Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUD 2024/11/08 (2022-2024) DRAFT Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development 23`'d Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii November 8, 2024 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Development was called to order at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder,Member (came in later) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Absent& Excused: Ms. MichelteM. Galimba, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: .The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Robert Golden: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Joshua Montgomery: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Mike Hobbs: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Ed Marsh: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. Alex Folsom: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. Joy Dillon: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Susan Barrackman: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Linda Halbritter: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Martina Wing: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Joe Schnectenburger: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm, 675.471); and Bill 122, Draft 2 (Comm: 676.13), in opposition. Kyra Bronson: Bill 121, Draft 4(Comm. 675.47 1), comment. Jennifer Wilkinson: Bill 121, Draft4 (Comm: 675.471), comment. Samuel Halsted: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.471;), in opposition. Joshua Mahalick: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.471); in opposition. Nathan Eggen: Bill 121,Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Edward Rapoza: Bill 121, Draft 4(Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Heather Korotie: Bill 121,Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. Christian Baker: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Cory McKim': Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Susan Collins: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.471); and Bill 122, Draft 2 (Comm. 676.13), comment. Mark Rochin Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), in opposition. Joseph'Stewart: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. John Francisco Hall: Bill 121, Draft 4 (Comm. 675.47 1), comment. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if we could start at the top of the agenda. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Page 2 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Comm. 948: REQUESTS THE FORMATION OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO COUNCIL RULE NO. 7 AND SECTION 92-2.5 OF THE HAWAII REVISED STATUTES TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), ENTITLED "HOUSING" From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated July 18, 2024. Postponed: August 6, 2029 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Lee Loy, to close file on Communication 948.) and Comm. 948.2: From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated October,25, 2024, transmitting the ad hoc committee's recommendations. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk,procedurally, do we need a close file on Communication 948.2? MR. HENRICKS: No, that's not necessary. Whatever or whenever Communication 948 is disposed;of, that will follow along with it. Generally, it's all related communications. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you for the clarification. If folks don't mind,'I'm goingtodo a high-level overview of the report that's been transmitted, and then turn it:over to the members of the Ad Hoc committee, as well as representatives from Office of Housing to just speak to the experience of this particular process to analyze Chapter 11, our County Housing Policy. We will have an in-depth discussion at our next Committee meeting, November 19 . There are key members of OHCD (Office of Housing and Community Development) staff and legal counsel that we want to have available for today's,discussion. So, we'll just provide a general review of this report. And if folks have burning questions that they would like to ask, you can put that out on record. We can take that into consideration, and we'll come back with robust responses at our November 10h Committee hearing. T just clarified with the Clerk that there is no motion necessary for this report. That's it's all covered under parent Communication 948. Thank you. This Ad Hoc Committee was made up of myself as Chair and Council Members Holeka Inaba, Jennifer Kagiwada, and Sue Lee Loy, who's not here today because she was recently elected to be House of Representatives. Page 3 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 In our goal was to take a look at our County's existing Housing Policy and engage a range of stakeholders, folks that are building larger development, single-unit homes and understand what can we do to contribute to the Housing Ecosystem where we can be developing more effectively and efficiently. While we centered discussions around Chapter 11, it was very evident that we uncovered broader challenges that developers face. So, while there was work for OHCD to do, there was certainly a lot more work for different County agencies to be taking a look at and moving on as well. We had a very ambitious meeting schedule, We metfrom August 6 up until the end of October near the weekly. We had a total of eightmeetings that extended between three to four hours. But that time was absolutely critical to really dive into the various issues. This report has a schedule of the different topics that were discussed at each of these meetings. We also felt that it was important to engage the developer community, folks that are on the receiving end of our County Codes and our real critical partners to bringing more housing online. An all-day summit of nearly 60 individuals in the development community as well as members from County, State, and even Federal government. We did have representation from Senator Brian Schatz's office throughout the Ad Hoc convening, And we talked about ways in which we can support more development: .You know, everybody got very honest about regulatory issues and delays, and the need for more infrastructure support. That was one of the high costs that developers said is really difficult to cover in order to keep housing affordableand attainable for our local families. Again, this report really provides a high-level overview of what this Ad Hoc committee is `suggesting that the Legislative body tackle in collaboration with Housing and other county agencies. We've discussed how to phase out excess housing credits; have offered up a solution to provide By Right exemptions. If there was a commitment to produce affordable and workforce housing, this is one way to simplify the regulatory process. We've urged for coordinated permitted review, which would include consultation with various County departments, and even bringing in State Historic Preservation Division of SHPD, as needed and Department of Health. So that we can come to conclusions before plans and permits are submitted. We also discussed things about finished lots. How that can be continued to be used as a tool to make housing a reality for folks in the community that have the means to be able to do that. We also discussed the density program and how that can be better leveraged by developers if they knew about it. Page 4 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Discussions were also talked about in terms of in-lieu fees, an alternative for developers who opt not to build. They're required affordable housing units. We also touched on the conveyance of land. And you know, this has been used as a tool for folks to satisfy their affordable housing requirements. And the Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation (HICDC), headed up by Keith Kato has really worked to leverage this particular piece in order to build a number of affordable housing units here on our island. So, he and his team really advocated for making sure that this was something that was still available. We touched on, but agree that more work is heeded ifi the Real Property Tax space on how this could be used; tax reductions or temporary exemptions for projects that are focused on affordable`and workforce housing. We touched on infrastructure, roads, wastewater, water, and the need for streamline permitting; and different housing tools and strategies based on models that use have looked at across the country. At the end of the day, we've come up with a very conclusive comprehensive report. But three months is not enough to really„make the changes that are really necessary to encourage more housing development here on Hawaii Island. And so, the suggestion of the Ad'Hoc Committee is td use this as a foundation to move forward, and to design a new Ad Hoc that would convene next Council term to again, work with partners in the County and,the community to start writing Code in a way that really makes sense and gets us to where we want to be, wihch is solving this housing crisis. At this time, I will defer to members,of the Ad Hoc, Council Member Inaba and Council Member Kagiwada for their thoughts. And do welcome the Housing Administrator and Deputy to come forth to share your thoughts as well. Thank you. CouncilMember Kagiawada. MS. KAGIWADA.Thank you so much. MR. HENRICKS: Madame Chair. Sorry, before you begin, excuse me,just want to make sure that—you're in good shape. You're fine. Just the key here is that anything that feels like deliberation should be avoided. MS�KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. Thank you for that reminder. So, thank you so much, Chair Kierkiewicz for you know, this report. I think it really does summarize well, the work that we did as an Ad Hoc group. I will just say, that you know, there is a lot more work to be done. Specifically, I think we didn't get to touch on a couple of major things with some of the community organizations. Page 5 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 MR. HENRICKS: Ms. Kagiwada, I'm so sorry, don't take this personally, if I'm mistaken, we don't have quorum right now. I don't think Ms. Villegas is in Kona. So, we need to take a recess. Recess: At 10:12 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:15 a.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We are out of recess. Council Member Kagiwada, straight from the top. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz and thank you for both convening and organizing the Ad Hoc,as well as compiling this report, which I think does a really good job at summarizing our group work. I just wanted to highlight a couple things that I think we didn't get a chance to that are outside of the County, but really do impact our ability to get people in homes here, and that was you know, exploring a little more working with lenders and insurance. I think those are two things that are really contributing to people not being able to get into housing. So, those two things in addition to what we have begun working on here were a lot of good ideas. We just have a lot there's so many,complexities, everything impacts everything else. So,I think those two things,we didn't'get a chance to explore really, and I do think they, are really big influences on people's ability to get into homes. So, I hope„that we may have a chance to do that in the future. And I know we're not supposed to be getting into details here, so I'm just going to leave it at that, and thank you very much. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. Going back, you know, we had prepared, Council Member Kimball and I in our first terms in amendments for the Code and I think it was really good to have this Ad Hoc Committee. And a lot of these recommendations that were brought up together as not just a Council or a County, but bringing in together development community in all different facets from single-home builders to market-rate developers; affordable housing developers, I think gives us a really good idea. This is a solid map for us to move forward and come up with that good policy that was almost prevetted, if you will, at such time that it comes to the Council. So, looking forward to establishing that new Ad Hoc committee in the new term, and getting these amendments. Page 6 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Also highlighting how there are other programs that were discussed in other municipalities, and that is kind of an option that already exists for Office of Housing and figuring out which ones are priorities and which ones we can work together to bolster up and support moving forward. So, thank you again for leading us through those long and numerous meetings. Mahalo. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: But they were fun meetings, right? MR. INABA: They were. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Any questions, comments from the rest of the body? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I just want to mahalo you and the other members of the committee. It's clear from the report that tremendous amount of time,effort, and work that went into this. And I really,appreciate the thoughtful summary provided here today. So, look forwardto digging in deeper to some of these concepts. I guess, you can't say really right now which ones you're really excited about. But you do appreciate all the work that this has gone into. So, thank you all for participating. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And I just wanted to offer Housing Administrator Susan Kunz an opportunity to address the committee. I think, to be honest,;Susan was a little bithesitant to be part of the Ad Hoc, because she thought, Ash, it's an ambitious schedule. There's a lot of work. But I think after We convened the summit and had a debriefing as a body, it was time well spent together. It certainly was because I think it reaffirms the approach that we all wanted to take. And I think directly engaging the housing contributor community was very importantto help inform our work. Administrator. (Note: At this time, Office of Housing and Community Development Administrator Susan Kunz, came forward and addressed the members of the Committee.) MS. KUNZ: Absolutely. Susan Kunz, Office of Housing. I really want to thank you, Ashley, for your leadership through this process. Council Member Inaba, Kagiwada, and Lee Loy, it was amazing to see the group come together and the commitment. And the time that we spent, so incredibly valuable to have this three-month period of engaging each aspect of Chapter 11 and really intense discussions that we had. Everybody took the time and made the commitment. And so, I'm so thankful for that, and then having the culmination of that Housing Contributor Public Hearing that we did was so valuable. I feel very confident that what's been produced here is a very comprehensive review. Page 7 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 These 15 recommendations, I'm looking forward to getting some feedback from the rest of the Council Members, and then of course, our work in starting to craft a new Code to reflect what we've decided to move forward with. I do think there's a need to continue convening an Ad Hoc committee, because there's so much that still needs to be worked through. So, I would really appreciate being a part of that discussion as well. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Administrator. Anyone else? Okay. I need a motion someone, please to postpone. That's if the body would like to continue discussing this particular report in two weeks. Ifnoty we can close file; we'll dispense of the report and then we can set up,an Ad Hoc next year. Vote on Motion Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Comm,., 948, to Postpone: November 19, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Kimball (Approved) and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba., Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, and Chair Kierkiewicz 6. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Galimba and,Villegas —2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Administrator, great to see you. Mr. Clerk, if we could please move on to the next order of business, Bill 121. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 121: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES 1, 4, AND 5, OF THE 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 Vacationlontals and establishes new provisions for Transient Accommodation Rentals and Hosting Platforms for Transient Accommodation Rentals. Reference: Comm. 675.471 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Kierkiewicz Referred to Planning Commissions: January 30, 2024 Postponed: July 8, August 20, September 3, and October 2, 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.) Page 8 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 and Comm. 675.472: From Council Member Jenn Kagiwada, dated September 4, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. ; and Comm. 675.511: From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated October 2, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. and Comm. 675.590: From Council Member Holeka Goro Inaba, dated'Clctober 16, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments. and Comm. 675.591: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated October 29, 1024, transmitting proposed amendments. and Comm. 675.592: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball,,dated October 28, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments, CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Letthe record reflect that at 10:24 a.m. I am passing the Chairmanship to my Vice Chair, Council Member Inaba, as I am one of the co-introducers of this bill. Thank you. Relinquish Chair: At this time,,the Chair relinquished the chair to Vice Chair Inaba. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you; Council Member Kierkiewicz. With that, if you folks wart to tee it off, introducers? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair; how about we start with your amendment to this particular measure? Motion td Amend: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to amend Bill 121, Draft 4, with the contents of Comm. 675.590. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any further discussion? Council Member Kimball. MS'KIMBALL: Yes, also supportive. It is the proper reference. So, thank you for catching it. Page 9 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 121, Draft 4, with the to Amend: contents of Comm. 675.590 was carried with the (Approved) following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Inaba—6. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Galimba and Villegas —2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, Draft 4, with the contents of Comm. 675:591. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Great,thank you. So, this amendment is primarily housekeeping. There were some additional areas where we needed editorial corrections, greater clarification. But there are two significant pieces. The first being that, it does include the consolidation, as we talked about last time of the owner-hosted and operator-hosted into one. So, in the conversation we had last time, it has been determined through the deliberations with Corporation Counsel, that we cannot treat those as two independent things, we have to treat them the same, per the Federal Constitution. So, it does include that change to combine those into the single-hosted. And that change is carried out through the rest of the amendment. The second thing,that is included here is the addition of that adjacent property allowance. So, folks that own a property, and they have the TAR (Transient Accommodation Rental) on an adjacent property, they will be allowed to register that as a Nonconforming Use. So, that amendment that we have discussed last time is also included. You'll see that there under the hosted section. There is the Nonconforming Use Section there added to the Nonconforming Section. Everything else is primarily editorial. But if you have any questions or concerns, this is up in the long ongoing process. There are still a few more editorial changes. I would like to suggest at a later date, based on some additional places where I think we lack some clarification. I yield, Chair, thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. On the amendment? Council Member Evans. Page 10 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 MS. EVANS: Yes, please. To the maker, can you give us a little more information on Section 25-4-16.13, which you have on Page 9 of your amendment. This is Transient Accommodation Rental, Nonconforming Use Certificate. Because it's all underlined. So, I think it's new language. MS. KIMBALL: Actually, it's not new language, except to include the Nonconforming Use for the adjacent property. It is reorganized language for a little bit greater clarity. So, the two provisions in Section (a) are: A transient accommodation rental shall be registered by obtaining a nonconforming use when"it's located within that 2,500 feet of the primary residence. So, that's the adjacent property nonconforming use. And the second one is the un-hosted transient accommodation rental in zoning districts other than those permitted. Now, if you go to Section (b), in`this'case, you have the condition that it had been in operation prior the effective date of this ordinance. So, that means you know, in the future, these two things will not he permitted. It has to have either been rented for 30 days or more. So, this is that language that gives the allowance. For those folks that did nothave the opportunity to get unhosted when Bill 108 was passed, this is the allowancefor that. They have a window to get that unhosted, nonconforming use. Then'the other provision here is that they have to have a host on the building site, if it's the other condition, the adjacent property, because it has to have been hosted„ So, themain addition here is the adjacent property. The rest of it is really reorganized for clarity. MS. EVANS; Okay, so I just want to state, which I've stated before, I think the work is good that,you continue to improve on it. But I have to tell you, it's really hard for people to wrap around in their mind how many changes. And they keep coming'and coming'. So, with these types of changes, I would hope that there is a very big effort to get those out into the community, to the chambers, to the Board of Realtors. And really get our there as to what we're up to and what we've done. Because I do think that there was confusion. At least with some of my constituents on Bill 108. And some of them interpreting that, they have this use, and they really didn't have to come in and register. Because as long as it was existing, they were good to go. And they feel like they misunderstood. So, they kind of feel like we're being penalized because we were confused about Bill 108. Page 11 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 So, I would hate that to happen with Bill 121 if it's passed; that people were confused again. Not quite understanding the nuances of what they should do and what they shouldn't do. So, if we do this, I think in my opinion, you have to do what happened with the Nondedicated Ag Program where, you know, the frequently asked questions. And how, when you roll it out, everybody really needs to know what this means and how it gets supplied. Once it was put out in the community, and we had those frequently asked questions and answers. And we had those groups. People went out into the community and had the opportunity to' do questions and answers. Whatever happens with this, I'm just really encouraging that you go the same route as we did with the Dedicated Ag, 'rogxam, that people that are impacted. Some people just are having a hard time wrapping around all they different—does it really apply to me; does it not apply to me? Because there's a lot to this legislation sand we keep changing it I guess. And people like me, it's like, oh my God, we're going to be coming out now with Draft 5, and they're just trying to find one—it's hard, unless you're used to working with bills and legislation, it can be hard to follow. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. To the maker of the amendment, a natural person, itwas brought up by a testifier, I'm looking for a definition of butdon't see it in the definitions. So, I'm just wondering where that is coming for; what the reference is. ACTING CHR.,INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Soy in this amendment, I have removed that ownership component. So, not to add to additional confusion, but there was a communication that had been sent to you, it was never introduced at the last hearing, that provided text for all potential amendments that we could make. That may be the reference that was being made. It is not included in this particular amendment. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. And then finally, for right now, on the amendment, in that Section 16.13 under (d). "Owners of transient accommodation rentals who have submitted a nonconforming use certificate application and the application fee on or before one year after the effective date of this ordinance, shall be allowed to continue to operate until such time as their application is determined to be accurate and complete . . ." Page 12 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 The sentence reads as if there's going to be something that happens—until such time. But if it's until such time, the application is determined to be accurate and complete? It should have already been accurate and complete in my mind for them to get the nonconforming use certificate. So, I'm not understanding what the negative is within this section. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball MS. KIMBALL: When Bill 108 passed and everyone submitted their registrations, there was a massive backlog at Planning. So, what this language is intended to allow is to say, that if folks are operating and they're applying for the nonconforming use certificate, they will be allowed to continue to operate until Planning has had the opportunity to approve it. So, potentially a scenario where people don't meet the nonconforming use certificate requirements, but Planning won't know that until they have a chance to review it and may be allowed before that happens." So, we are allowing as a courtesy thing to let them continue to operate until such time MR. KANEALI`I-KLEIFELDER: Okay, then,if there is a transient accommodation rental, the application is not complete. Is that wrapped up on the same sentence? I mean this gets the exact opposite,but without worded as being said here. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS:'KIMBALL; If they do not submit the application at all by the deadline, then they will have to see separations.. If they have at least submitted the application, even if itis incomplete until the Planning Department has had an opportunity to determine that it is incomplete, they will continue to operate. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Still on the amendment. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I just wanted to reflect on the comments made by Council Member Evans. You know, we're talking here about the nonconforming use certificate that is meant to extend the opportunity to get the unhosted nonconforming use certificate for those folks that Short-Term Vacation Rental of more than 30 days. A lot of the confusion that I know happened your district because they call my office too, and we talked to them. And the gentleman that testified today, right, he expressed his confusion was because Planning was at 30 days for Short-Term Vacation Rental; the State is at 180 days; Real Property Tax is 180 days. Page 13 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 So, there was a lot of folks that saw Bill 108 pass and said, "Oh, I'm fine, I don't need to do anything else." And they weren't aware of these other things. By changing the definition to 180 days by adding this nonconforming use, we keep that consistency. So, I think that's going to provide a lot of clarity. Again, to your point, you know, we have a new Council coming in. We have a new Planning staff and Director, perhaps coming in. Given that, I think there is likelihood that we are going to extend this out and give the new members and the new Administration plenty of time to digest this before we move forward after today. So, the intention is to postpone further. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Mr. Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Sorry,just gathering my thoughts, Section 25-4-16.1, "Hosted transient accommodation rentals.' Is the beginning statement, "When thetransient accommodation rental is subordinate and clearly or customarily incidental to its use as the principal home of the owner, or the permanent residence of the operator, a transient accommodation rental may be registered at any time in any zoning district." Is that true? ACTING CHR. INABA Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Even with the Rosehill decision? ACTING CHR.INABA: If there's a,legal question, we can call up Corporation Counsel. We have Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell here for Planning. ISR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ms. Campbell. ACTING CHR. IABA: Would you like to come forward,please. Thank you, Mr. Kaneah'i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, I won't get into the information you provided: But just a straightforward question. Allowance for a hosted transient accommodation rental being available in any zoning district. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell, came forward and addressed the members of the Committee.) MS. CAMPBELL: Good morning everybody, Deputy Corporation Campbell. The Rosehill decision doesn't directly address that. The Rosehill decision gave us a very limited holding, which confirmed that the Hawaii County Code, which prohibited the issuance of a nonconforming use certificate for unhosted rental on Page 14 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Ag lots that were formed after June 4, 1976, was correct. So, in that limited instance, unhosted rentals are not permitted. And the court didn't speak to anything else, really. If you have further questions on that, we would recommend going into Executive Session. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I am thinking about the definition of transient accommodation rentals, as provided in this amendment. That still holds true, that statement? MS. CAMPBELL: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I know we just recently passed the ADU (Accessory Dwelling Units) bill. And so, I'm looting at Page 4, Section 25-4-16.1, Subsection (1). And so, you say the transient rental, which are not TAR'S anymore? No, TAR'S are not STVR's, okay;";"Transient accommodation rental shall be located in an accessory dwelling unity additional dwelling, guest house, or a single-family dwelling." Is there a definition or any guidance on what additional dwelling means? Considering that you are very clear that you can do it in an ADU. You can do it in a guest house, or you can rent a room in your house. What is an additional dwelling. ACTING CHR. INABA: Deputy Director from Planning, Jeff Darrow, if you could come forward? Any questions, specific that can be answered just regarding Codes,we'll have departments answer. MS. EVANS: I suppose you could you have a barn, right? (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow, came forward and addressed the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Aloha Chair. Aloha Council Members, Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. Council Member Evans, the reference was 25-4-16.1? MS'EVANS: Yes. MR. DARROW: Okay. So, additional dwellings,we normally will have a first dwelling, whether we consider that normally a single-family dwelling in the Urban District or if its in the Agricultural District depending on the date the lot was created. That date is June 4, 1976. Page 15 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Prior to that, and this is from State Law, Chapter 205, Subsection (b). Prior to that, we consider those dwellings on those lots, the first dwelling being single-family. The second dwelling, that would be a first farm dwelling on pre-`76 lots. Post-`76 lots, your first dwelling in the State Land Use Agricultural district, would be a first farm dwelling, and the second dwelling would be an additional farm dwelling. But in the Residential lots or Commercial lots, or whatever,now that the Accessory Dwelling Unit bill has been approved, those would be considered accessory dwellings, right? You're going to haveydur main dwelling and then any accessory dwelling unit. Whether it's second, third,, or fourth, allowing up to three accessory dwelling units on the property, MS. EVANS: Okay, so, is the language inaccurate because either a dwelling will be a farm dwelling or an ADU. Because additional dwelling is kind of confusing at that point, because you just explained on Ag, it„would be a farm dwelling. If it was on a residential lot, it would be an'ADU. MR. DARROW: Correct. So, my understanding and Council Member Kimball can correct me, there still is work being done'on'this to correct the language. MS. EVANS: Okay, you mightwant to look at whatever additional dwelling is, because I think you've already now are you defining things now? ACTING CHR..,INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS: KIMBALL; I think we can probably add the reason the term, additional dwelling is there and,theDeputy Director mentioned, there are things that have been permitted in the,past, Lmean, `Ohana's would fall under this category. The second dwellings that he mentioned which was something that was permitted in the past on Ag wouldn't fall under this category. So, there's a lot of other things that have happened over time that this clause accommodates for. But I think we can look at a definition that may provide some clarity around that. There is another correction here needed in terms of the one per building site, as the department has permitted one dwelling as a TAR, but that also includes any accessory buildings. Like for example, if you had a TAR with rooms and a house and a guesthouse, you would be able to use both of those as a TAR. So, that needs clarification as well. MS. EVANS: Yes, it would. MR. DARROW: The term, guesthouse is confusing because it actually is not a dwelling, per say. It's more inline with like a detached bedroom type of unit. You can have a bathroom in there; you can have a living area bedroom, but you Page 16 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 cannnot have a kitchen within a guesthouse. And therefore, it really doesn't meet the definition of a dwelling. MS. EVANS: May I ask for a little more clarity on guesthouse? Okay, guesthouse, I mean, there's Yurts, right? The thing is, would it be any structure that would be approved by the Building Department. Because you could put up a tent, I suppose, and say, I'm going to rent you a tent in the back. That's my guesthouse, right? Because there's no bathroom, but you can sleep in the back, right? In a tent, but that's what I'm saying about guesthouse. It kind of implies a structured building that's been approved. And I just:wondered because guesthouse is a very interesting term. ACTING CHR. INABA: We're removing the term, guesthouse in this current amendment. So, I just want to make sure the question is clear for Deputy Director, Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Actually , it's wordsmithing. 'T`heytook guesthouse as one and they turned it into two words. So, guest house still exists. I've just pointed out that you know, you can work on that. Please work on that because there's some confusion. MR. DARROW: Just for reference, there is a specific section of the Zoning Code that defines what a guest house is limited to. ,So if it does not meet that definition,they're not considered guest houses. So, that's one thing. In regards to the tent issue,those really won't pass as it does need to meet Building Code. Vents normally don't. And there's been quite a bit of controversy with camping and the overnight camp situation. So we want to try and not to get into that area. ACTING CHR. INABA: We have a definition. So, we can have Planning provide that for guest house. MS. EVANS: Okay,thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, thank you. It was mentioned, guest house is already defined,as specified in the Code. Yurts and other non-dwelling type things can also be permitted through the Planning Department. So, there was the comment about unconventional structures. With the exception of tents, there are mechanisms for permitted some of these other structures. The tents, I just want to make sure everyone remembers that we removed tents and camping from the definition in the last amendment, because camp grounds and all of that are also regulated by Planning permitted in some of these districts, but that's a whole other process to go through with Planning. It's Page 17 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 not any more part of the transient accommodation rentals. So, if people have tents, that's a different mechanism for them now. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kimball. Council Member Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. You know, I wanted to highlight because it was just quickly mentioned that we were removing an entire category of Operator-hosted. So, that is very significant, because by having owner-hosted and operator-hosted, and you know, I think it's important for Corporation Counsel to just explain for the public, the legal reason why we cannot have that distinction, that separation. This really does change the nature of the bill, because with owner-hosted, the intention was, if you lived here you could have a vacation rental, n,your home at any time regardless of the zoning district. By removing operator and just calling it hosted, anyone can buy a property; have someone operate that rental. So, this is a very big shift. This is one that must be made legally, and I just want to confirm that. But I put that out there, and I'm"gong to stress the need to really put a pin in this bill and wait for the Economic Impact,Study to come back. Because these ideas are geeing to be explored in the scope of the work that the research firm is going to be doing. So,I don'tth nk it got enough attention when Council Member Kimball was explaining this amendment that she's putting forward. So, I want to call up Corporation Counsel, and if you feel'there's a need to go into Executive Session, let us know. But I think it's reale important for the public to understand Interstate Congress Clause and constitutionality. M& CAMPBELL, So, the United States Constitution provides for free and open commerce across all the United States, which means that we cannot discriminate against out-of-state residents. So, we cannot put additional prohibition on commerce because the people doing so are not Hawaii State residents. So, therefore,providing additional benefits or putting up higher hurdles that block out-of-state residents from operating the same kind of business that a Hawaii State resident would be allowed to do, or would be allowed to take benefit in is unconstitutional and we cannot do that. There are different legal tests for prohibitions versus regulation that's incidental to a different purpose, but has a slightly different impact on in-state residents versus out-of-state residents. If we were for example, to inapt something that made it a little more difficult for somebody out of state to do something but they're still allowed to do it, there's a different legal test than an absolute Page 18 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 prohibition. But yes, the U.S. Constitution says that we cannot flat out facially discriminate against people because they do not live in Hawaii. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Deputy Corporation Counsel, I just want to tease this out with you a little bit here. My partner just came back from hunting in Colorado, and in speaking to him about what was required to get a license, he mentioned to me that there is a limit on how many out-of-state residents could obtain a hunting permit. Obviously, it seems as if there's preferential treatment for residents of Colorado. Could the same principle be applied here with the Transient Accommodation Rental bill, and if so, or if not, why,not? MS. CAMPBELL: Not being familiar with hunting licenses in Colorado, I can't speak to that directly. I suspect that a license is available to us to go and hunt in Colorado, that becomes the lower burden test, which I'm afraid I'm sorry I didn't look into this stuff this morning so I can't recite the test for you immediately. I would have to step back and get the notes on that. But I suspect that is, since it's not an outright prohibition, it's the lower test that they have to get over,which essentially, if I remember correctly, is a balancing test between the burden'that's imposed and the protections that are imposed. And again, I would have to step back and get my notes to give you the exact test. But if it were an outright prohibition,they couldn't do that. If it's something that has like so, essentially, I'm assuming thaffor a Colorado hunting license, the burden on me as an out-of-state hunter is,I probably have to get my license early. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: There's a lottery system and there's points involved, and it's kind of a luck of the draw. And so, I think that might be an interesting concept to explore where everyone has access, but it's limited. It's limited if you're an out-of-statO resident; Therefore,protecting Hawaii residents' interest. MS: CAMPBELL, Again, we cannot put Hawaii residents' interests MS. KIEPKIEWICZ: We cannot explicitly say that. MS. CAMPBELL: Right. We cannot say we are looking to protect Hawaii State residents at the expense of out-of-state residents, because the U.S. Constitution doesn't let us go there. If interests that are general to our community as a whole, say traffic. If there's some community interest that we are protecting and it is a generic interest in our community that we are protecting. And incidentally, it has a more significant impact on out-of-state residents. Say, it's more difficult for them to meet the requirement. Like me trying to get, you know, a limited number of hunting licenses in Colorado. My chances are lower, presumably. Page 19 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 That again, rather than essentially and virtually all out prohibition on doing something that really we cannot do. Agian, at that point, we're getting over a lower legal hurdle. It`s essentially, that balacing test instead of just don't do it. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. That has been very illuminating. I don't know if I can support this amendment today. I know the constitutionality element, but I would feel more comfortable if the public had a better sense ofOh, Judge Strance is walking up here. Do you want to add to the conversation, Judge Strance? Okay. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance, came forward and addressed the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Thank you for letting me interrupt. You know,you're walking into an area that is a developing area of law. And there are things that just aren't clear, and you know, the Council may need to decide whether they'd want to walk into the gray a little bit. If you want to have a conversation where you,want to really just probe in a group setting abut this idea or thatidea, I really would encourge that to be done in an Executive Session so that we can have a candid conversation about legal benefits and risks. Then if you feel the need after that to provide some sort of general legal statement to the public, we can dei that. ;But once you start really probing this and probing that, I really think that that's:the type of thing Executive Session is for. MS: KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Judge Strance. I really appreciate that. I tried to approach the conversation as grammatically as possible. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR.,INABA: Thank you. Briefly please, Council Member Kaneal `i-Kleinfelder and then Council Member Evans. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Alright, Ms. Campbell. Sorry, okay, so, I'm going to ask my last question without going into the other thing. Do you need a copy of the bill? MS. CAMPBELL: It depends on your question. I might. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You might need it. ACTING CHR. INABA: Go ahead, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, give us all time to find it as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so that same Section 25-4-16.1. Hosted transient accommodation rentals. So, I'm having an issue with anytime in Page 20 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 any zoning district. Specifically, when I look at Number (1), and this is strictly from reading HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) on allowable uses. Number(1) actually takes away from any zoning district. Because these are requirements that actually remove any zoning district. So, I'm having an issue with that because they're blocking each other. MS. CAMPBELL: I'll defer to the drafters on this. But I suspect that the intention with 16.1, was to provide the broad umbrella,of any zoned district, but subject to the innumberated restrictions, which is typical for legislative drafting, right? We say, you can do all of these things, however, here's the restrictions. And so, I would read this that way. We start but with the,general premise that permitted everywhere. However, subject to these certain,requirements there innumerated. As you're right, they do begiP,to limit what e can do. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, yes can, but okay. And then to the last question from Council Member Kierkiewicz, This is more to the maker, sorry. To the maker of the amendment,you do have the words, "or operator" in Number (3). So, operator being not the operator-hosted anymore, because that section is gone. Does that create then a sub-class of operator-hosted accommodation rentals, or are we just saying°that it's an owner or an operator like you would have in a Bed,and Breakfast. But thatshould be hosted, and we have a definition for hosted, correct? ACTINO CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, yes. As I mentioned, one of the most substantive components of this amendment is that, based on Corporation Counsel's recommendations and the tested that were mentioned, we cannot say, "Owner-Hosted and Operator-Hosted," as two separate things and treat them differently. We have to treat them the same. And so, now they've been combined into,a single definition, operator-hosted. And that can be either an owner-host or an operator-host, identical to Bed and Breakfast. As Corporation Counsel mentioned, there are other ways to do this. And as Council Member Kierkiewicz mentioned, there's other ways to make the playing field level, and I think it's maybe the best thing. When we get to the next amendment that has some more language around that, I will go into that with more depth. I would encourage folks to pass this provision, because we have to do it. I mean, it is constitutionally required that we treat them the same. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, last question on this one. The term, "operator," is defined by meaning any natural person. So, that's still sitting in here, but I thought that had not been included. Page 21 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 MS. KIMBALL: I apologize. I did confuse that with the other definition. In the next amendment, you will see about Bed and Breakfast, it talked about ownership a little bit, and that's what I was confused about. A "natural person" is a term of art, and it's a legal term that does not require additional definition. And you can take that from Corporation Counsel as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What is the definition of a"natural person?" MS. CAMPBELL: Basically, a human being versus-there is some code and law out there that defines "person" as also including entities. And so, it's making the distinction between person, which could include a limited liability company or trust or partnership versus a natural person is a human being. We need a person. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER,. It cannot be a trust? MS. CAMPBELL: A trust doesn'treside in the wayI think the intent of this section is, we are saying, that the human being;whether they are an owner or an operator, that host needs to live on the property. And an LLC, right here we're not talking about the type of entity. We're saying that the human being who is acting as the host for the property needs to be living on the property. I think that's the intent of this section: MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER:' Okay,thank you. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR..INABA: Thank you. Council Member Evans. MS: EVANS: I have a question, continuing. So, this section, I think it just needs to be totally rewritten. To me, it's so confusing. For that reason, I'm not going to support this amendment. And to the author, I know what you're trying to do. But you can bring it back with an amendment the next time that has a little bit more clarity,. If we pass it out now with this in it, again,we're going to be confusing the public even more, because this is a very confusing section. One of the things that didn'tcome up--a couple things. One, was it says, "The permanent residence of the operator." So, it's still operator-hosted. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans, sorry, can you point us to the section? MS. EVANS: Okay, it's Section 25-4-16.1, Subsection (a). Where it says, "The owner or the permanent residence of the operator." So, what you're getting at is you're assuming the operator as well as the owner actually lives in the building. And so, that is how you did the constitutional thing. I think that's why you wrote it that way. But you're expecting the operator to live permanently. It says, a "permanent residence" of the operator. Is that how you tried to deal with the constitutionality question? Page 22 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Are you able to answer that, Deputy Corporation Counsel. MS. CAMPBELL: I think the intention, and again, I defer to the drafter on this, is that, this is the operator's real residence. They aren't somebody who just pops in now and then. But this is their real residence. For example, they're probably registered to vote there. They receive all of their mail there; their kids go to school in this district; or wherever their kids go to school, that kind of thing. This is their real residence, is what we're looking for. We want to again, deferring to the drafter, I think the intention was to foreclose on: ople who claim to have a host, but the host doesn't really live there. MS. EVANS: Okay, so, it's possible the Planning Department would have to pass rules so that they could figure out how to determine who's the permanent resident. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, we are distinguishing permanent residence from principal home as two definitions here. When it's your principal home, you own it, you live there. That's how you get the homeowners'benefits. And we refer to the conditions that you are required for the homeowners' benefit as a way to determine whether or not some of these are principle homes. Similarly, permanent residence is a legal term which means your legal residence as Corporation,Counsel was mentioning, that's where you get your mail; that's where you're registered to vote. There are other tests that are established in the HRS about how your permanent residence is determined. So, no, the Planning Department wouldn't,need additional but we'll stay with refer to these other legal documents about how a permanent residence is defined. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans, before we continue, there's concern about where we are in this discussion with Corporation Counsel. MS. EVANS: Okay, fine. So, I've got one last question, and then I'm done. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay,just want to make sure we're, you know, surface level. Okay. MS. EVANS: So, the question to the maker is, some of the language in this section, because your intent is to want to get rid of Bed and Breakfast. And so, you need to change this bill so that it'll accommodate if, in fact, the Bed and Breakfast goes away. Page 23 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: I'm not seeing enough concern. Yes, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: No. You will see in the subsequent amendment what I'm going to suggest doing with the Bed and Breakfast. The body has made it very clear that they want to keep the Bed and Breakfast mechanism. So, that is not the purpose of these amendments. MS. EVANS: Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that;it doesn't seem that there is the votes to support this amendment. I would like to chime in on it anyway though, as we might see some subsequent amendments. The transient accommodation rental definition, we're saying, we're now limiting it to nomore than five bedrooms. I'm not sure if that existed somewhere else in the different drafts. Is that a new restriction that we're putting in onthe definition? MS. KIMBALL: Yes. So, that's in Bed and Breakfast now. One of the conversations that I had was with DPW (Department of Public Works). And the five bedrooms has to do with once you have more than five, you are required to follow Commercial Building Code. So, things like ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance and things like that.' Soy there's a higher standard there and that's why that was in place for Bed and Breakfast and was recommended to be in place now for TAk's. ACTING CHR, INABA: Okay, for me that's a big change. Hopefully, we can have somebody from DPW. I'm just not sure that we haven't heard specifically from operators, if we do restrict that and they're currently operating let's say six bedrooms. I don't know what's going to happen to them. What are we going to be considering them in that case? Then}4 just want to point out, there's been some concern from the public regarding complaints that would be submitted by neighbors to the Planning Department. Thenj want to make the public statement, that you know, the Council and I think the County is trying to balance both allowing folks who are operators to continue doing so. But also, really hearing the concern of neighbors who have had to live with operators who are not responsible and are not respectful of, you know, community good neighbor standards. So, for where we are right now, a complaint isn't a complaint until it's verified by the department. And that's what is the existing definition, and we're kind of retuning it but it's still the same concept here in this amendment. I'd also like to point out again, Section 25-4-16.1 seems to be a favorite section of discussion today. That no more than one transient accommodation rental per building site. And I do know of some on the West side that are those multiple bedrooms. Page 24 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 But I don't know if they're considered rentals, since they are hosted and managed separately, that they could be rented concurrently by different people. This is preventing that. So,just want to make sure that is clear. If you'd like to chime in on that, Council Member Kimball? MS. KIMBALL: Yes, and this actually, kind of ties in to your previous comment about the five bedrooms. There are other mechanisms, like the ability to get a lodge permit if you have more than five bedrooms. ,Similarly, if you have multiple dwellings, you could accomplish through a Bed and Breakfast permit. If you have multiple bedrooms in a house and you rent them to different people as separate listings, that is permitted. It's just that you can't have two different dwellings that are permitted as TAR'S. You can't have,a dwelling and any accessory non-dwelling buildings as a-TAR, and you can rent them out to multiple people as multiple listings. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. I have concerns about the five bedrooms. But I'm just going to leave it at that. I don't'want'to get into it. Would you like to withdraw, or would you like us to take the vote on this? MS. KIMBALL: There is one particular reason'that I would like to make with the vote today and ask for your favorable support. f recognize that there's still things to tweak, but the more we send oiit stuff halfway without some of these necessary amendments, I think that's problematic in terms of that transparency piece with the public. So, I would ask folks to support`particularly the change to the hosted, because I think we have to do it anyway legally. If we don't make this change and get this out as a new draft, it is not going to be clear to folks what we have to do preceeding forward. I would'also say thatthere,is that adjacent property. We've had those folks come in,and talk to us a number of times. I would like to provide them that assurance that,we are committed to making that allowance. I have heard the feedback of some of the clarities that is needed on the language, and will just finally conclude by saying that Bill 1�08 had nine versions before it was actually approved. So, working well at this point. And so, I ask you folks to support this, because I think it is in the interest of the public and transparency to do so. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote please. Page 25 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 121, Draft 4, with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 675.591 was carried with the following roll call Failed vote: Ayes: Committee Members Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, and Kimball—3. Noes: Committee Members Evans, Kierkiewicz, and Acting Chair Inaba—3. Absent: Committee Members Galimba and Villegas —2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Next amendment. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 121, Draft 4, with the contents of Comm. 675:592. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, thank you. So, having the conversations about Bill 121 and 122, in conjunction with each other, the members of this body made it very clear that they wanted to keep the�Bed,and Breakfast pathway, the Special Use Permit pathway. Because it was a higher level of assessment; about whether that was an appropriate use and was a more difficult bar to achieve. So, what this bill proposes, and'this has to do with what Council Member Evans was talking about before where there's again the potential for confusion here proposes including Bed and Breakfast in the Transient Accommodation Rental Section because they're all transient accommodations rentals. But it stays as a Special Use permit. So, we're just moving the sections. The reason for doing that is again, to provide that clarity. But then also to provide for some cross-referencing to other sections of the TAR bill, like the operational standards; like the parking requirements. So, fundamentally, the language of the Bed and Breakfast that is there to allow for the Special Use permit continues to exist, and it's just moved into this different section. Because there is now this tie- in with,the operational standards under TAR, there's a lot of spurious language in the Bed and Breakfast section. So, that's just cleaned up a little bit. The one thing that I did want to highlight with this is, you know, one of the things that was important, I think, in the conversation for folks was that, and you can see this on the last page of the amendment. That it was important that people only be allowed to advertise as a Bed and Breakfast if they had achieved this Special Use permit. So, that language is in there. Page 26 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Then, to Council Member Kierkiewicz's comments earlier, you know again, one of the things that we're required to do is treat entities, local residents and Operator-hosted identically. With a Bed and Breakfast, an owner can only have one, right? So, following the test that Corporation Counsel was talking about before, we can also say that an operator can only have one. Because we are treating them the same. So, I do have language in here that is coming from Maui,with some clarity revisions. So, this has already been implemented in another jurisdiction for some time. This is in their Bed and Breakfast Code. Soy jI says that you may only have one Bed and Breakfast. You can hold it as a trust, but you can physically, and this is where the natural person stuff comes in. This language could actually be attached to the hosted TAR as a way to kind of say, you can be owner-hosted, it can be,operator-hosted, but you can only own one regardless of the ownership status. So, that's the proposal, and I'm happy to take any questions'.' ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you,;Chair. To the maker, I'm trying to read through here quickly. Are there any things in'this proposed 'amendment that would change the way Bed and Breakfasts currently do business or any additional requirements, given that they are going to come under a larger umbrella of the Transient Accommodation Rentals. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, from the standpoint of, they are now tied to the operational standards that are more clear,and succinct than the previous operational standards. Before the operational standards would have exclusively been contained within the Special Use permit'. This just says that there could be additional conditions in those permits but there are these basic standards of operation, the quite hours, all of that that are standardized now for all Bed and Breakfast and TAR'S. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. Are there any additional requirements for registering or paying any additional fees? MS. KIMBALL: No, there are not. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. Page 27 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 MS. EVANS: Yes, I will not be supporting this amendment. Because of Sunshine Law, you know, we can't talk about this offline. And I believe that what you're putting forth has quite a bit of changes to it, actually. And I think people need to have time to digest this. And if you're going to roll it in and try to tie it to the TAR bill, we're not even done with the TAR bill. I would rather, personally see you address Bed and Breakfast separately. You can come back and bring that back a couple months from now after you get settled with your TAR bill. But I think this just creates more confusion for.us. I wanted to ask the Planning Department one question, if you don't mind, on this one section. I'm looking at the amendment,the first�page, Section 2. It's now saying—it looks like it's in the definition section, but itsays, "Bed and Breakfast establishment refers to a hosted transient accommodation rental." So, now we're taking it out of the Bed and Breakfast world, and we're throwing it into the Transient Accommodation world.° And it says,„"refers to a hosted transient accommodation rental with a use permit or special permit." Can you tell us why you would end up permitting it to possibly two different ways, and why would you have that option? (Note: At this time,Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow, came forward and addressed the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Good morning, Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. Also assisting me today, is Tracie-Lee Camero, one of our Planners that's been hugely'supportive of helping us through this process. To answer your question, Council Member;Evans, there isn't a change in regards to this process. Up to this pointy if you were in a Residential Zoning, it would require a Use permit for,a Bed and Breakfast: Unless it was in apermitted zoning area, which are not listedin the districts that it identifies. Or if you were located within the State Land Use Agricultural District, a Bed and Breakfast would require a Special permit So, this is:the same process. MS. EVANS: So,is there a reason we have to even have it stated? MR. DARROW: I'll answer the best I can, but if the maker of the bill could correct me if I'm off base. But my understanding is that there's been a lot of testimony that people really like the Bed and Breakfast. They like the option. One of the huge benefits to this option is that they will not be going through the annual registration. So, they're just done and they go through the process; they're approved; they're given a registration number to be able to advertise on the hosting platforms. And then they no longer need to submit annual registration fees. Page 28 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 MS. EVANS: But does it confuse the public and you because it's now determining it to be a Hosted Transient Accommodation Rental by the way they've written this paragraph. It's now being considered, a Hosted Transient Accommodation Rental. The reason why we wanted to keep Bed and Breakfast is because it's established in 50 states. You know, people do it as an industry of its own. This industry has been so well established forever, and they have publications, you know, magazines. Go to the state, where is the Bed and Breakfast? I mean I do it when I travel too. If we take the Bed and Breakfast away, you take this whole industry completely away from their advertisement, the years they've spent building upthe industry. So, having said that, we're now wanted to refer to it as aHosted Transient Accommodation Rental. If we throw that in there, even the reference, will that cause confusion legally? Because we're now calling it something else. MR. DARROW: You know, working with Bed and Breakfast for a number of years, they are not by definition but by actual application, are a hosted rental. That's what they are. You have to have an,owner-operator; you're limited to five bedrooms for the operation. And you have to comply with the requirements that are listed in the Zoning'Code under 25-4-7. So, even though we're identifying it'as a hosted rental, or the hosted accommodation; transient accommodation"rental, hosted. We're also identifying it as whatit is, a Bed and Breakfast Vacatioitlental or TAR. I don't see a big problem with that. I think it's just identifying it as to what it actually is in operation. Again,up to this point, Bed and Breakfasts were being deleted. This is bringing that back. S6, when they receive a Use permit or a Special permit, it's for a Bed and Breakfast operation. They will be identified as Bed and Breakfast. MS. E' ANS: Okay,I believe the language, as written, creates some confusion. I think you would have to take time to digest it to make sure that no districts got dropped. Where it's included and not included, there looks like some zoning districts that's been crossed out. Again, you're cross-referencing into transient accommodation. I think it confuses the issue. I think Bed and Breakfast, you now, I think it should stand on its own. It's a legitimate business, and it is a Bed and Breakfast establishment. I'm looking on Page 2, under Section 25-4-16.2. It's saying, "Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, a hosted transient accommodation rental need not register pursuant to this division." So, you keep calling them Bed and Breakfast, and then you keep throwing in that they're really a hosted transient accommodation. Anyway, I would rather have it clean, and much cleaner that we have regulations on Bed and Breakfast. But that's my take. Thank you, I yield. Page 29 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Deputy Director, I just want to make sure I have the process right here. So, with the proposed amendment, if someone was interested in establishing a Bed and Breakfast, not to be confused with Airbnb. But a Bed and Breakfast as defined by our Code. It will still need to go through that rigorous public process of obtaining that Special permit. Is that correct? MR. DARROW: Correct, for our Use permit. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, are there operational standards that are in Planning Rules that Bed and Breakfast establishments,must comply with? MR. DARROW: There are. These are listedunder Section 25-4=7, which I believe have been crossed out in this bill and re-established with particular sections added in this bill. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Are they different from what is being proposed under Bill 121, for regulating'Transient Accommodation Rentals. MR. DARROW: Yes. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: In whatway? MR. DARROW-, They're less restricted. MS. KIERKIEICZ: Okay. With Bed and Breakfast establishments, once you receive the permit, there is no need to do an annual filing or fee with the Planning Department, is that correct? MR. DARROW: That's my understanding. Correct. MS. KIEkKIEWICZ: Section 25-4-16.2. I just want to go to that section real quick here in our bill. We did not pass the previous amendment, and I believe there's a fee index that is listed there. Would they be subject to fees, because the definition of the Bed and Breakfast establishment refers to a section, Operator Hosted, which is still on the books in Bill 121. There is a fee schedule here. MR. DARROW: I apologize Council Member, I'm looking for the section in Communication 675.592 that clearly states that they shall be exempt from having to register. Page 30 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, the definition says that a"Bed and Breakfast establishment refers to a hosted transient accommodation rental with a use permit or special permit pursuant to Section 25-4-16.2." And if I reference that section in Bill 121 where that is listed as Operator Hosted Transient Accommodation Rental, where it's defined and where it is permitted, nonconforming use certificate. And then there's something related to fees. My question is, if we adopt this amendment, would Bed and Breakfast establishments now be subjected to these fees. Because this section of Bill 121 still exists. Am I reading this incorrectly? MR. DARROW: Correct. Well, again, I think the semantics of our having a play in here, but under the proposed bill, 25-4-16.�,says, "Notwithstanding any provision, a hosted transient accommodation rental to the contrary, a hosted transient accommodation rental need not register pursuant to this division, provided that:" And then it gives the direction. If they end up getting the Special permit or the Use permit, they will not need to register and comply with the annual fees. And again, this is my understanding of the proposal. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I wonder if this bill makes assumptions that the previous bill or amendment that wejust rejected, would pass. And so, it's referring to a new section. Deputy, I wonder if the idea here is to insure that the same operational standards exists for Bed and Breakfast establishments, because they are in nature, similar to a hosted rental, but still a very distinct and unique experience. Wouldn't it be better to update that section of Code and also have a provision where once they receive their permit that they also receive a TAR number, in the event that they want to list their B&B (Bed and Breakfast) establishment. I wonder about that approach and your opinion on that. MR. DARROW.- Just so I'm clear on the question, you're asking if we can keep it the way it is currently, under 25-4-7, and just add in a section, that if they get approved;we add a registration number. So, that they can advertise. Is that correct? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: That is correct. MR. DARROW: Versus doing what we're doing now to put it in 25-4-16.1. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. MR. DARROW: There could be a benefit to that. I think the intention originally is morphed into what we have, because we were trying to delete Section 25-4-7 and any reference to B&B. The maker of the bill felt that this was a better Page 31 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 direction—is to include in the Transient Accommodation Rental bill so that it's all inclusive. Personally, I don't have an opinion which way it would work better. I think they both will work fine, as long as it's very clear that the public has this option available, and we would if you go down this road, you will not be required to pay these additional fees and you will receive a registration number so you can advertise as a B&B. When we went through our original hearings through the commissions, there was a lot of discussion on this matter, right? People were very compassionate about Bed and Breakfast and the term. And personally, the term,t can't tell you how many times we've come across people that are operating a hosted rental, but they call themselves a Bed and Breakfast,'or they're a Bed and Breakfast, and they call themselves an Inn or a lodge or something. Although not correct;they're advertising as that. A hosted rental, as mentioned, operates very much as a Bed and Breakfast. The only difference is whether someone serves breakfast or not. And many Bed and Breakfasts that have received the Use permit or Special permit, do not serve breakfast. So, it's again,I'think the main issue here is if you choose to go through the public process of a public hearing, and you receive a permit from the Planning Commission, that you have these benefits from that option. Again, they may choose to serve breakfast; they may choose not to, but that's the option that they have. MS: KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you, Deputy Director. Chair, I yield. MR. DARROW: Sorry, about the lengthy discussion. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Darrow,thank you for being here today. Appreciate ,your comments on what you think would be better. But those are interesting questions, if you ask me. My comment, I have one question for you and this is kind of off-topic, but where's the Director? MR. DARROW: He is, I believe on vacation. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. I respect you and I like listening to you, but I'm just wondering where he is. To the maker, this amendment comes in numbered as, Section 25-4-16.2. But given that the previous amendment didn't pass, 25-4-16.2 is still in effect as an Operator-Hosted Transient Accommodation Rental. So how does that work for this amendment, Page 32 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 and are you pushing this forward, even given that the numbering cannot be correct the way it is written in the amendment? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Actually, that's why my light is on. The way that this was drafted was in anticipation of the previous amendment having passed. So, there is going to be some complex here that will need to be adjusted. I would still like to hear from members about this amendment, so that when I come back with it, those recommendations will be taken into account.- MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. Z don't have a lot of issues with this section of the Code or this amendment. And I think we're rehashing some things we went over at the last meeting as well regarding Special Use permits or Use permits and different ways of getting a Bed and Breakfast and some of the other requirements. So,,thank you,I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. To the maker, will the Bed and Breakfast be subject to the fine schedule as its written out for the TAR bill. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes. MS: KAGIWADA: Okay, I'm inclined not to go with this amendment, but to do something similar to what Council Member Kierkiewicz was talking about, I think maybe just simplifying and concentrating on what we need to concentrate on,here and take Bed and Breakfast out, and just work on, you know,just insuring thatpart of our Code, so that it coordinates well with what we're doing with the TAR bill but doesn't put it directly into it. I think it is a little bit confusing. I understand the wanting to kind of keep everything in one umbrella. But it does seem now that we're moving farther away than having them be exactly like everybody else. Maybe it doesn't make as much sense. So, I'm inclined to not vote for this amendment. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Would you like me to chime in first? MS. KIMBALL: Actually, if I may respond to that? ACTING CHR. INABA: Sure. MS. KIMBALL: I wanted to briefly mention that the original draft of this amendment actually amended the components of the Bed and Breakfast section. Page 33 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 It was actually conversation with LRB (Legislative Research Branch), the keepers of the Code, right, about how to best organize this within the Chapter to make logical sense. So, I would just suggest that if there are meaningful substantive issues with this amendment, that's probably more important than the placement. Although, if folks are like absolutely married to the fact that it remains placed where it is placed in the Code, it just makes it a little cleaner from-looking at the Code from a proper perspective to have that altogether. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that, I'm geeing to chime in. I do think amending the definition of Bed and Breakfast establishment goes outside the scope of what Bill 121 is and was reviewedas by the commissions. So, I support leaving Bed and Breakfast as its own and not intertwining it with the Transient Accommodation Rentals, because we did issue these permits; People did know what rules were in place when they secured their permits. And even if it's to maybe the neighbors' benefits,that the regulations on neighbors' standards is you know, more stringent. I feelthat we might put ourselves in a funny place should any of those permit holder some to say that we're changing the game from what we originally had issued their permits under. So again, first and foremost, I don't think this is proper. I think it goes beyond the will of the bill. Council Member Kagiwada, MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Just one short thing to give feedback, as Council Member Kimball;requested. It's just that I don't feel that the Bed and Breakfast should,be under the same fine schedule as the other one. So, thanks. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. With that— M& hatMS: KIMBALL;; I'll withdraw my motion. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 121, Draft 4, to Amend: with the contents of Comm. 675.592. ACTING CHR. INABA: We are back to the main motion, Bill 121, Draft 4 as amended. We'll go with Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. I do have an amendment here, but I don't think I'm going to introduce it. So, for the record, I'm going to hold off, given our discussions on what the actual categories may be. So, I'm going to withdraw it. ACTING CHR. INABA: Nothing has been introduced via motion. So, it'll just remain there. Page 34 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, alright. Sorry. Just for the public, I'm not going to be introducing it. MR. HENRICKS: Chair,just as that was brought forward, I just want to get a sense ofnormally, at this point, you don't need to do anything. They're just listed. Is there a sense that those that are listed that haven't been addressed, would you like them to be presented on the agenda next time? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada is saying, "no." MR HENRICKS: Very good. So, whatever hasn't been addressed will not be presented. And what that has been disposed of, obviously, will not be presented as well ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Clerk, also form ,arn ndment, I will be dispensing of that and bringing forth something else. So, no need to carry this amendment that I have on the agenda to the next meeting. Thank,you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright, back to the main,motion for the discussion on Bill 121, Draft 4. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Seg, I did want'to get a temperature check on a couple of other proposals before I introduce the amendments today with respect to them. And the first is, and this has to do with the memo regarding Rosehill, and the conversation'that we potentially meed to have there with Corporation Counsel. Again, they're recommending we do that in Executive Session. Is there interest,in including language that says, "The first farm dwelling can be used,as a Transient Accommodation Rental as long as there is some documentation." And,you can provide me with some guidance of what documentation you'd think would be appropriate of agricultural activities. So, that is the'fzrst temperature check I want to get from folks, which is, do we want to require that? The second temperature check is,please look at this language around ownership that,was associated with the Bed and Breakfast. Do you want to tie that language around ownership to the TAR'S? Again, this is language coming from another jurisdiction, so it is tested. Kind of a sub-question of that, do you want to require that ownership? If you favor the ownership restriction, would you prefer to have it in just the Residential and Agricultural areas, or would you want it to apply more broadly, exclusive of the areas where it is already permitted, its permitted zone. Page 35 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 The third question has to do with the phasing out of nonconforming use certificates. I believe you guys got a lot of testimony about that and people's concerns about that. We do have the authority based on what was passed at the State Legislature last year in Residential and Agricultural districts to phase out nonconforming use certificates. Which means at the transfer of sale, we can say that knock does not transfer with the property in Agricultural and Residential areas. I have always contended that this bill is a registration process. It was meant to be a registration process. Therefore, it could proceed without the fiscal impact study, because we were not changing anything about the market except regulating illegal Vacation Rentals that would be illegallyway,"right? So, the transition to add any language about ownership, about the farm: requirements, about phasing out nonconforming use would extend beyond the registration process and actually get into the area where we were shutting down additional nonconforming uses. I would like to just get a sense of if this body has, ................ you know, we were all over the map on what people wanted. So, I need some feedback about those three aspects before proceeding. Thank you, Chair. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Those were a lot of questions. So, I just want to make sure that we are going one at a time and,answering the questions as concisely and briefly,as possible. Question Number One, Council Member Kimball, MS. KIMBALL: Okay, we'll start with the Rosehill decision, Chapter 205 of the HRS'which is limited to or has the provisions of what is allowed in Ag land. Shouldthere be language in the Transient Accommodation Rental bill that requires some sorb of documentation of agricultural activity if the TAR is operating on agricultural land? ACTING CHR. IABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: I guess I'm looking at the Food Sustainability Ag bill that we just passed recently, and I do think that Ag activity has caused some confusion at the local level. If people are growing food on their property and then they give it to their family or give it to their neighbors, you could claim that's agricultural activity. And I think if we go down this path, and I understand why you want to do that. I can see the logic on wanting to do that. But I think because we still have that outstanding issue of how people are interpreting food sustainability and growing in their yard, is that it's not truly Ag activity. I think that still has not been sorted out and settled. So, I think you'll get your answer soon, but I don't think you need to address it right now. Thank you, I yield. Page 36 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Jeff, I need your help on this one. So, I spoke to some of our farmers, and they do vacation rentals. But the parallel to Ag Tourism is interesting. So, how does Ag Tourism and Transient Accommodation Rentals tie in or do they at all? MR. DARROW: That has been a big topic going through this process, is the concern of what people are thinking that were limiting overnight accommodations or even the option in the agricultural district. It actually is coming from State Law. There was a change in State Law a while back,ago that said, "Agricultural Tourism is a permitted use in the counties that create an ordinance." The County of Hawaii was one of the first counties to create an Agricultural Tourism ordinance, which is Section 25-4-15 within the Zoning, ode. In that section, it says that you come in fox plan approval to establish agricultural tourism on the property. There are parameters as far as how the income works from the agricultural aspect in the tourism. But there also was an option that if you're going to have additional uses such as overnight accommodations or weddings, you can come in for a Special permit. Again, the same option is available through a Bed and Breakfast operation. So, there are options. It's unfortunate that with the Transient Accommodation Rentals, there's limitations. You're allowed,to do it in your Single-Family dwelling on Ag land, and it's proposed to allow it as hosted in the first farm dowelling. That'skind of the talking that we're going through right now. But as far as an additional farm dwelling,that has very strict limitations for farm workers and no overnight accommodations. But again, regardless of those there are options available for overnight,accommodations, especially with Ag Tourism. MR. KANEALI`l-KLEINFELDER: So, does the TAR bill restrict Ag Tourism, or does Ag Tourism restrict TAR'S? MR. DARROW: They're both separate. MR. KAEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: They're both separate. But they're touching each other, though? MR. DARROW: Not necessarily. Yeah, they're separate. I think the connection that's being proposed is that, if somebody wants to do a transient accommodation rental in a first farm dwelling, there needs to be some submittal to the Planning Department of agricultural activity being done on the property by the host. Page 37 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Deputy Director. So, I just want to circle back. That, what he proposed was the original question. So, do we need proof, or are we wanting to require proof that Ag activity is happening to allow for the TAR in that first farm dwelling? Yes or no, is essentially where we are. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I guess where I'm at is, we're discussing what Heather (Ms. Kimball) asked us. But we have the,Ag Tourism section of our County Code as granted by State Law. And we are looking at TAR legislation that's touching exactly the same thing, So, I'm trying to wrap my head around how we are addressing both; how they're separate, how they're unique, how they're different, and which one is actually stopping the other one, if at all? If we have requirements under Section�54715'for what's required for agricultural activity, and we're discussing requirements that TAR's would provide for people doing Ag Tourism onagricultural lands and what we're,going to require of them, and we're pointing in two different directions, we're going to confuse the subject even more in my opinion. MR. DARROW: I understand. They're completely separate. So, we shouldn't combine them. Ag Tourism is completely different from Transient Accommodation Rentals, If you are a working farm and you want to do Ag Tourism, there's a process available, and there's a process to allow overnight accommodations even now through the Special permit process. The question,before us is, if we're going to allow transient accommodations rentals in the first farm dwelling, not the single-family dwelling. In the first farm dwelling in the State Land Use Agdistrict, do we need to provide some evidence of agricultural activity being dome on the property? I would suggest that we don't. And the reason why is because we currently, don't require that. For somebody building the first farm dwelling, if they come in and request an additional farm dwelling, that's where we require more information and evidence of agricultural activity. But again, that's just a comment, because at that point, we would again have to be looking at, are they really doing that? It's a requirement for them to be doing it. And we just say, this is a requirement for you to be doing that. You need to be doing that. But when it goes beyond that, that's where we really geed to provide some checks and balances. MIS. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I like that. I think from the public's point of view, if I was to be a farmer and someone doing Ag Tourism. And I'm looking at which one I need to do, I would from my point of view right now and looking at everything that we've done, they would both be applicable to me, and I would have to choose. That's what I'm saying. I think from that point of view, it gets confusing. And maybe I need to think on it some more and maybe talk to Page 38 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 you offline or talk to Corporation Counsel about it. I'm trying to think about the public's point of view and what they have to do. MR. DARROW: More than happy to discuss it further with you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. I yield. MS. KIMBALL: May I make one clarification. ACTING CHR. INABA: I want us to move forward. So, let's get through these questions quickly. Usually, we take these upn amendments, but we're talking theoretical's here. So, Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: The main point is that the State law regarding Agricultural Tourism does not allow us to regulate overnight accommodations under Ag Tourism. So, right now, if somebody had a transient accommodation rental, they would not be able to come in under Agricultural Use permit to permit that activity. Now, there was the bill that was proposed that would take requirements out and allowed it to go to the State, but we are not allowed to do that by the State. That's why there needs to be two things. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright with that, I concur with Deputy Director. I don't think we should be requiring because we don't require it of anyone else at this time. Next question, quickly. We do have to start our Council Meeting at 1:00 o'clock.and we do have actually two more bills on the agenda. So, I would not like to have to reconvene this. MS. KIMBALL: Alright, the other question was regarding ownership limitations. So basically, in the agricultural and residential areas, operator-hosted, owner-hosted;keeping those the same, would we want to restrict the ownership to folks only having one? Because an owner-host could obviously only have one that they Would be owner-host of. This would address one of the concerns which would be housing being utilized by entities with multiple dwellings for TAR'S. We do knew that most transient accommodation rentals are owned by entities that have many of them from some data that was presented earlier this year. So, I would lean in favor of this, but I don't want to proceed with the amendment until I get the feedback from the body on the temperature check. ACTING CHR. INABA: Again, so the question is whether or not we want to limit owner-hosted to just one building site? MS. KIMBALL: That would be owner-hosted and operator-hosted to one TAR registration. So, they could only have one. We would have to grandfather in anybody that already had more than one, but going forward, folks would only be Page 39 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 able to own one. And they would only be able to be held in the condition of ownership that is listed in the Bed and Breakfast example. So, in a trust or something like that, rather than owned by a corporation. ACTING CHR. INABA: I'm not clear on the question. So, I'm going to ask it again. It's that we are allowing a host, whether they're owner or operated to only have one transient accommodation rental? MS. KIMBALL: That's, we would only allow a person to have one hosted accommodation rental. They either own it and host it themselves, or they have an operator present. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright, than you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and then Kagiwada. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. To the question, so,let's say, Matt has a vacation rental, Matt can only have one on the Island of Hawaii, or I can only have one on a parcel of property? ACTING CHR. INABA: Itwould be the first: MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: The first one. ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Could I have more than one on one parcel? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: You could not have more than one dwelling, but you could have more than one listing, like multiple bedrooms listed independently; you could have a dwelling in'a guesthouse. You jsut could not have multiple dwelling MR. KAEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS'KAGIWADA: Thank you. To the maker, are there two parts here? I feel like there's two parts. There's the having one, but there's also limiting to the whole family trust natural person's piece. And I guess I would support the second part maybe over the first part right now. Just making sure that it isn't, you know, corporations having them under operator-hosted. I feel like if it's corporations, that they would be under unhosted. Does that make sense? Trying to parse out, it's the natural person's or the family trust or something here. I do agree with that. But I'm not sure that we're ready to go with limiting to one yet. Page 40 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any further discussion? Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I think this question gets to some of the dialogue that I got into with Corporation Counsel, you know, Judge Strance and Jean Campbell. I don't feel comfortable making a decision explicitly on the direction we're going to move into without a full Council seated and at the end of one Mayoral term. I think it's really important to put out a suite of ideas for our community to weigh in on. So, if this is one option that you'd like to explore, Council Member Kimball, I encourage you to put forth that amendment so that we can have a robust discussion with the full body and in consultation with whoever is leading the Planning Department next term. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: A follow-up question. Is it legal for us to do that with everything we've discussed so far that we can limit people to only having one transient accommodation rental? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes, because this wouldn't be restricting based on residency, it would just apply to everyone. MR. KANEALL`I-KLEINFELDER: It's restrictive in general to everybody. Agreed, Corporation Counsel? So, so, okay? Okay, I think that's questionable, Council Member'Kimball. It's an interesting idea. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. I agree with Council Member Kierkiewicz, seeing both ways. So, I can't give you a definite answer to you on that one. So, if you could ask your last question, then we can move forward. MS. KIMBALL: My last question has to do with the phasing out of nonconforming use certificates. So, nonconforming use certificates are different than the Use permits which runs with the land. The State HRS now gives us the authority to sunset nonconforming use certificates for unhosted rentals on Agricultural and Residential land. Do you folks want to pursue that? ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Yes or no? Any answers? Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Yes, I'd like to explore that further. Page 41 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. No opinions, alright. There's a motion on the floor right now. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I'd like to make a motion to actually postpone Bill 121 to the Call of the Chair in light of the resolution that was adopted by Council to do with economic impact analysis, which would explore, you know, housing implications, economic impact. You know, visitor footprint and quality of life here on the islands in regards to transient accommodation rentals. And with the seating of the new Council and the transitioning to'a new Administration, I think it's time to take a pause and a deep breath;,and there were a lot of ideas that were recently ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz, is that a motion? Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to postpone Bill 121, Draft 4, as amended, to the Call of the Chair. Seconded by Ms. Kimball ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: In light of the very robust conversations that we have been having at Council and with our community and further ideas, you know, being put forward today, I think it's in our best interest,to pause; wait for the study to come back I,know that there's other information,pieces that Council Member Kimball would like to explore to ensure that we have all datasets necessary to make informed policy decisions. So, I'm hoping that everybody can support this approach of postponing, so that we have a full body and can be working in partnership with the new Administration. Thank you. ACTING CHR.,INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball and then Kagiwada. MS. KIMBALL: So, one more question which is, in the interest of transparency, and communicating effectively and clearly, there's been a lot of mention about how confusing all of this has been. Is it the body's preference to postpone but still work with this bill, or pull it entirely and start over? As it was mentioned, new Council, new Administration, do we need a new bill that incorporates everything that we've done today? I'm open to either based on the recommendation of this body. I'm comfortable postponing it to the Call of the Chair. I am comfortable working on a new draft of a new bill that has incorporated everything that is much tighter than where we are. I want to be as transparent to the public about the process as possible. So, I don't know the answers or which one of these—keeping to work on the bill that we've put forward or to offer a new one; gives a more transparent or one that the public is going to be—raise your hand, which one you prefer. Page 42 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 I don't know what the answer is for that, but I would like some feedback on that, as we've discussed whether or not to postpone. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay, I want to focus on our question. The question before us is,postpone to the Call of the Chair or not? So, yes or no. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. I would support a postponement, but I do want to say, that I do not—once again, I think it's a king of a false narrative to say that we need an economic study in order to do a registration bill. I do feel it's really important to have that, and I voted for the economic study. As we go forward with looking at potentially tax policy around this, different things like that, to know what that's about. But for a registration process, which I still think this bill is, I do not feel like we need to complete the economic study first, But I'm okay with postponing in order to make sure that our new Council can weigh in on it. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: The first bill I walked in to Council was Bill 108. That was 2019, and I think I walkedin:either first or second reading, and it was confusing; it was difficult, and the community was already pissed off about it. That the first thing thatwe weighed in on,as far as a large measure that was in front of the Council. With two incoming new Council Members who may or may;not be up-to-date with what is going on. With the amountof amendments and with some portions of this bill that I simply do not agree with even with some of the amendments that were proposed today, I think itmay be'better to bring something new back to the table that is clear and begin with a new body,so they have time to walk through the entire process. I don't know if that leaves you with the Planning Commission. But I think there's been substantial changes in this, and it may be better to bring something back to the table that is new and clean and based on some of the information that Corporation Counsel has provided as well. That is where I stand. ACTING CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS'KIERKIEWICZ: Unless you wanted to weigh in Chair, I was going to agree with the sentiments proposed. I did not know that Council Member Kimball was going to offer that today. But I would support or actually retracting Bill 121, and just starting over in light of the discussion and in light of all the new information that's coming forward. So, weigh in and then I can withdraw my motion. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. Page 43 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 MS. EVANS: Thank you. I know we had discussion about the Rosehill decision today, and I also know based on the testifiers, we're already on Draft 4, and it looks like a Draft 5 is forthcoming. And then also the discussion of the economic feasibility. I think for the next Council with two new members coming in, I think it would be great to start with the bill, so it's all concise in one spot, so people don't have to compare an amendment to a bill. And it's all those underlining and strike-throughs, and it's a lot to digest. Just trying to have a comparison sheet. One, what was it before, and now we have strike throughs. And after a while it starts getting away from you, I think. So, I personally would recommend retracting,and introducing the bill. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, I warited to just clarify something with the Clerk, here. I'm actually not going to withdraw the motion, and I think it's a good idea for us to postpone to the Call of the Chair,just in case. You can still bring an entirely new bill forward, and this would potentially give us options. So, I'm just putting it out there that we may want to support postponing to the Call of the Chair. You can still bring something else entirely n w forward for us to consider. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, that was going to be my mana`o. Is this bill perfect 'no. Is there opposition, yes. But it gives us the opportunity should the next Council want to continue with it, or if the next Council chooses to scrap it, then we can start fresh as proposed. So, a roll call vote please on postponement to the Call of the Chair for Bill 121, Draft 4. Point of Information: MS.KAGIWADA: Point'of'information, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Go ahead. To Mr. Clerk, if we bring this bill back in the next session and'then want to then decide that it's not the way we want to go, are we going to be able to bring a bill that has similar in scope but new and different without any issues within that same session? 1R. HENRICKS: If you're concerned about the Council Rule that states that the Council cannot take up a matter in the same term if it has voted against the bill or resolution in the same form? That would apply if that happened. If was voted down at Council level, that rule would apply, and then it would be up to the Council to determine whether or not any future bill was in substantially the same form. Page 44 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 MS. KAGIWADA: But as long as we're just debating it and haven't voted it down, we still have all options on the table. MR. HENRICKS: I'm going to say something crazy. That I hope never happens. Nine of you could introduce bills on the same subject matter at the same time. There's nothing that precludes bills from being introduced that touch upon the same subjects that you would be required to choose from. You couldn't adopt more than one of them? I said it was crazy. But I'm just trying to illustrate the options based upon the questions because I think some people may be under the impression thatthere's one opportunity to create policy on a subject matter. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, I just wanted to verify that before wego ahead. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright, thank you Council Member Kagiwada. Let the crazy seeds not be planted. Alright. County Clerk, roll call vote. Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 121, Draft 4, as amended to Postpone: to the Call of the Chair was carried by the following (Approved) roll call vote: Ayes; Committee Members Evans, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Inaba-6. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Galimba and Villegas -2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Bill 122, Draft 2, please. 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 BILL 122 (DRAFT 2): The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Christian Baker: In opposition. Page 45 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 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, September,3,,and October 2, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Galimba, to recommend passage of Bill 122,Draft 2, on first reading.) ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, I'd like to proceed with withdrawing a motion. This body has made it clear that they want to keep the Bed and Breakfast portion. How we deal with that in terms of previous conversations today, I think remains to be seen. But it is not possible to make corrections to this section of the Code given the titles exclusively related to repeal, So,I'll be;withdrawing the motion. MR. HENRICKS: Chair Inaba, given that this bill has been amended and the course that it's gene on. It seems a bit too ripe for withdrawal at this point, given the rules that state that motions can't be withdrawn after they're amended. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 122, Draft 2, to the Call of the Chair. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Same comment. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. Thank you. Discussion? Council Member Evans, none? Okay. All those in favor of postponing Bill 122, Draft 2 to the Call of the Chair, please say, "aye." Any opposed? Page 46 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 122, Draft 2, to the Call of to Postpone: the Chair was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Kagiwada, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Inaba—6. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Galimba and illegas —2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Bill 181, Draft 2,and I getto pass the Chair back to Chair Kierkiewicz. Relinquish Chair: At this time, the Chair relinquished the chair to Chair Kierkiewicz. Bill 181: AMENDS CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE'l, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE (Draft 2) 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE GENERAL PLAN Inserts amendment procedures for the General Plan, including a comprehensive review at least every ten years, and interim amendments between comprehensive reviews; describes the powers and duties of the Planning Director and Planning Commissions to review and recommend amendments, and of the Council to initiate or adopt proposed amendments; Reference". Comm. 939.4 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba Postponed: July 23, September 3, and October 2, 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. 939.44; from Corporation Counsel Elizabeth A. Strance dated November 6, 2024, transmitting General Plan Amendment Procedure; and Comm. 939.45, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated November 8, 2024, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 181,Draft 2, were circulated.) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Inaba, how would you like to proceed with this bill? MR. INABA: Thank you. I just want to refresh the body, the whole reason for Bill 181 was to allow and try and find a way for the Council to be able to make the substantive amendments to the Draft General Plan when it came to us before we approved it. There wasn't a way in all our research, but come to find out that we have found a way, and I'm going to ask Corporation Counsel to come forward Page 47 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 really quick just to share what that process would be. That process is contained in Communication 939.44; it was an update. So, Corporation Counsel, Ms. Strance. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward and addressed the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Thank you. Good afternoon, Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. You are correct. The language of the amendment process in the current General Plan bill is confusing. It's clear from the legislative history that this body has authority to make amendments to the General'Plan bill when it comes to it. So long as any substantive amendments that are made go back for review to the Planning Commissions pursuant to the procedures set forth for Council initiated in around amendments. MR. INABA: Thank you, Corporation Counsel. So, with that, the intention eventually is that we will introduce language into the Code that has the amendment procedures for the GeneralPlan,both comprehensive'and interim. But right now, since we're in the middle of the process, we're just going to put a pin in this. And whether we continue with this same bill later or come back with a fresh bill, we'll take thatup also in the next term. So, Bill 181, Draft 2, can I make a motion to postpone to the Call of the Chair? Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 181,Draft 2, to the Call of the Chair. Seconded by Mr:Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, I'm happy to support the motion to postpone. Do you have some amended language that I'd like to be able to discuss? Whether or not e adopt it is'another matter, but support the plan,which is to push this off until after the General Plan has been reviewed with the Planning Commission. I would like an opportunity to discuss that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, would we need to dispose of the motion to postpone in order to discuss the amendment and the communication Council Member Kimball is referring to? MI . ENRICKS: Yes. Withdraw Motion Mr. Inaba withdrew his motion to postpone Bill 181, to Postpone: Draft 2 to the Call of the Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. Council Member Kimball. Page 48 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 181, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 939.45. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. So, the original content of Bill 181 was essentially the Comprehensive Plan Review and Interim Amendment Process, lifted from the current General Plan. There were numerous places that the language was unclear in , and I think led to confusion. Council Member Inaba and I are in agreement, that this process ultimately should not live in the General Plan, but it should be in the Code. This actually made some clerical amendments to what was lifted from the current General Plan. Looking primarily at breaking the process out into steps, the Comprehensive Review is initiated, there's a process that the Planning,Director is responsible for; there the process that the Planning Commission is responsible for; then there's the process that the Council is responsible for. There's also language in here about what entails a substantive amendment, which I think is important to justhave the conversation,about when we get to the point where we're making amendments to the General Plan,we're going to want to have some record about what that is'when we have to send that back. So, asking for support. Again, the intention is just to have this dialogue about this content. And then'to bold this until a later date, since we've already agreed we have the ability to amend.the General Plan. CHR, KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any questions or comments on the amendment. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS Looks like there is a significant change, in that you have struck out, `'If the updated General Plan is not adopted within 13 years, the Planning Director should providequarterlyreports here." Actually, adding subsection (3), you are saying if the General Plan update fails to be done in'a timely manner. You're taking away the timeframe that the original drafter put in. So, I do think that's a change, you know. So, there are some things inhere that I would call substantive. So, it'll be worth that if you want to have that,discussion. But I personally recommend that we go back to postponing it, and when it comes up, whenever it comes up, you bring it up then. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Yes, I do prefer setting a timeline, and then maybe for Planning, three years is not enough from the initiation to getting it before Council. But I do Page 49 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 like having a deadline that it comes to Council by. Because if not we're relying on the timeline established via the notification that the initiation set forth by the Planning Director. So, I would prefer a nice mix of what is being struck, and having those regular updates should, let's say the five-year window not being met. And I think that provides a good balance. Because right now, our General Plan has no provision if the Department or the Commissions; or specifically, the Department in this case, has not provided things in a timely manner. So, theme constant public updates, I think, will help us move along and stay on track making sure our General Plan is up to date. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: If I can just clarify that. So,the specifics of 13 years have been taken out. But the language has been,put into say that the Council can add additional restrictions and requirements, as necessary to ensure that it moves in a timely way. So, instead of having a date certain, it's amended to be that can be an option for the Council if they see it's nonmoving in a timely way. So, it becomes looser in terms of how it's enforced.' There's not a specific date but there's still the ability. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I think what you're trying to do is you're taking into consideration unanticipated events. Pandemic, a volcanic eruption, a lot of things that the Planning Department has to stop on current operations and shift resources and attention to. So, it sounds like it's a contingency plan. Okay. I don't'feel w have enough members here today to have a robust discussion and properly vote'on this'measure. So, thank you for the discussion. It is now part of the record. If Lcould ask you to please withdraw? Thank you. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 181, Draft 2, to Amend: with the contents of Comm. 939.45. Motion to Postpone: Mr.,Inaba moved to postpone Bill 181, Draft 2, to the Call of the Chair. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. CHR.,KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I should have thought about this when we were talking about this with Bill 121. Mr. Clerk, what happens at the change of the term when we have things that are postponed to the Call of the Chair? Do they just go away, or do they stay? We have talked about this with Corporation Counsel. I don't know if we've officially resolved this. Page 50 PCPLUD-23 November 8,2024 MR. HENRICKS: Matters crossover. I mean there'll be items on the Council Agenda that crossover. So, it's not uncommon. This remains viable. Whether or not it makes more sense at a certain time to introduce a new bill, I think those are circumstantial, and you look at the circumstances then and make those decisions. But nothing evaporates, or dissipates, or becomes invalid at the start of the new Council term. MS. KIMBALL: Great. Thank you for the clarification.,, In support. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. So,just to be clear,,it's still alive in the legislative ether. Okay. There is a motion on the floor to postpone to the Call of the Chair. All those in favor please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 181, Draft 2, to the Call of to Postpone: the Chair was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, and Chair Kierkiewicz 6.— Noes: _ -Noes: None, Absent: Committee Members Galimba and,Villegas –2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: That brings us to the end of our agenda. Thank you. ADJOURN- Where being no'further business,„Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 12:30 p.m. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development AK/dt Page 51