Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUED 2025/05/20 (2024-2026) DRAFT Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development 9th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii May 20, 2025 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Economic Development was called to order at 10:59 a.m.,in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Vice Chair Mr. James E. Hustace, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kle nfelder,Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member(via videoconference from Kona) STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business. FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: John Erickson: Bill 24, Draft 4 (Comm. 110.116), comment. Kalei Kailikini: Bill 24, Draft 4 (Comm. 110.116), in support and comment. April Lee: Bill 24, Draft 4 (Comm. 110.116), comment. Chris Hirose: Bill 24, Draft 4 (Comm. 110.116), in support and comment. Debra Greene: Bill 24, Draft 4 (Comm. 110.116), in support and comment. (representing Safe Tech, Hawaii) PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 Claudia Schimmer-Keawe: Bill 24, Draft 4 (Comm. 110.116), in support. Josephine Keli`ipio: Bill 24, Draft 4 (Comm. 110.116), in opposition. Naomi Melamed: Bill 24, Draft 4 (Comm. 110.116), comment. (representing Safe Tech, Hawaii) Susan Higa: Bill 24, Draft 4 (Comm. 110„116), comment. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if we could'please move on with business of the day, thank you. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 24: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES,1, 2, 4, 5,AND 7, OF THE AAWAI`I (Draft 4) COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND TOWERS (Planning Director Initiated) The Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions forward their favorable recommendations to remove the requirement for a,rise permit to establish telecommunication antennas and towers in certain zoning districts, add application requirements, and amend standards for the establishment of telecommunication antennas and towers. Reference Comm. 110.116 Intr. by: Council Member Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed; February 4 and 18; March 6; April 1 and 15, 2025 (Note: There is,a motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Hustace,to recommend passage of Bill 24 on first reading.) (Note: Comm. 110.117 from Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz and Comm. 110.118 from Council Member Rebecca Villegas dated May 20, 2025 transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 24, Draft 4, were circulated.) CAI :KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk, we have a couple of amendments to get through. Mr. Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. Motion to Amend: Mr. Hustace moved to amend Bill 24, Draft 4, with the contents of Comm. 110.117. Seconded by Mr. Onishi. Page 2 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: This includes a suite of amendments based on our meeting last month. And if Council Members have the communication in front of them, I'll just walk everyone through this. Number 1 has to do with small wireless facilities. Recall the conversation and presentation that we had with Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell about our County's inability to regulate small wireless facilities, and her recommendation to add that to the definition. Number 2 is in regards to a submittal check list. This is to identify everything that an applicant is required to submit to the Planning Department as part of the plan approval process. Number 3 is our attempt to insure that verification. That notification letters are sent to property owners within 500 feet from the proposed installation., This in addition to a section within this bill that calls for proactive community engagement by the applicant. Number 4 is about renumbering this section accordingly. Number 5 is to provide clarity around the Federal.regulations that we are referring to, that's Title 47, the Telecommunications Act. And support planning in their work to align their work with any Federal or State regulations. And:finallys Section 6. In consultation with Corporation Counsel, we cannot require industry to have redundant power supplies on site. We can encourage them; So, this language is offered,in order to address what is potentially interpreted as a taking. There are members of the Planning Department here. Director Jeff Darrow, Tracie-Lee Camero, as well as Planning's Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell hereto answer any questions folks might have. Thank you. Any questions? Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, first off, I want to start by thanking you for taking so many of the different amendments that have been discussed and working with Planning to reincorporate the terminology that from what I'm reading meets the needs and incoporates some of the other amendments that we had gone back and forth about in putting in this language here. So, I want to thank you for doing that. I have another amendment coming forth, but I don't see any conflict in those, and they actually would align quite perfectly. So, thank you for the due diligence and all the effort you put forth to insure that this legislation incorporates, takes into consideration, and helps to better protect our community and ensure their long-term health and safety and for that of the land as well. I yield. Page 3 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Maybe for the Planning Department, this question is applicable, Mr. Darrow. Good morning, please introduce yourself. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Jeff Darrow and Planner V Tracie-Lee Camero came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the Hawaii County Council. Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department;as well as Tracie-Lee Camero, Planner with the Planning Department. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Question for you. For the amendment that we're on, Number 3, which is Section 5 of the Bi11 24. The verification of notification. I'm trying to grasp this section where we're saying, we're going to notify owners and lessees of,record of properties within 500 feet of the point along the boundary of the building site for the installation. Define for me perimeter boundary of the building site. MR. DARROW: You know, normally wejust use property boundary. So, this is a fancy way to describe that. Buitypically they notify. So, if the property the difficulty is, let's say it's on a large property, right, like hundreds of acres. It's not specific to a location. It's specific to the property boundary. So, it has to go out'500 feet from the entire perimeter of the property boundary, which would be the perimeter of the building site. That's typically,what we do in notification. It can be 300 feet or 500 feet. In this particular request to amend, it's specific to 500 feet. And this also includes information to be,proyided as a part of the notification. MR. KAEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, the perimeter boundary of the building site is the entire parcel. MR. DARROW: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, not the actual physical site of the building, which would be, you know, maybe a 50x50 area for associated equipment. MR. DARROW: We're going to look real quick as to the language we normally use. That might be something we may want to adjust. Just to make it clear, my understanding is, I believe it's the property boundary. Page 4 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's the language I'm used to. The building site to me means something different. Maybe it's because of my background. MR. DARROW: Perimeter boundary of the building site. And the building site again, normally is the property. So, we're looking at other language in the code. An&ih the Short-Term Vacation Rental language it did use something similar to this. Perimeter boundary of the short-term vacation rental. But again, it was specific to the property boundary, not just the location of the home. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, building site means property boundary? MR. DARROW: We do have a definition of building site within,our Code, and we'll bring that up. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I remember this term because we talked about this in length in the short-term vacation rental. If you could, I want to hear that defnition,please. MR. DARROW: So, building site is defined as, "A parcel of land which is occupied or is to be occupied by a principle use and accessory uses, or a building or group of buildings and includes a lot or a plot." Sounds familiar. MR.,KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, it's one or the other or it's both? MR. DARROW- Both. Sometimes we determine it as a lot or a plot. MR.,KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: A plot being a parcel? MR.'DARROW: Yes. MR. KAEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. DARROW: We'll ask for a plot plan. That's a typical term we use, but you have parcel, lot, plot; different terms that they use. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that was my only question. Thank you very much. MR. DARROW: Thank you. Page 5 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, there is a motion on the floor. All those in favor please say "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 24, Draft 4, with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 110.117 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustaee, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz-9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Villegas. Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 24, Draft 4, with the contents of Comm. 110.118. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member'Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you everybody for this greatconversation today. We have Draft 4, which has been a longtime coming. I do want to put forth for the public, an understanding that this legislation is really important for our County. Because itputs us on the map with actually having some policy surrounding telecommunications as it relates to our County. So, you know, there are people who would like to see it more restrictive and protected, and others that either don't mind or work for telecommunications company. But Iustwdnted to make sure that is put out there, that you're working for,the best policy possible. You know,would like to limit small cell tower's,but now we're told has a policy on that that we can't supercede. So, my ask today, as I've brought forth a number of requested amendments, as we've navigated this process is something quite simple. I'm asking for a specific number of feet to be added back in as it relates to the distance necessary that it not be less than 600 feet from any residence or school. Originally in Bill 24, the legislation which was drafted and worked on by our prior Planning Director was 1,200 feet. So, my strong belief is that this will do more good than harm. We've also had it clarified already. And thank you Planning for responding to me when I sent this amendment earlier to see if there were any issues. And the only issue and response I got was that first