HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2018/04/24 (2016-2018)Committee on Planning
23rd Session
West Hawaii Civic Center
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
April 24, 2018
CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at
ORDER: 1:15 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Ms.
Karen Eoff, Chair
Ms.
Eileen O'Hara, Vice Chair (via videoconference from Hilo)
Mr.
Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member
Ms.
Maile Medeiros David, Member
Mr.
Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member
Ms.
Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member (via videoconference from Hilo)
Ms.
Valerie T. Poindexter, Member
Mr.
Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member
Ms.
Jennifer Ruggles, Member (via videoconference from Hilo)
CHR. EOFF: So this morning, I mean this afternoon, we have a little bit of a
dilemma. We have four nominees to serve on our boards and commissions and
rather than have them wait through all the public testimony that we have, I'm
going to, if no Council Members object, and if the nominees are ready, and if
there are no statements from the public just regarding those nominations today,
I'm going to go ahead and try to confirm their, or go to their nomination
confirmation process first. It should take maybe 10 to 15 minutes. So, are there
any people in any of the outer sites that wanted to testify on the nominees? Well,
hearing none, I'm going to goI believe the first nominee may need a little more
time to arrive, so we're going to start with Communication 883. Mr. Clerk.
Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the
of Business: following items were taken out of order.
Comm. 883: NOMINATION OF JORDAN CALPITO TO THE HAWAII COUNTY
CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
From Mayor Harry Kim, dated April 6, 2018, submitting for the Council's
review and confirmation the above nomination.
PC -23 April 24, 2018
Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the
appointment of Mr. Jordan Calpito to the Hawaii County
of Hawaii Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by
Ms. Poindexter.
CHR. EOFF: I believe Ms. Bautista will introduce the nominee.
MS. BAUTISTA: Thank you. Actually, I'd like to introduce him, who is right
there by the door. The reason he is not here with me, he just got a new job with
the State Preservation Council and he was told that it might be a conflict of
interest for him to sit on this board. So, he will be withdrawing his application,
but this is Jordan Calpito.
CHR. EOFF: Oh, okay. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, do we need to
do anything besides just accept?
MR. HENRICKS: You can just have Mr. Richards withdraw his motion. That's
sufficient.
CHR. EOFF: Okay, motion has been withdrawn. Mr. Clerk, can you go to
Communication 884?
Comm. 884: NOMINATION OF GERALDINE BELL TO THE HAWAII COUNTY
CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
From Mayor Harry Kim, dated April 6, 2018, submitting for the Council's
review and confirmation the above nomination.
Vote on Comm. 884: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the
(Approved) appointment of Ms. Geraldine Bell to the Hawaii
County Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded
by Ms. David.
Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha,
Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Eoff — 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment.
CHR. EOFF: Ms. Bell, congratulations. It will take another reading at Council to
finalize your nomination, but you don't have to appear at that meeting. I just
wanted to say thank you so much for stepping up to serve on this important
committee.
Page 2
PC -23
Comm. 885
Vote on Comm. 885
(Approved)
April 24, 2018
MS. BELL: Thank you.
CHR. EOFF: Next is Communication 885.
NOMINATION OF DAVID DE LUZ, JR., TO THE WATER BOARD
From Mayor Harry Kim, dated April 6, 2018, submitting for the Council's
review and confirmation the above nomination.
Requires Council
Confirmation by: May 20, 2018 (Section 134(1),
Hawaii County Charter)
Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend confirmation of the
appointment of Mr. David De Luz, Jr. to the Water Board.
Seconded by Mr. Richards.
Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy,
O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair Eoff — 7.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Members Chung and Ruggles — 2.
Excused: None.
Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment.
CHR. EOFF: Mr. De Luz, you don't have to come back to the Council meeting,
but congratulations and thank you again. Does anybody know if Katharine
Cannon -Eger has arrived?
MS. BAUTISTA: We don't see her, but last we heard, she was eating at
Liko Lehua across the street. Sorry, we've been texting her so she should be here
shortly. Thank you.
CHR. EOFF: Let me know when she does arrive and we'll see if we can interrupt
public statements at that time and go with her nomination. Will that work?
MS. BAUTISTA: Yes, thank you.
CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Council Members and thank you all for your patience.
At this time, we will go ahead and take Statements from the Public on items on
the agenda. We have quite a few signed up here in Kona, and I'm sure we have a
number in Hilo and various outer sites. So, I'm just going to go ahead and bring
the first two testifiers up to the table here in Kona, that would be Mac McInnis
and Gretchen Osgood. While they're coming up, Hilo, can you bring two
testifiers up, and the same with the other outer sites, and we'll just rotate.
Page 3
PC -23 April 24, 2018
MS. O'HARA: K. T. Eger is here, so if you wanted to go ahead and take that
nomination.
CHR. EOFF: Okay, we might as well do that then, if she's ready. Thank you so
much. Mr. Clerk, can you readI'm sorry you guys can just stay there. Can you
read Communication 878.
Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to order of business.
of Business:
COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
CATIONS: Communications.
Comm. 878: NOMINATION OF KATHARINE T. CANNON-EGER TO THE BANYAN
DRIVE HAWAII REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
From Mayor Harry Kim, dated April 6, 2018, submitting for the Council's
review and confirmation the above nomination.
Vote on Comm. 878: Ms. David moved to recommend confirmation of the
(Approved) appointment of Ms. Katharine T. Cannon -Eger to the
Banyan Drive Hawaii Redevelopment Agency. Seconded
by Ms. Poindexter.
Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha,
Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Eoff — 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment.
CHR. EOFF: You do not have to appear before the full Council, but after the
Council meeting in two weeks, we will complete your confirmation process.
Congratulations.
MS. EGER: Please come to see the koinobori that will fly around Waiakea
Peninsula for Children's Day next week. Aloha.
CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. I think that concludes all of the nominations, and
now we'll go to Statements from the Public.
STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items.
PTTBLTC`, ON
Page 4
PC -23
April 24, 2018
AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by
the Chair:
Mac McInnis:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
Gretchen Osgood:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Rick H. Cabadus:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Rick Frazier:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
Robert Golden:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Jon Olson:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
Ronald M. Gall:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Garrett Kababik:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Barbara Bell:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
Marci Spence:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Pamela Small:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Andrew Barca:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
Stephanie Donoho:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
(representing Kohala Coast
Resort Association)
Rufus Sonognini:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Reginald Garcia:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Kris Burmeister:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Rick Turner:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Margaret Smith Pierce:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Sandra Kleinhammer:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Tom Burton:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Page 5
PC -23
April 24, 2018
Richard Standke:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Charles Vaughan:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Brendan Freitas:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Rick Thompson:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Nick Chorley:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Harry Kim:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
Dan Whetstone:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Charla Thompson:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
John Leskovar:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Michael Graves:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Tara Frazier:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Sarah Moon:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
(representing Leleiwi
Community Association)
Stefan Buchta:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
(representing Leleiwi
Community Association)
Heather Carvalho:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Harold Murata:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Phil Barnes:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Vivian Mark:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Pedro Tama:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
Steven Stetler:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Louisa Lee:
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
(representing Leleiwi
Community Association)
Page 6
PC -23
Kalanikini Hiapo O Honoli`i Kiyan
Margaret A. Campbell:
Mary Park:
Nahoku Kahane:
(representing Hui Ho`oleimaluo)
Kainalu Steward:
(representing Hui Ho`oleimaluo)
Paul Robinson:
Kevin Merril:
Ronald McIntosh:
Kevin Hopkins:
Trish Shaner Knudsen:
Carol Fuller:
Randall Shirley:
Howard Page:
Janice Palma Glenne:
J. Lorelle Carter:
Kathryn Fitts:
Joe Roderick:
Jordan Sanner:
Victor Leonardi:
Joyce Johnson:
Edward Rapoza:
Winfield P. Chang:
April 24, 2018
Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in opposition.
Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in support.
Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in opposition.
Bill 108 (Comm. 739), comment.
Bill 108 (Comm. 739), comment.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in support.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), in opposition.
Bill 108 (Comm.
739), comment.
Page 7
PC -23
April 24, 2018
Greg Gerard: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in opposition.
Deborah Roberts: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in opposition.
Mark Van Pernis: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), comment.
Alethea Loke Kapela: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in support.
Axel Kratel: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in support.
Brian Lievens: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), comment.
(representing Akaka Farms)
David Carlson: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), comment.
John Dawrs: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in support.
Bob Hoxsie: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), comment.
Terri L. Napeahi: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), comment.
Jeanne Harvey: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in opposition.
A. J. DiMauro: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in support.
Ross Birch: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), comment.
(representing Island of Hawaii
Visitors Bureau)
Jim Marquez: Bill 108 (Comm. 739), in opposition.
MS. EOFF: I'm going to go ahead and close the Statements from the Public
portion of this agenda and go back to our order of business, which—we went
through the first four communications. The next communication is requesting the
discussion regarding formation of a short-term vacation rental ad-hoc committee.
I would like to put that until after we open discussion on Bill 108. So then, at this
time, because I'm a co -introducer of the bill, I'm required to relinquish the chair at
this time to the Vice Chair of the committee, which is Ms. O'Hara. I know she's
in Hilo, which may make it difficult, but Ms. O'Hara, at this time, would you like
to assume the chair?
