Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUED 2026/04/07 (2024-2026) DRAFT Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development 23`'d Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii April 7, 2026 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Economic Development was called to order at 3:18 p.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' Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi; Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent& Excused: Mr.-,Matt Kanedli`i-Kleinfelder, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of FROM THE business, 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: Marie Ruhland: Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. Dr. James Juvik: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Chris Yuen: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. April Lee: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Kenneth Honma: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30); and Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 Donna Grabow: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Chuck Flaherty: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. (Rep. Sierra Club-HI Island Group) Bob Yankey: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Michelle Melendez: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm 372.30); and Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. Krista Olson: Bill 147 (Comm. 806),'comment. Darin Morris: Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. Ronald Reilly: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30) comment. Matt Chalker: Bill 66y Draft2(Comm. 372.30), comment. (Rep. Wildfire Safety Advocates) Josephine Keliipio: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Heather Korotie: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30); and Bill 147 (Comm.,806), comment. Janice Palma Glennie: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30); and Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. Aaron Zeeman.: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Millicent Cummings: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Jason Riser: Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. Juhl Rayne Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30); and Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. Margaret Willie: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30); and Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. Dave DeCleene: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Noelle Lindenmann: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Roger Jensen: Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. Page 2 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 Chris Hirose: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Caitlin Miller: Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. Dave Web: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 372.30), comment. Robert Golden: Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. Fran Copp: Bill 66, Draft 2 (Comm. 37230); and Bill 147 (Comm. 806), comment. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if we could move onto Business for the Day starting with Bill 66, Draft 2,please: BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of ORDINANCES: business. Bills for Ordinances. Bill 66: ADOPTS THE COUNTY OF HAWAI` ,GENERAL PLAN 2045 AND (Draft 2) REPEALS ORDINANCE NO. 05-025, AS AMENDED Reference: Comm. 372.30 , Intr. by: Council Member Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed: July 9,August 20, September 17, October 27, 2025, and March 10, 2026 (Note: There is a motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, to recommend passage of Bill 66, as amended,on first reading.) and Comm. 372.192: From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated March 4, 2026, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 66, Draft 2. and Comm. 372.195: From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated March 19, 2026, transmitting additional information regarding the 2026 General Plan (GP). CAR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I just want to acknowledge that it is 5:05 p.m. We've been in these chairs since 9:00 a.m. meeting back- to-back in Committees. And I apologize that we started late today. Our previous committee ran a bit late. We're not going to be taking any action today. We don't have a full committee seated here. But I did want to take an opportunity to reflect on where we are. Page 3 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 The General Plan process has taken over 10 years. It spanned four different Mayoral Administrations. This body received the Draft 2045 Plan last year. We also received a letter from Mayor Alameda at that time. And that was really an inflection point for me, where he said, "This plan attempts to do too much." And I thought long and hard about my time on the Council and everything that the County is trying to do, I think just realistic about what we can afford and the County's capacity. I think about the grant that we just lapsed on for the tennis courts and our inability to just do things. And it really had me questioning, what's appropriate within our Geneal Plan. Then I was on a guest to trim the fat, and Ltook a look at what was in our Charter, what is in our Statute; and t questioned every single Vision, goal, objective, policy that was laid outin the 2045 plan against an editorial standard. It is within our County's authority and what is the connection to land use. Those were my guiding principles. I've got to tell you, this is a very difficult process for me; very, very hard because I have friendq'in'the Planning Department who I really like and I admire. And this plan is something that they've worked on for a very long time. So, it's very difficult. You know,I don't want anybody to think that the community feedback that was provided,over the last decade was disregarded. I'd like to think that the 2026 plan is the distillation of the communities' best ideas. And it is articulated in away that is simple, it's clear, it's concise, and is enforceable. Folks have commented, "Oh my God, it's only 72 pages." You know what, it doesn't make it any 16s serious. A thick plan that is not enforceable is not something thatwe need. We need something that can be enforceable. At our last meeting on this document, members asked if I could provide some kind of ejcplainer tool to share how the 2045 plan relates to the 2026 plan. I've transmitted,that. We also asked Corporation Counsel to provide us with—I don't know Corporation Counsel, is this legal advice, legal pathways on how we mightproceed? Because there's a lot of tension points here, right? There's the Charter granted authority that Council Members have to review, introduce, and amend ordinances. We do that all the time. I think of all the times we've done that in Planning Committee to review and amend ordinances. And the General Plan is that; it is an ordinance. But then we have the amendment procedures articulated in the 2005 plan, I don't know, I'm not quite sure how to proceed. And so, your office has drafted Page 4 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 a memo, and I'm wondering if we need to enter into Executive Session because that was transmitted to us confidentially, or if you want to do a public presentation. It is your preference. I know it's late in the day, but I think it's really important that the Council has this information, so that we know how to move forward with the amendment process. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Renee Schoen came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SCHOEN: Good evening, Renee Schoen, Corporation Counsel. So, I did provide this body with a confidential communication. What I can speak to is that it's my understanding that what Council Member Kierkiewicz has submitted is an amendment. And there are several other amendments that have been filed. I think there are four, Communication 371.197, 198, 199, and 200. So, unless there are more amendments,what this body,has to consider is what it will do with those amendments. There's a process in place in the 2005 General Plan which sets out the procedure for how this body considers amendments. And it really turns on whether or not this body believes that the amendments are substantive or not. Sorry, it's substantial or nonsubstantial. Anctdepending on what you determine, that will dictate the process to follow. I will say, that generally, that if it's a substantial amendment; if the amendmentchanges a policy, goal, mapping; then that would be considered a substantial amendment in which case at this point, if we are in the comprehensive review period, the procedures set out in (Hawai`i County Charter) 16.1 would say that a substantial amendment could not be considered,at this time. And,then you would follow the interim process for reviewing substantial amendments. Agairist this procedure that's in place, and Council Member Kierkiewicz did mention; you have the Charter, which basically is our supreme document. And it does,provide this body and the Planning Director the authority to amend the General Plan. There are no restrictions as to when that can occur. The Charter itself, including the HRS (Hawaii Revised Statutes)provides a pathway by which this body could act on amendments and could follow. And that would include things such as having the matter, if it's substantial; a substantial amendment to be possibly presented to the public at another forum other than at the commissions; getting input from County and State governmental agencies. Then also, for a weigh in from the Planning Commissions as well as the Planning Director. And then it would come back to this body with all of those things to consider. Page 5 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 So, that's kind of where I think you folks are at. As Council Member Kierkiewicz said, you folks consider amendments all the time in your normal procedure. It's just that this procedure is set out in the 2005, it puts a little blackout period or a time period in which maybe that should not be considered which you know, we believe is a limitation on Council's authority. So, that's kind of it in a nutshell. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: That's very helpful and I do want to open it up to my colleagues for questions and comments on your interpretation, Corporation Counsel. The struggle for me is the application of the blackout period just considering how long the overall,process has taken and why is it that it feels as if there is certain application of the amendment procedures on the Council but not on the Planning Department. So, I just want to put that out there. I am going to be leaning into our Charter granted authority. It is our responsibility right now as a Council to review the General Plan that has been presented. And it is within our authority to refine it before we adopt; refine however we like. It's not clear on the limitations of our refinement. Just so that folks are aware, I do plan to finish the maps in consultation with the Planning Department and their mapping consultant. I do plan to go out to public meetings outside of these formal venues so that there is an opportunity to engage in dialogue with members of the community. Because its very evident in just hearing some of the testimony, that I don't know that folks have completely read either plan. I think it,wouldbe a really healthy exercise to go through both of the plans together and engage in robust dialogue. I don't think the 2026 plan is perfect, but I do welcome community members' feedback on it. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure it was articulated that I'm not trying to circumvent any community engagement processes, but that I will be going out to the community to gather input in parallel with the commission and Director's review on the document. Any questions for Corporation Counsel Schoen? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, and I gave her a heads up that I was going to ask this question, so, I hope she's prepared with an answer. Because one of the questions I had is,you know, there's that Charter authority that we are granted to dispose of things how we dispose of them once they come to our hands. And then you have this 2005 plan that restricted a future Council's authority which is just generally prohibited. My question was at the time, why was that not flagged at that time as a potential Charter conflict and was there some justification, and maybe this is Page 6 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 a Planning Department question, that spoke to the need of that blackout period? Like is there some justification that would support overriding the Charter? MS. SCHOEN: I would say that there were two amendments in 2007 and then in 2014. At the time, the concern was more of the time period in the interim process. Really, that was the focus of the discussion. And that's in reviewing the minutes of the Planning Commission and Council. As to why, I guess, nothing was brought up, I think it was because there should be a recognition that, it is the Planning Director's authority under the Charter to present a General Plan. So, it really is more an Executive function rather than a Council function. Your function is to approve the General Plan, but really the bulk of the work in the Executive Branch via the Director and,then also the commissioners. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I don't know if there's anybody from Planning that has any recollection fromthose periods. It's ancient history now, right, about why that was included. T think Deputy Director(Michelle) Alm is on the line too. MS. SCHOEN: I just want to add that, I don't think that was ever contemplated that it would take so long. MS.KIMBALL: I mean thatis kind of the extraordinary thing for all of this is that it's taken in an ordinate amount of time. (Note: At this time, Planning Program Manager Bethany Morrison came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS'."MORRISON: Good evening, Council Members. Thank you for your time. Bethany Morrison, Planning Program Manager for the Planning Department. I was just going to lean into, you know, the process is supposed to be completed in a timely manner. So, if you look to the 2005 procedures, that initial Council input happens through resolutions that the Council Members have an opportunity to prepare and present and vote on. And those are then included in sort of the public input and agency input process and weighed as the plan is being drafted. So, that did happen. However, as you folks know, you're no longer the same Council that was there in 2015 when it started. So, I think that's really was caused the difference. Because otherwise, it would have been you folks deliberating providing your resolutions about what things you wanted to be included and what things were important. Page 7 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 Those things are then processed through professional Planning processes and the presented back to you, as like, okay we heard you, here's what we got. So, we did that, but it was with a different Council. So, I think that's where the challenge is in its timing of the procedure. MS. KIMBALL: Thanks for that history lesson. I'll let my colleagues respond if they have any questions for Corporation Counsel. But I do think that at least for this process, you know, well, I'll talk more about the plans in a minute and whatnot, and the specific ones later. But you know, I think we do have that authority per the Charter. But then'there is this other element which is the politics and transparency and public outreach phase. So, well I would say that Corporation Counsel and this guidance provides a clear defensible pathway, we would also need to take into account, the expectation for due process, if you will, about this sort of thing,which would not necessarily be prescribed by the Charter or existing General Plan, but I think it's valid. And I know you present that as one of the options. So, that's where I'm leading with this, is thatIthink we can go by the Charter as long as we can comply with that dialogue piece. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: It's not necessarily for Corporation Counsel. So, if somebody'else has something,for Corporation Council. CAR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, no other lights are on, the floor is yours. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Just more of some general statements, that you know,'1've made this point before, I will continue to make it. During this entire process, no matter how long it has taken, if it was shorter or longer, the Hilo community has been represented by a plan that was from 1975, and there is no action committee, as well as some plans that are specific to'the downtown Hilo area; the downtown Hilo 2025 and the downtown'Hilo Multimodal Master Plan. But there was no action committee to actually review and give feedback from residents of the Hilo area. And there's no documentation that's more recent than 1975 that looks at the greater Hilo community, not just the downtown area. So, I continue to be very concerned and not happy that the constituents, not only of District 2, which I represent, but District 3 and some of District 1 as well have not been really represented in this process in that way. Page 8 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 So, I just want to state that; I continue to reach out to Planning, the Administration. I know that there's a group that supposed to be looking at the Community Development Plan Action Committees and looking forward to, you know, how Hilo will be represented going forward. But I do want to just continue to say that I just don't think that part of this community has been represented in any of these plans. So, that's my concern, and I will continue to try and work with the Administration to see what we can do going forward. I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you,I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. Corporation Counsel,,the 2045 Plan is a direct replacement of the 2005 Plan, correct? Does it replace the language in the 2005 as more less a repeal than replace? MS. SCHOEN: I don't feel super comfortable answering that. But I believe so. I mean, Planning is saying it is. MS. MORRISON: If I can just clarity, if you look at the rational document, you are going to see a lot of the same policies uplifted from 2005 continuing into the 2045 Plan. MR. HUSTACE: So, in the 2005 Plan. What's some of the challenges that we're talking:about in terms of the process and your recommendations to us on'that. The 2005 has that laid out within that document. The 2045 one doses not, nor does any amendment,you know, trying to address anything in 2045 right? We've got some discussion about that process, but if we approve any of this there's nd process for amending. Like what is in 2005, there's that,process, but nothing in 2045. And we just follow along our authority of the legislative branch. I guess that would be the same authority as we'll just kind of move forward with that. MS. SCHOEN: Iwould say, the 2005 provides a detailed process. The 2045 and,ihe 2026 does not. However, you do have Section 3-15 of the Charter to follow. We also have HRS 226-58, which sets out what General Plans must have. And then, also, the public input as well. MR. HUSTACE: Did previous General Plans going back before 2005 have that laid out as well, that process, or implementation and amendment? MS. SCHOEN: I don't know, and I don't think so. MR. HUSTACE: They only exists in the '05, then? Page 9 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 MS. SCHOEN: I think it became more prescriptive in the '05. MR. HUSTACE: Okay. I did send in—I know you mentioned the other amendments here, whether it was the 2026 or the other ones here today. I did send in seven amendments to the Planning Department regarding the maps themselves. So, that's been processed by LRB (Legislative Research Branch) because it sits in a digital format, that's something I can work with LRB to document this way. We had a deadline Chair, and I worked with the Planning Department to submit those amendments. I don't know if L should take them through the LRB process instead, or if we are working4collaboratively,with the department with that regard with the digital map. Because I know you're working with them specifically on the map. In a very different regard, and mine'were very specific. But regardless, according to the '05 plan, they would be,substantial amendments because they would change that zoning; the identification of those land use for the individual's property or different areas. So,that's where I definitely have some concern about. Some simple changes that were maybe mapping errors or community members coming to me throughout the process that it wasn't addressed in the 2045y and now it has