responders, Police and Fire may have some issues with it. Thankful that it's been clarified today, that first responders and other dispatch services are exempt from setback requirements. So, that eliminates any point of concern there. Page 6 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 I just want to appeal to my colleagues to support this amendment and put back in the 600 feet. It's half of what was asked before. Totally feasible. Going to do more good than harm. But it wouldn't be any less than 600 feet from any residence of school. Some of the biggest complaints from community members are when towers or antennas are installed near their homes or schools. Then research shows that wireless infrastructure negatively impacts property values. Tower installations also impact the community through compromised safety, diminished quality of life and destruction of the integrity and cultural character of their land. Community overwhelmingly wants towers and antennas as far away as possible from their homes and children. This amendment is for a very minimal and reasonable 600-foot8etback from residences and schools. It's only half of what was prior. And as.I listen to all this testimony, I myself don't rely on personal inventory of the amount of time that I spend on devices, and that my grandson spends on'his devices; and my daughters. And I'm concerned because there's a part cif me that believes that I will probably live to see the day thatl regret all of that and not being more ferrocious about protecting myself. You know, this specific legislatioii,is more related to protecting the cultural resources, historic resources, asthetics, property values, and safety from falling objects. ButI want the constituents and those who have spent a lifetime researchingthe potential negative consequences from exposure to electromagnetic radiationI hear,you. And I share those concerns and, we're in a wild time as we, you know, who would have known I'd be in my lifetime, walking into the area of Al(Artificial Intelligence) and such technological advancements with such loss of natural resources in connection in other ways. So, I ask for my colleagues' support in this simple amendment that puts back in a minimum setback. I yield. - CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. I really appreciate your creative approach here. I think we are all aware that we cannot regulate public health. But this is, I think one way that you are creatively trying to address that. So, thank you for your efforts. I do want to just ask the Planning Department, since you're seating here before us, your opinion regarding this amendment we are deliberating on. MR. DARROW: Thank you, Chair. The Planning Department from the outset has included a larger setback. So, being this as mentioned by Council Member Villegas is half of what that setback was. We're supportive. Thank you. Page 7 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. Any questions or comments here on the dais. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Actually, going back and looking over where we started and where we are now. And then this amendment, I support the amendment, and for reasons the public brought up. There are some good reasons this morning I think why this is important, especially with our keiki. So, with that I'll be supporting the amendment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else` Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Just looking for confirmation of whatwas mentioned in the testimony, which was the objection to the site setback, previously, was the exemption for emergency responders and that sort of infrastructure. So, can you confirm that that is in fact, the way that this bill should be interpreted? MS. CAMERO: Hi, thank you so much,Council Member Kimball for that great question. Tracie-Lee Camero, Planner within the Planning Department. Just a brief history again, when we were drafting the bill, we did meet with Police, Fire and Civil Defense. And,they did have concerns about the 1,200-foot setback. So, we did put in an exemption in our bill that did allow for those towers that are brought up by Police, Fire, and Civil Defense to not have to meet the setback requirements.. However, it is my understanding the Police and Fire did still have concerns on'the 1,200-foor setback, as it may affect their FirstNet. And correct me if I'm wrong, Director Darrow, but I think that was at the last meeting that FireChief Kazuo Todd, did speak to that. MS. KIMBALL:' Sri, CounciI MIember Villegas, did you happen to consult with Fire,and Police,and you know, get their feedback on this and the exemption? MS.`VILLEGAS 'I'm'sorry, I don't understand the question. Concerning the exemptions if they're already exempted from it? MS. KIMBALL: As just mentioned by Planning, they were concerned about the potential impacts on the FirstNet, and that would be not excluded per the exemption that's in the bill. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, I can't, the FirstNet? MS. KIMBALL: Yes, FirstNet towers, which are part of the Emergency Response Network supported by the Federal Government. And it sounds like fromI don't know if you want to elaborate on what FirstNet is for Council Member Villegas. Page 8 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 MR. DARROW: Sure. I had briefly touched upon it before, and I'm definitely not the expert on it. But some time ago, there was, I believe it was AT&T that was given the contract for FirstNet. And it was a collaboration of being able to utilize their system to prioritize emergency services to Police, Fire, Civil Defense, to utilize their infrastructure for those purposes. So, even though this bill may exempt Fire, Police, and Civil Defense from building their own towers, the question remains whether it would exempt towers that would be utilized using the FirstNet system, even though they're not Police, Fire, or Civil Defense towers. So, I think that's inhere the clarification may need to come from Fire, Police, or Civil Defense, MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for that explanation, Director Darrow. I'm looking at Section 25-4-12(b), which states, "-Telecommunication facilities developed by Government Agencies primarily to protect public health, safety and welfare, including but not related to facilities for Police,Fire, Ambulence, andother emergency dispatch services shall be exempt from telecommunication antenna and tower requirements provided in the chapter." It's also my understanding that Chief Todd had communicated the FirstNet runs on another band. It's not 3G(third„generation) or LTE (Long-Term Evolution) or 4G (fourth generation) or 5G (fifth generation). The folks I was working with on this amendment have met with Chief Todd to confirm that. MS. KIMBAL;L: Thank you,Council Member Villegas. I wish we had Police or Fire here to clarity and insure that the FirstNet system is being covered, because I do think that there remains a concern,in the sense that the towers developed for FirstNet are contracted, I belive to a provider. So, they're not technically being developed by a government-agency. But they are providing that necessary coverage. Okay, I'm willing to support this amendment today, but I think we need another tweak to it to insure that the FirstNet process is covered. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Kimball. Council Member Kaneali`i- leinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I was thinking about one of the testimonies that was provided by Siri through one of the individuals. But I looked up that discussion that was brought up and the point that was brought up about the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). And I found the site, and currently, the IAFF does oppose the use of Fire Stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the condution of cellphone transmission. Until a study with the highest scientific merit, integrity, and health effects of exposure to low intensity RF/MW (Radiofrequency/Microwave) Radiation is conducted, and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members. Page 9 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 I think about that and making that statement, because I think what Council Member Villegas was hoping to do here is to work with the communities' requests to make sure that we're not putting our own kids in the same situation that even the IAFF is saying they don't want to be in regards to having towers too close to their own personnel. So, in that sense, I think this has merit. Again, supporting it, we just want to provide, you know, provide some other people outside of us and outside of what we're talking,about today, that are outstanding levels of information for us to base our decisions on. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else. Yes;Council Member Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: I just want to quickly go back historically.'In July of 2024, the creation of Bill 24 by the former Planning Director Kern, he consulted with telecommuncations corporations including Verizon, AT&T; Crown,Castle, a wireless policy group; Government agencies including DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources); the County's Civil Defense Agency, and the Police Department. It's on record from back in July,of 2024. That was at a 1,200-foot setback. So, I thank my colleagues for my support in this, and perhaps we can have Fire come to the next one if that's an area of concern for Council Member Kimball. ButLfeel quite confident moving forward that all of the bases have been covered and`that this footage for a setback redu remenf won't harm anything. And will, in fact provide the necessary setback for health and safety and what the community's asking for. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I just wanted to ask about existing cell towers that would not be 600 feet from residents or schools. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Galimba, can you speak a little closer into your uric? MS. GALIMBA: Sure. Did you get that? So, existing towers, if they had to be renovated or you know, completely redone in the future, would this then be a problem for those towers to be redone? MR. DARROW: We have what's called a Nonconforming Section within our code. And basically, it applies when a use is conforming at the time, and the code, or law, or rule changes, and it becomes nonconforming at that point. Page 10 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 There's certain allowances, but when it's a complete demolition and rebuild, that's difficult because in that portion of the Code, it basically says you have to comply with the current code at that point. If they were doing something where they did repair and maintenance for a period of time they could eventually, you know, replace the tower. But it had to be over a period of four years at 25 percent per year. And it's just the way the Code is written. So, if that is a concern, it might be something that we might want to place as a portion in the code, in this change. We do get requests periodically, because of the shape cif towers. I mean in this sense of them becoming outdated or delapidated and they,reed to be replaced. And so, they'll come in. There's an opp�irtuity for them to replace right? Either it's covered under the Use Permit or they come in for a new plan approval. But in this particular case, being that, if that tower was within 600 feet of a residence or a school, that's hard to get passed, right? You're not going to meet the current code at that point. MS. GALIMBA: So,you're saying that if we wanted to insure that we could still have the towers that we have, that we might have to put something into this bill. MR. DARROW: It's something just simply that, if an existing tower needed to be replaced, it could be replaced. Bufyou may want to keep language in there that it's replaced to basically match what is existing. It doesn't expand or enlarge. MS. GALIMBA, Right. Okay,thanks. MR. DARROW.