MS. O'HARA: At this time, I would recommend that we look for an alternative
Chair, and I would also consider reading into the record Bill 108 along with
Communication 892.
Page 8
PC -23 April 24, 2018
CHR. EOFF: First we need a Chair.
MS. O'HARA: Yes, of course we need a Chair.
CHR. EOFF: So, our rules provide that if in the case that the Chair and the Vice
Chair cannot chair the meeting, the Finance Chair would now need to take over.
So, I am going to relinquish the chair at this time to Ms. David.
Relinquish Chair: At this time, Chair Eoff relinquished the chair to Acting Chair David.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Eoff I just would like to clarify that
our rules presented in our rules that upon the absence or disability of both
Chairperson of the committee and the Vice Chairperson, then I would assume the
chairmanship to have the Council vote for a Chairman to chair this committee.
So, at this point in time, Council Members, do you have any suggestions on who
you would like to chair this Planning Committee meeting since the Vice Chair
and Chair are relinquishing? Ms. Poindexter?
MS. POINDEXTER: I would agree, if you don't mind chairing it, that our
Finance Chair take that role.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Anyone else have comments? Thank you,
Ms. Poindexter. Mr. Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: I will weigh-in. Clerk, is this where we nominate or just by
discussion? What's the procedure here?
MR. HENRICKS: We're doing all right, I think. What Ms. David has done is
assume the Chair for purposes of selecting another Chair at this point, because
Ms. Eoff cannot chair, and Ms. O'Hara essentially is eligible, but ineligible due to
her remote location.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so if that is the case, I will nominate our Finance Chair,
Maile David. Is that appropriate?
MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, that's fine. I thinkI guess if she doesn't mind
performing that role and there are no objections, then we don't necessarily have to
go to a more official, rigorous route.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. So if anyone else
has any objections, I will now assume the chair of the Planning Committee. At
this time, then Mr. Clerk, please, could you read in Bill 108?
Change Order As directed by the Acting Chair and with no objections from the Council
of Business: Members, the following item was taken out of order:
Page 9
PC -23
April 24, 2018
Bill 108: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE 4, AND
ARTICLE 5, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS
AMENDED), RELATING TO SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS
Defines where short-term vacation rentals would be allowed, establishes
regulations for their use, and provides a way for an owner or operator to obtain a
nonconforming use certificate that would allow them to operate in a non -
permitted district.
Reference: Comm. 739
Intr. by: Ms. Eoff and Mr. Kanuha
; and
Comm. 739.2: From Council Members Karen Eoff and Dru Mamo Kanuha, dated April 17, 2018,
transmitting proposed amendments.
Motion to Approve: Ms. Eoff moved to recommend passage of Bill 108 on first
reading. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Discussion. Yes.
MS. EOFF: Before we open this for discussion, for the record, I just need to state
that I had previously requested to withhold Bill 108 from the agenda to provide an
opportunity for me to seek guidance from the Board of Ethics as to whether there
was any conflict for me to participate in this legislative process regarding Bill
108. I wanted to report back that on March 19, the Board held a meeting on my
petition, that was open to the public, and they unanimously found that I had no
conflict of interest under the Ethics Code. I did submit a letter to the Chair with
more details, which you should have in your folder. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff for that clarification and you may
proceed with discussion.
MS. EOFF: So, that was a long day and overwhelming testimony, and I just
wanted to thank all of the testifiers who came out today to express their views. I
think we heard various positions, points of views, and concerns. There's still a lot
of confusion over what the bill attempts to do and what it doesn't do. So, I'm
looking forward to this discussion, an opportunity for the Council Members to
comment on the bill, and an opportunity to hear from the Planning Department
and the Mayor's Office. They're here, they've taken the time out of their day to
spend with us and I would like to ask them to come to the table in preparation for
questions that we may have. But before—and then I want to relinquish so Dru
can make a few comments too.
I just wanted to reiterate that the short-term vacation rental has become an
alternative to resorts and hotel accommodations, and it's an emerging trend in the
Page 10
PC -23
April 24, 2018
visitor industry. We know that it's an important part of our economy, and
although this bill attempts to regulate it, it doesn't attempt to dissolve it, or in any
way diminish it. This bill just wants to preserve our residential neighborhoods,
our quality of life for the people who work and live here. So, it's been a very
difficult task to balance those two, sometimes competing interests and sometimes
they blend together well.
Another thing I just wanted to state, I know it has been said here today, but
somehow, there still seem to be a little bit of confusion that it does not deal with
hosted rentals. This bill only deals with a situation where there is no owner on-
site. So, we need to make sure that message is clear. Another thing is we're the
only county in the State of Hawai'i that hasn't regulated this use yet. It's a zoning
issue. There are other issues. There are taxation issues and there's future
legislation that may come forward to address those things, too, and all commercial
uses of residential dwellings. But in this case, we thought that this was an
important step to take at this point in time, and that is a Zoning Code amendment.
So, it has been a collaborative effort. I know a lot of people here think that I'm
responsible for it or Dru and I, but it wasn't us. We actually took on the bill after
the Administration had put in many, many months, I think at least maybe six,
eight, ten months, meeting among their departments and taking input from the
general public as well as experts in the field. The Administration and Planning
Department looked at other forms of legislation in other counties, even in other
places outside of the State of Hawaii to see what works, what doesn't work,
what's fair, and what's legal.
So, when we put together this bill, and Dru and I came into the mix to help put
our input there, too, it then became a lot more public. We did take in a lot of
other people's concerns that found out about what we were attempting to do and
saw some preliminary copies of the bill and called in and wrote into our offices
and maybe some of the other Council Members as well. But, we were able to
field a lot of questions and listen to a lot of other comments and then relook at the
first draft. So, we actually have a few amendments that we'd like to talk about
later today, too, if we can.
Anyways, I'm going to yield in a minute, but just so everybody knows, there's a
communication from Roy Takemoto from the Mayor's Office that is a very good
summary of the bill. Sometimes, it's hard to read code language, so I think many
people have seen that, it's printed in yellow on the table and it should be in all of
your folders. It's Communication 739.3 and Mr. Takemoto is here with us today
as well as Planning Director Yee, Deputy Director Daryn Arai, and Amy Self,
she's Deputy Corporation Counsel assigned to Planning. So, with that, I'm going
to yield at this time so we can field more questions from the other Council
Members.
Page 11
PC -23
April 24, 2018
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Eoff, Director Yee, and Deputy Director Arai, if
you would allow me to allow Mr. Kanuha to say a few words before we turn it
over to you, if that's okay? Mr. Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Thank you. I did want to thank everybody who came here to
testify. I really wanted to emphasize the need for the community to come out and
engage with us. This was a long process and we tried to meet with as many
people as we possibly could to figure out the right balance for the short-term
vacation rental. I'm not going to say it's an issue, I think it's an opportunity for us
to get a real good thing happening in our community and be able to balance the
needs of an industry that we rely really heavily upon, and also the needs of our
community. What do we want our community to look like? How do we want our
residents to live within our communities now and into the future? So, it's a really
good opportunity to talk -story, to hear from everybody, and I want to thank
everybody who came out today to testify and those who submitted testimony. It
is a complex issue. It is something that is going to need work. I believe that. We
were never expecting this bill to come forward and it was going to be something
perfect, but we had to start somewhere.
So, I did want to thank the Planning Department, those in Finance, those in the
Administration that worked with Karen and I on something that was, you know,
some type of balance. I'll say that, and really, that's where we wanted to go. You
can see the competing sides of this bill, you know? You have an extreme side,
where we want to get rid of or we want to not have any more short-term vacation
rentals. We don't need those in our communities. We had another side, that we
want to allow them to flourish and just permit them and have them go into all
types of zonings and boom, this is great for our community, this brings a ton of
economy, a ton of money into the community. So, we tried to work it into
something that was manageable and palatable to myself, living here in Kona.
I'll state that I'm born and raised here. My father is born and raised here and my
family has been here for 500, 600, 700 years, so, I have a pretty good background
of what this community, my community needs, and how we move forward with
that is something that I'm invested in. How I want the community to look like is
something that I really have a passion about. So, I may not have a planning
background, but I have a cultural heritage background that I hold deeply within
myself of how I want to see our communities grow. So, this is something that
wasI'm glad the Planning Department worked with myself on this, because I'm
really passionate about it. So, thank you, guys for doing that.
In terms ofI don't want to go into a lot of the details of what Ms. Eoff stated,
but we really wanted to emphasize that the bill, the short-term rental bill isn't
about—short-term rental will exclude the hosted rentals for those that's their
primary residence. We really wanted to emphasize that's not what this bill is all
about because we heard the good things happening in our community with hosted
Page 12
PC -23
April 24, 2018
rentals and how it's a benefit for our people to survive with prices that are kind of
inching up further than a lot of people can afford. So, I thought that was a really
big component of this that we wanted to emphasize.
