Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUD 2024/09/03 (2022-2024)Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development 2011 Session Hawai'i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 September 3, 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, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Vice Chair STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Recess, - Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, Member (came in later) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Joy Dillon: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406); and Bill 122, Draft 2 (Comm. 676.13), in opposition. Mary Begier: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406); and Bill 122, Draft 2 (Comm. 676.13), in opposition. (See Comm. 675.469) At 9:08 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9: 10 a.m. Janice Palma-Glennie: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406); Bill 122, Draft 2 (Comm. 676.13), in opposition; and Bill 181 (Comm. 939), in support. PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 Alex Folsom: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406), comment, Caryl Burns: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406); and Bill 122, Draft 2 (Comm. 676.13), in opposition. Joshua Montgomery: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406), in opposition. Mark Sidmore: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406), in opposition. (See Comm. 675.502) David Louie: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406), in opposition. (representing Airbnb) (See Comm. 675.477) Chuck Flaherty: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406), comment. (representing Sierra Group Hawaii) Joe Schneckenburger: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406), in opposition. (See Comm. 675.500) Kris Adair: Bill 121, Draft 3 (Comm. 675.406), in opposition. Maki Morinoue: Bill 181 (Comm. 939), comment. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 121: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES 1, 4, AND 5, OF THE HAWAPI (Draft 3) COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATION RENTALS AND HOSTING PLATFORMS Repeals Section 25-4-16 through Section 25-4-16.3 relating to Short-term Vacation Rentals and establishes new provisions for Transient Accommodation Rentals and Hosting Platforms for Transient Accommodation Rentals. Reference: Comm. 675.406 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Kierkiewicz Referred to Planning Commissions: January 30, 2024 Postponed: July 8 and August 20, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz, to recommend passage of Bill 121, Draft 2, as amended, on first reading.) (Note: The following Communications transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 121, Draft 3, were circulated: Page 2 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 1. Comm. 675.465, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated August 28, 2024; 2. Comm. 675.466, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated August 27, 2024; 3. Comm. 675.467, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated August 27, 2024; 4. Comm. 675.468, from Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz dated September 3, 2024.) Relinquish Chair: At this time, the Chair relinquished the chair to Vice Chair Inaba. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Teeing it off, Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Again, thank you for the folks that made time to testify today. We appreciate you being here. I have some amendments that I'd like to start with. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 675.465. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. So, the first section of this amendment is some additional clarifying and editorial to the definitions particularly event and gathering, which we amended last time. There was an additional quotations in the definition of Transient Accommodation Rental (TAR). But the one thing that I wanted to highlight there is that we did add tents to the list of transient accommodations that are excluded from the definition of transient accommodation rental. And so, I want to speak to that in particular, you know, there's mention of sort of unusual accommodations and their ability to be provided as transient accommodation rentals. First, I'll note that tiny homes, there is no minimum square footage, with respect to permitting. So, people can permit tiny homes. The issue is that they have to be affixed. They cannot be on wheels. And so, that is Chapter 5, our Building Code. Additionally, yurts can be permitted as a dwelling. So, those are also accounted for with that respect. Tents, however, and campgrounds are actually a permitted use, where in some cases a special permit is required. So, they would not fall under the transient accommodation rental process. They would fall under the campground provisions that are in the Code. And I encourage my colleagues to ask Planning to expand on that if necessary. But that's what happens in the definition there of transient accommodation rental. Section 2 of the amendment removes the wording "at the time of construction." As you may recall, Council Member Kierkiewicz and I had two kind of overlapping bills or amendments to this section. The language "at the time of Page 3 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 construction" applied to the code. Since the code language has been taken out of this phrase becomes irrelevant, so that's a clean up there. Section 3 of the amendment, as you recall last time, we put forth an amendment and this actually speaks to the testimony from the attorney from Airbnb. What he was speaking to and if you've read the testimony was that we've changed the definition of transient accommodation rental to 180 days or less. Their assertion was that folks that have been renting for more than 30 days up to 180 days would then lose invested rights. As you may recall, we did put forth a nonconforming use process for folks that are renting 30 days or more to 180 days. With that was also this provision that nonconforming use permit would continue to apply with the allowance to do more than 30 days. This section here clarifies that that is for the newly issued nonconforming uses. People that were issued a nonconforming use for unhosted for less than 30 days, that does not apply to them. So, a little confusing but there's going to be two different nonconforming use strategies with respect to unhosted rentals. And that second strategy with the folks that have only rented for more than 30 days up to 180 days, that was put in place to address that potential constitutional issue. The last section here, Section 4, has to do with the advertising and reporting by platforms. There was some lack of clarity there and the language has been amended to reflect that even if people out there are listing multiple TARS that are under their own ownership, they will not have a reporting requirement for web pages that they host. And then there's language here to clarify that January has 31 days and not just 30. So, hopefully these amendments make sense to everyone. Happy to answer any questions as we move forward. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Discussions on the amendment? Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. And thank you for this and the explanation. I'm still a little bit confused about Section 3, so could you maybe just walk through what this would actually look like for somebody with the way it's being presented now? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. Thank you. So, it's kind of odd here as it's taken out of context. But basically, when Bill 108 passed, folks that had an unhosted rental outside of the permitted areas, the resort zones and what not, they got a Nonconforming Use Certificate (NUC) that allowed them to continue to operate. Because we have changed the definition of a transient accommodation rental from more than 30 days to 180 days, we had to provide an opening for folks that have only been renting more than 30 days to get a nonconforming use certificate because they were not awarded that opportunity in the first go around under (Bill) Page 4 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 108. And so that, again, provides that opportunity for the nonconforming use certificate. What this section does is clarifies that if they get the nonconforming use certificate under that provision, they are only allowed to continue operating from the 30 days or more because if they were going to do less, they should have gotten the nonconforming use certificate back in 2019 when they had the opportunity under the Bill 108. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. I understand. So, it's just as we've been talking about this whole time, allowing people who have been legally operating to continue legally operating in the same manner that they have been already. Okay. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. No further discussion on the amendment. I am in support. So with that, all those in favor of amending Bill 121, Draft 3 with the contents of Communication 675.465, please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 121, Draft 3, with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 675.465 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, Draft 3, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.466. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIMBALL: So, if you remember at the last hearing, I had an amendment that contained both this language and then language allowing for folks to rent while they were away. And this language seemed to be amendable to folks whereas the second did not. So, what this language does is allow folks to operate a transient accommodation through a nonconforming use certificate on an adjacent lot as provided that that transient accommodation rental is within 200 feet of the owners primary residence. I don't recall if it was asked before. During the hearing, or someone made a comment after, where' d you get 200 feet. I just pulled that out as a starting place. And so, I'm not sure if that is the right number. It seems reasonable to me. You know, the understanding that hosted rentals are different because there's that proximity to the location so that they can manage any activities by the renters and what not. Page 5 September 3, 2024 So again, what this proposes to do is allow folks to, with a nonconforming use certificate, operate a hosted TAR when the TAR is actually on an adjacent building site. The reason for using this as a nonconforming use is we don't want to kind of open the door to this just being kind of the status quo that you can buy multiple lots, but it will address the situation as presented by the testifier where this is already in place and they're not able to get that insurance particularly in Lava Zone I and 2. So, happy to take questions and guidance as to whether the 200 feet is appropriate. I think if folks have a different idea about that, what I'd like to do is pass this amendment and then I can come up with a follow up amendment to tweak that number. But it seems like a reasonable distance. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Discussion? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Planning Director, I have a question for you. (Note: At this time Planning Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee) MR. KERN: Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. MR. DARROW: Good morning, Chair, Members of the Council. Jeff Darrow, Planning Department. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Good morning, gentlemen. How are you doing? MR. KERN: Good. Yourself? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Good. Happy Tuesday. My question is on the building site, and I may have asked this before, but the building site, do we have a definition for that anywhere? It's not in this bill, I know that. MR. DARROW: If you could give me one sec. I'm going to pull it up in the Zoning Code. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Okay. Page 6 fZayailr3►�17 September 3, 2024 MR. DARROW: If we could come back to that? I've got like 400 icons; I just have to find it. Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Okay. As you look for that, Jeff, my question is, 200 feet, the wording here. If the transient accommodation rental is located within 200 feet of the owners primary residence on a building site adjacent thereto; is this saying that the transient accommodation will be within 200 feet of the building itself, correct, but on a different building site? And I'm thinking parcels; I'm thinking the actual house that the person is living in. I'm trying to make sense of this. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, just to help the Planning Department, building site means "a parcel of land which is occupied or is to be occupied by a principle use and accessory uses or a building or a group of buildings and includes a lot and a plot." I think we've had this discussion before and that comes from Chapter 25. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. KERN: The way I'm reading this is you would measure 200 feet from the primary residence across a property line to the next residence on that and that would set that distance. That's the way I'm reading it, if that's the intent. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, for the public, where is located for the building site definition? Because it's not in the TAR bill. MR. DARROW: It's within the Zoning Code under definitions. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Chapter 25. Okay so, if I have a home on Parcel A and next to me is Parcel B, and within 200 feet of my home of Parcel A is my transient accommodation rental on Parcel B. That would be allowable, correct? MR. KERN: That's the interpretation of the way this is written, correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And if I have a Parcel C next to Parcel A, and that's within 200 feet, I can have another transient accommodation rental? MR. KERN: Would Parcel C be adjacent to your primary residential parcel? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yup. MR. KERN: So, like two different directions? Page 7 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Yup. So, I'm dead center in the middle. I've got one and two, so both properties touch my property and my two different homes on the outside of my primary residence are within 200 feet. MR. KERN: I would probably ask that question to the maker. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Okay. To the maker? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. The way that this is currently drafted is that you could have multiple adjacent parcels, with multiple TARs, within the 200 feet, and those would be permitted as a nonconforming use. So essentially, the attempt is to grandfather in things that are happening that are not really legal right now, but we've kind of let it go. MR. KERN: So, you'd basically take that primary residence and do a 200 foot radius around it and any adjacent parcel would then fit that. MR. DARROW: They also have to have been operating prior to that particular time. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEEI;PTLDER: Okay. So, this is really for existing nonconforming or just existing? MR. DARROW: They would be nonconforming in the sense that they're coming in. The word nonconforming in the TAR is problematic but that's the term we're using. It means that these were operating legally previously, but at this point we're saying that if they were operating prior to this, we're granting them a nonconforming use certificate. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Chair, I yield for now. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thanks, fellas, for being here. Director, tell me again your understanding when you read this. It's from the property line or from the physical building site? MR. KERN: I would interpret this as from the primary residence. So, wherever that primary residence is located on the site, drawing out 200 feet from there, and that would cross over a property line, for the adjacent parcel. Page 8 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 MS. LEE LOY: So, just trying to walk it out because we also know that they have building setbacks, right? And I'm struggling because some of these building setbacks might be already 200 feet to the property boundary line because it depends on what their zoning district is. MR. KERN: Yeah. So, our larger setbacks, if it's not within say the conservation or coastal areas is going to be 20s on the side 30s on the front. That's going to be your ag zoning. I think it would also depend on the width and depth of the parcel and where the house is located on there. We have some areas that have flag lots that are very long, and the person may have their house at the very back, say a flag lot that goes back 900 feet. They may even have their house situated around 700 feet. The other parcel adjacent could have the house sitting in the front of it. That line would probably not measure out. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. I mean, just testing it, to the maker. I think the other concern I have, you know, listening to some of the testifiers, and absolutely, there was a time when properties out in Puna were just so easy to buy up. You know, you had the same owner buy multiple properties. And what I'm struggling with is there's no language in here, to the maker, to identify that it is the same owner, that the contiguous properties are owned by the same individual, hosting or doing this nonconforming use. You know what I'm doing, Director. I'm just trying to take it out for a walk and see if it works where we end up with more concerns, loopholes, and more language to address what we're really trying to capture. MR. KERN: I think part of the question is for us to run through it, and part of it is to the maker of the amendment on what that intention was. So, I don't want to, you know, I want to stay within my lane on running that through. I didn't make the amendment so it's hard for me to speak to those particulars. But what I don't know is how many of these situations we have on how many, right? Because the one parcel with the adjacent, that's one thing. Are there many that have four, five, or six of these and basically a miniature inn. I don't know. Because this isn't regulated, we really won't know until this comes in. So that, again, kind of shooting in the dark on that one. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. Thank you. You know, to the maker, just that's my style. You know I tend to walk these things out just to test it. You know, I'm just trying to get to a place where we have something where people can begin to evaluate whether it's, you know, for a fiscal impact statement or just for more public input. Maybe to the maker, if there's ways, I hear you saying, you know, you're looking for feedback, specifically on this 200 feet. Those are my thoughts. I think clarity around whether it's from the physical building site by definition or from the property line would be helpful, but also maybe some assurances that it is the same owner would help too. Those are my thoughts. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. Page 9 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I also kind of flagged the same points that Council Member Lee Loy just raised about, you know, the interpretation of this particular amendment for nonconforming use could be any adjacent site. You didn't actually have to own it. So, I think the clarification around if you are operating in this way, and I have a number of constituents that have reached out. It's a nonconforming use that we want to recognize in our Code just ensuring that their primary residence and this adjacent parcel, owned by the same person. That prevents, I think, some abuses in the system. And, you know, I'm thinking about something that Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder mentioned about how there could be potential loopholes where you're looking at lots on either side of the primary residence. You could just limit it to one. You could just limit it to one. Really appreciate you bringing this forward to resolve some concerns that my constituents raised. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada then Council Member Villegas. MS. KAGIWADA: Thanks. Just a real quick thing, more for the public. But I think when talking about it before we were talking about hosted but clarifying that we're talking about owner -hosted here, not just any hosted. We're not talking about operator -hosted, just owner -hosted. And my understanding is that these adjacent properties meeting this criteria would also then be considered owner - hosted, so I just want to clarify that. And I see that the maker is nodding. So, thank you. That's all I needed. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. I just have a quick question about Section 1(a)(2). Pursuant to Section 205-4.5, Hawai`i Revised Statues (HRS), the transient accommodation rentals shall not be permitted in an additional farm dwelling, and I wondered if you could help clarify how this relates to ag properties? Because I think we're still waiting for the final determination from the state on ag. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas, I'm going to ask if the Planning Department can answer that question for us. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. MR. KERN: Thanks for the question. That would be relating to the state land use agriculture component within that section, which there is the one that specifies the need for additional farm dwellings. If you're doing additional dwellings on there, on state land use ag and we don't have any response back from the appeal as of now, the lawsuit that you're referring to. Page 10 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So, we're going ahead and making a statement for our County before we get a ruling from them. Is that kind of what this is? MR. KERN: I think it's a different conversation. So, what's before the judge is really around the June 41h , 1976, conversation. Prior to that it was looked at as the first dwelling was a residence and after that the first dwelling a first farm dwelling. So, that conversation is really around the nonconforming use allowability in the first farm dwelling, which is going to be your typical dwelling that's built in most places like even Paradise Park, et cetera. The additional farm dwelling is really a separate agreement. It's a separate application that they actually have to show and prove that they have a certain amount of farming activity and that additional, and that's the key word, "additional" farm dwelling is actually used by somebody engaged in farming activities on the property. So, this just clarifies that portion of the additional farm dwelling. It doesn't contemplate what the other conversation is, which is really around the first farm dwelling. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So, quick question just to walk it out with an example as Council Member Lee Loy. Let's say somebody buys a coffee estate and the coffee estate, we've had numbers of conversations in Council with people who've bought coffee estates and then come to us for nonconforming, wanting to do weddings, or whatnot. And their plea is we can't make a living farming coffee, to which my response was, no kidding. That's why members of Council at the time who were coffee farmers, had coffee land, also had other jobs. But in this example, there are four farm dwellings on the property. Can they be rented out at four individual TARs? MR. KERN: So in that case, we're going to assume that the parcel was created after June 4, 1976. The first dwelling would be a first farm dwelling and the next three would be additional farm dwellings. Those three additional farm dwellings would not be allowed to be used in any form of transient accommodation rental. The first one, if it was owner -hosted, could be utilized as the way that this bill contemplates. The extra ones would not. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So, it provides for the opportunity for one TAR on the property but the three would need to be used authentically as farm dwellings, which the intention was for people working in agriculture to have a place to live on the property that they were helping to farm, essentially. MR. KERN: That's correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Appreciate it. I yield. Page 11. 'O!_ UM11 September 3, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. Thanks to everyone for the feedback. And, yes, that is mentioned by a couple of you, a glaring error that it is not specifically clear that it owned by the same person, which is the intention. So, what I will do just to keep this clean is withdraw this at this time but bring it back again with that additional clarity. But I appreciate the discussion on it. I did want to ask, since I will be revising this, if I can just get briefly some feedback on whether or not in general the body would like to see a limit on the number of adjacent that would be allowed. A limit to one or whatever, so I can bring back a complete amendment. I did also want to just highlight that in cases other than Lava Zone 1 and 2, where you have this insurance issue, the proper course of action would be to consolidate the two lots so that they're on the same building site. But because of this inability to get both commercial and residential under the state funded insurance program. That's why we have to look at this for that area in particular. So, Chair, with your allowance, just if I can get some quick feedback on whether or not folks want to see that limitation? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: I think that that's a wise way to go. Yeah. The intention of Bill 108, brought forth, was to limit our short term vacation rentals and the proliferation around the island. So, while there's a good and healthy balance, the intention, I think, of this legislation is still to ensure that we have limits. And so, I think one is wise. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: I'm wondering if you have for instance a duplex or something like that that is adjoining property that you own, had that been discussed at all as far as limiting the number? Because, yeah, it would be interesting to know if we have that situation, I guess, and if that would cause significant problems for people who have already been utilizing it in this way. So, I'm just going to throw that question out there. I do, in general, think limiting it is a good idea. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any other suggestions, comments? Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: And no offense to the maker. I'll just always try and break things, right. And so, to your point, what prohibits a property owner from doing a parcel consolidation, re -subdivision to consolidate three lots and then have more adjacent lots to do more rentals. So, I'm just on the fence here. Maybe I just kind of want to walk it out with the director and the deputy director about other tools Page 12 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 that's available within Chapter 25. And to the point, right, this was definitely an opportunity to register. Like we've got to figure out where we're at. So, to the point, I think I'll just go with the wield of the body, but I might have a separate conversation with you after. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and then Council Member Evans. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Director, owner -hosted lives on property A, property B next door is within 200 feet of the residence, you can have your TAR. The ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) question is tingling in me because we've allowed ADU's now. So, if property B is two homes, an ADU and a regular home, the first part is rented out long term and the back on is a TAR, is that allowable? Because now, in the reading of this bill, it says that you can only have one transient accommodation rental. It doesn't mean you couldn't have one long term rental and one transient accommodation rental behind it but within 200 feet. ACTING CHR. INABA: Excuse me. Thank you. MR. KERN: I believe that that condition could exist. Yeah. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Just in terms of potential writing a bill, I think it would be possible maybe to put some language in terms of with exceptions for Zone 1 and 2, we would apply it this way, I think we would allow that. So, we keep talking about trying to deal with the impact on the insurance and there might be a way to do some language that would really address this Zone 1 or 2 problem. Just a thought to share. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Any other suggestions, feedback? Deputy Director Darrow. MR. DARROW: Thank you, Chair. We did request some clarification on this matter as well as another. So, with the situation of the rental on the adjoining parcel, we just want to make sure that we're clear that if you have a primary residence on one parcel and that owner host is going to operate TARs or has been on adjoining parcels, he himself still has the ability to operate a TAR on his property. Okay. So, that's one clarification. The other is on the first section of this proposed amendment, (Section) 16.1. This was brought up as staff was reviewing this. It might just be a wording matter but Page 13 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 in Number (a)(1), it says, the transient accommodation rental shall be located in a single family dwelling inclusive of a detached bedroom, `ohana dwelling, additional dwelling unit or guest house, provided that no more than one transient accommodation rental be permitted on the building site. The way that they were saying and it's the way it's laid out in this is that the possibility you could use portions of each of those dwellings as part of the TAR. So, a suggestion would be to keep it, the transient accommodation rental shall be located in a single-family dwelling inclusive of a detached bedroom and or guest house provided that no more than one transient accommodation rental may be permitted on a building site in a single-family dwelling, `ohana dwelling, or additional dwelling unit. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Did you have a comment before I withdraw it? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yeah. I have a comment. So, I'm not maybe so concerned about the number of units. I don't know that there are going to be that many properties that have a unit within 200 feet. That being said, the 200 feet thing, I think maybe —what is the intention of the 200 feet; is it that the owner - host can see the other unit or that they can respond or be subject to what's going on there. I'd like to understand what the intention of that is. MS. KIMBALL: So, the intention was to sort of keep that hosted element, right? And part of it is that responsiveness to be able to monitor what's going on onsite, as well as, you know, the things that you've heard from other folks about how being the host, they're providing this experience, they're providing this interaction with folks that are actual residents. The thought was that if there were scenarios where you had, you know, two five -acre parcels and one was located way over here and one was completely on the other side of the other one, I mean, can you really call that hosted? And we're starting to get away from that concept. So, that's why there was a proposal that there be some sort of distance relationship between the dwelling so that it could really meet the expectation of what a hosted rental would be. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. With that then, I think I would support, you know, up to a quarter mile. I mean, 200 feet just —I know you pulled it out of thin air, but a quarter mile, I think, is still reasonably close where you can have that sense of owner -hosted for a contiguous lot. So, however you bring that back to us, appreciate the discussion. Council Member Kimball. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 121, to Amend: Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 675.466. Page 14 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, Draft 3, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.467. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. So, this was an amendment that was requested by the department to clarify that the process of providing a registration through this process does not constitute, you know, the permitting of a building or override of CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) or any of those things. There were some concerns in the testimony, for example, the HOAs (Homeowners Association) that have CC&Rs that prohibited TAR would be overwritten by this code and that is not the case. So, this just makes it crystal clear that this registration process does not constitute any kind of permit or creates any privileges or rights beyond the registration process. The Billing Code still applies; the Fire Code still applies; the ADU, CC&Rs still apply. It is just a very limited scope provided. So, it shouldn't be necessary to say what it is and so I'm putting that in there with this amendment. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any discussion on the amendment? Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah. I'm just curious, you know how we're passing legislation that I know we're headed towards trying to lower our risk. I don't know how this idea came about. Did the Risk Management folks come to you and say —because I mean we register a lot of stuff, right? Cars. I mean, there's a lot of stuff we register. I'm just kind of curious, you know, why we're getting into this language because this might apply across the board if we're trying to kind of lower risks. So, can you tell us how this came about? MR. KERN: I believe that having some language like this will just make it clear for staff. Well, we've gotten into a lot of challenges in the past around CC&Rs. And does the law override that; who's jurisdiction is it; where do we get involved in that? So, we don't enforce CC&Rs but they still exist. And I think this is just clarity that, well, you've got your STVR (Short Term Vacation Rental) and we're trying to make it as simple as we can. You're still responsible for complying with all of their laws. I think it's just a good clause to have in there in general. MS. EVANS: Okay. I'm just thinking it starts setting precedence. I mean, the CC&Rs we all know, you know, when you buy and that's what you buy into, that's what you have to live by. MR. KERN: Except it's not that simple when you get into the interworking's of who enforces the CC&Rs. You have somebody registering for a property to do this, the department doesn't enforce those CC&Rs. We've gotten into engagements where somebody felt like we were supposed to. Our legal counsel said it's not the department's role to enforce private convenances' and so Page 15 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 therefore, it was between the landowner and, you know, the board or the association to work through those issues. And we just look at it from a land use perspective, similar to how we have in our change of zone applications and special permits. The applicants responsible to comply with all other applicable laws. MS. EVANS: Chair, with your latitude, I'd like to ask Corporation Counsel a question on this? ACTING CHR. INABA: Please go ahead. Corporation Counsel. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good morning. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. MS. EVANS: Good morning. Thank you. You know, I really heard what the Planning Director said about sometimes, you know, people want clarity of how CC&Rs fit in when we do things like what we're talking about today, which is registering your rental. Should we, instead of putting it inside this particular chapter; should we maybe put it somewhere else in our County Code that when it comes to CC&Rs that, I don't know, some language of, you know, where basically you have to comply with CC&Rs and none of this stuff that we pass will in any way affect your obligations to follow CC&Rs. I'm just trying to figure out why we're carving it out right now and putting it here; that maybe it's a bigger question that needs to be put somewhere in our Code. MS. STRANCE: As a general statement, I'm not sure how much County law should be directing what should or should not be in CC&Rs. Those are private covenants and restrictions. And so, the obligation of owners within a community association are to enact CC&Rs that would not violate County law. And so, I don't think it would be particularly helpful to start listing specific laws that have to be in CC&Rs because you run the risk of someone coming back and saying, well, we followed these that you listed but not others. MS. EVANS: Have you seen this language? MS. STRANGE: I haven't looked at it closely. MS. EVANS: I'm just curious if we should have a blanket statement somewhere in our Code about this versus putting this inside (Section) 25-4-16.7. MS. KIMBALL: Chair, may I make a comment because I think we're just heading slightly off topic of the amendment? Page 16 September 3, 2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Sure. MS. KIMBALL: Just for your definition, Judge Strance and Council Member Evans, I gave CC&Rs as an example. But this is not specifically directed to CC&Rs. There had been language in Bill 108 with respect to CC&Rs that we opted to take out because we kind of agreed with you that it doesn't need to be in there. Laws are laws and they all apply. But one of the things that I understand was happening at the Planning Department was folks were saying, "Well, if I get this registration, I can just build a bunch of unpermitted structures and make them TARs." Well, Building Code still applies as another example; CC&Rs still apply. So, the intent of this amendment is to provide clarity to the public that regardless of whether or not they get a registration, all the other laws apply. Now, we shouldn't need to say that, but that's really just the only intent here is to say, just because we give you a registration, it doesn't mean that you're straight legal. MS. EVANS: I guess I don't believe we need to put it in Code. I think, you know, if people have a hard time understanding law, you know, we can possibly —part of the registration process, maybe put a little asterisk and say, in no ways does this have any influence on your CC&Rs. I don't know. I just don't see putting it in law like this. Just going down the slippery slope of, you know, do we start putting it everywhere else because people somehow think that this law is changing CC&Rs or overlaying CC&Rs. I wouldn't want to get into that interpretation. So, it's just my recommendation. That's why I said do we need to put it? If we did, I would put it somewhere else in Code, kind of a statement about none of our Code really influences the CC&R because when you buy, you sign up for the CC&R and that's a whole different. I mean, the code on CC&Rs, there's a lot of code on that in state law. Anyway, that's just my thought. MS. STRANCE: My I respond, please? MS. EVANS: Yeah, please. MS. STRANCE: The provision that you referenced doesn't have a specific reference to CC&Rs. The question about does it have to be there as a matter of law? As a matter of law, it doesn't need to be there. If it's in there for some other policy reason that this body believes is important, then, you know, that would be up to this body. But as a basic matter of law, no CC&R can be in violation of County or State law. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. With that, any further discussion? MS. EVANS: Okay. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Director Kern, briefly. Page 17 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 MR. KERN: Just real quick. I think part of the intention was not to go down the CC&R path. That the intention around it, I believe, was that we're trying to create some latitude around this registration process; trying to make it a little bit more inclusive for folks, and to reiterate that you're still responsible to comply with all the laws, is really the intention in there because we will get pushed on latitude from the department. People will come in and say, "Well, this says X, so I'm going to go there." And then we're going to have to come back and say, "Weil, no, no, no. You still have to comply with all other applicable laws." So, I do think having a statement in there will be very helpful for the planners and the practitioners that will actually be administering this code. Thanks. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Director. Further discussion? Alright. With that, I hear what you're saying, Council Member Evans. Do we put it everywhere in the Code; do we put a blanket statement for what something we already know should be? I think in the case of this specific bill and a lot of the conversation its generated, it will be helpful to have this included, so I'll be in support of this amendment. All those in favor of amending Bill 121, Draft 3, with the contents of Communication 675.467, please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 121, Draft 3, as amended, with to Amend: with the contents of Comm. 675.467 was carried by the (Approved) following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to amend Bill 121, Draft 3, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 675.468. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. This particular amendment is in response to feedback from my colleagues when we adopted the Visitor Destination Area (VDA) framework at our last Committee meeting about wanting to make it clear to the Planning Department that we are going to prioritize areas that currently have high concentrations of transient accommodation rentals when we think about establishing VDA designations. Again, we're just creating the framework. No communities have been offered up. If folks like this language, Page 18 September 3, 2024 we can adopt it today, but if you have feedback on how we can further strengthen it or make that distinction, I'm all ears. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. I just wanted to thank Member Kierkiewicz for this amendment. I think it's a useful sort of piece of purpose language so that the idea is that we consolidate rather than spread vacation rentals throughout communities. So, thank you. I'm in support. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. You know, I appreciate the amendment and the listening. I think just to the Planning Department, this VDA section is already in the bill now, but I have concerns about this for a number of reasons. If I read this sentence, this is from the purpose and the applicability, this designation applies to areas that have high concentrations of transient accommodation rentals, ensuring these operations are consolidated in appropriate locations. My big challenge with this is that just because we have high concentrations of TARs in an area doesn't mean that that's an appropriate location for all those TARs. There's just an issue there that's built in saying that because we have lots then that area should be open to having more or be considered as a special area to have more of them will be okay. And my challenge is if they're not in an area that is resort, if they're not in an area that is designed for that activity, they're probably nonconforming. And to just say we should have more and create an area for them to be okay in is going to create more issues in the community, it creates issues in our infrastructure, and it just creates a proliferation of TARs where they may not be wanted by community or just because they've been there forever. So, I'm just voicing that concern. It's already in the bill. I can understand the reasoning. I can think of communities this applies to immediately. But I just feel like this is going to be problematic. So, I'm just putting that on the record, and I appreciate the amendment. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah. This is an amendment, so I'll just comment, you know, I'll be supportive of amendments that make it better but, Matt said my comments for the underlying concept because I'd like to talk about how this applies with our General Plan and land use designation. So, I'll hold underline. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. Page 19 September 3, 2024 MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. I'd just like to echo my concerns and kind of heartburn when it comes to the statements here. It just feels a little counterintuitive for me. You know, when Bill 108 was brought forward, there are land use areas in which TARS are allowable in resort predominantly, right? And as we navigated our way outside of those zoning areas, then you needed a nonconforming use. So, with the intention of that to once again putting a cap on how many transient accommodation rentals we have on the island and through this legislation, also requiring they become registered so that we know how many we have, and they are required and held accountable to pay equitably. It doesn't make sense to me. This is like reverse designating, then going to places that already have lots and then opening it up. And by lots, I mean have a lot of TARS. And then opening it up for them to have as many more because it's now zoned for that. It also applies to areas without adequate hotels or resorts and in proximity to visitor related establishments or activities such as beaches, golf courses, landmarks. I just feel like our Kama`aina, who can afford and who can still live in these areas are going to be displaced if we open this up again. It just seems counterintuitive to me on why we would open this back up when this would areas —having been at a hotel and resort this weekend and enjoyed it there, I was also very grateful that I don't see a future where there are more resorts on our coastline. We're at capacity. We have plenty. We also have plenty of transient accommodation rentals, which was the intentionality of this original legislation. So, it's counterintuitive to me on why we would create whole new areas. I don't necessarily see the need for that and that's just another pandora's box which doesn't make sense to me. So, I just have concerns with this, and I won't be supporting it at this time. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Yeah. Echoing some of the thoughts of my colleagues. I also feel like this is maybe not the direction we want to go, opening up to a lot more TARs. And feeling like, yeah, if there are a lot of transient accommodations there already, why would we want to ensure that there could be more with less regulation around it. So, I'm not really sure where this amendment is going and I also have, when we get to the original heart of this, would like to discuss more of where that's going. So, thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I'm in support of this, partly because it encourages pathways to where we want to see certain things happen. I think this coupled with the previous amendment that we just passed under (Section) 4-6-7, which basically says, issuance of a transient accommodation rental doesn't —like you still got to comply with all the other stuff. And so, I actually see these two things working together nicely, if we want to encourage it in these respective districts. Page 20 Imagora►z�; September 3, 2024 Okay, but here's some other things that you need to comply with also. Meeting infrastructure; meeting wastewater needs, you know, whatever; those things that help drive economy and bring in the needed services so people are not traveling or providing work in places close to home, whatever that looks like. I like this amendment and specifically as it marries nicely with the previous amendment. So, I'm going to be voting in support of this. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. So, yeah. I think I said last time when we voted on the section that this amends, Volcano Village is really kind of the posterchild for this because it's near a visitor attraction that brings, you know, millions of people go to visit it. But there really isn't hotel accommodations there. I mean, there's a couple but mostly it's very small scale. And I think to actually provide the ability for the community to ask for this resort node would prevent or not encourage the development of an actual resort there. So, it's helping the community get the benefits of the visitor industry which, you know, is more likely in these smaller type accommodations than a full size resort. So, there is different opinions in the Volcano Village about this. Some people are for it and some people are against it. And so, I think there's going to be a healthy discussion when and if a resolution or language comes forward to actually designate Volcano Village. And so, I would think it'll be a forgone conclusion. But I think there is definitely a case for a node to sort of concentrate these kinds of accommodations near the road, near the restaurants rather than sort of letting it spread out throughout the Volcano area. So, that's why I support this. I don't necessarily think that it's, you know, want to have the entire Volcano Village shouldn't become a resort node, but it could be a useful tool to keep the visitor accommodations concentrated so that the folks that want a regular residential experience in Volcano can then have their area and a visitor area can be concentrated in a way that perhaps is closer to ideal. Of course, it won't be ideal. But it would be better than not having it. So that's why, with a little bit of heartburn, I do support this. ACTING CHR. INABA: On the amendment, Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL Yeah, thank you. I appreciate some of the concerns I'm hearing, and I think we can have a deeper discussion about that when we get to the main bill. But what I like about the proposed amendment is that another benefit of this vacation destination area is that the intent is for folks that are operating in these areas already and have a nonconforming use permit, that will no longer be necessary, therefore, relieving some of the burden on the department, which I think was one of the initial impotence's for having this kind of proposal is, okay, we've already got his area with a high concentration of TARs operating on nonconforming use certificates. If we can just draw a box around that and say, Page 21 Wog"�3►�17 September 3, 2024 okay, this is now vacation node, these folks no longer have to do the docs. They have to do everything else, but they don't have to do that. That alleviates some of the administrative burden on the department, which is, I think, another intention or perhaps even one of the initial intentions of this section and I think that is further clarified by this language. So, I'll be supporting the language clarification. Thank you, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Just want to make sure that we're discussing the specific words in the amendment. Council Member Kagiwada, go ahead. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. You tell me, if I want to talk about his issue around the high concentration of transient accommodations, should I wait till? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. I'll wait. Thanks. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any other discussion? I don't see a —I mean, we've already established the framework via another amendment. I do like the language being adding regarding and ensuring that they're consolidated. I think it helps to kind of remind future Councils and administrations what the intention of this designation is. With that, we'll take a roll call vote on the amendment, please. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 121, Draft 3, as amended, with to Amend: with the contents of Comm. 675.468 was carried by the (Approved) following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Inaba — 7. Noes: Committee Members Kagiwada and Villegas — 2. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. So, back to the main motion. There's obviously still some amendments necessary here and there's still some outstanding questions. So, it is my intention to kind of walk through this bill one more time, talk about some of the global issues and then seek to postpone it again so that further work can be done. You know, one of the things that I just want to address is the complexity of this bill. And let first say that once you get to page 17, everything after that is just housekeeping because there's all these little points in the Code where transient accommodation rental is used and that has to be Page 22 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 included. So, that's part of the reason we get so long. But 17 pages in it of itself for the most of the meat of the bill, is lengthy. However, I have a lot of faith in the intelligence of this body to be able to read, interpret, and understand that level of complexity. And, you know, this wasn't a competition to see who could write the longest bill, this was an effort to be as comprehensive as possible, address all of the different permit limitations the permitting department has experienced in terms of folks trying to get around, spin around, some of the regulations. And while it is a lot, I think you can break it down into some really intelligible sections. Just to begin with, you have three different sections —skipping over the definitions. But you have three different sections. So, the intent here is to say, okay look, we're recognizing these three; these are where these three are allowed, you know, owner -hosted, operator -hosted, unhosted, and then there are specific conditions within those because those all present three different scenarios. But basically, if somebody's going to be looking at starting out a transient accommodation rental, the first thing they will do is say what kind am I? Well, if I'm one, I'm going to look at owner -hosted. If I'm number two, I'm operator - hosted; number three, I'm unhosted. And so, while there are lengthy descriptions for each, everybody's going to fall into one of those categories. The next bit of sections all apply to when to register, how to register, the documentation that's necessary. And again, a lot of this language was there to help the staff so that they can be very, very clear about what is expected from folks that are registering, the materials that they are turning in to the process. So, you know, once you look at Sections 4 through 7, you know, that's all about how to register, when to register, what's included. And then you have the statutory language that says, okay, well, what happens if you don't register in time? Okay, this is sort of necessary language in there; what happens if you're denied, the appeals process. Again, there is all of this due process that we are statutorily required to provide. It is extra language but it's basically throughout the Code, like it is not anything new or interesting. Then we talk about the nonconforming use certificates, how those are addressed. Again, just the length of it is tied to just providing that absolute clarity to the staff of what they're looking for when people come in and apply for these nonconforming use certificates. Section 17 is all about the operational standards. Again, one of the objectives of this bill was to make those clear so that they're easy to follow, ensure that they are enforceable by the department. We have tried to be as specific as possible and that's why, you know, it is wordy. Although, we tried to be economical with our language, right? We didn't try to put any extra words in there, but we needed that level of clarification so it's easy for operators to follow, easy for us to enforce. And then we get into all of the language around violations. Again, what you see being reintroduced is the statutorily required language that allows for appeals, for the due process around that. Page 23 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 And then finally we get to the area of the hosting platforms. Again, this was just to clarify so that we can have that relationship with the —I'm sorry. Actually, the vacation destination areas got inserted in there in between. But the Sections 26 and 25 relate to property taxes. Again, this is kind of like that amendment we reintroduced earlier where it's not necessary from the standpoint of this is already included in Chapter 19, but we wanted to give folks, with this bill, a one -stop - shop that says, if I'm starting up with a short-term vacation rental, what are all the impacts, what we see —and if I may have two more minutes? ACTING CHR. INABA: Quickly, please. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. And Administrator Miura testified too before us is folks didn't have an understanding of what impacts there were on their property taxes when they began operating a TAR through their primary residence. So, we folks, okay, let's keep that in the same area of the Code. So again, if people are looking at starting one up, they're looking at one place. Again, vacation destination areas, I'll let Council Member Kierkiewicz speak to that a little bit more. And so, you know, one of the things that I had hoped to do before this meeting is to provide a very succinct outline of what sections of the bill do what. I apologize, I did not have a chance to accomplish that task. But as much as that there appears to be a lot in here; appears to be a lot of complexity, you do see duplication of other areas that are kind of required. And there is a strong intention, just to be very, very crystal clear to the benefit of the staff in the department and people that are applying to start up a transient accommodation rental. A couple of other outstanding things. There were comments about constitutionality, we do not just ignore the constitution. There has been a pretty thorough analysis on this. There is still yet some to be done and so I haven't had the benefit of having one of our Corporation Counsel who is kind of expert on this bill and has been working with us. So, there's still some work that needs to be done there to make sure particularly two things; operator -hosted can be treated distinctly differently from owner -hosted. That still remains a question, it has happened in other jurisdictions, so we are comparing that case law to the case law that was raised in testimony the last go around. The other thing is whether or not the vacation destination areas presents a difference from what was presented to the Planning Commissions significant enough that it needs to actually go back for their assessment, which I think is an important discussion to have. I did want to just conclude by, you know, yes, it's a complex bill but interestingly enough, perhaps ironically, there was a study done by the Maui Transient Accommodation Rental Association that the results indicated that 73 percent of folks out there want to see regulation of short-term vacation rentals and the Page 24 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 closure of illegal rentals in our County and specifically 14 percent of the folks want to see us shut them down entirely. Now, I would argue that the sample size of this particular data said it again, this was provided for the transient accommodation rental agency. Mary, I see you. I'll send you the links, so you know what study I'm talking about. It's provided by SMS (Short Message Service). But what it indicates to me is that there still continues to be, on the part of the constituency across the state, a desire to ensure that short-term vacation rentals are regulated and that illegal operations are discontinued. Whether or not there's an economic study, there is an impact with respect to the economics of our County with relationship to tourism in general. And there were some good datapoints provided in Maui's assessment that they just recently had published. But it is not the only story when it comes to TARs. We are also talking about the quality of life for our residents, and I think that we need to continue to work on and forward with this bill. With that, I will yield, Chair. And again, my intention is postponing it again so we can add further amendments. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. You know, I actually think our bills become less complex over time. I think we had about a year of community engagement and about, let me say, nine months or so of public hearings when you consider going to committee, commission, back here with the Council. And I think Council Member Kimball and I have been incredibly responsive to issues that members of the community have raised and we've actually found ways to achieve a win -win scenario. One testifier said that we had been making too many concessions. I disagree. What we are trying to do is balance a number of priorities where folks are struggling to make it here and need to find ways to support themselves, but also recognizing that we continue to find ourselves in a housing crisis. I just wanted to take a moment to have a conversation about the visitor destination area or VDA designation that is part of this bill. To be very clear, no communities have been identified as a visitor destination area. What we've done is we've created a framework that identifies priorities for what kinds of communities could be eligible for this particular designation. It is not zoning. It is a district overlay. There are not less regulations or no regulations in a VDA. Folks are still transient accommodation rentals and would have to meet all of the requirements that are specified in this section of Code. What we are doing is, I think, responsible and strategic land use planning, recognizing that we don't want more resorts. That's not what we want here in Hawaii Island, but there is a need for more accommodations and a diversity of accommodations. And so, I wanted to give the Planning Department just a moment to, you know, offer up any other comments on, you know, how this VDA designation can be a useful tool when we think about, you know, future land use planning. Page 25 September 3, 2024 MR. KERN: Thank you for the opportunity. You know, going back to Bill 108, what was contemplated at that time was unhosted, but what was talked about that was really going to be put forward was bringing in the hosted conversation as well as bringing in the visitor destination areas or VDAs. And so what I'm seeing is kind of this is that next step a number of years later. So, I think the VDA element of it, I appreciate it because it gives a framework. There's a framework and a process now. It doesn't go and unilaterally just say, hey, you're done. But the community can come forward now and say, hey, we'd like to do this, go through that process and make its way through the process with clear direction and instruction on how to do so. And I think that's the most important thing. If you have clear ability to do it and know how to do it and there's a pathway to do it, at least somebody can have a fair shot. Whether it lands, whether those communities end up having a VDA, we'll see. But at least there's a process for these folks to have a voice and we've been hearing folks coming up wanting to have that voice, wanting to have that ability to do it and so, we're very supportive of the visitor destination areas. Thank you. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. I, too, will be supporting a postponement of this measure. I will also go so far as to say, once we get it into a place where we're more or less happy as a Council, I would support postponement until we get feedback from the economic and fiscal impact study so that we can incorporate any recommendations that have come forward from there. Thank you, Chair. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Okay, couple things. Just on the visitor destination area. I just wanted to mention that I went to a gathering on Reed's Island a few weeks ago and there was probably a dozen residents there from that community and they are very concerned with the number of vacation rentals, short-term vacation rentals, in their neighborhood. So us looking at adding, or potentially targeting neighborhoods that already have a large number of vacation rentals seems to me to be just, I think, one of my colleagues said counterintuitive to what we might want to see. So, in some places, the neighbors already feel there are too many and one of my colleagues said that there's a need for more visitor accommodations on this island and I just was wondering if that's a study or where that's coming from because that's not anything I guess I've seen recently saying that we need more visitor accommodations on this island. And then my overall concern, I brought it up last time we had this discussion is that I really see owner -occupied short-term vacation rentals or transient accommodation rentals as being very different than either operated -hosted. So, owner -hosted as being different than operated -hosted or unhosted. And I would, given who testified and the testimonies to me that were the most kind of compelling around why some of these changes might be hurtful to some of our Page 26 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 actual residents who are trying to make ends meet. I'd really like to see the fees for the owner -hosted rentals reduced substantially. So, the initial registration fee and the annual renewal rates. I understand that based on my experience anyway, the calls that come in tend to not be for these and the oversight and the need for a lot of time by the County to deal with these is much less than either the operator - hosted or the unhosted rentals. So, I really feel like there's a rationalization of why we should reduce these because I think less time is needed for them. Of course, if they need a nonconforming use certificate, they should still pay that amount. But I'd like to see those rates reduced substantially and maybe even as low as was mentioned earlier as $50, initial registration; and $10 renewal, or those people doing owner -operated. So, that's my biggest concern with this bill. I want to see that difference reflected in the fees as far as how those will be treated by our — But I guess my very last point would be I really feel like we should go ahead with doing this portion, which does not have to do with changing tax rates and anything like that. I think doing the study is really important before we decide on what tax rates may be for these different ones. But as far as starting to get people registered, I think we can go ahead with that before because we know we need to do that regardless. And then adjustments to amounts or tax rates or anything like that could be looked at once we've got that economic study. So, those are my thoughts. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. If we can wrap up this conversation. Briefly, Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you, Chair. Curious. There's some comments about making it clear for staff. So, do you do rule making; do you do administrative rules; and would a lot of this be more through the administrative rule process? MR. KERN: We do, do administrative rules. So far what we've seen in the legislation we support to be in the legislation and not in the rules. MS. EVANS: Okay. Because it's just the language just keeps expanding and I'm hoping we're not putting stuff in there that could go through the administrative rule process that could get vetted that way, because we can get a little into the nitty gritty detail and throw it in legislation. MR. KERN: Yeah. So, Rule 23 is what's currently governs short-term vacation rentals through the process. And again, I'm supportive of the way this is laid out with the detail that is in here. I think it's actually helpful in this case. MS. EVANS: Now, the other thing is, this land use designation. We're going through the General Plan, we're letting everybody in the community know what our vision is, you know, and now we're adding this new land use designation. So, Page 27 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 I feel the timing of it is off. It's just my gut instinct. Sorry. It could be a really good idea, but I don't think it should be buried in this bill. I think it should live organically in its own bill and have that discussion in the bigger, and yes, go back to the Planning Commission if we're —again, it says, land use designation. So, I need a little more clarity why you wouldn't want to see that in the General Plan. MR. KERN: So, thanks for the question. You know, we've considered this in reviewing the General Plan, but really felt like at this point it needs to be more community driven. And just to do an overlay in an area saying, voila, this is a short-term vacation rental area now, didn't seem like the right process. Teeing up a process where the community could come out, and I think we'll see different responses from different communities. Some very much supportive, some not necessarily supportive, and I've heard those two conversations. So, I think allowing this to organically happen through the community to actually have the Council hear that community and their thoughts was a better, more direct, process for this particular conversation. MS. EVANS: I would like to see it as a separate bill so that the community who is very concerned about tourism capacity on our island and as a matter of fact, the Hawaii Tourism Authority (HTA) definitely went through a major shift because they created the visitor destination study and plans and there's visitor's bureau, there's a lot of discussion about what we really want for visitors here. So, I see it as, yes, it could maybe be organically and not in the General Plan, but I think, you know, we need a bigger engagement, I think, with the community instead of having it inside a short-term vacation rental bill. That's where I would like to see it land, is in its own bill. Anyway, just to the author. Like I see the wisdom in the idea, but I just don't like seeing it inside the short-term vacation rental bill. And my final comment goes back to some of our testifiers. You know, a lot of times when you write bills on big topics like this, it's really nice to do it more in maybe you get 60 or 70 percent of what you want this time around, and then the next time you get the next 30 percent. But trying to get all things at all one time in one bill ends up creating a huge bill, which a lot of people it really is, to try to wrap your head around all the amendments and how that affects people individually, it takes a bit, I think, to digest it. And I personally think it's growing to a size; I wish it would be maybe two or three bills instead of this one bill that keeps growing. But, just an editorial comment. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Any other discussion on the main bill as amended? Council Member Lee Loy then Council Member Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. And I'll keep it brief. Absolutely in support of postponing. Absolutely in support of waiting for the fiscal impact analysis or report. I think what's really nice about legislation is when legislation Page 28 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 provides opportunities. And opportunities provide economic opportunities, and that's why I'm, right now, in support of where we're at. To my colleagues, about the framework or a visitor destination for short-term vacation rentals. Most recently, we saw a lot of activity during our world sprints, and so we did see a spill over, right, into our transient accommodation areas. It's because we don't have hotel accommodations right here in Hilo. But that's being driven by the state. Something I hope to tackle in a few months here. But unless we have those hotel units available, there's no place else for this vacationers to be absorbed into. And what this bill does, it does that. And that visitor destination framework, make sure that we even geofence where this absorption can happen. I look at Hilo, in it of itself, we have signature events. We just had world sprints; we have Merrie Monarch. I'm a big fan or Downtown Ho`olaule`a. These are things that attract people to come during specific weeks. Haili Volleyball Tournament being another. But they're not sustained over big volumes of time. And so, those peak and valleys that we see, this bill helps address until we can figure out what we're doing with the state and our resort area, specifically Downtown and Banyan Drive. I am in support of this bill and the frameworks around the visitor destination. Could it be housed in another area of the Code? Absolutely. But unless we create bookends to some of this work, it's just going to keep spilling over. So, I'm happy that the authors kind of took that approach where we can at least provide some guardrails, and maybe in some future legislation look at the visitor destination and industry as a whole and using our destination maps as another guide. But that's not what we have here. In support. Willing to postpone. But the bigger ask, for me, is getting to that fiscal impact analysis. So, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Director, you have the visitor destination area section open in front of you? MR. KERN: I have what's in Draft 3, and Deputy has the amendment. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Minus the amendment, just looking at general provisions, Number 3, when say that Sections 25-4-16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 shall not apply to transient accommodation rentals within a visitor destination, then what applies to those rentals? MR. KERN: Jeff's looking at the particular sections, but my understanding was these would be turned into basically unhosted transient accommodation rental. So, it would then move from a hosted, or owner -hosted, or a nonconforming use certificate to just an unhosted transient accommodation rental if a VDA were to be established and those properties fell in that area. Jeff, is that accurate to those? Page 29 WOURi1�3►�i7 September 3, 2024 MR. KERN: Okay. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I kind of look at Section 24-16.1, 2, and 3, as being how we define and how we qualify and how we look at transient accommodation rentals. I understand your response, but I'm just trying to figure out then what requirements are set upon TARs in a visitor destination are if we remove all three sections that guide TARs. So, unless I'm misreading something or I'm missing something. MR. KERN: So, I'd probably get the maker involved in this too. I think we might delete 16.3 then, because 16.3 would be the unhosted portion of that. That's right because what we're saying is these fees won't — MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Except for those, nothing is applied. MR. KERN: Except for those. So, 16.1 is the owner -hosted, 16.2 is the operator - hosted, and then 16.3 would be the unhosted. So, I would think that 16.3, that would need to be amended because you would be paying those fees towards 16.3 because that would come under that grouping. But maybe the unhosted section of that, maybe Council Member Kierkiewicz, if you could opine on that section as well. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. You know, our intention of that particular section was to make it clear that within this area, folks would not have to apply for a nonconforming use certificate. There have been changes to the numbering of these sections, so there could've been an inadvertent inclusion of an area. I'm looking at my Mr. Clerk here, Jacob Perry, because he did help us in drafting this section, so if there are areas that we need to clean up so everything syncs, we can do that. MR. KERN: Right. And that was my original statement, that it doesn't take out the NUC, it's not dealing with the hosted or the operator hosted. It would just fall underneath an unhosted transient accommodation rental and then that fee would be paid there. So, then reconciling those numbers based on the newly amendments I think would be a good idea. ACTING CHR. INABA: Yeah, Council Member Kaneaii`i-Kleinfelder, I'm understanding your question and concern. I believe the other sections regarding the good neighbor standards and registration itself all still apply. Those are in sections other than 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3. Page 30 September 3, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I agree with all of your statements. There is an issue if we remove every single requirement in the three sections that define what a TAR can be, whether hosted, unhosted, or operator hosted. And we remove all of those requirements and say, anything goes in a VDA, and that's how I read this. That's how I read it last time. And these sections have not changed, and yet we pass this law and there's no requirements in the way that it's written. And that is problematic to say the least. MR. KERN: We'll take another look at it. I mean, that's certainly not the intention. The intention, if you do a VDA and that area fits underneath it, then they would basically become unhosted transient accommodation rentals and follow that bucket of opportunities and restrictions. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Understood. Thank you for looking that over with me. And then, Number 2, although framed as something that would benefit the people of Hawaii Island, having a principle residence within the County does not make you a local. It makes you a homeowner in Hawaii that owns a home. So, I want to be careful the way we address terms and terminology providing benefit to our residents and local residents in differing senses. I had challenges with this being adopted into this bill. I continue to have challenges with this section and I'm making it clear regardless of the purpose and applicability amendment that was provided this morning. My last question for the Planning Department, I can see in the last sections that were considered housing keeping that we have added in the ability for TARS to be included in agricultural zoning, is that correct? Specifically, owner -hosted TARs because of the language that we've restructured. MR. KERN: That's correct. At the County zoning ag. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. My follow up question in this aspect then is, in a state land use ag area where we create a VDA, are we overstepping state law and saying that we will allow TARs to continue to proliferate in those areas? Because I don't feel like we have the ability to. But that's where we're going to be landing these VDAs from my viewpoint, areas like, Hawaiian Beaches, Paradise Park, Volcano, different areas around the island that may not be allowable at state law levels. And that is my question to the Planning Department. County zoning, okay, understood, we've added it in. For owner - hosted, for a lot of areas that I represent, but where state land use does not allow for TARs, are we creating that allowance through the visitor destination area? MR. KERN: So, the VDA wouldn't override or conclude the conversation that's currently at the supreme court. It would go back to how Bill 108 was crafted and adopted that if it was post June 4`h, 1976, pre- June 1976, then I believe VDA could do an overlay and that would be looked at. If it was post June 4`h, 1976, as Page 31. PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 it currently sits right now, that would probably not be resonating. We have to see what the supreme court says around that conversation because that's the conversation that's in front of them. Is it possible to restrict STVRs on state land use ag post June 4th, 1976. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then by adding in TARs, owner - hosted to our different County zonings like agricultural where they overlay on state land use ag, have we overstepped our abilities as a County? MR. KERN: Our view and what we've heard is no, that we're consistent with what we can do there. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Okay. That was very helpful. Thank you. MR. KERN: You're welcome. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Council Member Kimball, wrap it up please. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. Thank you. I wanted to very briefly comment on the fees, and I appreciate and hear Council Member Kagiwada's concern. However, just to couch this and sort of relative to other counties, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, City and County of Honolulu registration is $10,000, Maui, I believe registration is $5,000. So, even here, looking at the fees, we are very well within sort of the boundaries. Now, given these were always placeholders, so I'm willing to consider other options. The other thing I want to just mention, it was referred to in the presentations of testimony. You know, this is roughly a $1.3 billion, $1.4 billion industry in the County. On average, the nightly rate on transient accommodation rental, granted these are all kind, so take it with a grain of salt, $350 a night. On average, there's a two-thirds occupancy, a 66 percent occupancy rate, which means on average $7,000 a month would be made by these. So, if I look at what fees are appropriate, I think we need to couch that, keep that in mind. And again, these are numbers that I'm not just pulling out of thin air, these are numbers available in the Maui economic study that was intended to look at the Minatoya list, but actually does cover some of the information with respect to Hawaii County as well. So, I encourage everyone to look at it. Finally, just because Council Member Viliegas and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder brought it up is that, you know, when we talk about state land use ag, the prohibition there that comes from the HRS is the use of additional farm dwellings specifically as transient accommodations, which is prohibited. When folks get the permit Page 32 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 through Planning Department to build an additional farm dwelling, there is at that time an agreement that says, you cannot use this for anything other than folks related to agricultural work. So, even if a VDA were placed over an area that is state land use ag, the HRS would still prohibit certain dwellings on that side if they were permitted as additional farm dwellings from being used as TARs because that law supersedes our County ordinance. With that, Chair, I'd like to make a motion to postpone Bill 121, Draft 3, as further amended to the October 1" Committee meeting. Vote on Motion Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 121, Draft 3, as to Postpone: amended to Draft 4, to October 1, 2024. Seconded by (Approved) Ms. Villegas and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: We're going to take a quick ten minute recess. We'll be back at 11:30 a.m. Recess: At 11:20 a.m., the Acting Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:31 a.m. ACTING CHR. INABA: Calling this meeting back to order, 11:31 (a.m.) We are heading into Bill 122. Is there any testimony? Bill 122: AMENDS CHAPTER 25 AND CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 14-20, (Draft 2) OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE REPEAL OF BED AND BREAKFAST AS A PERMITTED USE Repeals all provisions that allow for Bed and Breakfast establishments. Reference: Comm. 676.13 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Kierkiewicz Referred to Planning Commissions: January 30, 2024 Postponed: July 8 and August 20, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Galimba, to recommend passage of Bill 122, Draft 2, on first reading.) Page 33 PCPLUD-20 Motion to Postpone Vote on Motion to Postpone: (Approved) Relinquish Chair September 3, 2024 Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 122, Draft 2, to October 1, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any discussion on postponement? Alright. If not, I'll just make a comment. As I did previously, I don't support the —I'd rather not postpone, but I will vote in favor so we can continue discussion, but not in favor of ending this. With that, on postponement, Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Loosely. Just because it was testified on today, I do want to reiterate that Bill 122 does not take away people who have permits for bed and breakfast already, because that was raised by a couple testifiers. Those are rights granted to the property owners that this does not take away. But I encourage everybody to push this off so that it partners with Bill 121. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. All those in favor of postponing Bill 122 to the October I't Committee meetings, please say "aye." The motion to postpone Bill 122, Draft 2, to October 1, 2024, was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Kagiwada, Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Evans and Galimba — 2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: It's 11:34 a.m., passing the Chair back to Chair Kierkiewicz. At this time, Acting Chair Inaba relinquished the chair to Chair Kierkiewicz. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Vice Chair. Mr. Clerk, if we would please move on to the next order of business. Page 34 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 Bill 134: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 25-2-42 OF THE HAWAI`I (Draft 2) COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO AMENDMENTS INITIATED BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND OTHER PERSONS Adds a provision requiring the Planning Director to submit a subject area building entitlement report to the applicable planning commission and the County Council for each change of zoning district application. The report would identify permits, approvals, or other lawful entitlements allowing for the construction of a building or buildings on any parcel of land within a quarter -mile radius of the parcel for which the change of zoning district is sought. Reference: Intr. by: Postponed: Referred to Planning Commissions: Comm. 741.4 Mr. Inaba and Ms. Evans March 5, 2024 April 2, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Evans, to recommend passage of Bill 1.34, Draft 2, on first reading.) ;and Comm. 741.5: From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated July 26, 2024, transmitting for Council's consideration and action, letters from the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. ; and Comm. 741.6: From Council Members Holeka Goro Inaba and Cindy Evans, dated August 19, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. m.Imm1:1 a m1ang "rmgmt! I MR. INABA: Thank you. We did reach out to Planning and some of the staff who oversees and works significantly with this section of the Code was out. And so, we do have a round of conferences coming up and we'll have a lot of discussion and an amendment for us to take up at the October 1st Committee meeting. So, with that, I request to postpone Bill 134 to our October 1st Committee meeting. Page 35 PCPLUD-20 Vote on Motion Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 134, Draft 2, to to Postpone: October 1, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Villegas and carried (Approved) by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Kagiwada, Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Evans and Galimba — 2. Excused: None. September 3, 2024 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, final item on the agenda, Bill 181. Bill 181: AMENDS CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 1, OF THE HAWAPI 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 Postponed: July 23, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Villegas, to recommend passage of Bill 181 on first reading.) (Note: Comm. 939.3, from Council Members Heather L. Kimball and Holeka Goro Inaba, dated September 3, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 181, was circulated) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. We do have an amendment that Council Member Kimball and I worked on together. But I'll let her introduce it. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 181 with the contents of Comm. 939.3. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. First, I just want to start by thanking Vice Chair Inaba for proposing this legislation in the first place. It is extremely important, I think, to have the process for the General Plan adoption in the Code Page 36 September 3, 2024 and not buried in the ordinance which is the General Plan. I also want to reiterate that in my perspective, this is something that is not standardized because we have not done it often. So, I think there are a lot of opportunity for us to really identify a clear process that will be used again and again as we move forward. But with that in mind, we have to be very mindful about what we force upon our future Council Members. So, just some key points about this amendment as it's drafted. First of all, one of the things that I think became a point of confusion was the fact that we are going through what is called a General Plan amendment right now, and yet if you look at the new General Plan, proposed General Plan, versus the old General Plan, it's not an amendment as we're typically used to seeing an amendment. It's an update. And so, this amendment first contemplates changing the nomenclature to say, okay, every decade we are going to have a General Plan update. And I use that terminology based on the Webster's definition that we have new information and we're going to formulate a new document, and I think that is more true to what we have historically seen of the process, and I think it also represents what we expect. We expect these things to be different using new templates and new information. So, that is one main difference. The other main component that I think is really important and critical to discussion is the amendment process that it proposes, which now suggests that there is both the opportunity for the Council and the Planning Commissions to propose substantive amendments to the General Plan. But that there is a process that includes, for at least the Council's sake, a resolution where we would propose all of those amendments that then gets kicked back to the Planning Commission, which I think is more in line with what the Charter proposes as far as the oversight for the Planning Commissions on the General Plan and the General Plan adoption. I want to just highlight the Section 10, here, (10)(C), which defines a substantive amendment. I think this is important in terms of really kind of understanding the distinction between an amendment that is just clerical and editorial in nature versus something that really constitutes something that needs to have the public oversight and public input before it is included, which is what the return to the Planning Commission allows. I think that this amendment is a good start and there may be some things that we want to continue to negotiate and improve upon, particularly, the timeframes for which things are turned around. But I look forward to everybody's thoughts on the revisions to the process. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Yes. Again, just to recap what this amendment does without overstepping or having the Council take completely different directions from the draft that was intended to be created with and by community, and have Page 37 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 been reviewed by the commissions, this gives us a chance to make amendments to the draft or create these amendments, send them back through the process and be able to adopt them without having to adopt the General Plan that may be flawed of that the Council can't get fully behind. So, this what this amendment does, it creates a new process that will allow us to get our General Plan right when we do pass it. So, I ask for your support and we're happy to take any questions. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Planning Director, Deputy, please come forward. Have you received a copy of the proposed amendments? Great. We would appreciate your insights. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern and Planning Deputy Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Thank you for the opportunity. I did receive the amendments. I have not had the opportunity to get into them. Jeff, on the other hand, has had the opportunity to look into it a little bit more. So, Jeff. MR. DARROW: Thank you for the opportunity. We received Bill 181 in its first draft. We did review it. There appeared to be just three minor changes within Bill 181 comparably to Chapter 16, and that was the addition to Section 16-1-10 and then 16.2(F) and 16.3(F), I believe. The new proposed changes to Bill 181 we received just recently and not only myself and staff, several staff members have been looking at it. But I understand also, Corporation Counsel has been taking a look at it as well. I think we definitely need more time to go through it. It's very detailed as far as everything that's going on within there. I don't know if Council Member Kimball had received some of our comments. Okay. So, we have been actively trying to work on those even in the short time. But definitely I think that we're moving in the right direction as far as really identifying in particular the process as well as identifying what a substantive change is, and identifying what to do when those come up. It's very helpful. know it's been always a question whenever that comes up, even in Council meetings, when is something considered substantive. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Deputy. Judge Strance, would you like to weigh in at this point please, on what's being proposed here? Thank you. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel. Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 38 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 MS. STRANCE: Good afternoon. Elizabeth Strance. Corporation Counsel. I have been reviewing proposed drafts as well as really trying to understand the legislative history of the General Plan and General Plan amendment process since the enactment of the County Charter to help provide a better context for the language of amendment. And fortunately, it's been pretty painstaking, and we're not quite done yet, but it seems like there's some momentum moving forward in terms of a process that everybody can live with. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Judge Strance. Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Strance. To the department, do our Action Committees island wide take part or provide comment to your department? Because I really do find them to be good people from the community who are kind of working in different areas but having different perspectives and wanted to make sure or see if there's an ability for them to provide comment into the Plan as it's being created, the same way we incorporate Council and public. They're like a leg of you folks but I wanted to see how they fit in. MR. KERN: Yeah. So, during the General Plan review process, we take it out to the Action Committees, stakeholder groups, the communities, very broad across the board. So, the Action Committees are a part of that process, yes. MR. KANEALI`1-KLEINFELDER: Okay. To the makers then, just a thought. As we look to really provide a detailed standard of how we complete and work within this update, which I really like what you guys have done here, to incorporate the bodies that work in parallel with us and community, maybe even more so with the community than we do in some cases and incorporate those ideas and their concepts into this plan. And I like that you have really directed how it lays out and how it works, who provides what. But just putting out the idea that the Action Committees could be useful as far as being requested to provide their comments in a certain amount of time as well. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. I'm just going to walk it out. I think the timing as far as 13 years and the 15 years, I like that, but I'm always going to lean in on there needs to be a commitment of resources for the General Plan update to happen. Whether it's towards the department, you now, towards a contract for services, or just development within the —what am I trying to say, the Action Committee Members. If there was a way, and I don't know, maybe I'll have this conversation offline with Judge Strance, is that there's first and foremost, a commitment of resources to get it done, right, and in alignment to whatever proposed or initiated amendment is being forwarded. Because if it's substantive, Page 39 September 3, 2024 you know, the amount of resources needed to happen that need to evaluate that adjustment would require, you know, something done through the budget process. But if it's just adjusting in the minimalist ways, sure. I think the timeline works. I think there needs to be some clarity around that. I don't know how to address it right yet, because I'm reading it now. But I'm just trying to walk it out, right. There always been, and just having a little bit of history behind the General Plan update, there was always this idea where the General Plan update would then filter down into our Community Development Plans (CDP) and ironically there would be kind of an adjustment where our Community Development Plans would get a little bigger and our General Plan would get a little smaller, and that's how we actually would engage community is through our Community Action Plans. Those are my thoughts. It really is about being mindful of making this work and managing expectations because if it is a substantive edit to the General Plan, it's not going to happen in a committee hearing down at the Planning Commission and then to hearings back at the Council. That is absolutely unrealistic. But maybe something smaller might work. So, those are my thoughts. I can support this now from the framework, but maybe that's something else we can flush out. I yield. CHR. KIIERKIIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else on the amendment? Council Member Villegas. MS. VELLEGAS: Yeah. I'm in full support CHR. KIIERKEEWICZ: We'll just take a pause there. We're in recess. Recess: At 11:50 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:51 a.m. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. We are back in session at 11:51 a.m. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Happy to know that all of our emergency broadcasting networks are up and rolling. I want to thank the makers of this piece of legislation, well, Mr. Inaba, for bringing things back around and finding the right way to say it in order for it to be possible legally because that took some intensive navigating in order to come up with the right terminology. And having just attended General Plan community briefing and, you know, I've taken some time to really look through the document and listen to the conversations here talking about the CDPs, Community Page 40 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 Development Plans, and the organizations, the people that work in those groupings. I suppose what presents itself to me as being so vital for this piece of legislation for Council to be provided opportunity to have impactful input into the General Plan is because in my experience, in meetings in the last few months here, testimony's been brought by the CDP Action Committee and denied in its viability by some. The General Plan is a beautiful document that has these ideals and the summation of our priorities and vision as a County as taking into consideration cultural sites, climate change, natural resources, floor corridors, all these different things that I see and obviously value and stand in alignment with. But what I'm seeing in actuality is when the decisions have to be made by certain departments, they're not being made on that value system. And so, I would like to have more opportunity to input into our General Plan that there be a little more accountability that the decisions by departments be made based on the value systems that are being declared in our General Plan. And so, that's just kind of a personal and a professional perspective on that. So, I thank all the support for my colleagues for our CDP Action Committees. And I hope that we continue to move forward listening to their guidance and their wisdom and their understanding of their roles and responsibilities and how that directly affects on a case -by -case basis each of these district and communities with everything that comes before us in Council. I yield. CHR. KIIERKIIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else on the amendment? Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Yeah. Thank you. I do like what I'm seeing here in this amendment. I do like resetting the public's expectation around what it is that gets done in an updated General Plan is really what we're talking about. And so, I think that's really important. But of course very crucial for this is the Council's ability to weigh in an official way on the General Plan, which also allows for public testimony and the public to —so, thank you. Thank you, both, for the original proposed bill and this amendment. I'll be supporting. CHR. KJJERKIJEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I think I'm waffling correctly here because there's potentially a lot of back and forth that's happening throughout this process. So, after ten years, the Planning Department would initiate review of the General Plan and you have three years to develop a document that is then submitted to various review bodies. We give ourselves two years to go through potential changes. So, it's heard by the various Planning Commissions, sent to Council, we send recommendations back to director, commissions for their review and it comes back to us. We're at about a year and Page 41 F1NV9U673U1 September 3, 2024 a half. Are we giving ourselves, as a Council, a deadline for when we need to adopt this plan? Because if not, things happen, right? Hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, global pandemics, that shut things down or just temporarily disrupt our operations. I don't think that we've built in those complexities because that is the reality we're living in and I worry that this language here says, must reinitiate the process, if not adopt it in 15 years. So, just wonder if we could have perhaps a little bit more wiggle room once the draft plan is submitted and the official review starts happening by the various bodies. Okay. I'm getting a thumbs up from the makers of the amendment. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. If I just may respond. You know, one of the questions that we asked ourselves is we had this timeline for when the process needed to happen by and it's like, well, what's the point of having a timeline at all if there is no consequence to not meeting it or there's not something else. What I think is proposed in this amendment is like a good first pass at that, but your point about some additional flexibility, Council Member Lee Loy's point about monetary investment that went into the development of the plan, we don't want to just throw the baby out with the bathwater. So, I do think that this needs further refinement and that, as you said, flexibility built in for unintended consequences. At the same time, we want to keep things moving and on track. So, finding that balance between getting it right and getting it done. What was it that you said, Judge Strance, getting it right and getting it done in a timely way. That's what we're trying to balance here. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Great goal for government. Council Member Evans, you had your light on. Do you have a comment? MS. EVANS: Actually, you commented exactly what I was thinking is, you know, things happen. I was thinking elections. You might not have the same Planning Director. And so, you know, sometimes, you know, when you say —I was also thinking that as a potential of, you know, someone is in the middle of doing a comprehensive plan, there's a changeover in Mayor, changeover in Planning Director, things come in, obviously, setting up process, you know, making sure you're doing your community workshops, whatever that looks like, which someone commented today. What does a workshop look like? But getting that review. And for me, personally, what I would like to see, I don't know how you could incorporate this, but how we do those workshops or whatever and more of the regional Countywide basis because I know that they're doing a workshop in Kona and Hilo, but they're going out to other parts of the island to give people maybe an overview, but they're not calling them workshops. So, you know, do we give everybody equal opportunity to weigh in. So, I'd really like to see more of an island -wide, more comprehensive, maybe workshop. I don't know how you'd put that in there but, you know, how do we make sure that we get everybody equal opportunity to weigh in. Anyway, thank you. Page 42 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Director, I want to make sure we're giving you a chance to take all of our comments into consideration and suggest some refinements to the amendment that's being proposed today because I think there's general consensus by this body that this provides much needed clarity, but there needs to be discussion about the engagement but also the timeframe in which the review is happening. I also want us to maybe even consider a longer window for when the General Plan is applicable. In just looking at the three General Plans that this County has adopted, they haven't been updated every ten years. So, I'd like us to maybe think about a longer applicability window. Any comments before we vote? MR. KERN: Yeah, we're reviewing it with our long-range team and kind of reflecting on lessons learned over the years, adjustments, and then trying to provide some insight and some comments as we review it, and this just makes its way through the process. Again, we do support having a defined process. We think that's a good idea. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Great. Any further comments? Seeing none, there is a motion on the floor to amend Bill 181 with the contents of Communication 939.3. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 181 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 939.3 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Galimba — 1. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Members, would you like to postpone this measure to October 1Stq Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 181 to October 1, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Yes. Quickly. We just wanted to let the body know during this postponement we'll have some conversation with Planning. But I do want to remind the body that this really is an attempt to help us help community and make sure that the General Plan we pass is in best of form as it can be and as this bill first started, it was pulling the language directly from the current General Plan, with only the change to Number 10, which was the ability of Council to make Page 43 PCPLUD-20 September 3, 2024 substantive changes. So, we see how it's kind of evolving and I think we just want to be also mindful not to take this in a completely different direction because that wasn't the intention. But we'll work with Planning during this interim to get something good together for October I". Thank you, Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Fantastic. There's a motion on the floor to postpone Bill 181 to the October I't Committee Meeting. All those in favor, please say 44aye." Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 181 to October 1, 2024, was to Postpone: carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Kagiwada, Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Galimba — 1. Excused: None. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 12:03 p.m. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Approved: N s. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development AK/tk JtCb(24 (Date) Page 44