to go back down to Planning. There's different things. There's errors to some of the map 'stuff that changes the land use for someone's property. That would be a substantial amendment technically under the '05 Flan. So, not sure how we want to deal with some of those things. And if you would like me to put it in a hard copy form and kind of, go through the whole process of the amendment process. I can do that. I'm just not sure how Planning is working on those pieces. If other members have suggestions as well. It's a question for Planning and a question for the Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: I will address that now. You know, several members did send in suggested changes for maps. A lot of this was based on just kind of anomalies and the mapping process. There were some errors that were found by community members lifted up to Council. Folks also approached their Council Members because they had a change of heart and wanted to look at a different land use designation that they felt was more appropriate. I'm working with the Planning Department to consolidate all of that, but if we want to be very transparent, members of this body can still transmit their Page 10 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 amendments. They will be included in what I'm putting forward. But if you want to go parcel by parcel identifying the changes that are being proposed, that's fine too. I want to make sure that everybody's aware of every single change that's coming forward. So, that's on the mapping piece. But I had a question about what you discussed about amendment procedures. Corporation Counsel, I wonder in your review of other counties' General Plans, I'm sorry I did not coordinate this with you earlier, f apologize. But are there time restrictions that other councils or counties are under in making changes to General Plans. And I wonder how flexible or prescriptive they are in the amendment and update process. MS. SCHOEN: I don't know, but because this is supposed'6 be a long-term plan that is in place for a while, I would say that the longest r period of time, whatever it takes for community engagement or notice to the public; all of that matters. And so,you know, the longer the better versus doing something on the fly. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ Got it. Thank you. So,I'm going to just summarize, the General Plan should be guiding. And I've always maintained that the specifics, how We go about things should be in our Code. And perhaps it's something for-a future Council to take up. Just the articulation of how we go about"as a Council of the review, update, and amendment of the General Plan. You still have the floor. Thank you for letting me interject there. MR RUSTACE No,that's okay. Thank you, Chair. Just a question, Ms. Morrison on that mapping component. Happy to process it as if we would for any other amendment. But not sure if you and the department are working with a consultant to have that visual aspect and show that change. MS. MORRISON: So, as Chair had stated, those all have been submitted. And again, for transparency, we received information from you, Council Member Galimba and Council Member Kimball on suggested changes to those maps. I do think in hindsight; to be honest those should all be introduced as amendments. So, that you guys can discuss them independently as a body. I feel like we're trying to accommodate Chair's need and desire to make some mapping changes. And I think just trying to be accommodating and helpful. But I feel that those all have individual rationale and merit. And it's difficult if they are wrapped into Chair's proposed amendments. Page 11 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 It might lose some of the intent behind some of those changes. So, I think that probably the best guidance would be to submit them as individual amendments, as you had shared with the Planning Department. And yes, the consultant has those as well. So, she can work on the paper maps to show that. But I feel like just procedurally, it makes sense that those should be discussed in an open forum rather than through Chair's proposed mapping changes. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, appreciate that. I'il yield for now, Chair. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And I just want to clarity; it was actually Director Darrow who suggested that we consolidate all of the Council Members' map suggestionsinto one amendment. So it wasn't me, it was the Director. I'll go to Council Member Galimba then Council Member Villegas. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I guess, I basically think that just talking about amendments, whether we can do amendments or not. And I do think we basically, are going,to have to what we're amending, because there are two plans now, the 2045 and the 2026. The way I see it is,potentially we can just go with the most restrictive interpretation and vote yes or no on the 2045. It's the most restrictive interpretation of our role. And that follows the 2005 procedure, or we can say that we are going to do amendments, in which case we need to decide what we're amending, the 2045 or the 2026. And I know you just said we're notgoing to do that tonight, but until we make that decision, we're all going to be very confused: So, I'll just throw that out there and perhaps ask if we're notgping to do that tonight, when would you like to do that, and I'll yield: CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Wow, we try to clear something up, and then it got muddier and still clear as mud. But thank you, Council Member Galimba. I think you kind of articulated pretty simply. Where I stand right now is I won't be supporting Version 2026. I have serious concerns about the validity of the perspective shared where it relates to belief systems about 2045 Plan, where it came from. I also don't agree at all with some of the testifiers saying that,you know, they've had 90 percent of testimony as opposed to 2045 and all the different things. Page 12 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 You have no idea how much more testimony we get from people. And just because you happen to be the loudest and showing up in most numbers, much of the data, pages, and presentations that have been brought to us have been proven false from a scientific standpoint and data-driven standpoint. So, I have deep respect for all the time, energy, and attention that you, Council Member Kierkiewicz, have put into trying to find this balance with this group of constituents who have these issues, that In just have real concerns with the terminologies that have been left out; the considerations for things like climate change. I think those things are very important, and while I am not a professional planner, and Lord knows I've been hard on the Planning Department. You guys are experts in this field, and I look atthe 2045 Plan, and actually see it as taking us somewhere in the 2 1"Century. And while it does have a lot of specifications and calls out for a lot, that's our responsibility. I think we've settled for too little in the past. Having testifiers like Chris Yuen come forward; I remember when he was the Planning Director. So, had a number of phone calls from a number of different people that I highly respect and who have been engaged in this process for decades who quite frankly, they got really afraid of the 2026 Plan. And as much as they might not have been all on board to begin with for the 2045 Plan. I would pxefer that we move forward with that plan and work within that framework, as opposed,to kind of`throw the baby out with the bath water.' So, that's where I'm standing rightn'ow as, as,you know, we're looking at two different plans. I will be supporting the 2045 Plan at this time. But I do think them is still room,,for amendments that Council Members are bringing forth. So, yeah, my two cents. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIE'WICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I'm kind of in alignment with thinking as far as what Council Member Galimba and Council Member Villegas suggested that we are focused on approving one plan. And if there's one thing I can say about this is, given the timeframe that we're covering and how much impact the General Plan has, I'd rather roll up our sleeves and do the work. Like I think that's appropriate for this. And so, I don't want to have any sense of like artificial timelines that we need to get this done. That said, you know, I spent some time looking at best practices for General Plans in similar-sized jurisdictions of rural character. You know, looking for plans that had won awards from the Planning Associations and whatnot. Page 13 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 Then also, reviewed the statutory language of the Charter language. And I appreciate all the effort that Council Member Kierkiewicz put in, but I think there's some pretty serious deficiencies in terms of what is required for the Charter and for the HRS in terms of the General Plan. Specifically, speaking to density and where the desired density and population growth would be, data is absent. There's also specific reference to drainage and air pollution in our Charter that is not covered by the 2026 Plan. So, I don't have amendments today to the 2045 appendix. But my actual first choice would be, let's just move 2045 along, and then I can do these as interim amendments after. I think it should be to Council Member.Hustace's comments about the mapping plans. I think it should be our decision whether or not something is substantive or not and whether or'not it needs to be sent back.' And.I think it was problematic that the process currently lives in the General Plan." It should live in the Code. I know Council Member Inaba and Council Member Kierkiewicz are working towards something that would do that: We hadn't wanted to do it before because we were in'the process, which I think is an argument that made sense, but at this time, I think we need a consistent process that is going to tell us what to do going forward. But fundamentally, once something comes into our hands, it is our right to dispose of it as the Council chooses. And that includes determining what is and isn't substantive and the process by which we do that. And that's one of the benefits of being us. I do have an amendment that includes reference to Data Centers. And I just waisted to spend,a,little time on this because, you know, I should learn my lesson, like no good'deed goes unpunished, right? We don't have anything in our Code about Data Centers. Well, there is one about Data Processing Centers. But if you read the definition, it's not really for Data Centers. It's for places that store data. Data Centers are something different. And I know that anybody with a good lawyer, which most of these folks have, could,get around that definition. Those are only permitted in the Industrial. Itis better for us to have something than have nothing about Data Centers. And there are actually reasons why you might want them. For example, they provide a stable demand for energy, right? So, what costs us, repairs with the utilities is the variability. So, if we can stabilize the demand, it actually reduces our real costs. Page 14 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 Think about all of our medical records. Imagine you're in surgery with a life-threatening thing, and they need to access medical records, but they are attached by an undersea cable to some Data Center that is suddenly severed. You know, there's latency issues that have to do with where they're placed. We may not want to just throw them out entirely. But right now, we don't have any rules. And that is worse. So, for those of you who want Data Centers, let's calm it down. You know, the point here'is to talk about that water usage; talk about that energy usage and make sure they are not raising rates for our local residents, and they're not using water that we need for irrigation or potable water. But I don't wari to go into too much physical weight on that, but that's where I am with this. I'd actually just like to go forward with the 2045 and come back and;do these amendments at a later time. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thanks for sharing your opinion. Anyone else want to provide mana`o on a preferred plan or pathway. Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you,, Chair. Just a question for Council Member Kimball. So, you said for us to determine whether an amendment is substantial. But if we're foll6ing that path of what is prescribed within the '05 Plan, it does state that any map,changes are substantial. MS.KIMBALL: If I may respond, Chair. I don't think that we can fully be guided by the 2005 Plan, because it limits our ability that we are granted by the,Charter, which is to make those determinations ourselves about substantive. L don't,know, whatever the proper word is there. Whether or not something is substantial. Because it's in our hands now, we are the decision makers on that. And I think the 2005 is improper in its process about that decision making. That's our authority as Council Members. MR. HUSTACE: I just want to be sure, because you're talking about internal amendments. So, do we follow the 2005 guidance in some regards or not at all'? That's my question. HR. KIERKIEWICZ: You can direct your question to Corporation Counsel, thank you. MS. KIMBALL: My interpretation is fine. Leave it to the lawyers. MR. HUSTACE: I don't know if you have an answer for that, Corporation Counsel. But I mean, we have this authority, but some of them are mapping errors and it's going to change that designation for a property owner. And Page 15 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 this equates it as a substantial amendment type. I'm just not sure if we can follow it half of the time. MS. SCHOEN: Yeah, it's a little messy because the procedure set out in '05, it's not horrible, right? I mean, even as you folks