And, you know, there are a lot of complicated things here. I don't know where we
want to go after this. I do want to hear a discussion and everything, but because it
is so complicated, and we heard it from a lot of community about all the different
ways we can move with this bill, I would love to see it, maybe an opportunity at a
future, or maybe not make a decision today about it, but hear everybody, go back
home, rework certain things, see what we can do, and then come out with, or hear
other ways of making the bill palatable for other Council Members. I really want
to hear from the other Council Members of how they view this bill and how they
want to move forward with it. And really, we needed to bring it out for the
community and to everybody to hear. I can only talk with one other Council
Member about this. I have no idea what anybody else thinks about this.
So, thank you guys for really taking this to heart and I look forward to hearing
how we move forward with this, but I'm open. I did want to state previously that
somebody testified that this was the final draft and this is not going to change.
You know, that is so much—so far away from what I ever wanted to have happen.
This is an opportunity for us to sit down and really work with it and hear from
everybody of how we move forward. So, I did want to state that, and I yield.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha, and Mr. Clerk, I have a
question before we move on with Director Yee. Initially, the motion was made to
approve Bill 108 and I believe the motion should have been or could have been to
refer. What is your take on that, and if we should withdraw that motion and
remake the motion to refer, as opposed to the motion to approve?
MR. HENRICKS: It's okay to leave this main motion to move it out of
committee in place, as long as there is a motion made, a secondary motion, to
refer to the Director and Commissions at some point in time before moving it out
of Committee.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay, we just have to remember the motion after this?
MR. HENRICKS: Yes.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay, perfect. Thank you. I'm sorry, Director, and
Deputy. Any time you're ready, identify yourself for the record and go ahead
with your presentation or comments.
(Note: At this time, Planning Director Michael Yee and Deputy Planning
Director Daryn Arai came forward to address the members of the
Committee.)
Page 13
PC -23 April 24, 2018
MR. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. I don't have any prepared comments
right now, but certainly welcome any questions.
MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai, Deputy Planning Director.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: You've got the same position so we can go forward
with discussion?
MR. YEE: Sure.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Awesome.
Point of Order: MS. O'HARA: Chair, this is Hilo. Can I have a point of order?
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Yes, Ms. O'Hara, go ahead.
MS. O'HARA: We are very late into the day, it's quarter after six here and we
have listened to over five hours, close to five hours of testimony. I'm wondering
if this is the best time to begin discussion. It appears that we have a rather concise
and perhaps short Council meeting tomorrow, would it not be possible to consider
recessing and taking this matter up tomorrow afternoon? Because I'm not sure
that our brains are all that fresh at this point in time, that sort of thing. We could
get into a very lengthy discussion here, or I would like to have a lengthy
discussion on this matter.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara for that comment. I do want
you to know that we have several people from the public here this afternoon that
have been here since 1:00 and I really would want to allow some discussion. I
know we're all tired, but I think it would be worthwhile to continue for a while,
while it's fresh in our minds. But I'm open to comments or suggestions, also,
from other Council Members, how they feel, whether we should just recess this
until after Council. But, that is my position that we continue for a while. Council
Members? Ms. Eof£
MS. EOFF: There are over 20 people here in the chambers as well as five from
the administration that have come all the way from Hilo. So, I think we should, if
we can, have an open discussion for a little while and entertain their explanations
and comments on certain key issues, and then I wouldn't mind if this had to be
postponed or recessed after that. But, I would like to take some of the comments
while we're here.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Anyone else? In Hilo, anyone else?
MS. LEE LOY: Yes, Chair.
Page 14
PC -23
April 24, 2018
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, it's been a long day, but I do want to use this opportunity
to kind of lay some of the foundations of the impetus of this bill, the work that has
been put into it, some of the discussions that has already been had, and if we
could, maybe just approach it from a due diligence perspective, where we could
put all of that on the table for then us to ruminate on it a little bit and maybe
recess it or however we move forward. But, I really need to get this information
so I can begin to assess some of the language that's in here and if need be, maybe
even introduce my own amendments based on what I've heard today and the
discussions amongst the Council Members and the technical experts that we have
in front of us, like Director Yee, like Daryn Arai, and even Roy Takemoto and
Amy Self. So, I would love to push through this part and then see where we're at.
That's my position, thank you.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy, for those points. Anyone
else? Well, I think everyone here is basically agreeable that we move on and do
exactly what Ms. Lee Loy has suggested. So, Council Members, go ahead with
your questions, please. Mr. Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you. I don't have too many questions. Actually, the first
one was asked and answered already, in what we're going to do with it. I think
ultimately, this is going to be referred to the Planning Commission. I wanted to
echo a statement made by one of the speakers, I think he said that all of the
information that was had during the course of the testimony is really, quite
frankly, all we really need.
There is a lot of times when we have testimony, and you know, it's just the same
old over and over, it's just like 40 people saying the same thing over and over.
But, this one was a little different. It was really interesting because everybody
expressed their different perspectives, their different experiences regarding
vacation rentals. It was very instructive and very interesting for me. I'm going to
have to have some time to think about this though, really, given what I heard
today, and I'm going to be voting in support of moving this towards the Planning
Commission. I want to just maybe listen to what some of the comments are from
the Council Members and maybe those things can be considered by the Planning
Commission.
This is a very complicated issue. There are some public policy issues. There are
some economic issues regarding our tourism industry. There are fairness issues.
Of course, there is the issues regarding nuisances and things like that. I just have
only one question, and this is really coming from a layman, because you guys,
you know, Ms. Eoff and Mr. Kanuha know this thing like the back of their hands,
and so do you guys, and you guys also know the Zoning Code very well. I just
have one question and it may be a very simple answer somebody's going to give
Page 15
PC -23
April 24, 2018
me. It says here, and I'm going read from Roy's synopsis of the bill. Short-term
vacation rental is defined as "A dwelling unit where the rented unit may be in the
main dwelling, a guesthouse and/or `ohana dwelling on the same building site,
provided there are no more than five bedrooms on the building site." What if
there are more than five buildings, I mean five bedrooms? I'm sorry. And again,
this is from the total layman's perspective and question. I'm just wondering.
MR. ARAI: If it exceeds the five bedrooms, then it no longer fits within the
definition of a short—
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Mr. Arai, I'm sorry, please identify yourself for the
record.
MR. ARAI: I'm sorry. Daryn Arai, Deputy Planning Director.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you.
MR. CHUNG: So that is the definition?
MR. ARAI: Right. So, if you exceed the limit set by the definition, then we no
longer can refer to it or define it as a short-term vacation rental.
MR. CHUNG: Then what would it be?
MR. ARAI: Then it's not a permitted use. So, what will happen is that we then
have to look at other definitions within the County's Zoning Code to determine
what it could possibly fit in. For example, I think for transient accommodations
of six rooms or more, I think it falls within the definition of a hotel, so at that
point, we have to look at that definition and determine whether that is a permitted
use within that particular zoning district.
MR. CHUNG: Okay, so really, the operative part of this whole definition would
be rented to transients for a period of 30 consecutive days or less, because that's
what triggers different things. Because if you didn't have that, thenI really
have to think about this a little bit more. I mean you guys, I know you folks know
this thing so well, but it's just kind of caught my attention. But, I'll have more
time to consider it and think about it. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Mr. Richards, go ahead.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Thank you, Chair. First of all, this is a very
complicated issue. And in full disclosure, my family manages a vacation rental as
well. So right now, I'm in the process of receiving an opinion from the Board of
Ethics. So, at this point, I'm going to recuse myself from any votes until I get that
opinion back, but I would like to participate in the conversation because I think I
Page 16
PC -23
April 24, 2018
have a lot to contribute to the conversations. So, in saying that, I got to say, and I
don't know, do I need toChair, is that okay with my colleagues that I participate
in the conversation?
ACTING CHR. DAVID: I don't see anyone else objecting.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Go ahead.
MR. RICHARDS: I have to appreciate what Council Member Chung is saying.
A lot of what I've heard today doesn't give me pause, but it changes some of my
thought process, because I've heard a lot of things and I've received a lot of
communications over the last, probably six months, concerning a lot of these
things. So, I do appreciate it. I'm not sure if I'm ready to ask all the questions yet,
but I'm very intrigued in listening perspective especially from the Director and
Deputy. I yield at this point.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else with questions?
Hilo Councilwomen in Hilo? Ms. Lee Loy, are you wishing to speak?
MS. LEE LOY: I thought Ms. O'Hara was going to speak.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: I couldn't see because you're off -camera so I can't see
even if you are waving to us. Thank you. There you go. I think I saw
Ms. O'Hara raise her hand but she pointed to you. Do you want to go first?
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I'll go ahead. I'm referring to your white sheet,
Mr. Takemoto, thank you again for that. There's a bulleted, looks like on the
second page, Nonconforming Use Certificate. Could you explain that part to me?
I know you explained it here, but is the explanation here—but in, I guess in a
future amendment, which I'm not sure if it's on the table or not, there's a number
four, "Upon change in ownership, the registration shall automatically continue,
subject to termination by the new owner." I just want to try and bring some
clarity to this non -conforming use certificate, and if it continues, if there is a
transfer of title.
