapter 25, in this
instance, before it reaches first reading it has to be provided to the Planning
Commissions and Planning Director for their respective reviews and
recommendations. That's the brunt of it.
MS. EVANS: That's the first reading of Council, not first reading of Committee?
MR. HENRICKS: These are not readings at Committee levels. So, yes, anytime
you hear first reading, that's at Council. This is not a reading. This does not
constitute a reading.
MS. EVANS: Okay. I don't think the bill is ready to bring it before the Council
for a reading. I think it needs a lot of discussion by us at the Committee level.
So, what I'm hearing, instead of us having the discussion at Committee level,
we're going to let the Planning Commission do our work and they have it at their
level, so they're doing our work for us? Because remember, one of the things I
want to tell the public, the Sunshine Law thing has been really a challenge for me.
I've been here one year, going on my second year, and the fact that I've had no
discussion, I have never seen this, and I am overwhelmed just like everybody else,
17 pages, a lot of detail.
A lot of things, I understand the purpose of it and why people are wanting to work
on it but some of this detail that I'm reading is like, whoa. I need to step back
because some of it I don't think is right. I'd like to see it amended. But I have
never had the chance to see it and I'm just feeling like I'm sending it off to
another body. I feel like they're doing my work for me. So, I'm very not real
happy with it. I will vote "no" passing it forward at this point in time. I think we
need to debate it and do our job at this level. Decide what we like and don't like,
what would change, what's going on here, and then forward it to them and they
can continue that discussion because I'd really love to talk to the Planning
Department today about some of the stuff that came up today in our testimony.
And another thing is, we have a lot of people testify today. I've been taking
notes, ready to ask questions, and now I can't because —
Page 8
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: Yeah.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Sorry, I just want to clarify. We do have the ability to
discuss the bill now so if there are questions, you can ask it of the Planning
Department. However —
MS. EVANS: Okay, I was under the impression I had to make amendments —
ACTING CHR. INABA: We have a motion on the floor which is to send it on.
So, that's the motion that we'll be voting on. Whether you do or don't want to
send it to the Commission today, we would possibly take that up. But if you have
questions for the department, they can answer that now
MS. EVANS: So, if we vote not to send it today it doesn't stop the bill.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Mr. Clerk.
MR. HENRICKS: Let me clarify, Ms. Evans. I wasn't clear enough to your
question. The simplest way to put it is this Committee can do anything it wants
except for move this bill forward to first reading or hear it in first reading without
first asking the Planning Commissions and Planning Director for their respective
reviews and recommendations. If the motion on the floor to refer this to the
Planning Commissions and Planning Director does not approve by majority, then
the bill fails. Because essentially what that means is the Council is declining to
refer it to the Planning Commissions and Planning Director and if it declines to do
so, the bill cannot be heard at first reading. So, by default the bill would fail.
So again, the Council, this Committee, is free to do whatever it wishes with this
bill other than move it forward for first reading without first referring it to the
Planning Director and Planning Commissions for their review and
recommendations.
MS. EVANS: So, I could propose an amendment to the motion to say we should
postpone it for two weeks so that we can have discussion on it?
MR. HENRICKS: May I respond, Mr. Chair?
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Mr. Clerk.
MR. HENRICKS: You would just simply make a motion to postpone. What
you'd be doing is postponing the motion to refer. So, it's very similar to any
other motion to postpone in Committees or Council.
Page 9
PCPLUD-9 January 23, 2024
Motion to Postpone: Ms. Evans moved to postpone Bill 121 to February 6, 2024.
Seconded by Ms. Villegas.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Discussion on the motion to postpone. Council
Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: I believe everybody knows why I would like to postpone it. I think
we do need to ask a lot of questions and have time to digest this. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Villegas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Sorry.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. I appreciate Council Member Evans' position. I'd ask
her to actually withdraw the motion to postpone right now since nobody else on
the dais has had an opportunity to speak as we've presented thus far with all of the
testimony fresh. It is, as you've said, possible to ask the department questions,
possible to ask Council Member Kierkiewicz and I question. I'm going to vote no
on the postponement right now but would suggest Council Member Evans
withdraw this motion until at least everybody has a chance to speak on the matter.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: No. I'd like to take the vote. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. We have a motion on the floor to postpone to
the February 6�' Committee meeting. Mr. Clerk, roll call.
MR. HENRICKS: On the motion to postpone the referral of Bill 121 to the
Planning Commission
ACTING CHR. INABA: Sorry. Mr. Clerk, real quick.
MR. HENRICKS: Yes, sir.
ACTING CHR. INABA: If this motion is to fail, we would need to take a vote
ultimately at the end of
MR. HENRICKS: Not necessarily because there's other possibilities.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay.
MR. HENRICKS: This motion is to postpone to a specific date.
Page 10
PCPLUD-9 January 23, 2024
ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Thank you. Okay, roll call vote please, on the
motion to postpone to February 6 h.
Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 121 to February 6, 2024,
to Postpone: failed by the following roll call vote:
Failed
Ayes: Committee Member Evans — 1.
Noes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada,
Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and
Acting Chair Inaba — 7.
Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder —1.
Excused: None.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Continue discussion. The motion on the
floor is to forward Bill 121 to the Planning Director and Commissions. Opening
it up to anyone. Council Member Villegas, go ahead.
MS. VILLEGAS: Thanks for putting together the deck. Thank you for
everybody that showed up to testify. The challenge here is there's such a
diversity of people impacted, utilizing and reliant upon the practices that connect
with transient accommodation rentals. I have deep respect for my predecessors
who brought Bill 108 forward, and all the things they navigated. And after a lot
of conversations after them being out of office I also respect their decision not to
pick up a lot of the complex issues that some of the members of this Council have
decided to do so. So, it's going to be a heavy, heavy lift.
I guess my question for the makers right now is I'm a little confused in where that
leaves, I've heard from a number of people today about ag property and where
that leaves our farmers who have, you know, or people that have ag homes and
they're hosted or what not. I'm confused about that, and I'd like a little bit of
clarity.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, this isI'm sorry. May I, Chair? Yeah, thank you for
asking that question because it's really, really important. On state land use ag, so
there is state land use, there is zoning, I'm saying this not for you but for
everybody out there. State land use our zoning. On state land use ag, HRS
(Hawai`i Revised Statutes) 205 prohibits the use of additional farm dwellings for
anything other than to house agricultural workers. So, if you are on ag land and
you have a first farm dwelling, that is not covered by 205. You can rent that out
as an STVR (Short Term Vacation Rental). If you've got an additional farm
dwelling, which is what an `ohana is called, or a second dwelling is called on ag
land, it is prohibited by state law to use it as a transient accommodation. This is
one of the things that's in the bill that could be perceived perhaps by some as a
loophole. You can go to the Planning Department and redesignate which is first,
and which is second, right, which is the first farm dwelling, which is the
Page 11
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
additional farm dwelling as long as certain conditions are met. I have talked with
folks at the state, there is zero appetite to change that HRS. There is an appetite
to look at the ag tourism part of the state law, which we are also subject to. But
the 205, which prohibits that use in additional farm dwellings is the barrier. So,
this is not coming from us at the County but it's a state law we have to comply
with.
MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Could I?
ACTING CHR. INABA: You still have the floor, Council Member Villegas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you. And then that is up to the state to enforce?
MS. KIMBALL: No. When you get the permit there's an agreement that you
it's recorded with the deed when you get the permit for the additional farm
dwelling. So, we would be required to the Planning Department is required to
enforce that.
MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, but if there's not an additional farm dwelling. Let's say
there's a house on a farm the term "`ohana," to me, I think of your downstairs
apartment or the upstairs loft, right. To me, that's an "`ohana." It's not another
dwelling on your property. It's not connected. So, that's some of the confusion
I'm hoping can be cleared up for the public because I know I need to clear it up.
To me, that's a second dwelling. That's a second home versus, you know,
something that's in the house or connected to the house. So, it's considered part
of that house, correct? As I look at Planning.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Deputy Director Darrow, if you could come forward,
and then I'll ask the body if there are any questions related to our current Zoning
Code, we can direct that to the Planning Department or to Corporation Counsel
Deputy Campbell is here in the room as well. Thank you.
MS. KIMBALL: If I could make one comment while Deputy Director is setting
up
ACTING CHR. INABA: Sure.
MS. KIMBALL: Which is `ohana's are not permitted on agricultural land, only
residential and state land use agricultural. So, an "`ohana," I mean it means
something to us, but in terms of the Code it's a specific type of permit and it's not
permitted on agricultural land already.
MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. I'm just thinking like the people that are sitting in
here that are lesser experts on that. It's a lot. So, thank you, Mr. Darrow. Want
to make this a little less muddy?
Page 12
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
(Note: At this time, Planning Deputy Director Jeffrey Darrow came
forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MR. DARROW: Hopefully. Good evening.
MS. VILLEGAS: I won't hold my breath, but we'll go.
MR. DARROW: Good evening, Members of the Council. I'm Jeff Darrow with
the Planning Department. It appears that one of the most confusing areas of not
only this bill but just in general is what can and cannot be done on ag land. When
it comes to dwellings, the department now has interpreted Chapter 205, basically
Section 2 and 4.5. When it refers to farm dwellings, there is a date that's referred
to in 205-4.5, where it talks about up to this date, they were single-family
dwellings and after this date they were considered farm dwellings, and that date
was June 4, 1976. And so, that's where you'll see some reference to single-
family dwellings and first farm dwellings. A majority of the time we're dealing
with properties that were created after 1976. So, just for this purpose, we'll look
at that.
The first dwelling would be a first farm dwelling. Any additional dwelling would
require an application to come into the Planning Department, which is called an
additional farm dwelling agreement application. And as Chair Kimball
mentioned, it would be recorded against the property that they have to comply
with these requirements in the agreement, which it's usually a significant amount
of agricultural activity on the land. Even the first farm dwelling has a
requirement of doing some sort of ag but we're not really enforcing that because
if you're living in your dwelling, we say, you know, you're capable of or if you're
living on site, you're capable of doing some sort of ag activity. And that's why
we didn't have a problem with this bill allowing hosted rentals in the first
dwellings on ag land because the host lives there. They're responsible for any
requirement that's under Chapter 205 for agriculture.
But again, as mentioned earlier, the agreement is very specific to have to do those
requirements for farm workers. And a farm worker could be related family
members, it doesn't have to be. It could be long-term rentals, but they have the
understanding they have a requirement to do farming on that property. So,
hopefully that'll bring some clarity.
Sorry, I have to bring a wrench into it. There has been in the past, up to 1976,
`ohana's permitted on ag land. Okay, so you will see some properties in the ag
land that have `ohana dwelling permits. There came a time where there was a
declaratory ruling at the land use commission where they said you cannot have
`ohana's on ag land. It has to be a farm dwelling. And so, that's when that
ceased in the county.
Page 13
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. One of the testifiers earlier today
mentioned something about Mr. Kern being a parry to the Rosehill petition or the
property owners that filed that petition. I don't know if in his prior career being a
land planner versus being the Director of Planning that that's where that —it just
surprised me, and I wanted a little bit of clarity on whether or not that was in fact
what happened.
MR. DARROW: Sure. When Zendo Kern had his business Kern and Associates,
which was a land planning consulting business, he represented quite a number of
people that were submitting STVR applications to the County. There is currently
a pending lawsuit that I don't even know where it is now, it's somewhere in law
land. But we're still waiting for that lawsuit to be completed and it's basically
having to do with our requirements stating you could not do un-hosted STVR's on
ag land because again, it goes against Chapter 205. There was nobody that was
living on property that was responsible for doing the agricultural requirements
under 205. And so, that's still pending. I don't think Zendo personally is
involved in that. I think he represented the people, the applicants, that are a part
of that particular lawsuit.
MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you. Because part of that testimony just had me a
little confused and that's a whole other level and layer as we navigate things with
ag and how this particular piece of legislation. Yeah, there's a lot more to chew
on. As Council Member Kimball mentioned, I have the lucky job of having the
predominate number of these TAR's (Transient Accommodation Rental) in
District 7, which adds another challenge because there are so many people reliant
and there's such diversity to the way that they're being utilized from your mom-
and-pop person.
You know, my understanding is the reason that Dru Kanuha and Karen Eoff, who
were in prior Council roles here, brought this legislation up to begin with was
because of the cries from the people. We had neighborhoods that were being
bought up by off -island investors and making a ton of money and transitioning
neighborhoods into party zones where people that live there year-round could no
longer feel at home, and that was the real push. It took a heavy lift to get Bill 108
through. It was not perfect. They've admitted it was not perfect. They had every
intention of maybe being able to get back and increase penalties or ensure there
was more follow up. I have been inundated in my five years in office with emails
and phone calls and social media things from people just begging, please do
something about this house that is wreaking havoc in my neighborhood, you
know, we didn't have the people to follow up, or they thought of all these
different things.
So, I appreciate what sounds like the intention is for this legislation. I don't know
if it in its current format it gets us there, but I think first off, my hope is after all of
today's testimony, and I'll just finish up real fast, that going through even just this
Page 14
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
brief summary assuages some of that, those concerns that it's not going to be. I
will also call out those that came and cried wolf, that I know for a fact live in fat
properties and million -dollar homes, and they've invested in them and now
they're crying because they can't afford what they invested in if this goes through
because of the nature of the business paradigm that they've created. So, that's
part of my heartbreak too, is we have to really make sure that what we do here
authentically supports the people and ensures that our people can still afford to
live here, and that it doesn't get manipulated and the loopholes don't get
manipulated. So sorry, that was my vent after how many hours of sitting here. I
yield.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Alright, there is a lot here. I just want to
reiterate what I think I heard Council Member Kimball say. Nobody that is
currently operating TAR now will be excluded or not be able to continue
operating their TAR unless they are doing it illegally or are doing something
that's breaking the law currently. Is that correct?
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. It's designed, you know, anybody that is owner -
operated, so primary residence, they can start at any time. That means they can
register what they're doing now. If it's operator -hosted, we're going to
grandfather everybody in that's in the non -conforming areas. The only exception
to this will be number one, if they are renting an additional farm dwelling, which
is not going to be illegal from the state level, not from our level, but from that
state level. That's obviously not going to be able to be permitted to go forward.
If they have, you know, they're not providing the accommodations in a dwelling
that's safe, you know, a chicken coop or something, you know, that's not going to
be permitted. But as long as they're not in violation of other laws outside of this
one they should be able to either get grandfathered in or be in compliance with
what the law says.
MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you so much for that. That's really important.
The other thing I heard a lot today was people have concerns that we are currently
not regulating the system well. I'm wondering if with these regular fees, annual
registration renewals and things like that, will we be able to use some of that to
help us do abetter job at regulating these? Alright, let me ask my other couple
questions so that we don't go back and forth there.
My other question is very small, but it has to do with the signage, the advertising
and signage. I heard a couple people say they're worried about having to put
signage at their homes saying that they're a TAR. And when you were explaining
it earlier it didn't really sound to me like that was part of the bill, but I want
clarification that that is or is not part of the bill, that people have to put signage in
front of their homes if they are doing a TAR.
Page 15
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
And lastly, just a statement. I'm very much in favor of, you know, getting a
handle on all this and creating a system that's fair. And I think that this gets us
closer and maybe some of these things can be adjusted slightly. But, you know, a
hundred dollars for an owner -hosted annual registration doesn't, to me, sound
outrageous. I know people have talked about the fines being very high. Are you
planning to violate? I mean, if you're not planning to violate and it has to be
substantiating, I guess I'm not understanding why people are so concerned with
the fine levels. To me, it seems like we want those somewhat high because we
want to make sure people don't do violations. But for most people, I'm sure
they're not planning to violate anything. And so, those fine amounts shouldn't be
too concerning. So yeah, those are I guess my main things.
The last one thing I just want to state is several, a handful of people said they
would never do a long-term rental. And to me that is just, that's very upsetting
because we've got people on our island who need homes. And to say I would
never do a long-term rental, that's very disappointing. So, I'll leave it at that and
if somebody can answer those other two questions that would be great. Thank
you.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Deputy Director, could you please answer the
questions? Thank you.
MR. DARROW: So, I'll address the first question regarding the transient
accommodation rental enforcement account. This is found under 25-4-16.21. So,
there is an account that this money goes to that can be used towards our
inspectors. We've been able to hire more inspectors because of the amount of
complaints we've been receiving regarding STVR's as well as hosted rentals. So,
a majority of the complaints we get, our inspectors go out there. There are times
that it is found that it is an unpermitted short-term vacation rental but there were
also times that we find that it's a hosted rental. And at this time, because they are
unregulated, we do not issue a violation for that unless of course there's
something else that's going on there, but most times that's what's happening.
They're just operating a hosted rental and the neighbor was complaining
regarding that. So, we do have that account.
Regarding the signage, there are counties that require a posting like outside in
your yard. That's not this county. We send placards when they register, and they
have to put it within their residence where the guests can be able to see the
information on the placard. So, no signage outside.
MS. KAGIWADA: So, no signage required outside.
MR. DARROW: And that can be found inside the bill as well.
MS. KIMBALL: Actually, I've got to correct that because it is, it's
Page 16
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
Section 25-4-16.17, 3(D), "Except for multi -family unit, signage indicating the
street number of the transient accommodation rental and the registration number
should be clearly visible from the main road..." I've heard the desire from folks
to not put the registration number on there. That, I don't actually have a
particular issue with. They do that in Kauai. The main thing is, we're getting a
lot of folks are frustrated when visitors show up to their house because they
couldn't find the TAR. So, the street address or at least some way to indicate,
"Yes, this is the right spot," is something we need here as part of the standards of
operation. Registration number, I believe there was somebody from the
department that may have asked for that, but I have no objection to taking that out
as we review this later on.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Any further questions, Council Member Kagiwada?
MS. KAGIWADA: No. I yield. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Bringing it this way, Council Member
Galimba.
MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I want to thank the makers for the months and
months and years of work that's gone into this. And I do feel like while it may
not be exactly perfect, but the work shows, and this is definitely going to be an
improvement thus far. Even though it's complicated, it's probably much less
complicated than it could be and has been in the past. So, I think there's a lot of
refining that has gone on, even that I've seen sort of watching some of the drafts,
which I haven't been following as closely as I should but did, you know, follow
so lucidly.
I did have a couple of sort of not necessarily —well, okay, one question, which
was brought up by a constituent was that they said that they own, basically, an
owner and they are there on the property six months of the year and then six
months of the year they travel. So, I was wondering, how that would be handled
and what category they would fall into if it's exactly six months.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Deputy Director?
MR. DARROW: If I could if I could direct that to our Chair?
ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Council Member Kimball?
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you.
MR. DARROW: I can't remember where we fit, came to that conclusion.
Page 17
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. So, this kind of came up in our last community meeting
and it's something that I think we need to look at. But basically, if you've been
renting your home as a transient accommodation while you weren't there, it's un-
hosted right now. And so, you could only operate a hosted transient
accommodation when there is a host on site. So, in the scenario you're talking
about that's the only avenue forward for them. One of the things that we did say
that we would consider adding in is if somebody's gone for a week or two, and
they want to have a house sitter, like we don't want to get that knit picky. But if
you've technically been renting your home out for six months, 180 days, while
you weren't there, you're operating an un-hosted rental, and you should have been
registered previously. If you're in the permitted zones, it's okay.
MS. GALIMBA: Alright. Thanks. I guess on the other issue that I wanted to
bring up and ask about is the bed and breakfasts and the repeal, and I know at
least a few folks, some people today talked about having gotten use permits to do
bed and breakfast and so they are operating under that. And so, how they would
transition into these new categories of three categories
MS. KIMBALL: So, the bed and breakfast permit as it stands under Chapter 25 is
a one and done. You get that permit and it is an entitlement on your property. So,
that means anybody that has a current bed and breakfast permit, they have that
entitlement, and they'll continue to have that entitlement with any conditions that
were tied to that entitlement when they first got it. And our Chapter 25 is very
clear that the entitlement runs with the property and not the person. So, there was
a comment made about, you know, the state being able to come in and pull all
these back. Our code actually says that these entitlements run with the land. We
wouldn't be able to do that, it would be considered a taking. So, for those folks
who currently have a bed and breakfast permit, they would continue to be honored
under the conditions under which they were issued. There's nothing more that
they would need to do. They're done.
MS. GALIMBA: Thank you very much. I think those are my questions at this
point. I yield.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thanks. To the makers, absolutely looking forward to this
getting over to the Planning Commissions and getting more input there. I'll start
with, you know, I was on the Council when Bill 108 was going through and, you
know, it was clear. It was just a means to kind of stop this proliferation of resort
activities that was happening in our neighborhoods. But immediately, within just
a few months, and I want to say within a few months of, you know, the new term
of office, I was like, oh my god, there's so much more work that needs to happen
in Bill 108. I remember going to the Planning Director at that time going, come
on you guys, this isn't enough. So, I'm glad where we are today.
Page 18
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
Member Kimball mentioned some of us will absolutely love it or absolutely think
we're not going far enough. And so, that's where I'm living right now. I think
the fee schedule in some areas is too low, but that's me. Especially in the
un-hosted areas. But we can hear from the Planning Commissions on where
people land with that. And maybe a little bit more of a rationale or a cadence. I
get it that we have fees, and fee structures, but I also would love to know what the
rationale was behind some of this and they're not just nice round numbers. And
to your point earlier, Mr. Darrow, I know what when we did the Bill 108, we put
in fees so that we could get inspectors and maybe if there's a way to tie more of
these fees to the people who have to do the work, I think that's a nice place to live
so that we can explain why we have this fee schedule and if it's necessary to
incrementally go up over time. You know, we have a reason and a rationale and a
cadence to it.
I am completely sympathetic to our farmers, specifically our traditional farmers
who are using this as a way to supplement their income until, you know, their
crops come or, you know, they get the cattle, right, to slaughter. And so, I know
that's an area that's still going to be a little wonky, but if we could still find a
place where they can live and really land in that eco-tourism of agriculture, I think
we would do wonders for our agricultural community. And I know that our
Senator now, Mr. (Tim) Richards, would really, really love that we continue to
champion that.
And then of course, finally, my thoughts are I'm loving all the definitions and I'm
looking at our Corporation Counsel because we just live in a land where
definitions, definitions, definitions. And it took a minute for me to reflect a little
bit about short-term vacation rentals or in this case transient accommodation
rentals in residential, and it made me look up the definition of residential, and it's
very clear. Residential is where people live, primary residence, permanently for
considerable and substantial amounts of time. And so, that's what we were
experiencing long before Bill 108, was the fabric of community was being altered
because you had people coming and going. And I just grew up in a community
where you knew your neighbors, you played ball with them, you went swimming
with them, you went summer fun with them. And that was really beginning to
erode community and residential uses. So, I really like this laundry list of
definitions because I think we're actually getting back to what our residential
communities was built and intended to do, which was raise our families and
provide our kids a place to play and go to school.
Those are my comments, Mr. Darrow. And I look forward to, you know, your
work and the commission's work kind of shopping this around with the rest of the
community. And again, thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz, Ms. Kimball. This is long
and coming. I yield.