look at amendments being substantial or not, for things the '05 considers non-substantial, you know,you can make modifications; you've got deletions, additions, as you do any other time. But it's just those things that are larger. And L would„say that if a map is changing a zoning designation, then that's substantial. So, it would dictate according to this procedure that you not consider that amendment at this time. MR. HUSTACE: So, in that case, if there were errors in the map, and we did not consider them throughout the comprehensive process here, that means someone's property is stuck that,way,for an indefinite period of time. MS. SCHOEN: Unless and until an interim,Amendment. We don't know. MR. HUSTACE: We don'tknow the situation,night,because you're leaving it up to a future Council; which the '05 one did unfortunately, and it put those periods and conditions on us here. So, it puts us in this place where, if that interim amendment does come'up, this body may not address it and change itat that time, too. So, that error could remain there indefinitely until another comprehensive review comes around in 15 plus years. MS. SCHOEN: And you Would theoretically vote on 2045, which does not have a procedure. MR. I IJUSTACE Right. So, I am worried about using the language part of the time when we have you know, I'm saying that there are errors, because when I looked at the map; and I will bring those amendments forward. You can see that some of them, the surrounding area is one land use designation. So, I'm not sure it switched. And the polygons are in odd shapes, and they go across different properties in different ways. So, there's some of those and,then there's other ones that I'm happy to talk about at some point too. So, thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Is now not the appropriate time to talk about it? MR. HUSTACE. I'm happy to talk about it. But I have not transmitted them in a sense that you can visually see them here. And we don't have the Page 16 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 digital sort of map. So, happy to talk about it, but I don't have that sort of documentation in front of you today. Sorry, Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: You can transmit it for our next committee hearing. MR. HUSTACE: Sure. Thank you. MS. MORRISON: Chair, can I just offer a thought on"the mapping in particular? So, at least one of the areas that Council Member Hustace is referring to,you know, does have some odd configurations and does appear to be a mapping error. The LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide)map in:the 2005 and in 2045 was never meant to be parcel specific as we've discussed; It is not zoning. It is a future land use designation. And so, it guides decisions that would be made through a change of zone process for that property. Those types of things. So, I do think that there's some distinction to be made and some discussion to be had about the specificity of those maps and-,recognizing that there is never going to be a perfectdelineation, that it's always subject to guide future land use decisions and also again recognizing that it's not tied to a parcel boundary but it is meant to represent in this area, this is the type of land use that we want to see. Soy I„just want tee offer those comments as you guys think through the mapping and language that you might want to discuss about how that's done. And maybe it helps Council Member Hustace too, to think through his proposed changes. CHR.. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Well, I think we had a lot of testimony throughout this process. For the 2045, it just doesn't make sense to me how things are numbered; how things are formatted. I do want to thank Council Member Kierkiewicz for her attempt at trying to bring something forth. Because if I was going to try and make sense of the 2045, I would have done the same thing that's she's done. Because there's not a way to Ramseyer the number of changes that I would want to see happen to the 2045. I would have brought a new version as well. I hear what the Council is saying regarding not setting arbitrary timelines because there is no timeline forced upon us. I think we do need to set a timeline, though, for the first Monday of December. Some version of this needs to pass. And the first Monday of December is the end of this Council Page 17 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 term for those who don't know. We need to, in my mind, get something passed. What version it is that's up to the body if we're going to take a vote on the amendment proposed by Council Member Kierkiewicz, then that's what we're going to do. If we don't have the votes to proceed with that, I don't know if we'll have the ability to propose the number of amendments and send it back through the department and the commission. Then it might be, in my mind, better to pass the 2045 and come back with the new procedure. I'll ask the question right now to Corporation Counsel,,whether or not we can; or how we should proceed with the initiation of a bill that creates new amendment procedures. Can we do that right now, and would we set an effective date of that bill pending passage of the new General Plan or how does that work? MS. SCHOEN: No, I would say thatyou could not do that right now. Because the procedure you have in place is the '05. And so, a bill that would change that procedure would conflict; which is what I think you had. Same issue last time when this body wanted ter pass Bill 181,you're in the same spot. MR. INABA: Okay. We can proceed with discussion and just have it at second and final reading,pending the passage of a version of the new General Plant which would then remove the current '05 procedures; and be ready to pull the trigger on it. We need to be ready to roll with amendment procedures at such point that we pass a version of the plan. Because when we pass a version,of the plan, we don't have amendment procedures anymore, I guess I'm trying to understand, we cannot say pending approval of the new plan. We have to wait. So, we can proceed with discussions and getting it as far as we can through our process to be ready to go once, we have the new plan, or do we need to wait until the General Plan is passed. MS. SC ©EN: Can you hold on a minute? I just need to consult with someone. MR. INABA: Okay. In the meantime, I think for members of the Council, pending their guidance, we'll try and get that bill with the procedures to put into the Code rolling, if we can, so that we are ready. If we take action on the 2045 or whatever version we take action on, neither version has amendment procedures in it. So, I think if we can be ready to roll, and we'll bring it forth and it'll be a collaborative effort on what we want the codified language to be for amendment procedures, and we'll get that agendized as Page 18 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 soon as possible at this point. I think our office is waiting, but we need to be ready. That's where I stand right now. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any other comments while we wait for Corporation Counsel to deliberate? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, revisit James' discussion about the mapping changes. I do think it is improper to assume that all mapping changes are by default, substantial. And if we're talking about errors, I think this body would have the authority to say, this is an error that needs to be corrected, and it is not something that needs to be sent back through-the process through the Planning commissions, as prescribed. So, that's my perception on that. Again, that's not what the 1005 GP language says. I think, again, it's improper with respect to the authority that we have as a Council to make that determination of what is and what isn't substantial CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba,you have the floor. MS. SCHOEN: So, I guess I would,say that wouldn't be advisable, but not a problem. If you make the bill setting out the procedure, effective at a later date. Because you don't know ultimately,right, what's going to pass; and the tension. You're kind of assuming that the 2045 is going to pass. MR INABA: I'm assuming something's going to pass. Because we need to get something passed. But, alright, I think we'll just proceed. We're going to justwait on'the effective date and get it to second and final reading and,hold it there. So, we're ready to go, and we'll get it introduced. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Sounds like a plan. Anyone else, comments on the General Plan. Okay, I'm still going to move forward with the 2026 Plan. I still consider it to be an amendment to 2045 and would appreciate the commissions and the department's review. We still have colleagues that are not here to weigh in on this process. So, it'll be great to have full Council engaged. It is my right and our responsibility to go through this process. So,I appreciate my colleagues for allowing me this opportunity. That being said, there is no other discussion for this particular measure. Can I please have a motion to postpone this bill to our next committee hearing in May? Motion to Postpone: Mr. Hustace moved to postpone Bill 66, Draft 2 to April 21, 2026. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. Page 19 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Chair won't be here. I would like all members to be present for this meeting. It's very important. This is our County's long-range Planning document. Withdraw Motion: Mr. Hustace withdrew his motion to postpone to April 21, 2026. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Hustace moved to postpone Bill 66, Draft 2 to May 4, 2026. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Just like to make a comment to the Chair and to the Clerk's Office. If we could have this either at the 9;00 o'clock time on the Committee day or the 9:00 o'clock time on the typical Council day on a Wednesday, I think that would be preferred, so that we are fresh for that, and that everybody who comes up to testify we heard a lot of folks had to leave because they waited an hour-and-a-half. So, that would just'be my preference where if we move it to have it at one of those timeslots, so we can give it the proper attention. CHR KIERKIEWICZ Thank you, and I agree and I concur. And I have no oversights for when these meetings are scheduled;that is Vice Chair Onishi. So, we'll make sure he gets the memo. All those in favor, please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The vote to postpone Bill 66, Draft 2, to our May 4, 2026 to Postpone: meeting was carried by the following voice vote. (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Onishi —2. Excused: None. Page 20 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 Bill 147: AMENDS CHAPTER 2 AND CHAPTER 25 OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS Establishes operational standards and use regulations for transient vacation rentals, which include hosted bed and breakfasts (B&Bs) and un-hosted short-term vacation rentals (STVRs); allows B&Bs as a permitted use in the single-family residential zoning district; allows B&Bs.as a permitted use in areas within the residential agricultural, family agricultural and agricultural zoning districts that are also classified as State land use urban or rural; allows STVRs as a permitted use in the entire multiple-family residential district and in certain coastal areas adjacent to General flan-designated Resort or Resort Node areas in other residential zoning districts; allows STVRs as a permitted use in the Downtown Hilo Commercial zoning district; and makes various conforming housekeeping amendments. Reference: Comm. 806 Intr. by: Council Member Kimball CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member TKimball. Motion to Refer: Ms. Kimball moved to forward Bill 147 t6 the Planning Commissions. Seconded'by Ms. Kagiwada. MR. HENRICKS: Can we make sure we clarify that, it's also referred to the Director and the commissions for their review and recommendations? Motion to Refer: Ms. Kimball moved to forward Bill 147 to the Planning Director find the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. MS'.,KIMBALL::I'll be brief because I know we've been here a long time, and the main thing is I hope I can count on your support to just forward this on to the Planning commissions. First of all, mahalo to Director Darrow, Deputy Director Michelle Ahn, and of course Tracie-Lee Camaro who have worked tirelessly over the many months to get to this point where we're presenting to you folks. The main intention of Bill 147 is to align State law with existing County Code, the registration process that we developed in (Ordinance) 25-50, the Rosehill decision, the Supreme Court decision, and then how the Planning Department has actually been managing Short-term Vacation Rentals (STVR) and Bed & Breakfast up until this point. Page 21 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 I won't go into details about the bill right now, but there are a couple of things that I wanted to highlight. Council Member Kierkiewicz may remember this, that we originally actually started talking about hosted rentals being Bed & Breakfast, and having everybody go under that umbrella. As I went back to revisit this, I just want to share the definition of a Bed & Breakfast establishment means, "Any single-family dwelling, and/or guest houses pursuant to Section 25-4-9, which have been permitted on a building site, in which overnight accommodations and only Bed& Breakfast meals are provided to a maximum of 10 guests for compensation for a period of less than 30 days." When I read this, I think it is clear that hosted rentals fall'under this definition. I think that when this legislation was brought forth and how it's been considered, I did speak to some of our former Planning directors. There just wasn't this anticipation of STVR's how they would expand and grow. So, I think the