Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUD 2024/07/08 (2022-2024)Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development 15th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii July 8, 2024 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Development was called to order at 9:01 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member (came in later) Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (came in later) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (via videoconference from Kona) 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: Stephanie Donoho: (representing Kohala Coast Resort Association; see Comm. 676.237) April Lee: Michael Tivana: (representing Hamakaa Farmers) Joshua Mehalick: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment; Bill 122 (Comm. 676), support; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), support. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition; Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition; Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 Robert Golden: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. (see Comm. 675.338) Linda Halbritter: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Marbella Alford: Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. Simmy McMichael: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. John Casey: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Kapono Pa: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. (representing Hawai `i Island Realtors) Roger Christie: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. Megan Isaac: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. (see Comm. 675.359) Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. Michelle Melendez: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. (see Comm. 675.177) Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. Andrew O'dell: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment. Josephine Keliipio: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in support; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in support. Joe Schneckenburger: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. (see Comm. 675.219) Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. Linda Swanson: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. (representing West Hawaii Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition; and Association of Realtors; Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. see Comm. 675.347) Joe Peiffer: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Page 2 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 Lisa Miura: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment. (representing County of Hawaii Bill 122 (Comm. 676), comment; and Real Property Tax Division) Bill 123 (Comm. 677), comment. Gordon Lindquist: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. (see Comm. 675.380) Recess: At 10:15 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:43 a.m. Caryl Burns: Wesley Moore: Raechal Jacox: Rene Asing Schofield: Mark Sidmore: Anna Peiffer: Caleb Rhodes: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition; and Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. William Meurer: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. (representing Whitchaven Farm; see Comm. 675.174) Dianne Hensley: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment. Bill 122 (Comm. 676), comment; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), comment. Martina Wing: Jason Eisert: (see Comm. 675.319) Kris Adair: Erin Gallogly: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in support. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment. Page 3 PCPLUD-15 BILLS FOR ORDINANCES: STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: Recess: Reconvene: Relinquish Chair: Spencer Jones: (representing Andrew D. Jones Trust) Joshua Montgomery: (representing Ohana Ana Association) July 8, 2024 Bill 121 (Comm. 675), comment. Bill 122 (Comm. 676), comment; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), comment. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Brittany Anderson: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Bill 122 (Comm. 676), in opposition; and Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in opposition. Geneva Jackson: Elizabeth Hines: (representing Kula Kai Farms) Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Let's move on to business of the day starting with Bill 121. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for Ordinances. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Kalani Gadbury: Bill 121 (Comm. 675), in opposition. At 11:45 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. The meeting reconvened at 12:00 p.m. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much for your patience. We are going to bring Committee back online at noon. If you could please take your seats. Thank you. At this time, I am going to be transferring the chairmanship to my Vice Chair, Council Member Holeka Inaba. At this time, the Chair relinquished the chair to Vice Chair Inaba. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Let the record reflect, at 12:01 p.m., I've assumed the Chair. And with that, we'll take up Bill 121. Page 4 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 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 Referred to Planning Commissions: January 30, 2024 ; and Comm. 675.159: From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated May 24, 2024, transmitting for Council's consideration and action, letters from the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. ; and Comm. 675.160: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated June 27, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. ; and Comm. 675.161: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated June 27, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. ; and Comm. 675.162: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated June 27, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. ; and Comm. 675.163: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated June 25, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. ; and Comm. 675.164: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated June 27, 2024, transmitting a proposed amendment. ; and Comm. 675.165: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated June 27, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 121 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. Page 5 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. And thank you everybody for coming to testify today. I just want to say, first of all, appreciate all of the folks that have reached out in the time between the Planning Committee meetings and today to share thoughts and ideas around amendments. That will certainly be taken into consideration, and just generally appreciate even though there are a number of folks that are in opposition to the bill, the much more civil tone of today. I want to say I do appreciate that. So, moving forward. I'd like to get the temperature of the body. My preference would be to immediately jump into the amendments that were put through from the Planning Department and Planning Commissions, get those into the bill and then discuss the bill as a whole. But if there is a preference to have a more general discussion about the legislation at the beginning, I'm certainly willing to do that. So, Chair, I'd like to offer the question to my colleagues and then I'll go from there. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Opening it up perhaps here with Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to do that. That's fine with me. I feel like we've had a lot of time with the actual bill, but we need some discussion on these amendments. So, thank you. MS. GALIMBA: Same. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Galimba. Heading over to Kona. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yes. You know, I just want to public to know that because of Sunshine Law, you know, I am just like you on subject to reading what is posted online. And I think the timing for us to digest all this, it's a lot of digest. If there could be, if the makers would do a quick overview of the different sections that they, you know, if they could just do a quick overview or summary of what each section was trying to do, and then come back and see if by section we're going to amend it. I personally like to see everything in its whole before things get digested and cut up. That would be my preference. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Anyone else here in Hilo? Alright, with that, Council Member Kimball, how would you like to proceed? MS. KIMBALL: I will do a brief summary if the Chair allows a little discretion here. So, some of the key things here is —well let me just start from the initial Page 6 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 premise, which is the purpose of this piece of legislation. It is intended to make sure that everyone is registered who is operating a transient accommodation, that they are operating legally, and adhering to the same set of good neighbor and advertising and hosting standards. The other intention, of course, is to continue to preserve the character of the rural and residential neighborhoods. The way that this bill should operate is that anyone who is operating legally at this time should be able to be either grandfathered in or they would be already in a permitted zone. So, some of the key things here are with respect to definitions. The definition of a transient notably is tied to the HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) and their definition of transient. However, we have excluded folks working in the medical and healthcare fields, which is not true with respect to the state law. So, in that case, people would not have to register as a TAR (Transient Accommodation Rental) in the County, but they would still be subject to TAT (Transient Accommodation Tax) because that's where that definition is coming from. The other key highlight within the definition section is that transient accommodations is set at 180 days. Administrator (Lisa) Miura talked to us a little bit about why that was initially proposed, because it aligns with the HRS as well as the current Real Property Tax Code. The next sections deal with the three types of transient accommodation rentals that we are going to recognize and the areas where they are permitted. So, you have owner -hosted, operator -hosted, and of course the unhosted. The distinction around the owner -hosted is that they are permitted to begin operations at any time in any location with certain conditions with respect to other parts of the law. And I do want to note, I know there were some comments made on the impacts on agricultural properties. I have said this multiple times, but it is the HRS that prohibits the use of additional farm dwellings, the state law, the state statute, additional farm dwellings for use as transient accommodations. So, you know, when we're dealing with agricultural properties, our hands here at the County are kind of tied. But the intent is that because we do know that this part of what helps people make ends meet, is if it's your primary residence, you can start a vacation rental at any location at any time, as long as it's in compliance with the standards provided. Operator -hosted, any of those as long as they're operating legally now, will be grandfathered in but going forward there'll be no more operator -hosted except within the permitted zones. I should also note that we've added some of the permitted zones now include —was is commercial -neighborhood or was it village - commercial we added? I can't recall. That's been added. That wasn't in the previous, as well as Downtown Hilo commercial. And then unhosted vacation rentals, obviously, Bill 108 regulated that. There's not going to be any new conforming uses for those. We have all of the processes Page 7 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 dealt out with respect to how registrations and renewals are handled. I'm not going to go into detail about that right now, same with nonconforming use. The procedures for applying for a nonconforming use, how are they handled, typical language around appeals process; if there's denial, things like that. And then we have in Section 25-4-16.17, the operational standards, these are the good neighbor standards. And again, there was a lot of comment today about enforcement, which is a legitimate concern and problem under the current law, and that is because a lot of the standards are unclear and vague. And so, this set out to try to clarify the language around the standards broken into the various sections around responsive management, good neighbor standards, advertising, things like that. We have the whole language about what happens with respect to enforcement when there are violations. Again, there is the three -tiered step system. This is for the violations starting at —again, leeway, I'm trying to do this as quickly as possible. ACTING CHR. INABA: Yup. Please continue. MS. KIMBALL: $2,500, first violation; $5,000, second violation; and $10,000, with the third violation. I should note that the language indicates that this is in the event that the owner of the transient accommodation is noticed of the violation and then doesn't do anything about it. Like that is —there's this concern that your neighbor will complain about you, and you will suddenly owe $25,000. That's not going to be how it works and that's here in the language. We do cover the real property taxes. Again, this does not change the Real Property Tax Code as it exists. We only included it in here so that there was a clear understanding. As Lisa, our Administrator, mentioned, people call the Planning Department, they get one answer. They don't know to also call the tax department, so we put this information in here so that it was one place, one -stop shop. And if you're looking at starting at starting a transient accommodation rental, you will have all the information in front of you in one place. We've also created a tax amnesty because what we want to do is have people register and we don't want to go after back taxes. And so, if they've been operating a transient accommodation and taking the owner tax class, they would have been in violation and the tax assessor could go back and collect back taxes. We've provided an amnesty. As long as you register, or you sign an affidavit that you're not going to continue usage. We have a section here under Section 5 of the bill for Division 1.2 for hosting platforms. This has to do with the reporting from VRBO, Airbnb, folks like that. I do want to acknowledge that I did receive the realtors recommendations on that and will be taking that into consideration. I do think it makes sense to exclude Page 8 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 property managers and individuals is not part of the housing platform. So, we'll look at the definition. That basically covers it in a nutshell very quickly. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kimball. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, the question was posed as to whether we want to take up the amendments today or whether going to just hold off. Do you have a preference? Alright. With that then, I'm fine to take up these amendments. I think the testimony we've received so far is pretty indicative of whether we are in supportor not of some of these amendments. So, I'm fine to take them up. MS. KIMBALL: Great. Thank you. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121 with the contents of Comm. 675.160. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIMBALL: Alright. This one is the easy one, although it's the longest one. This is primarily housekeeping. So, we have corrections to some grammatical corrections in Section 1 here. Section 2 has to do with changing the term second dwelling to additional dwelling unit, as a more appropriate term. Changing the effective date, since we've moved forward here. The third section does the same thing under the operator -hosted section. Under Section 4 of the amendment, unhosted transient accommodation rentals, there are no new nonconforming use certificates so that the $500 does not need to be there. So, that's just a clean-up. The Section 5, Item 5, in the amendment refers to the section that has to do with parking and how those requirements are calculated. The next one, this is actually kind of a key one, so I do want to highlight because I know there is another amendment with respect to this. Number 6, so Section 25-4-16.7a, Number 6, we were requiring a notarized affidavit. This changes that to a declaration and takes out the language with respect to penalty and perjury. So, one of the big consolations that we got from DPW (Department of Public Works) was no longer requiring final building permits to apply at registration. So the alternative was to just have an affidavit that they're providing a safe structure. This changes that to just a declaration so there wouldn't be a need to have it notarized. Number 7 is the recommendation from the department about how to calculate the number of guests, or sorry, the renter limit. I will say that there's other language about this later that talks about the directors discretion that was brought up. I think we have possibly some opportunities to clarify that language there adding the current transient accommodations. Amendment 7 is really just clarification based on recommendations from the Planning Department. Number 8, again, looking at clarification of just some of the language, mostly editorial. The particular, the gathering size, it wasn't clear that when we said Page 9 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 twice the renter limit —there was some nuances there about how you calculated the gathering size. So, that should read more clearly now. This change in Section 9 of the amendment to rather than a public list, have that available in an electronic format. And then, finally, we had one place where we had the definition or the term hosted, which has actually been removed from the definition because we've defined owner -hosted and operator -hosted. I will also note again, Section 8 of the amendment, the quiet hours have been returned to what the state —so, it was 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. It's been returned to the DOH (Department of Health) time period, which is 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. And that is the housekeeping amendment. Happy to take any questions. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Questions on the amendment? MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: We'll start in Kona. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah, just under good neighbor standards. Again, would you tell us how you came up with the maximum gathering size? It says that it's subject to the overall renter limit. Where does one know; how do you know what the renter limit is? Is that something the Planning Department will give you? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. The renter limit is calculated at the time of registration and the way that it is determined per the language in this amendment is that it would be two per bedroom plus two overall. So if you had a two bedroom unit, that would be four plus two more overall. So, six total and then the gathering size would then be 12, double that renter limit. So, the renters are considered the overnight registered guests of the property, and then there could be other guests that are there just, you know, nonregistered guests but it has to be under double that renter limit. There is language in there that allows director discretion. But again, that's one of the things that I think bares looking at for clarification. MS. EVANS: Yeah. This is the only one of all the amendments that you're proposing in this that I take —I just may have issues with it. I can just see people ubering wherever, "Oh, we've got to go over to their house, you know, we're going to go to the beach, or we're going to go over there and have lunch." And, you know, they all jump in and there's a family of six in one of those, you know, because there's these nice vans that you can rent that can seat six or eight or nine people, and they rent over there and definitely the parking's taken care of, but the gathering size, they're in violation. So, I just can't reset this. I don't know how you deal with this, and I know what people are trying to get at but at this point and time, I'm uncomfortable with that language, and that's the only thing of all Page 10 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 the other. I'm okay with everything else. That one I think needs fine-tuned. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for adjusting the hours to reflect the state. The 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. was funky. So, seeing it at 10:00 p.m. is more, I think, realistic. I appreciate that. And then as well, on the amendment, I agree with the amendment. One question I do have more in general and I think this is line with the amendment because it's touched on in here is as we talk about these amendments for additional dwelling units, or ADU's, should we be discussing Bill 123 first because that is the ADU creation, the bill, the mechanism that would allow for all these other amendments to follow suite? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, actually that's one of the reasons the language is changed to additional dwelling unit because that would either include ADU or `ohana. So, it doesn't matter if we don't pass Bill 123 or not, that language would still apply. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, one way or the other we can move forward. We're not stuck on this bill, only pertains to ADU's, it can be `ohana dwellings or —okay. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Other discussion here in Hilo? MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Going back to Kona. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. I also have a question about kind of process here with the overarching request of testifiers today, for us to do the economic impact study. And I know that is on the agenda for tomorrow and I wondered about the, just kind of the protocol and process of potentially postponing all of this until we can read in and make a decision about the economic impact study. MS. KIMBALL: Council Member Villegas, take your point. I fully expect to postpone this today and keep it in Committee given that there are potentially additional amendments that are going to come through. So, I think, you know, that is my plan so that the opportunity to have the discussion tomorrow, with respect to Council Member Kierkiewicz's resolution and the economic study will have an opportunity to happen before we pass this out of Committee. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for sharing that as part of your strategy. I have some other questions when it comes to capacity of gathering size. You know, Page 11 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 District 7, I believe, has the highest percentage of short-term vacation rentals (STVR) in all the districts on our island, and a number of those have had issues with gatherings and becoming wedding venues in residential neighborhoods that have caused disruption to neighbors and a number of different challenges, especially because they're on ag property. However, there are homes that have been used for large gatherings and weddings that reside in the resort zoning and where they have very strict requirements for noise specifications and times and whatnot. In this, even with your amendments, I still see a conflict for those properties and their historical usage and having been viable venues for community gathering spaces. Based on this, there would be a limit of number of people, which would essentially put them out of business. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I'm going to actually invite Director Kern up from Planning. You know, some of the situation here is there's also the ability to get special permits for events and things like that which, you know, it indicates here in the good neighbor standards that if you have those types of special permits, you can include that in your advertising for your location. But given the example, and I'm just doing this for clarity that Council Member Villegas brought up where you have somebody with a TAR in a permitted zone, what would be their process to be able to hold those kinds of events and still be legal? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward and addressed the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Zendo Kern. Planning Director. Thanks for the opportunity to opine on this. So, if an STVR's within a permitted zoning area, that doesn't necessarily sanction it for weddings and other activities. You need to look at the actual zoning of that property and is it in say, zoned in a CV or commercial -village, that would potentially — MS. VILLEGAS: Resort. MR. KERN: That type of use. So, we have to look at what the actual zoning is, what's sanctioned under that use and then look at STVR's. STVR's are just short-term vacation rentals that allow for transient accommodation rentals of thirty days or less. If you have an example of any of those, Council Member, I could maybe take a look at it and see if I can get into a little more detail. But the zoning's going to be the factor, not whether it's in a permitted area or not. If a person wanted to — MS. VILLEGAS: Ina resort. MR. KERN: Go ahead. Page 12 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. VILLEGAS: It's in resort zoning. There are a number of properties in resort zoning along Ali`i Drive. MR. KERN: Then if it's actually in the resort zoning and they have the right permit for that then this wouldn't change that. MS. VILLEGAS: What do you mean by right permit for that? MR. KERN: So, within a resort zoned area there's a variant of different uses, and if you just do say a single-family residence, you're going to come in, you're going to get a building permit, you're going to look at a site plan for that. If you come in for, say a wedding venue, we're going to do a plan approval on that, we're going to look at your number of parking spaces, your loading, and all of that function of flow, and then you'll have a building permit would be associated with that type of use. So, it's that land use, whether it's allowed, then there's the different levels of what's allowed underneath that zoning. And then there's the building side of it that goes to needing the necessary building permit for that type of occupancy. MS. VILLEGAS: Most of the properties I'm referring to, at least one in particular, was built in the 1940's. So, you have historic homes and properties there and that have been used as venues for gatherings for decades now. MR. KERN: If their use was in place before the Zoning Code, it would be a nonconforming use, and if that use had been consistently done over the years and hadn't ceased for longer than one year, then those would be grandfathered in. MS. VILLEGAS: Everything ceased for a couple years when we were in COVID (Coronavirus Disease). MR. KERN: Yeah. I know during the COVID time, I'd say most people put a pause on things. That was kind of the thought around that COVID period. If you couldn't do it, if it was a governmental sanction, you have to stay at home, you can't do anything, the Planning Department had said, "Hey, we're not counting that time.." Because this is something very different. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you for recognizing that exception to the rule of having paused for one year. You know, this overall thing gives me a lot of heartburn, period. While my community and my constituents tend to be most drastically affected by this legislation, and while we do need enforcement, the ask of the community was for enforcement of Bill 108. And instead, people are really freaked out. And not all of them do I agree with. Not all of them do I particularly respect the angle that they're coming from and in knowing the history of the properties they've purchased and what they're using them for, crying wolf on this Page 13 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 causing them extreme economic hardship is quite ridiculous. Well so, at a time when we have a housing shortage. Some of it related to STVR's, some of it just related to what's happening right now in our country and the disparity of socioeconomic status, and our workforce being displaced, and our property values having gone sky high, which displaces our local community and our workforce. But I hear loud and clear from the people that they feel that this is an overreach. And I respect the amount of work that's gone into this by the makers — Point of Order: MS. KIMBALL: Point of order. I believe we're getting off track of the amendment. Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. Going back to the —okay. Well, this relates to the amendment. The amendment is an attempt to fix the issues after shopping the legislation to all different people and organizations. So, I have a hard time with this. I also have a hard time with what's listed in here as it relates to ag property. We're still waiting for the supreme court to make a decision, and so for us to move forward, I think there's wisdom in postponing this legislation. Thank you, Heather. That is your plan. But I feel it is my role, my responsibility, and my job to speak for and acknowledge the opinions and the requests of the constituents in District 7 and the weariness for the depth and breadth and far overreaching of this legislation as its reflected even with these amendments. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. Coming back here to Hilo. Again, we are on Communication 675.160. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I just want to make sure I have the changes to good neighbors standards. Completely understood. And I, you know, I support these amendments. They came forward from our Leeward Planning Commission and were part of the Directors report. I think there's needed to just improve the measure. So, Director, help me understand. Maximum limit; say you have a four .bedroom. That entitles you to eight guests plus two more overall, so ten total. I just want to make sure I understand the interplay of let's say you wanted to do an event, you have a large yard, again, max number of folks that can be there is going to be? MR. KERN: Twenty. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Twenty. Okay. But it could potentially accommodate fifty individuals. Would it be a special or use permit for each event or for the venue that good in perpetuity that they can have listed and advertised as part of their listing on Airbnb? Page 14 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KERN: I think it really depends on the nature of the event and the zoning. So, if it's we're meeting together and we're having a birthday parry, not a biggy. If we're doing weddings, that's the biggest one that we see. If it's not permitted within that zoning, this doesn't sanction weddings. So, even the guest limit on that doesn't say because you have a guest limit for gatherings of this size, you can do uses that aren't permitted in that. So, you'd have to look at the zoning and then if they were say doing larger weddings, they would have to either have the right zoning, get a use permit for it, or a special permit for it. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: At which point it would be allowed and that special permit or use permit would essentially set a cap for how many individuals could be on the property for that particular type of event. MR. KERN: That's right. In most cases the special permit will talk about maximum size of gathering, frequency of gathering. So, whether it's once a month, once a year, twice a year, we've seen some where they might do smaller gatherings on more of a regular basis, and then one or two very large gatherings on an annual basis. So, that's the thing with the special permits, it's very defined. If the zoning allows it, then it's just going to be what that zoning allows. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Director, as part of the application process, are you going to be helping folks sort of analyze their zoning and identifying what sort of activities are allowed? And again, just wanting to make sure folks are in compliance and not inadvertently doing something illegal, right. Can the Planning Department help walk folks through that process and say, "Hey, if your intention is to host small weddings or whatever, we recommend that you get this additional permit so that you have that bureaucratic approval essentially, that sanctions this activity. MR. KERN: Yeah. That's our goal and our job in the department, is to provide accurate and good information and a path, you know, whether it's, you can't do this and here's why or if you want to do this, here's what you need to do in order to get there. That's the same approach we take now. Even if we find somebody with a notice of violation and saying, "Here. You're in violation of this. Here's your pathway that you might be able get in compliance by way of a special permit. Here's why; if it's your zoning or HRS 205, or on the backside." So, yes, we do that. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. That's really helpful. Thanks for the clarification. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Other discussion on the amendment? Alright, I'll chime in. Regarding the rental registration process, just wonder, for Number 6, the change is from notarized affidavit to a declaration. Maybe this is a Corporation Counsel question. Are we required to have this declaration that says Page 15 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 that the transient accommodation meets health safety and Code requirements? Sorry. Corporation Counsel, if you could come forward? And my question is regarding Section 6 of the amendment. Number 6 says that a declaration in a format determined by the director that the transient accommodation rental meets health safety and Code requirements, that that is required. I'm wondering if that's a requirement for us to give out the permit or if that's just a policy decision via this bill? (Note: At this time, Assistant Corporation Counsel J. Yoshimoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YOSHIMOTO: Good afternoon, Council Members. J. Yoshimoto. Assistant Corporation Counsel. Vice Chair Inaba, I am not familiar with that requirement, where that came from. I mean, we can research that from DPW's resource department. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Thank you. Maybe the maker? Yes. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. So, this requirement for some sort of documentation with respect to the meeting of health safety and Code requirements, the current short-term vacation rental law requires that the owners have final building permits. We recognize that we are going to have some nonconforming structures that don't have final permits and will not be able to get them. So, our solution working with DPW was to say, okay, well as long as they can say that they meet health and safety requirements, like there's a bathroom and not an outhouse, and there are multiple — MS. EVANS: Sorry. Excuse me, I can't hear Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Sorry. So, the current STVR Code requires that owners have final building permits. We knew that that was going to be a challenge for some of our homeowners so we negotiated with DPW to come up with a different mechanism, which would basically have the owner self -certify. The proposal was to use an affidavit but there was concerns about the term of penalty of perjury in there which is typical with an affidavit. So, we just softened it to a declaration. It's not required by any other statute, but it is our substitute for requiring final building permits. And I want to make really clear, this is not a permit. We are not through this process permitting. We are registering. And I think that's a really distinct, that's a difference here and it pertains to this particular line in the Code, in the proposed amendment because, you know, think of it as the County is —like we register a motor vehicle but we're not the one that determines whether or not the motor vehicle was built to standard. That's kind of the same philosophy here. Page 16 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Got it. Okay. Well being that there are some situations where buildings may not be to Code, or it just might not be in the traditional approach that otherwise might think of vacation rental would be. I don't know that I support Number 6. If it's not an affidavit and it's just a declaration, does it mean anything then? I'm not sure. And I don't know if that's just one more step in the process that's maybe not really a necessity. And then for seven; regarding the maximum renter limit. I do think that we should be able, or the director maybe have authority to grant additional, a higher rental limit rather than just the two per room. We know that there are some homes that have a higher capacity if you put bunk beds in, you know, you could have three children sleeping in there, and some homes are just larger and do accommodate more than two per room depending on the size of the room, depending on the common area, set up. I think the two per room plus two is maybe a good foundational kind of tool but leaving that discretion to the director may be a good opportunity, and that can also then affect, you know, the gathering size since the gathering size is dependent on the maximum renter limit. With this amendment as it currently reads, I can't support it just based on those two sections. But besides that, I think the rest are, like you said, mostly clean-up language. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: If I may make a final couple comments? ACTING CHR. INABA: Sure. MS. KIMBALL: So, with respect to the declaration, I don't know if you recall, when this was originally put forth, I put an information packet together and there was an example of a declaration that they use in Vail, Colorado, which was actually shared by somebody that was initially in opposition to this bill. And what I really liked about the declaration is it lists the kinds of things that you would want to have in an accommodation that you're priding for other people, like do you have a smoke detector, do you have a fire extinguisher, do you have an alternate method of egress, and I think the value of that is it puts in people's minds what they should be looking at with their accommodation, and it's basically a checklist. I think if I were to recommend a change to this it would to say that it would be to look at the Code requirements. I think the health and safety, I would prefer to keep that in there because it would give this people a list of things to check off. With respect to the good neighbor standards, Number 2a, the language that says, unless established otherwise by the director. So, that does actually give the director discretion to establish the renter limit. ACTING CHR. INABA: Sorry. Can you repeat that section number? Page 17 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. KIMBALL: It's Section 254-16.17. So, the transient accommodation operational standards Number 2a. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. I see that. I'm. thinking though that that language should reside in the Section 25-4-16.7 regarding registration because that's where we're establishing the renter limit. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. ACTING CHR. INABA: So, if there's going to be an unless otherwise, unless established otherwise, it should be there so it's very clear that the director has the authority to have more than two per plus two. But I do see that there. I just think it's odd when we're very clear what the renter limit is in one section and in a good neighbor standard, we're saying the director could technically grant a higher renter limit. MS. KIMBALL: Happy to make that change in the next iteration. I think it's come up and it was part of some of the testimony, and I'm happy to make that amendment. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that, any further discussion on this amendment? MS. EVANS: Yeah, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the discussion and declaration meeting health, safety and Code requirements. You know, it just opened up in my mind, there's tiny homes, there's yurts, there's different things that we've talked about in terms of buildings and facilities, and it be really interesting to hear from the Public Works Director about a form that's saying, you know, having someone say they meet the health, safety and Code requirements. I don't know, you know, is he prepared to go through all the different opportunities people have when they go out and do these unique experiences. I mean, people come here to really have these wonderful experiences and then you just travel the island. I just have to —kind of resonated with me when Council Member Villegas said that we have some historic buildings and, you know, historic buildings, they can be a challenge in terms of Code. It'd be really interesting to hear what our Public Works Director, how he parses that and how his staff would kind of review this, approve this, or even feel comfortable agreeing to it. I would really like to hear from the Public Works Director on Number 6, that declaration. Page 18 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Thank you. I'm not sure if we have anyone from DPW online right now, but we don't have anyone in Chambers. But perhaps, yeah, hopefully someone is listening and then can join us shortly and let us know when they're in the Zoom room. With that, Council Member Evans, do you yield the floor? MS. EVANS: Yes. Do you want to motion to table it till he shows up? ACTING CHR. INABA: No. We'll get that opinion when they get here. I think this might be withdrawn. We're just here on conversational purposes at this point. But we can get an opinion from DPW when someone joins. The intention is that I'm going to move on to Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, and just have a conversation here. MS. EVANS: I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. To the maker of the amendment, what was the reason for the transition from the dates as far as being established before January 1, 2024, to the effective date of this ordinance? ACTING CHR. INABA: Go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Really just timing. You know, this is taking quite a bit of time and in order to add some flexibility in terms of how long the entire process might take, we changed that language from a date certain to a date that was reflective of when we completed the process. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, effectively, people watching this happen could go and register to become a TAR right versus you had to be one before the beginning of this year. So, does that make sense? And then they moved from nonconforming use certificate to annual nonconforming use certificate renewal. Number 4. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball, regarding the removal of an nonconforming use certificate again. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. Because we are not offering any new nonconforming use certificates for unhosted, that is unnecessary. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. I yield, Chair. Page 19 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Just one final comment. I can get behind the idea of putting in that checklist to at least prompt folks who are coming in to register to consider certain health and safety requirements or measures. The Code requirements though, I think, can be taken out to allow for those without a traditional structure to also be able to engage in this rental process. Any further comment on the amendment? Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. This I guess is around health and safety and Code and enforcement. So, the folks that have talked to me privately, a lot of them are not sort of against this effort as a whole, or against registering. But there's a certain nervousness about, you know, that their houses are older. You know, the person that I talked to was most worried about is their house was permitted in like the 1980's. So they were worried that with this language — MS. VILLEGAS: Excuse me. Can you speak a little bit closer to into the microphone. Thank you. We just can't hear you over there. Thanks. MS. GALIMBA: Sure. They were worried that with the language Code requirements that they would need to be up to current Code. Yes. Could you maybe talk to that a little bit and perhaps assuage some of that worry. MR. KERN: Sure. The intent, and Chair Kimball can chime in as well on this, but yeah, the intent especially in that case, if they had a legitimate final home that was done in 1980, they're good every day of the week. No problem. This would actually allow for folks that might have an element that's not permitted. The last short-term vacation rental issue, that is what we saw a lot of folks that their house was generally in compliance, but they weren't able to get that final permit maybe because they didn't know that their deck wasn't permitted when they bought the place, or they did something so manini that they still couldn't qualify for it. And so, this was trying to kind of, in our conversation, was try to find that balance, like you're mindful to help the safety side of it, but actually it's more gray than we've ever seen in legislation as it relates to this type of use. So, yeah, for those folks that already have it, a final permit, no problem. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. MR. KERN: And I speak from land use side of things. So, I'm just going to say that. MS. GALIMBA: Right. Of course. Yes. And if they don't have a permit, so if we left the word Code requirements in there, would that cause issues versus taking it out? MR. KERN: I think the person could still do their declaration to the best of their knowledge. There might be some apprehension in there. I can see where there Page 20 PCPLUD-15 July S, 2024 would be some concern around that. So, I think this is a good discussion of what does that person go through and their process. And I think we should all put ourselves in those shoes and how did we go through that, and somebody that might be unknowledgeable about Code might be concerned. So, it might be completely compliant or some of them might be having a hard time sending that to Code. And so maybe it's around health and safety only. I don't have a solid answer there. But that's kind of the general framework that I can think of. MS. GALIMBA: And in general you'd be okay with health and safety for this registration process? MR. KERN: From my perspective, yes. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Any further comment? With that, Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. I'd actually like to encourage the body to vote this amendment in. I have taken notes on these additional refinements around calculating the guest limit, making that clear that there's some director's discretion in there potentially removing the word Code requirements. And then there was also some language potentially around the gathering size there that I think could be clarified. But this is such an excessive bill, I think that there will be many, many iterations. There is actually another amendment coming up later from Council Member Kierkiewicz taking that phrase about the declaration out. So, we can have more discussion around that. But there are some critical housekeeping amendments that I think in order to have a discussion and to be transparent with the public, I'd like to see moved into the legislation at this time. MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I appreciate that I heard Member Kimball say that she's heard our discussion and is going to work on it. So, for that reason, I do not support forwarding this amendment today. I would like to see it come back with our changes; the changes that were going to be looked at. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. With that, if there's no further comment on the amendment itself, we'll take a roll call vote. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? Page 21 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas, we're going to take the vote at this point, on the amendment. MS. VILLEGAS: It's really hard to hear you guys. Can you pull your microphones closer to your mouths, please? ACTING CHR. INABA: We will get the audio settings tuned up here. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Appreciate it. ACTING CHR. INABA: Roll call vote please. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 121 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 675.160 was carried with the following roll call (Approved) vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Kierkiewicz — 6. Noes: Committee Members Evans, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 3. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Next amendment. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.161. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. So, the existing version of Bill 121 has at the end these sections were we basically do a find and replace of the word "short-term vacation rental" and replace it with "transient accommodation rental." It is the recommendation of the Planning Department. And I want to mahalo Tracie back there for all her help. But we actually spell out in each of the zoning types which of the three types of transient accommodations are permitted and how. So, instead of just changing in each of these sections from short-term vacation rental to transient accommodation rental, it's specifically spells out owner -hosted, operator -hosted, or unhosted for each of the zoning designations. Again, this aligns already with the permitted uses that are in Bill 121. It's just more of a housekeeping to have more correct and transparent reflections of what is permitted in what zoning. Page 22 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Discussion on the amendment? Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: This is somewhat related to the amendment. It's the first section relating to reachable person. There's been some testimony about the difficulties about there being one person designated. Does it have to be one person, or can there be a second or third reachable person? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Galimba, just checking if that is specifically in this amendment. MS. KIMBALL: It is here. It's the very first section. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: So, there's actually nothing that specifically says you can't have more than one person. But given that that's something that I've heard, what I'd like to do is where it says you have to have a reachable person for unhosted, to have at least one reachable person. And so, to make it very clear that you can have more than one if necessary. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. MS. KIMBALL: It's not prohibited right now. You could have multiple. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. Thanks. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. So, looking at the amendment, I'm looking at the agricultural and the different forms of agricultural zoning, we are only allowing transient accommodation rentals that are owner - hosted, correct? Okay. MR. KERN: That's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Other discussion? MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that question and the answer? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Page 23 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Council Member Villegas, looking over the different uses allowed in different sections of our Zoning Code, I clarified whether the transient accommodation rentals that were owner -hosted are allowed in agricultural zoning areas, and the answer was affirmative by the department and by the maker. Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any discussion in Kona? Council Member Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. So, what does this do for us as a County if the state has not ruled on the legality of transient accommodation rentals on agricultural properties? And that's still kind of out there and it's being argued over. So, in essence, this bill, we as a County are making a statement that transient accommodation are allowed on agricultural property as long as it's a hosted circumstance or situation? MR. KERN: So, the question before the state supreme court is around unhosted short-term vacation rentals, and yes, in Hawaii County, the intention is that if you're the owner and you live there, you should be able to do it. That's the intent. But we haven't gotten any information on the unhosted side of it. That's still waiting on a decision from the court. MS. VILLEGAS: The decision on the court coming from the state supreme court will dictate how that relates to both hosted and unhosted though? MR. KERN: My understanding is the question that's before them is really around the unhosted side of things. That's where the nexus of that whole conversation came. And so, if the state supreme court ruled that unhosted short-term vacation rentals are allowed on ag land, then the Code would probably need to be amended for that. Otherwise, I think the Code is fine as it is. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So, let's take for instance, somebody owns a —I just need some specifics because these are the things that I'm navigating in District 7. Somebody owns a large coffee farm, and there are four farm dwelling on the property along with a main house. According to this, then the four farm dwellings get to remain short-term vacation rentals? MR. KERN: No. So, on an ag parcel you're going to have your first farm dwelling, and all the remainder of those four, in this case, would be additional farm dwellings. Additional farm dwellings are not allowed to be used for short- term vacation rentals. They need to be used by people working on the farm. They can be long-term rentals as long as the person that's living in there is engaged in the farming activities. Page 24 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. MR. KERN: That's all based on HRS 205. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. MR. KERN: That's state that governs that. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry. MR. KERN: That's the state that governs that, on the additional farm dwellings. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you. There are so many variables and so many scenarios associated with all of these issues. So, thank you for helping to clarify on that one and that agricultural land that currently has a hosted, the owner of the property lives on the property. They will still be able to utilize and run short-term vacation rentals on that property based on this legislation? MR. KERN: As a hosted rental. MS. VILLEGAS: As a hosted rental. MR. KERN: For the first farm dwelling. Not at no time in the additional farm dwelling or farm dwellings. That's current and into the future. MS. VILLEGAS: Not the farm dwellings, but let's say it's just a house. MR. KERN: Yeah. If it's not the additional farm dwelling, then yes. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. MR. KERN: And real quick. Thanks for putting the green dots on here. This is awesome. MS. VILLEGAS: I don't know what you're talking about. MR. KERN: On the microphones, there's a green dot on where to press to speak, and I've seen so many people struggle with this that having this green dot is just going to be awesome. I've been meaning to say it for the last 20 minutes. So, thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. Go, green dots. I yield. Page 25 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Any question or discussion? Additional in Kona? MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. This is for Corporation Counsel.. ACTING CHR. INABA: Go ahead. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, looking at the amendment it's talking about owner - hosted and operator -hosted, and there was a testifier who said that there had been a lawsuit, right, San Diego Short -Term Rental Alliance against the City of San Diego, and it went to a court that happens to be in the same district, I don't know what you call it, that we are, Hawaii and California is in the same one. And there was a ruling that constitutionally you need to treat hosted and operated -hosted equally. So, I would very much like to kind of get a ruling on that if in fact case law is saying constitutionally, we need to treat them equally. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Council Member Evans, we'd be happy to research that case. We can look at that and have that information for the Committee as soon as possible. MS. EVANS: I really prefer that because this really affects what we're doing in this amendment, because the way this was written is it definitely distinguishes hosted versus operator hosted. If they need to be treated equally, then we need to fine tune this and get that corrected. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay. I'll look at it. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Coming back to Hilo. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Overall, I'm supportive. I can see the wisdom in spelling out which kinds of TAR's are allowable for each type of the zoning, each type of district. I think that's really smart. I would like to also hear what comes back from the Corporation Counsel on this one thing. But otherwise, I think this is a good way to go and I'm supportive overall of this amendment. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Page 26 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, I'm thinking about District 5. District 5 is mostly, if not all, agricultural. And I was intrigued by the comments made earlier about the contiguous properties, and to Mr. Kern for that, agriculturally zoned properties state allowed as being owner -hosted transient accommodation rentals. If properties were contiguous parcels, could we say that that was owner - operated? Because you have an owner that's extremely accessible, who lives within a certain radius and who's present, you know, really is present, although the properties are separate and would not be considered hosted by a person because they wouldn't live there, but they are contiguous. So, is there an option for us to address that within this Code that wouldn't supersede state allowance? MR. KERN: I probably have to look at that a bit deeper and check with the state on that. My thinking is probably not because I think it's very parcel specific on what you can do on that parcel. And I'm just trying to think about it out loud. So, let's say I had four contiguous parcels, then I could have four vacation rentals and three of those would technically be unhosted based on the language of building site. I guess if that language was changed, I do think it would be in conflict with HRS. That's my thought on that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That's interesting. I'm just thinking about it in more of a logical perspective. If they own four contiguous lots, same parcel owner owns all of them. They do live at one of the properties. In my logical world, they're available and they're very accessible and that could provide some ability of our community to maintain what they've been doing. So, interested in your thoughts, or legal workarounds. MR. KERN: We would look at that against the HRS. And so Jeff and Tracie are both listening to this right now and we'll be diving into that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. MR. KERN: Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then for the building site, where are we looking at for that specific wording for building site that was mentioned before. I've seen one mention of building site in the Code or maybe two. But which is the specific section that we're looking at when we talk about building site. MR. KERN: Yeah, definitions — ACTING CHR. INABA: That would be in the definitions section of the Chapter 25. MR. KERN: Exactly. Page 27 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, not within this ordinance. It's already in the existing ordinance. I gotta take a look at that. Thank you. MR. KERN: Yeah. Exactly. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Further discussion on this amendment? Just want some clarification. So, based on current Chapter 205 of the state statute, an owner - hosted TAR is considered what under that permitted uses by the state? MR. KERN: So, the concept is that under the HRS state law, you can have a farm dwelling, and the farm dwelling is housed by the owner, and they live there. There's nothing that precludes that person from renting out a portion of their home. And so it's not explicit, but it also isn't explicitly excluding it. So, it does say you can do a farm dwelling and who you have in there is no problem. Similarly to how we have farm dwellings right now that are rented for longer than 30 days. We've got a lot of rentals on the island that are first farm dwellings for a longer duration. All the issue that we've seen around this has come to not having somebody there, you know, as their primary home and then that short duration time period. ACTING CHR. INABA: Understanding that there's other uses like that like long-term rentals occurring. I'm just trying to get to the meat of like based on the HRS, there's permitted, unless it's explicitly stated, right, it's not a permitted use. MR. KERN: Correct. ACTING CHR. INABA: So, as we take this up, I'm just concerned that we're drawing a line right now saying what we can —we're adding what we can do into the County Code. But then there's other things that are also going on that might not be explicitly stated in the County Code, right, that we're saying are permitted? MR. KERN: Can you give me an example? ACTING CHR. INABA: The long-term rentals for example. MR. KERN: Everything that we've seen and talked with the state based on HRS. There's no prohibition from using a long-term vacation rental for your first farm dwelling at all, and it has been in practice for many, many, many years. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. With that, I mean, if anything I feel like this is granting a use so, I'm all for allowing full use of the property that you reside at if that's your property. Besides that, it looks like it is just trying to put everything into the uses section in accordance with the Bill 121. So, Council Member Page 28 PCPLUD-15 July 9, 2024 Lee Loy, any other comments? MS. LEE LOY: Just one comment. And I'm listening carefully to my colleagues. I hear the angst. But in each and every one of our ordinances we have a severability clause. And so, if something happens through some other jurisdiction that is in conflict with what we're trying to do, the severability clause covers it, the rest of the ordinance stays in place and we can address any deficiencies, any future tailoring. I just want to remind my colleagues, there's some safeguards that are crafted by our Legislative Review Branch into these things. And so, I hear the what if's, but that's the catch-all for all of us. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Good point. Any further comment on the amendment before us? MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Yeah, just for clarification. I'm noticing a new category in all of these different districts, and that is areas within the project district. Can you clarify what that means? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Thank you. If you look at the three different types of hosted, unhosted and operator -hosted sections in the original Bill 121, it identifies in project districts, which are a different way of establishing a whole zoning scheme that would include different types of uses. So, a project use might have a commercial area, and it might have a residential area, and it might have an open space area, something like that. What this just clarifies is that if you've got a project district and with permitted transient accommodation rentals in a commercial area, even if that commercial area is in a project district it's still permitted. So, there's some ambiguity about whether or not when something was in a project district, if it was still permitted per the different sections. Am I saying that right, Director? Mostly? MR. KERN: Yes. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Does that make sense? MS. EVANS: Kind of. It's sort of a new terminology thrown in here. So, I'm just assuming that in the RS (Residential) district, for example, you kept the same language of being in the general resort, resort node area, and now you're adding "or areas within a project district." So, it's just a term that I've never heard Page 29 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 before; project districts. So, I assume there's definitions. There's a definition somewhere. Is that correct, Director? MS. KIMBALL: There's a Code section in Chapter 25 that defines how project districts are set up and what if we have like a handful of them. MR. KERN: Yeah. Mainly in like the larger resort areas. This is really a cleaning, housekeeping item. It's an area that we found under Bill 108 that had some conflict where it was like, hey, this is a project district. It's clearly permitted in there, but because it wasn't explicitly in there it was challenging. So, this is a housekeeping matter. MS. EVANS: Okay. MR. KERN: And there's a whole section in the Code for project districts. MS. EVANS: Okay. Great. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any further discussion? MS. VILLEGAS: Just a quick question, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. How does this relate or interact with the proposed updated General Plan? ACTING CHR. INABA: Planning Director Kern. MR. KERN: There's no conflict. If the General Plan resort node area on the future Land Use Planning Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map were to change, that would have potentially a change. But I think those uses would be grandfathered in if they were already under use. And then potentially if there is a vacation destination area or something like that established, that would further articulate that. So, right now there's no conflict between this legislation and the proposed General Plan or the current General Plan. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. When you say vacation destination I'm sorry, you said vacation destination. MR. KERN: There's been conversations. It's not germane to this specific communication. But there has been conversations over the years about establishing say vacation destination areas that would allow for future vacation rentals to occur, such as like, potentially like a Volcano Village for example. If that were to come in, that could be potentially, that could play with the General Page 30 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 Plan similarly how the resort node designation plays with short-term vacation rentals or transient accommodation rentals now and their allowable use based on the General Plan future land use maps. MS. VILLEGAS: And when you say plays with what you're saying is essentially allows for as a zone that provides opportunity for that? MR. KERN: Yeah. So, for example, currently in the RS district, residential district, an unhosted transient accommodation rental is not permitted. But if that RS zoning is within a General Plan resort node, then you are allowed to do a short-term vacation rental with that or a transient accommodation rental. And that's that interface between the General Plan resort nodes and the Code. MS. VILLEGAS: Yup. So, what you're saying is there's potential for future, I'm sorry, you called it tourist destination? MR. KERN: Vacation destination areas. You know, it's the nomenclature I think we'll probably be coming on. I know it's done in some other areas. It's coming up right after this. Shortly. It's within this string of communications, yeah. So, that'll be coming up here later today. So, just real quick, on that. You have a General Plan resort node that says this is the area on the island we'd like to see resort type of development and activities occur. That overlay is not necessarily the proper overlay in all areas. Using this Volcano Village as an example, you wouldn't want to do an overlay in Volcano with a resort node saying we want to build hotels and other resort type activities there. So, it's a little bit much. So, a vacation destination area potentially has the ability to allow it at a much lesser impact. It wouldn't allow for change of zones or anything like that, it would just allow for transient accommodation rentals as defined within this legislation to be allowed. I think that conversation will be coming up a lot more shortly. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thanks for giving a sneak peek on what's coming. Yeah. I yield at this time. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. There's a motion on the floor to amend Bill 121 with the contents of Communication 675.161. We'll take a roll call vote, please. Page 31 PCPLUD-15 Vote on Motion to Amend: (Approved) Motion to Amend: July 8, 2024 The motion to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.161 was carried with the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.162. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. Thank you. So, this amendment is the result of some conversations with the hosting platforms. They are supportive of Bill 121 in general but had some concerns particularly with respect to, and this is Section 2 of the amendment, what they can provide us easily without having to go through any sort of privacy agreements with their clientele. So basically what this does is it indicates is that they're going to provide us with the Tax Map Key (TMK) and the transient accommodation tax number, and if we need further information —we should be able to tie everything together, right, with our records about who the owner is and all of that stuff. So, not having them provide these other items makes it much more easy and straightforward for them to provide it to us on a regular basis, which they are happy to do. In the first section of the amendment the language here in C actually said that the hosting platform would be responsible for every violation in the Code, rather than just this division, and that didn't seem fair. So, that is a housekeeping measure. So, I ask for everybody's support on this one. ACTING CHR. INABA: Discussion on the amendment? MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: On the reporting side, I see that we've taken out the name of the persons responsible for each listing, the address, and the length of stay and fee Page 32 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 charge for each stay. All that information seems pretty important. So, I'm wondering what the — MS. KIMBALL: Yes, Council Member Villegas. So, what we're requesting here is this monthly reporting which basically —actually they call themselves VRBO (verbo). I always called them VRBO, but they call themselves VRBO and Airbnb could actually easily produce for us every month. When we start to get into some of these other things like length of stay and fee charged and all of that, they have privacy requirements with their subscribers that they would need to comply with and that become sort of a legal loophole. What they've offered to do is if we need any of that information, you know, say for example, the director was wanting to investigate a potential violation, they will provide it. It's just that they're going to have to go through that extra step of getting through the privacy requirements of their clientele. Hopefully that makes sense. MS. VILLEGAS: And how does that relate to taxes and how, you know, the value of what they're doing on the property then? MS. KIMBALL: I'm not sure that I understand your question. So, this would be Airbnb and VRBO and the like just providing us with a list every month of all of the vacation rentals that they have advertising on their platforms by TMK. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So, that's not used by the tax office to then determine, you know, what kind of taxes or what kind of income is coming in from those properties? Do you see what I'm saying? MS. KIMBALL: No. Yeah. Sorry. That is not the purpose of this. This is just a reporting so that we can ensure that everybody that is listing on these hosting sites is a legally registered TAR. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Director, I'm looking at the last section where you have a notice of violation. Let's say someone does violate and we are notifying the hosting platform that a violation has been committed, do you send them a letter saying the violation; what happens then? MR. KERN: They would delist the property from the hosting platform. They'd take it off. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, they're listening us? Page 33 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KERN: Yeah. So, Hawaii County is kind of late to this conversation. So there's been good relationships established with the other counties. The other counties contemplated hosted and unhosted transient accommodation rentals in one whole package. That then allowed them to actually get into the conversation with the hosting platforms and create agreements with them saying here's how we'd like things to operate. And if the person isn't compliant, they don't have a STVR number, the proper compliance, they would be taken off the platform. And that's worked really well in the other counties. Kauai is kind of the, I'd say, that led the charge. I've had many conversations with their planning director, and he says the hosting platforms are great to deal with. They're fast, they're efficient, and it works really well for them. So, this takes what they're already doing and puts it into a Code within our section. So, I think while we're kind of later to the conversation, we also get the benefit of having them work through a lot of that and then we get to bring it in here and have a meeting with the hosting platform to get their feedback is what you're seeing in this amendment. So, it's more consistent with what they're comfortable sharing. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, let's just use VRBO in this case. VRBO is actually saying they're not wanting to share the name and the address? MR. KERN: Yeah. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then following up on — MR. KERN: They will, I mean, if we need it, they'll give it to the department, the director, under investigation. It's just not something they're going to put into reports. I think it's around data. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That's fine. Following up on Council Member Villegas' question. I mean I can see this information being useful to multiple departments depending on what's happening. So, I mean, are we saying that this information will not be shared to any other department besides, well it says to the director, I'm assuming that's you. MR. KERN: So, I think what we're looking at here are two separate sets of compliance. One is a set of compliance that this covers that, are you a legal short- term vacation rental or transient accommodation rental, and that's how we work with the hosting platforms. On the other side of it, we have the conversation around transient accommodation tax, GE (General Excise) tax, et cetera. We as a department provide Real Property Tax (RPT) with all of our transient accommodation rentals, so they would be getting everything, everybody who's legal and lawful, that would be on the hosting platform. We already transmit to Real Property Tax, which then works to collect the property tax and our portion of Page 34 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 the transient accommodation tax. So, that connection of information exists. It's not through the platforms, it's through the departments. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That's helpful. Okay. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Further discussion on the amendment? Circling back to Kona. MS. VILLEGAS: Not at this time. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. For myself, Section 3 of the amendment says a notice of violation order shall be transmitted in writing to the hosting platform within 10 days of determination by the director that a violation has been committed. I guess my concern here is we're working with, you know, some of these bigger hosting platforms. We're sending things in the mail to them within 10 days in writing. How are we transmitting this so that we have quick action is there is really a violation? MR. KERN: Both email and written. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. MR. KERN: The dialogue and connection to them has been quite quick and I haven't heard any issue with that with the other counties as well. It's not a long lag term. The reason we wanted that language was if we get a complaint, we have to do an investigation and make sure that there actually is a violation, and if there is, then it's within that 10 days it's done. I don't foresee any issues with them responding timely. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. And this section regarding notice of violation, if a violation of any sort, or it's a violation of just the reporting? MR. KERN: It would be a violation of the Code, of this division of Code. They'd be in violation of transient accommodation rentals. And often times what happens would be somebody is on a hosting platform that isn't registered with the County. We would get a complaint, we would investigate the complaint, if that were the case then we'd notify the hosting platform that they are in violation of this, they haven't registered with the County, et cetera, and then action would be taken. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. To the maker, I'm just wanting to make sure. So, this reporting part, if a property owner, an operator, violates a section of the Code, we're not sending that report to the hosting platform, or are we? Page 35 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. KIMBALL: So, if there's a transient accommodation rental that is not registered and they are listed on the hosting sites, then we would contact them and let them know to delist. But, you know, this is all going to be automatic because everybody will have a registration number and so they won't even take the listing unless there's that registration number. Now some people might just throw in a number there, but the idea here is that they are going to just be able to provide a list of everything that they're aware of as being a legal rental through the advertising in their site, and we'll be able to compare that to what we have as far as registered locations. MR. KERN: So, if I could add. It's a two-way flow of information. They're flowing the reporting to the departments so that the department can cross reference against the legally permitted ones. And then if there's issues that the department finds with somebody who is not in compliance, then that communication goes back to the hosting platform, and they would take it down. So, it's going both ways. ACTING CHR. INABA: This notice of violation though is specific to when the hosting platforms don't do the reporting as they're supposed to though, right? It's not around the property owners. MR. KERN: Yes. Yes. MS. KIMBALL: Or if they fail to register. ACTING CHR. INABA: If the hosting platform fails to register. MR. KERN: There is a lot more than just Airbnb and VRBO. ACTING CHR. INABA: Well, that's what the big discussion is right now. Who are we considering hosting platforms? Not at the moment, but that's a concern that's been brought up by the public. Okay. I guess I just wanted to make sure that everyone is looking at this amendment in the specific context it's amending. It's not regarding all notice of violation or violation by property owners but by the hosting platform and whether they do submit the monthly report or not to the County. Okay. Any other discussion? Council Member Kaneah'i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What is the most we can, that the charging platforms are paying, across the islands, to be registered with the County as a charging platform? Do you know? MR. KERN: I do not. Page 36 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I would think more than $100. They do make a substantial amount in being a hosting platform that is born by the people doing the rentals. So, if we could, we should up the fees for — ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member, I want us to stay specific to the amendment before us. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, Chair. It is in there, but it's not being amended. But yeah, I was just thinking out loud. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Thanks. Any further discussion? Alright, all those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the to Amend: contents of Comm. 675.162 was carried with the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kagiwada —1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Next order. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.163. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Thank you. So, the language in Bill 121 right now talks about which dwelling or which location on the building site that they would have to live as a host or an operator -host, and this was one of the things in a lot of the previous testimony that was causing a lot of heartburn, felt like, you know, was unnecessary to be that specific. And what I will say is the original language, the original reason for even including it in here was that Chapter 25 doesn't allow for kitchen facilities to be in either guest houses or detached bedrooms. And so, the idea was that you can't live in something that doesn't have a kitchen or a detached bedroom. And as I thought about it and I listened to all the testimony in opposition to this specific item, I said, well there's really no reason why we need to use the transient accommodation code to enforce another part of Chapter 25 that already exists. If there are people that want to live in their guest house and not have a kitchen and get take-out every night, we don't need to regulate that. Page 37 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 So, that's the reason here. We're taking out that requirement in both the owner - hosted and operator -hosted descriptions. So, there's no requirement. They just have to live on the building site. It doesn't identify where on the building site they would need to reside. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. We're on Communication 765.163. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I will be supporting this amendment. This was one of the bits within Bill 121 where Council Member Kimball and I weren't able to come into agreement. And so, it's great to know that I'm getting my way on this one. I just think it's really important for folks to have the ability because circumstances, life, changes all the time. To have that flexibility to identify which particular room or accommodation on their property is going to be used as the rental. Again, because life is just so dynamic. So, we want to make sure that we are giving property owners that ability to make that choice as they need to. So, I'll be supporting this. Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. I'll be supporting this amendment as well. And for me it's because I don't think we're giving people anything through this. I think we're not taking it away, and that's a concern from a lot of people is that this legislation was far overreaching, and I don't think it is or should be up to the County, which as we all know are just people who happen to be serving in roles at certain times in history. I don't think we should have the authority to tell somebody that they can't live in their `ohana and rent their house if that in fact becomes the equation that works best for them. And so, I appreciate your transitioning this terminology and that requirement and potential taking from people. I think there was a lot of concern over this. And so, I'm grateful to see this being adjusted because as was mentioned, there is need for flexibility and understanding, and we live in very dynamic times with change, you know, change is constant. But the ability to adapt and set ourselves up for regenerative responses and flexibility and how we do that, I think is imperative for the supportof our communities and their abilities to sustain themselves during these dynamic times. So, thank you for removing those restrictions and ensuring the people retain their freedom and their rights for how and which rooms they'd want to live in on their property. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: While we're in Kona, Council Member Evans, anything to add? MS. EVANS: No. Thank you, Chair. Page 38 PCPLUD-15 Vote on Motion to Amend: (Approved) July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I'm in strong support of this for many different reasons. 2025, we will have three generations of individuals at retirement age. And this section actually sets up a property owner as they begin to downsize their family but be able to stay in their homes. I think this is an incredibly important edit so that when we talk about our local families holding onto their homes, but still being stuck in a fixed income, this piece of legislation and this tiny edit actually sets them up to stay in their home a lot longer. So, I am in very strong support of this edit and I think it's a great way for us to message to our senior community that we're looking out for them and opportunities they might not have right now, but when they're retiring. So, thank you to the maker. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. In support of the amendment mainly because it actually brings the wording into alignment with the definitions of operator and owner hosted. So, I like what it's doing but I also think it tracks better this way. So, I'll be in support. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Further discussion? Alright. I'm just wondering if building site is the best term to use here. Building site is defined in the Code, building site means a parcel of land which is occupied or is to be occupied by a principal use and accessory uses or a building or a group of buildings and includes a lot and a plot. Cat in the hat. Alright. I'm just wondering because when we look at building site, I guess we look to definitions. But we're really talking about do they live on property is where I think we're getting at, and I just want to throw that out there. I definitely support the intent here. It's just the building site definition alone is a little confusing and when you're reading it in the context of where we're going to be allowing these teeth on TAR's, I think we should be as clear as possible, just in reading the Code without having to refer to a definition. So, I'll throw that out there to the maker. But besides that, support the intent here. Any further discussion? Alright, there being none, the motion on the floor is to amend Bill 121 with the contents of Communication 675.163. All those in favor, please say "aye." The motion to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.163 was carried with the following voice vote: Page 39 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.164. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Thank you. This is fairly straightforward. It really has to do with the operational standards and in this particular case with respect to the advertisement and including any special permits or use permits associated with the transient accommodation rentals. So, we had a brief conversation before about, you know, if there's a site and they want to be able to do weddings they might need to get a special permit or a use permit for that activity. That permit will have a number, and then if they're going to advertise on the platforms, they would have to include that number as part of the advertisement that way the consumers will know that they are booking with a legitimate site that has the ability to offer that service. The second item here actually goes back to our very first conversation about this bill in Committee where we talked about the terminology bed and breakfast versus owner -hosted, and I wanted to make it very clear that an owner host can advertise as a bed and breakfast provided that they meet the standards with respect to —they can only provide breakfast to people that are paying guests. They can't offer other meals unless they have a food establishment permit. It's all those things that already are actually tied to the bed and breakfast as it is in the Code now. So, it's just making it clear that owner -operated can identify themselves as a bed and breakfast under the new Code requirements. So, asking for everyone's support. Happy to answer. MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Just quickly. You're advertising and putting out your advertising signage standards, what would be the purpose of people displaying a special permit or use permit number given that they have to —they have other things they have to post like their transient I mean, I think they have to do their, they have an EIN (Employer Identification Number) number. I know they need to have Page 40 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 another number that's a state law that they have to have advertised already in state law. So, what would be the benefit of adding these? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MR. KERN: So, I believe the benefit to this is we're going to have quite a number of legacy bed and breakfasts or even lodges or inns that aren't necessarily a hotel that are going to have a special permit number. And basically, we're saying if you don't have a TAR number, then you're going to actually post one of those other numbers because otherwise they wouldn't be to get a TAR number if they already have an existing bed and breakfast. MS. EVANS: Okay. MR. KERN: Because we don't post GE tax or federal identification numbers or anything like that. We really go based off of our, you know, we have SPP (Standards of Professional Practice) or variance numbers, or TAR numbers. So, it's going to be a number that's associated with the department. MS. EVANS: So, am I right in assuming that bed and breakfast do not advertise on VRBO or any other hosting platforms? Because if they do I think the state law probably would say what they'd have to post. MR. KERN: No. It's my understanding that B&B's (Bed and Breakfast) do host on various platforms. Certain platforms don't necessarily offer to folks that are hosting. Some platforms are only unhosted. But B&B's do advertise on various platforms. MS. EVANS: Interesting. I guess I was always under the impression if people were hosting on the platforms, they'd have some type of number and that definitely would have to be posted for anybody that stayed there or anything that they put on their website. I was under that impression. So, has that been confirmed that state law doesn't require any posting? MR. KERN: My understanding, we're not aware of any of that. MS. EVANS: Okay. MR. KERN: I'd be curious what number you are looking at. MS. EVANS: Member Kimball, do you know? Because you've talked to the hosting platforms. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. There's no state requirement. You may be thinking about Kauai, Maui, and Oahu, all already have the requirement that the hosting Page 41 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 platforms include the registration number. We do not. So, that may be what you're thinking of, is if the other counties have already adopted this requirement, but we have not. MS. EVANS: Are we considering it? MS. KIMBALL: Yes. That's included in the other sections here of this advertising. MS. EVANS: But it wouldn't apply to this, or this is in lieu of? MS. KIMBALL: So, this is just adding to that. So, we are already requiring — I'm sorry, Chair. Taking liberties here. ACTING CHR. INABA: No. Go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: No. It is already included in Bill 121 that advertising would include the transient accommodation registration number. What we're saying here in this addition, this amendment, is that if they also have a special permit or a use permit that allows them to do other activities in addition to the transient accommodation rental like for example, hosting wedding, they would present that on the advertisement as well. And that way the consumers would know if they're booking this location as a wedding venue, and it is a permitted location for that activity. MS. EVANS: Okay. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Further discussion? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. Appreciate this amendment. As I read through some of the bills and we had struck out bed and breakfast, I just, I felt like we'd lost something. So, to put this back in, it feels better. And I think it's for the best way that I can put that. So, I appreciate this amendment. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any other discussion? Director Kern, I am going to have some questions for planning. So, when it comes to allowing an owner - hosted transient accommodation rental to advertise as a bed and breakfast, I'm just wondering because we have another bill regarding bed and breakfast, and there's a whole other section of the Code that's specific to bed and breakfast. Is Page 42 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 this a smart thing to allow or should we be trying to keep it separate? My idea is that it's not a good idea to start mixing these here. MR. KERN: Yeah. So, you know, this kind of somewhat organically occurred. The conversation around transient accommodation, the hosted conversation, was going along and as the legislation continued to take effect and it's basically like, if you live there and it's your home, and you can do it at any time, that's essentially a bed and breakfast. So, I have folks come in for a special permit and basically, we're sanctioning that through the transient accommodation registration rental legislation. If they already have their bed and breakfast, they're grandfathered in, they're fine, they can continue to operate with that. And then so we're saying if we're going to get rid of B&B's and basically, you're going to be an owner -hosted transient accommodation rental would take over the B&B, you should be able to advertise and utilize the B&B terminology within your rental activities. Because a B&B is basically a single-family home that someone resides in, and they rent out a portion of it. It's essentially our owner hosted. ACTING CHR. INABA: So, 25-4-16.17, that is speaking to —well, we're talking about whether or not they're meeting those sections requirements. The bed and breakfast establishments require a special permit,. right? MR. KERN: Currently, for a residential or an ag, yes, they would require a special permit. In this case, they wouldn't need that for the owner -hosted side of it. What we're taking away though is the unhosted side of it. That's essentially what will happen. ACTING CHR. INABA: Nothing's preventing these folks from doing this from advertising as a bed and breakfast right now though, right, how we currently have it? MR. KERN: Currently, you can't advertise your STVR as a bed and breakfast. We look at them as two separate things. Just like, you're not supposed to serve breakfast, you're not supposed to advertise as a B&B. So, this would actually give those that are running a transient accommodation rental a lot more latitude using the B&B terminology. ACTING CHR. INABA: Perhaps you can give us just a comprehensive overview here? I'm not confident that I understand this completely. So, if you can just give us an overview. I want to make sure I know what I'm voting on. MS. KIMBALL: If I may, Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Sure. Director? Page 43 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KERN: So you want a comprehensive overview of how a B&B works currently? ACTING CHR. INABA: That and then how this is going to interplay with that. MR. KERN: So, essentially, a bed and breakfast is a hosted rental. And as we move forward with doing this, we realized that basically we're creating a B&B within the transient accommodation rental. They were the same thing except we were trying to basically move away from the hosting and have it be owner hosted. So, if you're owner -hosted, you can do it in any district at any time, that essentially note you no longer need to have the B&B. So, in discussion with staff and the Council Members, we decided that we don't need to have the B&B designation anymore, we can have everything fall underneath the transient accommodation rental as hosted or unhosted. So, if that's the case then the B&B goes away for future uses. Everybody that has a B&B is grandfathered in. That being said, bed and breakfast is a very common term, common terminology. And so, to be able to allow folks to use that term explicitly, if they have an approved TAR made a lot of sense. So, you can't get new bed and breakfasts. ACTING CHR. INABA: So, this provision in the amendment is specific only to those who currently already have a permit? MR. KERN: No. Section E of the amendment would basically allow for folks that are running —so if you have an existing special permit or use permit for a bed and breakfast, you can advertise as a bed and breakfast. No problem. If you have a hosted rental, you're technically not supposed to because you don't have a B&B. This clarifies that if this goes through and all these changes occur, then you, as an owner -hosted transient accommodation rental can advertise as a bed and breakfast and be compliant. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to yield. Is there any other discussion? I can't support this right now in the way I'm reading the bed and breakfast Code itself, 25-4-7. Things just aren't lining up for me. But I'll open the floor to Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Planning Director, so currently if you have gone through the process to become a bed and breakfast, can you just say a little bit about what they needed to do to get that as opposed to owner -operated TAR? MR. KERN: Sure. So currently, folks that are running a bed and breakfast that went through say a residentially zoned property or an ag zoned property, they submit an application for a use permit or a special permit with a lot of background information on that, impact, mitigation, et cetera, that was submitted then to the Page 44 PCPLUD-15 July S, 2024 Planning Department. The Planning Department went through a review and also sent out to various agencies for their review. That came together with a background report and recommendations, similar to how you folks get for a rezoning application. And then the department would offer a favorable recommendation or an unfavorable recommendation. That would then have a myriad of various conditions that the applicant would have to comply with if it was approved. From there, it would go out to a public hearing process. In the meantime, the have to notify everybody within say 500 or 300 feet radius, post signs, and then once it got to the Planning Commission there would be a public hearing. They go through that public hearing and Planning Commission process, which then the Planning Commission would either approve or deny the permit request or amend with conditions. And at which point, say it got approved, they get approval as a B&B. Okay, you house you can use as a B&B now meet all the rest of the conditions within that special permit or use permit such as Codes, such as all other rules, regulations, et cetera. And if they're not compliant with their bed and breakfast permit, then the director could initiate revocation of that permit if they were not doing it right. MS. KAGIWADA: That's a lot of hoops to jump through. Do they also have to pay a fee? MR. KERN: There's a fee of $500. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. I don't think I can support this. I feel like our bed and breakfasts have gone through quite a bit more than what these owner -operated transient accommodation rentals have, and I feel like they should get that special privilege of using the bed and breakfast moniker or branding if you will because they've gone through so much more. So, I don't think I'll be supporting this particular part. I'm happy to support the 3A, but I won't support this amendment as it is now because I really feel like we'd be taking something away from these bed and breakfasts that have worked so hard to get that status as it is. So, thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneah'i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I like my first comment. But I'm also rethinking this. I don't think I can support this. I like what you're trying to do, to the maker. But I'm thinking about other industries, you can call yourself a cafe, a restaurant, a bar. You can call yourself a bar even if you don't serve alcohol. It's not a good thing to do, but it's up to you how you want to advertise your business. In that sense, I think we're going a little bit too far here, unless I missed something and saying you can't advertise as this. I mean, if we do this then we might as well go down the list of what you cannot advertise your business as. And that to me is a little bit, it's getting a little bit gray. If we don't want them to advertise —again, this is only advertising right, this section? So, if we don't want Page 45 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 them to advertise as a bed and breakfast, put it in the do not do. But if it's not in the do not do section, it's allowable. MR. KERN: So, to respond, this is a small portion of a much bigger portion of the Code, right, that talks about hosted rentals and how that interplays with B&B's, which is why Bill 122 is out there talking about the repeal of B&B's, which again, at a higher level, that's probably discussions that's going to continue to occur. I think the process —I think this will kind of depend on where you folks land with do we take B&B's away or do we keep B&B's in there. If B&B's go away, this is critical. If B&B's stay, then this is maybe less important. The question that we kind of went through, which I'll just throw out there that kind of process what we go through this is you want to come in and you want to —let's say this is approved in some fashion and an owner -hosted is allowed. The person comes in and they say, "Hey, I'm registering for my owner -hosted rental." And we say, "Great, you're good to go." And they say, "I want to advertise as a B&B." We say, "Sorry, you cannot. You can advertise as a transient accommodation rental, but you can't advertise as a B&B. If you want to do a B&B you have to go through this separate process." And then they say, "What's that process?" And I go through it and essentially, they're coming out at the same place. One requires a special permit to name yourself a B&B, the other requires you submitting an application to register with the department to become an owner hosted. They're really close, so we're kind of landing —they're almost the same thing, why do you put this person through something more onerous, to call themselves a B&B. so, what we're looking at is a naming convention here, basically of saying. In this case, if you want to be a B&B, jump through these hoops. If you want to be a transient accommodation rental and it's your place and you're hosting it, just submit this. And I think that's part of this bigger discussion. So, I just want to throw that out there. Not giving answers, but this is kind of the process that we've been going through looking at it. Those that have their B&B's, they're locked, they're there, they're set, there's no annual fees. So, there is benefits to those what did go through that in that way but it's going to get a little bit weird at some point and time when we have these two things that are so similar and parallel to each other. I'll leave it at that for now. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: They are. It's funky. But I'm also just on the business end. If you want to advertise yourself as Joe's Bed and Breakfast or Joe's One Stop Shop for Sleeping One Night, I mean, I don't care. And I don't think we should overstep. But if it's a Code based thing or a state Code based thing, okay. Page 46 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KERN: I'll research on that a bit more. I know historically through all the years it's been if you're a B&B, you can advertise that. If you're a short-term vacation rental, you don't advertise a B&B, and you're not serving breakfast. They're two very distinct things that we're kind of looking to merge into one. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. I mean, it's not Kona Coffee. It's not ten percent or less, or 50 percent or more. This is a bed and breakfast. It's a business. That's what I'm looking at it as. It's a business and you're going to call yourself what you deem important to make — MR. KERN: That's kind of the logic that went into folding it into here. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. I think because we're touching on two different bills and we're on an amendment, it's hard to have the whole discussion. I can see the eyes on me already from over here on the right side. MR. KERN: Yeah. And in a high level, like depending on what happens here with Bill 121, it'll affect Bill 122, right? Bill 122 plays off of what happens with Bill 121. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. Okay. I think that's why I'm stuck. MR. KERN: And if Bill 121 changes, Bill 122 may have to change. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. KERN: Bill 122 will change based on what Bill 121 is. Bill 122 won't guide Bill 122. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Kern. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, really, really, really, super important distinction here is that what is currently registered as STVR's are unhosted units. And so, that is why they are not able to operate as and advertised as bed and breakfasts. So going forward, if it's owner -hosted or even operator -hosted, the language doesn't preclude anybody from advertising as a bed and breakfast. And I made that clear actually, in the last hearing. And so this language is sort of inconsequential. I added it to make it clear that people could. But there is nothing —when there is an operator or an owner on site, in the Code proposal as it stands right now Page 47 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 prohibiting that. So basically you can call yourself whatever you want. What I'm doing with this amendment is saying, yes, we agree, you can call yourself what you want. So I don't care if it passes or not, frankly. But it's intended to make it clear. The bill, with a little bit of leeway from the Chair because I think this pertains to your questions. The very first amendment we dealt with (Comm.) 675.160, it did not highlight, and I should have that there is in the very first section, language that says if you have a special use permit, which is what a bed and breakfast permit is, you don't have to register as a TAR and you just continue to follow the provisions of your current use permit. So, the bill anticipates Bill 122 passing as well, however, it is not invalidated by Bill 122 not passing, if I can make that clear. And the language, with respect to what is referenced in the amendment, is in the operational standards that talks about —it's the exact same language from the bed and breakfast about what you need to be able to offer food at your location, a breakfast at your location. So, I don't know if that makes things more clear or less clear — MS. VILLEGAS: Ms. Kimball? MS. KIMBALL: Yes. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, you're speaking really fast and every time you turn your head to the side it get fast mumble. MS. KIMBALL: I'm sorry for that. MS. VILLEGAS: Just pull mic right into you. MS. KIMBALL: I will to swallow it, how about that? Apologies. If you need me to repeat anything, please say so. But the point of this is that we wanted to make it especially clear that if it is an owner -hosted rental, you can call yourself and bed and breakfast. But if this language doesn't pass, you can still do it. It's not prohibited. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Just a clarification. So, even if Bill 122 fails to pass, there are basically no benefits besides not having to register in the same way. But no branding benefits to already have been an accepted bed and breakfast in our County? They're going to not have that any longer. Okay. Alright. Well, I still don't like it. But I guess I'm willing to go along. It doesn't seem like it makes much difference one way or another. Thanks. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? Page 48 PCPLUD-15 July S, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Yeah. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. I'd like to ask from Corporation Counsel, and nb disrespect, Council Member Kimball. But I'd like to hear that from Corporation Counsel as being in fact true and fact. ACTING CHR. INABA: Assistant Corporation Counsel Yoshimoto is coming forward. And again, Council Member Villegas, could you repeat your question for Corporation Counsel, please? MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. Aloha, Mr. Yoshimoto, J. My question specifically is, according to Council Member Kimball, passing this amendment will have no negative consequences or real impact as it relates to whether or not Bill 122 passes or not if we eliminate bed and breakfasts. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay. J. Yoshimoto, Assistant Corporation Counsel want to get the context correct. If I may address Council Chair Kimball? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes. MR. YOSHIMOTO: So these bills work in synergy, together, correct? MS. KIMBALL: They were introduced together because they are related. But they can pass or not pass independently and not impact each other. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay. I understand. Okay. So, Council Member Villegas, your question is if this were to pass here but Bill 122 did not pass, that it would impact the legality of the Bill 121? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. I'm asking for a legal opinion because while I respect and honor all the hard work that Council Member Kimball and Kierkiewicz have put into creating this legislation, I want a confirmation from our legal counsel that that is in fact true, and that passing this amendment in fact doesn't have any negative affect, because there's so much going on there. There are so many moving parts and while the intentionality and perceptivity might be one thing, I want to hear from you whether or not that is in fact true. MR. YOSHIMOTO: I can confirm that. Yes, Council Member Villegas, that is correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I yield. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay. Thank you. Page 49 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Director, very quickly on this particular amendment. So, first item is, we talked about earlier, if a property is going to get a special permit or use permit to do something like a wedding or concert, there's a special number that is generated for that permit and so those activities are going to be advertised on an Airbnb listing. We would also have that permit so folks know you can legally do that activity there. Okay. That's very clear. What this addition of E is related to advertising as a bed and breakfast basically, we're just honoring what's in the good neighbor standard, which then allows for the serving of breakfast in a hosted rental through Bill 121. So, we as a body could decide, you know what, we're not going to approve Bill 122, right, which removes the ability for folks to get a bed and breakfast permit. However, what folks can do through this amendment is advertise that they have breakfast available at their hosted rental. MR. KERN: Yeah. They would be able to advertise as a bed and breakfast. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: As a bed and breakfast. MR. KERN: I do think that it would get a little bit funky. Are you a special permit bed and breakfast; are you a hosted bed and breakfast? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Are you an OG (Original) B&B? Yeah. No, seriously. That's what's coming to mind. Because I look at the B&B permitting, you know, section within the Code, it's very unique. It's very unique. No more than ten folks could be there, and you could have a variety of parties that are there. Correct? You could have ten different individuals staying. MR. KERN: Absolutely. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Which is real different. MR. KERN: Yeah. And so it might come out that there's an adjustment that keeps that. But I think it's fine in either case. I think if the general consensus is that we want people that are hosted rentals be able to advertise as a B&B, fine. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Sorry. I'm thinking. I mean, it seems really inconsequential but to Council Member Kagiwada's point earlier, there's a particular experience that comes to mind when people think bed and breakfast. Perhaps withdrawing this amendment and revisiting this a little later, because I can support what is being proposed for 3A, but I'm a bit on the fence with what's being proposed with E. Thank you. Page 50 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. I think I've finally gathered my thoughts, and I think what's mentioned in E, it's referencing good neighbor standards but that's not how we're defining what a bed and breakfast is. A bed and breakfast and the conditions and the standards of a bed and breakfast live in 25-4-7 A, B. And I think it's an improper reference here. So, in support of the amendment if this last section is removed. I hear what we're saying, it's kind of close. But there's a whole standard and procedure for becoming a permitted bed and breakfast. And as long as we have not taken action and I'm reading the current Code; I think this needs to be removed. So, I'm going to send it back to the maker. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 121, as to Amend: amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.164. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. The motion to amend has been withdrawn. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.165. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Alright. This is the big one. So, in Bill 121 we put in there that the period that would cover transient accommodation or would define a short- term vacation rental is 180 days. And when I presented the bill initially, I made it very clear that we don't all agree on that link. Planning Department in particular was hoping that we would keep it to 30 consecutive days. So, again, the reasons for putting it at 180 days is that matches the definition of transient and HRS, and that's when you are required to pay TAT and that is when you are determined to be a short-term vacation rental per Chapter 19, which has been indicated already by our administrator that has caused confusion in the past. I will also add that since the introduction of the Senate Bill 29-19, now Act 17, has passed, which very clearly gave the counties authority to regulate as short- term or transient accommodations 180 or less including amortization of those in particular zoning areas, which means you have the situation as you do in Maui where you have Mayor (Richard) Bissen looking at shutting several down, which we are not proposing by the way so don't anybody get alarmed. So, that is the basis for initially operating, putting in 180 days. As part of the process, as the director's report, they presented to the Planning Commission a revision to 30 days. The both Planning Commissions, I'm not exactly sure how this works, but Leeward Planning Commission approved this amendment as well as the bill or sent a favorable recommendation. Windward approved this amendment but then went on to not give a recommendation or Page 51 P.CPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 unfavorable. The justification for 30 days of course is that when Bill 108 was introduced, it allowed people to get grandfathered in if they were 30 days or less. And so, the argument would be that there may be folks out there that have only been renting for 31 days to 79 days that would've had the opportunity to grandfather in when Bill 108 was introduced but cannot now. And so, there is merit to that and if we were to stay at 180 days, we would probably have to deal with that in some way, shape, or form, in Bill 121 itself. If it goes to 30 days, we don't. I just want to add, with the amendment, what you see then is you have the change from 180 days to 30 consecutive days in the definition of transient. And then in the definition of transient accommodation, you take out basically all of the reference to the Hawaii Revised Statute because there was that original relationship between 180 days and the statute, and now we're kind of separating that because we're going to 30 days. So, again, I'm introducing this resolution or this amendment out of respect to the director and department's position on this as well as the positions of the Leeward Planning Commission, leave it to the body to decide if you want to do 180 or 30. ACTING CHR. INABA: Opening it up for discussion. We'll start in Kona. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: I have the utmost respect for our property tax office and all the burden that's placed on them to execute and to navigate all the different policies that we pass here. So, I will not be supporting this amendment because I feel that it —well, we just heard from the property tax office and we don't hear from them very often, and to come in as a testifier. And so, I put great weight on that opinion and that request for us to maintain the 180 days. So, I won't be supporting this today. Indifference and respect for and honoring all that they do and how they do it and their incredible experience and foresight, I do not want to be party to something that makes that even harder for them when we have been parry to a lot of those things as a Council in this term. So, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Anything further in Kona? MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I really want to thank Member Villegas pointing out the testimony we had from Real Property Tax. It seems like we're definitely going to have to look at the Code based on that. And I will assume the authors of Page 52 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 this will consider that. The question I have on the amendment is I was looking at definitions and I'm a little confused because I was looking at the definition of transient accommodation. I was just looking at your definitions and I'm wondering if it flows correctly. So, you have transient accommodation rental and then you have transient accommodation without the word rental, and then transient. And so I just want to make sure it flows correctly. That's all. I don't have time to —right now, I haven't spent any time digesting and comparing, but I just want to make sure your definitions sync. That's all. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans, transient or transients is referred to on Page 2 of Bill 121; it's in the definitions section. MS. EVANS: Yes. And then they changed it in (Comm. ) 675.165? ACTING CHR. INABA: We're on (Comm.) 675.165 right now, which proposes to amend it from 180 days to 30 days. MS. EVANS: Right. Right. But then also, it's not the transient accommodation rental? So, transient means any visitor. Thirty consecutive days is not the transient accommodation rental. So, then I have to look at that definition. And that, rental, is hotels, motels, apartments, boarding, lodges, timeshares. So, this is just one of those things. Today we have a lot of amendments, and they do different things. I was just making sure that you've, to the maker, that you've double checked the cross referencing of these definitions. That's all. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, I have, Council Member Evans. I'll also like to invite from Planning Tracie to come up if you don't mind. She actually helped do all of this. You can confirm, please. These have all been aligned. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Planner Tracie Camero came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. CAMERO: Hi. Good morning, Council and members of the —good afternoon. My apologies. So in 2018, the Planning Department got the jurisdiction to go ahead and regulate short-term vacation rentals. Back in 2018, when Bill 108 was passed it was clear that it was 30 consecutive days or less. So, since 2018, the Planning Department has been regulating any vacation rental that's 30 days or less. Anything that has been 31 days and more we have stated that they are long-term vacation rental, so therefore we were not regulating them or requiring them to come in for further permits. We were telling them they were permitted to do their long-term rental. Page 53 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 We have known from the very beginning that this does conflict with the Real Property Tax law or Code, and that has been a problem for us. However, we find it all over the Code really where there are issues between our Code and Real Property Tax. You know, for say, sometimes they regulate someone as a commercial taxes when really, they're like a residential property. So, we see these discrepancies. Planning strictly sticks to the 30 days or less and that's why we had requested, or we had put in a recommendation to the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions to keep that 30 days. If we opened it up to the 180 days, we saw it as we would have to open up our unhosted vacation rentals, which was existing and regulated through Bill 108 again and allow for anyone that operates their house within 31 days to 180 days, we would have to reopen that unhosted portion and have then come in and register. MS. EVANS: My question was just the cross referencing of the definitions and how they reference — MR. KERN: We have to really cross reference definitions to make sure they are in alignment. MS. EVANS: Yeah. That's all I want to make sure the definitions are all in alignment. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans, anything further at this time? MS. EVANS: Nope. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Just recognizing Ms. Miura being in Chambers. I need your position on the amendment, more so just how it affects your department, if at all? I read your letter. I heard your testimony. Thank you for being here. (Note: At this time, Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa Miura came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. MIURA: Good afternoon. Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa Miura. So, yeah, I did a three minute testimony, and I've learned that three minutes is a very short period. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEE\FELDER: Is it? Is it short? MS. MIURA: So, I had to really quick because I had a lot of opinions, which, you know, we're not supposed to go against other departments especially. This has caused a lot of drama. And as Tracie said, we did state in the beginning when Council looked at 30 days, and even prior when it was at the Mayor's Office, Page 54 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 different mayors several times over about the definitions and how it was going to affect us. And I'm trying to word this very carefully to not step on any toes, but real property taxes, I think if you talk to those that it has affected, it has been a huge problem for them. And we've wrote back over $2 million worth minimum. And some of them have fought it at appeals and it's not only pertaining to transient accommodation, short-term rental for whatever the term is for today. It's the confusion with how the County is set up. And yes, there are codes that are written that are in conflict with each other. I personally find it extremely frustrating for the public as well as myself, right, because you can't go to one place and get one simple answer. I'm trying to stay in my lane because I know I'm going to hear that from my Director, stay in your lane. It would just be nice to have some continuity when bills are proposed that it's going to be a little bit consistent. Whether you call it less than 30 days, less than 180 days, I mean, those are pretty significant. And our testimony from before when it came up kind of was pushed on the side. It's been a big unintended consequence, and I don't like having to give the bad news to the taxpayer that, "Oh, you called Planning Department. Well, you should've called real property." Because all they think of is I called the County. How come you guys cannot get it together where you guys have the same thing? And I say, well, I brought that up when it went to Council before but, you know, that was so many years ago. I went to community meetings. I brought it up, but I don't think anybody knew what that meant at the end of the day to their tax bill. And as much as people are concerned about how much this costs, the loss of their homeowner tax class is huge compared to the fees. Well, some of these fees are pretty high. But as far as other things in here, it is significant and I just want people to know what they're getting into, what it's really going to cost them at the end of the day. As far as whether we're saying you have to change it to 180 days, I'm not saying that. I'm just, I want to be on record and say this is how it's going to affect it. I'm literally posting our testimony up on the website so when people get upset that they weren't aware, I still get people who don't know there's Hawai `i County TAT, or if they do know, they don't realize they have to pay it because Planning is 30 days or less. And I get people who call and say, I advertise 31 days. Well, they left early. Odd. All of them leave early. And so, they get rolled back. It doesn't matter to us. There's other issues that we have when it comes to this, but as far as the 180 days, I just want to state that for the record that we tried, we put it out there. I'm not saying what Council has to do. We just said our piece. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So to the amendment, support or not support? Page 55 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. MIURA: I cannot support it. But that's real property. That has nothing to do with what Planning does. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No, that's fine. I like the conversation because it helps us make the decisions. So, you don't support it because? MS. MIURA: Because it has caused too much confusion with the public and they don't know what they're actually getting into sometimes when they're doing the hosted short-term rental. Mind you, up until now, nobody's cared about hosted that much at the County level either, except Property Tax. Again, we did wave our hand and say, if you're hosted, you know, it's an issue. But, unhosted is less of an issue for us because you shouldn't be getting homeowner tax class anyway. So, those are easier and that's part of the $2 million that was rolled back. It is the hosted rentals where people do feel like, I'm living there, I should be able to rent a room out; I should be able to rent my whole ADU, `ohana unit, farm dwelling, whatever they want to call it today. They're renting it out, they don't realize they'll lose the homeowner tax class. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's huge. MS. MIURA: It's huge. The three percent cap. And even if they tell us today, I'll stop going forward, they've already lost it going back two years, they've reset to current market, and they have to wait to get it back again. It's a big loss. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Is that within the Code we're discussing or that's a separate piece of Code that was never amended or never set up correctly? MS. MIURA: I'm a little confused at the question. I'm sorry. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I feel like we have a missing piece somewhere between Planning and Real Property. MS. MIURA: No. It was set up that way originally. We've mentioned that anything less than 180 days in the Real Property Tax Code is not considered, that you would lose your tax class. When you guys set up the —you guys, County Council, many years ago, it was set up not to provide the homeowner tax class if there was commercial activity, rental activity, but specifically, this activity. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. To the maker, I think with the comment that I just heard, I think there's definitely room for some improvement across the board for this because we should be providing the homeowner exemption for folks who are doing it and living at home. That makes sense to me. Although it is a business activity, we do allow for business activities for people who live in their homes in all districts that I can think of. But more so, the difference between 30 days and 180 days is bigger than I realized. So, I liked Page 56 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 the amendment when I read it because in my logic man brain, your normal visitor's not coming for more than 30 days, but I didn't realize the tie to real property tax and what's been happening there for our residents. So, I won't be supporting the amendment for that reason. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: So, I just want to know is there away to fix your problem with the folks that are kind of in limbo to some degree; is that a fair way to say it or yeah, in a weird space? MR. KERN: I think it's challenging that we're at the place that we are right now with the conflicting Code and time durations. If we were looking at this fresh and new, it's a little bit easier and even easier to go to 180 days. And I completely understand with what Lisa and Lisa's team have to go through around these challenges. If we take it from 30 days and move that up to 180 days, there's an entire class that's created. People that rent from 31 days to 179 (days). If that class is not taken care of, basically grandfathered in, in some way, that's going to be a whole other issue on its own, and that's kind of been —so, from my side and staying within our lanes, the die has been cast around the 30 days. People have been operating off of 30 days. There's been people that have made business decisions that couldn't meet the 30 days, that have done the 31, or whatever they're doing forward. And if you take that away, not you, but if that's taken away then there needs to be a class created for them. And we have a number of classes already within here. So, do we five different zones? What we have to do is we have to open up unhosted vacation rentals again. So, honestly, I feel like RPT's right; I feel like Planning's right, I feel like we're both right, Chair Kimball's right, and we're in a funky spot. And I think there could be conversations of what we can do on the County level. I don't know what we can do on that state level because that's state. That 180 (days) is certainly a requirement that covers beyond the Planning Department, and I completely empathize with folks that get really caught up on the conversation of, "Oh, I spoke to Planning. They said I can do this, or I spoke to this department, and I can do this," and it's conflicting with somebody else. That's frustrating. So, I'm very empathetic to that side and also empathetic to the side of 30 days. MS. GALIMBA: I'm not sure this is terribly relevant but maybe it is. What size class is this? MR. KERN: Don't really know. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. Page 57 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KERN: I know it's out there. I know people are operating on them, but I really don't know the numbers. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. And to do a —they have to advertise that they're in this particular class, between 31 days and 180 days is what you need to rent this place for? MR. KERN: Yeah. And what this class is, it's basically folks that are renting out their house, it's not hosted or occupied by somebody else. It's an unhosted transient accommodation rental of 31 days or more. It's unhosted in that way. I don't think transient rental is the right terminology. But it's an unhosted rental of 31 days to 179 days, because that no longer meets the definition of an STVR. So, they're in compliance basically. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you for the color. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. So, just to clarify, when you say class, what do you mean class, because you're not talking about tax class, you're talking about something else? MR. KERN: Yeah, so anytime you're going to change laws, so we go back to Bill 108, right, that was the initial on there. And there were folks that were operating, and we were saying we're putting legislation forward that says you can no longer do short-term vacation rentals as defined in residential zoning and these other zoning districts. You can do them in these permitted areas. And so everybody that was in operation legally before this law went in, we have to grandfather them in. So it created this whole class of nonconforming use certificates. MS. KAGIWADA: That's what you're talking about, the nonconforming. MR. KERN: Correct. And then we have this other class that is conforming, essentially. So, if it's changed to 180 days, then there's a class of unhosted folks that would basically be nonconforming that would have to be created to the 31 days to the 179 days. MS. KAGIWADA: So, you're saying —and I heard you say something like they'd all have to come in and register. MR. KERN: We would have to allow for that registration, otherwise, it becomes a taking. That's what we're trying to avoid is a takings conversation. Page 58 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. KAGIWADA: Alright. In my mind, it might be a painful thing and a laborious thing, but it's probably a good thing overall in the long run to get those folks registered and have them, you know, be part of the big picture that we're looking at. Administrator, can you come forward? I have a couple other things around just if we don't keep it at 180 days, then we also have things like the affordable rental program, which starts at 180 days, is that correct? MS. MIURA: It states on there that you need to rent it for the year, but your contract has to be set at six months or longer. MS. KAGIWADA: Yeah. So, I guess I'm just confused by this whole —we have right now something that I think, maybe Tracie referred to as a long-term vacation rental. I didn't know that was necessarily a class that we had. But it was that 31 to 180 days or whatever, didn't meet the short-term vacation rental. But we're trying to get rid of that terminology altogether and be transient accommodations. And to me, this is still transient accommodations because it's not for our residents. It's still for transients, which are defined, I don't have it with me, but I believe it's, you know, visitors basically. So, can't support this, I don't think. Administrator, when you said it was rolled back $2 million, can you just explain that a little more? MS. MIURA: Sure. And I just want to clarify again, this wasn't through this whole short-term rental thing, although it has exploded online. We have a compliance officer and when we've gotten a lot of complaints and people turning in their neighbors or on each other for whatever reason, I think the frustration comes out more because Planning wasn't concerned about hosted or the 31 days or more. So, they would turn them in to us instead. And after the compliance officer looked into it, if there were definitely reviews going back to show, okay, they have been doing hosted rentals, and even though some people weren't supposed to during COVID, there were reviews during COVID or rental activity, we would roll back. And roll back means, we collect the taxes, they should've paid had they not gotten the homeowner tax class. In some cases the homeowner wasn't actually living there, so that brought to light some of those as well, because they were renting the whole property. So, if you're renting the whole property you're usually not there at that period of time. And it's the difference in taxes they should've paid without the homeowner tax class plus the ten percent penalty. We can only go two years back, if there was reviews, plus the current year. In some places, like in parts of West Hawaii, Puako, it can be very significant. And then going forward you also lose that tax class. So even if, like I said they say, I'm going to stop doing it, I didn't know it was an issue, because I called the County. If they try and get into it again, it's a go forward. And our compliance officer hasn't run to me but somebody else did and said it was more than Page 59 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 $2 million that was collected. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Planning Director, I think you kind of said this before, just to double check. If we were starting this from scratch and you didn't have to go backwards, does doing the 180 days to align with these other things seem to make more sense than going with the 30 days. I'm feeling like it's going to be a little bit painful or maybe for you guys a lot painful, but it's the right way to go with 180 days. I guess that's where I'm at. MR. KERN: Yeah. In certain ways it certainly makes things a lot more consistent across the board. I'd say, as it is right now, whether it stays at 30 days or goes 180 days, we're looking at a compliance nightmare for either RPT or Planning. And it's not just as easy as, create another class, it'll be simple, don't worry about it. It's going to be a nightmare. It's going to be another loophole. "Oh, are you the 31 days; are you the less than 30 days?" I mean, if we're going to go that route, back to 180 days, let's open the thing back up again. Let's just get everybody reregistered, everybody at 180, and we no longer have this —and this is literally just coming out of my mind as an idea. Because how many classes do, you know, and this isn't against RPT, I really get it; and then on this side how many classes do we have? Your conforming STVR, your STVR NUC (Nonconforming Use Certificate), you're a hosted STVR, you're an unhosted STVR NUC, you're a short stay, it's you're the 31 day plusers. Got you. MS. KAGIWADA: I hear. Like I said, I do realize it sounds like it's going to be really painful. But I feel like it's where we should go ultimately with 180 days. MR. KERN: And I have to say this because the last time this occurred up here, the amount of pain that it caused the department was paramount. And to say it is one thing, and I appreciate there's an understanding of that to go through it and feel it from both being on the other side of the desk and then being in it, it hurt. Negatively impacted the department and team members. So, if it's going to happen, it needs to be programmed and staged out in a way that can actually happen. And I'm thinking, again, I'm thinking out loud here, but if we're going to go to 180, let's open it back up and change that conversation. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Well, I do hear you. But I also know that there's going to be pain on either way. But if this is ultimately the way we want to go, it seems like we should just go there and, but be thoughtful about how to do it, and for us to figure out ways to be supportive to make sure that, you know, you have the resources you need and everything. So, I won't be supporting this amendment. Thanks. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy. Page 60 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I guess I'm on the other side of this. But having Zendo and Lisa here really kind of demonstrates the critical path of conflict that, to me, is the crux of all of this. And it feels like there's a hole in the bucket, right, dear Liza, dear Liza. We go through all these steps to figure out there's still a hole in the bucket. I like this. Sorry, Lisa. I like it. But I like it because I feel like that 31 days to 180 days is the information and data that a fiscal impact analysis could help provide us so that we could figure out how much are we really losing or how much are we really gaining? And so for me, girl math, I'm going to support this because if it is the will of the body to lean into a fiscal impact analysis, we now have bookends between 30 and 180 days, and then we can analyze, what's the hurt for Planning Department? What's the hurt for Real Property Tax? How can this fiscal analysis help us solve and create solutions? And for me, from day one, that's where I've always been. I don't have really enough data to understand the metrics of all of this on how this actually truly benefits across the board or how it hurts across the board. So, for my colleagues my position is to support this. I heard hints of postponing or intentions of letting it set and then getting more comment on it. But I really hope somebody also really asks for a fiscal impact analysis or a fiscal impact statement so that we can have good information, real deep understanding of what the opportunities and the constraints are, and then make a real informed decision. So, that's my thoughts. Let's see where we go with all of this. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. When we walked into this administration, everything I heard was we're going to break silos. Right now, I see two silos because this has been broken since we began STVR Code, according to Lisa. And Zendo, you're saying it's problematic no matter which way we go. Then to me, that dictates silos because we haven't found a solution. If we can't find a solution to make things smooth and easy as we look to recreate the problem, then what are we doing? So, I think before this goes anywhere, I'd like to see some way of you two, or you three, or you four, finding a way to show us the middle ground where all this can meet and be good. And if it means doing something through RPT and addressing what you have in Planning so your staff isn't being impacted, and your staff isn't being yelled at, and we can find a solution within this coldest that doesn't put you two against each other, and make somebody step on toes, and got to stay in lanes, that's what we should be doing to do this well. We're addressing how to really clarify and make everything clear on our short-term vacation rentals, except just highlighted an issue within the existing set. So, I like, I want to see some kind of solution. Page 61 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 Mr. (Tyler) Benner said it to me a number of times. I hear a lot of problems arise at Council, but I never hear the solution. It's great to talk about the problems, but where's the solution? So, to the maker, I'd like to see that solution come forward. We're not, I don't think we rushing and dying to get this done. And if we can't figure that out while we deal with this entire section of Code, we have two different departments struggling with how and what's going to happen after we pass, then I don't think we did our job well. So, that's from what I understand. Just on this path, it may be good to withdraw this so it can be fixed, or we can find that solution that amenable to all parties and then we can do this correctly one time. That would make me happy. I yield. MR. KERN: Mr. Chair, may I respond super quickly? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yeah. Go ahead, Director. MR. KERN: With respect, I would say that our departments actually get along really, really well, and I wouldn't say that there's silos between our departments. With respect, I know what you're getting to, and I just want to speak to that. But for the record, I don't want to permeate that there is silos within the County. There's enough challenges we have. I'd say we share information really well. We've made many adjustments on how we can actually get together on this. I'm happy to sit down and talk story and see if there's a solution because we also have the state law that's an issue that is harder to deal with. So, what we're dealing with is a silos of Codes that we might be able to find some middle ground on and then maybe not. But as far as Planning and RPT goes, we're solid. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Director Kern, for the relationship update. Administrator, I'll give you the same courtesy. MS. MIURA: Thank you. I think for us, I agree, we do get along. This is one area we agree to not agree on. My concern is more for the public. And I know I've heard all the testimony multiple times, and I know there's a lot of concerns. I think trying to figure out a way, even if you kept it to the 30 days, that we could have one page where people come to Hawaii, if they're going to buy here, even for those that own, because I know we've heard from people that own, what they have to do, how there's Hawai `i County TAT, yes, the state is this. I think we just need to figure out a way to better inform and educate because what I've learned from other bills that were changed last year is people don't read the newspaper anymore, they're not checking emails, they don't read all of the notices I send them even though I change the color of the paper and I write important notice, or my frequently asked questions pages. I think we just need to get better at informing them. Page 62 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 So, I don't want to be the roadblock for this, because I know it's come a long way. I just felt it was important for us to share the issues that have come out of it and some of the unintended consequences. But I don't think us three going back and trying to talk more on it, we've done that. And I just needed to say our piece. The less than 180 days, and maybe you guys decide later, you know what, maybe long-term rentals, everything 31 days or more —I'd have a lot more to say about that. But right now, I mean I get it, things have changed. And so, I'm not crazy about it but, you know, we'll deal with what you guys decide if that's the will of the Council, and what the people have spoken, and that's it. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Administrator. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to some of the comments. You know, the motivation for doing 180 days was exactly what you're talking about, Administrator, was really around transparency to the public. And let me just give you an example of a gentleman who lives in Ka`u area, had lived there for decades, daughter goes off to school, decides, "Hey, I'm going to do a vacation rental in one room in my house." He calls Planning Department, "Oh no, you don't have to register, you're hosted." And then finds out, he gets reported, he loses decades of that three percent cap, loses the homeowners class, is out tens of thousands of dollars because of this choice for just a couple of years because he didn't know, "Oh, I gotta check with real property tax, too." The same thing is true for TAT now. But TAT is based on the state law, which is 180 days. So, the same thing, people call Planning, "Oh no, you don't have to register, you're 30 days or more." And they don't pay their taxes appropriately. So, that's the reason that jerked introducing that original consistency. What I propose to do is I will take the recommendation to withdraw at this time so that I can present to you in a solution, which I think is to a limited extent, open up the nonconforming use with the unhosted for anybody that has been renting and can show that they've been renting since Bill 108 was adopted for 31 days to 179 days. We can structure that the way we've structured, even the nonconforming use around the `ohana, so there's a long, long, long, long way to get people on board. It hopefully, you know, won't put a ton of pressure on your department, but we can maneuver it that way. I think the key thing would be that folks have to show that they have complied with that more than 30 days for that duration because one of the loopholes that I think Lisa just briefly eluded to is there are folks out there that claim to be 30 day or more renters that are not. And that's a loophole that has bothered me. I know we've had complaints about that. So, I will leave it open. I know that Council Member Galimba and you haven't had a chance to speak, Acting Chair. Happy to take your comments and then I'll withdraw the motion. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Galimba. Page 63 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. No, that was exactly my question. It's opening up, the unhosted came up and I was just wondering what does that entail. So, it sounds like you're going to work on it. And, thanks. ACTING CHR. INABA: Look forward to what you bring forward. Alright. MS. KIMBALL: At this time, I would like to kindly request 10 minutes to have a break. ACTING CHR. INABA: Can you officially withdraw? MS. KIMBALL: Withdrawing my motion. And then point of personal privilege, may we have a 10 minute break? Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 121, as to Amend: amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.165. ACTING CHR. INABA: We are in recess till 3:05 p.m. Recess: At 2:55 p.m., the Acting Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 3:08 p.m. ACTING CHR. INABA: Calling this meeting out of recess at 3:08 p.m. We are on Bill 121. The date again, July 8, 2024. And Council Member Kierkiewicz, I believe has additional amendments to propose, the first being Comm. 675.167. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.167. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Because we keep talking about this being simply a process to register that you have a transient accommodation rental on your property that you're hosting, you have it operated as unhosted. I've heard a lot of feedback from the community that these particular requirements of submitting a site drawing to scale and floor plans are very cumbersome. And if we're simply looking to register, I've seen other ordinances across the country that don't require residents to do this. And so, this is one way to, I think, make the registration process a lot less complex for members of our community. So again, this is in direct response to feedback that I've heard from constituents. So, offering this up as part of today's discussion. Thank you, Chair. Page 64 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. Opening it up for discussion. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks for this amendment. I definitely know that there was a lot of concern about this. Just wondering from the Planning Department's point of view, any thoughts on this particular amendment? MR. KERN: Sure. Getting up to speed over here. So, if we remove the floor plan, site plan, right, that's the context. So, one of the areas that we work with on that is verifying the bedroom count, which could be easily stated. The other area that's taken, that's shown on there that's probably the most important is the parking areas, and where is the parking on the site. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes, Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: We missed the beginning part. What exact piece of legislation are we on right now? ACTING CHR. INABA: We're on Communication 675.167. MS. VILLEGAS: That came in. Okay. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Director Kern. MR. KERN: Thank you. So, I'm all for trying to make it as clean and as smooth as possible. That would be my kind of, the site plan of showing where the parking is. Any thought with that, if we could do a dialogue, that would be my concern is how are we verifying that parking is on there. If not, then we just basically, they attest to it, would be the concept. So, that's kind of my biggest thought around that is the visual element of here's your bedroom — MS. VILLEGAS: Chair, we don't have that legislation here. ACTING CHR. INABA: It should be in your pinkie folder, Council Member Villegas and Evans. MS. VILLEGAS: We don't have it here. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Staff there will get it for you shortly. It's to remove Numbers 4 and 5 from Section 25-4-16.7a. We're going to continue on. The amendments are to remove the drawings and the floor plan submittals as part of the registration process. Page 65 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. VILLEGAS: Well, I'd ask for a recess or a pause until we can get the legislation in front of us, please. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Sure. We're going to take a brief recess until we get those documents to Council Members Evans and Villegas. Do you folks have the subsequent Communications 675.168 and 675.169 in Kona? MS. VILLEGAS: We have 169, 170, 171, 172— ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. So, you're missing 675.167 and 168? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, please. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. We're in a short recess until they get those documents. Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Recess: At 3:13 p.m., the Acting Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 3:18 p.m. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alrighty. We are taking this meeting out of recess at 3:18 p.m. We're on Communication 675.167 regarding the removal of required site drawing and floor plan as part of the registration process. Council Member Galimba, you still have the floor. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. I think I pretty much got what I wanted to ask for. Thanks. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alrighty. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. I appreciate what I hear Council Member Kierkiewicz wanting to do. And actually, I think it's already there because we say that this was a key term change, we say site drawing to scale rather than a site plan. A site plan would have to be prepared by a design professional and be submitted, whereas a site drawing is basically, I'm going to draw my parking and units here on a piece of paper and I'm going to submit it to the department or I'm going to download my floor plan from real property tax. So, that change that you're trying to accomplish I think is already there in the language. So, I will not be supporting this amendment because I do think it is important for Planning to be able to evaluate that parking capability and the other, you know, layout of the transient accommodation. So, appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think it's already there and that folks will no longer need to hire somebody to do the site plan or the floor plan. Page 66 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any other discussion on the amendment? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Director? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member, hang on. Council Member Kagiwada? MS. KAGIWADA: I was just going to follow up with that because I'm just reading the language here. Submittal of a site drawing drawn to scale showing the location of all structures on the site, the transient accommodation rental and requisite off-street parking. Submittal of a floor plan showing the location of the rooms for rent, the layout and the transient accommodation rental and emergency exit. You're saying, I just want to go back to the maker, you're saying that you think it's already there because what this could just be a hand sketch that somebody turns in? It says to scale so it can't be that free flowing. You've got to do something. But, yeah, I'd just love to hear maybe the original intention of this I guess was just to get those things for the director that they need and would something like an affidavit or just saying how many, would that work? I don't know. Director, I guess I'm asking you. Do you need the actual like layout plan and everything? I know you like that because you're from Planning and you like the visual and everything, but just saying we have this many bedrooms, we have this much off-street parking, would that be enough for you or is the plan what you really need? MR. KERN: Speaking out loud here. Clearly, I'm doing that. Thinking out loud. The visual element helps, you know, when you're looking at something. I've seen where we've run into challenge with folks and I've seen it on both sides is the two scale side of it, is the feeling that they need to hire a professional. I have seen people hand draw it that's passed; I've seen people have to go and find a, you know, AutoCAD (Automatic Computer Aided Design) expert or feel like they had to do an architect on it, and I think that's probably pushing it too far. There could be a middle ground in there. I think we could get there with this. I think some visual would be helpful, mainly around, can you show us where your parking is? Because I've seen that just always be the challenge. A little less concerned with exactly the makeup, the bedrooms, are all the structures on there. At one point in time, it would show us everything on there and if one wasn't compliant, we're going to talk to you about that, we're going to hold up your application. That's not necessarily the flow. It's more what I'd like to see is, here's where our general place is, here's where our parking is, it doesn't need to necessarily be to scale, and I'm not attached to it either way but I'm also a visual person. Page 67 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Alright. Well, I'll just listen to the rest of the conversation. I yield. MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. The question's for the Planning Director. Just continued follow up. Personally, right now I'm not in support of this. I like the idea that your people when they register that they kind of show what they have. But I don't know why they just can't submit a pencil drawing that they've shown you what they've got. But my understanding from people that I've talked to in the community is sometimes your office just forces them to go and have to pay a professional architect or a drafter or an engineer stamping stuff for you to accept the information. And I want to know, are you going to force people to get a professional to provide this information to you? MR. KERN: Council Member, that's quite an accusation that we force people to get a professional to stamp the site plan. That's not to my knowledge. No. The way the current language is, a scale drawn site plan, I have samples that we can show where people drew it themselves in black ink. I've seen it drawn themselves in blue ink; I've seen it done by a professional draftsperson. There's no requirement and I don't force anybody to do anything more than they need to do to be compliant with the Code. MS. EVANS: I mean, I'm glad to hear it publicly because I've, you know, I want to make sure that it's not causing undue stress and costs to people who really want to be compliant and I'm sure will give you this. So, thank you. Thank you for saying that. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: We're going to go on to Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. At this point, I feel like we are continuing to muddy the water, that the community has already deeply frustrated with being muddied. I'm looking at the copy of the legislation and the amendments that were passed earlier through (Comm.) 675.160, as it relates to the Section 25-4, and then I'm also looking at the Communication 675.169 brought forth by Council Member Kimball that would reflect the other amendments. But now I'm looking at in that copy —every single one is different and they're all making adjustments to one another. I think that this is really verging on unwise legislating and pushing things too far, and if we can't even make heads or tails out of what's changed and Page 68 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 where and when in which version, this is —I don't think it's fair or considerate to expect the public to do that. We're working with so many different versions right here and so many different amendments, and now there's amendments are done to versions that were just amended, and none of them reflect what they would be otherwise. So, I won't be supporting this at this point. And I would actually ask, it's 3:30 (p.m.) in the afternoon, we have multiple other communications to go through, and if the intention of the maker is to postpone this, I ask that you consider doing it at some point very soon. We have another couple of days. We are in the middle of stressful times for all of us, and I would ask from the Chair, that consideration, because it is part of the responsibility to support the bandwidth and capacity of us as Council Members, and there is no rush for this to get pushed through. And in order to come up with a clean copy that reflects the amendments that we have approved of today, which is something the public and ourselves can then review and have the time to then consider a next slew of amendments — Point of Order: MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, point of order. There's an amendment on the floor. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. The amendment is simple. It's removing the requirement to submit a site drawing drawn to scale and to remove the requirement to submit a floor plan. There's nothing complicated about this amendment — MS. VILLEGAS: Point of order taken, Chair. Point of order taken, Chair. I don't need to be lectured by her on that. I will go back to — ACTING CHR. INABA: Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: I won't be supporting this amendment because trying to navigate all the different changes here and the claim that's made by the maker that it's already covered in some other terminology versus what's being presented here at this point is not clear, and I don't know if it's accurate so I will not be supporting it at this time. If the maker would like to withdraw the amendment and bring it back at another time when we can work with a clean version, that's something that I can take into consideration. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. Bringing it back here to Hilo. Discussion on the amendment, Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Mr. Kern, it sounded to me like what you're offering now is pretty easy and straightforward. I've seen the same Page 69 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 requirements for businesses if they're going to layout a kitchen or any kind of a business you have to show just a simple floor layout, nothing CAD (Computer Aided Design) drawn, just where are things located. What I'm getting from you is you feel like it's fairly simple right now and it's not a deal killer? MR. KERN: What I'm thinking is there's maybe an in between. I think the scale drawn plot plan, or anything scale drawn jams people up. And then if Code's read explicitly and I pull scale on it and it's not perfect, I could reject it. And what I'm thinking is that there's that element of feedback that's come out, and I've heard it on all sides of it, that this is too much. And I think there was an effort to kind of pull it back and I think this effort with this amendment pulls it way further back. And so, maybe what would kind of resonate well for me would be something that says, you know, a site plan showing just kind of the general layout. Doesn't need to be a scale. Just, here's where the house is; here's where my parking is; here's where my driveway is; and it's generally within 10 percent or 20 percent accuracy that I could do on my iPad, I could do at home with a ruler and a pencil. And I think that would take away a lot of those issues and still have a visual there for us to kind of, I can see it, but take out that possibility of a rejection that you're off a little bit, and just that feeling that folks can get of, "I can't draw to scale." Because that can mean something. So that would be my suggestion or recommendation is adjusting this a little bit more and tweaking out some of that language and hopefully trying to find that middle ground. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I like that because you're saying, I still want something in paper I can see what is represented by the person applying. But it doesn't have to be ultra specific, it doesn't have to be drawn by a professional. It can just be a very simple drawing that's close enough, at least we get the general idea. And if we have to reference it we can. MR. KERN: Yeah. Can a layman easily take on drawing out their site? And you could pull up a TMK map and you could generally say, I think my house is around here and here's where my parking's going to go. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Okay. With that, I won't be supporting the amendment. Maybe if something in the middle, as the director said, that kind of forms a, you know, just an easy visual of what's going on at the property or the parcel and where the rental is and blah, blah, blah. But I like the idea. I do like minimizing what the application process has to be. But as long as they have what they need, this would actually take that off the board completely. So, I won't be supporting. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Page 70 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, did you say you would, or you not be supporting? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Won't be supporting. Looking for kind of a blend of what the director is asking for, and what Council Member Kierkiewicz is bringing forward. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. You know, because of Sunshine Law we can't collaborate on these amendments in a shared google document among Council Members, so we have to have these discussions publicly. And so, thank you, Director, for being open to potential changes. Would you be open to language that talks about submittal of a diagram that identifies requisite off-street parking? Because when I asked you what you needed, all you said was you really needed to know that folks had parking and that it was off-street, that it was onsite. So, would that be sufficient language? MR. KERN: Yeah. Let me think about that a little bit. I can get back to you. But yeah, generally speaking, I think we're really close on that, to be able to show the diagram. I gotta get my mind around it. But yeah, something showing, here's the general location of the house; here's where I'm going to park my cars. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Or like a screenshot off of google maps, right, makes it very easy. MR. KERN: A screenshot of Google maps with a TMK kind of overlay showing kind of the parcel outline. That could be a possibility, too. So, why don't we carry on that, kind of find something in that ballad if we can between now and the next time it comes up. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I think the point is I want the information to be useful to you, but I also don't want this to be overly complicated for members of the community. And so, like you said, I think the site drawing drawn to scale, even if it's not something that you're hiring a professional developer does throw people off. And so I think the simplicity of the process is going to be really helpful. What about your thoughts on the submittal of the floor plan? Only because we had talked about earlier, life situations are very dynamic. Individuals may be relocating, you know, a room for rent on their property. And so, I just don't know if a floor plan is necessary, and I wonder if it could be achieved through a simple question as part of the intake registration process. Page 71 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KERN: It could —take registration process be how many, you know, what's your bedroom and bath count and then we would maybe cross reference that or we wouldn't, we just take them at their word and move forward, which kind of leads to that declaration. So, if I could, I would say let me think about that a little bit more, get a little input from the team and then we could talk story and come up with something that is balanced. I agree that I'd like to see the same thing as you, where it's not overly burdensome, gives the basic information that we need, and somebody can basically do it from home. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you. And before I withdraw, Council Member Lee Loy, I think you just kind of walked into the conversation, but really curious about your perspective too before I withdraw the amendment. Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. I'm actually in support of minimizing the work and here's why. Under Real Property Tax, when you get into real property tax, there's a dwelling diagram already in there. And within real property tax, it lists the number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, square footage. And so, for me, having done this work in the past, there's already information available within Real Property Tax, through Google Maps, your TMK, that actually —if it's just a question and pointing to existing records, it's all there. We're trying to simplify the process. It's a registration process. And for you, to the point of parking, right? It's the number of bedroom units, two plus two more, and then the doubling, right? How does that math fit to ensure that they have enough parking onsite. I actually do support this and one other reason why I do support it, and this is just more of a safety and security issue, I've known people to use this information very nefariously. And my husband, as a retired police officer, actually found this information where malicious people would use it as a way to gain access into homes or other people's property, and that is actually my larger concern. So, if we can find a soft place to land where we're not having property owners divulge sensitive information but you're still getting what you need, I think we've got to find that pathway. So, those are my thoughts. Chair, I yield at this time. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. MR. KERN: Chair, may I ask a question? ACTING CHR. INABA: Sure, Director Kern. MR. KERN: Thank you, Chair. When you're thinking of the public safety element, is that the floor plan specifically where people kind of know, there's the master bedroom, this is the way out of the house? Page 72 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. LEE LOY: There's a window — MR. KERN: Versus the RPT layout basically just does it as, here's your living area, here's your nonliving area, very benign, very cannot tell nothing. MS. LEE LOY: Very benign. MR. KERN: So, it's something like that with a google or drawing saying here's my general location and the parking on there, I'm sympathetic to that. I think we can get right there. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. And even some of the setbacks, right, that allow for how far the property is set back from the side yards or the front yards, and where they would accommodate that parking, right. Those are just my thoughts. Just dealing with something very personal right now, and so, that's actually where my heartburn is. Chair, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Do you have any more to add? ACTING CHR. INABA: I support the intention of this and then probably just want to make it easier for folks to register and if we don't need to get this, because we have it in another form or we want it in a slightly different form, then I would like to hear from the director. But, support the intention of making it easier for folks to register. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. That's helpful. Director, I'll be reaching out to your department to collaborate on language that I think meets this intention but is also something that the department can live with. MR. KERN:- Awesome. Thank you. Look forward to it. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I'll be withdrawing the amendment. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kierkiewicz withdrew her motion to amend Bill 121, to Amend: as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.167. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, next amendment. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.168. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? Page 73 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: I'm sorry. Who was that in Kona? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, Chair. I actually was hoping to make a motion to postpone. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I believe I have the floor and we're on a motion to amend the bill. ACTING CHR. INABA: Yup. Council Member Villegas, we're going to take this motion up right now. So, Council Member Kierkiewicz made the motion to amend Bill 121 with the contents of Communication 675.168. It was seconded by Council Member Lee Loy. MS. VILLEGAS: Got.it. I wasn't able to jump in fast enough because of my distance. But I will ask that there be a pause before another amendment get to be presented. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I have nowhere to be so happy to be here all night to get through all of the amendments. Before I move into all of this, I wanted to just ask our Clerk, or Junior Clerk, Mr. (Jacob) Perry, Acting Clerk, we had talked about layering amendments onto the bill, onto additional amendments. And so, this particular language is reflective of the original Bill 121. It doesn't take into consideration the amendment that we made through Comm. 675.160. So, I just want your mana`o around our ability to proceed with this particular discussion. MR. PERRY: So, we've confirmed that as long as the amendments aren't actually conflicting, in which they do two contrary things, then when the new draft gets processed, the amendments will layer on top of each other. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. That's really helpful. Just wanted to make sure that folks are very clear on what we're looking to do here, which is very simple, removing the requirement to submit a declaration to the director regarding health, safety, and Code requirements. Again, very simple registration process. This makes it less cumbersome for the community to get their transient accommodation rental registered. And this is something that a number of members of our community have testified on that we actually deliberated upon earlier today. And so, this I think would really reflect the will of the body and the community by removing this requirement. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR.. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. And before we proceed, I'm going to ask and remind members of this body of our kuleana to Page 74 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 proceed with respect for one another and not be making side remarks during our meeting. We're on Communication 675.168. Discussion? Council Member Kaneali `i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Director, thank you for being here. So, this one is interesting to me. The transient accommodation rental meets health, safety, and Code requirements. Health and safety, always paramount for the County. Code requirements is interesting. In your reading of this, what does Code requirements mean? MR. KERN: Code requirements would mean the County Code; building — MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Permitting — MR. KERN: Planning, permitting. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So basically, the person would now, if this were to pass, this amendment, the people applying wouldn't have to prove that the structure was permitted and built correctly, and we remove all requirements as such? MR. KERN: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. I'd like to suggest, you know, we did make the amendment earlier that changed it from the affidavit to the declaration, and I explained a little bit why I like that declaration, you know, being a checklist for people to make sure that they have all of the safety items that might be necessary for an accommodation. Technically, you should have them for your home, too. But it's particular when you're providing a commercial service to other folks. I did hear and I understand the concern around the Code piece here and the fact that it is ambiguous. Is it the current Code; is the Code at the time; what about these ones that are nonconforming, blah, blah, blah. So, what I'd like to suggest, Council Member Kierkiewicz, is instead of advancing this and just taking it out and doing a further edit to tweak that bit of the language because I think we're on the same kind of page of what —or the piece of it that's concerning. That's my thought. I do still like there being this sort of checklist that basically forces people to think about what they're offering with their accommodation. I'd also suggest, as was suggested before, we probably should get DPW in here to speak on this. Page 75 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 I was having a conversation briefly earlier and one thing that should be made, folks should be made aware of is that even if we don't require any Code compliance within this STVR registration, if somebody reports your building being in violation, that's a DPW thing. Talking about different departments. So, this doesn't like override that in any way, but it would be just related to the process of registration. So, Council Member Kierkiewicz, I think I understand and appreciate where you're going here, and I'd like to work on it a little more, keep the declaration in there but again, maybe soften it a little more of take that Code piece out of it entirely, but keep the health and safety. Thanks. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kimball. In Kona? MS. VILLEGAS: Council Member Evans had to leave the room. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. MS. VILLEGAS: But nothing from me right now. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Thank you. Coming back to Hilo. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think there's an issue with this as far as the alignment with the language that has been put in front of us. Section 25-4-16.5, Number 2; transient accommodation rental must meet health, safety and Construction Code requirements established by law. This is a different section and if we're requiring it within the bill itself, we're taking out of the rental registration process, I'm not sure those two would align with each other or if that's possible. Just for oversight for the maker. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. If there's no further discussion, I think we can take this up next time. I am also getting worried that some of these sections, the numbering here might be off based on the amendments that we took up earlier today. Not for sure, but it appears that way. So, Council Member Kierkiewicz, how do you want to proceed? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Just want to check in to see if anybody else has feedback on what's being proposed here. Would gladly work with Council Member Kimball to arrive at language that I think achieves our shared goals. And I'm really going to look to support from LRB (Legislative Research Branch) to make sure everything is numbered correctly and that any changes that are created, meet with Planning, that everything's in alignment and there aren't additional conflicts. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. Page 76 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Yeah. In support of looking at, you know, taking out potentially code requirements and making it a simpler form. That makes a lot of sense. So, you know, getting what we need to get but with the most minimal requirements on the public. So, yeah, thank you for being willing to do that. I will look forward to seeing the new version. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I'll be withdrawing the amendment. Thank you. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kierkiewicz withdrew her motion to amend Bill 121, to Amend: as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.168. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Villegas moved to postpone Bill 121, as amended, to July 23, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Evans. ACTING CHR. INABA: On the postponement, Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. At this time, I would ask that if the intention of the makers was to postpone this legislation to begin with, I ask that it be done now in order for us to absorb everything that we've already been given today and the information in front of us now and be able to come back to it with fresh eyes and a greater understanding of where we're heading, and for them to incorporate the amendments that have been made. Much appreciation for the copy of Comm. 675.165 that Comm. 675.169, this piece of legislation, Bill 121 is a 28 page piece of legislation, which is a very lengthy document. Bills 122 and 123 also incorporate a lot of complexity. So, I'm asking for the support of my colleagues to honor this request as well as that of the community, which would like some more time to process that. And as was stated, there's lots of time and lots of room, and tomorrow we'll be hearing another piece of legislation asking for that economic impact report. So, asking my colleagues for their support in postponing this. MR. PERRY: Chair, if I can ask the maker to specify the date and time, that they wish to have this matter to? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas, it would be July 23, 2024, if the intention is to postpone to the next committee meeting. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. That's the intention. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. So, the motion is to postpone to July 23, 2024. Further discussion on the motion to postpone? Council Member Kimball. Page 77 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I don't think it's a terrible idea to maybe wait on some of these amendments just to give public time to review them. Although, I'm not opposed to discussing them either. I will say two things, one; I have a list of other items that I wanted to just briefly discuss in terms of the whole bill because there are already additional amendments that I know need to be made that I kind of need to understand where the body is at this point before I start working on those. So, I want to have that conversation today. I also want to have a full month to work on the second set of amendments, so I would be asking for a postponement to the Tuesday, August 6t' meeting. MS. LEE LOY: Chair, on the postponement. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I'm going to be voting in opposition of Ms. Villegas' motion. I think there's a lot of work to be done. I still think that this is really the first opportunity that we've had as a body to hear each other, listen to each other. I would love to get all of our amendments in now, whether they're passed up or down, or withdrawn. I think that would give LRB the perfect opportunity to layer in whatever amendments do pass, give the community a longer time and a longer runway to look at the bill in its totality along with the need for a fiscal impact statement. I mean, I don't want to short-change us on any additions or amendments, or exploration on what that impact might look like without delivering something for people to chew on. So, I'm going to be speaking in opposition of the postponement. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Any further discussion on the postponement? MS. EVANS: Yeah, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, we still have the motion for I believe July 231d, unless it was amended. I didn't hear the maker amend it. ACTING CHR. INABA: We are on July 23rd, yes. MS. EVANS: We're still on July 23rd. You know, there was a lot of good testimony today and I know that we've had some really good discussion with our Planning Director and even more discussion with Real Property Tax. And tomorrow I know we're going to hear a bill about an economic impact study. I think it would be worth postponing and digesting, and kind of really digging deep on some of that. And if the maker wants to redo some amendments on July 23rd, Page 78 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 knowing that, you know, maybe collapsing and bringing back some stuff or spending some time on the 23rd. I think that would be a good idea. But I think we know that's it's probably going to go past the 23rd to the August 8d'. I think it's a lot to take up, and I think biting it off in sections and chewing it with the community and with the departments, I don't think that's a bad strategy. I don't know if the maker likes that strategy, but I like it because it's a lot that we're trying to do here and today was such a huge learning day, especially the discussion we had with Real Property Tax. So, I recommend that we postpone it to July 23rd, take up some amendments, see where we get there, and then knowing we'll be back probably with other amendments on August 8d'. So, that's why I'm supporting the postponement put forth by Member Villegas. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. I won't be supporting this proposal to continue this later. I'd just like to get through the amendments we have in front of us so we can know what we're looking at as a whole, hopefully see a clean copy with any amendments we include today, and then, you know, we've already had several withdrawn that are going to be worked on and come back. So, you know, I'd rather power through and get these few heard today so that we know what we're dealing with at this point, and then go from there. So, thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Anyone else on the postponement? MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. Thank you, Council Member Kimball, for your willingness to push this to the August 8'�' meeting. And I'm wondering in process here, I haven't heard from everybody on whether or not a postponement will even be supported. But in your statement of pushing it through to August, then I would like to change my request to postpone to August 20th, because that allows for the next meeting to actually be in Kona, which I think provides the constituents of my district, which have been some of the most vocal and concerned, to be able to be heard here in the Kona Chambers, and it gives that extra time. And if we are looking at — ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay, Council Member Villegas, hang on. There is a motion right now, it's postponing to July 23rd. Acting Clerk — MS. VILLEGAS: Can I amend it? ACTING CHR. INABA: Hang on. That's what I'm asking. Page 79 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. PERRY: Yes. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: And that requires a vote to amend? MR. PERRY: Yes, a second, a vote, there'll be discussion. ACTING CHR. INABA: On the amendment? MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry. Can you say that again? I would like to make a motion — ACTING CHR. INABA: Hang on, Council Member Villegas. MR. PERRY: It requires a motion. If the proposal is to change the date and time to which this matter will be postponed, then there could be a motion to amend this motion to postpone. And then that motion would have to be seconded, there'd be discussion, and then there'd be a vote on the motion to amend, and then there would be a vote on the main motion to postpone as amended. ACTING CHR. INABA: So one way you could do it is that, or you can just withdraw your motion and then you can make a new motion and if someone seconds it, we can take it up then. - MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So, I withdraw the motion to postpone to the July 23d meeting. Withdraw Motion Ms. Villegas withdrew her motion to Postpone Bill 121, as to Postpone: amended, to July 23, 2024. MS. VILLEGAS: And then I can say, I make a motion to postpone until the August 20t' meeting. Is that right? Motion to Postpone: Ms. Villegas moved to postpone Bill 121, as amended, to August 20, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Evans. ACTING CHR. INABA: We're on the motion to postpone Bill 121 to the August 20th Committee meeting. Point of Information: MS. KAGIWADA: Point of information, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. Page 80 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Just wondering, if we vote this down can we later choose to postpone it if say we vote it down and deal with these amendments, can we later choose to postpone it to that date or not? MR. PERRY: A member of the prevailing side could move to reconsider the vote. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Okay.. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. So, the motion currently on the floor is to postpone to August 20'. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. I can appreciate Council Member Villegas' comment about having a hearing about this is Kona. I appreciate that and it does make sense. So, that date doesn't pose an issue for me, in fact my staff might be thrilled to have an extra week or two weeks. But I would say there's some things that I would like to ask this body and as Council Member Kierkiewicz has mentioned, I cannot do that unless we're in the open forum. And so, I'm not ready to postpone this yet. I'd ask for at least one more time to speak on the bill as a whole so that I can get the temperature on some of the other amendments that are sort of complex that I don't want to start working on until I know if there's any appetite for them. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: So, at this point if I withdraw this then we keep going through the things that you'd like to go through, Council Member Kimball, correct? ACTING CHR. INABA: That would be correct. And anything any member brings up on the main motion at that time, which would be to forward Bill 121 to Council with a favorable recommendation. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. And we still aren't even through our whole agenda for today. Okay. I will withdraw at this time for deference. And thank you, Council Member Kimball, for your willingness to look at the August 20th date when you — ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas, I'm going to acknowledge your withdraw just for efficiencies sake. And Council Member Kimball, I believe you were going to speak on the main motion? Withdraw Motion Ms. Villegas withdrew her motion to Postpone Bill 121, as to Postpone: amended, to August 20, 2024. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. So, I had a couple of other issues that I wanted to discuss with the body on the whole bill itself in anticipation of further amendments. I Page 81 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 know that we have another Communication 675.171, that talks a little bit about fees. But it was my intention to raise the issue of fees. I think when I initially put this forward, we attempted to make clear that these were just a placeholder, and I wanted to get a sense of from folks where we actually are across all of the fees, not just the annual renewals but also the nonconforming use. I mean, we've had some testimony on that, so I wanted to have that discussion. The other thing that has that has come up from community input and both -in the Planning Commission meetings and in testimony was that folks that are hosted rentals would like to potentially have the opportunity to rent for short periods of time while they are away. Technically, they would be unhosted. My thought on this is potentially adding under the owner -hosted section the ability to basically — I'm calling it a rider. I don't know if that's the right term, but you know how you do on insurance, you add this feature that they could add this feature that would allow them to rent for up to 30 days a year without them being present on the site. That was another thing that I wanted to get a sense of the appetite for. I did want to mention that I am reviewing the definitions of gathering and event that were presented in the testimony. I don't know if you've all had a chance to review that. But those are really tough ones. Director Kern can testify that we've spent a lot of time talking about that. We were still unhappy and said, let's take it to Council and see what happens. Wanted to get the sense on the hosting platform. I am fine with excluding individuals and property managers. It was really intended, as far as hosting platforms, to be the third parry sites. So, wanted to have a confirmation from that. I've already talked about the reachable person. The definitions of building site. I think that is something that I don't want to change the definition of building site because it's used a lot of other places in the Code. I think it's better to actually identify a different thing in the STVR Code. If we want to change that and allow for contiguous lots or something like that rather than change that. I think that would have a lot of unintended consequences. And, let's see, increases the fee for hosting platforms came up. And then that kind of covers it. I will be also presenting an amendment next time around the renter limit and the discretion of the director because that is not clear because it's identified in two locations and it's not consistent. So, those were the things that I wanted to get some feedback on before we go to out next meeting so I can work on those amendments and have them available for next time. Thank you. I yield. MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah. One thing that you brought up that I just wanted to comment on and that was the very first thing that you mentioned and this 30-day Page 82 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 maybe rider or rental period in the year. I'm just going to throw it out there to the body, but I do know that people do home exchanges. And sometimes these home exchanges are one week, two weeks, a month, and they go to other countries, people come here. So, that might I really like this idea. I don't know how you're going to write it. But it makes sense to me. So, anyway I just wanted to comment on that. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Any other points? Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: I think Ms. Kimball asked about the fees, and I know there's an amendment lingering. I think this is where the fiscal analysis would really help. What I don't like is when we just kind of pick fees or fines based on a cadence; $100, $250, $500. I'd like to see a rationale as to why. So, for example, our building permits is based on square footage and that's how you get a fee. I do think fees and fines are needed, but I just don't understand the rationale on how these things are being advanced. And if there is a goal, right, to incentivize certain types of TARs in certain areas, that's the carrot. And then if they're not good TAR's or they're not in an area where we want them, or infrastructure is tough, that's a stick. And so for me, as you're querying us, Chair Kimball, it's hard to even speculate as to like what these numbers will be without getting to a whole bill, letting it sit, getting a fiscal analysis around it, and then talking about fees, fines, or I think the other one was registration costs, right? Because we know some properties could afford a very nice registration cost where others wouldn't. But we're trying to be fair and equitable. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. I was thinking similarly around the registration cost. I would love for us to figure out a way to do this more equitably, which I think would be more around the —I don't know how we'd do it, but about the value of the property of the amount people are taking in annually or something like that because I do know we have some local families that are, you know, renting a room in their house and they're just barely getting by. And so, I would like them not to have to pay the same registration fee just because they're owner hosted as somebody that has a multimillion dollar property renting it out for thousands of dollars every week. Just because they're both hosted, it doesn't seem to me to be fair that they would pay the same amount. So, I don't know if that's possible, but I would love to see a more equitable reasoning behind how we're charging the registration fees. And, you know, to points that Council Member Lee Loy has brought up in the past, you know, but for, I just going to say this one little thing here, but that people are earning money based on Hawaii, on location, on our beaches, on all this stuff. And so, if they're earning a lot of money on that, then they should be Page 83 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 paying more, I think. If they're only earning a tiny bit, then I think we should look at that too. So, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Anything further in Kona at this time? MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I just want to add to these comments on, you know, I think about what's out in my district and I have these four, five, six, seven, bedroom homes. And I'm thinking about these registration fees, and I wonder if there, you know, we did some tiering on like assessed value but maybe there should be some tiering on the number of bedrooms. So, just to throw that out as a thought. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Sorry, Ms. Kimball, you went through a list of things. What do you want to have a conversation about right now? Okay, summarize, summarize, what you got real quick. Yeah, top three, what are you shooting for? MS. KIMBALL: Top three. Chair, may I? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes. MS. KIMBALL: Top three. Fees; this vacation rider; the idea that if it's owner hosted you would have the ability to do the vacation rental for 30 days without anybody there. Those are the big ones for right now. If you can speak to those, I think that gives me a lot to work with. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Open to the rider idea. That's interesting. I understand where you're headed with that. And for the fees, I think I'm going to go a different direction. If you want to have registration fees, that's fine since, you know, it's good. But on the other end of that, I feel that the vacations rentals, short-term vacation rentals are, they're businesses. They pay their taxes already, they're paying TAT, they support a huge industry and their putting in already. So, hitting them with huge fees to become a rental and to be registered, to me is, you could easily parallel that with what they're bringing in in the overall economy. So, in my opinion, keep the fees low, keep them there so there's a process to be had or taken care of with Planning Department. But we also know that the income and the broader economy is being supported and there's a lot of flow there that we don't recognize, that isn't government based but is happening that is supporting community. So, I like lower fees with the thought Page 84 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 that we are supporting economy by having this and making this doable for the community, if that makes sense. So, thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I do like the idea of having a vacation rider, so I'm interested in looking at that kind of language. You know, I had an advanced an amendment, we don't need to talk about it today because I think we're kind of on the same page here. But I think about a lot of residents are moving in the direction of having a vacation rental because they see an opportunity. But it's also, I think, they're being resourceful because cost of living in the islands have just risen so dramatically, so they're trying to figure out; how am I going to pay my mortgage; how am I going to pay for mom in an old folks home; how am I going to send my kids to college? And so, people aren't getting rich. Maybe some people are but I'm really thinking about the people that are doing this in their primary residence, which is why I wanted to advance an amendment where if you're doing this in your primary home, you just pay an initial registration fee. You shouldn't have to pay an annual renewal fee because this is in your principal home. I'd like to explore other models. I think Alexandria, Virginia, has something where it's basically free to operate until you hit like a $10,000 a year revenue stream. So, we could explore that. We could also explore, you know, depending on how many days you're actually renting in a year. That gets a little bit more complicated. I think the revenue bit might be the easiest way to go. But again, I want to make sure that at the end of the day, we are prioritizing folks that are actually operating these transient accommodation rentals at their primary residence. So, I'm interested in looking at a fee structure and not just kind of taxing and assigning fees just for the sake of it because now we're going to have all this additional revenue and I think people are going to want to know, well how are you improving my quality of life with all these additional fees that you have levied when I'm just trying to make a living. So, I think, you know, to many of my colleagues points here, there has to be a justification for why we are identifying certain fees attached to the different types of rentals. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. The vacation rental rider sounds good. But like the fees, I am supportive of making this an affordable process and whatever way is simplest is sort of what I'm in favor of. I think possibly the number of rooms might be a simple way to make that progressive piece in there, so the first room could be free with no annual. And then if there's two to three it could be a little higher, an annual registration fee. That might be a pretty good proxy, although I'm open to whatever works with our information system to make it simple, so we don't have to reinvent some new process. Thanks. Page 85 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Other discussion? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that input. Some interesting ideas. I do want to share that we actually did look at like a scaled thing. We've tried many permutations around size, and other things. Part of the challenge is not only do we want to make this easy for people who are registering, but we want to make it easy for our staff to be able to implement and enforce, and I think that was the biggest problem we had around the idea of doing it because we'd have to collect all that data now. But I think we do have a couple suggestions here that might work, so thank you for that. I appreciate it. Sounds like there's interest in this rider concept, so I will work on developing that out and have that at our next meeting to present. So, thank you for that. Appreciate it. Thanks. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, motion to amend Bill 121 with the contents of Communication 675— ACTING CHR. INABA: I'm gonna —sorry. I just wanted to chime in before I recognize that motion. I think there's a lot of discussion around just fairness across these different classes of owner versus operator versus unhosted. So maybe a comprehensive look can be taken especially even around the fines and fees and the registration. I think it's just easier if we take one approach. Sliding scale is cool, but I don't think it's in our best interest to start that right now. We're trying to stand up something that is enforceable and I think the more simple it is the better. With that, the concept of the rider, and maybe I'm standing alone on this one, but if folks are owner -hosted, that's what the intent was. Nothing in the current bill says that they have to be there during the time of the rental, correct? Got it. I misspoke, sorry. With that, then maybe I'll reconsider this concept of the rider. The gathering and the event, I can speak to the even definition regarding a formal congregation; very odd term. What is formal? What is a congregation in terms of this kind of thing? But I think we can just simplify it perhaps and say event means an assembly, which may or may not include the engagement of professional services that is not typical in residential areas, and the rest of it. Just trying to keep it as basic as possible. And then for the gathering definition, again, informal congregation. We can take that up as well. And then hosting platform versus booking service. I brought that up at the very first hearing and I know there's some work there. I think a lot of it's been focused on the hosting platform though, but making sure that the use of those two terms are distinctly different or if they're not different then let's consolidate and use one term. Page 86 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 And then regarding owner -hosted, the term subordinate and customarily incidental. I know it's used in the bed and breakfast section of the Code. Not sure that we do want to use that same term here. I think the intent is if the owner lives there. Where they live there, I don't know that that matters or if it's, you know, they rent one room and they rent out five —they live in one room, sorry, and rent out five. I don't think that's the point so I would recommend striking that. And then again, as we've discussed earlier, the renter limits and having that discretion with the director but perhaps using the double the number of the rooms plus two as a base foundation to give us a good idea. That's all the revisions I have at the moment. So, thank you for taking those into consideration. MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz was next in line, Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Mine is just a reminder to —I needed to remind Member Kimball that Corporation Counsel is researching that case law of what happened between operator hosted and owner hosted, and I hope to hear back what this is. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Any discussion on Bill 121 for the makers? Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Just got one comment regarding the platforms, the hosting platforms being assessed a registration fee, and I think that's worthwhile in looking into to see if we can get more from the hosting platform versus the individuals. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to amend Bill 121, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.170. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I know we've had a really long day, but I wanted to make sure that I at least got this out into the public arena for us to discuss and everyone's mana`o is really valuable and will help Council Member Kimball and I in the next iteration of amendments. So, I know it's been a long Page 87 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 day, I just thank everybody for their patience as we get through this really complex issue. What this particular amendment proposed to do is establish a concept of a Visitor Destination Area or a VDA. And so this would essentially create a framework within this section of the Code where we recognize that we don't want more resort areas on our island, but we do recognize that some communities are underserved by hotels and resorts. But we would like is to support local entrepreneurism. And so, there are a lot of communities, a number of which are identified in this communication, where they are very attractive to visitors because they are in the proximity of National Parks, there's golfing, there's different events, there's beaches, recreation, things that are very attractive to our visitors. But again, they have inadequate accommodations. And so, creating a visitor destination area where folks would be able to essentially operate transient accommodation rentals, and they're recognized as a permitted use. They wouldn't have to go through applying for a nonconforming use certificate. This is something that we had talked about over a year ago when we first introduced Bill 121. It was pretty difficult to work on but there's been a lot of feedback from the community that this is something that we do to further explore. I know our planning director just stepped out to gather his things, so he wasn't locked out of his office. But I really do want to get Planning's perspective on this because we're creating a whole new, basically designation for where we would be allowing transient accommodation rentals and rentals to be unhosted. And one of the things that I'm adding here is a requirement that in the VDA, if you do have an unhosted rental, that you have your primary residence here in Hawai `i County. That would ensure that the money is truly staying in the hands of local residents that are calling Hawaii Island home. I don't expect this to be passed today. But I do think it's really important to have a conversation to understand what people like, are concerned about, would like to see changed, with something like this, that way I can put forward something that folks can really get behind. Thank you, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball, on the amendment. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. I just want to mahalo Council Member Kierkiewicz for putting this forward for discussion. As mentioned, it was part of our very, very early drafts of the bill, and it was clearly going to be too complex. But actually I like what you've done here because it actually presents a much simpler solution than what we were originally but actually, it accomplishes the same thing, which is what's brilliant about it because it's in Chapter 25, and we had this whole mechanism for going through the Planning Commissions and blah, blah, blah. But that's going to happen anyway because it's an amendment to Chapter 5. Page 88 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 I had just one quick question. If this is Division 1.2, Division 1.2 in the bill is the hosting platforms. And so, I think that might be a clerical fix that needs to happen because I guess it would be Division 1.3. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: All the numbering and lettering will be ironed out in the end. Thank you. But I appreciate your comments on liking the general idea. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alrighty. I'm going to just ask everyone to make sure you're recognized before speaking just so we can keep this flowing nicely. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: I'm going to start here in Hilo, Council Member Villegas. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I like this idea a lot. I think this offers some unique opportunities for different communities. Given that I would be hesitant to do Section 17.2, specifically, as an amendment, I think I'd want the community to weigh in on whether these are areas they feel are something they want designated as a visitor destination area versus doing it inclusive as an amendment, so that the community has a chance to weigh in on the different areas we're thinking about. And I can track why these different ones have been brought up and they make sense. But the community should have a chance to voice whether they like it or not versus putting it as an amendment that's just is inclusive one time, done, and it's in. That would be my concern. But creating the destination areas and giving these abilities in the transient accommodation rental bill is a good move. I like that a lot. So, supportive of the idea, but would like to see the areas maybe a little bit more community —sorry, give the areas some community perspective as far as what they think about these specific ones that we've brought up. And some of these, Puako, I'm having a hard time believe they don't have access to hotels. But I can understand there may be other needs in the community. So, just trying to give the community the ability to have some conversation in the matter and not trying to overstep what we're trying to do. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada, then Council Member Villegas. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Yeah. I like the idea overall also. It would be good to know if there's actually like a distance between these areas and hotels, that kind of thing, if we're looking at something consistently that meets that, to my colleagues point, Puako, and those places may be close enough to hotels to not be in this designation. But I do really like the general provisions too that the operator, that the principal residence must be within the County. I wondering Page 89 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 though if Corporation Council, if you've had a chance to look at this and if we're okay legally with making that stipulation here. So, have you had a chance to look at that; do you know what I'm talking about? J (Yoshimoto). ACTING CHR. INABA: Assistant Corporation Counsel Yoshimoto, if you could come forward and answer Council Member Kagiwada's question regarding exemption for those not living here, is that correct? MS. KAGIWADA: It would be Section 25-4-17.1, general provisions, and it's Number 2. It says, in the case of an operator, operator hosted or unhosted transient accommodation rental, the owner must maintain their principal residence within the County. Just want to make sure we're okay. I like it. I really like it. But can we do it? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Can we do it? Is it legal? MS. KAGIWADA: Yeah. Is it legal? MR. YOSHIMOTO: I would say based on what I understand the case law to be, it depends. And it depends on whether the Council establishes the basis for making that distinction. And so, that's part of the research memo that Council Member Evans is asking for. So, our office will provide a thorough update as far as what the legal concerns, issues are. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm generally in support of the concept. I also would like to hear the public weigh in on these specific proposed areas. And thank you very much for the hard work of getting this done. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. You know, really interesting concept moving forward. I had a couple of questions and a couple of concerns. According to Section 25-4-17.1, "notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, transient accommodation rentals within a visitor destination area may be registered at any time..." I suppose that puts a red flag up to me because of the passage of Bill 108, essentially, it put a cap on the number of short-term vacation rentals that could then happen within residential communities. When I think of Puako listed here in 17.2, my first question for the maker, first thing would be it would be wonderful to have a map to be able to see specifically where these areas are. I humbly admit I don't know the exact location of some of these areas in other districts. I am familiar with Puako and Kona Bay Estates. So, a map and then, you know, I wondered what was the impetus for coming up with this list? Was this brought forth by community, was this kind of by random? I Page 90 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 would argue all day about Puako not being an appropriate designation for this. The coastline there is already covered in resorts and hotels, and already so many of the small homes that have been there, the historic homes have been purchased and knocked down and turned into ocean front or across the street mansions and are not already operating as short-term vacation rentals, which drastically changed the nature of and the population and the ability for folks there to support their property taxes to afford them. I also have a question here about being, it was already asked, about it being legal, about being principal residence in the County, and that question also implies that these are going to be second homes for people. I just have concerns that all of a sudden now, as a Council, we would have the authority to assign certain areas that then removes the boundaries and perimeters that have been created for our island about there being enough short-term vacation rentals, and that's kind of what's trying to be accomplished through the legislation we've talked about all day. And yet, now, we're introducing something that creates a whole other area that anything goes. So, I have real concerns about how the communities will feel about this and historically what the impacts have been on the west side when it comes to this. So, if this can be done with specific boundaries and perimeters and actually at the asking of these communities or roadways and the authentic petitioning of those areas and people to include the maka`ainana and kama`aina of that area then I think it could be valid opportunity. But I have concerns about the risk for this continuing to perpetuate the transition to big money making short- term vacation rentals and the displacement of our local people all in the name of personal gain and profit. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. My initial reaction is this would be a really good bill to work on and spend the time to flush out and introduce it as a separate bill. No matter what happens with Bill 121, 122, or 123, it's a great concept that needs to be really thoroughly worked on. I know when we started working on the commercial bicycle tour and we started designating, saying we want to restrict a road, but came up with this idea that there should be really a process and ability to know, kind of what the criteria is, what the evaluation would be, and then a recommendation to put that on a list. I kind of see this going in that same direction, I mean, because someone is going to have to make the determination of this is an area that doesn't have adequate hotel or resort. Well, if you have a hotel resort where the rooms start at $1,200 a night, you can say we don't have an adequate hotel or resort because most people can't afford $1,200 a night. So, I see there's potential for loopholes in terms of interpretation. Page 91 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 And then of course, I'm thinking of the circus, the people that do the circus over in South Parrot Island. No, I've never went to visit it, but I heard that people stayed on property in yurts or tents or whatever. You know, so maybe that circus education facility and then the yoga retreats and the wellness retreats that are out in the woods that people thoroughly enjoy having their health and wellness walk in nature. I can just see this really good; I mean I think, in bringing people into conformance. But I just think it's an opportunity to really blossom kind of a new way of looking at these tourist accommodations, right? So, I would encourage it more to be a bill that stands on its own, and I think it's a good idea. And that's what I would recommend. If I had my druthers, I would only have two categories. I'd only have operator and owner -hosted and the other unhosted, but we seem to be moving in the way of three categories. I hope it ends up being two, but we'll see. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Coming back to Hilo. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, on the amendment. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. To the maker, the first section, sorry, 25-4-17.1, of the general provisions, Number 3, I'm reading that, interesting. What then applies, I mean, what I'm reading is except to registration fees, Sections .1, .2, and .3, of the TAR Code shall not apply to rentals within the destination areas, but then what was the thought behind that, and what governs them? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: What that section is basically saying is any dwelling unit, building site on your property could be used as a transient accommodation rental. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, the owner -hosted, operator -hosted, unhosted, nothing in there applies to these visitor destination areas? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: No. I think you're confusing things. So, you can have any type of rental in any type of, what we were talking about earlier, building site. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: To the director? MR. KERN: My understanding is it's basically creating a permitted district. Therefore, all those regulations wouldn't be there. It be basically same as like a resort node where you can just do it at any time you want to. That's the intention. You're correct. Page 92 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, hosted, unhosted, doesn't matter, anything goes? MR. KERN: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Accessory units? Okay. To me, I'd say that requires some broader community discussion, perhaps not as an amendment to this bill. I like the idea. But that's different. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. In support. I think my colleagues have touched on everything. What I'd really like to say is the brilliance of this bill is really picking pockets of the community across the island where we can drive the economy. What I really like about this bill is we, you know, and there's definitely going to need some community input on where these pockets are. But we can start to test how we drive infrastructure into those areas, how we can secure other funding, whether it's through Tourism Authority, or other places. I think this is the first step at us architecting a broad Hawaii Island that can absorb transient accommodation rentals throughout the entire island where it's not concentrated in just one place or on the east side or the west side. This really spreads it out. I don't know how we get to identifying those visitor destination areas, but I do love the concept. And frankly, I think this is kind of the new model on how we drive economy and talk about economic opportunities in spaces that have not had them for a very, very long time. I think the only other, and maybe it's more of a definition, and I don't know if we add that up front, whether it's visitor destination area, resort node, or some of the new and trending words when we talk about pockets of economic opportunities. And I say that because I would love to have some real broad strokes around this where we're not just pigeon holing into short-term vacation rental. Maybe there's other commercial industries that we could slice in that fit, that help support because the other part of this, and things that we struggle with is, when we're hying to find the workforce to help support these things, the travel time to some of these destination areas, they're traveling from other places. So if we provide those in communities where they don't have to travel so far, I think it's just how we architect the future for Hawaii Island. In support. I'm not sure where the maker wants to go with that. But those are my thoughts. I really think this is like the tip of the spear when we talk about economic development for Hawaii Island. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. Page 93 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Director Kern, I'm sorry. I didn't even get to ask you what the department's position is on visitor destination areas. We had talked about doing this a couple of years back. I think the process we were trying to architect was a bit too cumbersome, very, you know, like labor intensive. And this is a way,. I think as Council Member Kimball said, achieve that in a much more, I think, simple way. When we had initial discussions, we had preidentified the communities that are listed here, and shout out to Jacob Perry, Junior Clerk, in helping to flush out what exactly we mean by these particular communities because I was just going to have the Planning Department kind of define that. But he's like, no, no, we have by TMK identify what these communities are. But your team had actually suggested some of these communities based on the high concentration, the number of vacation rentals that were actually operating in those communities. I also did scans of AirDNA, Airbnb, to just understand, where are these rentals located, to help kind of inform what communities would be, I think, most appropriately suited for a VDA. But would love your initial reactions on the VDA and what we can do to improve this? MR. KERN: Awesome. Thank you very much. I agree, we were working on kind of a complicated process, and this certainly simplified it, and I really appreciate simplicity when it's effective. The general concept I definitely support. The areas, we support, and these are a lot of the same areas that we had talked about in our discussions. I think maybe in the area of purpose and applicability, we could add in not only in proximity to hotels, et cetera, but also areas that have high concentrations of existing STVR NUC's, so nonconforming use certificates or short-term vacation rentals. And then that kind of drives to both inner areas say on the east side that are identified. Those have a certain concentration and they're also areas where folks like to go to, so they kind are where it logically makes sense for a visitor destination area. VDA's is the same kind of process that Kauai did in the area to establish these areas for visitor destinations. So, the east side I think from Volcano to Paradise Ala Kai is a lot simpler in that way with purpose and applicability. When you jump up to the west side, you have Kona Bay Estates and Puako as the two primary's. We actually got approached by Kona Bay Estates, their representatives, wanting to do a change of zone for their entire subdivision so they could do short-term vacation rentals. And I was like, what are we going to change it to? RM (Residential Multi -family) and then you're going to CPR (Condominium Property Regime) it, no, you're going to change it to commercial, you know, the community isn't going to like that. So, nothing fits but an overlay for like a VDA really does fit, and then it allows that area to really be what it is and mature to what it actually is. Because I believe, this isn't exact, but 90 percent of the homes in there are an STVR and the few that aren't are kind of stuck. So, it's creating this weird dynamic within that community. Page 94 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 Similar situation as to Puako. I haven't been approached by leadership there, but that same element exists there. And we do get some feedback from folks that are, you know, local folks that didn't necessarily take advantage of it at the time and say I can't do anything now, I'm stuck. And prices have gone up, I really don't have many ways to create further revenue in an area that's saturated by those. So; why not call it what it is and have it be that. So, we're in generally support of it. I think, you know, community feedback, you know, all the general feedback makes sense, and I like the simplicity. And I like the areas that are identified in here. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. That's really helpful. Thank you. I got approached by constituents in Paradise Park, Kehena, and also Volcano to make sure that they're included in these areas. But I'm hoping that as part of the economic and impact fiscal study that we are doing, there could also be community outreach on what would, you know; make the most sense in terms of which communities are appropriate for this designation. And then, Council Member Kagiwada, you had a question about the legality of requiring a resonance. I was looking at Sonoma County and they had required that the owner of an unhosted rental live one hour drive away from the accommodations, which kind of gave the idea around kind of mandating that your primary residence be here. But I do like the idea of getting Corporation Counsel, not here, to weigh in on this to make sure that we're in the legal clear because then at least in my mind, if we're going to be opening it up to unhosted, we can feel good about knowing that it is going to be something that is operated by somebody that is calling Hawaii Island home now and for the long term. Thank you. Thanks, Director, for your support. I'll follow up with any final kind of cleanup of this section. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Yes. I just wanted to, I think, follow on with several of my Council Members in wanting it to be a separate bill just to have more community input. And I know this particularly, Volcano, I think it's a very controversial idea. So, there's sort of very strong feelings on both sides. So, definitely would want to make sure that we had an adequate venue for those conversations. Thanks. ACTING CHR. INABA: I don't know if I am in support of this. I think it's a good idea to have further discussion. But it's a lot and right now if I had to choose, I wouldn't support it. And I do want to call Corporation Counsel up, not in the room at this time, but I'm thinking that we do need to set kind of the boundaries and guidelines of what we're looking for before we identify certain Page 95 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 areas. And I do agree with Council Member Lee Loy that, you know, it's an opportunity to bolster up certain regions in terms of economics. I just don't know if it's proper to carve out certain areas from the get -go, and whether that's giving certain advantage to those operating in those areas versus those operating not in those areas. So, could maybe get behind the concept of these visitor destination areas. I just for sure can't support it if we're identifying locations. And as Council Member Evans said, it might be a good approach to take this up as a separate bill at least for the locations, if we're going to go that route. But Corporation Counsel isn't back in the room at this time. So, that's just what my concern is with the amendment and perhaps you can touch base with them offline as to whether identification of those specific areas is legally sound. So, with that, Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. That's really helpful. I appreciate everyone's very thoughtful feedback. I will definitely consult with Corporation Counsel and Planning Department and come back with another iteration and if the idea is to postpone in August, there's really ample time for members of these particular communities to come forward and say if this is a designation that they want or not. So, thank you. I'll be withdrawing this amendment at this time. Thank you, Chair. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kierkiewicz withdrew her motion to amend Bill 121, to Amend: as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.170. Vote on Motion Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 121, as amended to Pos one: Draft 2, to August 20, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy (Approved) and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Inaba — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Evans and Villegas — 2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Checking where the body is at this time. Are we wanting to proceed on to Bill 122 and 123? Looks like it. MS. KIMBALL: If I can just make some commentary to the Chair with Bill 122, we have two housekeeping amendments. I'd like to just get those in and then postpone that as well. And then there's more detailed amendments with Bill 123, but given the time, I think we just postpone Bill 123 and just save the amendments for next time. Page % PCPLUD-15 ACTING CHR. INABA: Alrighty then. Mr. Clerk, Bill 122 please. July 8, 2024 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 Referred to Planning Commissions: January 30, 2024 ; and Comm. 676.6: From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated May 24, 2024, transmitting for the Council's consideration and action, letters from the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. ; and Comm. 676.7: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated June 27, 2024, transmitting a proposed amendment. ; and Comm. 676.8: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated June 27, 2024, transmitting a proposed amendment. Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 122 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 122 with the contents of Comm. 676.7. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MS. KIMBALL: This is a fairly simple amendment. It's just to provide consistency throughout the Code in terms (inaudible) definition. This was something identified by Planning through their process, preparing for the Planning Commission. So, I ask for my colleagues support. ACTING CHR. INABA: Discussion on the amendment? Alrighty, I think I want to comment. I pointed this out at the first committee meeting. So, with that I'll be in support. All those in favor of amending Bill 122 with the contents of Communication 676.7, please say "aye." Page 97 PCPLUD-15 Vote on Motion to Amend: (Approved) Motion to Amend: July 8, 2024 The motion to amend Bill 122 with the contents of Comm. 676.7 was carried with the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Inaba — 6. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Evans, Lee Loy, and Villegas — 3. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Would you like to proceed? MS. KIMBALL: Yes. Thank you. And thank you for always pointing out the details. I appreciate that about you. Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 122, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 676.8. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. This was put in, obviously, it's going to be part of bill language so won't ultimately end up in the Code. But, you know, there was concern raised about what happens to my B&B (Bed and Breakfast) permit if it gets sunset. And so, this puts, at least in the legislative history, language that it was never our intention to do anything with the existing bed and breakfasts. They continue to have that ability to do it, and it runs with the land. This actually does conform to what we passed earlier as an amendment into Bill 121 saying that, you know, anything that has that permit as long as they comply with the conditions of their initial permit shall continue to be honored. So, again, it's more clarifying language just to make the public —to have it in writing for the public that nothing happens to their existing B&B permits if we proceed with Bill 122. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Do you yield the floor at this time? MS. KIMBALL: Yes. ACTING CHR. INABA: Discussion on the amendment? Council Member Kagiwada. Page 98 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. I feel like I remember way back when, when we started discussing this stuff, that there was going to be this language that meant if people had a B&B permit, they would keep theirs and there wouldn't be new B&B permits issued, which I understood. But I still don't quite understand how it gels within that other piece of language that we just talked about in that amendment because basically we're getting rid of these. So, somebody who had a B&B permit, it's not going to mean anything special anymore. Is that what I'm hearing? It's just going to be like everybody else who has a hosted vacation rental, it won't be special. And that's different than what I thought originally, the thinking was around this. So, I just want clarification that that is true, it's no longer special. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada, we're just speaking right now on the amendment, so I want to make sure we're clear on that. MS. KAGIWADA: Right. Well, this is all about how B&B's— ACTING CHR. INABA: Right now the amendment is saying that if you have the permit, you get to continue having the permit. That's all this amendment is saying. So, I think the discussion we had regarding what you're getting at we didn't pass that motion to amend earlier. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Okay. I guess I was just getting at the intent of the makers originally because I thought it was really different than this. But it can wait if it's not allowed now. ACTING CHR. INABA: If there's further discussion regarding intent of this specific amendment, please go ahead. I just want to make sure it's specific as to whether you keep your permit. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Well, like I said, I just was trying to understand how we got here versus what I thought the original intent was around this issue. Okay. ACTING CHR. INABA: The makers, if you have anything to respond to Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Happy to, Acting Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, to clarify why Bill 121 and 122 are coming together, as you've got a response from the Director before, the process to get a bed and breakfast permit is quite lengthy, and you have to go through the Planning Commission and all of that. And it's a permit. It is an actual permit, which is why it's tied to the land. Permits by the rest of the Code are always tied to the Page 99 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 land. There are also a few other nuance limitations to bed and breakfast in that you can have no more than five unrelated people, right, if there's —or ten unrelated people. There's also limits on the number of bedrooms as the way to five as it's established at this point. So, our thinking was, when we started talking about the TAR bill, there were two strategies we thought of. Push everybody that's hosted to do the B&B process. That was idea one. Push everybody to that and make sure that everybody did B&B. The idea of trying to do all of those through the Planning Commissions, I mean, think of the nightmare that would be, and think of how burdensome that would be. So, the second idea was, okay, let's create a pathway through the registration on the TAR side, then the B&B process becomes unnecessary because we've already got this other process that is much simpler because it's just a registration, it's not a permit. So, that's the thinking on the idea of sunsetting B&B because it would no longer be necessary on the side of —I'm sorry. I'm talking about the bill and not the amendment. And you let me keep going. Anyway, so that's the gist of it. I hope that kind of covers it. The idea is that this becomes unnecessary because you have the other pathway now for a hosted rental, which is basically what it means in the bed and breakfast. They're kind of the same in different clothing. MS. KAGIWADA: Sorry. I'm supportive of the amendment. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy, on the amendment. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. And just to get me caught up because I stepped out, we're on Comm. 676.8, correct? ACTING CHR. INABA: Correct. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. In support of it, and I'm just going to say here, when it comes to use permits and special permits, they're entitlements, right. But, Director, correct me if I'm wrong, some special permits actually have a shelf life. And so, I'm just wondering what happens when that special permit ten years, sunsets a use permit? What happens here? And I actually understand why the maker is doing this because if the law is silent, then we're going to be left guessing at it. Can you help me address that, Director? MR. KERN: Sure. I would say majority of use permits and special permits are firm and going to run with the land. The few that we don't have, there's some unique circumstance, like for example, I know on area that has a ten year cycle on it because the use is on important ag land, felt good, but didn't want to lock that in. So, kind of want a reoccurring look at it. So, it's usually something, some Page100 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 transition in the area. If there was to be a sunset date on that and it was to come out and everything passed in some form that it is now, they would basically just come in and say, "I'm an owner -hosted rental," and be right back to where they were with the exception of, they would be in the registration side of things. They get a new TAR and few other nuances. But I think it would get them right on track. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director. Yeah. In support. Thank you. Thank you, Director. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor of amending Bill 122 with the contents of Communication 676.8, please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 122, as amended, with the to Amend: contents of Comm. 676.8 was carried with the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Inaba — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Evans and Villegas — 2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: We're back to the main motion. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 122, as amended to Draft 2, to August 20, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any discussion? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, Chair. Just because these two concepts kind of run together, I'd like to move it forward. No need to have, I think, additional discussion about Bill 122 today, except to say please read these very carefully and understand what the differences are between an owner -hosted and a B&B because, you know, thinking about what Council Member Evans was saying and bringing owner -hosted and operator -hosted together, I want to highlight that with bed and breakfast, it can be an owner or an operator, as another thing. So, the concept of going back to the idea of pushing everybody to the B&B process, although Planning wouldn't want that, is an option. So, read both of these very carefully. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. With that, on the postponement, any further discussion? To the maker, I will take time, as you shared. I don't think I'm in Page101 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 support of this right now though. So, all those in favor of postponing Bill 122 to the August 20ffi Committee meeting, please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 122, as amended to Draft 2, to Postpone: to August 20, 2024, was carried by the following voice (Approved) vote: Ayes:. Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Inaba — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Evans and Villegas — 2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: And we're going to take a three minute recess to change out our tapes. We'll begin again in three minutes. Recess: At 5:04 p.m., the Acting Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 5:06 p.m. ACTING CHR. INABA: Calling this meeting back out of recess. It's 5:06 p.m. Bill 123, please. 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 Referred to Planning Commissions: January 30, 2024 ;and Comm. 677.9: From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated May 24, 2024, transmitting for Council's consideration and action, letters from the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. ; and Comm. 677.10: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated June 28, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. Page 102 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 and Comm. 677.11: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated June 28, 2024, transmitting a proposed amendment. Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 123 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to make a couple of brief comments about the bill itself. First being that there was a comment made by one of the testifiers about, "Oh, I remember `ohana dwellings were for family." And she's absolutely right. The legislative history at the state when they gave the authority to permit `ohana's, it was intended for immediate family and there was that limitation initially that has since changed. But I did go in and investigate that because it came to my attention at one. point. That is not the reason we're changing the name though. And it's not meant to be culturally disrespectful or anything like that. I will highlight the reason that we primarily chose to change the name was because the lending institutions lend for ADU's for mortgages. If you go to the mainland and say I want to get a mortgage for an `ohana, they have no idea what you're talking about. So, that was the main impetus. That is something for the body to consider. The naming convention, again, like I said, it was tied to family only. It's not, technically, but there is still that layer. In Honolulu, they do have that distinction as well. But, that all aside, I would like to just get the amendments in today. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 123 with the contents of Comm. 677.10. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, thank you. Housekeeping bill here. If you recall, in the introduction of Bill 123, basically we're making the ADU permit so it's —well, it's not an additional permit. It's basically by right. They would get a building permit, there would be a site plan review, but there's no additional permit through Planning. So, there was still a reference to `ohana dwelling permits. So, it's removing that language and that's contained in Section 1 of the amendment. Section 2 is again some other corrective editorial language. Section 3 represents some language that needed to be added to RD (Regional District) districts. And then the other amendment was the certificate of occupancy that doesn't exist. There's only a final inspection on ADU's and there's no certificate of occupancy. So, hopefully they're all pretty straightforward. These were all adopted, of course, by the Page103 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 Planning Commissions. So, I ask for your support in entering these editorial amendments into the bill. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Discussion on the amendment? Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. In support. To the maker, one area was the ordinance shall take effect, and you've adjusted that to September 30. Are we confident or shall we just, shall take effect upon passage. Just putting it out there. Thoughts? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, probably. Good idea. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. In support. We'll get there on the next iteration. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Other discussion on the amendment? Council Member Kaneali `i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, Chair. Not on the amendment. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. There being no further discussion, all those in favor of amending Bill 123 with the contents of Communication 677.10, please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 123 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 677.10 was carried with the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Inaba — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Evans and Villegas — 2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 123, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 677.11. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. This is an amendment again proposed by the Planning Department in respect to the meetings of the Planning Commissions. The current `Ohana Code prohibits anybody from building an `ohana on a property that already has an existing transient accommodation rental. That still Page104 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 exists in Bill 123, that prohibition. The suggestion by the Planning Department is that we take that out at this point. I had a conversation with Deputy (Jeff) Darrow today. There's some nuances here about `ohana's. It's also something that Council Member Kierkiewicz and I didn't quite agree on. You have the ability to redesignate which dwelling is your `ohana, and which dwelling is your primary residence or ADU, whichever. And so, by default, everybody is going to be able to do, technically, one ADU that's a transient accommodation because what they can do is they can build the ADU, move into the ADU, and then rent out the main house. I know it's a little clunky, but this is how they could do it right. They would redesignate which is which. And so, if that's what we want to allow, is that you can have one accessory dwelling unit or one `ohana, and that can be a TAR, but if you have anymore, those have to be for long-term or, you know, for family, whatever. Then this language would have to come out. So, what I would propose at this time is a dialogue, I mean, I think it's germane to this amendment because it does have to do with what prohibitions we would have on a whole site together rather than just this very simple language about it's prohibited to build an ADU if you have a TAR already. I hope that makes sense. But it's a little complicated. We don't have to decide this today if people are tired and don't want to wrap their brains around this but that's the challenge with this one and why I pulled it out from all of the other editorial amendments. We may want a cleaner approach that just says you can have one, and anymore than that is prohibited. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Discussion on the amendment; Comm. 677.11? Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Yes. Honestly, my brain is pretty fried, so it's hard to really — it seems like it's somewhat far reaching decision. So, yeah, I would like some more time to contemplate, honestly. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Galimba. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Kern, I was just reading through our zoning —are we on the amendment right now? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes. We are on the amendment. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You were speaking very broadly. I was thinking the bill. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. Page105 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, my brain's a little fried, too, and I hope we can continue this discussion. I don't think I'll be ready to vote on it today. But my initial thought is I don't think we want to prohibit this. I think we want to figure out ways to, perhaps discourage or, maybe, you know, if people do this, make sure they're paying their fair share kind of thing. But I don't know about outright prohibiting, so maybe this is an okay thing. And then deal with the, encourage the carrots and sticks in other ways. But, yeah, I think a lot of people would have good input but maybe it's a little late in the day. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Any further discussion at this time? I'm going to say I think we do need a little bit more time. This is a simple word change, but big impact potentially, that I don't think we should take up right now. So, do you want to withdraw? Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 123, as to Amend: amended, with the contents of Comm. 677.11. ACTING CHR. INABA: And we are back to main Bill 123, as amended. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Alright. I would like to suggest that we postpone this. Although, I want to say that it is not as tied to the other two bills, so I'd actually like to just move it to the next meeting on the 23rd of July. But before I make that motion, I just would like again, have to have this in the public forum. If there is any interest in amendments that limit the number of ADU's that can be on a property or a limit to the lot size, or like a per lot size. So, for right now, and I explained this when I introduced the bill, we took everything out that was at all restrictive. I think that's probably way too far, right? But the idea was we come back and we dial it in a little bit. So, if I want to prepare a couple of amendments for the 23', that would either limit and say, you know, the proposal by the State was essentially four by right and subdivide and then do two each. So, just a couple ideas from the body if you have them immediately available. And then I'll make the motion to withdraw. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. The bill as amended, right? And to your point, yes, I think there needs to be some discussion around the amount of ADU's. And for me, it's more of a wastewater or water issue, which I think sort of hang around. But if those ADU's are being connected to a septic system, I think it's limited by Department of Health already. I think, and to the maker, if I could suggest, getting DPW to weigh in and maybe suggesting our August 6 meeting instead so that could give the Department of Public Works time to take a look at this bill as it related to the issue of how many ADU's, and give us some guidance on lot size, Page 106 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 water, wastewater issues. And I think finally, there's a very clear distinction of a dwelling as it relates to the IRC (International Residential Code). And so, I would love for DPW to take a look at that to make sure how we're codifying an accessory dwelling unit lines up with the International Residential Code and how they have to evaluate it from a permitting perspective. And I just would hate for us to trip ourselves up because the nuances are wrong. Those are my thoughts. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Just in response to that with Council Member Lee Loy. DPW has actually vetted this legislation. In fact, some of those amendments that we did adopt came from them. But I did want to highlight, you're absolutely right. DOH is part of the limiting factor. The other limiting factor is state land use agricultural in our more rural smaller lot sized communities like HPP (Hawaiian Paradise Park), like Fern Acres, or like Orchid Land, that could potentially have the ability to put ADU's on but cannot because of the state land use agricultural, which we actually had a bill that made it further than I expected, to allow us to make rural, to swap that out. But I think that's another piece of this that we're working on. But yeah, wastewater is going to be a big barrier to really launching this out right away. ACTING CHR. INABA: Further discussion on the main motion? With that, to the maker, I do believe that the intention here is good, and I shared this at the first reading that I think we just need some barriers and some structure. I don't have specific suggestions right now, but I will think about that in the time between our next meeting, and I'm hoping the Planning Department can definitely weigh in and provide us with some of those guardrails to make sure that this is really going to help our housing situation, and provide more opportunities there, without abuse. So, with that, there is — Vote on Motion Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 123, as amended to to Postpone: Draft 2, to July 23, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Inaba — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Evans and Villegas — 2. Excused: None. Page107 PCPLUD-15 July 8, 2024 ADJOURN- There being no further business, Acting Chair Inaba adjourned the meeting MENT: at 5:22 p.m. ACTING CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development AK/tk Page 108