MR. DARROW: Chair? Sorry, real quick.
Page 19
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
ACTING CHR. INABA: Deputy Director Darrow.
MR. DARROW: Thank you. Just a real quick point. We're starting up with the
legislature at this point and there's been a section in Chapter 205, that's been a
deterrent up to this point regarding overnight accommodations on ag land that are
connected to ag tourism. And so, the Planning Department has introduced a bill
as part of a package that they remove that reference to the three islands, the
County with the three islands so that we could be included. And I believe there's
a level of residence which would include our County as well as others. But if that
passes, that would be another avenue in the agricultural district that can allow
overnight accommodations in connection with ag tourism. Thank you.
And just real quick, one more point. I wanted make sure I don't say anything
wrong on the record. There's a lot of stuff in the bill. When we were talking
about advertising, I was looking at this section that we had mentioned, 17 (C), and
it talked about, you know, basically it needs to be visible within the residence for
the people. But there is a section on the next page which is 3(D), and it says,
"Except for multi -family units, signage indicating the street address of the
transient accommodation rental and the registration number should be clearly
visible from the main roadway..." So, I wasn't aware of that addition. So, I
don't see that as a conflict. I think what you had mentioned is it's just to show the
address. But again, up to this point our standard has been informing the un-hosted
operators to make sure it's visible within the residence. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Deputy. Heading back to Council Member
Evans.
MS. EVANS: Thank you. So, my question has to do with what's going on with
the update of 2025 General Plan because there's some references in here about
where stuff is going to be allowed in certain districts and how does that play out
with what we currently have in the plan that we're currently with? Is this what we
have here, is it in conflict with the current General Plan? Is this going to
influence what you're going to do with the one that's getting pretty close to
coming forth to the Planning Commission?
MR. DARROW: Yes. I've got to be honest with you, that's more the Planning
Director's baby. I've kind of been working on other things. But in regard to that
reference, regarding where STVR's, TAR's, are permitted within these General
Plan areas, resort, and resort nodes, that's been in the bill from the very beginning
in Bill 108. It's being carried on here. I think there is some clarity brought in this
because there was confusion where we have this resort and resort node General
Plan areas that come right up to the ocean yet there's a strip of open along the
properties, right along the shoreline and we wanted to make sure that they were,
you know, because they typically have been operating as TAR's or STVR's
previous before the bill. We were just providing clarity that as far as the
Page 20
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
interpretation we were interpreting those as being within the resort node.
Additionally, they are zoned within the county resort RM (Residential Multi -
Family), single-family. They're not open zoning properties along there. If they
are, obviously they wouldn't be allowed to be a part of operating a TAR because
dwellings aren't allowed in the open zoning.
MS. EVANS: So, one thing that the public should be, looking at it is if you're
going to change the boundaries of these zones because that could affect what they
have now. So, not just this but with the upcoming General Plan when you're
looking at the lines and that may actually people's ability away from them
depending on where you draw the line.
MR. DARROW: Very good point. We will definitely make sure we take a look
at that.
MS. EVANS: Okay.
MR. DARROW: Thank you.
MS. EVANS: There's several reports that were provided to us today, and one of
the things I found interesting it said, at one time land use ordinances, for decades,
it said, generally restricted anybody renting their properties to tourists in
residential neighborhoods and that was the way it was for years, but they did
allow rentals for 30 days and longer. So, I'm just kind of curious, because you've
been here for quite a while, were you around when we didn't allow tourists in
residential neighborhoods?
MR. DARROW: I mean, honestly, I think when I came on board in 1998. I was
a zoning inspector at that time, so I actually did enforcement. We wouldn't get a
whole lot of complaints regarding those kind of things. We'd get more multiple -
family dwellings in single-family residential areas. But it was because they were
renting them out. But it wasn't like, a lot of times it wasn't tourists. They were
just operating long-term. They were just using their homes so that they could
cover their mortgage. Their mortgage was high.
When Chris Yuen became Planning Director there started to be, I think in Kailua
is where it kind of all started. The huge flame. And we would go to conferences,
and they would do these director's panels, and that would be one of the main
subjects, what are you doing about short-term vacation rentals? And everyone
would say, "We're cracking down." And Chris would say, "Well, we really don't
have a problem on our island. We're okay." But, you know, in short time, I
would say a decade later, obviously, people started coming in, purchasing homes
and turning them into STVR's where it really affected the residential character of
neighborhoods. And that's when Mayor Harry Kim had said, "We've got to stop
this from happening. As far as before that, I don't recall. There was a permitted
Page 21
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
use of transient vacation rentals, and they may have been allowed through a use
permit, but I don't recall seeing any type of activity. I would come across a
special permit here and there for a transient accommodation rental, but that was
few and far between.
MS. EVANS: Okay. That kind of leads me to my next question about special use
permits. There's some language in the proposed bill that talks about, the one in
particular that I'm looking at right now, but I think it appeared in a couple other
places, is that they would have to come for special use permits for allowing
certain things. How do you see this impacting you in terms of compliance and
enforcement and will you need support, you know, if this passes to deal with what
I think these people are going to come and have to, you know, apply?
MR. DARROW: This wording which is in Section 25-4-16.17
MS. EVANS: There's one on weddings, concerts, events too, and yeah, there's
other ones. Yeah.
MR. DARROW: This was reflective of the language that's within our ag tourism
section as well, 25-4-15. And it's basically, a lot of complaints that we have
received have been weddings or concerts or activities that are way beyond the
residential nature of a particular area and it's affecting a lot of people. And so,
then when we end up doing our investigation we find out that they're either
permitted or unpermitted rental, hosted rental, or un-hosted rental. But this is
what generates quite a bit of complaints is the activity beyond the typical rental.
So, whether it's weddings or whether it's concerts, or whatever it is. So, if they
want to be able to do this type of activity along with their rental, they will be
required to come in for a special permit and go through the public hearing process
so that the neighbors can have a part in it.
MS. EVANS: Okay. There's other comments about, and I don't know if you'd
be the ones to do the compliance in this but it's saying that the transient
accommodation must meet health, safety and construction code requirements
established by law. So, if they register, I'm just thinking this out. If they register,
will you be sending someone out or Public Works, how is this going to?
MS. KIMBALL: I can respond to that. So basically, there was a couple
comments made earlier today that were inviting people to lie. And we're trying to
solve the problem, which is not having to send inspectors out, and not having to
require final permits. And I don't know if you want credit for this idea or not
(Heather) but this idea of requiring an affidavit that just says, okay this things
meets safety, this meets things that met Code, for the Building Code at the time it
was designed, and just having the owner self -certify. That was a way for us to get
around having to do that level of check at this registration process because that
was one of the barriers before when they were registering un-hosted. So, we're
Page 22
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
kind of just shifting the responsibility to say that it meets safety and health code
standards to the owners rather than requiring final permits.
MS. EVANS: But, just for language clarity, it's saying it must meet the
requirements established by law. So, does that mean if their house was built, let's
say in 1980, are you expecting them to be at current Code? Because that's how I
would interpret it.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. No. I think that that is a point that's come up in the
testimony that we need to clarify. The intention was Code at the time that it was
built, and health and safety standards that are, you know, tied to accommodations,
like having a smoke alarm and things like that. So, that is a point where we need
to clarify the language.
MS. EVANS: Yeah. I'm hopeful that that gets a lot more clarity. I guess I'll just
close with a comment. When Airbnb and VRBO and all that came on the
internet, and these apps and stuff, it just changed everything for everybody. So, I
think where we're at is just why we're policymakers and changemakers, because
all this technology, everything that's coming is, you know, we have to address it,
whatever impacts it has, and we have to mitigate anything that is maybe
unintended consequences or really negative impacts. But the other side is we
have to also balance it with the fact that, you know, a lot of this technology is
really making people's lives easier, better. This is giving opportunities for people
to potentially offset the rising cost of living.
And so, you know, I've heard from my constituents and my area is an interesting
area because I have a lot of the resort, resort nodes, but I also have a lot of
agriculture, and I would say the reaction is that this is overregulated,
overburdensome. So, you know, thank you for my colleagues for understanding
I've never been through this process of sending something to the Planning
Commission. But I'm hopeful the Planning Commission watches our hearing
today and hears this, I think, thoughtful discussion and comments that we had
from everybody. Hopefully, having two different commission groups, one on one
side of the island and one side of the other that is, as they debate it out, that you
know, we see some serious amendments because as it stands now, I couldn't
support it.
But having said that, I'm just going to have to believe in the process that having
us today, and having two commission meetings, and then coming back to the
Council. I just wish for us as Council, it was more of a Committee hearing. I
could have gone a couple more but that's the way it is. Thank you. I yield.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Alright, Council
Member Kimball.
Page 23
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. KIMBALL: Humor me, Chair. Just to make sure we're clear on that last
point, Council Member Evans. After it does go to the Planning Commissions, it
will come back to this Committee. It doesn't go to Council. So, it comes back to
Committee after the Commission meetings. It comes to Committee. Nope.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright, sorry. We're going to clarify. The motion is
again, to submit to the Planning Director and Commissions. They will send us
their recommendation and we'll hear it back in this Committee prior to Council.
MR. DARROW: Chair? Sorry.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Deputy, go ahead.
MR. DARROW: I just wanted to bring up another point that I heard today kind
of a few times and that was the reference to $10,000 a day in fines, and it actually
is in the bill but it's referencing a fine to a hosting platform, and there may have
been confusion there. The nice thing about bringing in a hosting platform is that
they will in a sense report to us who they are advertising for, and that those people
that they're advertising are going to be the ones that have registered with us. So,
there will be this check -and -balance. And so, I think that's a good feature that's
being brought out in this bill. That's going to help us with our enforcement going
forward with that. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Deputy Director. Okay. I'm going to have
a few comments. Just wanting to get clarity on booking services versus hosting
platform and the way that it's used in the bill. Booking services being
intermediary services that facilitate the advertisement and listings, reservations,
collecting of payment. Hosting Platform meaning a business or person that
provides a marketplace, and I think there's potential for confusion there especially
on the side of the fines and what we do consider a hosting platform. We think
about Airbnb, VRBO, but if there are, you know, if an owner or operator does
chose to create their own website where they're not using one of those
mainstream platforms, that's something that I wasn't able to distinguish as, you
know, if the person creates the website, then are they the hosting platform who
would be fined for not providing the current number and such required by this
bill. So, that's just the first thing I wanted point out.
Also, throughout the bill we use the term "building site." For example, in owner -
hosted, the definition just means any transient accommodation rental hosted by a
person who uses the building site as their principal home. So, if I can ask the
makers, when we say "building site" are we talking about the specific structure
rather than the property?
Page 24
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. KIMBALL: I can answer that. That might be a Corporation Counsel
question, but yeah, it's the property not just the building. But there's a reason
why we can't say "property."
ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Deputy Campbell, please if you could shed a
little light on the use of "building site" versus using the "term property?"
(Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell came
forward and addressed the members of the Committee.)
MS. CAMPBELL: Good evening. Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell.
To be honest, I don't entirely remember.
MR. DARROW: You know, I think this is easy to be answered. Basically, it's
reflective of similar language we used in our bed and breakfast operations. There
are situations where on the building site you're going to have maybe more than
one dwelling. So, the operator or the host has to live on the building site. And
depending on how they, you know, operate, whether they're operator -hosted,
whether they're a non -conforming host in an "`ohana," they have to be living on
the building site.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay.
MR. DARROW: And yeah, that would be the actual property itself.
MS. LEE LOY: Chair?