MR. ARAI: Hi, Daryn Arai. I'll try to answer that question. Most of our land
uses basically runs with the land. There are very few situations, and I'm trying to
even think of them, where it actually resides with just the landowner at that time
where a particular land use privilege or entitlement sunsets with the transfer or
sale of the land. So, I would expect no less with this particular provision. If a use
is established and it's considered nonconforming because it was established prior
to the adoption of this law, then it seems only reasonable that use and privilege
can continue on because that's exactly the use of the land as it occurred before the
Page 17
PC -23
April 24, 2018
adoption of the ordinance. If the Council feels compelled to tie in that non-
conforming status with a particular landowner, and have it sunset upon sale, I
believe it could be done. Might have to check with Corporation Counsel, but
understand also, that similar approach doesn't really exist elsewhere within the
Zoning Code. I'm trying to remember off the top of my head, but I think this
might be the only situation.
MS. LEE LOY: And so, I'll take a step back just from that piece alone. We have
an unregulated industry that we're trying to regulate, and had this transient
vacation option been made available, there would have been a process for a
notification to surrounding property owners or a contested case. And I'm rather
concerned that if we allow this unregulated industry to then be regulated and then
allow them to get a non -conforming certificate, we've taken away another
opportunity for the adjacent property owners to address the concerns of now a
legit business without any conditions to address the impacts. And maybe that
might be a question for Amy Self or Corporation Counsel to flush out a little bit
more.
MR. ARAI: This is Daryn again. Okay, I'll take a swing at it. I understand what
you're saying. A lot of our processes is about transparency and disclosure, but I
guess you have to also realize that as it stands today, the Planning Department
simply does not regulate short-term vacation rentals. It's just how we've been
practicing it. There is no definition within the Code. This Bill 108 is an attempt
to define those minimum requirements and procedures. So, from a landowner's
standpoint, all of these years, there was a reliance on government actions. So, one
has to consider where all of a sudden you change the law and then people who
have relied on government's actions or decisions in proceeding with something
that they thought was absolutely okay with the County, to now subject them to the
same process and vetting process where they're going to have to sort of get after
the fact approvals, when they did nothing wrong in the first place. I don't know, I
mean it doesn't personally sit well with me. So, maybe I should just leave it there.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Self, do you want to?
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, maybe a follow-up. I can appreciate what Mr. Arai is
saying. He's absolutely right. People relied on information from the Planning
Department about a process, but we have no process. So, for me, there's kind of
a just because the Code was silent, why didn't we address it when the issue was
being brought up? But putting that aside, would there be an opportunity to say 10
or 12 years from now, a nonconforming permit is sunsetted? Is there an
opportunity in this bill to do the same thing?
(Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self came forward
to address the members of the Committee.)
Page 18
PC -23
April 24, 2018
MS. SELF: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Amy Self If you look in the Zoning
Code, Section 25-4-62, there's a provision that addresses abandonment of non-
conforming use. So, the reason it's not in Bill 108 is because it's already in the
Zoning Code that "if any nonconforming use ceases for any reason for a
continuous period of twelve calendar months, or for one season if the use be
seasonal, then such use shall not be resumed in any use of the land or building or
both thereafter shall be in full conformity...." So in other words, if someone has
a—they come in and they get a non -conforming certificate to have a short-term
vacation rental, if they cease to use it as a short-term vacation rental for a period
of months, at that point, the property owner is expected to comply with the current
zoning.
So, current zoning, meaning the change that Bill 108 is making to the Zoning
Code, so, they wouldn't be able to have—if it's not allowed in their zoning district,
they wouldn't be allowed to do it anymore, because they abandoned that use. This
is how the zoning has always applied is that—because you cannot—for a
zoning—zoning actually takes rights away from property owners. So, you cannot
apply it retro, you can't make it be effective retroactively. So, you know what I'm
talking about, right?
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, but I guess I'm exploring the option of what if we set that
date forward? We're not turning back the clock or trying to unring the bell, we're
saying from 2030, these nonconforming permits will no longer be available and
they amortize their costs over the time. And again, I'm not trying to argue with
anybody, I'm just trying to digest a lot of what I heard today and look at other
options, other alternatives to try and find a balance. That's all.
MR. ARAI: This is Daryn Arai again. We kind of bounced this thing back and
forth because we knew it could probably come up, and it was an intriguing
thought. There are situations where a useI think you could reasonably sunset a
particular use saying this is the new law, however, in recognition of what has been
allowed in the past, we'll allow it to sunset out. We even had the discussion that if
you take away that privilege, whether right away or even in the future, what type
of impact does it have on the landowner? And when you really think about it, it
doesn't really deprive the landowner of any reasonable use of the property,
because the dwelling is still there and the zoning is still there. It's still allows the
potential for single-family residential use. So, it doesn't wipe out all reasonable
economic use of the property, so, I don't see that as an issue. I would say, like a
takings issue. So, I think all the way around, I think it's reasonable and I'm
looking at Amy, that I think if you wish to put in a sunset provision, maybe it's
something that could be considered.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry, go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy.
Page 19
PC -23
April 24, 2018
MS. LEE LOY: I was just wondering if Amy was going to respond, but thank
you, Daryn for that. I just want to really think outside the box. I'm just going to
encapsulate it this way: the genie is out of the bottle on this one, and I'm trying to
figure out other ways to get the genie back in the bottle so that we can still have
the economic opportunities while still maintaining the community, the characters
of the community that are enticing to these transient vacation rentals.
I tallied today over 22 times people used the word "authentic," and at some point,
we move transient vacation rentals into our neighborhoods for this authentic
experience, and they're filled up where visitors were not going to continue to have
that authentic experience, which is incredibly valuable to our Hawaii tourism
industry, which we then begin to bow out and then we bow out the resources with
it. So, I am really trying to find a balance. I'm going to yield at this time and
maybe I will actually have some other off channel conversations with Amy and
Daryn and Michael. That's what I have for right now. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Council Members?
Mr. Chung? I'm sorry, can I go to Ms. O'Hara? I'm sorry, Ms. O'Hara, go ahead,
and then I'll go to Mr. Chung.
MS. O'HARA: Thank you. I just wanted to follow-up where Sue left off on this
nonconforming use certificate. There currently is no process at the Planning
Department to apply for a nonconforming use certificate, so, is this a process that
we're going to establish with new Planning Department rules, or what? I did stop
in to confirm that there is no process for this at this point in time. So, it's kind of
confusing. I know that you've, Ms. Self, identified abandonment of
nonconforming use, but if this certificate becomes a permit, or it is an approval
and an entitlement, does Section 25-2-10 apply? Which is privileges granted, run
with the land. I'm still very confused becauseI'm getting a lot of feedback,
number one. Oh, they have their mics on? Okay. So, I'm just not clear what
we're actually talking about since this is a process that currently doesn't exist
within the Planning Department. So, can you elaborate on that a little bit?
MS. SELF: Well, you have to look at it as what zoning applies to is the use of the
property. So thus far, in this—well, all the counties didn't regulate this until
recently, so now, all the counties have regulated it. Our County still hasn't. What
you look at is the permitted use is a single-family dwelling. So that's why there
was never any regulation regarding short-term rental or long-term rental, because
the use for the purposes of zoning is the single-family dwelling. So, what do you
do with your house? There's no further regulation in our Code. So what this is
doing is, it is going to—it's defining what a short-term rental is and if the person
who gets the nonconforming certificate, if at some point, they cease to operate it
as a short-term vacation rental for a period of 12 months, then that use goes away.
They have to comply with the Zoning Code as it exists.
Page 20
PC -23
April 24, 2018
MS. O'HARA: I understand that, Ms. Self, Amy, I understand that part. That
isn't really what my question was. My question is, how do they get a
nonconforming use certificate? What is the process? What is the application
process? That's what I'm asking.
MS. SELF: I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question. The Planning Department
will have to go through rule-making, HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statute) Chapter 91,
Rule Making Process, to establish rules to implement whatever the County
Council passes. So, right now, they can't adopt department rules until they know
what the final outcome is going to be of Bill 108, because the whole purpose of
the department rules is to implement whatever is passed by the Council.
MS. O'HARA: So, at this point, we don't know what that application process will
look like? Is it going to be like a special -use permit? Is it discretionary within the
department? It's not going to go to the Commission? This is kind ofI don't
know what the requirements will be.
MS. SELF: Well, like I said, they cannot pass rules until you guys pass your
ordinance. So, that's not uncommon. Any time the County Council adopts an
ordinance, or amends the Zoning Code or any part of the Code that affects the
department, the department has to implement the new law, and it often times
means in order to do that, they then have to go through a HRS Chapter 91
rulemaking process. So, there is nothing established yet because we don't know
how the final ordinance will read.
MS. O'HARA: Okay, I get that. I understand. Thank you. I just this brings up
a lot of questions, because we don't know how the public will be able to weigh-in
into that future process. That's a question that remains in my mind.
MS. SELF: Well, that's part of Chapter 91, is that there has to be a public
hearing. So that's when the public could weigh-in on the rules that are being
contemplated for adoption by the department.
MS. O'HARA: Thank you. I yield.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Mr. Chung, before I go to
you, would it be possible to go to Ms. Eoff? Okay. Alright. Thank you.