- With all this dikussion, I don't think we actually thought about that particular issue. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Anything else, Council Member? Okay, seeing no other lights one there is a motion on the floor. All those in favor, please say "aye." Any opposed` Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 24, Draft 4, with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 110.118 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 11 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Bill 24, Draft 4, as amended is now amended with the contents of Communication 110.118. Back the main motion on the floor, which is to forward Bill 24, Draft 4, as amended to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Any final comments before we proceed with the vote? Seeing none, all those in favor please say "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Bill 24: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 24, Draft 4, as Draft 5): amended to Draft 5 on first reading was carried by the (Approve following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chain K erkiewicz=9, Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Bill 24, Draft 4; as amended is forwarded to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Thank you everyone for your work on this. Mr. Clerk, moving on to the next set of bills before us. Bill 52: AMENDS CHAPTER 25,ARTICLES 1, 4, AND 5, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO HENNERIES Allows hens for household egg production on single-family, double-family, multiple-family residential, and residential-commercial mixed use zoning; provides for certain conditions and regulations. Reference: Comm. 286 Intr. by: Council Member Kimball Motion'to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to forward Bill 52 to the Planning Commissions. Seconded by Mr. Hustace. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: This was a constituent's request to allow for female hens specifically, not roosters to be raised on certain types of residential parcels. You'll note that there is another bill subsequent, that is almost identical. I've never actually seen this. We're not allowed to talk to eachso, that the public knows, about bills that are in progress. But this is always possible to have them. So, Matt and I were working on these independantly and only discovered when they were both agendized that we had similar legislation. Page 12 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 What I would suggest ultimately is that both of these go to the Planning Commissions. They deliberate about them; bring the feedback, then we settle on one bill. But I will just highlight a couple distinctions. I wanted to specifically call out the zoning districts where these would be permitted, as opposed to using the language that would say,just where livestock is not permitted, because there are a couple zoning districts like industrial which I did not want to'be included but do not allow livestock either. So, in Bill 53, that sort of,zoning district would be included. Also, not necessarily per say, because the definition of hennery includes female chickens or female poultry; then it also says,for'the non-commercial production. So, in some ways, the distinct exclusion of roosters in Number(3). Then the statement that sale is prohibited in Number (4) are redundant. But we know that definitions are from this section of the code. Then you have the details in this other section: And I just want to make it expressively clear thafthis is not for commercial production in any way and that roosters are not allowed: So,thank you for the consideration and look forward to seeing what the Planning Commissions come back'with. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Inaba. MR..INABA: Thank you. With the Sunshine Law, obviously, we are where we are raw. I as a matter of process dony't prefer to see two bills referred to the commissions. So,I'll be voting "no" on both of these just because I want to send one. I think this Council itself has difficulty dealing with multiple bills on the same topic. And we're asking two commissions to do the same now. So, I'm assuming it's going to go forward, but ask the Planning Department, and most especially Corporation Counsel to pay some extra attention and care in getting these done with the commissions. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'll be supporting this bill, and actually,just to make this easier for everybody, I'll just withdraw Bill 53. There's not much of a difference. The main thing is, I think Heather (Kimball) and I both stem from the same place. It was a few months ago, Mr. Kern came in front of us, and he explained somewhere in the discussion of whatever we were discussing, that if you live in residential property, you can't have chickens on your property. Page 13 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 I went back and referenced some previous ordinances that have been brought to the Council. I think stemming back to Donald Ikeda. A bill to do the same thing, but didn't manage to get through for whatever reason. I think from that moment, both her and I tracked them in LRB (Legislative Research Branch), and then we came out at the same time. So, I'll withdraw Bill 53 today to make it easier for everybody. The main idea, we see skyrocketting egg prices. And we seek agricultural resiliency. All these things that we're doing in the County, except you can't have chickens on residential property. It just makes zero sense. You have a few chickens; you have three to four eggs a daffy. I mean, that's the point. So, thank you Heather for bringing this forward. I don't wanf'to make it competing for the Planning Commissions. So, I'll just withdraw Bill 53 when we get there. And we move this one forward hopefully for everyones' wants, but I love the idea. I don't live on residential property, I live ou'Ag property. But I don't find hens intrusive. If kept right, n'the right numbers, you're not going to have a lot of bugs. They actually eat eoqui frogs; they eat all the pests like Centipedes. They eat all that stuff. And then they make eggs out of it. They're not loud. Roosters are loud and irritating for a lot of folks My wife said,,"You brought buck the rooster bill?" And I said no. There's a very clear distinction'between the two bills. This is allowing hens but not roosters. The;other bill said, "No roosters at a certain boundary." So, no, totally not related to the roaster bill of the early 2010 decade. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: To be clear, there is no rooster bill on the floor. MR.'KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No, there is no rooster bill on the floor. This is only to allow people to have laying hens on properties within certain districts in the County. So, be supporting, and thank you for the conversation. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for communiting your intent. We will address Bill 53 once it has been read into the record by the Clerk. Mr. Onishi. MR. ONISHL Thank you, Chair. So, in regards to that bill from former Council Member Ikeda, I was on the Council at that time, and we voted it down because of the residential areas. We had gotten calls that the neighbors didn't want eggs because of the situations. Page 14 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 As you mentioned about having them eating the Coqui frogs. But what I see in here, it has to be cooped up. Whereas before, they were feral. They were just all over the place. And that's why the neighbors were against it. So, this is possible; something good but within the neighborhood. And in my district, I don't think they would really want it. And I understand about the eggs in production for home use, which is great. But for the neighbors, it's possible it could be the smell depending on how many hens you have on your property. And the way I read it, you can have two hens per 1,000 square foot. So, if you have a 15,000 square foot lot, would that be like ten or more? Five times two? MS. KIMBALL: No. If you have a 1,000 square feet, you have two. MR. ONISHL For every 3,000? Soy, if you have a 15,000 square foot lot. MS. KIMBALL: Oh, I'm sorry,yes. I thought I heard 1,500. You're correct. MR. ONISHL Then you have an additional, one more hen per that 1,000 square foot area. Greater than 3,000 square feet. So, if somebody has a half-acre, how many hens would you be able to be allowed? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member, I don't mean to interrupt you, but the motion on the floor is to foward to the Planning Commissions. We'll have our discussion;once we get the recommendation. MR. ONISHL But I'm just saying that, I think before we do that maybe this should amended again or fixed before we approve it. Director, do you have anything to say? MR.,DARROW: No, we were just trying to figure out the math. MR. ONISHL Okay. But then, right now, I cannot support this being sent. It needs to be fixed. MR. DARROW: It looks like according to the bill, you get two hens for the first 3,000 square feet and then one per every additional 1,000 square feet. MR. ©NISHL Hopefully, you get more. MR. DARROW: Correct. MR. ONISHL So, yeah, I won't be able to support this sending it to the Planning Commissions. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kimball. Page 15 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 MS. KIMBALL: I understnd the concern and I think that there's probably an opportunity for several improvements. One maybe would be a cap, which is something I considered you could follow that cap until a certain point, whatever that point may be. I do recommend that we forward this to the Planning Comissions so that they can provide that feedback on what is appropriate. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. My first bill I sent to LRB actually had a cap. And I'm looking over my Bill 53,now and noticed that it changed pretty substantially, and I approved that. I think I capped it at five or six. If you have five chickensI would actually preface the;statement. I hate seeing government limit peoples' ability to sustain,themselves. So, you want to have chickens, you want to grow your own foods you go for it. When we as government step in and say, you can't have chickens on certain types of property, I think we've made a gross mistake. But in understanding,Mr. Onishi and different areas of our island, I think it would be good to have a cap of some sort. So, if we ger,for the one-acre property in Hilo, it's residential, and that gets out,to be 40 chickens, and they've got to be caged in and cooped. You know, I understand,the concern. So, maybe a cap of some sort would be good. That's it. Thank you CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Thank you, Madam Chair. On that, like for example, if they do natural farming of the hens then it supposed to reduce the smell to almost zero, but if you do it normally,then you're going to have the smell. So, that's where the neighbors, depending on how close they are, might affect that. Now, there was anincident within my district. A resident wanted to do he had some dogs that he wanted to raise. He got the proper permits from Planning and so forth. But the neighbors started to grumble because of the amount of dogs he would have. Planning revoked his permit. And he had already spent over $100,000 in infrastructure. So, I don't want to see that happen again within an urban residential area. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you for your work on this. I'm so sorry, Council Member Villegas, you had your light on earlier. Please proceed. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, thank you. I think both Council Members Kimball and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, this piece of legislation has been needed for a long time. Page 16 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 I've had a number of people come to me requesting how to fix the glitch in our system and create policy. I appreciate the parameter set around this. I also appreciate Mr. Onishi's concerns. There's someone who lives in District 8 who comes with a lot of challenges and problems for a whole subdivision because of unruly chickens and roosters and not being responsible for them. So, I recognize that concern there. But I see within this, I mean, also today, this is just approving to move on to the Planning Commissions and be vetted further from there. But at a time when food resilience is so imperative for everyone of us. Having grown up with Rhode Island Reds myself, and been sustained by their nutritious eggs. And it was a wonderful chore I had eery morning, going to get the eggs. So, I really am grateful for this and moving this forward. I think this is very timely and poignant. And I do trust that any nuances that need to be,adjusted will be adjusted. I'm also aware as I know my colleagues are,but there will be somebody that will try to manipulate the system. And I continue to say in Community meetings, that's when constituents and people need to take responsibiity for themselves and make sure that they are considering the broader good of their community in their behaviors and how to take care of our animals. You know, chicken menure is like gold if you use the resource appropriately and make sure that it doesn't have negative impacts on your neighbors. So, I'm really grateful this Council is taking care or our responsibility by creation of this policy, and.I look forward to communities and people that live in residential neighborhoods perpetuating that intention by also keeping their hens, not the roosters, responsibly. I yield. CHR: IERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much. The motion on the floor is to forward Bill 52 to the Planning Commissions for their review. I look forward to their review and recommendation and just appreciate the work by both Council Members to create solutions that empower our residents to be part of creating resilient food systems and being more sustainable. So, thank you for that. There's a motion on the floor. All those in favor please say, "aye." Mr. Clerk if we could do a roll call vote. Thank you. Page 17 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 Vote on Motion The vote on the motion to refer Bill 52 to the Planning to Refer: Commissions pursuant to Section 25-2-43(b), Hawaii (Approved) County Code was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz 8. Noes: Committee Member Onishi — 1. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Moving on to Bill 53. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called BILL 53: by the Chair: Kalei Kailikini: Comment. Chris Hirose: Comment. Bill 53: AMENDS CHAPTER 25,ARTICLES 1, 4, AND 5, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO HENNERIES Allows hens for household egg production on single-family residential zoning; provides for certain conditions and regulations. Reference: Comm. 287 Intr. by Council Member Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder MR.KANEALI`l-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I forgot to say this. I've had chickens any entire life,'and I have a thing with chickens. I don't know what it is. I like fried chicken, I like regular chickens. I like eggs from my chickens. She kind of reminded me, that was some of the reasons for bringing the bill forward. It's not that I've like them my whole life, but they also serve a purpose in people's lives in farming and resiliency. So, there's a lot of truth to that. Thank you,for reminding me Kalei, I appreciate it. Thank you. I just want to put that out there. I'll be withdrawing Bill 53, given that Bill 52 will be moving to the Planning Commissions for their review. Thank you. Withdraw Bill 53: Mr. Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder announced the withdrawal of Bill 53. Page 18 PCPLUED-9 May 20,2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Please note for the record, that Bill 53 has been withdrawn. Mr. Clerk, we are at the end of the agenda and Committee is adjourned at 12:25 p.m. Thank you. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 12:25 p.m. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development AK/dt Page 19