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: It's also a definition that's contained at the very top of
Chapter 25 itself.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Thank you. I will review that prior to the next
meeting. Also, let's see, for Section 25-4-16, I'm just looking at the bill overall
and if there are areas that seem like they exist somewhere else in the Code or that
the law might already provide for it. Trying to eliminate things so in the case
where it's an emergency declaration, in lieu of temporary shelter, I just think that
if there is an emergency declaration, not sure, but it would seem to allow for
certain, you know, accommodations or temporary stops on certain parts of the
Code anyway.
Yes, and then, let's see, general comments in terms of the fees, I don't feel that
they're outrageous. I do have thoughts on operator -hosted transient
accommodation rentals. For those, you know, if someone is paying somebody or
allowing them we don't know what the arrangement is. But if somebody is
Page 25
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
operating a TAR on behalf of an owner, I'm not sure if there might be provisions
that we'd want to require that that person either gets in an affordable rental, or is
being able to live there or be compensated in some kind of fair way. We do have
the affordable rental class and it just seems like that might be a trigger or a lever
we can utilize to ensure that at least one of the units on the property is providing
residence for our local families at an affordable rate. So, wanted to share that.
And then for our fees, I couldn't agree more with Council Member Kagiwada.
The fees are nothing if you don't plan to break the rules. So, definitely in support.
And especially that we're able to decide that these fees and any of these expenses
will be going into a specific account for enforcement I think is, you know, every
department would probably want to see that for the funds that they collect. But
this is definitely a need if we're going to be changing up our Code here.
For our non -conforming use certificates, are those required to be renewed every
year in general, Deputy Director Darrow?
MR. DARROW: Currently, registered STVR's that are within permitted areas do
not do annual renewals, only non -conforming use certificates. So, this would be a
change to that.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Is the non -conforming use certificate a requirement for
annual renewal specific to STVR's or is that the case across all non -conforming?
MR. DARROW: No, no. STVR's.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. So, that would be another area I think we could
consider. If we are requiring folks to register, and I know we've talked about
registration versus the non -conforming use, but then we're essentially requiring
two applications every year and I'm not sure if we want to perhaps consolidate
that into just one application if that's going to be the renewal of the registration
because I'm seeing registration and non -conforming use just seems redundant
right now.
And I believe the last comment I have for today is regarding the quiet hours.
Definitely think we could go and conform with our normal 10:00 p.m., and
perhaps push the quiet hours in the morning back a little later so that our
residents, if they are nearby any TAR, aren't getting woken up by visitors or those
using those units. 10:00 p.m. and anytime later, perhaps 8:30 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. I
don't know what the state rules currently say, ten to seven, okay.
Okay, perhaps this really is the last comment. Section 25-4-16.27 regarding
director's duties in the event of an emergency. Also not seeing that this is
necessary but don't really understand the reason. Perhaps you could share that
real quick as the introducer, seeing that in the event of a declared emergency
Page 26
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
where a significant number of hosted non -conforming use transient
accommodation rentals are permanently lost, a director can assess, and if deemed
necessary, initiate legislation and opportunities to restore the capacity. Council
Member Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, I'll just quickly address this one. The 2018 eruption
and the inundation of Kapoho and Vacation Land where there were a number of
transient accommodation rentals there.
ACTING CHR. INABA: So, the language right now, initiate, legislate, and
administrative opportunities to restore —okay, I'll just say I'm perhaps not super
comfortable as to what that could mean rather than the Council and the
administration taking it up as a whole. We're dictating specific responsibilities to
the Planning Director there, which gives me a little concern. So, that's my
thoughts for today. I know we're going to send it on most likely. So, I'll pass it
back if you have any further comments. Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Just a couple remaining comments and I'll start with that
section. Yeah, the concept here was, and this was a little bit of a carrot thrown
out there, was that if there were a large number of TAR's that we've gave a
non -conforming use to that got wiped out with a lava flow or something else, then
there would be an opportunity to create more. It is that understanding that we are
trying to achieve balance, we do need visitor services in some areas. So, if there
were a disaster where a lot of them were lost, we would have a mechanism. If it
needs to be something other than to the director, that's fine.
I wanted to speak to Council Member Lee Loy's comment about fees and what
they pay for and what they support. You know, the way the fee structure is right
now, it's a one -and -done registration fee that the host do and then they pay the
annual, the ones that are in the non -conforming. What we've seen is that
non -conforming has been dropping. So, we're actually subsidizing the program
to a certain extent right now. So, that's a little bit about the justification for the
fees. I really like Council Member Inaba's idea here that we put the
non -conforming use fee and the registration fee together or maybe the
non -conforming use is a one -and -done like our special use fees have been done.
That would simplify things, but I think we need to work out the math on that. But
there is method to the madness around the fees.
And then I just wanted to speak because I know it came up quite a bit about the ag
tourism piece and this farm piece and being able to rent an additional farm
dwellings at our house or others yeah, there's a lot here, but one of things that I
do want to say, especially to the folks in the room and some of the other testifiers
is there's a lot of pieces to that puzzle around ag tourism, you know that. We've
had these conversations. Council Member Richards is introducing something
around that. We have a requirement through the state law that for ag tourism, any
Page 27
PCPLUD-9 January 23, 2024
tourism activities have to be subservient to the agricultural activities. We know
how difficult that is, but I would say that in our Code we set that based on how
much revenue was collected. There's no reason that revenue has to be the
measure of what's subservient or not. We do, I think all of us, understand that for
farming to survive, for agriculture to survive, for a lot of places there needs to be
a farm -to -table component. There needs to be an ag tourism component. This is
one piece of what's going on with that.
I hope you guys recognize and saw that you can now advertise as long as you've
got your special use permit for your overnight accommodation. So, we did fix
that here. But there are other things that we need to fix that are in progress, but
complicated. With that, I will say, thank you everybody. This is a complicated
bill. We know that there are flaws and imperfections and we look forward to
having the Commissions feedback so that we can continue to refine it addition to
your comments today. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that, there's a motion on the floor to
forward Bill 121 to the Planning Director and Planning Commissions, all those in
favor please say "aye."
Vote on Motion The vote on the motion to refer Bill 121 to the Planning
to Refer: Director and Planning Commissions pursuant to Section
(Approved) 25-2-43(b), Hawaii County Code was carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba,
Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy,
Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder —1.
Excused: None.
Bill 122: AMENDS CHAPTER 25 AND CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 14-20,
OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED),
RELATING TO THE REPEAL OF BED AND BREAKFAST AS A
PERMITTED USE
Repeals all provisions that allow for Bed and Breakfast establishments.
Reference: Comm.676
Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Kierkiewicz
Page 28
PCPLUD-9 January 23, 2024
Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to forward Bill 122 to the Planning
Director and Planning Commissions. Seconded by
Ms. Kierkiewicz.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. This is part of the whole conversation around
TAR's. Basically, what we're looking at without this repeal is four different
mechanisms by which people can register a transient accommodation. On
balance, registering as a TAR, as an operator -hosted or an owner -hosted, should
be simpler than the bed -and -breakfast process. And I think some of our folks out
here talked about they had to get all the permits put together, they had to go
through the Planning Commission. It is a one -and -done process, but it is much
more complicated than what we're looking at for the TAR registration. So, since
we're already doing the hosted and the operator -hosted under the TAR, like let's
just get rid of bed -and -breakfast and not have four things. Just do three.
With that said, I will reiterate in case people missed it. If you have an existing
bed -and -breakfast permit, that is an entitlement on your property that you will
continue to have. And if there were any conditions issued to you at the time that
you received that bed -and -breakfast permit, those are the conditions that apply to
you. You will not have to do anything else. You will not have to register as a
TAR. In fact, your property value will probably increase because you have an
entitlement that is no longer available.
With that said, just to mess everybody up and throw a huge wrench into the
works, one other opportunity here is to push operator -owners, owner -hosted, push
them all to B&B (bed and breakfast). You can imagine how that's going to come
up for the Planning Commission process, but that was another option that we've
discussed. They're over here going, "Why did you mention that?" Sorry. But
that's the truth. I mean that is another option, stick them all there, but I think we
proposed it in this way because it is going to be, once it's established and set,
much easier for people to manage. I yield, Chair. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Opening it up for discussion. Council
Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: Thank you. I personally believe there's a difference between
owner -operated and bed -and -breakfast. I think bed -and -breakfast is truly a
business model that has been around for a long time. And if you look at the way
the Code reads today, it's really about, you know, regulating breakfast meals, it's
regulating parking, it's regulating exterior signage, it's having to go to the
Commission, have a process so that the neighborhood knows it. I personally like
the bed -and -breakfast model and so I'd like to keep it separate. For that reason,
I'll be voting no. Thank you.
Page 29
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I actually share the same sentiments as
Council Member Evans. You know, I worked in land planning for a long time,
and I did like the strokes of going through the Commission, getting conditions of
approval, requiring parking, requiring ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
compliance. You know, I'm going to support this going to the Planning
Commission, but I really think there continues to be a space for bed -and -breakfast
and really legitimizing them specifically if they come with conditions of approval
whether it's through the use permit process or the special permit process. And
when we, just like Housing, when we're looking for a suite of options, this one
really brings all the amenities that come with a visitor industry. And so, we'll let
the Planning Department and the Commissions vet this one and balance that
against what we have in Bill 121. But I'm just saying this out loud for our Deputy
Darrow, and I've seen why we have the series of bills the way we do. Those are
my thoughts. I yield.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Villegas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. I feel the same way. I don't want to lose this as an
option. I do feel it serves a key purpose. There's also some history and legacy
associated with it that I think is a part of a visitor experience and a hosting
experience. You know, prior to digital hosting platforms that blew the doors off
this industry, a bed -and -breakfast was something that might be advertised in your
local little newspaper or a flyer you'd get, maybe even on the internet. But
ironically part of the demise to these hosted spaces has been how broadly it's now
publicized because it requires government then to have this accountability
because we have all this disparity and equity, and our real estate prices, and rental
everything's, and housing, all these different things. But going back to the
fundamental joy of discovering a bed -and -breakfast in a little town you love to
visit, and maybe you booked, you called them for a reservation, right. You didn't
book it through a what -not.
So, my heart breaks at the thought of losing that because I think that's part of
what we want to cherish, and we want to keep here on the Big Island. And if
anything, that's where I would love to see us returning more back to because that
is that authentic connectivity of a hosting experience versus just everything's
online, digital, no accountability, no real relationship. It's just an investment, it
makes money. You know, I feel like that's why we're in this place right now,
because we've gone so far away from what a bed -and -breakfast historically was
and has been as an experience. So, I would like to keep the bed -and -breakfast
option.
Once again, I'm just overwhelmed. It's seven o'clock. There's so much to digest
here, and there's so many different bills coming forward that I'm afraid that I'm
Page 30
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
missing something here. My phone's blowing up from people, very pissed, about
how we could even keep moving with these bills when we had as much public
testimony in opposition to them. I'm like, yeah, stranger things have happened.
Anyway, I'm going to start to get sassy. You know my potty mouth when that
happens. So, I'm going to yield now.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to move this forward to keep it
going and to keep discussing. I'm wondering, I mean maybe this is aI don't
know if this is a Planning question, but do we have any restriction on total
numbers of bed -and -breakfast in certain areas or anything like that? If a lot of
people were to all of a sudden jump to bed -and -breakfast, would we have an
issue?
MR. DARROW: There are, my understanding is there is a county, maybe even
two, that have limits on —I don't think it's B&B's, I think it's vacation rentals
within particular areas. Our County does not. So, anybody within a residential or
agricultural zoning could come in for a special permit or a use permit. You know,
I would say we probably get 10-20 a year. It's not so overwhelming. There are a
number of districts where they're outright permitted. Multiple -family residential
zoning, resort zoning, commercial zoning, those kinds of things, they're
permitted. But again, we don't see a whole lot of them coming in. I think most
people are doing hosted rentals, is what they're doing. They're operating like a
B&B, but they're just not coming to the Planning Commission for the approval.
