Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUD 2024/07/23 (2022-2024)Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development 1711 Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii July 23, 2024 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Development was called to order at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member (came in later) Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member (came in later) Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Maki Morinoue: (representing Huli Pac) Janice Palma-Glennie: Chuck Flaherty: (representing Sierra Club Hawaii Island Group) Cory Harden: Bill 181 (Comm. 939), support. Bill 123 (Comm. 677), comment; Bill 127 (Comm. 694), comment; and Bill 181 (Comm. 939), in support. Bill 181 (Comm. 939), comment. Bill 181 (Comm. 939), comment. Caryl Burns: Bill 123 (Comm. 677), in support. PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 Joshua Montgomery: Bill 123 (Comm. 677), comment. (representing Ohana Ana Association) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Let's move on to business of the day. We'll start with Bill 123. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 123: AMENDS CHAPTER 19, ARTICLE 1 AND ARTICLE 13, CHAPTER 23, (Draft 2) 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. 677.16 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Kierkiewicz Referred to Planning Commissions: January 30, 2024 Postponed: July 8, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Galimba, to recommend passage of Bill 123 on first reading.) (Note: The following Communications transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 123, Draft 2, were circulated: 1. Comm. 677.17, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated July 22, 2024; 2. Comm. 677.18, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated July 22, 2024; 3. Comm. 677.19, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated July 23, 2024; 4. Comm. 677.20, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated July 23, 2024) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. There is an active motion on the floor. Ms. Kimball, would you like to move in amendments? MS. KIMBALL: Yes. So, as you folks may have recalled, when we introduced this, the concept was to take everything that we could that really restricted the development of ADU's (Accessory Dwelling Unit) out of the bill with the intention that at some point after we've deliberated a little bit, we'd come back with some reasonable restrictions that we as a body could consider. When working with this with Council Member Kierkiewicz and the department, there's a number of different ways that we could kind of constrain this a little bit, but we thought it was best to bring it to this body to deliberate what the most appropriate Page 2 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 constraints would be. So, I have a set of four amendments. You only have two in front of you right now, but we'll work on those and then I'll ask to table this until the other two come today. But starting with the first one. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 123, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 677.17. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. So, this first one would basically limit, you know, all other conditions being met with wastewater and setbacks and other requirements that are in the section of this code would limit to total four dwelling units. So, the first dwelling unit, single-family home, and then three additional ADU's on any given site unless there was other parts of this code that allowed more, or I did put director's discretion to allow more. So, that's the proposal here again. I'm kicking up three different proposals around limitations, this being the first one. And just want to put it out for dialogue, is this the right number? You know, just looking for feedback here. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Is there anyone from the Planning Department participating remotely that can weigh in on this amendment? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Aloha, Chair and Members. Zendo Kern, Planning Director here via Zoom. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. We are on Bill 123, Draft 2, amendment regarding limiting the number of ADU's on a building site. That's found in Communication 677.17. And the amendment will be any building site with four dwelling units unless otherwise permitted by this code or by the director. And to add to our deliberations, we invite you to provide department comment on this proposed change. MR. KERN: Excellent. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. Generally, I think the number sounds good. The one consideration I would look to think about is for residential zoning, certain zonings will allow basically a build out to whatever that density is. So, let's just say you have a one acre lot, 43,000 square feet, and the zoning is RS-10 (Residential), you can build four units on there currently with that zoning. The question that I have is do you want to tie the number of ADU's to a primary dwelling? So, basically, you could have three additional per primary or to the building site itself. I think the latitude of tied to the primary dwelling would probably be better. But that me thinking out loud right now. But that's my initial thought on it. I like it. The number sounds good, Page 3 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 and my suggestion would be to tie it to the primary unit so it's the primary dwelling and then the additional dwellings are centered around that. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. Opening it up for questions or comments from the body. Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Director. You know, when I look at this I'm thinking of agricultural lots and ag land where you might have 20 acres or five acres. So, I'm trying to see how this would play out maybe when people come in and get their building permit, or they come in and say they want to build a dwelling unit and how your staff would interpret this because I had a though about fourplexes and duplexes, you know, I guess this all probably goes back to what your comment was. It depends on what's currently in Code that's associated with the district, right, what is allowed. So, I just want to play this out in my head because I know people have 20 acre lots, they want to get more housing in the ag areas — MS. KDvIBALL: Chair, may I make a really important clarifying comment? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, please. Point of Clarification: MS. K MBALL: `Ohara dwellings are not permitted in agricultural land. This wouldn't apply on state land use ag. It's prohibited by state law. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, this would apply to urban? MS. KEWBALL: This would only apply in urban and urban expansion. Point of Clarification: MR. KERN: Can I clarify that? It would apply to state land use urban and state land use rural. MS. KIN4BALL: Yes. Rural. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Evans, do you have any questions for the director? MR. KERN: It would not apply to state land use ag. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, go back to your comment then, your idea of maybe if these lots have the authority to build primary residences, you know, how this might apply to that. So, if it's a four dwelling units and then they have the ability to do primary, so the density would be more than five, let's say five units on the lot? MR. KERN: It could be, depending on the zoning. I would say in certain cases, yes, and many cases, a lot will basically be limited. A building site would be Page 4 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 limited to one permitted primary dwelling. And then if it's around the building site, those three additional ones would be contained in there. In certain cases, the zoning would allow for more than one primary dwelling to be built. MS. EVANS: How would it apply if you had a duplex on the lot? MR. KERN: Depending on the nature of the duplex. A duplex is basically two units. If it were say a double -family residential, which would be a duplex, then that would be each of those duplex unit in that case would be a primary dwelling. In other cases, we see duplexes where they have a primary dwelling and they've built an `ohana on that and it's still labeled as a duplex, but it's not technically a duplex. So, if it is sanctioned by the zoning for a duplex, which would be your double -family residential, then each one of those would be considered a primary. MS. EVANS: Okay. That's curious. I look forward to the continuing discussion. I think we should throw in primary dwelling or have some qualification there. Thank you. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Evans. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Director Pause? I'm assuming you're here for this bill because none of the other ones seem to fit for Public Works. Just looking for your —you're probably here all day, but just for your comments on the amendment regarding prohibited areas including any building site with four dwelling units unless otherwise permitted by this Code or by the director, which I believe in this case would be you. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Stephen Pause came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PAUSE: Steve Pause. Director of Public Works. I'm not sure if the director language was referencing Planning Director or Public Works Director. I can here today, our Building Chief, Joann Sonomura, has been monitoring this bill and has some specific language, like nuance things that would be proposed to be incorporated. So, I would honestly tell you I don't have a lot of background knowledge other than to sit here and participate by listening and contributing where I can. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, okay. Have you seen the amendments? MR. PAUSE: I have not seen the amendments. No. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Page 5 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 MR. PAUSE: I apologize. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. They'd be good to review. Thank you. MR. PAUSE: Okay. Thanks. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. To the makers, I just wondering, what is this amendment trying to —what's the situation that we're trying to prohibit with this amendment? I just want to be clear on that, if I may? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. So, what we are essentially putting in here is in effect a density limit so it would say that, you now, given the other conditions regarding wastewater, setbacks, you know, the few conditions we have left in here for developing ADU's, the max that could go on a building site would be four. So, that would be just the primary dwelling and, sorry, three ADU's. Four dwellings total on any given building site. There does need to be some clarity about a dwelling unit is considered either a single-family dwelling, or a duplex. So, I do need to put some clarifying language in here about how a duplex would be counted in this number. But that's the idea here is that it would restrict folks even if they had the square footage to put more, they would be limited to four. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. So, my understanding is, even if they have the square footage, even if they had the sewage, even if they had the water, even if they had the setbacks, everything, they would be prohibited from doing more than four total dwelling units. Okay. Alright. I'm going to think about this one. So, this is for urban setting and rural, but we don't really have rural much, so urban setting mostly. If they have all those other things, I'm just wondering why we want to put this prohibition on there. So, I'm just going to be thinking of that, listening to everybody else. Thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Planning Director Kern. MR. KERN: Yes, Sir. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you for being here this morning. Previous comments, given that a lot of our community is zoned agricultural and probably for the most part a lot of it being state land use ag, I mean, for Hawaiian Page 6 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 Acres, Fern Acres, Orchid Land, HPP (Hawaiian Paradise Park), these would be areas that could or could not have an accessory dwelling unit? MR. KERN: Right now, most of those areas you've referenced are state land use agricultural. So, it would not allow for this on its surface. That being said, the General Plan calls out for some of those communities to actually be a rural designation. So, if a person came along and decided to look for a state land use boundary amendment, maybe from state land use ag to rural that was supported by the General Plan, same like Paradise Park, then this would be applicable to those. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. KERN: But as it currently stands, a lot of those subdivisions are state land use ag. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yup, yup. Understood. So following that line of thinking, in this bill, if I'm remembering correctly and correct me —give me one second, Director. Chair, if you could circle back to me? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Any other questions or comments on the amendment? And I apologize, I forgot to note that both Ms. Galimba and Ms. Lee Loy have joined this committee. Thank you, Ladies. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. Thank you, Planning Director Kern. Are there any specifications on the square footage of what we used to call an `ohana, but it seems like in the legal framework of planning that's being transitioned to ADU, Accessory Dwelling Unit. So, as I'm trying to vision this, you know, historically, what you imagine when you have a home with an `ohana is the `ohana is kind of like a small apartment attached to it. So, is there any specifications tied to what an ADU—next one? Okay. Gotcha. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: The next amendment discusses the square footage for ADU's. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, great. Thank you. I'll just wait for that question for the next amendment then. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions or comments on the amendment? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Director Kern, for what other areas of the Code would allow for more than four dwelling units? Page 7 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 MR. KERN: So, the other areas of the Code that would allow that would really be the zoning. So, multi -family residential zoning would allow for more than four units. Commercial zoning would allow for more than four units. But most of those are all baked into kind of a multi -family situation anyways, where you're not really looking for ADU's. So, zoning for more of a single-family residence would all be driven by that zoning district and by the Code. MR. INABA: Okay. I think when we first took up the bill, this is just comments to everyone, I was thinking it was for one dwelling unit and adding one additional. But this is making it clear that it was going to allow for more than one plus one. So, I'm not sure that four is the number for me. And then the second part of this amendment regarding "unless otherwise permitted by this Code or by the director," I'm not sure is necessary. If they do have the right to build, you know, more than one based on those different zonings that the director pointed out, then they should build it in that way and not —and it's already a right by their zoning type. So, I don't support the second part of the amendment because if they're putting all the framework, I don't think there should be discretion one by one by request of a planning director to approve it. And if they have rights to build it in a certain way based on their zoning, they should do it that way. I do think we should put a limit. It might just be less than four. But it's where I stand right now. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. Thank you, Council Member Inaba, for pointing that out. I firmly agree in that I don't agree with "unless otherwise permitted by the director." I think that leave a potential of a loophole that I'm uncomfortable with. I also, you know, what was coming to mind is we want people to have places to live, but we're also in a time when our homes and properties are at such an elevated price range that most people are already priced out of the market. And providing an opportunity to add three additional dwelling units to a property, I just wonder how that's going to affect what property taxes is one thing when people are challenged with their assessments and what's being placed on them right now, and then what that does to housing and land prices in general. So, how do we thread the needle on providing more housing opportunities without accidentally increasing that gap in making the homeownership or landownership on this island that much more difficult and out of reach. So, just some thoughts there as we try to provide more housing but also not create, you know, mega homes and compounds. So, wondering on the wisdom of adding three total ADU's. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. Couple of questions. I think, probably the first one is for you, Director Kern. And it's sort of related to that question about duplexes Page 8 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 versus ADU's. Could an ADU or sort of the three ADU's that would be contemplated as the max by this be in the form of a triplex, to serve three apartments in a row? Would that fit here, or would they need to be separate? Yeah. MR. KERN: The way that the — MS. GALB4BA: Go ahead. MR. KERN: Yeah. Thank you for the question. The way that the bill is contemplated and looked at right now they could be attached or detached. So, there could be two that are attached together, they could all three be attached, they could all three be detached. It's kind of what the building site would work with and what the landowners preference would be. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. Thanks. And my second question, probably for you as well. Could you tell me what situations to the director's discretion might come into play, you know, if you can foresee anything at this point, or is it more the flexibility question? MR. KERN: Thinking about that kind of in real time right now myself, I could see it may be coming up where there was a parcel that was just really large enough and had the infrastructure that there was enough to handle additional dwellings on there and somebody was able to make an argument, I've got five acres, I can fit the land, I've got water, wastewater, all those things, then I think the director would consider something like that. That's kind of what I'm thinking where that discretion could be. MS. GALIM BA: Okay. Yeah. Is there anything kind of like a —I know we have like planned unit kind of condominium zoned, you know, like ag condominium where it's one TMK (Tax Map Key) but you're having multiple buildings. I think we actually do have some of that. Well, of course that's agricultural. I'm talking about an urban or rural equivalent of like a rural condominium project where that discretion might be useful as well. Yeah. Does that exist or could it be contemplated? MR. KERN: It does exist but our County's a little bit unique in that way. So, if it's a CPR or Condominium Property Regime, for agricultural, residential, family ag, and kind of everything kind of around kind of a single family zoning; so that could be family ag to Residential RS-10, let's say. If somebody wanted to do a CPR, they basically have to meet subdivision code. In order to meet subdivision code, you have lot sizes, roadways, infrastructure, etcetera. So, people don't really do CPR's much anymore in Hawaii County for residential and ag, and kind of that rural type land use where we see the CPR is more in the multi -family side of things where it's more like condominiums, et cetera. Other counties regulate it Page 9 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 differently, but our regulation requires the subdivision element, so most people just do a subdivision instead of CPRing it. MS. GALIMBA: Right. Which probably is less messy in the long run anyway. Yeah. I think those are my questions for right now. I think the four sounds like a reasonable number to me. Thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for mentioning CPR because it kind of triggered for me this thought that this is a way to get more housing on a piece of property but you're basically going from a density of one single-family home to now having five potential families living on the lot. And these people don't have to come to us and ask for a subdivision to subdivide it. So, is four the correct number or is it basically the size of the lot maybe should be considered. I had a question the other day, someone proposed a rezone from Ag-15 maybe or Ag-5 and they wanted to go to RA (Residential Agricultural) half acre. So, if it's a residential ag, would this apply to them? I believe it was RA, residential ag. MR. KERN: If it was an RA, residential ag .5 and the underlined state land use would be rural or urban. Basically, state land use agricultural requires a minimum lot size of one acre, so I would assume that if it was a residential ag .5, then this would apply to that, yes, because the underlined state land use would be urban, not rural. MS. EVANS: Okay. I don't know. I have to think about my concern of going from one to five basically residences on the lot in going this route. Yeah, it's an interesting idea. It feels like it's replaces CPR's and maybe this is a better route. But if you have four —if you're going from one to five families on a lot without going through the subdivision process, I just, I've got to read this more closely. Sorry. It's truly a density, and I know that Honolulu went through trying to create density in the urban area. But his would be density in a rural ag area, so there's some nuances there. Thank you. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And I understand that this amendment is just for discussion purposes today. Just want to see if anybody else has questions or comments on this amendment. Ms. Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. I think I also would like to see the by the director part stricken from this. And I think I'm okay with the four dwelling max. -so, that's just where I am. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Page 10 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Director, can you submit a map to the Council on the state land use boundaries so we can see where we are discussing before the next hearing? I think it would be a good visual aide for discussion of this bill just given the context this morning. MR. KERN: Yeah. What might be more helpful is I could do a share screen with our GIS (Geographical Information System), and it can show state land use ag. It's around 40 plus percent of the island. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Can you do that easily right now, where we can see, or do you want to do it a different time? MR. KERN: Let me tee it up. Maybe you guys can carry on some additional dialogue, and I can work on teeing that up right now. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Director, do you mind emailing that link to all Council Members? We have three other items that we need to get through, and the next Committee meeting starts at 10:30 a.m. MR. KERN: I can try to send something. If I do something that's static, it's going to be really hard to tune into it. The accessing the link to the GIS isn't going to quite work because we have to go through and open up the layers on that. Maybe on the next one I can send something over. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm asking on behalf of us but I'm also asking on behalf of the public so they can understand which area is which. It's useful for the public and it's useful for us as well. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: We'll look forward to receiving something from you at our next meeting, Director. MR. KERN: Okay. Will do, Chair. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Kern. Thank you, Chair. MR. KERN: Yup. No problem. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah. Just quick and a wrap up for myself. I think this is a good thing. I talked about guardrails in the past and I think if anything, we can start with one plus one right now, because we have to consider where essentially in areas that do have existing structures already allowing, you know, double the density there, which I'm totally fine with but to allow up to —what is it going to be, three times that amount, kind of concerns me just in terms of taxing on the Page 11 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 infrastructure and the roadways and making sure those improvements are also falling in line with this development. So, I'm more supportive of a maximum two per property. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Just some quick mana`o, Ms. Kimball. I'm going to actually standby my original comments when this bill was first introduced and tie the number of allowable ADU's to a property based on available infrastructure. That might only mean one, but it could mean more than four. But I think it's really important to recognize the carrying capacity of each of these lots rather than just having these blanket numbers that we're putting in our code. So, just some food for thought. And hopefully that is something that the department can take into consideration as well. Okay. What would you like to do with this communication? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you all for the feedback. I'll be withdrawing it at this time to remove the language with respect to, as permitted by the Code or by the director, add some clarity around units that share a walls, which is talked about in other parts of this bill but not clear here. I have some other ones around density and are a different way to address this. But I want to make clear this would put the ceiling of ADU's at three, total of four dwellings on the site. There are other constraints around infrastructure, you know, wastewater, setbacks, things like that, which would make this, for some lots, wouldn't be able to do four. But I'm going to pull this for now and go on to some of the other amendments for discussion. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 123, to Amend: Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 677.17. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, just noting that Ms. Kimball has withdrawn the amendment related to Communication 677.17. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 123, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 677.18. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. So, this amendment proposes a size limit for the ADU's of 2,000 square feet. So, this could be interpreted either as one 2,000 square foot single story or a two story with 1,000 square feet per floor. I'm not sure if 2,000 square feet is the right number. We could also propose number of bedrooms or something like that rather than an actual square footage limit. But this is a proposal around permitting size. So, look forward to hearing feedback. Page 12 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Director Kern, we're on an amendment to establish the total square footage of an ADU and would appreciate Planning Department's comments on this proposal. MR. KERN: Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Partial question on there as well, is the 2,000 inclusive of nonliving area? So, carport, lanai's. To me, my thinking is around a ADU or working to provide housing, we should be able to allow for the unit to provide for a family. So, like a three bedroom, two bath, and from a living area standpoint, you need at least around 1,100 to 1,200 square feet of living area. 1,100 single -story can work. It's bare minimum or it's not bare minimum but it's on the minimalistic side. And 1,200 square feet, 1,250 square feet gets you two stories with considerations for like a stairwell. Though, I think it's somewhere in the range. I just want to clarify if that's living or gross floor area. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. Ms. Kimball, did you want to respond to that? I think it's a question we all have. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. I think that's worth clarifying. If you look at the Building Code, it refers to area under roof, which is kind of a slightly different terminology. So, let's just start with the area first and then I'll work on the terminology and make sure. My intention was not to include lanai's, parking spaces, but really the living space, so if that's the right terminology. Gross floor area is what it's referred to in other parts of Chapter 25. That's why we went with that. But I also think we could reasonably say under roof, which has a meaning in Chapter 5. So, let's really focus the discussion on the area for now and pretend it excludes carports and lanai's for the purpose of discussion. MR. KERN: Yeah. That's ample. In our view that's ample square footage for housing a family. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. Opening it up for questions and comments. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. My whole house isn't even 2,000 square feet. And when I think of a good size one bedroom `ohana, that's about 800 square feet. So, I do have some concerns about the potential of a property then having up to 8,000 square feet under roof with four units on it. I mean, yeah, that's a lot. So, it almost doesn't seem like an ADU, that's a whole other home, that's a whole other significantly large structure, which isn't a bad thing because we want people to have homes. But I'm just trying to look ahead at what we're potentially opening pandora's box for. So, yeah, at this time I don't know that I can support. Yes, there needs to be some perimeters. But I don't know if this is the right number. Yeah. Thanks. I yield. Page 13 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah, thank you. If the goal of this is to do affordable housing, then I would think the 2,000 square feet is not the number that we would want. It depends on what our intention is. If this is to replace CPR and get more family housing that's one thing. If it's to create opportunities for affordable housing for our low to moderate income and workforce housing, I think square footage and what we're trying to achieve has to play into the number. And the other thing that's not missing for me is possibly a qualifier that the building site itself that 25 to 30 percent of it cannot be —it has to be left as, I think it's called impervious surface but ability to percolate the storm water, the rain, the runoff. I mean, obviously, we're doing carbon, you can even get into climate change and the carbon, and you need green spaces and open spaces. We don't want to pave everything over. So, there may be, if you put a qualifier in that 25 percent of the lot area cannot be built on and has to be, I believe it's impervious, but I might be wrong. You want to might have that in there which would then potentially drive a little bit more of what the building unit sizes would be. So, just some things to consider. Thank you. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Evans. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. To the maker, I like the idea of the square footage a lot. But I think I want to see more confinement as to the amount of bedrooms. If we have an existing house on a property and the accessory dwelling unit opens up the potential for another home or a few more homes, I don't want to see those as creating three -bedroom two bath houses on a single lot. I would see these more as being single-family, single -person, single - bedroom style homes, maybe two bedrooms at the most and kind of falling under that 1,056 (square feet) small package home. That makes more sense to me as far as looking to build density and affordable housing and not overdoing it or not allowing for too big too fast, but allowing for the creation of smaller affordable housing units that can be in conjunction with an existing three or four bedroom existing house. That's where I'd like to see a limit set for this. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? Just real fast. I'm getting messages from constituents that they cannot hear us, so we need to pull our mics closer and speak louder. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that reminder. Everyone, please remember to eat the mic. Thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: I ate breakfast already. For accessory, in my reading for the term accessory, I guess it speaks to, again, what the intention is here. Do we mean Page 14 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 accessory as in incidental to a primary use or do we not care, and do we just want people to be able to build what they want on their property? For me, we can look at setting a certain square footage or if we're going to stick with this idea of accessory then maybe the second or, you know, the accessory dwelling unit needs to be smaller than the unit that is already there if it is an accessory. I'm also looking at just the height limit and wondering if the height limit is even necessary since different parts of the Code would already govern how high a structure in that zoning could be built. Director, do you have any comment on that regarding the height? MR. KERN: I'm not attached to the height. The height would be —the zoning district will govern the maximum height of any structure. MR. INABA: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm that. In this case, Director, could an accessory dwelling unit be built and then the designation of which is the main house versus the `ohana be switched? MR. KERN: Yes. The opportunity for redesignating would be possible. MR. INABA: Okay. Yeah. I think for me, I'm maybe not concerned with the size of an accessory dwelling unit. But if it's to be considered an accessory, then I would say the square footage would maybe be less than the total gross or whatever we're going to choose, whether it's gross or living space, that it be equal to or less than the main structure. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Chair. For me, this is where when we put numbers out, if there's no rationale, it's very difficult to really contemplate or think about what kind of impacts that words on paper have. Maybe as a suggestion, often times if this is an accessory dwelling unit as a starter home, individuals use Hula Mae, Fannie Mae, and those loan programs to qualify to get an additional dwelling. Those programs have sizes already built into them, 800 square feet, 900 square feet, 1,008 square feet, up to about 1,200 square feet. And if the goal is to provide housing options, then we have to walk back and think about how people are going to qualify to own the home. And so, a 2,000 square footage just creates an option. But if we want to be real about housing, we have to look at how people will qualify. And right now the cost of housing per square foot to construct is closer to six dollars a square foot. So, a 2,000 square foot home is out of reach. And so, I would want to see a little bit more rationale on how this number populated, and it be driven by other factors rather than guessing at this is a nice soft space to land and gives lots of people options. I can't support 2,000 (square feet) just because of my rationale and the intention of what an accessory dwelling unit is. It's that. It's a small starter home. But.I also recognize accessory could be storage, right, or Page 15 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 a barn, or some kind of barn equipment with a studio attached. And so that's an accessory dwelling unit. But they might need the extra 2,000 square feet to park their John Deeres, farm equipment, saddles and horses, but they just need a bunk for their farm workers to work and have a place to lay their heads. So, I'm not going to be supporting this amendment unless I can get more information about how we landed here. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Kimball. Point of Clarification: MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. So, just a point of clarity. Council Member Lee Loy, you're suggesting a lower square footage? Yeah, okay. The reason I landed at 2,000 square feet for this first introductory discussion is it was kind of like my personal upper limit. It represents a very comfortable three bedroom, two bathroom home with plenty of extra storage space and things like that. I would not be comfortable going higher than that and if you look at some of the other zoning related —it's a size that comes up in other restrictions with respect to zoning. You have an excellent point there with regard to the financing. And I will again say that that's one of the reasons we change the name here, and I'll discuss that when we get back to the main bill. But there are some lenders that won't lend below 1,000 square feet. So, I think that that is probably what I would recommend a minimum, something like 1,200. 1,500 might be a comfortable place in between there that would still allow people to have a reasonably sized home that, you know, wouldn't be on top of each other. I've lived, Rebecca knows this, with a family of six plus my mother in 950 square feet. It can be done. But I think that's —my thought was we had to be at least over 1,000 from the lending side, 2,000 would be a very comfortable top bookend. So, I'm hearing folks would like me to come down a little bit with this. I'd like to get your insight, Council Member Kierkiewicz. I'll then withdraw this and proceed to the next amendment. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Director Kern, other counties across Hawaii, their ADU sizing is predicated upon lot size. Is that correct? MR. KERN: I believe that the counties do it differently. I believe Maui had certain scales based on lot size. I think Kauai was more in alignment with this, which I don't believe scaled per lot size. It was more around what the infrastructure would handle. And Oahu, I'm not too sure about. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Between now and our next convening, would it be possible for you to reach out to the other counties to just understand how their ADU sizing is sort of playing out in their county? I'd like to understand some of Page 16 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 the lessons, constraints that they are facing to help inform the best sort of strategy for Hawaii County. MR. KERN: I'm certainly open to looking into that and working on that. I'll do my best to get it done by the next one. I can't guarantee it'll happen, but I can certainly reach out and try to get that insight. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I'm not in a huge rush. I want to make sure that before we pass anything that it is well informed and it's not going to have negative unintended consequences, right. So, again, I want to take our time and make sure we're doing our due diligence. Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Director Pause. Looking for the Building Department's thoughts on a square footage for an accessory dwelling unit. MR. PAUSE: As I mentioned earlier, the amendments and things are new to me. I'm really here to listen and take it back to the experts. Obviously, Julann (Sonomura), the Building Chief and Kelly (Wilson), the Deputy Building Chief, would have better insights. I don't really have a strong —I agree with Council Member Lee Loy in the sense that we should come up with numbers that are tied to something. So, I don't really have a strong thought one way or another right now on what that size should be. But this is all really good discussion. And I'll go back to my folks and take a better look and see what their thoughts are on the matter. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I appreciate that. In your experience, one, two bedrooms, start house for a starter family, that's kind of how I see accessory dwelling units as being useful in the community versus just allowing for people to build another giant house in their backyard. What do you see for being a comfortable square footage living space for a one, two bedroom house? I'm not saying comfortable like you have a 20 (feet) by 30 (feet) kitchen. But just, you know, like your average. MR. PAUSE: You know, you raised a point earlier, you know, is it the 1,056 (square feet). You know, that seems to be —we are still getting applications for single-family three bedroom, two bath homes in that, you know, 1,056 (square feet), eleven, twelve hundred (square feet) range. But again, I don't have the detailed knowledge or really a strong opinion one way or the other right now as far as what the ideal size is. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. PAUSE: But again, I agree that we should base it on something. Let's take a look. Director Kern is going to look into the other counties, and I'll take this Page 17 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 back, and we can maybe look at some of our own internal statistics in terms of what we're seeing for building permit applications for ADU's and `ohana's and just general single-family. I can get that by the next meeting. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much, Director. I yield, Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. You know, I do think the 2,000 (square feet) is very generous and probably we could dial it back a little bit. But I'm also, you know, as Council Member Lee Loy pointed out, I think in some sense we need to either have a reason or just not have a limit there. I mean, our need for housing is so intense but, unless we have a strong reason for a size limit, I don't necessarily think we need one. I mean, I'm sort of open to both considerations. But basically, we don't want to regulate anything that we don't really have a strong reason to regulate. Thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. And thank you for the follow up. Director Pause, when you go back to your design team with Julann and Kelly, can I challenge you when they come up with the numbers of the types of housing that is coming forward, can we challenge them to look at the size of housing as it relates to construction waste. I understand a 1,056 package home is a package home because it limits the amount of construction waste. The size of number and how they come, the amount of shading, the roof. All of this mathematically creates the least amount of cutting and construction waste. And as an island community, I think we need to challenge ourselves and push the envelope so as we're constructing housing units and putting people in housing, we're not exacerbating our environment as it relates to solid waste, please. MR. PAUSE: Noted. And yes, I think that's a good point. The other one you just got me thinking about was the other potential area to look at is we have somewhere close to 20 pre -approved sets of plans presently, you know, your HPM (Hawai`i Planning Mill), your Honsador homes. That's would be another area to look and say what's a typical size for those. So, again, I'll take this back to our building folks, and I'll take your comments with me as well relative to package homes and waste. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Director. And something that I'm tracking is, as it relates to affordable opportunities and the Energy Code, a number of our loan programs and housing loans that are available through the federal government are pushing that we move into the 2021 Code, and add in all of the energy conservations, which we know, nice to have, but cost something. And so, I would Page 18 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 also love to see what that cost analysis would look like so that we can walk into this conversation with good information. Because if we're trying to provide a pathway for people to have housing, let's be real about what they can afford. MR. PAUSE: I agree with you completely. And that may be a bit more of a reach as far as getting that ready for the next meeting. You did also make the comment earlier, I think, not that I want to correct you, but I think you said six dollars a square foot and I think it's like $600 a square foot. Is that? MS. LEE LOY: That's right. In construction terms they go like, $295 a square foot. You're right, it's $600 a square foot. MR. PAUSE: If we could do six dollars a square foot, we would not have any housing issues on this island. MS. LEE LOY: You're absolutely correct. MR. PAUSE: Okay. Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kamali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. Thank you. Just a thought. As an accessory dwelling unit, I am guessing that someone already owns the property and has mortgage and has bought the property with a house on it because they're now looking to build an accessory dwelling unit, which I'm also guessing would not be for sale, because the property itself would now have two homes or three homes. So, the value of the home would go up. This would be a rental, not a for sale unit. So, the idea of building this around financing structures doesn't quite add up to me because they're not looking to purchase a home. We're looking to allow the building of accessory dwelling unit. Is that correct? MS. KIMBALL: May I respond, Chair? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Quickly. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. These are accessory to the main dwelling. Although, there are lending programs for accessory dwelling units. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I need to look into this because it doesn't quite add up to me. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Evans. Page 19 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 MS. EVANS: Thank you. Just a request for Steve Pause. Not a question, just a request. When you put together your research on maybe the sweet spot for square footage, would you be willing to reach out to Keith Kato and his self-help housing projects because I have two of them in my district and I know they're really small homes, but they look like they're three bedrooms maybe one bath, two bath, with carports and very affordable. Again, if this legislation is to get us some more workforce housing, I do think that size and ability to loan money is important. So, thank you. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball, take us home. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. Again, appreciate so much, I really do, all of the feedback and dialogue around these proposals to help me kind of narrow this down. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 123, to Amend: Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 677.18. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 123, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 677.19. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, this amendment proposes a density limit based on the square footage of the building site and says that no more than one accessory dwelling unit would be allowed per 3,750 square feet of building site. That was based on being half of a 7,500 square foot lot, which is a somewhat typical lot size. Please remember that per Senate Bill 3202, we are obliged, with respect to residential zoning, to allow two dwellings by right provided that the infrastructure is there and that is a big limitation for us because we don't have wastewater everywhere. But this would basically provide for two by right and then further density would be limited based on the total square footage. It doesn't say anything about the distribution across the site. It's just the calculation would be 3,750 square feet, you get an ADU. So, a 10,000 square foot lot would also be limited to two. But if you had a 15,000 square foot lot, you would then bump up to three; so forth and so on. So, this is a different way of approaching the density question. Look forward to everybody's discussion around this. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Director Kern, we are on a proposed amendment to have no more than one ADU per 3,750 square feet of a building site, and looking for Planning Department's comments as we proceed with our deliberations. MR. KERN: I need to think about that one a little bit. I don't have an immediate comment on it. Page 20 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Director Kern, if we are trying to provide more density in our urban areas specifically, does this make sense? I'm just confused because if it's for an urban area, to me it seems like we want to encourage more density in an urban area so that we do not have to go and TAR very important ag lands, our precious open spaces and things like that for housing. So, to me, density in an urban area makes more sense. It's also where our infrastructure is, right? So, I'm just a little confused about why we would go this way. To me, this seems to encourage more sprawl. MR. KERN: Yeah. I think that's part of the reason I'm getting my mind around it just hearing it right now for the first time, and my initial thoughts are similar to yours where I think, you know, focusing our density into our urban growth boundary areas is key to keeping our island the way that we want it to be in its country nature but also providing the tools for housing residents. So, I'm processing that right now. But logically thinking, I'm working towards that same type of density in our urban areas that way the infrastructure can support it. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball, I'll allow you to respond. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. I just wanted to add one quick note. Deputy Director (Jeff) Darrow did respond also objecting to this particular proposed amendment. So, I just wanted to note that your deputy wasn't supportive of this, but I needed to put it out for contemplation. So, thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah. I don't think I support this especially if we're going with more than one plus one. I think, you know, if we're going to have maybe like a duplex, it doesn't seem like it would be allowed with this if this amendment was to pass. So, I think it's a good discussion point, but counter to maybe the intention of what we're trying to do here. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Director, when I looked at it, I was thinking there may be some merit to this if all the other things are applied, which is setbacks, infrastructure, height. Maybe the issue with the language is it says one accessory dwelling unit and maybe it's just an accessory dwelling unit not one, so that you get one building because an example being that it could be a duplex on this. Now having said that, you know, it's 3,750 square feet. So, everything really depends on the dimensions of the lot. You know, so there's a lot at play in this that you Page 21 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 wouldn't know until you apply it so that there may be some value in it if it's not written as one accessory dwelling unit but as an accessory dwelling unit. Take off one. Just something to consider as the maker because I kind of see where you're going with this. I mean, you do realize that every time we add a unit, we probably have to calculate two cars minimum. So, you know, there's going to be kind of the parking off —if in fact, in an urban area additional dwelling, you can't park them on the street. They have to be taken care of on the actual lot. Anyways, something to think about. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. To the maker, actually, to the Planning Director. Mr. Kern, I'm think here, we're looking at all these different amendments as a whole and how we are trying to constrain the accessory dwelling unit experience in the community, if and when it does roll out, I am more inclined to say we should follow the zoning of the property because we've talked about setting a square footage maximum. We've talked about doing a unit maximum. Now we're looking at doing a density limit. All of these different pieces can work together. There's a lot on the table right now as far as the discussion we've had today. I am looking for your opinion right now on if we have the zoning type that allows for x amount of units to be built, should we follow that? I'm trying to kind of gain headway on all these amendments as a whole right now. But should we follow the zoning type of the property if it allows for more than one dwelling or more than two dwellings versus trying to say we have a density limit. If you had a 15,000 square foot lot, you're allowing, if this amendment passed, would allow for one accessory dwelling unit per 3,750 square feet. All of a sudden, you're looking at four to five homes versus saying, the zoning will prescribe what can and cannot be done, or we do need to set an amount of units that is a maximum because this unit, these are all different ways of affecting density. And I'm trying to find a nice way that's easy for everyone to understand versus having multiple sections that would affect how many could be built. I think it's going to get confusing very quickly. And I'm also hesitant to do that because I think we need to start slowly and understand how this impacts infrastructure, codes, building, planning, versus just putting a number out there and going for it. So, I'm looking for your experience in these because I'm wanting to find a way forward because I can see what the maker is doing here and I'm liking this track, but I'm trying to understand we do it efficiently. MR. KERN: Thanks for the question. You know, my thinking is that the zoning plus whatever density of ADU's be allowed, plus whatever square footage will really lend itself to right at the self-regulating because the site is going to be hard to fit things on. So, case and point, Kauai basically did a 4X ADU situation. So, Page 22 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 they timed their density in the urban core by four times. That did not effectuate all the housing overnight, and they're still waiting for more housing to be built. It was a very good move in the right direction, but it didn't create a flood of development primarily because there are infrastructure constraints. So, I think if we look to have too many considerations, we're going to basically code ourselves out of making them achievable to actually build one versus what do we need to do to mitigate our community, what do we need to mitigate maybe the speculation on it, but rather we house families or residents here and try to keep it as simple as possible. That's my humble opinion on it. And I think a size regulation and a count regulation is probably enough, and then have it be based off of the existing zone. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. I really appreciate that. I appreciate your experience. Thank you, Sir. I yield, Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. To the Director, you used to have this cheat sheet. Is it possible for the Planning Department to provide the minimum and maximum lot sizes as it relates to Division 3, because this particular amendment affects Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 3. And under Division 3, is RS, RA (Residential -Agricultural), FA (Family -Agricultural), and A (Agricultural). And each of those zoning districts, to my colleagues point, has a minimum and maximum lot size, and so I'm trying to thumb through the Zoning Code right now to get there, but I think that would be helpful in trying to help us make that decision and what a building lot size would look like in RA, which is one acre minimum or maximum five acres, or within our residential, which can be 7,500 square feet or, you know, and it goes up. I think that metrics or table would be helpful at our next meeting. MR. KERN: Okay. Tracey's (Camaro) listening to this. She can help put one together. But simply, residential is going to be a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet, and then residential ag will be a half -acre, and FA would be one acre. Now we do get into areas where FA, family ag, could have an urban, underline state land use, which would then allow for the ADU's. But we can put that together if that would be helpful. MS. LEE LOY: Yes, please, Director. Thank you. Thanks, Tracey. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Kimball. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 123, to Amend: Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 677.19. Page 23 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 123, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 677.20. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. If you remember the Planning Commission reports on Bill 123, both Planning Commissions did recommend this amendment that first of all took out the clause that prohibited the development of ADU's on any site that had a transient accommodation rental. That's actually what is in the code right now with respect to `ohana units. That clause is in there. But this amendment first of all contemplates the removal of that clause as recommended by the director and the Planning Commissions, but then makes clear by changing the prohibited uses to a positive permitted uses but no more than one accessory dwelling unit be permitted for use as a transient accommodation rental provided that there are no other transient accommodation rentals on the building site. So basically what this would allow would be if folks have a TAR in the primary dwelling, they can build an `ohana, but that `ohana couldn't be used as a TAR. If they do not have a TAR in the primary dwelling, they can build an `ohana, or an accessory dwelling unit and that first one can be used as a TAR, but any subsequent ADU's could not be used as a TAR. What I want to suggest is that this at language actually reflects the reality that would come from this bill and Bill 121, from the standpoint that we did allow people to redesignate which was the primary dwelling and which was the `ohana, which de facto allowed people to use one ADU as a TAR but was kind of obscure and unclear and would require this extra step. So, if we just want to let people use one `ohana as a TAR, this would be the proposal that would allow it. With respect to Bill 121, if I may, it would require amending out the section that would make use of an `ohana as a TAR a nonconforming use. That's much easier to take things our than put things in, so I have no issues with that. But this limits one of the ADU's on the site as a TAR and does permit an ADU to be developed if there is a TAR in the primary dwelling. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Same question, Director Kern, Planning Department's position on this proposed amendment. MR. KERN: Thank you for the opportunity. We support the amendment. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Opening it up for questions and comments. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: In one of the intentions of the original Bill 108 was to kind of put a cap on the short-term vacation rentals on the island in the areas that were zoned residential. But to, you know, there were zonings that do allow for it. So, Page 24 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 my concern here is that this opens pandora's box for people to continue adding vacation rentals into residential neighborhoods by building an ADU to be utilized for that. So, that's my concern here, is that we're reopening pandora's box in areas that we actually want to be eliminating short-term vacation rentals in, and we want to be providing long-term housing for people. Yeah. So, that's my —I don't see a rationale in allowing for people to build an ADU to become a short term vacation rental. That's seems counterintuitive to me. Not sure what the solution is but that just seems counterintuitive to me right now. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm a little bit torn on this one. This is interesting because we need housing, we know that, but we also need folks who live here to be able to create income and this is an interesting balance. And although I would've said at the start of the discussion today, I would say this should only be affordable housing and I may end up voting that way. This does open up an economic opportunity for folks who have a house and want to build an ADU in the back and rent it out. It's an interesting idea, to the maker. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kagiwada. MS. KAGWADA: Thank you, Chair. I'm just thinking about the one to one situation they have in Paris, which is they allow —I believe this is true. They allow somebody to do a short-term vacation rental if they also have a balancing affordable rental that they're doing. So, if they do an affordable rental, they can do a short-term vacation rental. But if they don't do that, then they can't do the short-term vacation rental. Something to think about. Something that we could explore maybe a little more. I'm happy to have my office look into it. But something like that that would help us kind of ensure that we are taking a more balanced approach but still, as my colleague said, allowing people to maybe balance the earning with the giving back. So, that's just a thought. Thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Director, you know, when you read, you know, it's really sometimes until you see the whole context of where it lands in Code, that kind of sometimes, it's difficult. I understand this but the way it's written out, the amendment, it would only be applied to these residential air —so in the bigger scheme, it would be in an urban residential zone that there will have to be one `ohana, be it the primary home or the ADU, whatever gets designated. And then the other one, the way we've written it, could be a transient accommodation rental. But that's going to be subject to many other things we may pass into law,. So, there may be some other restrictions that could overlay this. Is that correct? Page 25 PCPLUD-17 July 23,, 2024 MR. KERN: Yeah. That would make sense. There's other laws being contemplated out there right now that are before you folks that could affect this. MS. EVANS: Okay. I kind of like what Member Kagiwada just said. You know, when you talk about this whole subject, I think this has brought up a fabulous discussion. I don't know how I feel about this amendment at this time. But I really like exploring what you've brought up. So, thank you very much. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Director, if someone had a hosted vacation rental and they live there as their primary residents or a bed and breakfast, I forgot where we left off on this discussion on Bill 121 and where we stand currently. So, you know, somewhere in the ether, if you lived in your home, you rented it out as a TAR and you said I want to build an ADU and I'm going to do a transient accommodation rental, would you be allowed to do so right now? Sorry, if this bill passed. MR. KERN: I'm not looking at the exact language. Maybe Chair Kimball could help opine on that? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. To the maker. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. If you built an `ohana now, under the current Code, Chapter 25 would allow for it to be used as a TAR if it was a hosted rental. An `ohana, not an additional farm dwelling on ag land, but an `ohana. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then to the maker — MR. KERN: Yeah. Sorry, I was passing that on because I thought it was related to how this amendment would change. And Chair is correct as it currently exists. Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And if this amendment were to pass, could I do the same thing? MS. KIMBALL: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, I could have a hosted vacation rental, build an ADU, and then do a transient accommodation rental parallel with my hosted vacation rental in my existing building. MS. KIMBALL: May I respond? Page 26 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, please. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Sorry, I may have misunderstood your first question. So, we don't regulate hosted accommodation rentals at all right now. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. KIMBALL: Under this proposal, if you had a transient accommodation rental in the main house, you could build the `ohana but you couldn't make it a second TAR. If you didn't have a TAR, you could build the `ohana and make that the TAR. So basically, on the building site you can have one TAR, whether it's the primary residence or an `ohana. But it would have to be hosted because Bill 108 prevents anymore unhosted rentals and that still remains in effect. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Maybe for clarity of language then, because I'm reading this amendment under prohibited/permitted uses, no more than one unit may be used as a transient accommodation rental. There's no more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted for use as transient accommodation rental provided there are no other transient accommodation rentals on the building site. I think it's just a little bit more clear. That's my opinion. I yield, Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah. I don't think I can support this because the language as it currently reads in the bill says that we would not allow accessory dwelling units if there is a TAR on the property. So, that's one thing. And then we're also saying that we aren't going to allow TAR's in an accessory dwelling unit. That's correct, right, as the bill currently reads? To the maker. MS. KEVIBALL: Yeah. So, the amendment would mean, in terms of the larger bill, that if you had a transient accommodation rental in the primary residence, like you're renting. And the TAR could be just like renting out a bedroom, right, that falls into that category, you could then still build an ADU. The current law doesn't allow that with an `ohana. It also says that if you don't have a transient accommodation on the building site, that first or an ADU could be used as a TAR. So, it gives the flexibility to use a portion of the primary dwelling with an ADU onsite as a TAR, but not both. MR. INABA: Okay. I think when I'm looking at these bills, I'm really trying to come at it with a concern for housing. So, if you don't have a TAR right now, based on the bill as it's currently written without this amendment, and we're going to allow an ADU to be constructed, I would not want it to be a short-term vacation rental. I think that defeats the purpose of the bill in providing long-term housing. So, I don't think I can get behind this amendment. I prefer the bill as it Page 27 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 currently stands. And, you know, there might be some consideration as to whether or not we are going to allow somebody who is currently operating to build if they're going to allow that to be a long-term rental. I there's maybe a middle ground, but I definitely don't think we should be allowing accessory dwelling units to be short-term vacation rentals because it's not helping the problems we're facing. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. You know, I don't particularly like it but I also, based on some of the feedback we've gotten from the community, I think it might be necessary because we've heard a lot from people saying what they need to rent out a room in their main dwelling in order to make ends meet, like their mortgage, and that has been very persuasive. And so, to prevent those folks from then building an ADU on their site for family I think is perhaps unwise of use. So, although I don't particularly like it, I think I have to support it. Thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. I am not going to support this. I think that if somebody has a TAR, they're renting a room in their house and they want to build an accessory dwelling unit and they want to use that for short-term vacation rental, they'll just stop renting the room in their house and then they can use the new `ohana as their short-term vacation rental. So, I don't support this. Thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Villegas. MS. V1I.LEGAS: Yeah, I just want to call the bluff on this. I mean, the scenario of the short-term vacation rental landed, especially in District 7, when people recognized the opportunity to buy homes here and turn them into short-term vacation rentals and make tens of thousands of dollars a month. And then they come and sit and beg for help because they can't afford their business model. Somebody who's come and testified here a number of times, I know for a fact, runs the four farm dwellings on Kona Coffee Estate as short-term vacation rentals. Those farm dwellings are supposed to be long-term rentals for the people that work on those farms. Yes, there are local people who rent out their `ohana's or short-term vacation rentals or live in their `ohana's and rent out their homes, and those are hosted. And every precaution has been taken to protect them. However, this has become an industry that has displaced our long term residents, artificially inflated our real estate prices, and then become an opportunity for people to claim hardship because they can't afford. And there's a big difference there. So, my concern because my understanding of the opportunity to adjust policy around the allowances for more ADU structures, accessory. I like how Mr. Inaba pointed that out, accessory is an addition to a home, is for the sake of adding inventory for multi -generational families to live together for long-term Page 28 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 rentals; not to add another layer for investment potential for people to come and purchase a home and say, "I'll build an ADU and that'll be my short-term vacation rental to cut my mortgage payment." So, I want to be very clear that all this policy around ADU's and the allowances of them in my understanding is to limit short-term vacation rental allowances and to focus and increase inventory for long-term rentals and or for multi -generational family housing opportunities, but not to increase inventory for short-term vacation rentals on properties. So, I won't be supporting this. I'm not quite sure how yet on the loophole, but I see this as too big of a loophole and an option and I feel very clear about that. Alright. Thank you. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Kimball, I do support the intent of this particular amendment, but it sounds like there is a bit of work to do to assuage concerns of members of this body. But I do recognize that we are trying to solve for an issue that was presented not just by members of the community but both of the Planning Commissions. So, thank you for your work on that. What would you like to do at this point? You know, if I may just say to Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I would suggest that the language is correct in the way it's written in 6-38 because we are in the section of the code that has to do with accessory dwelling units, not just dwelling units in general. And so I think it's important that that language stay in there. You know, I think we just vote on this one and I will come back with the other one that proposes just taking out the any building site with a transient accommodation rental, which was the proposal of the Planning Commission. I've added this second bit for clarity. But let's just vote on it, see where it goes, and I'll come back with the other one. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote on this amendment, please. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 123, Draft 2, with the contents to Amend: of Comm. 677.20 was carried by the following roll call (Approved) vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 5. Noes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada, and Villegas — 4. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: I think that brings us to the end of the amendments. Ms. Kimball. Page 29 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 MS. KE\4BALL: If I may, I did want to before I started on this amendment, I wanted to ask the body one more question, which is, it has been brought up via testimony on multiple occasions from different folks about this naming convention of `ohana versus accessory dwelling unit. The ADU terminology was used again to comply with the requirements of some lending mechanisms. I wanted to just say, do people want me to go accessory dwelling unit, `ohana in parentheses to include that language; do people not care; or should we go back to `ohana? I actually don't have a position on this that I feel strongly about but there were reasons for the name change but it has come up. So, I just wanted a quick poll of the body to see if they'd like me to put that amendment forward before, I do the work. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: And maybe some clarification, if Planning Department is still on the call. Director Kern, you know, my understanding, the terminology for `ohana, these were units that were specifically built by residents to house family members. That was my understanding in reading prior statutes or other code, that it was specifically for, you know, folks that have a family relationship with you. And it's a wonderful concept, wanting to provide housing for our family members. But are we restricting ourselves by calling it `ohana? I mean, it sounds like with ADU we are opening up more opportunities to house not just family members but anybody that has a housing need in our community. Could you just provide us with some historical context on the terms? MR. KERN: Sure. Yeah. Originally, the `ohana legislation was really about housing another family member. And then that was many, many years back and then it morphed to opening it up to basically being an accessory dwelling unit or a way to build another dwelling unit on your parcel for a family member or not family member. It could be a friend; could be a rental. And so, what we're seeing now is the current nomenclature here of `ohana basically being the same as am ADU, in pretty much all the way it's being used. Where we think we see an issue is —so, FHA, the Federal Housing Administration, now allows for mortgages to —allows for an ADU to help offset some of the income required for a mortgage. So, it's very important as prices go up, how do you actually pay for your house. So, when we were looking at this, we thought it was very important that we create the nomenclature or change it so it's consistent with lenders in the mainland, so folks are not getting caught up around it. my suggestion is if there is heartburn around it, it should basically be named both, an ADU and `ohana. But I think if we just keep it `ohana, while it may feel good, I think it's going to actually hurt a lot of people in the long run by not being able to get that loan consideration. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. That's really helpful. I think being able to walk into financing is going to be really critical to helping folks to build additional units. I'm of the mind, Ms. Kimball, of having us maintain accessory Page 30 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 dwelling unit and in parenthesis having the word `ohana. That way we are, you know, not going to be walking ourselves in with, you know, restricting different financing resources. So, I'm getting nods from the rest of my colleagues, so please proceed with that mana`o. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: Very good. Will do. And then I just wanted also to encourage my colleagues to look at House Bill 15-42; something that Representative Linda Ichiyama was working on. Didn't expect it to go anywhere, but it actually made it all the way through the house and died at the very end in WAM (Ways and Means), which would propose giving the counties authority for a two-year period to petition to switch lands from agricultural to rural. So like this is a two step process. One is to get our ADU bill code really, really tight and then to Matt Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder's point, we then go to the state and ask for this ability to redesignate some of the smaller lots like Orchid Land, HPP, Fern Acres, all those that have this smaller contiguous lots that really should be rural and not agriculture, thus allowing them to build the ADU. So, I encourage folks to look at that as one of the bills would potentially support as a body going forward next legislative session. With that I would like to make a motion to postpone Bill 123, Draft 2, as further amended, to the next committee hearing on August 6, 2024. Vote on Motion Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 123, as amended to to Postpone: Draft 3, to August 6, 2024. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you everyone for the feedback. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Do folks need a bathroom break or you're happy to keep moving along? Okay. We will take a five minute recess and be back at 11:01 a.m. Thank you. Recess: At 10:56 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:01 a.m. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: I am calling this meeting out of recess. We are back in order. The time is 11:01 a.m. Mr. Clerk, proceeding with the next item on our agenda, Bill 127. Page 31 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 Bill 127: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, SECTION 25-2-44, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO CONDITIONS ON CHANGE OF ZONE Requires the Planning Director to include time constraints for the completion or satisfaction of conditions imposed in change of zoning district ordinances. Reference: Comm. 694 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba Postponed: February 7, 2024 and July 9, 2024 Referred to Planning Commissions: February 20, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Galimba, to recommend passage of Bill 127 on first reading.) (Note: Comm. 694.7, from Council Member Holeka Goro Inaba dated July 23, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 127, was circulated.) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yes. I do have an amendment to the bill. Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 127 with the contents of Comm. 694.7. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Yes. We discussed instances where we wouldn't want to have time conditions put on change of zone ordinances. So, here in this amendment the exemptions include reversions to previous zoning district designations or to open zoning designations. So, I ask for your support. You know, if we do have those requests come before us, we do want them to stand and ultimately, I ask for your support. I'll take any questions. I believe Planning is still online. Director Kern, if you have any questions or comments? MR. KERN: We support the amendment. Thank you. MR. INABA: Thank you. Any further discussion? Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Any questions or comments on the amendment? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor, please say "aye." Page 32 PCPLUD-17 Vote on Motion to Amend: A roved July 23, 2024 The motion to amend Bill 127 with the contents of Comm. 694.7 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: We are back to the main Bill 127, as amended. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yes. Thank you, Chair. We did also discuss the tolling option. We weren't able to come up with the language yet. Planning Director, did you have any —I did request the language from the Planning Department, but they've been going through a lot with all the different bills. So, just wanted to check in with you again, Director Kern. MR. KERN: Yes. Thanks for the opportunity. I apologize. We have not really been able to put much attention to this. I had emergency surgery last week, so my minds been somewhere else this last week just trying to maintain. And so, respectfully we haven't gotten there. We want to, we plan on it. I'm short staffed and the situation I'm dealing with. We're just short on time. MR. INABA: Got it. Thank you, Director. So, with that, I just ask for my colleagues support. I would like to take up the tolling discussion but feel that we can do that at first reading. So, if we could move this forward, appreciate it. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else on the bill as amended? The motion on the floor is to forward to Council with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Galimba. MS. GALEVIBA: Yes. I would like to have that language in place before we move it forward. So, I would ask to postpone until we have that language. Thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I'm on the same position. I'd prefer to postpone until we've completed the drafting. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. The consensus seems to be keep in Committee until we have the proposed language. Mr. Inaba, can I have a motion? Page 33 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 MR. INABA: Sure. Director, will we have the language ready in the next two weeks? MR. KERN: I want to say yes. I'm not sure though. Jeff (Darrow) is out the next two weeks. We're super short-staffed. I'm getting back into the office this week. And so, I'd say yes. I'm just not sure. MR. INABA: Motion to postpone to the August 20ffi Committee meetings. Sorry, Director, you can commit to that, right? MR. KERN: Yeah. I think that feels good. We'll do our very best to get that done. Vote on Motion Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 127, as amended to to Postpone: Draft 2, to August 20, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada (Approved) and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, next order of business, Bill 179. Bill 179: AMENDS CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 16-5, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEES Seeks to amend subsection (a) by requiring all members to have a "principal" residence instead of "primary" residence, in accordance with Chapter 19, Subsection 19-71(e)(2) of the Code, in the area covered by the Community Development Plan. Reference: Comm. 929 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (Note: Comm. 929.1, from Council Member Holeka Goro Inaba dated July 22, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 179, was circulated.) Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend passage of Bill 179 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. Page 34 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 MR. INABA: Yes. Thank you, Chair. This bill is being brought forward, we recently went through a confirmation process where it was unclear whether or not someone was eligible to serve on a board or commission here at the County. We know that our CDP (Community Development Plan) Action Committees are there to provide a community voice for the specific areas covered a community development plan. So what this bill proposes is that anyone who is going to sit on a commission or the CDP Action Committee have to live in that area covered by that community development plan, and we reference Section 19-71(e)(2) from the Real Property Tax Code regarding principle residence and just was to make sure that there is no confusion in the future. I ask for your support and happy to take any questions. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. Thank you, Council Member Inaba, for bringing forth this clarifying language. I know myself was kind of taken aback that the potential for someone who admittedly did not live on the island or the districts that they were being nominated to serve and represent on a CDP Action Committee might have been allowable because the terminology in the prior policy didn't prohibit that. So, thank you, Council Member Inaba. I will be supporting this wholeheartedly. And yeah, deeply grateful that common sense could be utilized more commonly through this process and this policy. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. I will also be supporting this amendment or this bill. And I just have to take this opportunity once again to say that I am calling on this administration to please look into providing the ability for Hilo to have a community action committee. We do not have one. And so, none of the people in Hilo have the ability to weigh in on any of these issues. So, that's just my ply guide. I bring it up all the time, but I'll keep bringing it up. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I will allow that because I agree with you. Mr. Inaba, you have a Communication here 929.1, that I want you to bring forward for discussion because right now as I read this, you would essentially have to be a property owner in order to serve and I recall being on a board and commission where I was actually renting but my primary residence was here on Hawaii Island. So, this provides a really important clarification that allows for Hawaii Island residents to be able to serve on boards and commissions. Please, with your amendment. Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 179 with the contents of Comm. 929.1. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. Page 35 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yes. I want to mahalo Corporation Counsel for catching this oversight. And as you stated, this would allow for residents of a CDP area who are not the property owners to still serve on the CDP Action Committee. So, I ask for your support on this amendment. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Absolutely in support of. I am reflecting on our Youth Commission and sometimes our students go away for school. I just want to make sure that they can continue to serve in that capacity and that this doesn't impact them as long as they maintain their resident address as their, you know; mom's house or whoever. Just putting it out there. I don't want to short circuit that board or commission as they go away and get the schooling that they want. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And I believe we've moved into the direction of having these boards and commission meetings conducted virtually to ensure, you know, participation from folks island wide, and we certainly want to make sure that we are providing space for our `6pio that are dedicated to coming home. Anymore questions or comments on the amendment? Okay. Seeing none, there is a motion on the floor. All in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 179 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 929.1 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: We are back to the main motion. Okay. There is a motion on the floor to forward Bill 179 to the Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor, please say "aye." Page 36 PCPLUD-17 Vote on Bill 179: Draft 2 (Approved) July 23, 2024 The motion to recommend passage of Bill 179, as amended to Draft 2, on first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: - None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Mr. Clerk, let's move on to our final order of business for today, Bill 181. Bill 181: AMENDS CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 1, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE GENERAL PLAN Inserts amendment procedures for the General Plan, including a comprehensive review at least every ten years, and interim amendments between comprehensive reviews; describes the powers and duties of the Planning Director and Planning Commissions to review and recommend amendments, and of the Council to initiate or adopt proposed amendments. Reference: Comm. 939 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend passage of Bill 181 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yes. Thank you. As we know, the Planning Department has taken up the comprehensive review of the General Plan (GP). But just to give us a little bit of background, we know that the current General Plan was approved back in 2005, and there have been some interim amendments since that time. But the rules, as stated in the General Plan under rules for comprehensive review state that the comprehensive review has to be initiated within ten years of the passage of the previous General Plans. So, we were in compliance at that time back in February of 2015. The Planning Director at that time initiated the comprehensive review. The Geneal Plan rules also state that within three years of that time, or 13 years since the previous passage, Council was to be provided a draft of the new General Plan or those amendments. So, we know we have not received a draft and there was a 2019 draft, and then the current administration has taken up the torch and has continued with the General Plan review process. What this bill does is essentially lift the Page 37 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 language for the comprehensive and interim reviews and puts it from the General Plan into our Hawaii County Code. The only difference is that in Section C-10, we are giving the Council the authority to make any modifications that deems necessary when the General Plan draft gets to us. Currently, the language in the General Plan rules prohibit any substantial changes, which would be additions, deletions, changes of policies, and what we are trying to accomplish here is that while we are off the timing period, I do support it and I think we all want to have a General Plan pass and, you know, have good discussion but our hands are essentially tied at this time due to the rules that are in the General Plan. And because we've been considered in the comprehensive review process since 2015, we're also prohibited from changing those rules in the General Plan per those rules, oddly. So, ask for your folks support. It's really to give, as one of the testifiers stated earlier, the opportunity for community voice to be heard and for changes to be made when the draft gets to us especially if the Planning Commissions do have recommendations for a significant change, we want to make sure that we have the authority to up those changes. I'll wrap up with, there are new rules being proposed in the draft that I think will allow us to have good discussion about what we want the rules to be moving forward and that we can include that language into the Code. But at this time, this bill would allow us to make the changes we see necessary to the General Plan draft. Mahalo. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Before I take comments and questions from the body, I did want to invite our Planning Director to provide, you know, the viewpoint of the Planning Department on Bill 181, and then I will be calling up our Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance to also opine on this. Director Kern. MR. KERN: Thank you for the opportunity. You know, I believe that the previous Council put in the language that's currently in there. For some reason, didn't go back all the way through all of it. So, I guess, for me, it's less about an opinion because I don't necessarily think it's related to the Planning Department's opinion. The way I understand this is it's changing the process part way through. To me, it's a legal opinion. If it's going to be applied moving forward, it seems it's like at the next go around, then I think it's a different conversation versus being applied right now while we're in a General Plan amendment process. And so, I don't think it's really about our opinion. I think it's more what's the legal process to do this. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. Corporation Counsel Judge Strance. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Stance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 38 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 MS. STRANCE: Good morning. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Judge Strance, I just wanted your legal opinion. Director Kern did mention there being some potential, I think maybe confusion, around whether or not the Council is able to do this and when it would take effect. So, I think we wanted your thoughts as part of our deliberative process. MS. STRANCE: Thank you. The current General Plan as it is written contains the amendment process and part of that amendment process is that the General Plan will not be amended once that process starts. And so, this bill is more than moving those provisions into the three volume code that is available. It expands the authority of the Council to amend the General Plan once it comes to it. It's important to look at context from 2005 that was before the split of two Planning Commissions. It was before the creation of community development plans and action committees. It also ignores that almost immediately after the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the Council immediately sent out to either a committee or to the Planning Department to review the amendment process. And that came in a form of amendments in 2007. And then when the plan was going to initiate, the Planning Department came in again to review the process. And so, my opinion is that it oversteps the authority of the Council at this point. Having said that, the impulse to move the amendment process into the more accessible part of the Code is a good one. Technically, ordinances are part of the County Code, but to find the amendment processes for the General Plan takes some looking. So, under Chapter 16 of the Code, there's a provision regarding the General Plan and that it's incorporated by reference as amended from time to time. But not all the amendments are referenced in the Code. And so, that piece in one of them has to do with the process for amendment and so the confusion that's been created by having it rest in a 300 page document that isn't something that isn't necessarily intuitive in terms of where to go look. It is a good idea. The reason that I also referenced the Planning Commissions is that the authority of this body to initiate amendments is limited by the Charter because new amendments to the General Plan must be reviewed by the Planning Commissions. And so, that curve back and forth or what constitutes a new amendment is something that would need to be sorted in this process. But I completely understand the impulse that you do have, a bill that's part of the ordinance that already says that once the process is started it cannot be amended. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Judge Strance, do you have a packet that goes through the legislative history? And I'm sure in light of what you shared about there now being two Planning Commissions and now we have Action Committees, how all of this sort of mana`o interplays with the General Plan. Are you coordinating the Clerk's Office? I think a legislative history would be really helpful at this point. Page 39 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 MS. STRANCE: I do too. I don't have it organized in a form that I would necessarily want to hand over. But it's something that we could —I've talked with the Clerk's Office; they have some legislative history that I didn't find in my own research. I think it would be very helpful for this body to have that as it kind of goes and finishes up this process and decides how it wants to initiate the process in the future. So, I'd be happy to work with them. I think amongst us, I'm fairly comfortable that we have most of it. So, I'd be happy to put something together and we can distribute it to you,. and have it be in a form that might be available to the public as well. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. We'll coordinate with you on that. Thank you very much. Ms. Kimball. MS. K MBALL: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Wanted to give a little more —expand on the background that was already provided by Council Member Inaba. You know, something like this is big of a deal as the General Plan feels like it should be something we have known really, really well. The truth of the matter is we've only done this three and a half times. And so the fact that the process is a little bit unclear and not very well established, this isn't something that there's a deep legislative history about. There's only been a couple of times here that we've done this process. As Council Member Inaba eluded to, we are already kind of technically outside of what the process prescribes. I think that is problematic and I think we need to use this bill to address that. As Judge Strance mentioned, the process is here for the comprehensive review, the interim amendments, Planning Director initiated amendments, so forth and so on, has lived in an ordinance, which is also law but is also hard to find, difficult for us to amend, as we evaluate the process. And so, it makes sense to me to elevate it to the Code where it's in a much more manageable place. I would also say that the part that has been excluded from the 2025 plan or that was modified, which did not allow the Council to make substantive amendments is important. However, when you have a document such as the new draft General Plan, which a complete rewrite, completely new format, what does the definition of substantive become? And I don't think we have a good response to that. And secondly, if the Planning Commissions are allowed to propose amendments to the General Plan and the General Plan is an ordinance and only the Council can amend an ordinance, how would we even incorporate the amendments recommended by the Planning Commissions if we don't have amending authority on the plan. So, I think these are things that are problematic. It's not that people —it's wrong, it's just that we haven't had this experience as we're experiencing it right now. Vice Chair Inaba has put forth one proposal. My suggestion, and I wanted to see where the rest of the body is, is that if the Council wants to propose amendments Page 40 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 other than sort of clerical amendments, that we would have to send those back to the Planning Commission and get feedback from the director and the Planning Commissions and that we would only have one opportunity to do that. I think we need to not have the General Plan be a process that's dragged out for years and years and years. I do think we should have the ability to suggest amendments. But I do think we have to provide deference to the Planning Commissions and the plan expertise of the department with respect to those amendments. So, I fully support moving this language into Chapter 16, support all of the other wording, but would want to add in a clause that anything proposed by the Council would have to go back to the Planning Commissions and that there be only one iteration permitted of that. That is my position on this bill and thank you, Vice Chair Inaba, for introducing this. I think it's really important. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for that, Council Member Kimball. It is very relevant to consider how fresh and new the General Plan and the passage of it is, and the number of times that that's occurred. I would be remised to not also point out the irony that we're —it's almost been 20 years since the last one. So, where I get heartache and some heartburn is that —well, for starters, I would support something like that, that if it needs to go back, if that provides the avenue and the connecting points for us to have opportunity to amend and provide input that I believe is very necessary, if that can be the way that can happen by sending it back to the Planning Commissions then I'm good with that as well. But my heartburn is we sit here as a Council and we've had different projects come before us looking for time extensions or zoning changes, or a myriad of things, and we're continually told, well that's in alignment with the General Plan. The General Plan has just been gut and replaced, and the prior one not necessarily as relevant. So, that's the parts that give me heartburn as we continue to navigate this process. The current iteration of the General Plan has not been officially adopted so I would ask that it stopped being used as an excuse for validating or passing things because the standards and the expectations and the balance need to be requirements on both sides. And so, that would be my request there and the community, especially District 7, has been especially vocal in asking for more communication, more iterations, and more opportunities for amendments because this was a complete gut and replace. So, thank you for taking that into consideration. Council Member Inaba, I will be in support of this and thank you again for your creativity in finding a pathway that would allow for Council to have appropriate authority and opportunity to make amendments to a document, which will affect the future of this place and my own grandson's ability to live here and what it will look like for him. So, I really appreciate this. I yield. Page 41 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Well•done, Mr. Inaba. I will be supporting. The section I would like to see a change in is for Section 3, which is the general public's ability to comment. The thing that I don't like is that there's a filing fee of $500 to cover administrative costs of processing an application. And I really do feel like if we want the public's sentiment, they could work through the Council, they could work through other means, but if we want the public to participate and be able to initiate an amendment through an application, then the fee should be not $500, but something more approachable that doesn't overburden the department but creates an accessibility. So, somewhere in the range of, I would say from free to $100. Just a thought. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. You have the floor. MS. EVANS: I really like that we're bringing it forward because I would rather see this in Code instead of people finding it in the General Plan exactly what the process is. I think that people are really calling for transparency today more than ever, and I think this really —I want to applaud you for going in that direction. When I get into the nitty gritty details of it, I have a lot of comments on specific language. My understanding is when you took this language from what's currently, and you're using what was there. You have not modified or amended and begun that process. So, you've basically kind of cut and paste, which is already —may I ask that, Chair, of the maker? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Quickly respond. MR. INABA: Yes. Just with the exception of the last number in each of the sections. MS. EVANS: Okay. Because I really see this as an opportunity if we're going to visit this to maybe clean up the language. It think there's some areas. One thing that the community has really said to me many, many times is it sure would be nice to know what they diluted out of the last plan. So, people say it's a gut and replace, but you know, we know enough to say that, but people are saying, can't we compare the old with the new to see how far we've come, what the real changes are? I know people have asked for that. There's a lot of details to these pages and I'd really like to dig into the language and try to work on it because again, back to Member Kimball, we don't do this very often. And so, this is an opportunity to really dig, I think, into it and try to get some language that, for the Page 42 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 next time around as we move forward, there's, I hope, not only clarity but the ability for the next Council's to actually do it within the 10 to 13 years and sort of, this length of time that we've had, it's just too long. So, there must be a way to make it better. And I'd like to work on that. I don't know if this even lends itself to an interact PIG (Permitted Interaction Group), a PIG group, to really dig down on it. But that might be something to consider. Thank you. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Corporation Counsel Strance, so if we were to pass this now as it is, it says it would go into effect upon approval. Where does that put us since we're in the middle of working on the General Plan with making sure that we follow all these things especially as it pertains to the Council submitting amendments? MS. STRANGE: Thank you, Council Member. Under the current ordinance, which again pursuant to the Charter is to be interpreted as Code, it's not permitted. It technically would fall within the interim amendment process, which under the current ordinance those interim amendments aren't permitted during the General Plan review. And so, it may be in violation of the current Code, and if this body would like to have an executive session to kind of tease out the legal issues, I'd be happy to do that. But that's the trouble or the concern with the bill as it's written in --even with the different effective dates, it would technically be an interim amendment. But I'd want to be able to look at that issue a little more carefully and then have a discussion in executive session should you folks want to proceed with some form of the bill, and we could talk about whether there's a — under what circumstances something might be introduced. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. And pertaining to the suggestion made by Council Member Kimball about that process going through the Planning Commissions, would that also still pose the same problems, or would that potentially mitigate some of those issues? MS. STRANCE: I have some not completely formed thoughts on that that I would want to look into a little bit more as a way for this body to possible have some concerns placed in front of the Commission. But they're not fully formed, and they're not researched. And so, I'd be a little reluctant to put them out in a public record right now. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you. And if I may, Chair, just on that kind of proposal that was thrown out there. My question is who then has the ultimate authority if the Council were to submit suggested amendments to the Planning Commissions; the Planning Commissions then I would assume send that to the Planning Department with their recommendations, but who makes the final call then on those ideas? Who does the final authority land with on making decisions? Page 43 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 That's where I would have a question about. And maybe you can't answer it all now, but I just want to throw that out there. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that. MS. STRANCE: Council Member, I can provide some response to you if that would be appropriate. So, the way that the amendment process is built out under the current ordinance is this bill and process, it's been underway for some time, gets placed in a bill before the commissions and then it will come back to you. The process as written gives this body limited authority to amend with the idea that if there are bigger amendments, it basically gets held over and treated as an interim amendment. So, it tries to complete the General Plan review understanding that there may be issues or concerns that this body might have for whatever reason, and it rolls it over into an interim process. There was a time in the General Plan history where the Council lacked authority to initiate General Plan amendments and that was added in and then added in as part of more of a robust interim amendment process. The concern that's been expressed is then the adoption of the General Plan doesn't necessarily feel like a General Plan because there's going to be these areas that get rolled over. But that's how the process is currently structured. So, the short answer to your question is that the Council will have ultimate authority, but the process is what I think is being discussed. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. A couple things I heard was executive session and overstep. And I do think there's some information that Judge Strance wants to share around the Council's duties, responsibilities, liabilities, and so I would love to entertain that. I don't know what kind of timeframe we have, but I do want to share this. In my time on the Council, when we started this General Plan update part of the problem on the process of the General Plan update was that there was no resources committed to the Planning Department to start. And so, there's definitely the mechanics on taking public input and getting community sentiment. But if we're not prioritizing the work, from a budgetary standpoint, it's going to take 15 years, it's going to take time. And so, successful programs and successful policy work is also backed up by the resources. So, however this body wants to proceed, I would love to hear what Judge Strance is cautioning us about; one. But if there is a way somehow this mechanics of this policy also commits the resources, then the work can get done and it'll get done in a timely and efficient and effective manner. And to Council Member Kimball's point, it's not a process that's done very often and so a mechanics of creating a saving fund over time is all possible, but I don't want to move in policy that isn't well thought out and actually unattainable or unachievable because the resources Page 44 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 aren't there. And at the end of the day, we're not going to be in these seats, the Mayor is going to be a Mayor, I mean, that's just the reality of it all. And I just want to urge my colleagues to think about building this out in a very comprehensive, collective, dynamic way to ensure that the work gets done. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. I just wanted to add a couple more points for contemplation here. One of them is, like I said before, we are technically in violation of the process. You know, I don't want to use that word because I think that might be taken the wrong way. But because of COVID (Coronavirus Disease) and other things, time delays, we haven't followed the timeline. So, one of the things to contemplate about this is the fact that there are literally zero consequences if we don't follow a prescribed timeline. So, I think when we're reviewing this, thoughts about what the consequences might be to get us back on track. Secondly, the Charter gives the County Council the authority, the obligation to adopt the General Plan, but it also doesn't say what happens if we don't. And, you know, that's another thing to think about here. I would also say, just in comment to something Council Member Evans said, I want to be cautious about adding any language in here. I know there's been a lot of calls for a Ramseyer version from the last General Plan to this General Plan and I think one of the things that we have to anticipate now and going forward is that the science and technology of planning is going to evolve a lot, and I wouldn't want to see us constrained by an old style format of a General Plan when I believe that the processes of general planning are going to get much better. Now, that goes without saying the LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide) map, the land use allocation guide, which is what most people are looking at when they're thinking of the General Plan, having a real clear way to see where those designations have changed is a priority for a lot folks. So, just would want to caution against any language being proposed with respect to that. I do want to say that the language the Vice Chair Inaba took out that limited the Council's ability to make substantive amendments was put in, and I don't think we have a lot of understanding about why that happened based on the legislative history, so that remains a big question. And again, I put forth, well, what substantive when you're changing the entire thing. What I would like to suggest is that because this is such an important piece of legislation, we really push all the boundaries on this Charter, other parts of the Code, constitution, all the things to get this as tight as possible because again, we don't do this very often but when we do it again in ten years we want to give the Council and the administration that's there at the time some really hard, clear Page 45 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 guidelines about the path forward, which I don't think we have for us right now. Thanks. I yield, Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Inaba, I'm going to suggest that we hold this bill in Committee. I agree with you that we need to have something within our Code that establishes a framework for how decisions are made with regards to amending and adopting the General Plan. I'd also like for us to consider a longer runway for when the General Plan is applicable. Ten years seems a bit too short, and I want a bit more clarity around the interplay of the General Plan and Community Development Plans and ensuring that all communities have a development plan that they can have. Jenn, I'm looking at you. But communities set up community development plans that align with the GP. This is probably one of the most consequential decisions that we make as a body, adopting our General Plan because it does guide the development of housing, infrastructure, you know, and also ensures that there is a preservation of open and natural spaces. And so, not all Council's have this kuleana, this privilege to be able to review and adopt this document. So, I just want to make sure that within our Code we are establishing that framework for how we adopt this. I like the idea of having a timeframe in which Council Members are able to review the document and provide amendments. There has to be a clock that starts and stops on that. If not, it could potentially be abused and we will be in a situation where the General Plan is being deliberated for several Council terms, and I think that's something that we want to avoid. We want to make sure that there is clarity in the process and with this document. And so, Judge Strance, if you are able to prepare as much information between you and the Clerk's Office ahead of our next meeting and send that to us in advance of the meeting, that would give us all time to review and prepare and come to you with questions that we might have to better inform how we proceed with Bill 181. MS. STRANCE: Thank you and we'll do that. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. With that, Judge Strance, I think if you could also review the public notice that was sent out back in February of 2015 to make sure that this process is still viable and what, we've got to get creative here. I did speak with a couple former Council Members who were on the Council when the Puna CDP was introduced. And at that time I was told that there was a just pass it and we'll fix it later approach or let's fix it now and pass it as we want it to be. I'm kind of more on this number two. But I'm happy to take up, just to the body, I'm happy to take up amendments that kind of clean up the language here. Again, it's provided exactly as it is in the General Plan currently so that we aren't getting Page 46 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 lost from the get -go. So, I'll make a motion to postpone. Is August 20"' good for you? Yes. Okay. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Before you make the motion on postponement, sorry, one more thing, Judge Strance. You know, this General Plan comprehensive review has straddled three administrations, potentially four, right? It started under Mayor (Billy) Kenoi, with Director (Duane) Kanuha at the helm. Then under Mayor (Harry) Kim, with Director (Michael) Yee, now Mayor (Mitchell) Roth and Director (Zendo) Kern. And I don't think anybody was planning to belabor this process, but things happen. We had several volcanic eruptions; we had a global pandemic, we had hurricanes, we had historic floodings. And so, I think also as part of your legal packet, some suggestions around what we do if we are facing these, you know, kind of historic local, global events that cause County resources to be rediverted to responding to that situation. So, any guidance you could provide around that I think would be extremely helpful. Thank you. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 181 to August 20, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I just wanted to mention, as I recall we postponed (Bill) 121, STVR (Short Term Vacation Rental) bill to the 20t'. We also have a hearing on (Bill) 169, the Kona Three. So, it might be a lengthy day. I don't know how the author is feeling about the urgency of this, but I might suggest first meeting in September instead. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: I like that suggestion. Mr. Inaba. Anyone else care to weigh in on the discussion happening on August 20'' or first week of September. MS. EVANS: Yeah. Chair, I do think there's going to be quite a bit on August 20t'. We have quite a bit agenda. I'm willing to stay late that night but, I do think we're going to have quite a bit. So, something to consider. Up to the maker. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I support maybe a date in September just based on the stacking of that agenda and some of the other stuff we know will end up landing on the agenda just because of our timing. So, I support something in September. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Inaba. Page 47 PCPLUD-17 July 23, 2024 MR. INABA: Just wanted to check in with the Planning Department, when we're expecting to have the draft over from the Commissions. I don't want to delay this discussion and it be pointless. MR. KERN: You're asking for when we anticipate getting from the Commissions back to Council? MR. INABA: The General Plan draft, yes. MR. KERN: The exact date when it would head back to Council is to be determined but it would be at the beginning of the year. We plan to go live with the final director recommended draft on the 29t', as previously indicated to Council. From there the clock starts 150 days. So, I believe it would be anticipated that it would come to Council sometime first quarter of 2025. Withdraw Motion Mr. Inaba withdrew his motion to postpone Bill 181 to to Postpone: August 20, 2024. Vote on Motion Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 181 to September 3, 2024. to Postpone: Seconded by Ms. Villegas and carried by the following (Ap)roved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 11:55 a.m. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development AK/tk it�zs d', Page 48