The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN PCPLUD 2024/10/02 (2022-2024) DRAFT Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development 21st Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 October 2, 2024 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Development was called to order at 9:02 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Michelle M. Galimbay Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan'L.K. Lee Loy, Member (came in'later) Ms; Rebecca Villegas, Member,(came in later) STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: .The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: John Casey: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Gordon Lindquist: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. (See Comm. 675.557) Hope Alohalani Cermelj: Bill 134, Draft 2 (Comm. 741.4), comment. Robert Golden: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. (See Comm. 675.538) Mark Sidmore: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. Alex Folsom: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. (representing Airbnb) (See Comm. 675.513) PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 Erik Kloninger: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. (representing Kloninger (See Comm. 675.550) and Sons Consulting) Joe Schneckenburger: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. (See Comm. 675.579) Axel Kratel: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), Bill 122, Draft 2(Comm. 676.13), comment; and Bill 212 (Comm. 1057),in support. Joshua Mehalick: Bill 121,Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), Bill M, Draft 2 (Comm. 676.13), in opposition; and Bill 212 (Comm. 1057), in support: David Louie: Bill 121,;Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. (representing Airbnb) (See Comm. 675.525) Janice Palma-Glennie: Bill 121, Draft 4(Comm. 675.471); Bill 18 1, Draft 2 (Comm. 939.4); and Bill 212 (Comm. 1057), in opposition. Joshua Montgomery: Bill 121, Draft4 (Comm. 675.471), in opposition. (See Comm. 675.562) Amadeo Markoff: Bill 212 (Comm. 1057), in support. (representingnMainstreet Pahoa Association) Heather Korotie: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Mark"Worig: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Chuck Flaherty: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition; and (Sierra Club Hawaii Bill 181, Draft 2 (Comm. 939.4), in support. Island Group) Kris'Adair: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Alexa Boyer: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.471); and Bill 122, Draft 2 (Comm. 676.13), comment. BJ Kailimai: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. Jason Eisert: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. Page 2 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Committee Members, the of Business: following items were taken out of order: Bill 212: AMENDS CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 2, SECTION 5-3-22, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO BUILDING PERMIT EXEMPTIONS Exempts greenhouses and other accessory structures with a floor area of 1,000 sq. ft. or less and located on agriculturally-zoned lance from the requirement to obtain a building permit; and increases the maximum cost of repair work for which a building permit is not required from $7,500to $25,000. Reference: Comm, 1057 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz Relinquish Chair: At this time, the Chair relinquished the,chair to'Vice Chair Inaba. Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to recommend passage of Bill 212 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. LeeLoy. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair Inaba. Thankyou Director Pause for being here. This bill is designed to remove unnecessary permitting burdens and support our community's food security and,housing resilience. What we're doing with this bill is actually addressing an unintended consequence from adoption of the current'Building Code, and this way brought to my attention in June of this year by a constituent, William Wittenberg, who reached out to County Planning and Public Works to let them know that he was going to be installing a greenhouse owhis property in Hawaiian Paradise Park and he did not realize that he had to ger,through the process of applying for a building permit. And so, under current regulations in our Code right now, these structures, greenhouses in particular, are very critical to our food sustainability and they're subject to a very bureaucratic building permit process. And this was not previously in place. You know,we are here to encourage folks to be more food resilient. Costco sells these greenhouses. And so, we have to think about what are ways in which we can remove these layers of bureaucracy to encourage our residents to grow. So, this bill restores exemptions that were in place so long as plumbing and electrical work is not required. Greenhouses are low impact structures that are essential, again, to food production and sustainability, and we're merely putting back what was in place, this longstanding exemption to allow greenhouses without the hurdle of applying for a permit. This bill also proposed to increase the annual building maintenance cost threshold from $7,500 to $25,000 before triggering a building permit requirement. This change recognizes the increasing costs of materials and labor and allows for Page 3 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 essential maintenance efforts to occur, again, without triggering a cumbersome permitting process. I did let Public Works know my intention to be moving forward with these items. So, really appreciate, Director, you being here and providing feedback on this measure. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Stephen Pause came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PAUSE: Good morning, Council. Steve Pause, Director of Public Works. Yes, we did have an opportunity to confer, and,everything is consistent. The language around the greenhouse, that's consistent with what is already allowed under ag exemption as well. And then the cost increase, as you pointed out, it's very difficult to get anything done with respect to repairs and things on homes for $7,500. So, I think this is reflective of the times. I'm not quite sure when that number was last looked at. But yeah, we're all behind that. I've also asked Building Chief(Julann) Sonomura to join me here. She's not here yet. She'll be along shortly to help me answer hard'questions.' But in my mind, this is pretty straightforward and simple. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Director, we got a couple of testifiers concerned about these structures being used as dwelling units. Could you address that? MR. PAUSE: Yes. The Code does-notn accessory structure cannot be used as a residence. So, that would fall out. The only time from a permitting standpoint is if We take,a structure like this and decide add plumbing in or electrical. That would trigger permits for those. MS. KIERKIEICZ. Okay. Great. Thank you. And I just want to note that Division Chief Julatin'Sor omura has joined us. Ms. Sonomura, not sure if you want to provide any feedback on the bill. I really do hope it's helpful to some of the work that occurs within Building Division. Thank you for being here. (Note: At this time, Building Division Chief Julann Sonomura came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SONOMURA: I'm sorry. What was that? MS'KIERKIEWICZ: I'm just welcoming you and wondering if you might have any feedback on the bill. Again, I'm hoping that it helps within the permitting processes. MS. SONOMURA: It does. This bill is aligned with the state HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) 46-88, with 1,000 feet. And in addition to that, we've included in the exemption an increase in the repair amount, so we don't need to issue permits for all of that. Sorry, I ran over. Page 4 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: You look great. You sound amazing. Thank you much for being here to answer any technical questions that my colleagues might have. Looking for everyone's support. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. With that, opening it up for discussion starting with Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Just a couple thoughts. Any thoughton kind of wind, you know, any requirements for making sure that they don't blow over in high winds; is that part of what you do when you do your building permit review? MS. SONOMURA: That is part of the building permit review but with this exemption, an agricultural structure does not need to get a building permit. So, these are for structures and facilities intendedto support agricultural. Seo, it's not the same risk that you would have with residents that we do have the wind load requirements for. MS. EVANS: So, I guess I support it in the sense that it's, I don't have it in front of me but 1,000 square feet or less. Okay. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Galimba and then Council Member Lee Loy. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. Just a quick question. Would this be retroactive in a sense? I believe I have a constituent who is in this sort of situation where he has a shedx and it's a shed rather than a greenhouse, and he's in trouble with the—I think it wouldbe adding the words "or agriculture"potentially would help this particular constituent: But he's in the situation where he has a shed and he's being told thathe can't have that shed, he needs to do an as built or tear it down. So,I'm just wondering if this would help with this particular constituent of mine. MS. SONOMURA: What is the shed being used for? MS. GALIMBA: He is a farmer. So, it's like MS. SONOMURA: Like storage? MS. GALIMBA: Storage of equipment and vehicles. MS. SONOMURA: Yes. So, if it's less than 1,000 feet, it would be helpful. MS. GALIMBA: Yeah. Okay. So, he could basically get out of that particular pickle that he's in? Page 5 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. SONOMURA: Yeah. Yeah. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. Thank you. MS. SONOMURA: Just as long as there's no plumbing and yeah. MS. GALIMBA: Right. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Did you wantic, add that to the record, sorry. MS. LEE LOY: I'll get there, Julann. I'll getthere MS. SONOMURA: Yes. And you would need to file the declaration. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy,,go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. Actually, thatwalked me right into because I reviewed Chapter 46-88 out of HRS, and there's a declaration process that requires an owner to notify Fire Department and the Building Division. And I understand that there's a form online that would help a farmer or an owner to apply. My question is, is it like self-resolving, is there any trigger other than the owner saying, "I'm going to be great about this. I'm going to let Fire Department and Building Division know that I built a greenhouse." MS. SONOMURA: Not to my knowledge. MS'. LEE LOY: You know, I'm totally in support of this because at the end of the day, and,I'm geeing to, something I learned long time ago from Real Property Tax Office, if they find it,,they will tax it. And so, at some point, if they want to provide this on their tax forms, when real property tax finds it, they're going to tax itand then it's going to trigger them to identify this as an ancillary structure to an ag use, which will then trigger the form, which will then notify Fire and you guys, and would be'exempt. So, I am in support. I love that we're raising the threshold of the dollar value. I like that it's 12 months rather than a longer runway because sometimes repairs can mount up over time. And so, chunking it out at$25,000 a year is very reasonable for a farmer. In full support. Thank you, Chair. ;I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Thank you for being here this morning. Interesting bill. For the department, HRS 46-88 is pretty clear and explicit about what they permit at the state level for these types of structures on agricultural land. Are you telling me that the department has been requiring permits for the structures that are exempted under that state code right now? Page 6 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. SONOMURA: No, we're in compliance with the state codes. So, we do not require a permit if it meets the requirements of the HRS 46-88. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That's what I understand too. So, what's the purpose of this bill? MS. SONOMURA: I'm sorry. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What is the purpose of this bill then if it's already exempt under the state code? MS. SONOMURA: Well, I believe we're increasing the size to 1,000 square feet. MR. PAUSE: I believe we're just'making the little language here on greenhouses,just making it consistent. It was already implied. I think it's just putting it in black and white here. And then the other primary purpose of this bill is raising the threshold, if you will, for performing repairs and not needing a building permit. I think that was critical. It's really difficult to do anything for $7,500 or less when you're just doing standard repairs on your home. So, I think this is just an adjustments and L think that that's really one of the bigger values here, is for the Building Division to not have to review building permit applications for somebody who's going to come,in in a calendar year and do $25,000 worth of repairs. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Do we need to be more explicit about whatis,also permitted in HRS 46-88 within this section of our Code? MS. SONOMURA: No. I don't believe so. I don't have it in front of me, but this bill pertains to exemptions from permitting, and it's not specific just to the ag, HRS46-88. So, like Steve mentioned, for a home, if you're going to do repairs on your home, the threshold increases from $7,500 to $25,000 without a permit. That's a permit exemption. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Okay. But as far as the greenhouses, up to 1,000 feet, because there's other ways to calculate agricultural buildings including trust sizes and different measures. I just want to make sure that we're tying in correctly. MS. SONOMURA: It's for all accessory structures to have that 1,000 foot cap on it; accessory structures. MR. PAUSE: It's not just greenhouses. MS. SONOMURA: Yeah. Page 7 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, all accessory structures, is that following what is allowed currently in HRS 46-88? MS. SONOMURA: Yes. It's consistent. MR. PAUSE: Yes. Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: If I'm remembering correctly, you can build bigger than 1,000 square feet. MS. SONOMURA: You can if you have a pre-approved design. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. SONOMURA: Yeah, pre-approved building. So, HRS 46-88, it has different provisions depending on whatyou're building. But generally, if you're less than 1,000 feet, I'm looking for the paragraph in the HRS 46-88, but it's also 1,000 feet. So, it's aligning with that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINVELDER: I remember the 1,000 feet one, but there's other allowances as well, which is interesting. MS. SONOMURA: Yeah, we follow the HRS 46-88, when we look at the exemptions. MR.KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, HRS 46-88 is still our guiding principle because that's HRS, correct? This is adding in the word greenhouse I'm sorry,,can you help mme justunderstand how this is tying in differently than what's already allowed in HRS 46-88? MS. SONOMURA:', The HRS 46-88 does include greenhouses, and it also has a 1,000 foot cap on it It also includes other types of buildings; barns, farm production'buildings, storage buildings for the agricultural uses and processing buildings. So, it's more than just greenhouses in the ag exemption. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It is, yeah. MSR. PAUSE: I believe the desire was to be as specific as possible, which is why the word greenhouse was added. There are other structures per HRS 46-88 that are not explicitly called out here, but I think the concept, as Council Member mentioned, was to encourage people and maybe by putting it in black and white, it might provide more of an incentive or more encouragement for folks to know that they can put in greenhouses. Page 8 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. SONOMURA: Yeah. And may I just add that, you know, with the industry changing the way it is, there are a lot of vendors, supply houses, that are selling greenhouses. So, if this makes it clear to our community what would be acceptable without having getting into the weeds of the HRS 46-88. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I kind of go the other way. I feel like we should be very upfront with what's allowed by HRS 46-88, so the community can understand what's already allowed without having to create redundant County Codes, which would make more sense to me because we don't have to allow this for County Code. It's already allowed. MS. SONOMURA: It would make sense butwe wouldn't want to, I guess, jeopardize or have the appearance of conflict with HRS 46-88 so we just comply with the HRS 46-88. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Agreed. Okay. So, from the departments end, this is in parallel and the wording is succinct enough to keep allowing what HRS 46-88 allows and doesn't limit down at all, correct? MR. PAUSE: Yes. That's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. This came up because I had a community meeting and some of the folks had asked about the allowances under HRS 46-88, so I was reviewing it. And then'to see the bill come forward, interesting., But wanting to make sure that the community members do understand what they can and cannot do, when they have to permit, when they do not, and it's important for them to understand that as we promote agriculture, yeah. Okay. I may check in withyou folks offline and dig in a little bit more. But thank you. MR. PAUSE' Thank you. Fair enough. ACTING CHR. INA.BA: Thank you. Council Member Kierkiewicz,just a quick response and then Member Kimball. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I just wanted to provide a touch more clarification here. Yes, HRS 46-88 is being referenced in a particular section. But when we talk about greenhouses and accessory uses for ag and residential, ITS 46-88 only provides exemptions for properties that are two acres or larger. So, this is really critical because when you think about spaces like HPP (Hawaiian Paradise Park) and communities throughout Puna, this supports so many more residents in being able to install a greenhouse, for instance, without having to go through the permitting process. I just wanted to make sure that clarification was provided for the record. Page 9 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. Just to add a little bit of additional clarity, I had had some conversations with the Director and Division Chief about this particular section of the Code and there was a desire expressed by the department to bring the HRS 46-88 language into this section of the Code so that people were not having to refer to the HRS, it was just there, in addition to the $25,000 exemption and what not. I happen to see Council Member Kierkiewicz's proposal about the greenhouses and said, we'll just throw it And so, in response to your comments, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, the best think maybe to do, in addition to the notice of greenhouses here, taking into account what Council Member Kierkiewicz just said, itmay be useful to list the other types of structures that are permitted through this exemption as it's stated in HRS 46-88. So, I would put that out as a, to the maker, as a potential amendment, is just to add that whole list in. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans:" MS. EVANS: Yeah. Thank you very much. To the maker, thank you for telling us this is really about applying below the two acres. So, if you consider any other structures, I would just consider, if you'd want to amend it, is that's really making sure that they can also be allowed on"land less than'two acres because HRS 46-88 is about exemptions for two acres or more., There actually may be some other structures that you would want to include in this. So, I look forward to seeing what you do. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright: With that, I am in support. Thank you for bringirig,forwardthis bill. Appreciate any bills that try and expedite. And I just want to clarify, I did reach out to Real Property Tax and greenhouses are not taxed. So,for the record, that's the one thing that they might find that they're not going tQ tax. With that, there's a motion on the floor to forward Bill 212 to Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor? Vote on Bill 212: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 212 on first (Approved) reading was 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. Page 10 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. And at this time, 10:35 a.m., I'll be passing the Chair back to Chair Kierkiewicz. Relinquish Chair: At this time, Acting Chair Inaba relinquished the chair to Chair Kierkiewicz. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Let the record reflect that I have reassumed the chairmanship of the Committee. Mr. Clerk, if we could move to Bill 181. Bill 181: AMENDS CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 1, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE (Draft 2) 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELA'T'ING 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.. 939.4 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba Postponed: July 23 and September 3, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Mr.Inaba, seconded by Ms. Villegas, to recommend passage of Bill 181, as amended,on,first reading.) (Note: Comm. 939.7, from Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance dated October 1, 2024, transmitting Legislative history relative to prior changes to the General Plan amendment process to Bill 181, Draft 2, was circulated.) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any questions or comments on Bill 181? Mr. Inabaw MR. INABA Corporation Counsel did provide a written memo. I just want to pointthat out to my,colleagues. We believe that Bill 181 is in line with the procedure set forth in the current General Plan and ask for your support. Happy to take questions. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And just noting that we have Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell here to answer any questions folks might have regarding the memo. Thank you, Jean. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: I'd like to have Jean Campbell, Deputy Corporation Counsel. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 11 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. CAMPBELL: Good morning, everyone. Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell. I am going to start this with I am not particularly family with this bill or this memo. So, I can try and answer questions but I'm afraid an awful lot of these I'm going to have to differ until Corporation Counsel (Elizabeth) Strance returns. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I read the communication that was sent to us and the thing that really struck me us the importance of the Charter and how it really gives a lot of direction. So, I just wanted to make sure, to the maker, that this, what you've written, has been reviewed in that lights of what the Charter says and they believe that it meets the intent of the Charter because it seemed as I kept reading it, it kept going back to what the Charter said and that being such a guiding document. And no matter what other things that we've talked about, it looks like to me, reading through this, that the Charter really dries, you know, kind of set what you can and can'tdo. So, I was just curious if you've been involved, you know, Ms. Campbells if you've been involved in that? MS. CAMPBELL: My, again, general'understanding of this is that the Charter does set out an—well,I take that back; that there is generally an interim amendment procedure and then a comprehensive amendment procedure. And the interim amendments are not'supposed to be going on during the comprehensive procedure. Again, not particularly familiar with this so, I'm probably not answering your question, I'm afraid. CHR.KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Evans, I don't mean to interrupt you. I just saw a message from Corporation Counsel, Judge Strance, she requested that we pause on deliberations for this matter until she's back. She got pulled into an urgent meeting. But as the author of the memo, we certainly want her here to be able to`explain this and answer any questions that you might have in depth. So, if it's with you, I'd love to entertain a motion to table this particular measure so we can take it back up when Judge Strance is back. MS. CAMPBELL: I believe she expects to be back by 11:00 a.m. or so. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Excellent. Motion to Table: Mr. Inaba moved to table Bill 181, Draft 2. Seconded by (Approved) Ms. Lee Loy. Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba–9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 12 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Moving on to the next order of business. Mr. Clerk, Bill 134. Bill 134: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 25-2-42 OF THE HAWAII (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: Comm. 741.4 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba and Ms. Evans Postponed: March 5, August 20, and September 3, 2024 Referred to Planning Commissions: April 2, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Evans, to recommend passage of Bill 134, 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 fromtheWindward and Leeward Planning Commissions. and Comm. 741.6: From Council Members Holeka Goro Inaba and Cindy Evans, dated August 19, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. (Note: The following Communications transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 134, Draft 2, were circulated: 1: Comm. 741.8, from Council Members Holeka Goro Inaba and Cindy Evans, dated September 24, 2024; and 2. Comm. 741.9, from Council Members Holeka Goro Inaba and Cindy Evans, dated October 2, 2024. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Inaba, would you like to lead us through the amendments. Page 13 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 134, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 741.8. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. We had postponed this once and postponed it again to give some opportunity to meet with the Planning Department for this amendment. I did work with Deputy Director (Jeff) Darrow on this, and I think we've landed on a good place. So, as we know the initial bill was sought to try and identify all buildings excluding the existing buildings that are'lcgally permitted to be constructed on the surrounding properties within a quarter mile. This amendment says that the director will prepare a report ori all surrounding properties within 1,000 feet of a subject property and it will letus know that any property within that 1,000 feet where there was a change of zone,the description and status of any condition that has a timing element to it and the maximum number of lots for a surrounding property than could be subdivided under its current classification. So, it puts it more in"line with what the Planning Department actually has access to and is able,to provide us without trying to forge in DPW (Department of Public Works) and information the Planning doesn't have. Just want to give the opportunity to Planning�at,this time, if they want to chime in on the amendment. (Note. At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Director 'Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR,.KERN: Good morning, Chair, members of the Committee. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. ISR. DARROW: Good morning, Chair, members of the Planning Committee. Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. MR. KtRN: So, yeah, thanks for the opportunity to share some of our thoughts around it. So, in general, I think the meetings that we've had and where the language has gone is definitely improved. I think it's something that we can actually achieve better on our end. Where we're running into, I think, the biggest challenge or our disagreement is on the amount of feet. Right now it's amended to 1,000 (feet). We are standing by with what the Leeward Planning Commission had put forth, which would be consistent to our notice to surrounding property owners. So, an urban area would be 300 feet and an ag area would be 1,000 feet. That's more proportionately correct. I think sometimes it's hard to maybe identify what that might look like, and if you want to we have our Program Manager Majia Jackson on Zoom, and she can actually show kind of what the radius of that area would look like. So, if you folks want to, we're happy to Page 14 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 provide that. And I also, again, will say that there is going to be quite a bit of work that staff will have to put in to putting this report together. MR. INABA: Thank you, Director Kern. Just want to give the opportunity to Ms. Jackson, if you do want to provide that demo to the Council, you can go ahead. (Note: At this time, Planning Program Manager Majia Jackson came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. JACKSON: Thank you, Chair Inaba. Can you hear me okay? MR. INABA: We can hear you perfectly. MS. JACKSON: Okay. So, I'mgoing to go ahead and share screen. And are you able to see a map of the Waiakea Houselots area? MR. INABA: Yes. MS. JACKSON: Okay: Great. So, this first image that I'm sharing CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Jackson, could you please zoom into the map? MS. JACKSON: Yes. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. MS. JACKSON-, Is that better? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Much. Thank you. MS. JACKSON: Okay. So, this first image that I'm sharing is a 300 foot buffer from one of the tax map key parcels in Waiakea Houselots. And you can see it extends outabout three to four lots in a north-south direction and about one to two lots east-west. The 300 foot buffer includes approximately 31 parcels. For the same property with a 1,000 foot buffer, of that covers a much larger, anywhere from nine to ten lots in a north-south direction and about five to seven in an east- west direction, and it includes about 178 properties. And I would just like to share with you, let me know if you can see this. This is our GIS (Geographical Information System); are you able to see that? MR. INABA: Yes. MS. JACKSON: Okay. So, unfortunately, I can't overlay what I just showed you into this because it comes from a different data source. It's from our Real Page 15 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 Property Tax website. And this is our Planning Department geographic information system. But this is generally the same area. And so, the 300 foot buffer would've been in this general area; the 1,000 foot would've covered pretty much this whole entire two to four blocks of Waiakea House lots. And you can see all of the red outlines show each of the properties that have a rezone ordinance attached to them. And that's all I have to share. Thank you. MR. INABA: Thank you. With that, bringing it back here to the chambers. We did discuss the 300 versus 1,000 feet. I did feel that for the Council to have a better overall picture of the area that we would just go with a consistent 1,000 feet and that would allow us to have knowledge that it's always 1,000 feet and we're getting the same range every time, and that's why this amendment is providing for 1,000 (feet)rather than one-quarter mile or 300 or 1,000 feet,,depending on the type of zoning. So, I'm open to the discussion from the Committee. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you,,Council Member Inaba. Council Member Kimball MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. Just wanted to note, for those of you folks that were here last night and,then those who missed the presentation. So, in Communication 1058.1,we had a presentation from some folks working on decision support tools. Within that"packet, there's this presentation that they've created for South Kona, which actually has a layer of potential build-out based on associated zoning. They have actually constructed this for the entire island. And so, I know that they may have met with somebody in Planning, or they are going to' The reason,f raise this is because the dataset is there. I think that we would probably need to review some of the assumptions that they made. I'm not sure that they're fully aware of all of the different things, so there may be some tweaking there butthey would have the coding infrastructure to adjust those assumptions onterms of the model that's generated. Secondly,,I think,over the long term we would have to determine how to keep their dataset currenrbased on any rezoning ordinance that we would approve because that would change that. It wouldn't be status dataset; it would have to be somewhat dynamic based on what we approve. But, you know, understanding the concerns and the difficulty of putting this dataset together, I think we already have a head,start on this and I would encourage the department and you, Council Member Inaba, to meet with our folks that we met with yesterday and see if they can, you know, tweak that to meet what the objectives are of this particular legislation. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else, on the amendment? Council Member Kagiwada. Page 16 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Ms. Jackson, can you repeat what you said about how many change of zone properties there would've been in the 1,000 foot radius that you shared? MS. JACKSON: Sure. That would've been 60 rezone ordinances. MS. KAGIWADA: Sixty. MS. JACKSON: For 178 properties in that 1,000 square foot area. MS. KAGIWADA: Sixty; six-zero? MS. JACKSON: six-zero, correct. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. I'm a little concerned that we're going to be slogging through an awful lot if we do this'1ry000 square feet. That's just, you know, my initial like, 60 rezones that we need to read through Do we have a sense of how many would be within that 300 foot radius? MS. JACKSON: I would estimate about five MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Yeah: Soy I would just; you know, throw that out there that I would a little concerned abouthauing 60 on a regular basis to slog through. I think we can get lost in the weeds and not really be able to see what we want to see if we have that much to go through. So, I'm just throwing that out there. I would love to hear from anybody else on that. Thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMAA: Yes. Basically, agree. You know, I don't want to see slogging or slaughtering of trees for, you know, another thick stack of paper. I think that the idea of having a;map that we can look at, and if we want to see, you know, 300 feet,then we canlookat 300 feet. So, looking at the technology aspect that Chair Kimball brought up, it's definitely more appealing than any sort of really rigid set of reports. Really, that's going to take up a lot of time for staff and a lot of time for us looking through. So, I also would recommend that we work on something that has that sort of flexibility. And perhaps, wait on this decision until we can pursue that possibility that would provide the kind of more of a customized set of information depending on the concerns of each particular Council Member, or the public to look at, either very close or far. So, that's my two cents. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Galimba. Council Member Villegas. Page 17 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. If I'm understanding things correctly, Council Member Inaba, you selected the 1,000 feet for some synchronicity and alignment and simplicity of it's always that amount. It sounds like the information and the datasets exist, based on what Council Member Kimball is just sharing with us, which would help facilitate a more feasible extraction of the information to be able to provide it to Council. For myself, I feel like seeing a pattern of what's happening within an area, especially when it comes to zoning changes, is imperative for us to make better decisions here. I want to just shout out to Majia, this transition-to the digital GIS, being able to look at things like that, wow, how far things have come,in the last six years. So, congratulations and thank you for navigating what I'm sure was a wild ride. But being able to provide us that information,in that format is so much more user friendly. And, to me, with 60 zoning changes out of 150, is that what you said, lots? MS. JACKSON: 178. MS. VILLEGAS: 178. So, it's about a third of the lots in that 1,000 feet diameter, I guess you'd call it. It's not the circumference. But anyway, to me, that really captures a lot of information about what's going on somewhere, where just five in the 300 feet, doesn't tell that broader story. So, I think there is wisdom is taking a look at what's happening within 1,000 feet of places. So, for me, I think that there is value to that. I arareally hopeful. I know you guys are burdened, Majia, and all the thugs. But if the statements from Council Member Kimball about some of the information that was provided last night by the folks doing work like this is available,there let's utilize it and let's provide us with the best information,possible with a broad range to be a reflection of what's happening in,our communities. So, that's my two cents. I'll be supporting. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. To the maker; actually, to the department first. When an applicant comes in to do a rezone, do they not have to submit a notice of rezoning to all property owners surrounding their property within a certain amount of distance? MR. KERN: Yes. Which is the consistency with what we're suggesting. So, the notices provided to—if it's state land use urban, it's provided within a 300 foot radius. So, it would be the first radius that Majia showed. If it's state land use agriculture, then it's a 1,000 foot radius, because it's generally larger parcels so you want to get a larger expansion. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's state land use, yeah? Page 18 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MR. KERN: Yeah. So, 300 feet in urban, and 1,000 feet for ag. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Yeah, I was thinking about that. And I'm also thinking about the way that a liquora potential person wants to sell alcohol has to submit a notice to everyone within so many feet of their TMK (Tax Map Key), so that everyone knows that they're looking to sell alcohol. So, same idea. Perhaps then, to the maker, where I see this most useful is not for a one acre lot in an urban area or a half-acre lot trying to go from residential to commercial. I see this most useful in larger properties where you have two things working for you. One, it's going to decrease the amount of properties that touch that property or within a 1,000 feet of or 300 feet of, whichlessens the amount of properties you have to come back with as a report to us, as far as the Planning Department. But two, provides us that snapshot of what's going to happen in'a community or an area where you have 50 acresor 20 acres being converted to a muchless property zoning, and you have surrounding large acreage that is potentially large projects. So, that may help find a middle ground between what we're looking for as far as good decision making and data to build that on, and then lessening what the department has to do because we're actually specifying a land quantity, an acreage quantity or a size of parcel quantity, where they have to come back with that report. And that may be a healthy middle ground in giving us the data that we need, so we can see what's about to,happen in the community or what a subdivision would do as we increase density in larger land areas, versus just every single rezonedecision that comes in front ofus. So,just adding that to the discussion today to see if that helps provide some way forward or some balance between what I'm hearing from Planning and what I think this has the benefit of doing,for us as decisionmakers. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ; Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy. MS: LEE LOQ: Thank you. To the maker, I think what he was really asking for is how do we feetabout1,000 square feet, and I'm landing in urban parcels, in urban areas, it's a let and I'm looking for someplace nice and soft to land. Maybe not 300 feet, because that's what we're doing for notice to surrounding property owners, maybe a little bit more. And I'm trying to get back to the impotence of this bill, which was actually identifying other parcels, and correct me if I'm Wrong,;Mr. Inaba, was to identify other parcels that still had to satisfy conditions of approval; because it was the satisfying of those conditions of approval of other parcels in the area that were not being met, which is why we weren't getting our sidewalks done; why we weren't getting the curb gutters, getting the lights in. Whomever the property owner was that was tasked with that various condition of approval may have not gotten to the space of satisfying that condition of approval. And I think specifically of Ponahawai Street, there's parcels along Ponahawai Street that had curb better sidewalks, right, and those parcels haven't yet finished, Page 19 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 so you have broken sidewalks along the way. So, I'm trying to wrap it all up. I like the idea of doing some type of cumulative assessment of what's going on and who's not in a space to either satisfy their condition of approval or remind them, "Hey, guys. You got to start satisfying these,"because we're relying on that infrastructure to create a whole community. So, I'm not a big fan of 1,000 square feet in urban. I don't mind looking a little bit more, three, four, five hundred feet. But I also understood this to be that tool because my bigger concern is housed within the Planning Department and it's rules and procedure is that notification to surrounding property owners, and I don't want to think an individual who is outside of that could then file a contested case hearing on a change of zone application; and that's where I'm getting a little concerned. Throwing it out there to the maker. I wouldn't support 1,000 square feet, especially in urban areas, especially if that lot size was 7,500 square feet. Happy to explore something a little beyond 300 feet.': But if this helps us make better decisions about how to tailor that next condition of approval, which I know you guys already do because that's why we send it,out to all of the agencies. That's where I'm landing on the amendment, specifically, Thank you. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yes. Great discussion. What struct me was when you said, if you stayed within300 feet you would see five change of zone, but if you went 1,000, you would see sixty. And that struct me then you would want to know 1,000 feet because the land use pattern of what's happening in that community is huge if you 1,000 feet,plus if you're going to'start creating that kind of density, then you're looking at the sidewalks and,the mass transit, and the solid waste. And to me, it justgives you a whole different picture if you get a little bit wider. The other think that struct me is when I sit in the end zone of a football field, it's 900 feet, is what a football field is. So, when you look across, look how far you look. It's not really that far. I mean you can see to the end zone on the other side. And I'm thinking, 1,000 feet, to me, doesn't seem like a lot. Maybe you bring it down to 900 feet. But I do think that for Planning and for the Planning Commission to understand what's really going on and how maybe the changes of the land us, like there's something going on in the community; the density is increasing, there is conditions like Member Lee Loy said, that have been put there. I mean, I think that information is critical, and I think that's why one of the Planning Commissions was favorable and understanding. When we testified in front of the Planning Commission, they understood that that information can tell them a lot more about what they're agreeing to, understanding what is going on in the immediate area. Page 20 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 And the other thing is, when you speak to the Planning Commission about a change of zone and they ask you what's going on in the surrounding area, what research do you do to be able to answer that question? How far do you look? I guess to you, Director Kern. MR. KERN: We look generally around the area. We provide a zoning map; we show the settlement pattern of the area, it's usually within around 300 plus feet, if it's urban, larger if it's ag. We then look at the roadways; we look at the impact; we look at the mitigation; we then receive comments back from all the various agencies and take all that into consideration. MS. EVANS: Okay. Alright. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. I just want to clarify,the report that we're asking for doesn't require all of the zoning ordinances associated with the properties around to be submitted to us. So, we're not going to be getting stacks and stacks of paper. The intention is to give us a quick overview report so when we look at a document, we're able to see what, especially,"like Council Member Lee Loy mentioned, which properties have expired or zoning ordinances that they expire soon and where the conditions are for those also looking at any lots that could be subdivided, so we're seeing that comprehensive picture of what the impact could be in the area in light of our decision as well. So, there were a couple of comments made regarding us getting more paperwork than we already get. That isn't going to be the case because it's an overview report and should any of us choose to go then and look at the ordinances, since they'll be provided, we can go and des that on,our own. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL:, Yes. I'm listening to this discussion and some of the comments. It occurs to me that there's actually probably not going to be a one size fits all approach to this. I can see us wanting a very—like even 1,000 feet, if I'm thinking about the Waimea property we were talking about the other day, I'd actually like to see out much further, whereas in an urban area like was shown in the example, yeah, you could probably narrow perspective. And so,just to the maker, what I'd like to consider is perhaps an approach to this where it's the Council may request such a report and provide certain perimeters that we would want to see. My question that I haven't been able to think through just here on dais is how we could put that request in prior to the time that it comes before us as an ordinance because we'd obviously like to have it be part of the packet and the Commissions too. So, I guess that's what I'd like a little bit more time to think through is like how could we sort of preemptively say, we're going Page 21 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 to need this kind of report for this type of decision because the more I think about it, I think about it I think the less likely that we can find one standard to fit all different scenarios. I mean, it's going to make a big difference if we're looking at an area that has potential for sewer hookup versus, you know, septic; road requirements and traffic issues versus somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. So, yeah, I'd like to spend more time to think that through, but that's kind of where I suggest maybe we go is something a little bit more flexible and just find a way that notice the department upfront when we think something like that is going to be necessary and what the perimeter should be. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kaneah'i-K16infelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER Okay. Just a random one, I think a football field is 120 yards, which puts it a about 330-360 feet long, not 1,000. 