Ms. Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Thank you. I just thought I could add and maybe Mr. Arai could
help us with this, but we had a conversation regarding this certificate, which is not
really a permit. So, it's a non -conforming use certificate, which is renewable each
year as opposed to a permit, like say you get a permit for a bed and breakfast then
you have it forever, but this is different. So, the certificate, the non -conforming
use certificate requires a yearly renewal, and hence the enforcement fund, as well
Page 21
PC -23
April 24, 2018
as—we looked at Kauai's process for that and they have an online renewal
process. So, it makes it easier and there's aI have a sample of a two or three-
page sort of thing you fill out online. I don't know if you could remind us about
that, but we did have that discussion and it helped me to understand this is not
really a permit.
MR. ARAI: Correct. Again, the whole purpose of the certificate is to simply
manage the units that are out there. I mean, when you look at the whole premise
of this bill, it's basically to drive short-term vacation rentals to those certain zoned
districts within resort areas, resort nodes, and in certain commercial -zoned areas,
which is why the recertification annually is essential, and why if you miss a
timely renewal of that use certificate, then basically, the use is no longer
permitted, or in another term, no longer grandfathered. But it's definitely
something, that as currently constructed in Bill 108, something issued by the
Planning Director does not require public hearing, it's purely an administrative
function.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Do you yield? Thank you, Mr. Arai. Thank you,
Ms. Eoff
go ahead.
Anyone else want to ask questions? No? Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Ruggles,
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I have a lot of questions about the non -conforming
use permit. So, the $500 fee, or application fee, or renewal fee, excuse me, is that
per owner or per property or per unit?
MR. ARAI: The way I understand it's per certificate. So, it's per unit.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thank you. I also am curious, I mean just to follow-up on
Ms. O'Hara's question, which I think is the kind of the information that we need
to make a good decision as far as—the way that the bill is written, what would the
process be for this non -conforming use permit? The way the bill is written now,
can you tell us that?
MR. ARAI: Probably not precisely because it's an administrative function. We
would hope it's simply like on the prescribed form, submitting it to the Director
along with all the prerequisite information contained in the bill, like the tax filings
and all of that. It does speak to good standing, so obviously, that kind of tells us
that when it's defined as "good standing," it's not only tax records, we're going to
look and make sure that the rental unit is actually occurring in a dwelling that was
property permitted by the County of Hawaii. So, there's a lot of things that we
need to look at and it's probably not just looking at whether you paid your taxes or
not, it's whether or not that residential dwelling was properly permitted in the first
place and then at that point, we can issue the non -conforming use certificate.
Page 22
PC -23
April 24, 2018
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, so that's a part of the non -conforming use certificate
application is they have to show that the dwelling was permitted in the first place?
MR. ARAI: Right, because our records may not be complete. So, there may be a
few instances of back and forth with the applicant. If the County doesn't have that
information readily at -hand, then obviously, we're going to look toward the
landowner to provide that information.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, well that's really good to know because that's not
actually in the bill. It also says the registration form, at a minimum, shall require
verification that the State of Hawaii has all of the tax requirements and the
parking requirements. That language, "at a minimum," what else would be
required? Because that's also important for us to know. What exactly are we
requiring of the people that are applying for the non -conforming use permits?
MR. ARAI: Once we, I think which kind of goes back to what Amy has been
saying, once we know what the Council is looking for, we can then build the
process around it. Because we haven't kind of dived that deep into the weeds yet,
it's hard for me to sort of express, like this is the way it's going to happen.
Because as things evolve, as we listen to comments from the public and from
other agencies, it compels us that the Planning Department has fiduciary
responsibilities far greater than just whether you paid your taxes or not, which is
why as things evolve, I'm continuously thinking that when we issue a certificate,
we have to make sure that everything else related to that dwelling is proper. I
think that is just a reasonable thing to look at.
MS. RUGGLES: Great. So, if we could also include somewhere, disclosure of
what those related things that you would be looking for is, that would be helpful.
MR. ARAI: Absolutely. That's where rulemaking is supremely important
because the department will—it makes our job easier when the things that we
normally want or the information we actually need is actually detailed in our rules
or practices and procedures. That way, when someone turns in something to our
office, it's as complete as possible.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay. If the non -conforming use certification is applied for,
and they apply the minimum that's outlined in this bill, and the Planning
DepartmentI mean the Planning Department is probably going to get a lot of
these, probably thousands to look over, and if they don't have—well, first of all,
do you think that the Planning Department has the manpower to go over all these
applications and get them back before July 20th?
MR. ARAI: The July 20 date was just the cut-off on when you had to be
operating. It's not a deadline—wait, it's 180 days, I think, from the July 20th date
where they have to file for the non -conforming use certificate. And that's where
Page 23
PC -23 April 24, 2018
the rules are going to have to also define like how much time does the department
have before it can respond and issue the certificate? Because obviously, if we
don't issue the certificate, then one can construe that the rental unit is not in good
standing. It's sort of like those restaurant placards, you know? This bill is asking
that it be posted so obviously, we have to respond and review in a timely fashion.
But that's where the time frame has to be built into the rules, so both the
landowner and the department knows what we are obligated to.
Point of MS. EOFF: Just a point of clarification.
Clarification:
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff, go ahead.
MS. EOFF: Thank you. Mr. Arai? Isn't the 180 days from the day of adoption?
That isn't supposed to be—you mentioned that it was from the date of being
July 20th. It's the -180 days is the time from the date of adoption of the
ordinance that you would need to apply.
MS. SELF: From the effective date. Yeah, we were just discussing that it may
need to be a little more flexible, just in case the department gets slammed with—
MS. EOFF: I agree. I actually agree, but I just want to make sure that people
know it's from adoption.
MS. SELF: Maybe it should be that they have to apply at that period, and then
it's up to the department to get the things issued. But at least the deadline would
be that they have to actually submit an application to the Planning Department
within a particular time frame.
MS. EOFF: I agree, after adoption.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Ruggles, go ahead.
MS. RUGGLES: I just wanted to clarify that the way that the bill reads, is that
they have to have the non -conforming permit issued to them by that date, not that
they have that date to apply by. So, my question is, does the Planning Department
have the manpower to go over these thousands of applications and actually issue a
certificate to those in good standing by that date?
MS. SELF: This is Amy Self again. That's what we were just discussing. I'm
sorry, I probably—you may not have heard me but I was just suggesting that they
may want to change the language to make it more flexible because we have no
idea of how many applications the Planning Department's going to get at one
time. So, maybe it's better to say that they have to at least apply within that time
frame rather than actually obtain the certificate within that time frame, just so that
Page 24
PC -23
April 24, 2018
the department doesn't get stuck with trying to process a thousand applications at
one time so all these people can get their certificates within 180 days of the
adoption of this.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. Mr. Yee, do you have a response?
MR. YEE: Yes. I think you're kind of asking, do we have the capacity to handle
everything that will come at us if this passes? Absolutely, given staffing levels,
the short answer is it certainly would be a time-consuming thing that would
probably be very difficult to meet with current staffing levels.
But with that said, as we have had discussions around this bill, we've always
understood there were different phases of the implementation. There's going to
be the initial registration, continuing registration, enforcement issues, and we
know we're going to have to be able to fund those activities if we're going to do
this well. We certainly know from the other counties their experience, and it's not
a simple thing. But none of us that has been working on that have kidded
ourselves that it's not going to take additional resources to be able to get where we
want. That's probably the reason why there has to be a fee associated with
registration, is to pay for some of those activities. So, just wanted to be able to
address that.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you, and just to clarify, the way that I read the bill,
maybe you could clarify this for me, is this fee is for a renewal fee and it's not
actually a fee for the initial certification. That's the way I read it.
MR. YEE: The $500 is for the non -conforming certificate, correct, Daryn?
MS. RUGGLES: Correct. The way that I read it is that it's for a renewal fee but
not the actual initial application. So, those funds wouldn't actually be available to
you until the second year.
MR. YEE: Well, I guess that's why I'm glad we're talking to the Council right
now as you work on the budget.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thanks. Okay, but moving on to the parking part, it says
"short-term vacation rentals and certification that the requisite amount of parking
pursuant to Section 25-4-51 is available." What would that certification look
like?
MR. ARAI: I'm sorry, you're referencing—you mentioned the parking
requirements?
MS. RUGGLES: Yeah, it says that they have to provide certification that the
requisite amount of parking is compliant with this section.
Page 25
PC -23
April 24, 2018
MR. ARAI: Well, let's see. I'm not sure if that's probably the proper wording for
it, but when someone registers with the County, because again, all vacation
rentals have to register, right? It's the non -conforming ones that have to obtain
the use certificate. At that point, we're kind of compelled to look and ensure that
there's the minimum required off-street parking as expressed by the Zoning Code.
So, it's not necessarily we'll issue another certificate, we really don't want to issue
another certificate, but we'll have to probably take a look at it.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, maybe that language could be a little more clear on
who's certifying what and what the applicant actually needs to provide for that.
But Ms. Lee Loy might have something input into this.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Recently, we went through a Code
amendment specifically for that section as it applies to bed and breakfasts, and I
believe it was one for every bedroom, or if the entire house was rented out, there
was a formula. In this current bill, it's under item (d)(4), "Off-street parking shall
meet the requirements set forth in section 25-4-51(a)(8) and applicable parking
standards in this chapter." Just a follow-up to that, would someone in a transient
vacation rental unit be able to apply for a variance from this parking requirement,
under section 25-2-51?
