Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2018/05/08 (2016-2018) ReconvenedCommittee on Planning 23rd Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii May 8, 2018 RECONVENE: The reconvened meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at 1:10 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Maile Medeiros David, Acting Chair. ACTING CHR. DAVID: As a recap, statements from the public on this agenda was concluded on April 241h, and are closed for this meeting. Currently, there is a motion by Ms. Eoff, seconded by Mr. Kanuha, to recommend passage of Bill 108 on first reading. Ms. Eoff MS. EOFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that it was passed out just a little while ago or earlier this morning, but there is an amendment. It should be in everybody's possession right now, it's numbered Communication 739.78. First of all, I just want to make sure everybody has it, and then, I would like to make a motion to amend Bill 108 with the contents of Communication 739.78. Motion to Amend: Ms. Eoff moved to amend Bill 108 with the contents of Comm. 739.78. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? Go ahead. MS. EOFF: Thank you, Ms. David. Based on the testimony that we heard at the last—before we recessed, and also input from various members of the public, as well as administration, we took some time to review Bill 108 and I wanted to produce a more thorough amendment, which addresses many of the things that were discussed. It touches a lot of sections of the bill, so I think if we were to go over it, we might be able to then go into a more thorough discussion of all of the issues and questions that the Council Members probably will have. Mr. Kanuha, would you like to ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Hang on, Ms. Eoff Alright, you can proceed, we have quorum. Before you go on, I believeI just would like to make a note that Director Yee, Deputy Director Arai, and Corporation Counsel Amy Self, and I believe Mr. Takemoto are present in our Hilo Chambers, and then we have Nancy Pisicchio here in the Kona Chambers. So, go ahead, Ms. Eoff, proceed. PC -23 May 8, 2018 MS. EOFF: Okay, well I wonder if the Director, Deputy Director and Attorney, Corporation Counsel would like to be at the table so they can chime in here too. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Michael Yee, Deputy Planning Director Daryn Arai, and Corporation Counsel Amy Self came forward to address the members of the Committee.) ACTING CHR. DAVID: Hilo, did you hear Ms. Eoffs request? MS. MURAMOTO: They're at the table. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. MS. EOFF: Do you need a copy of the amendment? Excuse me, I want to make sure that Ms. O'Hara has a copy of the amendment. Okay, so, at the beginning of this amendment, you'll notice that the first section, little (b), it deals with registration of short-term vacation rentals and it requires all of them to register with the Planning Department. One of the changes that was suggested, which is incorporated here, is that rather than require that process be completed within 180 days after the effective date of this ordinance, we wanted to make sure that in case there was any backlog or anything like that, that as long as someone has submitted that form to the department, then they would be considered in a process of becoming registered. So, you'll see the language in capital (B) on the second page that addresses that. Some of the other changes here include how you would verify and you would be required to have, besides what was already in the bill, a proof of holding a general excise tax license and a transient accommodation license. You would also be required to show that you have the requisite amount of parking, pursuant to Section 25-4-51. And also, submit a site plan showing a drawing of the rooms that are for rent with the requisite parking. That would help to determine if you're in conformance with this section of the Code. We've also included, in the standards, the requirement that, "The owner or a designated contact person shall reside in the County of Hawai'i and shall be reachable by guest, neighbors, and County agencies on a twenty-four hour, seven days -per -week basis." There was just a little bit of language change in there to make it so that we're sure that this person is reachable. I'm just kind of going quickly through the amendment and then I'm going to yield so people can ask questions and delve a little bit deeper into these issues. Moving onto page three, we've made some changes to the requirements for obtaining a non -conforming use certificate. We addressed that same concern that there might not be enough time within 180 days to complete that process. And so, Page 2 PC -23 May 8, 2018 one of the changes here just explains that you would just need to submit the application no later than 180 days after the effective date of the ordinance. So, once you've submitted it, you will be in the process of obtaining it. The date is changed from proof of prior use. Before, the bill stated January 20, 2018, but because this bill has taken so long to go through this process, we've moved that to July 20, 2018 of this year. There's a clarification in little letter © regarding agricultural lands, which have to conform to State law. So, just to be clear and simple here, we've amended that section to read that a person may be issued a non -conforming use certificate for single-family dwellings on lots that have existed prior to June 4, 1976 located in the State land use agricultural district. That is State Law. We've included new language regarding a good neighbor policy, and that is to assure—because we are taking the approach of allowing current uses to continue, but we also want to protect the ambiance of our neighborhoods and make sure that neighbors have some kind of recourse if there is a situation in their neighborhood that's causing difficulty or disturbances. So, the good neighbor policy, I guess I can read that part, but it just says, "The owner or designated contact person shall be responsible to ensure that activities taking place within the short-term vacation rental conform to the character of the existing neighborhood in which the rental is located." Council Members, I was just going to say, Hilo, we had a rumbling here and we didn't know if it was an earthquake, but it's actually construction next door. This section goes on to explain that at a minimum, there are some things that shall be prominently displayed and also recited in the rental agreement, which is signed by the tenant. That has numbers (1), (2), (3), and (4). It includes hours for quiet times. It includes some sound requirements, that sound does not extend beyond the property, and also, it refers back to the guest shall be parked in designated on- site parking areas. Continuing on, we have addressed the annual renewal of the non -conforming use certificate and tried to make that a lot more clear, understandable, and simple. We do want to encourage this renewal process, and so, as you can see, there's some things in our current law that the Director would have to be sure of before he can issue an annual renewal of the non -conforming use. There has to be proof that the use has not been abandoned at all because that is cause for denial of a renewal, and there will be a $500 renewal fee. There are also four other provisions and those include that there haven't been any violations of the provisions of this section or other pertinent laws. The owner cannot have been delinquent in the payment of taxes, fees, fines, or penalties assessed in relation to the short-term rental. The owner or the designated contact Page 3 PC -23 May 8, 2018 person, if they haven't been reachable, that could be grounds for denial, and if there had been any police reports or neighbor complaints related to the rental. As we have for all of our zoning