1 think you said 900 feet. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you. Anything on the amendment? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEIFELDER: No. Thunk you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MR. INABA: Okay. I'm going to withdraw this. I don't think there's support for 1,000 feet- I'll work on an amendment. So, withdrawing my motion, but can I retain the floor for now? Withdraw Motion Mr. Inaba withdrew his motion to amend Bill 134, Draft 2, to Amend: with the contents of Comm. 741.8. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Please note that the amendment has been withdrawn. MR. INABA: And With that, I will prepare an amendment right now to have it in line with the notification for state for 300 and 1,000 feet. I don't think we're ever going to land on a perfect place. But the Planning Department indicated their support for that, and I think we need to land somewhere, and if that's the place we're going to land today then that's where we're going to land. So, thank you for your support, Planning Department. I'm going to make a motion to table Bill 134, Draft 2. Page 22 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 Vote on Motion to Mr. Inaba moved to table Bill 134, Draft 2. Seconded by Table: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kimball and'Lee Loy —2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: You know, seeing that we have Judge Strance back, is there an appetite to remove Bill 181 from the table and deliberate on that? Great. May I have a motion please? Vote on Motion to Mr. Inaba moved to remove Bill 181, Draft 2, from the Remove from Table: table. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada and carried by the (Approved) following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kimball and Lee Loy —2. Excused: None. CHR, KIERKIEWICZ: Hi, Judge Strance. Great to see you. There's some questions about the memo that you've transmitted and now that you're back, we would love,for you,to walk us through your legal assessment to help us in our deliberationson this measure. Thank you. (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. Thank you for your patience with me this morning, having to step out. The memo that I submitted to the Council was less of a legal memo than to provide you with legislative history about where we are, and especially in light of, at least, some of my understanding of some of the impotence of Bill 181, and in particular around what is the authority of this body to amend a General Plan bill that's submitted to it after the Planning Commission completes its review. And for anybody who's read that provision of the ordinance, without the history it's confusing and misleading, and I know that I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to understand it and I believe the clerk staff has as well. And so, out of context of the legislative history, I think that it's not clear because of the way the language is Page 23 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 written, and that when you get to why the language is put in there, it's understandable but its context matters and the more things change, the more they stay the same is really the message of the legislative history. And so, I also felt that the legislative history was insightful in terms of timing issues and the relationship of making amendments with the review by the Planning Commissions and what the prior body, considering the General Plan, ran into, and I thought that there was some pretty helpful legislative history that might help to inform this body in terms of how it is going to move forward with the comprehensive review and even consideration of Bill 181. So, the conclusion is that language that is contained in the current ordinance about this body's ability to make amendments to the General Planis not a limitation of authority on this body. What the intention of that language is, is to attempt to firmly and clearly, which we wouldn't be here if it were, but to really give the examples of the types of amendments that this body can make without any further review by the Planning Commission arid then:which must go back to the Planning Commission for review. So, this idea about new amendments going through the interim planning process means that instead of starting at the beginning of the General Plan process that is outlined in the Code,you skip over to the process outlined in (Section) 16-21''and that has a little bit more of an expedited review by the Planning Commission,and the Planning Director. And the goal was that an amendment to the General Plan,whether it's part of the comprehensive review or the interim review, should be able to complete within a Council term. So, what they ran into during consideration of the 2005, and I think they were beginning to run,into it even when they started to make interim amendments starting in 2006,is that it took seven months from the time that the Council proposed an amendment tee the time that it came back, which if it was made mid council term meant that the proposing Council Member might not still be in office when'the amendment came back. And so, it's really within that context that I thought'some of this legislative history was helpful. There was a fair amount of discussion when in 2007, the really substant of—well, I'm not going to say more significant, but the more detailed amendment was made about process, was made. And what had happened in that was the Council was already into the interim amendment process and ironically there was confusion aboutwhat amendments could initiate and which they could not. So, very same issue that is not before us, and some frustration about that. And so, the Council initiated a resolution, which was the process for an interim amendment change to the General Plan amendment process, and that resolution included a proposed bill. And in that proposed bill, there was some proposed timeframes for Planning Director and Council review that were rejected by the Planning Commission as being too short. And it was a longer period of time than is proposed in Bill 181. And so, I wanted to place that before you folks because amendments need to go Page 24 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 back before the Planning Commission and knowing at least what a prior Commission felt in terms of the amount of time that they needed is important. And then the other thing to remember is back in 2007, this County had one Planning Commission. Now you have two. And so, when this body is starting to think about the amendment process and the Commission involvement, understanding that times have changed and anticipating what the burden is on the department and the Planning Commissions is important. Another interesting piece about that is that the bill eventually adopted by the Council was a bill that came as an interim amendment from the Planning Director, who gave himself, and I'm saying he because it was a he at the time, was a little bit of a shorter period of time, and the question was, well wasn't that too short of a time for you. And the response was; well not really because these amendments have to go through a resolution process, which means I'm going to have notice of at least two hearings and I would've gone through the public hearing process. And so, I will not be getting these cold: And so, what that history tells me is really looking at the process, and how and,when people and body's get information is important so that when something comes back to you, you have the benefit of a timely reviewby,the Planning Commission and they're able to do their job under the CountyCharter. The Planning Director has obligations around the General Plan under the Charter including statutory obligations about having a data driven document. And so, I think that the point really is, is that the Planning General Plan is such a unique piece of legislation and it has requirements of a number of different bodies; the Planning Department, the Planning Commissions, and then ultimately this body, that really understanding how the different levers work is really important. And so, what I really wanted to do with this legislative history is to try to compile it because it's not easily found and try put together some highlights that address the issue that you're currently evaluating, and then, you know, let the process move forward. But I think in the end, you know, this is just such a unique piece of legislation that it requires a unique lens in trying to help you and provide you information that allows you to put on that lens, I thought was important. And so, that's really what this document was trying to do, more than providing any real specific legal opinion. I did provide a little bit of statutory information. I provided a case, but those most important thing that I would hope that you or anybody that read this would get out of it is just some history of what's gone before. You know, there's been some public testimony about there's been efforts to limit the authority of this body. And to be honest with you, when I first read the language, that's what I worried about too and spent a lot of time, but how can you do that; and there's your responsibilities under that Charter. You know, and having done the history, the pieces fit together a little bit more, but it took a lot of work. So, the other Page 25 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 purpose in submitting something as a communication to you is to at least, if this comes up again in the future, that there would be a starting place for somebody else. I would say there's kind of one other piece of this that I hope gets addressed at some point, and that is the General Plan since its initial adoption in 1971, has been by ordinance, an uncodified ordinance, and it's included its amendment processes. Then there's Chapter 16, of the Hawaii County„Code called Planning and it has one section on the General Plan that hasn't been, isn't always updated well. And so, for example, it's still references the 1971 Plan as the County's General Plan, as amended. But the ordinances in 19$9 and 2005, specifically repeal the plan before it and the legislative history doesn't include a really important 2014 amendment that changed really, I think, made a really significant change to how the comprehensive review is commenced. And so, whatever this body does and it's clear that, you know, we've been, the County's beenthrough this a couple of times. It's complex and never really totally anticipated process. In 2014, they anticipated it would be a pretty straightforward process this time around with the community development plats. It wasn't. There's been a lot that's happened. You know, so it think being”able to address some of the issues that repeat themselves is important. Understanding the history, I think, is important, and really taking your time and having a,`really thoughtful approach to something rather than trying to solve an,immediate problem in front of you, I think, is important because the history is pretty rich. Some of the persistent problems are pretty clear, and being able to kind of sort through that, I think at your end, is particularly important since you're the final arbitrator of the plan. And so, that's really what I'd like to say about it. If there's specific questions about the memo,I'm happy to provide that. But what the purpose of it was, is really to give you a Lens into what's gone on before around the amendment process. CHR: KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Judge Strance, for this very extensive historical recounting of the General Plan. Any questions for Corporation Counsel? Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I kind of jumped to the end of your memo to'us and it's saying that kind of the real guiding for us, guidance, comes from the Charter. And so, we have Bill 181 in front of us, and I was thinking, given that I think you've concluded the Charted, really gives us a lot, you know, kind of our starting point on this. Is Bill 181 consistent with our Charter? MS. STRANGE: Yes and no. The Charter doesn't say anything about the amendment process. It's silent on that. It does treat the General Plan as a single ordinance. So, it does say that. The case that's cited for you has a different set of facts where the City and County of Honolulu Charter required a two-thirds vote Page 26 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 for amendments to the General Plan. And the Council was trying to enact an ordinance under their general ordinances that would've only required a majority. Some of the language in the opinion is, I thought, really helpful because it talks about the importance of the General Plan and that where there are procedures set up, they should be followed. Since the General Plan is an uncodified ordinance, it's treated similarly to some of your other zoning and other plans that if they have deadlines and things like in that, this body wouldn't go and pull and back before the time for it to come back to it is. Having said that, it's a unique piece of legislation and your Charter specifically permits amendments. And so, I don't want to say that there's a case on point that says that you can't do it becausethere's not.-%I think my message is to look at both the ordinance in the Charter carefully and then decide as a matter of policy whether you want to pull out the amendment process from the General Plan itself and then beyond that, whether youwant to do that right now. And so, that would be my response to that question. MS. EVANS: Okay. And that does leave me a good segway to my next question. When you were talking,you were talking about the 1971 comment, as amended, and things changed later on,. Some people have told me that what we're looking at in this particular Charter that will probably come in,front of us hear in the near future, is not an amendment. It's actually a replacement and that they feel like it was a start over. It was looked at as a tart'over and it's like kind of a new plan. So, I wanted to just play a little`bit on words here about we're not really amending; 'we're not really amending the Charter. What we're doing is replacing it, we now have a new starting point with a new Charter. Does that change how we look at the language and how we move forward? MS. STRANGE: Not really. The same thing that, my understanding, is being proposed now,,,that's what they did in 2005. It was—I don't want to say getting replaced. It was,a replacement and that was what I believed happened in 1989 as well. And so, the precedent is that when they come back, they come back with an entirely new plan rather than pulling a piece of here and pulling a piece out there. So, the process as I understand it now is consistent with prior practice. MS. EVANS: Okay. And I guess my last question is, if a comprehensive review genes on,for years and years and years and years, it gets to the point that maybe we as a body see that there's something really important to be addressed, can we not address it even thoughI mean, is there a limit? I don't know if you'd put that in ordinance or Code, but it just seems that if you have a department that you want them to put in front of us something within three years, but we're now into the fifth or sixth or seventh year, it would seem to me that there must be some trigger or some point where we can go ahead and maybe change something. I don't know. It just seems like Page 27 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. STRANCE: That's a good question. And it's something that has come up and we've opined on. And so, the way that the General Plan is currently written is it says that the Director shall put a bill in front of the Council within the 13 years, but there's no consequence for not doing that. And so, the law says that that means that the last directory and not mandatory. So, if this body wants to impose somethingso, Bill 181 actually has language to that affect in it, then the Council would need to do it. And what I had suggested with this current plan, since the time had already passed, that the Council would;consider a limited amendment that would put in that