MR. ARAI: Well, the Zoning Code provides that privilege to apply. You know,
application doesn't mean tacit approval, so I think a variance is possible. But
again, a varianceright, which is why I said they can apply, but it doesn't imply a
tacit approval. But, I'm sorry, the mere application doesn't imply tacit approval,
but variances are for unusual—like hardship. You have to really explain why you
can't meet the standard that is expected of everyone one else. So, it's a difficult
benchmark.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles, for allowing me to jump in on that
because that's some of the other concerns we've heard through testimony today,
aside from the noise and nuisances that this creates, is people park everywhere
and not on the property. So, they're already not meeting the parking requirements
and so I'm concerned or trying to think ahead or a little bit around the corner, that
if you can't provide the parking, then you can't provide the parking and you
shouldn't be permitted to rent out all four or five bedrooms. I think maybe we
should have maybe a placeholder. You're now a commercial entity, you need to
meet the commercial standards and not burden the rest of the neighborhood with
something you cannot comply with. That's again, just food for thought on the
table. I'll let Ms. Ruggles continue, she has more questions.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you for that, Ms. Lee Loy. About the non -conforming
use certificate may be issued for lots in the ag district if the building site existed
prior to June 4th, 1976. That's something that the applicant would need to
Page 26
PC -23
April 24, 2018
provide or prove. What would they need to do to show that their lot existed
before 1976?
MR. ARAI: The department currently maintains quite a bit of information about
where the subdivisions are that were created prior to 1976, but again, those are
mainly the larger type of subdivisions. The individual smaller type of
subdivisions, one, two, three lots, we probably don't have a lot of information, so
there are going to be a lot of gaps. If the applicant has a copy of their deed or
something that shows transfer of title or something, then you that can be some bits
of information that we may ask of them. We understand it's difficult to
sometimes go and try to dig for this type of information, so we do have a lot of
our information digitally imbedded within the geographic information system and
it's something that we can definitely look at to help facilitate the process.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. For those within the larger subdivisions, would
they be the party that would need to produce those documents from your
department? Or would the department look into it for them?
MR. ARAI: Well, I think it's easy enough for us to access and determine,
especially for the large subdivisions like Hawaiian Paradise Park, Orchidland
Estates, Eden Roc. It's already going to be a difficult process, I don't think we're
going to try and make it more difficult for applicants. If we have easy access to
the information we'll look for it, but it's when we do not have that information, is
when we'll have to look towards the landowner to provide it to us.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thank you. I think it would be helpful if it was clarified
in the bill, that if you have the information, or the department has it, then the
department will provide it, but if it's not there, then the burden is upon the
applicant to show land title, and whatever else they could use for that
requirement. Would those operating outside of the permitted districts need to get
a special -use permit as well?
MR. ARAI: If it's after 1976, then farm dwellings is the only type of residential
uses permitted on State land use agricultural or designated lands. Now State law,
State Land Use Law also provides the opportunity to apply for a special permit for
those uses, unusual and reasonable uses that is normally not permitted in the ag
district. But, it kind of raises some philosophical questions that while you have
the ability to apply for a special permit to allow something that's normally not
allowed on ag land, is that something that the County supports and goes on record
in supporting? Because as I mentioned earlier, what's really interesting is State
law actually has a provision under 205-4.5 HRS, that I think it says like overnight
accommodations related to ag tourism is like prohibited on ag lands, unless you
reside in the County of Maui, and I can't figure that one out. But anyway, it
shows you even State Land Use Law basically is saying they don't want to see
overnight accommodations on ag lands.
Page 27
PC -23
April 24, 2018
And the State, even in processing special permits for bed and breakfasts, like for
two-bedroom bed and breakfasts on ag lands, they sent us letters saying we
believe that is not—approval of this is not consistent with State law. So, their
position is quite well-known, and if this Bill 108 gets adopted as it currently
stands, to me, it's an expression that the Council wants to see these types of
accommodations driven to property -zoned districts, which at this time, is just in
your urban areas. So, do we then use the special permitsorry, I don't like
hearing myselfso, it really makes you wonder whether we should be using the
special permit process to basically subjugate State and County Land Use Law.
MR. YEE: Michael Yee. I want to really quickly chime in on special permits
though and on ag land, if we did go down that route. We could really foresee a
rub with the state on that if we went down that route, because they prohibit it
currently. And if I'm left with making a decision on a special permit, the amount
of challenges we may see when we both approve or deny in an area. You could
hear from today, you have people on both sides and that has been a big problem
on Kauai, where there's a lot of contested cases. And again, don't have a
solution, just letting you know the reality of that situation of special permits on ag
land, that's already prohibited.
MS. RUGGLES: So, even the non -conforming certificate may be a violation of
State Land Use laws?
MR. ARAI: If a property was in existence prior to 1976, single-family residential
use was defined as a permitted use on ag lands. And prior to that, the County
took the position that if you used it consistent with the definition of single-family
residential use, then you're good. So, I think this bill basically honors the position
that we took previously, but we also have to recognize that the overlying
designation is still state land use agriculture. The whole point of agriculture is to
make sure that those lands are not compromised for uses other than agricultural
activities. So, we also have to be careful that when we consider these types of
units, that it doesn't compromise the legislative or statutory intent of the Land Use
Law.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. So, for those that are within the permitted zoning
areas, do they need a use permit?
MR. ARAI: Bill 108 only identifies, I think, single-family residential zoning
requires a use permit if that RS -zoned land is within a resort node in the General
Plan. So, I think that is the only use permit provision in the bill.
MS. RUGGLES: I still have more questions. Okay, I'm going to let Ms. Lee Loy
say something while we're on this topic.
Page 28
PC -23
April 24, 2018
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Jen, for the latitude because I
just want to keep this conversation on topic as it relates to agricultural and
Chapter 205 because there is no definition for a bed and breakfast under the State
Statute. So, I'm a little concerned that if we have a number of bed and breakfast
permits that we've issued in the past on State land use agricultural lands, and then
what happens to those?
MR. ARAI: I'm trying to recall, I think all of the bed and breakfasts we
approvedI mean, bed and breakfast, by definition, is a kin to a hosted rental.
The landowner has to be on-site. So, we sort of like equated that the
homeowner's there, they have to live in a dwelling in order to reside on the
property. So, if you want to supplement that with a B and B, you know, we saw
that as a reasonable opportunity. And you could maybe extend that analysis to
which is why hosted, short-term vacation rentals is not part of this bill. It's the
non -hosted one, where you're renting out the whole dwelling and the entire
dwelling, that basically the landowner, who should be conducting ag activities on
the property doesn't even reside on the property. So, there's no way to sort of like
link it back to agricultural activities occurring there. It is simply for transient use
and that's the prevailing activity and that doesn't align cleanly with state law,
which is why they have to apply for a special permit.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Arai, because there is, in Chapter 205, no
definition for bed and breakfast. But, as Mr. Yee pointed out, we heard both sides
of that issue that there may be areas that is state land use ag that we would
actually need some type of transient vacation rentals, areas like Volcano or other
places where we just won't have the infrastructure to develop a resort, a resort
node, and all of the infrastructure and water that goes with it. So, I can see
making some reasonable accommodations in areas that would need it. But again,
I really appreciate the conversation and again, thank you, Ms. Ruggles, for
allowing me to keep that part in context.
MS. RUGGLES: You're welcome. Okay, so I'm going to move on to the
enforcement part. Article 2, division 3 consists of civil, criminal and
administrative fines, and types of enforcement, so I was wondering which one
would this bill fall under?
MR. ARAI: I think all of them could be exercised because during our
enforcement process, we're trying to enforce civil law. So, it stays within the civil
realm, but then there's a point where if there's a refusal for compliance, we could,
through the assistance of Corporation Counsel, push it into a criminal complaint if
I'm well, here, maybe I should let Corporation Counsel
MS. SELF: Under the Zoning Code, there are two different ways to enforce it.
We have Section 25-235, which is the administrative enforcement. That's how
we normally handle zoning violations, but we also have Section 25-2-31, which
Page 29
PC -23
April 24, 2018
allows for criminal prosecution as well. Since I've been with the County, I don't
recall ever going the criminal route. We've always gone the civil route, but it's in
the Code, so we could go either way.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thank you. I think that is something that is important to
be clarified. I know that within both of those sections, it describes a process in
which an inspection is performed. So, I think clarification on what would trigger
an inspection, and what the process for inspection would be, would be helpful.
And also, it would be helpful to know which section this bill actually falls under
and have that within the bill. I'm assuming that the enforcement is going to be
complaint -based, am I correct on this?
MS. SELF: Yes, it is complaint -driven and actually, the department already has
rules for enforcing zoning violations. So that again, would be something that they
would have to look at if this is adopted. In its final form, they'll have to then
decide what, if any sections of their enforcement rules need to be amended or if
they need new rules.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I'm assumingI mean I know within the scope of
this bill, it doesn't say anything about an appeal process. Has there been any
thought on this? On an appeal process?
MS. SELF: There's already an appeal process for zoning violations, so it doesn't
need to be stated in this particular bill.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thank you.