MS. KAGIWADA: And do you think that's because there's just a lot more you
have to do in order to be a B&B special use?
MR. DARROW: Possibly. I mean, the public hearing and have to notify, and the
potential of somebody filing a contested case could be a deterrent.
MS. KAGIWADA: I see. Okay. Alright. Yeah, I'm happy to pass this along,
but it will be interesting to hear a little more when we get back to it. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. I yield.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Galimba.
MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. Just a quick question. Could an operation call itself a
bed -and -breakfast even though it was actually an operator or owner -hosted TAR?
Is that okay?
ACTING CHR. INABA: Deputy Director?
MR. DARROW: I'm sorry, one more time. I missed that.
Page 31
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. GALIMBA: So, just like nomenclature. Could an operation that was
technically —if we get rid of the bed and breakfast category and someone was an
owner -hosted or operator -hosted TAR, could they call themselves
MR. DARROW: A B&B?
MS. GALIMBA: A B&B?
MR. DARROW: I mean, technically I don't see an issue with that. I mean,
ironically a lot of bed -and -breakfast don't serve breakfast. So, it's kind of funny.
But basically, it's just an advertisement, you know, I mean they're offering the
experience. I think there is a difference between them. B&B's are very limited.
They're only allowed so many people in it. This one, the limit isn't there. And
again, you get this idea that you're going to get served breakfast, right, when you
call yourselves bed -and -breakfast. But anyway, I don't see a problem with that.
It would be something we can talk about as we move forward.
MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. And there's also a lot of places that aren't called
bed -and -breakfast that you get breakfast. So, it's very confusing. But thanks.
will be voting to move it forward.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Council Member Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Deputy Darrow, I think when we first
had introduced the transient accommodations rental bill, we were actually in
webinars pushing for folks to go through the B&B permitting process. That was
back in November 2022. You talked about there being, did you say annually
10-20 folks, that apply for B&B status?
MR. DARROW: I mean, we don't get a whole lot. It might be less than that.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Did you see an uptick when we started discussion around
the TAR bill?
MR. DARROW: Did we see an uptick?
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, at Planning Commission?
MR. DARROW: No.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: No. Okay.
MR. DARROW: Just business as usual.
Page 32
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I really appreciate comments from my colleagues. I'm
wanting to send this to commission just to hear what they have to say. You know,
we had put this forward because in our discussions with the Planning Department
there was a lot of consideration around B&B's being very similar to
owner -hosted. And so, this was a way to help sort of alleviate the demand for
additional work by Planning Department. But again, I would love for the
Planning Commissions to weigh in here.
You know, I'm looking at the B&B definition, there's a maximum of ten people
that can stay at a B&B at any one time for overnight accommodation and it has to
be less than a period of 30 days. So, there are some nuances and special
experiences that people have offered up. So, I would like for there to be
additional public discussion before we take this into consideration as a legislative
body. But I do just want to emphasize because I did have some constituents, you
know, write in, "I have a B&B, will I lose it?" You're grandfathered in. Again,
this entitlement runs with the land. Thank you, Deputy.
MR. DARROW: Thank you. I think that's an issue that kept coming up was,
"What about my existing B&B?" And correct me if I'm wrong, but we were
trying to incorporate something in the bill to talk about the grandfathered, but we
were requested not to, correct?
MS. KIMBALL: Can I speak to that? Yeah. Actually, that was something that
came up in the deliberations about having some language in the Code that referred
to the B&B program that would no longer exist, and it was the recommendation
of the Clerk that our Code, as it's current form, is what's going on right now. It
should be contemporary, whereas if permits existed from previous Code, that
lives in that old Code. But the current Code shouldn't refer to a program that
doesn't exist moving forward. So, that's why it's just fully eliminated even
though existing permits would be honored.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any further discussion? Council Member
Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: I think it was answered, right? Our bed -and -breakfast is a
regulatory permit that runs with the land, whereas a TAR is a fee that you register
every year. And my understanding is running with the property, it's an
entitlement with the property, which is our B&B bucket —
MR. DARROW: My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, if ownership
changes, so they have to submit a change of ownership or a change of
information, and it can continue on. They just have to submit the new
information so they're under new registration. But, yeah, should be able
Page 33
PCPLUD-9 January 23, 2024
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. And I think the bigger public process of the notification
to surrounding property owners, a contested case, a public hearing, you know,
conditions of approval that go with a bed -and -breakfast is where that public input
process occurs, right? With a TAR, it's a registration and there's no big
notification to surrounding property owners, and why I'm supportive of this kind
of moving forward. But I'll let Planning Department and the subject matter
experts weigh Bills 121 and 122 side by side and give us the pros and cons.
That's where I was thanks, Mr. Inaba, for that latitude. I yield.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that, I'm in support of moving it to
the Commissions as well. Though I do think similar to some of the real property
tax bills that we passI hear what you're saying in terms of having the Code be
current, but some of these things that are being eliminated are current day rules
that govern bed -and -breakfast. So, I'm thinking another approach to this might be
to simply put into Code that we won't be allowing further applications just so that
everything that governs the bed -and -breakfast currently would continue to stand
and we wouldn't be looking at a Code that might be missing those governing
rules.
Also, the definition on page five of the bill, the definition of hotel, I think needs to
be reviewed because I think it's a direct contradiction to the definition of transient
accommodation rental in Bill 121. Okay. Thank you. For the record, introducers
are aware. So, with that, those are my comments on this bill. There's a motion
on the floor to forward Bill 122 to the Planning Director and Planning
Commissions. All those in favor, please say "aye."
Vote on Motion The vote on the motion to refer Bill 122 to the Planning
to Refer: Director and Planning Commissions pursuant to Section
(Approved) 25-2-43(b), Hawaii County Code was carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada,
Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and
Acting Chair Inaba — 7.
Noes: Committee Member Evans — 1.
Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder —1.
Excused: None.
ACTING CHR. INABA: We'll go and take up Bill 123 at this point and I believe
this will be the last bill we'll take up.
Page 34
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
Bill 123: AMENDS CHAPTER 19, ARTICLE 1 AND ARTICLE 13, CHAPTER 23,
ARTICLE 9, AND CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE 5, AND
ARTICLE 6, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS
AMENDED), RELATING TO OHANA DWELLING UNITS
Removes each instance of the term "ohana dwelling" from the County Code and
inserts the term "accessory dwelling unit", and adds provisions for the
establishment of an accessory dwelling unit.
Reference: Comm.677
Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Kierkiewicz
Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to forward Bill 123 to the Planning
Director and Planning Commissions. Seconded by
Ms. Kierkiewicz.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, so this is part and parcel. This is a package and part of
the conversation around STVR bill was, you know, the housing issue. And we've
always wanted to look at making it easier to build accessory dwelling units or
`ohana units but we didn't want to make it super easy if they were just going to
become transient accommodation rentals. Like we're not fixing the housing
problem with that. So, that's why this is in with all the other bills is because we
wanted to show that we had a commitment to do that side of things as well.
Basically, in a nutshell, it is complicated and it also needs work, probably more
work than the other one even, is it takes away the `ohana or the ADU (Accessory
Dwelling Unit) process as being a separate permit. And basically, when you go in
for a building permit, you will have a site review, if you can fit it and you can fit
the wastewater, you can build it. There are probably some guardrails that we need
on here. We need to probably think about how many can be built on a lot, is there
a limit to the square footage. You know, there's probably some things that we
need to add back in, but basically the concept here was to go through and take this
part of the Chapter 25 and redline everything that seemed superfluous or
unnecessary because this part of the chapter was developed in an anti -density
time, where they didn't want to see increased density in already developed areas.
So, we're kind of flipping this on its head and saying we want density.
We want to basically make our urban cores effectively residential multi -family.
This is what this is intended to do. It's not going to solve things overnight. Just
like the ag tourism thing, we've got other issues at the State. We've got to make
sure that DOH (Department of Health) is willing to offer ADU permits for septic
systems on more than 10,000 square feet, because they won't at this point. So,
we've got to work on them with that.
Page 35
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
We also have a number of areas in County that are fundamentally rural, they're
small acreage lots, they are functioning as residential or rural, but they are state
land use ag. We've already learned we can't build `ohana's on state land use ag.
So, if we could get the state to actually allow us a mechanism to change, like
some of the plantation caps that are really just small lots, but they are state land
use ag. We convert those to rural, they can now build "`ohana's," their kids can
stay there, their aunty can stay there. There's a lot to do with this but this is step
one. So, just ask my colleagues to, with the rest of the package, forward this for
discussion with the commissions, and happy to answer any questions about where
we are with this. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. In support of this going down to Planning
Commission. I'm actually really excited that we're actually tackling this one.
This terminology is more in alignment with APA, our American Planner
Association terms along with other areas within our ICC (International Code
Council), our international codes for building. And so, I actually think —love it
that we had "`ohana," I think we were really looking out for our communities
back in the day, but this is definitely more in alignment to all the other codes that
exist but also funding. I think Fannie Mae and Hula Mae or yeah, Fannie Mae
provides funding along with USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)
and other funding opportunities that we can go secure when we look at housing
opportunities. So, I think this really puts us in alignment with resources that
could desperately build housing. Thank you to the makers for putting this
package together. I yield.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: Thank you. I personally don't like these package bills. I like them
one at a time because when you're dealing with three at one time it's hard to
remember which one was doing what and how they cross over. But again, when
you're doing your 2024-2025 General Plan, in this particular bill they're talking
about accessory dwelling units shall be permitted on building sites with an RS
(Single-family Residential), RD (Residential), RA (Residential Agricultural), FA
(Forest Agricultural), and A (Agricultural). And so, how will that impact what
we're doing with looking at the new revised General Plan, how does this roll into
that effort?
MR. DARROW: That's been a big push in the draft General Plan to be able to
provide more housing opportunities. Accessory dwelling units or ADU's has
been spoken about for quite some time. This is the first step in actually
implementing it. It'll be a big part of the General Plan update as well as the
Comprehensive Zoning Code update that's coming as well.
Page 36
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. EVANS: So, if you change it in the General Plan but it's not changed in the
Code then people couldn't do it? I'm just thinking, you know, like which one.
MR. DARROW: Yeah. You'd need to make sure —
MS. EVANS: You'd need to have authority in both, right?
MR. DARROW: Right.
MS. EVANS: So, you have to have a General Plan. It has to be in alignment
with this.
MR. DARROW: Correct. This is, even now, currently with this bill it would fit
under the General Plan because what we're doing is we're creating housing
opportunities which has been a, even in our General Plan now, is one of the
policies, goals, and objectives to be able to provide housing opportunities. This is
like where the rubber meets the road. This is significant. It's not only going to be
in our County. There's been pushes in the legislature that we're starting to see,
that they're trying to create more density in urban cores around residential lots to
provide more opportunities. It seems to be a big talking point these days.
MS. EVANS: Right. I'm a little —okay, there's this Section 25-6-31, it's
number B, new language. It says, "Any building site within the State land use
agricultural district shall be subject to agricultural requirements for farm
dwellings as established by ordinance or by rule..." And so, that's not really
accessory dwelling units. It's kind of like it's another, is it just thrown in because
it doesn't seem consistent with the other language?