new deadline and what would happen if it didn't happen. But, you know, the prior Councils have been very reluctant to put those kinds of deadlines because of the amount of work that goes into them, and when they pose a deadline on themselves, they haven't met,it. And so, it goes to the point of the processes can be cumbersome. You know,just as an observer to this process; there were probably ports back in 2018 and 2019 where maybe the whole issue of when a plan would,be submitted would come to the Council. But the Council was apprised what has been happening all the way along. So, if you look at the history, every year at budget hearings for example,Planning Director would get asked, where are you with the General Plan? And they would be given an update, this is when we think we'll get it to you and when that date passes, come up again. Council Member Kierkiewicz asked the Planning Director to come back a couple of years ago. He estimated that the plan would come to you dining this calendar year, I think earlier in'the year, but within this calendar year. And so, that's what is in retrospect a little, might've been helpful is to have that conversation in terms of your process. So, is this going on so long that the Council should hold bearings for proposed amendments because it's been four years since they've been able to propose amendments. Should any of the other deadlines change; do we have a new Council who has more to come up to speed on? But the need for this to be a collaborative process is really important because it might take longerthan you think, both from the director side and on your side. And I think that in the end, on your side, how long you're willing to hold onto the plan would depend upon what it will take to get the votes to pass a General Plan. So, if you have the votes early, then Council Members can save interim amendments to after the plan is passed. If you don't, then there's a back and forth on proobsed amendments going back and forth to the Commission and back up to you. But if you were to say, we're going to give ourselves a certain amount of time, does that give you the time that you need to do this process? And it comes back to a conversation that I think we've had before about do you get it done or do you get it done just right, and then the world changes. MS. EVANS: So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. I just will say that clearly getting the approval for a General Plan to me is different than trying to do Page 28 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 interim where we're trying to update as the world turns. So, hopefully we figure out a way to do both. Thank you. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. Just first, responding to a comment Council Member Evans made. Section 6-7.5, Subsection C of the Charter, it has language that says—now I just lost it. So, this is the function and duties of the Planning Commissions; "All amendments to the General Plan or the adoption of a new General Plan shall be considered by each Planning Commission." And so, the Charter does allow for a General Plan that is essentially a new plan to be approved in that sense. And I think one of the causes of confusion, with respect to what's in the General Plan now as the process is that use of the terminology amendment versus, you know, what we are really doing as an update to the plan and that update can take the form of an amendment to an existing General Plan or an entirely new General plan. And so, this has been actually a fascinating legislative, through the hoops, sort of thing that I've had extensive conversations with Judge Strance, with our legislative folks, Jacob (Perry) who's really knowledgeable about this stuff, and of course the introducer, Vice Chair Inaba. What I'd like to get right now is"a confirmation from the Planning Director; my main concern about the General Plan process.we are undertaking right now was that the Council had the authority to make substantive amendments once it reaches us haying gone through the Planning Commissions. In Judge Strance's interpretation, we do have that authority using the interim amendment process as prescribed in Section 16.2, of the current General Plan. I just wanted to confirm with you,Director, that that is your understanding as well? ISR. KERN: 'Zendo Kern,Planning Director. Thank you for the question. I'm going to differ to Judge Strance. My understanding though is that an interim amendment is after'the comprehensive review. They're not the same thing. So, that's I'think where my increased understanding would need to occur because there's the comprehensive review process, which we are doing right now and then there's the interim amendments, which would happen after a plan is adopted. That would be in between the comprehensive review. MS'KIMBALL: So, the General Plan, the current one, has in it Section 16.1, 16.2; 16.1 refers to the comprehensive review process; 16.2 refers to the interim amendment process. Section 16.1 takes us all the way through; all of the stuff that Planning is supposed to do prior to it getting to the Planning Commissions. It gets to the Planning Commissions, they do their business, then they send it to us. That is all in the Section: Comprehensive Review, and there is other language in there that says we are not allowed to make amendments, substantive ones, during the comprehensive review. However, based on the Page 29 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 legislative history that you have uncovered and explored, which I really appreciate, by the way, it seems that previous Councils really intended the comprehensive review process to essentially end at the point which it's given to the Planning Commissions and therefore allowed the Council to make substantive amendments, but they had to utilize the interim amendment process, which means they had to create the amendment, submit it by resolution to the Planning Commissions for review so they could make substantive amendments when it came to the body without that additional review, which''Aligns with the Charter, because the Charter says that the Commissions have the authority to review any amendments to the General Plan. So, that being said, you know, the Charter is the end all,be all. This process resides in an ordinance that is subject ter the,Charter but cannot go against the Charter. One would argue that the way that it was constructed actually could be construed in a way that violates the Charter and the Council's authority;also, violates the ability of one Council tei limit the function of a future Council, right, by saying we couldn't do substantive amendments; we cannot do that as a body. So, it is my belief after reading what you've said, and talking with LRB (Legislative Research Branch), that even though it lives in ordinance, the ordinance is a subject to the Charter. The process by which when it gets to the Commissions and gets to the Council, we have left the comprehensive review process, and we are in the!approval process that allows us to use that interim amendment process. Would you concur that that is the conclusion that you've arrived at? MS. STRANGE: I feel like I need a diagram. MS. KIMBALL: I'm happy to provide one. Where's my whiteboard? MS. STRACE: If I try, I would describe it the same way, the results is the same: I guess; you know, when there are rules of statutory construction that are both in the Hawaii Revised Statute and a matter just general law, about how to read provisions in the statute or a contracted, either don't make sense in the context or would seem to contradict each other and it's, of course, it's legal and it's a Latin word, impari materia, which means that you try to read, confusing provisions in a way that complement each other and accomplish the intent. And so, one of the troublesome parts of the way that the ordinance is written, and in interpretation it says, this body can't make amendments is that ultimately this body is responsible for adopting the General Plan. And so, the troublesome part would be to say that, well that's true in the end, but you have to do it through an amendment process. So, similarly, an interpretation that says that when a bill comes to you, the Commission has done all it needs to do and this body can do whatever it wants is also in violation, in my view, of the Charter because the Charter was set up to Page 30 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 make sure that this public body also had an opportunity to weigh in. And so, trying to look at a process as it is intended to be is sometimes not always clear from the language that is used. And so, then you look behind it and then you look at the intentions, and that was part of the purpose of going through this legislative history. And for anybody who's wonky, it's fascinating because they had to amend the Charter because there was a point at which the Charter didn't say the Council could make amendments even though they had the obligation to adopt a plan, and the Charter got amended. The fact that it was ever carried out, but then you would have questions like that. And so, when you have a process that this County has only gone through a handful of time, you know, I think there are pieces thatare emerging and will fall in place over time, and shorter is better;but it'snot a clean process. MS. KIMBALL: So, well, I think this is all clear as mud. What1thinkwe need to do is have consensus betweenthis body—if I may have a couple more minutes, this body, the LRB, Planning, and Corporation Counsel, about what we can do right now. And I am satisfied if that includes the ability of the Council to make interim amendments when the General Plan comes to us. If we cannot come to an agreement that we have that authority and would use that process, then I think that that is problematic and I think it actually conflicts with the Charter. That said, I do think we ultimately needto move this into the Code. It should not, this process as it were, should not live in the General Plan itself. The new General Plan has an even less meaningful section on how the review process and amendments happen. It would be much better if that section were either eliminated or referred to something in the Code that established the process. So, I do think we still need.a 181 type bill, and I think there's some additional language needed. I think after having more conversations with LRB and Judge Strance, I am inclinedto say that we need to understand and go through the process for some'of these timing elements because, again, limitations on ourselves to restrict the acti=ons of a future Council apply as well as deference to all of the work that has gone before. So, what I'm inclined to say is if we can come to consensus that we have that ability to do interim amendments, we kind of just continue to work on Bill 181, massage it, but not necessarily have it apply to the current process, given that we would have that authority. Thank you. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Planning Director, Judge Strance, any comments? MS. STRANCE: No. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you. Director? Page 31 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MR. KERN: Clear as mud. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MR. KERN: I do agree though, it'd be nice that if kind of all four bodies could come to some type of understanding on that. I also agree that Bill 181 definitely has merit on the next go round without question. Where it fits into this one, I think is still trying to be figured out. And I think having that process in Chapter 16 is much easier to find. It's a better place for it to be. So, definitely agree with that. For us, I think it's just really important. You know, I didn't start this process. I came through part way through. I really wanted to come and bring a good plan together and get it across the finish line. Butl want to make sure that the process is done right, whatever that'means. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: So, in order to speak in just simple speak, out of legal speak, the legislation I believe was brought forward in order to allow Council Members to make amendments to the General Plan that's,going to come before us started a conversation that questioned whether or not we are legally able to do that based on wherever it's written in the Code or the Charter; which it was clear as mud. But now what's being said is that'moving forward, somethings going to change, that future Council's ten years from now, and another General Plan eventually gets to them,they will have the ability to make amendments when it comes before them;,but we in fact will not have that opportunity when it comes before us. So, we will have opportunities to make amendments when the General Plan comes before us. Thank you. That's justwhere I wanted to get to because I felt like we went back and forth,back and forth, back and forth. And to all the people out there who have asked,and said that they had concerns and wanted to ensure that there was opportunity for Council to make amendments to the General Plan, when it actually gets in'front of us. Congratulations. It sounds like we got there. So, thank you for clarifying and confirming. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. Judge Strance—and thank you. I kind of enjoyed that read. I think I was there for some of it during the 80's and 90's, so I was like, I remember Curtis Tyler and some of those conversations; Nancy Pisicchio. Yes, I believe there is some positive energy behind Bill 181. I think where I keep slipping is this area of interim amendments because when I walk into an interim amendment, it could be something as small as a 20 acre parcel. But if that parcel provides connectivity, and when I look at the Charter, the basic framework and organization and operation of the government; so if that area was slated for a wastewater treatment facility or the new rubbish dump, if we made an interim amendment to what that General Plan designation would be, we would Page 32 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 then run into a substantive amendment, which alters the main provision of the General Plan by adding, removing, or modifying key sections or clauses. And so, I think I know where we're trying to go but it's even a definition of what that interim amendment actually impacts. And so, I am supportive of the Council having someways to tailor, and I'm going to call it tailoring, some ways of tailoring these General Plan amendments, especially as it lends itself to our land use pattern guide, where we want to see economic development, where we want to see agricultural. And sometimes, it's happened"in the past, where a parcel is right on the boundary line or a cusp of that resort'ftode,, that economic development area, of that agricultural zoning and so we would tailor in the whole property, which in my mind turns into a demonyms type of adjustment. So, for me, I like the idea of having more heads at the table and really being very clear that an interim amendment literally cannot agitate the larger framework and overall general planning that this guide is supposed to be providing to us. And to Ms. Kimball's point, I do think withinlhhe process we get a lot of feedback where communities are saying, you know,this really isn't a good fit for us but better explanation on why, right? Because it'provides that continuity of sewer services or road infrastructure, or some of the larger water issues that we have out there. These planning documents specifically the General Plan, actually helps us as policymakers to provide the appropriate funding to help guide that infrastructure need that's very aged around here. So, that being said, I guess I'm still looking for some definition,of interim. I clearly understand what substantive means,, long,as that interim doesn't bang up against what a substantive change would look like,; I okay with a lot of this stuff. I think it's really honing in on some of that, and to the maker, I`see him ferociously taking notes there. And I think we've all asked for that clarity, right, of what are we trying to achieve; are we trying to tailor an area to make it fit better or are we weaponizing an amendment to sabotage years and years of planning for our roadway system, for our sewer system, for our water project, like, let's be real, right? Those are my thoughts. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you for some additional time. In response to that, you know, one of the things that Judge Strance and I had a little bit of a conversation about, which I think is a really interesting consideration with respect to Bill 181 and future activities is should we actually separate the General Plan narrative from the LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide) map and then the maps, and have those be two separate bills that run concurrently. That might change this whole idea about what is substantive and what is not. To answer your question as it was asked, an interim amendment is by default substantive because non-substantive can be made without having to go through Page 33 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 the Planning Commissions, but any substantive amendments, again, this body is the determinant of substantive or not, has to go through the interim amendment process, which the main component of that is that review of the Planning Commissions, which Bill 181 now contemplates with the amendment we made last time. So, you know, I'd like to have the opportunity to discuss more with Judge Strance and Director Kern, what would be the appropriate, and even Clerk Henricks, what would be the appropriate vehicle to basically at this time say, we have decided based on all of this information, we all agree that we have this ability to make the interim amendments whether that's a resolution, a memo, or something like that. But I do think, in addition to Bill 181 with where we are right now, something that for future Councils',go,what did they do way back then in 2024, they will have something to look at and see where we arrived with that decision. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Go ahead, Judge Strance. MS. STRANCE: So, the ordinance as it's written;"that list, that was a 2007 attempt to answer that question. And so;that would be a starting point. There's comments in some of the transcripts or the videos of hearings where they talk about case by case basis. But, you know, the'genesis of the 2007 amendments was in part that desire for more clarity too. And'what I hear this body saying is that you still need clarity. And so,that's probably a'good discussion to have and to make sure that the people that are most knowledgeable about the areas are able to comment. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Judge Strance, I'm looking at your memo on Page 4, it talks about two interim amendments being adopted, which affected amendment procedures. So, outside of amending the procedures, were there any actual amendments that, like a zoning designation or strategy in the General Plan was amended? MS. STRANCE: Yes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MS. STRANCE: Some of them are listed. If you go to Hawaii County Code Chapter 16, they're listed. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MS. STRANGE: But there was a flurry in the 2006-2008 time period, I think mostly of map changes. I don't recall seeing, and I didn't look at all of them, but I think most of, not all of, them were map changes. Page 34 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. That's really helpful. It sounds like we still have some refinement to do with this bill and to come into some sort of agreement around what we are considering a substantive amendment to be within the comprehensive review process and what an interim amendment looks like once a plan has been adopted. Seeing where we are with timing and what else we have left on the agenda; I'll take one final comment from Council Member Kdneali`i- Kleinfelder but would like the introducer of the bill to consider postponing this measure to a future meeting. Council Member KdneaWi-hleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Thank you, Judge Strance, for this document. This is enlightening. I appreciate your time and energy in putting this together. Do you know why the previous Council chose to or was it the Council that put in the ability to amend inside the General'.Plan? MS. STRANCE: It's always been done that way. There was, I think, Draft 3 of the current General Plan proposed"moving it out of the ordinance, but then it just suddenly was taken off the hearing calendar and I couldn't find any explanation for why that was done. Interestingly, the 2005 General Plan's numbering for plan amendments is different than what you see now. The assignment of 16-1.1 and 2 was added later. And I don't know if it just coincidently or purposefully coincides with Chapter 16 ofthe Hawai`i Code. So the answer is I really don't know. I find it curious though. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELI)ER: Yeah: T just find it curious that no Council has chosen toaddress this and even the attempts that they did didn't seem to nail it. And I wonder if that's because this was a way to do it at the time or a way forward from that Council Member or that Council body to find a way to amend. MS. STRANGE: It'might�,be good to have a broader conversation because this is —the decision whether to codify something or not codify something has to do with how broadly applicable the law is. And so, you know, laws that would have kind'of broad application or codified these laws that have greater specificity are not—I've,had the Clerk's Office tell me a couple times what the exact language of that is. But unlike a zoning ordinance or something, this ordinance envisions that there might be amendments. And so, whether it should be treated differently is probably worth a conversation. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: This makes me sleepy. Okay. So, I think we have an amendment that is not ready yet today. I don't feel like we're much more clear than when we started off after all this time, but I know and I think we can all agree that we want to ensure we can make those substantive amendments when this draft General Page 35 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 Plan gets to us. So, I think with that in mind, by the time we get to our next hearing we will have a plan to make that happen. I'm going to postpone a month to make sure we have adequate time to get that done. Vote on Motion Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 181, Draft 2, to to Postpone: November 7, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder,Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I don't think we need a break. We can keep moving forward. I'm just kidding you guys. We,are,going to do a 10 minute break. We are in recess. See you at 12:12 p.m. Recess: At 12:02 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 12:16 p,tn, CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay,- We are calling this meeting back to order. If folks could please take their seats. We have reconvened Committee at 12:16 p.m. We are'going to go back to Bill 134, May I have a motion to remove Bill 134 from the table? Vote on Motion to Mr. Inaba mewed to remove Bill 134, Draft 2, from the Remove from Table: table,, Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the (Approves following uoice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Evans — 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Bill 134 is back on deck for discussion. MR. INABA: Thank you. Yeah, I want to thank LRB for processing this amendment quickly so we can take action today. Page 36 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 134, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 741.9. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: So, this amendment reads that the director shall prepare a report on surrounding properties of which any portion is within 1,000 feet in the case of a subject property in the state land use agricultural districtor 300 feet in the case of a subject property in either the state land use urban,or rural districts. So, in line with what the Planning Department requested and it gives us, you know,perhaps a more balances approach while still providing the information that is helpful. So, I ask for my colleagues support on this amendment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Any comments on the amendment? Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm continuously impressed by Mr. Inaba's ability to get amendments in so quickly, and I do appreciate the folks at LRB as well in making this happen. And I will be supporting the amendment. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Department, would you like to weigh in on the amendment that is before this body? MR. KERN-,',In the essence of time, we appreciate the amendment. It's consistent with the notifications and really appreciate the ability to continue to work with the language and massage something out that I think we can work with. So, we're good: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you. There is a motion on the floor to amend Bill 134,Draft 2, with the contents of Communication 741.9. All those in favor;please say "aye." Vote on Motion Themotion to amend Bill 134, Draft 2, with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 741.9 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Evans — 1. Excused: None. Page 37 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Back to the main motion, Bill 134, Draft 2, as amended. Any questions or comments before we move to the vote? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 134: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 134, as amended Draft 3 to Draft 3, was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Inaba,,Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz'-8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Evans= 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, everyone, for your hard work on that. MR. HENRICKS: (Bill) 122? CHR KIERKIEWICZ,: 122. MS. KIMBALL: 121, please. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: 122. Thank you. MR. HENRICKS: 122? CHR, KIERKIEWICZ: 122. Bill 122: AMENDS CHAPTER 25 AND CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 14-20, (Draft 2) OF THE HAWAII 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, August 20, and September 3, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Galimba, to recommend passage of Bill 122, Draft 2, on first reading.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Kimball. Page 38 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. KIMBALL: Yes. Since the fate of Bill 122 is highly dependent on what we ultimately do with Bill 121, I'd like to request that we table this for now and go to Bill 121, and comeback to CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'd like to hear from the rest of the body before I take the motion to table this measure. I'm actually inclined to have a discussion and vote on this today. I had agreed to co-introduce the measure as a way to have a conversation within our community and it's very evident based on the testimony that is coming through that folks would like to retain-the ability to seek a Bed and Breakfast(B&B) special use permit through Planning Commissions. It is a very distinctive sort of experience that folks are providing to members of wherever you're from that are visiting Hawaii Island.—So, I ra'actually inclined to request that this bill be withdrawn just based on the feedback that's been provided by community. And I would like to hear from the rest of my colleagues. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Yeah. I've been kind of lukewarm on this one the whole time. So, I'm actually wondering if, I know we've talked about it several times and we've been over it, butI'm wondering if Council Member Kimball would just do a very brief recap on the purpose behind this one particularly. I think I understand it was kind of to just like keep everything together. But I would love, if that's okay, to have just a brief recap the need for Bill 122 and why the need,for bed and breakfasts no longer having their own standalone kind of retaining that specialness? So, if I could, Chair, when available? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Would you like to provide a very, very quick summary? Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: Sure, of course. So, the reason for Bill 122 in the context of partnering up'with Bill 121 is what the original and draft before you of Bill 121 has owner-hosted and operator-hosted. This is the first point, bed and breakfasts allows for both owner or operator as the host. Okay. So, in Bill 121, we contemplate treating those differently. When we get to the discussion of Bill 121, I have some more to say about that. So, that was one reason to remove Bill 122. The second reason was by creating the pathway within Bill 121, under the Transient Accommodation Rental (TAR)procedure, you would have those three procedures for owner-hosted, operator-hosted, unhosted, and then you would layer on top of it this additional procedure. So, Planning Department would actually have to deal with four procedures. Those were the two main reasons. There was a certain anticipation at some point or another that perhaps with Bill 121 going through, we would see an ordinant amount of bed and breakfasts going through. I hadn't really contemplated jumping onto this in this way today so, I haven't I will say that if this is the will of the body, to continue bed and breakfast permits, I'm not entirely opposed to withdrawing Bill 122 and coming Page 39 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 back at it with a slightly different approach, which I think will be more meaningful as we discuss Bill 122, because there is some constraints that I'm going to suggest with respect to Bill 122 that could also apply to bed and breakfasts that I think this body might be interested in. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Kimball. That's very helpful for me. Yeah, I'm inclined to not Bass Bill 122 as it is. That's just my feeling at this point and would like to consider Chair's motion to potentially withdraw it. So, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Villegas, I apologize, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. Bill 122 has given me heartburn all the way through, and I feel that there is something special about this opportunity for travelers. It's a global opportunity for basically home sharing, home stay, with people. And I appreciated the testifier earlier, of course there was one that was in support, and one that was against. But I still think that there's a dace for bed and breakfasts in our community and so I would be inclined not to support the passage of Bill 122 today. So, I would encourage the maker to consider withdrawing it. Yeah. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Thinking back, I think I always had concern with this bill, and I've statedn previous hearings that I'm not supportive of it. So, if we vote on it, I'll be voting no. CHR: KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I would like another approach to it. I think that there is value to the bed and breakfast concept, but I don't see the value—it isn't, to me, a very valid value that it's a pain to get through the process, you know, like that shouldn't be value proposition. I think, I mean, people just come in and tell us all the time, like you shouldn't make life hard for us. So, making life hard, shouldn't be the reason for it. It should be because it is that special kind of travel hospitality experience. So, I would definitely look for something that would be around that kind of legislation. So, I'm not sure what you're thinking, but I think there's a way to do that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Page 40 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Just to the maker, Bill 122 would remove the ability to have bed and breakfasts, is that correct? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: That's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And existing bed and breakfasts would be? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Grandfathered in. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Grandfathered:iri: But going forward, no bed and breakfasts. They would fall into the either hosted or operator-hosted. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: That is correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And whatis the problem with that? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Is this a rhetorical question? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEIFELDER: Yeah. Itis'a real question. That's what I'm hearing. We're voting the bill down; we're saying there's an issue with this. So, having them fall into a new categeiry, grandfathering the ones that exist already, just trying to wrap my head aroundwhat each different— CHR. ifferentCHR. KIERKIEWICZ: You know, if I may, Bill 122 was a suggestion by the Planning Department for there to be one less process to manage because a bed and breakfast could be interpreted as a heisted or operator-hosted rental. But with a special,use permitfor a B&B designation, it's a one and done kind of process, you get your permit. There are actual, like there aren't annual filings with the Planning Department that one would have to submit. But there are perimeters in which you must operate, which are distinctive from a TAR. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Maybe then, to the Planning Department. I feel like between Bill 121 and 123,we've spent a lot of time discussing those two ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Unit) and what's going on, but Bill 122 is kind of falling in between. I mean, interested in your comments. I think, did you understand my question? MR. KERN: Yeah. So, I think the intent was, if Bill 121 passes in some framework as it might, which contemplates hosted rentals being owner or operator, then it's basically a by right use and you don't need to have a B&B, which is a use permit. If the body feels otherwise, so be it. I think there hasn't been a lot of discussion on it because it's kind of seeing how Bill 121 shakes out, right. If Bill 121 shakes out drastically different, maybe there is he need for Page 41 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 Bill 122 or to amend Bill 122 or not to have Bill 122. I think the bigger question will come up with folks is explaining to them—let's just say Bill 121 passes in some framework like it has and we're regulating hosted, owner-hosted, et cetera, and somebody comes in and says, "I want to do a hosted rental; I want to do a B&B,"we would then say, "Do you want to do it this way, or do you want to do it this way?" One is to buy right, go ahead and do it today. You're going to pay a filing fee; you're going to pay an annual fee; and there's these perimeters to it. The other way is you're going to go through a public hearing process. It's going to be a one-time fee, and there might be additional conditions that come on to it. Your choice. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think I'd go with number two. MR. KERN: Have fun with that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Interesting. „What is the fee to apply for use permit? MR. KERN: $500. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINVELDER: $500. So, one time. Done. You got a bed and breakfast as long as you pass? MR. KERN: As long as you pass. Differentprocess. Some folks, you know, go in front of the public can be very tricky. M1t KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Did we set a deadline on the day to apply to be a bed,and breakfast? ISR. KERN: No. There's no deadlines or anything. That's why we've seen a number of them with people anticipating something, you know, being changed. Personally, we're not attached to it. We just thought it was kind of cleaner because you're eliminating something and then it's by right. But if the will is to keep it, I think for us it's going to be a matter of messaging and explaining to folks. And,then, do you call your just regular hosted one a B&B or are B&Bs only exclusive to that special permit, and that is completely unclear. Historically, we've said, if it's been a B&B, if you go through the special permit, then it's a B&B; otherwise, you're just a hosted rental. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yup, yup. Okay. That's helpful. MR. KERN: Does that help? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's really helpful actually. It's interesting. But therefore they want to kind of simplify process down to one or Page 42 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 the other, not both being open, and I can understand that. Perhaps then, finding a way to incorporate Bill 122 into Bill 121. I can see pros and cons to both. And if you gave me the option right now, I'd say I'm going to go apply for the use permit and do a one-time fee and there's never anything after that and I'll be a hosted rental. Thank you. MR. KERN: You're welcome. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. I did want to make clear that at one of the very early discussions that we had was with the Planning Department and Council Member Kierkiewicz was should we just push all hosted TARS to the bed and breakfast process. So, that was an optiott'that we contemplated. As much as it is a more burdensome process, it also takes a little bit more time to implement. So, Axyl, who was in earlier, you know, he talked about all of—he had to hire a consultant, they had to bring all the buildings up to code; they had to take a kitchen out of one building. There's a bunch of things that needed to happen. So, it does take a little bit longer than what is in Bill 121, with respect to the hosted permit. There are a couple other differences,and I think I'd like to get to those differences a little bit when we talk about Bill 121 and some of the changes that I want to suggest there. I would reiterate that I'm going to make the motion to table again because I would like to go through some of the legal requirements around all of this before we make any decisions on Bill 122. I also would like a little bit of time to consider if I.could do what you're suggesting, Matt, which is to move the bed and breakfast stuff. I think maybe I could, but I'd have to talk with Corporation Counsel. So, motion:to Viable. Vote on Motion'to Ms. Kimball moved to table Bill 122, Draft 2. Seconded by Table: Mr. Inaba and carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: Committee Member Evans — 1. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Bill 122 has been tabled. Back to the top of the list, Mr. Clerk. Bill 121. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: Page 43 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. (Note: Items in this category were taken up previously, out of order.) Bill 121: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES 1, 4, AND 5, OF THE HAWAII (Draft 4) 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. 675.471, Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and M . Kierkiewicz Referred to'PlAnning Commissions: January 30, 2024 Postponed: July 8, August 20, and September 3, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz, to recommend passage of Bill 121,'Draft 3, as amended, on first reading.) and Comm. 675.472: From Council Member Jenn Kagiwada, dated September 4, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. (Note:-The following Communications transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 121, Draft 4, were circulated: 1: Comm. 675:508, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated October 2, 2024; 2. Comm_675.500, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated October 1, 2024; 3. Comm. 675.510, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated October 1, 2024; and 4. Comm. 675.511, from Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated October 2, 2024.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. At this time, I am going to be transferring the chairmanship of the Committee to Vice Chair Inaba as I am one of the co- introducers of this measure. Relinquish Chair: At this time, the Chair relinquished the chair to Vice Chair Inaba. Page 44 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Let the record reflect at 12:36 p.m. I've assumed the Chair. Alright. Here we go. Bill 121. Council Member Kimball, I believe you have some amendments. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. I have a communication that was shared this morning, it's 675.508, which transmits a presentation as well as something that I had promised in previous hearings, which is an outline of all of the sections of the bills. Please be very aware it is not complete. It is meant to be primarily a quick reference for you folks, so if there's a particular section that you Have a question about, that you can use that at a guide. If we can go to the nekt slide right there, Relley (Araceley). Alrighty. What I'd like to do with the Chair's approve is I'd like to briefly talk about the Rosehill decision as it applies to this., We did at the last hearing,I shared with you that one of the concerns has been some of the constitutional ;questions as raised by Council Member Evans and some of the testifiers. I want to just briefly state what Bill 121 does in its currentformat. And then I have a pretty substantial amendment, and the intention of the amendment is to share with you folks, if we swing the pendulum as absolutely restrictive as I think we can be with respect to TARS, this is where we could go. And so, I would expect that we would maybe not pass that amendment but,,Iobk at different proposals within that and determine the appetite to do them. So, if we coup go to the Rosehill decision. So, among other things ACTING CHR, INABA: Okay. I'm sorry. I'm going to take us on a pause real quick. If we are going over the Rosehill decision, is Corporation Counsel will and able to lead us through that discussion being that it is a legal decision that was made by the courts, and I feel that we should be getting advised on legal matters by Corporation Counsel? MS: KIMBALL,, I believe I'll let Corporation Counsel speak for themselves, but I think that they have not completed their full analysis of the Rosehill decision. ACTING CHR. INABA: Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell, if you could just kind of give us a progress update as to where you folks are? (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. CAMPBELL: Good morning. Is it morning? It's still not morning. Whatever. ACTING CHR. INABA: Afternoon. Page 45 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. CAMPBELL: Anyway, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell, again. As you all know, the Rosehill decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court came out mid-late last week. I've personally read through it at least twice now. I've been contacted by quite a number of people to talk about it, to hear their opinions about it, and their opinions have covered the entire spectrum. From people who believe that it is an absolute bar to any variety of vacation rental of any sort across all state ag land to people on the other end of the spectrum who believe that it doesn't even say that the Rosehill's can't do what was before the court. And so, our office, Corporation Counsel Strance, I think very wisely has suggested that our office sit down together to have all of the attorney's in our office read this and do a fairly in depth analysis before we offer the County's legal position on this case. So today we may have personal opinions about it, there's lot of those flying around, but we do not have a legal presentationor a legal analysis of the case quite yet. ACTING CHR. INABA: Got it. Thank you, Deputy Corporation Counsel. So, Council Member Kimball, with the Office of Corporation Counsel not yet ready to weigh in and with their intention to des an in depth review together, I'm wondering if you're able to proceed with anything besides that because I think we really should get that opinion from the collective minds of the attorney's at Corporation Counsel. MS. KIMBALL: So, I will proceed with the caveat that this is my interpretation with some legal guidance and so should betaken with that grain of salt. But I think it is relevant to some of the future discussions around the amendment with respect to HRS 05-4.584, which I think has been mentioned frequently with respect to Bill 123 and Bill 121, and I wanted to make sure that everybody had the text of that particular part of the HRS in front of them. Please note that the underlining is mine and not in the actual legislation. ACTING CHR. INABA: I don't want to make a decision on this myself. I personally, I've stated my point and I want to hear from the body on how much we're going to get into a decision right now that the courts made. We'll start with Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: I won't be making a decision on this today and I'll actually be asking;for it to be postponed again. I think that we're on a slippery slope, and while I appreciate and recognize, one, the makers diligence in digging deep into very complex issues with the intention of clarifying, I think unfortunately it's having the opposite and it's causing more concern. And so, my request would be that it be postponed and there be more time for there to be more professional from the legal teams that we are most reliant on—let's just say those with law degrees at least, of which I do not have one. So, I would ask for that at this time because this is overwhelming and when things are this big and this intense and have had Page 46 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 this much resistance thus far, I don't believe, at least in my life, that's when it's wise to take a step back. So, that's my reflection today. So, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. And you know what, I will make a decision. Council Member Kimball, can you just skip this Rosehill part. I don't want to get legal analysis of the decision right now that have not been reviewed and okayed by the Office of Corporation Counsel. But I do want you to get through the amendments that you have proposed for today. And L believe the intention of the maker is to postpone this bill, but I think there's some discussion that we are intending to have today. So, if you could proceed. (Note: At this time, Council Member Heather L'Kimball came forward and provided a PowerPoint presentation"to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the subject presentation, see DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is made a part of the record,,see Comm. 675.508.) MS. KIMBALL: It says stop here for questions, but I don't think that's necessary because—well, I'll stop and see if there's questions about constitutionality and anything else that has been said so far before I introduce the amendment. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Okay. It was actually brought up by a testifier today and one of my constituents brought it up to me that when Bill 108 was heard by the body, that when they were out in the community doing presentations, they told people that were currently operating thatthey could continue to operate and they didn't have to register. And like I said, that came up today and someone else brought that up tome. So, I'just don't know how this, what you just put up, would apply to them because they've been doing it before Bill 108 got passed. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, it would depend on the conditions. If they have been, even prior to Bill' 108, if they're on a property that is subject to HRS 205, the use of a farm dwelling. So, if they are renting an additional farm dwelling, even though they were not required to register, that is an illegal use of a farm dwelling, right? So yes, when the registration process comes around, that will be identified as an illegal rental and they will not be able to register because that's already an illegal usage. But there are other scenarios where if they're hosted and it's not in state land use ag, they will not just have to register and they can continue operating until their registration has been approved. There are some nuances, but it's dependent on whether or not they're already doing something that's not legal. And I've always said, it's a registration process. You're fine if you're operating legally. Page 47 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. EVANS: Well, they were under the impression they were legal, but they'll have to cross that bridge when it comes up. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. If you want to proceed, Council Member Kimball. Also, noting we're going to need to wrap this up real shortly. We have our start of Council at 1:00 p.m. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, Draft4; with the contents of Comm. 675.509. Seconded by Ms. Galinba. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. The intention,of this amendment is to present all of you folks with sort of the goal post of one side of the bill and short-term vacation rentals. What I've generally heard, and,I've gotten feedback from community members is that there's an interest in,being slightly more restrictive, particularly when it comes to agricultural land: And I wanted to present you folks with all of the different potential options we have in one amendment to be more restrictive than Bill 121 is right now. And so, this ametridment proposes the following. As I said before, due to the constitutional concerns, we have to combine owner and operator-hosted into one type, which would be hosted. Given the conversation over Bill 122, we could potentially contemplate that all owner and operator-hosted go to the bed and breakfast process as another option or we have this process and that process. As I mentioned,before, within the commerce clause, we have to treat hosted, owner-hosted; operator-hosted the same and provide the same economic opportunities. The flipside of that is if an owner can only have one property as a TAH then we can require that an outside owner can only have one operator-hosted TAR. So, this added language that would say you can only,own one. When we have"a situation where 23 percent of our housing is in outside ownership,there is that public purpose associated with that and we are treating both the same, limiting to one per owner. It also purposes that ownership be limited to natural persons or trusts or LLCs, but the people in those trusts and LLCs have to be actual people that are related to each other by family. It also requires that if there is a TAR in the first farm dwelling, so if it's a farmer and they're'renting out a couple of rooms in the building that they live in, they would have to demonstrate agricultural activities. This applies to the Rosehill. I won't go too much into it, but it's the question of whether or not in that case the fartnerliving in the dwelling satisfies the requirements of the HRS or not. I think that's something we have to have a discussion about. And then it also proposes, under Act 17, it gave the counties the authority to phase out nonconforming use certificates. So, I've added to the bill language that would say, when you sell or transfer a transient accommodation that had received a nonconforming use certificate, it would be amortized, it would be removed. And so, for those of you that are concerned about existing TARS and ag land, or Page 48 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 residential land, this is the way the mechanism we would use without being subject to litigation regarding takings. ACTING CHR. INABA: With that, we do need to wrap this up temporarily. So, I'm going to put the meeting in recess. We need a time certain? MR. HENRICKS: No. You can say until after the adjournment of Council is fine. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. So, this committee will resume after the adjournment of our Council meeting today. It's 12:53,pm. This Committee is not in recess. Recess: At 12:53 p.m., the Acting Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 4:35 p.m: ACTING CHR. INABA: We are taking the Policy Committee on Land Use and Development out of recess. We are currently,on Bill 121. I am Holeka Goro Inaba. We are meeting in' ilo today. I am chairing this meeting as Council Member Kierkiewicz is one of the.co-introducers of Bill 121. We left off with a presentation, in the middle of a presentation by Council Member Kimball. So, we will tee off right where we left off, Council Member Kimball, go ahead. And the current motion on the floor is to amend Bill 12 1 with the contents of Communication 675.509. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. MS: KIMBALL; Thank you. Spy I'll first start by saying, over the last four years of being on the'Council I think I've sufficiently established that I'm a bit of a control freak. And I will say that prepared extensively for this presentation as you might notice from the fact that you have an outline and slide deck, including reading the Rosehill decision probably about a half a dozen times, tracing down all the.references to make sure that I could answer any questions that you guys might have with respect to the Rosehill decision. I will say that life has taught me time and time again that the more you try to control a particular situation, the more life will remind you that you are not in charge. And soy where we are right now is, there's this amendment on the floor which the intent was to share with all of you for the purposes of discussion, what having gone through the constitutional questions, the Rosehill decision, and other things that we have discussed, what I would consider the furthest most radical goal post from sort of the consensus position that we're at right now with the TAR bill. What I would request, what I'm going to propose is that I will withdraw this amendment at this time, again postpone Bill 121, but I do want to just briefly go over these high level concepts and encourage you between the slides and the outline provided of Bill 121 and the draft amendment, ask you folks to look at Page 49 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 these different concepts by the time we have the next hearing so that we can just figure out where to go from there. So, the amendment number one, combines owner-hosted, operator-hosted into one type hosted. That is, like I said, in response to the constitutional concerns. I was a little bit sort of whacked about talking about Bill 122 before Bill 121 today. I did go look at the bed and breakfast language. I think that it is a pretty easy fix to pop it into Bill 121, tweak it a little bit so it matches with everything else, and we can include that in Bill 121, with the same limitations that would be with respect to transient accommodation rentals. The amendment proposes an ownership limit,to one TAR per owner. And as I said, since we're treating owner-hosted'and,operator-hosted as the same, what that allows for is folks to buy investment properties, stick an operator in it, and run a TAR. And we've had numerous conversations about protecting homeownership for local residents. So, if we say y6u can have one primary residence and a TAR in it and you can also own one or somebody can own one investment home and put an operator in it, that is going to make the playing field equal, right? And so, that's another thing that we can legally do, constitutionally do, is just say, you get one TAR. This amendment does introduce language that would create a nonconforming use to grandfather in anybody that owns more than one right now. Okay. The next possible change would be to ensure that the ownership, they're owned by people and not by corporations. So, it limits the ownership to an individual, a natural person, or it can be a trust, or an LLC, or a corporation as long as the folks that come in to apply represent 50 percent or more of that entity and that they are related by bloody marriage, whatever. So, that prevents us from having outside corporations purchasing homes to make available as TARS. The next one has to do with a first farm dwelling. So, this was a little bit tied to the Rosehill overview. The requirement about a farm dwelling in the HRS says that there has to bez family living in the farm dwelling that is the farm dwelling is accessory to the farm or the family living in the farm drives their income from farm activities. So, it has kind of been the past practice of—if I may just have a few more minutes the past practice of the Planning Department to say that the farmer being in the home satisfied that component of HRS 205-4.5, and therefore the could rent extra rooms because the requirement of HRS 205 had been satisfied. HRS 205 doesn't say no rentals of transient accommodations. It says that the purpose of the first farm dwelling is to house somebody involved in the farm activities. And so, if you've satisfied that—I'm not saying that answer is right, but that's something we need to discuss and figure out, and maybe we'll have more about the Rosehill by the next meeting. But the proposed amendment would require that if you are renting rooms in the first farm dwelling where you live as the farmer, you also have to present some evidence of agricultural activity, Page 50 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 right. So, that's another thing to consider. I will say that by allowing farmers to have some rental rooms in their first farm dwelling or detached bedrooms to the first farm dwelling, it does allow a lot of farmers to stay here. And if we don't allow for that, I am concerned we are on the fast track to gentrification. So, I request serious consideration around that. The last thing that this proposes, there are some other manini things in there that I'm sure are going to raise alarm bells for folks out there. But the last kind of big one is that this amendment proposes the phasing out of nonconforming use certificates and that was something that the stateenabled through Act 17 this last session. It allows the counties to basically phase outeisting nonconforming uses. So, this would be if somebody has a nonconforming use to have an unhosted rental in a residential area because,they got one when Bill 108 was passed, when it's sold that will no longer be possible and it'll go back to purely residential use. So, it's an important part to highlight one of the differences between bed and breakfasts and the TAR process, is the bed breakfast is a special permit. It runs with the land so when somebody gets the bed:and breakfast permit, that property can be used as a bed and breakfast in perpetuity,,regardless of the ownership. So, it's important to understand that distinction. There's a couple of other editorial amendments, some other manini (small)things, but those are the key ones. Sol if I can ask everybody to review these for next time and let me know which are the ones that you want to consider keeping or riot; Hopefully,the outline andthe slide deck will provide more clarity. I will work on an additional amendment to move or at least edit the bed and breakfast section:to march the rest of this so that it can be an option to keep that special permit. With that, Iyield;and I guess unless there are further comments, I'll just withdraw. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 121, to Amend: braft 4, with the contents of Comm. 675.509. Motion to Postpone: Ms.Kimball moved to postpone Bill 121, Draft 4, to November 7, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any discussion on the postponement? Okay quickly, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I just wanted to appreciate Council Member Kimball for bringing us forth a lot of information, which is better than no information. Then also, a clear and succinct way to kind of review everything that has been brought forward and done to this point as well some of the bigger decisions that have been happening around us in regards to short-term Page 51 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 vacation rentals so that we can have a better discussion. So, I appreciate the effort because it takes time and energy on behalf of you and your staff. So, thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah, I appreciate the postponement and just to point out, I know that some people that were here testifying here a few weeks back were saying how hard it is to keep following the amendments andthe different drafts. So hopefully, because this is a recorded meeting, hopefully people, we can guide them to actually listen to this recorded meeting so that„people can feel like they can kind of know where it's at right now because it's looking like it's headed towards a Draft 5 and it's still sitting in Council. So anyway, it's getting pretty thick so hopefully, we can encourage pople,to'watch. SoJhank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada, MS. KAGIWADA: Thanks. Yeah, appreciate the postponement as well just so we can get through all the material, but I just do want to thank both Council Members Kimball and Kierkiewicz for this very heavy lift. We have Sunshine Law, which is a really goad,thing for the public. It means that we don't take this away and make changes and make backroom deals,;and then come here and just vote on something. Everything thatwe do, we do here in front of you and so you're seeing how the sausage is made and,it's going to take us time. We've held this in committees it's still in committee. It has not moved out of committee because we are still working on it. So, for those of you who are saying you keep adding all this stuff or changing. That's the way complicated policy like this gets made. So,I think it's really important that we have to keep at it. This is our job and,ve're going ted keep going here and keeping it in committees seems like the absolute„right thing because it's still being worked on and discussed. So, it's great, I think, when new ideas are coming in still and we're thinking about this in a complex,way, it's complex legislation. So, appreciate all the work by everybody that has worked on this and happy to postpone. Thanks. ACTINGEHR. INABA: Thank you. All those in favor of postponing Bill 121 to the November 7t' committee meeting please say "aye." Page 52 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 121, Draft 4, to to Postpone: November 7, 2024 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. ACTING CHR. INABA: Moving on to Bill 122. Motion to Remove Ms. Kimball moved to remove Bill 122, Draft 2, from the from Table: table. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. (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. ACTING CHR. INABA: Bill 122 is back on the floor for discussion. Council Member Kimball. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 122, Draft 2, to November 7 2024. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. ACTING CHR. INABA: Discussion on the postponement. MS. KIMBALL: I'd like to request that we hold this as well. I heard loud and clear what'some of the concerns were from folks about removing the bed and breakfast option. I think that this section of the Code has some flaws that need to be addressed and I'm not sure if this bill can be the vehicle for that. I think reading it again, I think we can take care of all of it in (Bill) 121, but I would like to just request that this bill be still available as a potential, if necessary, to make some amendments to this section. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Evans, on the Postponement. Page 53 PCPLUD-21 October 2,2024 MS. EVANS: Yeah, I understand, postponement. I just want to point out that we're postponing a bill that says repealing the bed and breakfast as a permitted use;just wanted to point that out. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that, I feel a certain way about this bill. I'd rather take action on it today as I shared earlier. So, roll call vote, Bill 122,please, on the postponement. Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 122, Draft 2, to November 7, to Postpone: 2024, was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwa a, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder,ki ball, Lee Loy, and Villegas —6. Noes: Committee Members Evans,,Kierkiewicz, and Acting Chair Inaba—3. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that; I believe we are at the end of our agenda for today. Thank you to the public who came to testify and partake in our legislative process. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Acting Chair Inaba adjourned the meeting MENT: at 4:51 p.m: Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development AK/tk Page 54