MS. SELF: This bill is just making amendments to the Zoning Code to include
short-term rentals, short-term vacation rentals. So, that's why you have all of the
sections that start with 25-4, because it's going to amend the Zoning Code.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, great. So overall, based on the answers to the questions
that I have, that I have asked here, I think that there's a lot more discussion to be
had to provide clarity on these specific aspects of the bill. I'll yield at this time.
Thank you.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Anyone else in Hilo?
Mr. Richards here first and then I'll go to you, Ms. O'Hara. Thank you.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I did want to weigh-in, as I started out with
this conversation, this is complicated. It's very complicated. I did need to weigh-
in on the agricultural standpoint. And this goes back to conversation that was
started probably at least ten years ago. Daryn, you may remember this, probably
longer, and it's the definition of tourism and agriculture, or, agriculture and
tourism, depending on how you want to characterize that.
Page 30
PC -23
April 24, 2018
We heard some testimony today about the intention of that attempt at trying to
characterize that a decade ago, if not longer, was to allow a cash flow for an
agricultural entity to be generated for a couple of reasons, number 1, to help pay
the bills, and we heard an example about that today. It was also a way to get the
community out into agriculture, and they could actually see bona fide agriculture.
So, there's a benefit to society by exposing people to functioning agriculture and
again, that was testified on today.
So, as we go forward, I mean I hear what you're saying about land use. The Big
Island, our drive is to have more agriculture and agricultural -based economy, but
we're going to have to figure out how to help agriculture get along. It's a very
high -gross, small -margin enterprise and takes years to develop that cash flow. So,
as we go through this—we've heard numerous examples about this and I'm not
going to rehash a lot of things that has been discussed already because this is very
complicated. But I appreciate having the conversations on this because we're
going to have to characterize it to take care of the community going forward. I
fully appreciate the fact we don't want to develop resort or bungalow areas on
agricultural land. But if we don't find ways to help agriculture continue to
function, those lands will be sold and then they will be developed. So, we have to
find that nexus somewhere.
MR. YEE: Thank you, Councilman Richards. At a little higher level, so I
appreciate that, but at a higher level, agricultural lands are really important to our
island. But it also, because it's viewed as abundant and cheap, we often get many
requests for other uses, because it's cheap. So, we have to be careful about what
other uses that aren't ag, directly associated to ag, that happens on them. Because
like you said, once we make a decision otherwise, it's probably gone.
MR. RICHARDS: Right.
MR. YEE: And so there's more weight on here than just vacation rentals. We're
constantly having to review what happens on ag land. Last week when I testified
at budget about sustainable communities, I said sustainable communities is a very
difficult place to get to, yet we know sustainability on this island will be very
dependent upon what happens on our agricultural lands for future generations.
So, we have to also be very careful in a lot of ways, again, always trying to find
that balance. So, I appreciate your comments.
MR. RICHARDS: Quick response?
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, go ahead.
MR. RICHARDS: Director, I agree with you. We have to find that balance and
looking for it is the important thing and ignoring that we need to find it is the
dangerous part. I yield.
Page 31
PC -23
April 24, 2018
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Poindexter.
MS. POINDEXTER: Thank you, Council Member Richards for bringing up the
ag because I know that several people in my areaI mean to subsidize their
income because we heard one of the testifiers who came from Hamakua saying
that it's hard just farming and to make money off of farming. So, he does
vacation rental within the home. So, I don't know if there could be some
exemptions on ag land that would allow for some farm housing, kind of rent
vacation rental thing, where they exchange—because he has used it for housing
some of the people who would come and exchange and do some farm work. But
he does vacation rentals in his home. I don't know how we can find that balance,
or we can put some type of exemptions in for that. So, that was a good point that
was brought up.
You know, in my community, and I'll just state this, I've had a lot of complaints
because in just the little town of Honoka`a, there's some residential areas that
homes are being sold and people from the mainland are buying it up and turning it
into vacation rentals. There's an area that they start gating off the public access,
and that's a big concern for our community, because we're losing the identity of
who we are and that whole cultural lifestyle. So, what do you want to trade off?
It's like Waipi`o Valley. We start getting the vacation—we have some down
there already and the things that are happening, are we willing to trade it off
because we need tourism? And then we lose—you know, Waipi`o Valley is a
precious place. Taro farmers, their livelihood is there. So, are we willing to trade
off because we need the tourist income, and we lose the identity, and people lose
their livelihood in their communities because we're going to trade them off,
because we want to turn this island into a resort island?
So, I'm glad this bill is coming forward now, because we need to put something in
place before we lose this island. The keiki, the future generations, where are they
going to go? What are they going to do? Everybody is going to have to move off
This is going to be a resort island. So, now is the time and I understand there's a
lot of people who came and moved here because Hawaii is their dream goal to be
here and start a vacation rental because they need the income. I'm concerned
about my district and the farmers there, and that they can subsidize their income.
I don't know how we're going to do it with some kind of mixed use or whatever it
is. I'm concerned about the small communities that we want to keep rural that
we're losing all of that, too, because of the housing market. Some people put in to
buy the home and somebody bids or offers a higher price, and it goes to that
person who's offering that higher price, and then a local family loses out buying
that home. And now, it's a vacation rental with fences up, blocking public access.
So anyway, there is a lot to be done on this bill, but it needs to start somewhere. I
want to see it as fast as it can, go to the Planning Department, but I do appreciate
if we would have some time for me to go back to my community. I've got your
Page 32
PC -23
April 24, 2018
fact sheet and all of these things that now I can bring to the community and gather
more information to move forward. But anyway, I'll yield at this time. Thank
you.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Ms. O'Hara, I know you
raised your hand a long time ago, do you still wish to speak before I go to
Ms. Eoff?
MS. O'HARA: Yes, please.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, go ahead.
MS. O'HARA: We've spent a lot of time on the agricultural element, which is a
big part of this, and I don't think we have it fully flushed out yet, but it's a good
discussion. One thing we haven't talked about, which was brought up by many of
the testifiers, was the grandfathering aspect that is the basis of this bill, and
whether or not that's a good approach for where we're going here. It isn't
grandfathering in the conventional sense, meaning grandfathering usually is set up
to ease a certain use out of existence. But in this case, the grandfathering is
transferable by sale. So, we're basically identifying properties that can and will
remain in short-term vacation rentals in perpetuity, unless of course they give up
their non -conforming use.
So, there are communities that are already feeling a lot of negative impacts from
the short-term vacation rental inventory that they have in those communities, and
this bill doesn't really speak to that in any way. So, I'm just not sure whatI
don't really have a question here, I just don't really feel that we have really hit a
good compromise in terms of current use, future use, and the already existing
impacts.
The other thing that I wanted to say is, it was something that Mr. Arai brought up
about having the GPS knowledge of lots that were designated agricultural prior to
1976, or that they had residential single-family dwelling capability prior to 1976.
We don't yet have that data for all of the districts on the island. I know that
Stefan, who is still here, imagine that, in the back of the room, has done some
digging at the Planning Department because when he originally got the
metadata the large subdivisions, many of them were classified as "U", meaning
date unknown. He did try and flush that out for the Puna district, I think in
particular, but it hasn't been done for all of the districts. I'm not sure that it has
been done even for all of the agricultural lots in the Puna district.
So, it's hard for me to therefore, evaluate the impacts of this bill, the economic
impacts on the operators and the impacts on community as well as the impact on
the department, because when we move forward, we could be opening the dam so
to speak, and letting a flood of literally thousands of vacation rentals coming in
Page 33
PC -23
April 24, 2018
for either non -conforming use certificate, a process that is not yet defined, doesn't
require a public hearing. I realize rules have to be set, but we would have to at
least do site inspections, I would imagine, because just accepting information
from the applicant, it all has to be confirmed, such as how many bedrooms are
actually in the dwelling and that kind of thing.
Then you go to the parking elements and all the other things. So, I don't see how
any of this could be done without that type of inspection. So, I don't know
exactly what we're talking about in terms of the impacts, because we don't have a
very critical data layer in terms of analyzing the impacts on operators, the impacts
on communities, and the impacts on the department itself. So, that is concerning
me. So, the two things I just brought up, the grandfathering and how we're kind
of lacking some primary data here, I just wonder if the Planning Department or
whoever, can give some additional follow-up on that?
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Mr. Arai, go ahead.
MR. ARAI: Regarding non -conforming use certificate, there is a distinction
between the non -conforming provision within the Zoning Code. The Zoning
Code basically says if you have a use that was established prior to the adoption of
the law, that it can continue until such time it ceases for a period of more than one
year, and that's when the grandfathering goes away. This bill treats it slightly
differently, in that the non -conforming or grandfathering of that use will continue
until such time you either stop the use or you fail to renew your non -conforming
use certificate in a timely manner. So, it does an added twist to that provision.
I'm not going to say which one prevails, not prevails, but which one is more
appropriate because both of them have specific reasons why it's structured in that
particular way.