Legislative Branch was n6f expressly clear on what their intention was for the definition of Bed & Breakfast. But if you do look at some of the minutes from the deliberations around Bill 108,there was this perception that maybe they're all under Bed& Breakfast. So, that's what we've done, is we said,"all hosted are technically, Bed & Breakfast; The Planning Department has next required a Use permit in the Residential areas for Bed & Breakfast, which is a requirement for Bed & Breakfast now; Because we're,like I said, aligning with current practices, we've removed that requirement for a use permit. However, nahe Agricultural districts we have kept the requirement for a Special Use permit: 'And that is because of the definition of a Farm Dwelling. And that was tied to the Rosehill decision. Their interpretation is that we being the County had followed the proper processes because we followed that definition of Farm Dwelling, which is that it has to be accessory to a farm and where agricultural activity provides some income the family occupying the dwelling. So, in order for us to satisfy those requirements and align with State law and the Rosehill decision, we do need to continue to require a Special permit for a Bede& Breakfast within the Agricultural area. Again, those will be hosted units. Couple of other things that came up from the testifiers, and I want to make sure is clear, is that previously issued Bed & Breakfast permits, Special Use permits, or Use permits; those run with the land, and they're tied to the time at which the law was placed when they were granted. So, those don't get revoked by this. Page 22 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 There is a clause in there. I know Council Member Inaba,you had brought this up with Bill 121, where if they had a Special Use that had conditions; if that was contradictory to the established standards of operation, we made it clear that the Use permit would take precedence. So, whatever they were asked to do with the Use permit, that would take precedence over the others. There was a question about the folks that are in the 31 ,to 179-day window, I'm going ask, will connecting and getting your information"later on I've already asked this of Vrbo (Vacation Rental Booking) and"Airbnb. I'm looking for data on how many people there actually are in this category who have never, since 2019, when (Bill) 108 became law, rented for less than 30 days as a STVR. So, remember things that have a month-to-month lease of Landlord Tenant Code, they're excluded already. But thero's this subset, and we don't think it's very large of who can actually prove that they have never rented for less than 30 days, which would be the requirement. Then finally, there was a question about how long it would be to comply or to get the permits as needed. There will be a grace period built in but we're going to wait to add that in until we know when the system will be finalized. But probably six months to a year for folks to actually get,in line and comply with all the requirements. So, that's what we're doing with this. Again; trying to line everything up so that State law, Supreme Court decisions, and everything is in alignment. And one lastlhing, taxes. There were a couple of people that talked about, they loss their homeowners tax class, because they're doing a STVR. I want to be super clear that bill nor any of the other bills that we have put forward around Short-term Vacation Rentals are the cause of that. That has been the law for the last 40 years, that if you engage in Commercial activity on a Residential property, it goes to highest and best use, which is Commercial. You lose your three percent protection. I would like to, once we've got everybody registered and making sure that the folks that are operating hosted rentals where it is their primary residence, create a new tax class like Maui has for those guys. That is not the Hotel rate, but is somewhere closer to the Residential rate. But until we have a robust process for determining who those folks are, I don't want to inadvertently be giving that same benefit to folks that are potentially operating illegally. With that, I'll ask for everybody's support to just move this on the next meeting. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada. Page 23 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Just a clarification on something that you mentioned, Council Member Kimball, around Bed& Breakfasts. You said the Bed & Breakfast permits run with the land, but are they going to be expected to do the annual registrations and things. Because I believe when we discussed it earlier, we talked about them being grandfathered in, and that wasn't going to be required. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member, I'm sorry, butwe cannot get into dialogue on that because the motion is to forward,this to Director and the Commissions for their review and recommendation,— MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, alright. It's something thatpeople keep bringing up, and you were clarifying for people bringing things up. So'jo,me, it was something that didn't quite get clarified. MS. KIMBALL: I can answer super quick. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Let's go. MS. KIMBALL: So, we will have to make amodification to the Chapter 6 language for registration for the annual renewal.' The way it's set up now is that the folks that where it's a permitted use to have a B&B and they don't need a Use permit, they would have to annually renew. But the people that got a Use permit or Special Use permit would not. So', we want to make it fair. So, there will have t6 be an amendmentto align that the other way. CAR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, for the viewing public, these bills are going to be transmitted to the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions for their review and,recommendations along with the Planning Director's. All of that information gets transmitted back to this body. At which point we will deliberate and take appropriate action sending a recommendation to Council for voting.; Okay, there is a motion on the floor. All those in favor please say, "aye." Any opposed? Page 24 PCPLUED-23 April 7,2026 Vote on Motion The vote on the motion to refer Bill 147 to the Planning to Refer: Director and the Windward Planning Commission pursuant (Approved) to Section 25-2-43(b), Hawaii County Code was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas,� and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kdneali`i-Ileinfelder and Onishi —2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Bill 147 is forwarded to the Planning Director and Commissions for their review and recommendations. That brings us to the end of our agenda. We are adjourned`at'6:08 p.m. Happy Mele MenakA. Thank you. ADJOURN- There being no further business Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 6:08 p.m. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development AK/dt Page 25