MR. DARROW: It is. It's again, having to be mindful of the requirements of
Chapter 205. But we find ourselves in situations especially, I see it in Kona,
where we have smaller ag lots in State land use urban district. So, at that point
you would not be looking at Chapter 205 as a requirement. And you would still
be able to do the ADU units. When you do find yourself in the State land use ag,
yeah, you're stuck with having to do the farm dwelling, the additional farm
dwellings. Hopefully, there can be some consideration at the legislature to make
some changes in that.
MS. EVANS: Okay. And then under Section 25-6-32, Prohibited Areas. It says,
"Accessory dwelling units shall be prohibited in (3) any building site with
transient accommodation rentals." So, that's how it ties maybe to the other bills, I
guess. I'm trying to figure out, you know, when you package it again if the whole
like
MR. DARROW: Yeah, an additional dwelling unit would be a second dwelling.
And so, in Bill 121, it said that TAR's were not allowed in the second dwelling,
Page 37
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
so that's where it ties in. Even though you're able to have these additional
dwelling units, they're not to be used for transient accommodation rentals.
MS. EVANS: Okay. So, there was a comment that this would create more
density. I just want to know why this would give more density?
MR. DARROW: It would, on the particular property that would allow ADU's, it
would allow more dwellings than what are currently allowed. So, that's where it
would increase density. But again, as Council Member Kimball had mentioned,
there are still some areas that we really want to vet out through this process. One
of them is how many dwellings on a particular lot, and what type of square
footage are we looking at.
MS. EVANS: Okay. And just one more question. Prohibited Areas, (2) "Any
building site developed under an affordable housing project which has been
granted preemptions from the requirements of this Code..." But why wouldn't
you want affordable housing ability to do accessory dwelling unit? I'm a little
confused why.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evan, could you speak a little bit
closer to the mic?
MS. EVANS: I'm sorry. I'm just kind of confused that we wouldn't allow
ADU's on an affordable housing project unless our State housing finance and
development corp or the County Housing Agency says you can't. I mean, I don't
understand why you wouldn't want them the have ADU's.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, that's basically what we're trying to say is if something is
developed as an affordable housing program and the conditions of its
development preempted what we allow, they wouldn't be able to do it. I can see,
it's confusing, but like it's possible that if the housing authority develops an
affordable housing area, they would prohibit it. We can't supersede that.
MS. EVANS: But if they don't, if they don't, if they don't —
MS. KIMBALL: If they don't, then it's allowed.
MS. EVANS: Then we would allow it? I want to make sure we allow it.
MS. KIMBALL: Right. Yeah. And that's the intention. It's just if it was
prohibited under the program that it was developed, then they're not going to
override that with this language.
Page 38
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. EVANS: Okay. As long as the language can be read that way. But thank
you. Okay. No more. Thank you. I yield.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Deputy Director, just wondering if doing this
with the ADU's and especially when we're talking about going into the Zoning
Code and the General Plan, I know there's also a lot of discussion around possibly
looking at going from single-family to multi -family or at least allowing it in more
places. When I look at this UHERO (University of Hawaii Economic Research
Organization) report, our island has almost no place where we can do
multi -family. Will going in this direction make it more complicated or
problematic if we do want to do more multi -family or are we basically doing that,
but it's still called single-family? I mean, can you explain to me the difference
there?
MR. DARROW: I think you're definitely hitting the mark. I mean, even though
we're not changing the zoning to multiple family, it's actually doing that. It's
allowing multiple dwellings on a particular lot that previously may have only
allowed one or two dwellings. And again, there's even push from the legislature
to provide that higher density in the single-family residential zoning. So, we're
trying to get a jump on it. But it could be across the board as well. So, I mean,
again, we haven't discussed with the "`ohana bill" Section 33, "Regardless of the
size of the building site, not more than one `ohana dwelling unit shall be
permitted on the same building site..." This will most likely not just be one
additional dwelling unit, but it could be up to four or even more. Right now,
there's no limit.
MS. KAGIWADA: Based on everything else on site?
MR. DARROW: Sure.
MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Alright, thank you so much. I appreciate that. I yield.
MR. DARROW: Thank you.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Yeah, just something I wanted to point out and
then I'm in support of these things going to the Leeward Planning Commission,
but we haven't had quorum for them to meet since August of last year. They
currently only have five people on the Leeward Planning Commission, and it was
cancelled last time a half hour before that meeting. So, I'm going to put a call out
to our Leeward Planning Commission and Windward Planning Commission
people, please show up. Make every effort. This is a huge, huge deal to be a
Page 39
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
member of our Planning Commissions, and it's really going to be imperative that
you prioritize these meetings for the future of our County. And in order for us to
authentically and effectively vet this legislation and provide for our community
what they deserve. I mean, we've sat through how many hours of testimony
today that still weighs heavy on my heart, and I know that there will be more of
that for our Planning Commissions, and it will fall to them to make some of those
decisions and work with the Planning Department to make amendments and look
at how things are done. So, just that call out real fast.
And then I just, it's a nuance that popped up to me was I had a conversation with
somebody once and they mentioned the history of the single-family residential
designation and that actually coming from a history of bigotry and segregation
because in cultural families, it's a multi -dimensional, multi -generational family
living style. But in certain areas in the United States where those typically of
Caucasian descent wanted a more strict control over who lived in what
neighborhood, that became a means for essentially environmental racism and
socioeconomic disparity. And so, it just hasn't escaped me as we have this
conversation about how to bring ourselves back.
We talk a lot about challenges that we face, and we don't necessarily have the
capacity in all of our just humanness being here, but that the solutions for the
challenges we're facing reside in the wisdom of our host cultures. And that
doesn't mean stacking, you know, 100-200 people on a piece of property. We
still have to honor capacity and we still have to honor resource management. But
as I look at society, the standard that everybody should have their own ginormous
home and utilize all those resources with all that empty space, I don't think is the
wisest use of our resources, nor is it really healthy for us as humans. We actually
do, do better when we're closer and we're connected, and we have opportunity to
be accountable to one another. So, those are just my tidbits for closing. So,
thanks. I had some pretzels so I'm not as punchy.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Any further discussion? Okay. Just a few
points from me. On Page 4, could you provide an example, Deputy Director, for
when we're talking about any building site within the State land use ag district
subject to ag requirements per HRS, we're saying where it's permitted. So, I'm
just a little confused about what that means because I'm taking this as we can put
these accessory dwelling units on all of those different zonings and then "B" is
saying where it's
MR. DARROW: Yeah. And that's the difficulty as I was mentioning earlier with
ADU's on State land use ag district. The permitted uses that you see under
subsection "A" are referring to our County zoning, and there are times where our
County zoning will not necessarily align with the State land use. So, we'll find
ourselves with County ag zoning and State land use urban. That will provide the
opportunities for additional dwelling units on the County agricultural zoning. If
Page 40
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
they do fall within Chapter 205, State land use ag district, they will be required to
comply with State law which is first dwelling is a farm dwelling. Any additional
dwellings will be additional farm dwellings versus additional dwelling units.
They could be called additional dwelling units, but they'll have these farm
dwelling requirements.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Thank you. And then prohibited areas, this is
where it seems a little confusing because we're saying we're not going to allow
accessory dwelling units on any building site with transient accommodation
rentals, meaning that if there is a transient accommodation rental on an existing
property, we're not going to allow ADU's. Okay. So, then if we look at Section
25-6-38, we're saying ADU's will not be permitted as transient accommodation
rentals, but we're also allowing a switch of what is considered the primary unit,
right, versus what would be considered the additional dwelling unit? Is that right,
Council Member Kimball?
MS. KIMBALL: Yes. There are loopholes.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Yeah. So, for this loophole I think we definitely
need to clear up how many ADU's we're going to be allowing on a property. If
there's water and sewer abilities, I don't think is enough in guardrails for that
especially when we have such strict zoning laws right now that govern how many
structures can be built on a property. So, that definitely I think needs to be
tightened up. And then the other point being why would we want to allow an
existing unit to be deemed the additional dwelling unit. Why wouldn't we just
permit the ADU and that is the ADU. If you have a standing structure, that is the
standing original structure. The term additional means in addition to what we
have now, why would we allow a switch? Let's go with Deputy Director Darrow.
MR. DARROW: You know, I'm just going to take a guess at this. But my
thought is just that, again, this, and correct me if I'm wrong, Council Member
Kimball, but if you have a property that has a single-family dwelling and an
additional dwelling unit, my understanding is you cannot do the TAR in the
additional dwelling unit, but you can do it in the first dwelling unit, right? So,
there's your loophole again. But let's say you didn't want to live in that one, you
wanted to live in this one, so you have to request that the terminology for that
dwelling be changed. That's all.
ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DARROW: Similar to when we are in the ag district, and you have a first
farm dwelling and an additional. When you have people coming for a B&B, they
wanted to do it in the additional, so we had to ask them to transfer the additional
to the other dwelling. So, that was the concept behind it.
Page 41
PCPLUD-9 January 23, 2024
ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. I think for the record that concept is nonsense.
But when we hear it back here, we can take that up. And I think that's all I have
for today. I think the ADU's are going to be a good thing. And again, I'll go
back to the idea of our affordable rentals and however we can plug that into our
Code. You know, if we're going to just create more units because the space
allows for it and those units are going to be rented at market rate, I'm not sure
how that helps us as much as if we're going to allow ADU's and perhaps, you
know, that might be a cool area that we can create a new real property tax class or
we have to force people into rent to get affordable rental rates for an ADU. I
think that really would help the people who are living here and are in need of
housing. But I do support moving this forward.
Thank you for bringing this forward. This really creates an avenue for us to get
those additional housing units, being mindful of the barriers that we need to keep
in place not to allow abuse. So, with that, there is a motion to forward Bill 123 to
the Planning Director and Planning Commissions. All those in favor, please say
Ic aye.
Vote on Motion The vote on the motion to refer Bill 123 to the Planning
to Refer: Director and Planning Commissions pursuant to Section
(Approved) 25-2-43(b), Hawaii County Code was carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba,
Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy,
Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder —1.
Excused: None.
ACTING CHR. INABA: It's 7:39 p.m. I'm going to pass the Chair back to Chair
Kierkiewicz at this time to see what we're going to do.
Relinquish Chair: At this time, Acting Chair Inaba relinquished the chair to Chair Kierkiewicz.
CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Let the record reflect I have reassumed Chairmanship at
7:39 p.m. At this point, I'm going to be putting the Committee in recess. We will
take up Bills 124 and 125 at noon tomorrow, Wednesday, January 24, 2024, after
Council.
Recess: At 7:40 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 12:03 p.m. on Wednesday, January 24, 2023.
Page 42
PCPLUD-9 January 23, 2024
CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha. Today is Wednesday, January 24. We are
reconvening the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development.
We still have Council business to get through, so I'm going to be putting this
Committee back into recess. We will reconvene immediately after Council is
done today. Mahalo nui.
Recess: At 12:03 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:31 p.m.
CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha. The Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use,
and Development has reconvened. We are in session at 2:31 p.m., on Wednesday,
January 24 h. We weren't able to get everything that was on the agenda done
yesterday during committee, so we are continuing from yesterday's session. I
believe we are on Bill 124. Mr. Clerk.
Bill 124: AMENDS CHAPTER 513, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 5B-2-1(D), OF THE
HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED),
RELATING TO WIND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
Establishes provisions specific to single -story, slab -on -grade residential buildings.
Reference: Comm.678
Intr. by: Ms. Kimball
Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 124 on
first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you, Chair. This piece of legislation is at the
request of the administration, the Mayor specifically, to amend the portion of our
Residential Building Code to actually realign with the International Building
Code (IBC), and it has to do with wind speeds and at what point a structural
engineer's stamp is needed on plans for residential dwelling. The International
Building Code says 140 miles per hour (mph). The ultimate or greater requires
the stamp. Our State Building Council amended that down to 130 (mph). We are
proposing that this piece of legislation to amend it back up to 140 (mph), again,
realigning with the International Building Code. I'll let the Director speak for
himself, but it is my understanding from him and the Building Division folks that
they believe that this is not a health and safety issue to go up to 140. But I'll let
the director respond to that. Director Pause, if you would.