As far as the data, I wish we had all the necessary data at our hands, simply at our
desktops, but it would be too difficult and intensive an exercise to try to get all of
that information prior to establishing the requirements as expressed in Bill 108. I
mean—so at this point—which is why I think we have to just be kind of
reasonable on how we process and issue the non -conforming use certificates,
because it may take a bit of research to make sure it's in good standing. But I'm
concerned about to wait for the data, I honestly don't know when we're going to
get to that point where we have that information at -hand. And I can tell you right
now, I don't see ourselves inspecting all of the units that are out there, which I
understand the number is close to 8,000. We just don't have that capacity.
MR. YEE: I would also add that we've sought advice from the other counties.
So, you rely on what they know as their best practices at this point in time and
what kind of works for them. No, it's not a science and there are times where
some of the counties will have different ideas what is best for them. So, you try
to glean what you can from them to try to understand what may work for us.
Page 34
PC -23
April 24, 2018
Again, like Daryn said, we don't have all of the data, but we try to learn from
others right now.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Director. Ms. Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Thank you.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry, Ms. O'Hara. I'm sorry, go ahead.
MS. O'HARA: Thank you for those answers. I still feel this is going to be of
concern, because I have noted a lot of modifications to dwellings after the fact,
after the permit has been granted. So, what we might have on record doesn't
reflect what's on the ground. I just got a building in the vacant lot behind me and
we reviewed the permits of design review requirements in my subdivision and it
was a five -bedroom house when we reviewed it, but what's built here is a six -
bedroom house. So, it's things like that are of concern. Also, the parking issues
that were brought up earlier—there are a lot of echoes, if somebody could turn off
their mic in Kona, that would be helpful.
The parking is another thing. Our Parking Code says one vehicle stall per
bedroom plus an additional one for the entire unit. Or, if the whole unit is let,
meaning the whole home is let, only two parking places are required. So, to what
standard are we approving? If the operator says they only let the house, they only
let the whole building, then are we only going to require two parking units?
Because they may decide later on to do five bedrooms and we may end up with
six or seven cars parked out on the street. So, it's things like that that concern me
with the non -conforming use certificate, that we're putting forth here as being
very minimal in protecting the surrounding community from the impacts of what
could be occurring at a particular non -hosted, short-term vacation rental.
On top of that, we heard from a number of people who felt that this bill should
include the hosted, short-term vacation rentals because we don't therefore get
metrics where we can assess the economic impacts of the entire industry. Now, I
realize we have a B and B Code, but we don't have that many complying permits
with the B and B Code, and part of that may be due to the fact that some of the
units where the short-term vacation rental is hosted, where the owner is residing
on -property, wouldn't pass muster under our B and B Code, perhaps because the
building isn't fully permitted. Reasons like that. So, then we have an unregulated
section of our short-term vacation rental industry, and what that could do is
potentially harm the other aspects of the industry. I just don't see a balance here,
and that's something that was brought up by a number of testifiers, especially
concerning the fact that we won't be able to have good metrics on our visitor
industry as a result. So that's another concern I have with the bill as it is written.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Are you yielding Ms. O'Hara?
Page 35
PC -23
April 24, 2018
MS. O'HARA: I wasn't intending to. I was going to ask if there was any
response from the Planning Department on this.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Well, you paused and so I didn't know.
MS. O'HARA: I'm sorry, I was waiting to see if there was—yeah, I was waiting
to see if there was going to be a response from—
ACTING CHR. DAVID: What was the question? I'm sorry.
MS. O'HARA: The concern is about why we are not including any reference to
hosted facilities. Actually, we do in the current bill as written, but I was—and
that's towards the very end of the bill in Section 32. But, I had noted that
amendments were proposed that would take that out. So, I'm kind of confused
why we have it in this original Bill 108, but it appears that amendments are
coming forth to remove those sections.
MR. YEE: Michael here, I'll take a quick stab. I think it was trying to figure out
the priorities of what the bill was trying to accomplish, and neighborhood
integrity was probably up there fairly high. In the case of hosted rentals, it didn't
seem to be the biggest concern. It wasn't the focus of the bill. I would also say
within that, there was, and this is my opinion, there was a value that these folks
are working families trying to supplement their income if they are a hosted rental.
So yes, it would be great to have data, but that wasn't the end -goal in the case for
hosted rentals.
MS. O'HARA: So, from that response, Mr. Yee, I take it to mean that—because
in the—on page four of the bill, it gives the transient use of a dwelling unit. It
gives, number (2), "Hosted rentals, meaning transient use of a single room or
sleeping area of a residential dwelling unit or guest house with the owner or
operator residing on building site; and (3), Bed and breakfasts, whether or not
food is served, meaning transient use of more than one room..." blah, blah, blah.
Sorry, I'm not going read it all. So, we are differentiating hosted rentals from bed
and breakfasts. So, we are basically leaving an unregulated segment to this whole
industry. Is that really appropriate? Could we be having hosted rentals in,
currently in zoning areas where they are not permitted? How do we justify not
addressing this at this time?
MR. ARAI: This particular sectionI'm sorry, this is Daryn. This particular
section is just the definition section, so eliminating the definition within this
particular section doesn't mean all of a sudden, it's not enforced. There was a
discussion we had earlier, I think, where what's the point of defining it if it's not
really relevant to the purposes of the bill? So, we decided it just added more
confusion. So, I think it was just cleaner to get it out. For example, there's a
Page 36
PC -23
April 24, 2018
whole discussion of bed and breakfast in the other sections of the Code where a
use permit is required, for example.
That all being said, we kind of understood at one point in our previous discussions
with Council Member Eoff and Council Member Kanuha, that there may be a
time where eventually, we may want to combine all types of rentals and not have
it just bed and breakfast because one would ask, what happens if the person stops
serving breakfast and is that a violation? I don't want to enforce breakfast, so, it
does kind of make you wonder whether we look at possibly modifying the
definition. But right now, again, it's food for thought, but it's not something that
we're addressing at this point in time.
MS. O'HARA: Okay, well, thank you for that. I really feel that there's a lot left
out of this bill at this point in time, and I know that we wanted to perhaps break at
some point because we could go on all night discussing this. I would like to have
a discussion on where we want to take it from here, just getting the public input.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Excuse me, Ms. O'Hara, before you start discussing
recess, you know, I think we've discussed this quite a bit, it's getting late and I
would really like to have and allow Ms. Eoff or Mr. Kanuha to take us to a
conclusion tonight as far as the discussion that we're having right now, if that's
okay with you. I believe the timer went out twice already, so I'd like to give the
other Council Members a chance to weigh-in before we call it a recess.
MS. O'HARA: Okay, thank you.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Eoff
MS. EOFF: I would agree, I think we need to recess tonight, but we do have a lot
to digest and I would encourage all of us—we came up with an amendment that
hasn't been introduced yet, or discussed. Some of the concerns that we've heard
are cleaned up in the amendment, and then some additional things may be needed.
Other people can actually introduce amendments and we can discuss all of them
when we start fresh again is kind of how I feel right now. I think we should
prepare the bill as much as we can before we send it to the Planning Commission,
but I think that we should do that as a fresh Planning Committee meeting. And I
hope that Mr. Kanuha may have some closing remarks and somebody can make a
recess.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff Mr. Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: No, I agree, the recess is necessary. It's a lot of information and
a lot of things to digest, as you already stated. You know, that's why we're here.
We're given the opportunity to amend, and put forth, and discuss, and vote on,
and see what works, and see what doesn't work. So, that's why we're here and
Page 37
PC -23
April 24, 2018
that's why we submitted the bill for that purpose. So, I agree on how we move
forward. I'm okay with however the Chair wants to move forward.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. At this point in time, I just
want to thank the department, Director, and Deputy, Ms. Self and Roy and Nancy.
Thank you for your patience and being here all day with us and also for the people
that testified. If it's okay with all the Council Members, I will recess this Planning
Committee meeting until after Council tomorrow. Mr. Clerk, when do you
suggest we do this?
MR. HENRICKS: Oh, I have no concrete suggestions.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: What would be most efficient?
MR. HENRICKS: I don't knowI think maybe discussion as to what's trying to
be accomplished when we reconvene and how much time may be needed for that
purpose? And then if we do, it's probably best to give it time more certain than
after the Council meeting, unfortunately. I know that's a convenient phrase.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: I believe Ms. Eoff has the answer to that.
MS. EOFF: I would really suggest that we recess until the next Planning
Committee meeting because that would give people time to digest what we've all
been hearing and talking about. You can read this fact sheet, summary sheet.
You can propose amendments. We need some time and I think Council Members
may want to talk to you folks independently too. I heard that, so, I think at least
to the next Planning Committee meeting, which is, I think, May—what's the next
committee day?
MR. HENRICKS: May eighth would be our next set of committee meetings. I
guess you don't have to get a time certain since that won't be tomorrow.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: Right.
MR. HENRICKS: But just recessing to May eightwould probably be sufficient
and we'd have time to advertise when the committee will be reconvening.
ACTING CHR. DAVID: That's an excellent suggestion. So, I am putting the
Planning Committee meeting into recess until our next Planning Committee
meeting on May eight. Alright, we're in recess.
Page 38
PC -23
Recess: At 7:47 p.m., the Acting Chair called for a recess.
Approved:
Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair
Planning Committee
KE/jm
6Ici 113
(Date)
April 24, 2018
Page 39