(Note: At this time, Public Works Director Stephen Pause came forward
to address the members of the Committee.)
Page 43
PCPLUD-9 January 23, 2024
MR. PAUSE: Thank you. Stephen Pause. Director of Public Works. So, as
Chair Kimball stated, this request was brought by the administration. And it's
really to work on amending the Code. It's an issue that was brought to our
attention by a number of design professionals where the Code that was adopted in
2018, the IBC CodeI'm sorry, the 2018 IBC Code was adopted by the County
in July of 2021, and it included a requirement that for wind zones greater than
130 miles per hour, it would require calculations provided by structural engineer.
Below 130, it allowed the use of a prescriptive table referred to as an ASCE 7
(American Society of Civil Engineers). It's a means of looking up wind tables
and doing structural design for timber structures using the prescriptive table.
So, what we're doing here comes as a result of the 2021 IBC that was adopted by
the State, which allows for this. Our Building Division including our Structural
Engineer have gone through this new code and agree that by going to this
prescriptive table up to 140 mile an hour is going to keep the same level of safety
and just that 10 mile an hour difference for areas of the island will allow to use
this prescriptive table as opposed to having to hire a structural engineer.
The costs that have been brought to our attention is somewhere in the order of
$5,000 to $10,000 for the extra amount of structural engineering that has to be
done as a result of not being able to use the table. So, again, there's no
compromising safety. There is just a different means of accomplishing the same
task. I've provided, yesterday, a series of maps and what I'll do is, if you don't
mind, I'll just go through them really quickly. It's just designed to kind of go
straight to what in fact we're talking about.
(Note: At this time, Public Works Director Stephen Pause provided a
PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing
of the subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings
on file in the Clerk's Office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is
made a part of the record, see Comm. 678.1.)
Point of Clarification: MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. And I'll just add as one more point of clarification
too is it's not so much just the cost of the additional time and complexity but the
difficulty in finding structural engineers is in terms of being able to develop
housing, as the director mentioned, exclusive to this Category B, slab -on -grade,
single-family residence. So, this would not apply to other categories as well as
double story.
MR. PAUSE: Correct.
MS. KIMBALL: And there's some other conditions where —
MR. PAUSE: Less than 30-feet, yeah. But again, the simple thing that we're
trying to accomplish here is consistent with the 2021 IBC, which the State has
Page 44
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
adopted but we have not yet. But it also, it does not have any effect on safety and
it just provides the use of that prescriptive table up to 140 miles an hour now
instead of the 130 (mph).
MS. KIMBALL: With that, Chair, I yield.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Galimba.
MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. So, Director Pause, I just wanted to ask about these
numbers and vult and what it's supposed to be about. So, is it that a structure
could withstand 130 miles per hour wind supposedly if you have a structural
engineer stamp? Is that what that is supposed to mean?
MR. PAUSE: It's debris impact. It's not so much that it's going to fall down, it's
the things that are going to be flying with your heavy winds.
MS. GALIMBA: I see. So, that's what it means. If we had a hurricane
(category) 5, and we had 140-mile hour winds, debris is flying through the air
because of this, and hit a building, it potentially might not hurt the building?
Because I just want to be clear on what the definition is. And hopefully I won't
get quoted in some lawsuit.
MR. PAUSE: No. I did not bring our Structural Engineer. I guess I made that
judgement call and certainly there'll be two more shots at readings, but they could
expand on all sorts of things way better than I could. But again, the basis of the
bill or the ordinance or the change in the bill here is to allow the usage of a
prescriptive table further than what is in our current Code. But, you know, the
assurance is that it doesn't compromise safety.
MS. GALIMBA: Gotcha. And that sounds really great to me. But yeah, just
want to know what's the reality or the sort of scenario behind the numbers or the
maps that we're looking at. So, maybe next time I can ask them.
MR. PAUSE: I will be more than happy if you've got three or four hours, I'm
sure our Structural Engineer will be happy to engage.
MS. GALIMBA: We've already been through three or four hours, so.
MR. PAUSE: I did want to acknowledge that Daniel Lee is the County Structural
Engineer and, you know, he did a lot of work to review this to make sure that it's
all good. And then members of the community, one of the design professionals,
Daniel Bono, also has been engaged with our department as well, and he actually
provided me a couple of these maps as well. So, I wanted to publicly
acknowledge both of them to you. Thanks.
Page 45
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Are you good?
MS. GALIMBA: Yes. Thank you.
CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Director Pause, for being here. I
actually have a couple of questions. You know, when we were going through the
strokes of adopting our Building Code, we understood that the State Building
Code Council kind of sets the floor, and then, you know, Counties could tailor,
they just could not go below the floor. And so, if I'm understanding this
correctly, and again, total support of this bill, I just want to understand what's
contained in the IRC (International Residential Code), what the threshold was set
by the State Building Code Council on the vult, and how we're complying with
that Section 46-1.5-13 under HRS?
MR. PAUSE: So, we did confer with Corporation Counsel, and I'm not qualified
to talk about the legality of looking at a change —let me rephrase that. The intent
of what we're doing here does not alter life safety, which all the building codes
are based on that. So, we're merely taking something that's acceptable under the
2021 IRC/IBC and we're bringing it into our Code presently. And I do believe
that the 2021 has been adopted by the State.
MS. LEE LOY: State Building Code Council.
MR. PAUSE: Yes.
MS. LEE LOY: So, we're kind of moving this one in earlier rather than the
comprehensive edits that we've done in the past, absolutely. I just, like I said, this
body has struggled with State Building Code Council and then how we tailor our
own Code. So, thank you for that.
The other concern I had, or maybe not even concern, I just wanted to walk out,
was the understand the cost and understand the cost of a structural engineer and
the prescriptive tables. This is for slab -on -grade, right?
MR. PAUSE: Yes. Single -story, slab -on -grade.
MS. LEE LOY: Single -story, slab -on -grade. What happens to our single -story
post and pier, and has there been a cost analysis? Because pouring slab can be
more expensive than post and pier on occasions, right, and have we done a cost
analysis because I've spoken to a number of design professionals who have
walked this out with me and are in support of, which is why I continue to support,
but I want to be exchanging accurate information. I understand a structural
Page 46
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
engineer cost a lot of money but the trade off between slab and post and pier,
there's also some cost differences there.
MR. PAUSE: There are but I don't have the direct knowledge of the cost
difference between slab -on -grade versus post and pier. I do know, again, the
work that was put in by Daniel Lee and our Building Division landed where there
was a great deal of comfort specific to what is proposed here. I don't know that
there was ever a discussion about post and pier but, you know, they landed on the
slab -on -grade.
MS. LEE LOY: Okay. Yeah, maybe you could have Daniel just provide that
offline for me.
MR. PAUSE: Sure.
MS. LEE LOY: Only because we sit here, we hear all kinds of stuff. Yesterday,
we heard testimony about housing bills basically saying we have to alter our
construction codes on window panes because it makes it super expensive. And I
want to be able to provide other alternatives where we are addressing areas of the
construction code that actually do lower the cost of housing. But I want to
compare apples with apples.
MR. PAUSE: Sure.
MS. LEE LOY: Okay. And finally, I think the biggest concern I had with these
wind maps or what I heard from community is that these lines kind of split
communities. One side of the road was okay to be at 130 (mph) whereas, just
across the street in the same subdivision, you had to provide, you know, all these
additional structural engineering calculations. Have we overlaid some of these
lines on our subdivision maps and identify maybe hotspots and or other areas
where this would become a concern?
MR. PAUSE: No. That work has not been done. We kind of gone back and
forth about trying to take these maps, even what I'm showing you today, and get
the GIS (Geographical Information System) layers and try to do a better job.
Now they're, you know, anecdotally there's a number of developments where this
will affect including Discovery Harbor, and locations in Volcano and Seaview
Estates. So, there are areas where, you know, this will have a positive impact in
terms of, you know, simplifying the process. But I think ultimately as we go
forward there's opportunities to kind of maybe do a little better job at presenting,
you know, what exactly this affects. I mean, the maps are fine but, yeah, I think
the practical side of being able to show street lines and things would be a positive
thing.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah.
Page 47
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MR. PAUSE: The short of it is it's going to be better than what it is now just in
terms of going through permitting. And the other thing Council Member Kimball
was talking about as well is not only is it the time and the cost and the availability
of structural engineers on the island, but it's also review time within our
department as well and the ability to get through prescriptive tables a little quicker
than calculations.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thanks. And, you know, just down the road, the design
professionals that I've been talking to absolutely get it, they know how to use the
tables. I think what I'm trying to be very clear about, as far as information is,
when we talk about cost associating with adjusting our construction codes, you
know, how is it comparable, one; and then of course, you know, I live on one side
of the street but Council Member Kimball lives a little more mauka of me and
she's having to spend an additional $8,500 on calcs. It's good for a homeowner
to know that going in or even when they're looking at their lot. Anyway, thanks.
MR. PAUSE: There are also tools. There's a hazard assessment tool that
anybody can actually look it up. So, if you ever desire to take a look at that, you
type in your street address, and it gives you all the information about either where
you live or where you're wanting to live. But, yeah, I agree, there's definitely
things we can do.
MS. LEE LOY: Great. Thanks, Director. I yield.
CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Villegas, I saw you had your light on.
Did you want to?
MS. KIMBALL: Chair, actually I have to make my disclosure that I am married
to a design professional architect but who does not do residential. So, this would
not actually impact him or his office. So, hopefully that's okay. And I also
wanted to note that our Mayor, Mayor Roth, is in Hilo Chambers it looks like. As
I mentioned, this was at the Mayor's Office's request. So, Mayor, if you'd like to
say a few words about why you wanted to pursue this action?
(Note: At this time, Mayor Mitchell D. Roth came forward to address the
members of the Committee.)
MR. ROTH: Sure. Thank you, Council Members, for allowing me to come talk.
CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mayor, you have to activate your mic. There's a button
at the base of the
MS. KIMBALL: It looks like the Zoom is muted. Okay, there we go.
Page 48
PCPLUD-9 January 23, 2024
MR. ROTH: Thank you, Council Members. Thank you for allowing me to come.
I think Director Pause has everything right. I came to the table; I only have a few
minutes. But one of the questions that came up from Council Member Lee Loy
had to do with the Building Code Council, and last year I had a bill going through
the legislature and I was assured by people from the Building Code Council as
well as from the AG's (Attorney General), that this is something that we could
change. This change comes about from many, many complaints from many,
many people and, you know, we're looking at ways that we can improve our
system.
And I have to say that the Building Department, you know, they have made some
tremendous improvements from when we came in. My belief is that this will
make further improvements on the time it takes to review. It will prevent a lot of
the permits from going back to people to have their design professionals work on.
As was said earlier by Council Chair Kimball, there's several different issues with
cost. One, the cost to have the design professional just basically putting a stamp
on things. And then, the cost in time it takes to get a design professional.
We had a meeting last year with some people who are very much into the building
process and they're telling us it took them eight months to get an engineer to sign
off on their plans. So, we know that we've had some real big delays and we're
trying to make this system better for everyone to allow our kids to be able to raise
their kids here. So, I thank you very much for the opportunity. I just got a few
moments before I have to go upstairs, but I just want to thank you for taking this
bill.
CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mayor. Any other questions or comments
from this body? Okay. Seeing none, there is a motion on the floor to forward Bill
124 to the Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor, please
say "aye."
Vote on Bill 124: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 124 on first
(Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba,
Kagiwada, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and
Chair Kierkiewicz — 7.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Members Inaba and
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 2.
Excused: None.
Page 49
PCPLUD-9 January 23, 2024
Bill 125: AMENDS CHAPTER 6 OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983
(2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE
RELATING TO COMMERCIAL BICYCLE TOURS
Seeks to prohibit the operation of commercial bicycle tours on a portion of
Kohala Mountain Road and a portion of the Akoni Pule Highway.
Reference: Comm.679
Intr. by: Ms. Evans
Motion to Approve: Ms. Evans moved to recommend passage of Bill 125 on
first reading. Seconded by Ms. Villegas.
CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: Thank you. Thank you very much. This bill has taken me several
months to go through the research and understanding that our state law does allow
us to regulate commercial bicycle touring groups. We do not regulate bicycles on
roads, they have the right like anybody else to be on the road. They're very
protected by state law and probably even federal law. This is not about regulating
bicycles. This is about regulating bicycle tour groups.
I was aware some years ago that on Maui there had been some issue about
commercial bicycle tours coming off Haleakala and there was a lot of effort and
discussion by the community, and they eventually passed a bill that restricted
certain parts of the road coming off the mountain from having commercial bicycle
tours. So, you know, I researched that bill and, you know, came up with the bill
that you see before you today. And that is also because my community,
overwhelmingly since I've been their Council Member, have brought to my
attention the concerns of the Kohala Mountain Road and the road that leaves. If
you go to Kapa`au where the King Kamehameha Statue is, you go past it a few
miles and all of sudden you start going through gulches and switch backs and one
lane bridges, and line -of -sight kind of cliffy, rocky, things falling in the road, and
people have just said these commercial bicycle tours have just added already to
the stress, you know, the current condition of the road already has stressing
people out. And so, they asked me to take a look at this, so I brought this
forward.
I do believe that there may be a few other areas on the island that have these
curves, no line of sight, no way to bail out except maybe down a ditch into a rock
wall, and there's no shoulders that may exist in others. But I think that if we set
this in motion the way I've written it, it'll be probably similar to the way we
handle speed limits on County roads, and the way that we handle the parking like
we did on Ali`i Drive where when the community comes out and there's
community input, then the Council Member could bring forth possibly the
elimination and restriction on a certain area of the road for these commercial
Page 50
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
bicycle tours. So, I hope it's pretty simple, I think, in terms of the way I wrote it
and I hope for favorable support. Thank you. I yield.
CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member
Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Ms. Evans, for this. I was just really
curious as to what kind of information or data you collected because I'm not sure
if some of my colleagues who overnighted last night recognized a bike tour group
right in the porte-cochere. And so, I was just curious if you've collected any
information as to what these individuals are paying or what they're charging for
these tours? And I'm asking because there's the fine piece that's in here and I'm
just really curious on how much money they're really making for using an asset
that the taxpayers have to upkeep and maintain and or move into complete streets
while the visitor industry or a tour company is kind of collecting a lot of money
per person to drive or ride on a road. Were you able to get any of that kind of
information?
MS. EVANS: I really wasn't. No. It is an activity. It's a tourist activity. People
come here and you might even have people in the tour groups that haven't been
on a bicycle in 20 years. You know, they're telling them come out and be on a
road. So, no. I know that the news reporter that called me to ask me about the
bill interviewed two of the bicycle tour groups and they didn't see —at least what
it said in the newspaper they didn't see it being much of an impact for them.
That's not particularly a major road they put people on because it's so
complicated. It's steep, you know, it's very, very steep going up and it's very,
very steep going down on Kohala Mountain Road. And so, yes, they do get tours
but not that many from what they told me out on those roads out in North Kohala.
I couldn't tell you how much they charge, you know, per person. But they can
have —I've seen them drop people off near the King Kamehameha Statue and I've
probably seen eight bicycles in a van, they were dropping off.
MS. LEE LOY: Okay. Yeah, you know, looking forward to supporting this. I
think this is the tip of the iceberg on so many other things that people capitalize
on all for free market. But we just had a surf school, surfing, you know, at our
beach parks. There's all these things that, you know, our tour companies take
advantage of. Fine. I'm just looking for the kind of give back, and there's the fee
portion but I'm almost wondering if there's another license that we need to be
kind of collecting from these tour companies. Open to hear what my other
colleagues are thinking. But I can support this for now. I wouldn't be surprised if
something comes forward at first reading where other people and other districts
want to take advantage of it. I yield.
CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thanks, Council Member. Council Member Kimball.
Page 51
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, same questions as my colleague. A
little bit about some of the background data and perhaps maybe even number of
incidents if there have been either vehicle accidents or biker accidents just to kind
of get an understanding of the level of impact. My more immediate question
though is what is your vision of the enforcing agency? I see that it's going in
Chapter 6, is this going to be a ticket that Police Officers issue? It's not clear to
me who the enforcing agency is within the County and then where those funds go.
Do they just go to the Finance Director? General Fund? I don't know if you want
to maybe think about specifying a place for those funds —maybe it could go into
the Complete Streets fund or someplace like that. But those are my couple of
thoughts and questions.
CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Galimba.
MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. So, I have very similar thoughts to my colleagues. I
guess, it's funny because I was just hanging out with one of my employees on the
ranch and there's a road in limbo, our favorite word, that we use. It's the
mountain road so it's actually really important as an alternate route, but it's not
maintained, and we have bike tours on it. And these bike tourist who are not
bicyclist, you know, and they're looking around and they eat it all the time to put
it bluntly. I mean I was driving my truck and trailer and came around a blind
corner and here's a bunch of them and one of them had fallen off and they're just
like lying in the road and they look at me and my daughter in my truck and we're
like, you know, get up. It was very mean. Mean ranchers.
So, yeah, I mean I've got at least three other places in my district. There's the
road down to Kealakekua. I think there was a big accident that happened there
with the tourists. I have a constituent that called you about this. So, kind of
depending on where we go with this, I'd definitely want to be adding some other
sites or roads onto this list. But I kind of had the question in my mind of maybe
taking another route of like instead of listing all the places where they can't go,
which then makes them go to other places, which then we have to list, maybe it
should be more of a proactive where they get a license, and they pay for some of
the use they tell us where they're going to go, which might be safer places rather
than more dangerous. So, those are kind of my thoughts.
I did look up on Google, like bike tours in Hawaii and there was, you know, the
top five bike tours are all in Volcanoes National Park, which is I think a really
appropriate place for bike tours because it's not a main highway and, you know, it
probably would be a lot safer. So, that would be another thing just to look at how
the National Park handles bike tours because they probably have a program. So,
my employee and I really thank you for this bill and we'll see how it evolves.
CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member
Kagiwada.
Page 52
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. Yeah, I'm kind of thinking along the
same lines. Just if there was a little more data, if they are doing certain bike tours
in maybe some of these areas where they can go to and will that be impactful, like
will there be a lot of tours in one other area then and will that be problematic. I
do like the idea of maybe figuring out a way to kind of map out where the safe
places to go are. Overall, I want to say I'm for encouraging more bike riding and
more, you know, safe places that people can go bike riding, but understand that
there are some roads that may not be appropriate for tours.
I guess another question I just have is there's no mention in this definition of like
tours and stuff. It could be like just one person with one tour guide. That could
be a tour, or I mean are there like numbers you're talking about that you're
concerned about? Did you at all discuss, you know, a group of four is okay, and a
group of ten is not okay or anything like that? Because obviously we will not be
regulating regular cyclist riding. But just wondering, yeah, if there's a safe
number or safer number that might be able to be inserted here. So, looking
forward to hearing a little more data and hearing a little more about this. Thank
you.
CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. Ms. Evans,
before I give you the floor, I wanted to ask some questions of Corporation
Counsel. Judge Strance, sorry to put you on the spot here but where my
colleagues were going is exactly where I was thinking. You know, we have these
commercial bike tour operators. Judge Strance, is there any way we can regulate
the industry and have them apply for a permit to operate especially if they're
going to be conducting tours in County right of way.
(Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward
to address the members of the Committee.)
MS. STRANCE: Thank you. Elizabeth Strance. Corporation Counsel. I would
have to look at that. The County's ability to raise funds and exact charges is
somewhat limited, and whether it would extend to this, I'm not sure. There are
some licensing and regulation of bicycles by the State. So, I can take a look at
that and get back to you.
CHR KIERKIEWICZ: That would be really helpful to just understand what our
options are. I had some constituents reach out about bike tours in Puna. There's
an operator that's going to Isaac Kepo`okalani Hale Beach Park. That's a County
park. They're parking there with the bikes. Folks are then taking a tour of the
area. And so, they're conducting a commercial business on County property and
in my mind, did they ask permission to be there, but we didn't explicitly say, no
you can't be there? County Parks and Recreation Department, they do have a
process for, I think accessing like a vendor permit if you want to sell out of your
food truck at specific, you know, County parks facilities. And so, that's
Page 53
PCPLUD-9
January 23, 2024
something that I have in mind that I'd like for us to maybe explore a bit more on
top of how we might regulate and permit this commercial activity.
MS. STRANCE: Sure. I'll look into that. That's interesting.
CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you, Judge Strance. Council Member
Evans, I hope that that is something that you can consider, you know, as part of
this bill or a companion measure. I fully support what you're trying to do to
ensure, you know, safety within your community. I'm going to suggest that we
keep this bill in Committee because there's a lot of questions especially around
data that, you know, our colleagues are bringing up that we want to just explore a
little bit more. As our former Council Member Aaron Chung used to say this bill
is not ready for prime time. So, let's keep in in Committee, continue the
discussion. I know you really want to be responsive to your community's
concerns but we, again, want to just take advantage of this opportunity to address
any issues that we might be feeling in our communities as well. So, I hope that
you take that into consideration.
MS. EVANS: Thank you for the discussion. Clearly, it's shining the light on
commercial bicycle tours opens up a whole —all these different questions about
how many, what's going on. But I just reiterated, this has nothing to do with
people riding bicycles on our roads. This has to do with tour operators and yes,
there is definitions about commercial bicycle tours or group of persons. There's
guided and there's unguided. So, sometimes they will actually drive them to the
top of the mountain and drop eight people off and say, "We'll see you at the
bottom." So, they're unguided. Other times guided means the person is actually
riding with them while they're driving.
So yes, we can get definitely more information, but it may behoove us to think
about how do we want to potentially permit them or license them or, you know,
how do we want them to do business on our island? Maybe there's an
opportunity here. So, I think this is a really good conversation. So, I would like
to keep it in Committee and what is this motion to postpone it to the next, two
weeks from now?
CHR KIERKIEWICZ: February 6 h.
MS. EVANS: February 6 h.
Page 54
PCPLUD-9
Vote on Motion
to Postpone:
(Approved)
ADJOURN-
MENT:
January 23, 2024
Ms. Evans moved to postpone Bill 125 to February 6, 2024.
Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba,
Kagiwada, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas,
and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Members Inaba and
Kdneali'i-Klelnfelder — 2.
Excused: None.
There being no further business, at 3:12 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the
meeting. Seconded by Ms. Galimba, and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba,
Kagiwada, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas,
and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Members Inaba and
Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder — 2.
Excused: None.
CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: The Planning, Land Use, and Development Committee is
adjourned at 3:12 p.m. Thank you.
Approve .
rh'Tuo-e�---
Ms. AshL. Kierkiewicz, Chair
Policy Committee on Planning,
Land Use, and Development
AK/tk
(Date)
Page 55