violations, if a Director—he'll have to issue a notice if there's a problem with the renewal. There's an opportunity for the short- term vacation rental owner to appeal that, and there's a provision that apply back to our Code regarding appealing a decision of the Director. We've also just included a statement that says, under enforcement, this is going onto page five, "If any short-term vacation rental is found to be operating unlawfully, enforcement shall be pursuant to section 25-2-35." Of the Hawaii Code. So, that is stated there. And moving on to definitions, we've included a definition of reachable because a contact person would have to be reachable and we wanted to define that precisely here in the definitions, as it is applies to two different sections in the ordinance. ""Reachable" means being able to answer the telephone at all times, being able to be physically present at the short-term vacation rental within one hour following a request by a guest, a neighbor, or a County agency, and having an office or residence within thirty driving miles." So, that is just to make sure that there's an accountable person that can be reached. And you'll notice on the very last page of this amendment, there was a slight change to the definition of a short-term vacation rental, and I'll just read that now. So, a ""Short-term vacation rental" means a dwelling unit of which the owner or operator does not reside on the building site, that has no more than five bedrooms for rent on the building site, and is rented for a period of thirty consecutive days or less. This definition shall not apply to the short-term use of an owner's primary residence as defined under the Internal Revenue Code. Okay, so those are the proposed amendments and I wanted to emphasize, before I yield, that there still seems to be a lot of confusion out there because we received some e-mail testimonies this last couple weeks of people who do what would actually be considered home sharing or hosted rentals, and they seem to be concerned that this bill will affect them in some way. I just wanted to make it really clear that it will not affect anybody that's renting a room in their house, that's doing a home sharing or that lives on their property. This bill only applies to those particular homes or units that are rented where there is no owner or operator living there. I know that seems to be still a little bit misunderstood, but I want to the make that clear. So, I'm going to yield at this time. I went through the amendments and I want to make sure that Council Members can ask questions to people from Planning, or our Corporation Counsel, or Dru, or myself. So, thank you very much. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Mr. Kanuha. Page 4 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms. Eoff, for explaining a lot of these amendments. I did want to emphasize that we did some cleaning up on this bill, but the majority of these amendments came from the public testimony that we received throughout the past several weeks, including the hundred people that came to testify that day. So, I really appreciate everybody for providing a lot of the insights, their testimonies, because it's really what's shaping this bill to become what it is now. So, I wanted to emphasize that and really thank everybody for their testimony and to also really encourage everybody to keep on submitting testimony as this bill is moving forward or hopefully it's moving forward, because I want to encapsulate everybody's thoughts of how they want to start regulating vacation rentals. So, I really appreciate everybody for continuing to do that. I'm not going to go into a lot of the amendments. I support all the things that Karen said and reallyhopefully, everybody got a grasp of whatI know these are pretty extensive amendments. It's not changing a whole lot, it's kind of adding to what we originally had and adding to what the community's concerns were and some Council Members' concerns. I know it doesn't incorporate everything but we want to make sure that we put in some of the main things that people were concerned about, such as good neighbor policies, how you're going to treat a vacation rental within a neighborhood. How's that's going to affect relationships and what's the effective use of having a vacation rental? If you want to contact somebody, how do you get in touch with them if they're not reachable? This kind of puts in that contact person. How are you going to get in touch with them or how are they going to be available to any concerns that neighbors may have during a short-term use of an adjoining property? So, I'm just encouraging you to ask us questions. We have the department in Hilo, and in Kona as well, if there's any questions related to the legality, or planning, or anything else you have. But, I encourage you to look at this further, and hopefully, we can move on. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Before I go to other Council Members, Director, would you care to say something before we open discussion further, as a summary? MR. YEE: I didn't have any comments at this time. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay, we'll just wait for the discussion. Council Members, discussion. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. First of all, I want to update my colleagues on, at our last meeting of the Bill 108, I had disclosed that I had a vacation rental and I sought an opinion from the Board of Ethics and it was determined I do not Page 5 PC -23 May 8, 2018 have a conflict of interest. So, I will be participating in the conversations as well as the voting. Okay, now, first of all, again, I'd like to commend both Councilman Kanuha and Councilwoman Eoff for the continuing work on this, and there is lots of it. This is a lot of amending and a lot to digest quickly. That being said, I think the general spirit of the conversations and the testimony, both written and public, you have started to get your arms around a lot of what was said. So, I do appreciate the fact that you put a lot of work and thought process into this. I think we still have a long way to go to get the details worked out. I certainly do agree with some of the changes you've made here. I have questions for parts of it. I guess I'm going to ask a question to the Chair, how are we going to do this? Are we going to have conversations on this? What process are we going to follow? ACTING CHR. DAVID: I think this is what the intention was today. If any questions arise regarding either the amendments, we have Director and our attorneys here to entertain discussions throughout the day. I think we have full latitude in discussing the amendments or any concerns that you may have. So, I believe this is an open discussion. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so if we're going to start with the talk story, I'm sure I'll jump back in on some of this, probably trying to listen to the overall message that the constituency was trying to communicate to us, neighbor impact was a big deal for a lot of this. I think you started taking steps to address that, maybe mitigate in some situations but address that and putting that as a very high priority, which I completely agree with. There's a concern on the $500 registration, and I think we need to work on that one. I think something has to be done there. We have everything from the person who has one room that they periodically rent, which $500 is quite steep, to we heard one person testify where they have already paid $40,000 in taxes this year. That's the other extreme. And I question whether or not $500 is even appropriate, I mean high enough for that situation. What we're trying to do is figure out how to make this work for the County as a whole, and I don't have an answer on that yet, I'm just putting this forth. I certainly hear the constituents, you know I have some in my district that say, "I can't afford to live here unless I do this, but I have to pay about a $500 fee, I don't make that much money on it anyway." I'm listening to that, so how do we figure that one out? I don't have the answer, but I want to start the conversation going on the group. I yield at this point, but I'm sure I'll have more. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Council Members? I'm sorry, hang on Ms. O'Hara. Ms. Eof£ Page 6 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MS. EOFF: Planning might be able to address that. They did have a reason for suggesting the $500, and I don't know whether that's flexible. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Director, did you hear Ms. Eoff regarding Mr. Richards' question relating to the fee? Ms. Eoff feels that you could, or someone could explain and answer Mr. Richards' question. MR. YEE: In trying to develop fees for permitting ACTING CHR. DAVID: Director Yee? I'm sorry. MR. YEE: I'm sorry, Michael Yee, Planning Director. In trying to address permitting fees, I think it's a balance between looking at all the fees we charge for all the different services we provide, but also looking at what other islands have for fees and just trying to strike that balance. I would generally say most of our fees really don't capture all the time that planning staff spent on a certain permit. So, I don't think the goal is to capture 100 percent of efforts into approving a permit, but you also want fees to be able to cover some time. In this case, we know the enforcement of vacation rentals will be a daunting, on-going task, and certainly, I think other islands certainly create fees that are higher to help offset those costs. And so, $500 is where we started, it's certainly isn't set in stone. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Director. So, for now, Mr. Richards, that was the reasoning behind the $500. So, Ms. O'Hara, go ahead. MS. O'HARA: I'm going to start, and I don't know how we'll move this discussion along with the fact that this is a lot of amendments to be discussed, just having seen them for the first time. Very different than the other set of amendments. There are some that I could consider and some I have no idea why they're in there. So, I'm finding it hard that we'll have to bifurcate or whatever the different amendments. So, I just got to say that in advance. Picking up on the fee, simplicity is great, but the fee needs to be based on a percentage of, say the TAT (Transient Accommodations Tax), that is paid on the units because they have to submit that documentation, right? To register and to reregister every year so we have that information. That would be a more equitable approach to this because as Mr. Richards points out, we go from small to very large in this industry. Small being the one bedroom periodically rented out, to consistent five -bedroom house rented every day of the year. So, it needs to be more equitable. I still have problems with the way the grandfathering clause is presented. It is effectively allowing, through the non -conforming use certificate, vacation rentals in neighborhoods where people bought in, not anticipating that there would ever be vacation rentals. That's what the grandfathering clause sets you up for. I did Page 7 PC -23 May 8, 2018 see the opinion whereby we cannot restrict the grandfathering clause from being passed down, and that has a lot to do with State law and the permits that we apply need to be—go with the land. So, it's not really a grandfathering clause. Grandfathering is usually used to slowly eliminate a certain activity over time and that's not what this is doing. So, it is not effectively addressing the problem areas that we are already aware of, where there is an overage of vacation rentals in certain communities and it's causing severe problems for those communities. So, it doesn't really address that. We continue to talk about this idea of the hosted versus the non -hosted vacation rental as if a hosted, vacation rental does not comply with our B and B Code. I'm a little troubled by this. If we're going to pass a measure over short term vacation rentals, it should apply across the industry. What we're doing by leaving out the hosted, vacation rental is creating this big swath across the industry of unregulated, short-term vacation rentals. And just to give an idea of what this might look like, yes, Puna has mostly agricultural lands. You go up Volcano to Wright Road, and it goes four or five miles up to the end of the road, there's an old agricultural subdivision, 29 lots, they're big lots, 30 acres. So, the people who own them have built probably multiple structures on those lots through the many years. Seven of them are now operating short -vacation rentals. If they're hosted, and the people were living on the land, and they're renting `ohana units or whatever, and there is an event like a massive earthquake or fire, the emergency services are not going to know there could be a hundred extra individuals staying up that road on any given night. We would not have that information. So, I'm a little troubled that we're leaving this big swath of the industry unregulated, and I just, for that reason, I'm having trouble supporting this bill as written. The non -conforming use certificates, we questioned Planning a lot on that previously. They don't have a process in place now. This is something they're going to have to set up should this bill pass, and one of the things we were told is they will not be doing site inspections. Now, we have lot of buildings on island, and especially in my district, that are unpermitted. People can show you a permit and say it was built, a three-bedroom home, but you go on site and you'll find, not only the three-bedroom home, but two bedrooms added and other little side structures added that are accommodating guests. We won't know that without doing site inspections. So, I'm a little troubled by the fact that we don't really know who we're approving or what we are approving, except through a police reports and documents that we have at the County, which are not always entirely accurate, because we don't have inspectors out on the field to confirm whether people added on illegal additions to their houses or illegal cabins to their properties. Page 8 PC -23 May 8, 2018 Those are some of the things that give me concern about the bill as it is written, and it is a lot to absorb, all of these amendments in one fell swoop. I really, as I have all along, advocated for an ad hoc so that we can take—step back from this process a little bit and get it right. I just don't feel that this bill is ready to move forward. If we move it forward, it goes to the Planning Commissions, and that's a process that could take up to three or four months to come back to us, at least. And all we'll get back is recommendations, which we can choose to adopt or not adopt. They can't change the bill, but they can make recommended changes. Those recommendations are coming from the commissioners who have even less direct interaction with the County Code and policy setting than we do. These are volunteers that meet once a month and rotate in and out. So, I'm feeling that it's really important to keep this in committee until we feel that it can move forward, because if it goes to the Commissions, comes back to us, and we make any substantive changes, it will have to go back to the Commissions again. That just extends this process out for another eight months or more. I really feel it be best to keep it in committee, do an ad hoc, clean it up until we are all comfortable with it, and then send it on for the Commission's review. Otherwise, we might be giving up our right to set public policy, which is the main role of the County Council. So, that's my feelings about it at this point, maybe our discussion will change that, but I'm just not ready to send this on. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. I'm going to ask Hilo, unless Ms. Ruggles, do you want tonot yet? Okay, great. In Hilo, Ms. Lee Loy or Mr. Chung. I'm sorry, Director Yee, did you want to speak? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, but I'll allow Planning Director Yee to respond. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. MR. YEE: Michael Yee here. A few comments based on Councilwoman O'Hara's initial comments. First around grandfathering, it's clear that we can't sunset, and with that being the case, it's going to fall upon the non -conforming certificates in areas that have problems, and at the time of review, to be able to weigh complaints, how are they acting with their Good Neighbor Policies and that will come into play whether or not they get renewed. Not ideal but there is at least a means to try to hopefully deal with the bad players over time. Second, site inspections, I think it's ideal to do a site inspection on many things that we do. Again, that's a pretty big money issue, and while there's the balance of trying to keep fees at a reasonable level, the more we tack on things it just increases fees also, possibly. So, it's always a balance. As for Planning Commissions, I certainly would generally recommend that the bill go forward to the Planning Commission and they will provide good input. Page 9 PC -23 May 8, 2018 Many of them come with immense experience and engagement in their neighborhoods, and I think they do have a pretty good feel and are very practiced at hearing what the community is saying to them. So, I actually welcome their comments in the future. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Director Yee. Now, Council Member Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Amy, Daryn, and Michael, for being here. I'm going to just try and step through some of the notes that I wrote on the amendment. My first one is related to the Good Neighbor Policy, item (e). The Good Neighbor Policy says, "The owner or designated contact person..." but there's no definition of a designated contact person. I know you define it as a reachable, but I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to use the statutes that's provided for us as a property manager has, the revised statutes to define that designated contact person, or qualify them. Because my understanding is it could be the gardener or the house cleaner, and maybe there needs to be a better definition or point to some other section of our Statutes or our Codes that already exist. MS. SELF: I think that's a good idea. I'm alwaysI'm sorry, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Amy Self. Okay, so, I'm always big on definitions. I think that's an excellent idea. I would put it in the beginning of the Zoning Code where all the other definitions are. I don't know if Daryn MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai, Deputy Planning Director. The definition is great, but it depends on what the intentions are. If the intentions are to define a specific group that would be reasonable or qualified to be that contact person, then great. But, if the intention is that you can name anyone under the sun, then why even bother defining it? I mean that's my thoughts. We kind of looked at that. I think we did look at statute the last time, and if you were a real estate agent or real estate broker, then the Statute tells you that if you manage more than two, I mean one or two units, then you have to have the license. You have to have these types of responsibilities. But, that same obligation doesn't fall upon one who is not a real estate agent or broker, so, it really depends, in my mind, on what you're looking for. But, if you have a defining person that you're looking for, then yes, by all means define it. MS. LEE LOY: I think what I'm looking for is consistency because we talk about a designated person but then we define reachable. So, maybe it's wordsmithing that section to mean something that we're consistent with rather than that constant question of asking okay, you mentioned owner or designated contact, so why not owner or reachable person? Right? I think if we stay more consistent, then there's less ambiguity, and I think it actually helps everybody understand what they're getting themselves into. We set the standard. Page 10 PC -23 May 8, 2018 The other section is (f), related to the renewable fees. This was brought up by people in the industry. I think bed and breakfasts has a fee schedule that you folks use. Is that accurate? MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai, Deputy. No, bed and breakfasts, if it's in a permitted area, there's no fee. If you require some sort of permit, then the fee is attached to the type of permit you're applying for. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, so yeah, maybe we could again, get back to something already consistent that matches a similar fee schedule. The other section I had was letter (g), the decision by the Director to deny. Renewal of a non -conforming use certificate, it doesn't say it here, but, Ms. Self, maybe you could help me with this. I'm assuming that basically, a denial of the Director would then be appealable to the Board of Appeals, and then they would start down that choo choo train track of filing an appeal or a challenge of the Director's decision. MS. SELF: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Amy Self. That's in the next section, (h), yes. Then it would just follow the Code and the Charter where it has about the appeals go the Board of Appeals. Because any decision that the Planning Director makes would go to the Board of Appeals. MS. LEE LOY: The other question I had was related to the 30 miles—of someone being located within 30 miles? Like a contact. I'm a little concerned because if you had a facility, say in volcano, I don't know if we would have a contact office within 30 miles of that. So, just food for thought, something to consider. I'm assuming they would have to be in a commercial -zoned area, and we don't have that kind of commercial -zoned area, so then we would trigger a whole other process for someone to establish this contact office. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, did you want an answer from the department? MS. LEE LOY: Yeah ACTING CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry, Ms. Lee Loy, I didn't hear you. MS. LEE LOY: Mr. Arai has a reply. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. MR. ARAI: So, I gatherI think I see what you're saying. I think what's most important is the ability to respond within an hour. So, at that point, the 30 miles is somewhat irrelevant. The fact that you can respond is what's most important, and that's a fair statement. Page 11 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MS. LEE LOY: And this one, again, from the industry and it relates to the ag portion fromsorry, I'm all over the place on this one, I apologize. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, while you're finding your next comment, would you mind if Ms. Eoff responds to that last question that you had? MS. LEE LOY: Sure. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: I believe that we neglected to take that 30 driving miles out. We talked about this and decided it wasn't necessary here. As Mr. Arai said, as long as they're reachable and can be there within an hour, we didn't really intend to keep the 30 driving miles part, so I guess that's—as we go through this amendment, I have no problem working on it to where we could kind of bifurcate some of these amendments and amend them as we go, in some cases like that one. I realize that once we do get a newI mean I would like to amend the bill with what we can and create a draft two that we can then keep working off of, like at the next meeting. I mean I can see we might need to postpone this and talk about it again in a future Planning Committee meeting, but I'd like to amend with what we all agree to, or enough of us can at this point just so that we have a better draft to be working from. That would be how I see the process for now. But yeah, that was supposed to not be there. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for that response, Ms. Eoff, because I agree, there are some stuff here I can support, some other stuff that I still think needs work, but I also want to give the industry and just the general public an opportunity to weigh in on this. But, I agree, if we could whittle down what we can support and then allow more comments, I think that's a good idea. This is in relation to, Ms. Self, section (c), the agricultural lands. It says it "may be issued for single-family dwellings on lots existing before June 4, 1976 ...... Again, this is being pointed out from people within the industry that a lot of our Hamakua lands didn't get subdivided until 1994, I think it was. So, I know we're addressing agricultural lands, but there seems to be a big focus on HPP (Hawaiian Paradise Park), when a lot of those ag subdivisions were created, so, I'm not sure how it would apply to our Hamakua lands that were subdivided, kind of after 1976 and during the closing down or the shutting down of our sugar industry. MS. SELF: The reason this particular date is important is because that's when they changed the State law to sort of focus on agriculture lands being used as agriculture. So, they changed it from what used to be single-family dwellings to farm dwellings, requiring it—the permitted use now, under HRS 205 is farm Page 12 PC -23 May 8, 2018 dwelling, not single-family dwelling. But, prior to this date, you had all of these lots that have been already carved up and so, that's what the law says, that if a house is constructed on a lot created or in existence prior to this date, it's a single- family dwelling. So, that's why we included this. So, let's say if it's after 1976, then State law would require you to apply for a special permit through the Planning Commission. MS. LEE LOY: And this is one of my last comments, and it has to do with signage. I know in our bed and breakfast section, 25-4-7, it specifically directs individuals who establish a bed and breakfast permit 25-4-7(8), it says, "Exterior signage which advertises the dwelling as a bed and breakfast establishment shall comply with the requirements for residential signage as set forth in chapter 3...." That's our Signage Code, and I think that would enhance the bill a little bit more to include, again, a very clear understanding because I also heard concerns through some of this testimony the last go around, was people are starting to put up those, like sandwich boards pointing in the County right-of-way, pointing their way to a bed and breakfast or a vacation rental. My understanding is that's illegal, but we've been having challenges of having the inspectors kind of hold them accountable. So, if we could even begin to look at that advertisement piece in this, I think that would also enhance this bill. I yield at this time. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Council Members, any other comments? Ms. O'Hara? MS. O'HARA: Just following up on what Ms. Lee Loy brought up about the prior to June 1976 issue. I've asked two people related to Planning, well, one was Roy Takemoto, and I don't know if he's in the room in Hilo, but we had a lot of ag lots that were condominiumized up until, I believe it was around 2004, when the Planning Director at the time, Chris Yuen, passed Code changes to basically prevent that from happening. So, if the land was a larger parcel and it was condominiumized, what is the date for that TMK (Tax Map Key) when it was created? Does it go with the parent property that was ag and could have been a very large acreage that was condominiumized or small, 20 -acre parcel that's condominiumized? Or does it go with the creation of the new condominium TMK? And I've gotten, at this point, two different answers from Planning, so, I'm still not sure about that. I also know that Ms. Lee Loy brought up what is going to be the impact, and we can't evaluate the impact because we do not—as I'm understanding it, Planning cannot tell us how many ag lots or which ag lots were created before 1976. So, that makes it complicated in terms of evaluating the impacts on the different districts. I see that Stefan is here and I know that he worked on this issue for the Puna district where he personally went in and tried to acquire that information because when he was given the metadata, that field was "u," which was unknown. Page 13 PC -23 May 8, 2018 So, he tried to verify the dates of creation of many of the ag lots in the Puna district, but this applies all over the island. So, without that information, it's at this point that it's kind of hard to evaluate the impact of this bill. And it's important to do that because as Ms. Self just pointed out, if those agricultural lots were not before 1976, we're talking a special use permit. And again, how many cases is that going to drive before the Planning Commission and how will we be able to manage that case load? Just a lot of questions. It raises a lot of questions since we don't have the accurate data on that impact. That's all I was going to bring up. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Anyone else here in Kona? Ms. Eoff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: I think—could we ask the Planning Department to respond regarding the lots that were created prior to 1976? I know we don't have a complete inventory of all of them, but I think we have a sense of a lot of them. Is that correct? In different areas? MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai, Deputy Director. I think we have a pretty decent sense of areas that, especially large subdivisions, we're able to spatially recognize them through GIS (Geographic Information System). It would probably be more difficult when you get to the South Kona areas that haven't been really subdivided for many years and the lots may have been platted before we started keeping records back in 1944. That all being said, I wish we had the resources and the time to do these types of background research to validate when every single lot on this island was originally created. Obviously, this bill is relying on the applicants for non -conforming use certificate to provide that information, because they have the information readily at hand or at least they can go to Bureau or Land Court to seek it out. But keep that in perspective that we simply don't know where these short-term vacation rentals are. There is no way for me to tell at this point in time. The process, I guess, is simply to bring them forth. I mean it's all about knowing what we're dealing with first and then at that time, if adjustments need to be made to the Code, then maybe we can pursue it at that time. But unless we provide a mechanism where they come forth and disclose themselves and their location, we're sort of shooting in the dark. I hope that answers your question. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Eoff MS. EOFF: Ms. O'Hara can chime in. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Alright, do you yield? Page 14 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MS. EOFF: Well, I have something else to talk about, but she can ask further questions. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. O'Hara, go ahead. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask Mr. Arai, what is the status for ag lots that were condominiumize? What data are we using to validate their existence? MR. ARAI: For many years, I think until 2002 or 2003, while we recognize condominium property regimes, we did not recognize them as legal lots of records. So, two different things. So, you may have a CPR (Condominium Property Regime) that was in existence for many years, but, if it didn't comply with the requirements of the subdivision Code, they're simply not legal lots and they have no effect on how we define lots for the purpose of this bill, as well as for the Subdivision and the Zoning Codes. MS. O'HARA: So, I'm still not clear. What does that mean for those lots if there is a B and B operating on, or not B and B, I'm sorry, short-term vacation rental, operating on a property that was allowed to condominiumize previously? Do they meet the requirement if the parent lot was before designated as agriculture before 1976? MR. ARAI: We will also assess things, I guess. In that particular case, we would always assess things against the parent lot. Unfortunately, it may come down to a matter of first come, first served. So, whichever unit was constructed first, could be recognized as that single-family dwelling. And if there are other subsequent dwellings on the very same parcel, then we can only assume they are additional farmed dwellings, which carries a different type of requirements than the pre - 1976 single-family dwelling, if I'm being clear. MS. O'HARA: No, that's clear. I appreciate that explanation. But also, I'm just concerned when I hear that we're only going to find out what's out there when we pass this bill, and then wait for people to come in to register, because if people are not understanding the wording, and it's pretty complex, many will not come out to register if they think they can avoid it. So, I'm just saying, there's a little bit of a cause for concern to me, that we don't have a better way to identify which lots are truly non -conforming, at least in the agricultural zoning. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Ms. Ruggles. Are you going to respond? Alright, I thought you yielded. Go ahead, Ms. Eof£ MS. EOFF: I just wanted her to be able to clarify that. I believe that there's some information that could, in general, give us subdivisions that were created prior to 1976. I don't have a list right now, but I think the department does. After that, Page 15 PC -23 May 8, 2018 there may be some individual cases that could be helped to determine whether they live on a lot that was created prior to 1976 or not. I don't know how many people this would really affect, just given that the majority of the ag lots were created prior to 1976. How many of those were actually in use as a short-term vacation rental? It's probably not that many that we'd need to check their specific, either their deed or check with the Planning Department. But I think in general, we should, and I think we can, identify the larger subdivisions that were created, just so that all of those people will be clear on where they stand, and I would like to see that at some point, soon. But, I think that would help because that would give the majority of the people, who are wondering, a sense of where they're at, if they would be able to apply for a non -conforming use certificate or not. MS. O'HARA: I agree with you, Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: I would like to see that. MS. O'HARA: I was told the information isn't yet available. MS. EOFF: One other thing I wanted to address before I yield right now is that it is hard to come up with a bill that's not only fair but legal. I think it was Ms. O'Hara who questioned why this is only dealing with those unhosted category. I know you may want to see a more comprehensive approach, but at this point in time, I think we need to get this one under control. As we heard from testifiers, the unhosted rentals are the ones that are of concern right now. We will need to come back after we pass this amendment to the Zoning Code, to identify short-term vacation rental. with this definition, I believe we will have to come back and look at bed and breakfasts and housesharing, or unhosted rentals, or whatever we choose to call it. But I think at this point in time, this is difficult enough and complex. But, I think if we can get this or something soon adopted, that addresses the short-term vacation rental, which is more of the homes that are being utilized with no owner on site, I think we will have done a great service all the way around, just to clarify that use and regulate it. But, we will need to come back and look at the other hosted ones as well. I don't disagree with that, I just think at this point in time, it's better that we address this first. I think that's where this bill originated from, that perception that this is creating a problem, there's houses being taken off the market pretty fast right now and that could be used for long-term rental, and we just need identify this and define it. Okay, I'll yield now. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Now, Ms. Ruggles, go ahead. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you, Chair. I first just want to start off with saying that as I have seen the bill progress and morph, that I can understand that a lot has Page 16 PC -23 May 8, 2018 been considered here. This is a really big project that we've taken on and I just want to say that I really appreciate it, I appreciate the work that you've done, Mr. Kanuha and Ms. Eoff and the Planning Department and the Mayor's Office. As far as the hosted and unhosted goes—well, first, the amendments, I think we're moving in the right direction. I just want to disclose that I actually did have amendments that I wanted to prepare but since the lava hit Puna, I didn't have the time to prepare them. So, I appreciate that Ms. Eoff is open to postponing so that we can continue this discussion. I like the fact that this bill doesn't touch hosted for now because I feel the hosted rentals are the ones that are needed the most. These are the ones that are hosting vacation rentals out of their homes or out of an `ohana in the same parcel, and I do believe that this should be a different class, so I applaud that consideration. The next thing that I wanted to address from the previous draft was the noise complaints, because I didn't feel that the previous draft addressed that. So, I like where this went with that and that this bill also brings more accountability to everyone having to pay their fair share of taxes. So, it evens the playing field and it creates funding for enforcement. I think those are all good things. The things that concern me and things that I have to consider as a representative of my district, is that the $500 non -conforming use certificate fee that everyone will have to pay in my district because there's maybe ten parcels in my district that fit in the commercial village, excuse me there's about 60 very tiny ones in Pahoa and maybe 10 in Mountain View. Other than that, none of it—they would all have to have non -conforming use certificate. Considering that in Puna, we don't have a lot of economic opportunity, a lot of people rely on their short-term vacation rentals. It's actually a really good source of economic activity from the contractors, to electricians, landscapers, handyman and it goes on and on. So, it's easy for the people outside of Puna to have other economic activity, but it's a bit more sensitive in Puna. One of the things that I'm considering as well is that by phasing out or discouraging vacation rentals, we are encouraging more of the hotels accommodation -type industry. And one of the things the testifiers mentioned is that hotels tend to encourage people to spend their money in-house, and to spend their money in the shops in the hotel and the restaurants in the hotel, and a lot of the hotel owners are actually off island, so, a lot of that money gets funneled off island. With vacation rentals, the vacation rental owners encourage them to support local businesses within the area, so that's all going to be money that my district will potentially lose out on. I'm just saying that as something that I need to consider. About the $500 certificate fee, I personally think that is really excessive. It's very high and I don't understand why vacation rentals in the other areas that have to register shouldn't pay a fee as well to help with the enforcement. It doesn't seem Page 17 PC -23 May 8, 2018 fair that my district would have to pay for the enforcement of a program that's regulating around the entire island. So, that's one of the things that I was considering when I was thinking of my amendments, is having a smaller fee that applies to everyone for the enforcement. Those are my first thoughts that I'm going to put out and I'll yield. I welcome everyone's comments, including the Planning Department's. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Council Members or department, would anyone want to respond? Ms. Eoff, while we're waiting, go ahead. MS. EOFF: Well, one thing, the non -conforming use certificate is renewable every year because we have to make sure that the use is continuous, but someone who's registering that has a vacation rental in another district where it is legal, there's only a one-time registration. So, that wouldn't be a yearly thing. But I agree that—and I hope that we can look at either a sliding scale or different amounts, depending on the income that vacation rental generates, that maybe something mo re fair. That, I've questioned too. I didn't know how we got that figure except for that it's consistent with other fees that we charge. I know other places like Kauai, they charge $750 for their renewal fee. So, it's lower than that, but it's still maybe high for some people, so, I think we can continue to question that. The other thing I wanted to mention was in areas, like you mentioned, in volcano, where there may be a need for more short-term vacation rentals in the future because right now, if this were to pass, we would actually be capping what we have. They would all be eligible to apply for a non -conforming use but it wouldn't allow for expansion in certain areas like volcano or wherever you're mentioning. The Director and other people have mentioned that after we get this settled, and we kind of see where we're at, take an inventory and see where the need is There's things that can be imposed in the future, like over laid zoning districts where maybe short-term vacation rentals would be desirable, based on the agreeability of a community. There's things that can happen after we get a handle on this that would allow more to occur where it's acceptable. I'd just like to say that. I don't know exactly the process for that, but you can ask the Planning Director more about that. It doesn't mean—nothing is really like forever and ever set. It's like we're trying to get a grip on what's going on now, create an enforcement and a regulation and a program, and then, in a year or two years, if there's a need, I'm sure that can be addressed. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Are you done? Do you yield? Okay. Council Members or the department, Director, would you care to comment, or Mr. Arai, Page 18 PC -23 May 8, 2018 comment on that issue that Ms. Eoff is speaking to? Or just describe to what she's referring to as far as in the future. MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai. I'm sorry, we were having some slight, offline discussions. Council Member Eoff, the particular concern, if she could rephrase or repeat it for us. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. Ms. Eoff, could you repeat for the department what you were saying regarding future possibilities? MS. EOFF: Ms. Ruggles was just stating that in, for instance volcano, there are no resort zones and the use of a short-term vacation rental may be a desirable accommodation. We don't know how many there are now where this bill would essentially not allow anymore, it would only allow for the non -conforming use certificate process for those currently existing. But, I was just stating that I asked the Director about this and that in the future, after we adopt a program like this, is there a way in the future to look at special zoning districts or some such thing to allow for the use in areas where it may be desirable? MR. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. Yes, we've had those—around after we get this one ordinance in to be able to look at special areas that don't fit in the current zoning that would make sense to allow more vacation rentals. I think it was the balance over what we could bite off on this first time. RegardingI want to go back to Councilwoman Ruggles' question about the $500 fee. As I said, I think Kauai stands at like $750, but that's Kauai. I have no idea right now in terms of Puna or other areas, what the income that's coming in to folks. Not to say it's not available, but I haven't seen it. In terms of what would be fair, I mean part of this—we're dealing with a situation on a lot of ag land. Let's say that vacation rentals are, for the most part, post 1976, are operating illegally. So, part of it is trying to understand what's the income they're making and what would be fair? We're working in a vacuum just guessing at $500, but I don't know how vacation rentals, how their income is standing up to other islands or other parts of this island to be able to determine what would be fair and equitable. Again, the more data I get from operators would be wonderful. That would inform us what would be fair, but I don't know if people are making $2,000 a year or they're making $20,000 a year or more. I'm guessing at this point. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Director. Council Members? Thank you, Ms. Ruggles, go ahead. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you, I appreciate your comment, Mr. Yee. I think my point was moreI mean, I don't know why all of a sudden, the County is considering people's income levels when we don't do that for anyone else. My Page 19 PC -23 May 8, 2018 point was more about the fact that everyone outside of those resort areas now must pay for the non-conforming—must pay for enforcement of the entire program, and that for other commercial operations, people must get permits. Hotel and resorts, they must pay a permit fee. Why now, are vacation rentals that are within the allowed zonings, exempt from paying a permit fee? So, I'm saying, it could be more fair if everybody doing the same business, regardless the zoning, had to pay a similar fee and maybe we could reduce it a little bit so it's not so excessive. I understand Maui's is really high, but there is a lot more wealth in Maui. Puna is the poorest district in the State, and to say that because Maui has a high fee, doesn't justify us having a high fee now. That's kind of a logical fallacy. I also just want to askI was just curious, I wonder if, Mr. Kamelamela, if you could come up, I have a question. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KAMELAMELA: Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just wanted to ask, the reachable person clause here, says that— MR. KAMELAMELA: I can't hear. Okay. MS. RUGGLES: Would it be legal for us to require that an owner of a vacation rental have to be on island? Have to be a resident of the County? I'm talking about the owner. MR. KAMELAMELA: That's a good question right now, but I think the issue— MS. SELF: This is Amy Self. ACTING CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. KAMELAMELA: Okay, so ACTING CHR. DAVID: I think Ms. Self MR. KAMELAMELA: Amy? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Yes. MR. KAMELAMELA: Okay, I'll MS. SELF: Sorry, if I could, that's already a requirement under HRS 521-43(f), which requires an owner or landlord, who resides outside the state or on another Page 20 PC -23 May 8, 2018 island from where the rental unit is located, that person must designate an agent residing on the same island where the unit is located to act in the owner's or land lord's behalf. So, that's already required by State law. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you, Ms. Self My question was if the owner had to be a resident, not the contact person. MS. SELF: The owner doesn't have to be a resident but the owner has to have someone, a contact person, on the island where the unit is located. MS. RUGGLES: I understand that. MS. SELF: So that there's somebody to be responsible for it. MS. RUGGLES: I understand that. My question is, is it legal to require the owner of the vacation rental to be a resident of our County? MS. SELF: No, there's no requirement that an owner— MS. RUGGLES: I'm not talking about this bill specifically, I'm just talking about in general, would it be legal? MS. SELF: I'm sorry, can you repeat it again? MS. RUGGLES: Is it legal to require an owner of a vacation rental to be a resident of the County of Hawai'i? Would that be legal? MS. SELF: No, because there's a constitutional right—not to get too involved, but, a constitutional right to move around the country. You can, just like anybody from Hawai'i could own property in another state. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, but I think the question too is, now that I do understand what you're saying, is that in order to regulate, you can set forth reasonable regulations dealing with how you would manage. That's why like there is a State law, for example, that Amy had talked about that requires agents to be located here. There are reasons for that, so that it's easier to get a contact person. It's a little bit harder if the agent is not here to have contact. So, yes, it's not legal to what you're looking at, but we're looking at this law to set something that sets forth reasonable regulations and that's something that the Council can decide on, okay? So, I didn't fully understand it initially, but hopefully, that answers your question. MS. RUGGLES: Yes, it does. Thank you. MR. KAMELAMELA: Okay. Page 21 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MS. RUGGLES: I'll yield at this time, thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kamelamela, and thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Council Members, any other comments? Ms. O'Hara, go ahead. MS. O'HARA: I'm sorry, there are so many things that I would like to address here. We're allowing RS, that's residential single-family dwelling zoning, to grandfather in preexisting, short-term vacation rentals that's not currently allowed in that zone, with nothing more than a non -conforming use permit. Is that correct? MS. SELF: This is Amy Self You have to look at the use. The use is a single- family dwelling, and as long as what they're doing, it doesn't just like you can rent something long-term, it doesn't even have to be short-term, as long as it's being rented out as a single-family dwelling, meeting the definition of a single- family dwelling, it's already legal. The non -conforming is like after you—if you pass this bill, that same use will be considered a legal non -conforming use because it doesn't conform to the new code or the amendment that you're possibly going to make to the Code. In other words, it's legal now because there's nothing in the Code that precludes somebody from renting out a single-family dwelling. But if this bill passes, it's limiting short -vacation rentals to certain zoning districts. So then, the ones you're talking about right now, in RS, because they're legal now, once this gets passed, then they will be considered non -conforming because they won't be conforming with the Code, once you pass this. MS. O'HARA: Okay, so the opinion is that operations in RS that have not applied for a use permit but are doing short-term vacation rentals, which we've never defined in the Code before, are legal. I'm having a hard time with this legal argument that doesn't really make a lot of sense, and I think if I had enough time and my brain was not quite as bogged out as it is, I might be able to poke some holes in that argument, but I don't really feel that is valid. I'm just going to say, real life example, we've got RS in Vacation Land and Kapoho Beach Lots, and behind the gate, the whole community has shifted to almost 85 percent owned by mainland entities who are renting the units out as short-term vacation rentals. The community that remains down there feels they've lost their rights. They bought into a residential single-family dwelling area and now it's nothing but short-term vacation rentals. And all we're going to ask of those people that we're going to allow to be grandfathered in, who are primarily from the mainland, is a non -conforming use permit and we don't have to go through any other public process for that? That's not a public process. I understand, Ms. Self, that establishing the rules for non -conforming use certificate requires a public process, but in and of itself, establishing that certificate does not require a public process. So, I'm a little troubled by this. It Page 22 PC -23 May 8, 2018 invites all kinds of behaviors that—what I'm seeing in this bill is the ability to create a lot of loopholes between the grandfathering clause and the hosted versus non -hosted. I mean what's to prevent somebody who's currently a non -hosted from establishing their short -term vacation rental as their residence and just shifting that over? That's going to happen in order to avoid registration. I'm just seeing possibilities here that I'm concerned about. I don't understand why that would—we're considering it. If we're considering it legal now and we don't have a definition of a short-term vacation rental in the Code, I'm not really clear as to why they're not going to have to do a use permit. All agricultural lands, prior to 1976, are going to have to do a special use permit and take it before the Commission. Am I wrong here? Go ahead. MS. EOFF: Those prior to 1976? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Eoff, wait for the record. Ms. O'Hara, would you like Ms. Eoff to answer your question? MS. O'HARA: I was actually asking Ms. Self to answer the question. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. MS. SELF: This is Amy Self. If we're going to discuss my legal opinion, I would request that we go into executive session because this should not be discussed. Otherwise, you'll be waiving your attorney-client privilege. So, it's really something that should be discussed in executive session. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. O'Hara, what's your MS. O'HARA: Okay, not the legal opinion but am I correct to interpret this bill as telling me that if an agricultural property was not established as agricultural before 1976, and there is an operating short-term vacation rental on said agricultural lands, are they not, under this bill, required to get a special -use permit? Is that aI mean that's kind of a yes or no question. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Self. MS. SELF: That's under State law. So, if they're on an ag lot that was created if they're constructing or a house exists on a lot that was created after the 1976 date, they have the right to apply for a special permit through the Planning Commission. And that's under HRS 205-6, I believe. So, that's all governed by State law, not the County Code. Page 23 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MS. O'HARA: Okay, so we haven't any similar type of State law with regard to residential single-family dwelling that would require them to get a use permit versus just getting a non -conforming use certificate. Am I correct in that? MS. SELF: There is no State law—the County controls the RS zoning district. There is no State district boundary for residential. The State law gives that authority to the County. MS. O'HARA: Then, can I put it this way? Are we potentially opening the County up to legal challenges from neighborhoods that are zoned RS that have a preponderance of short-term rentals? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Excuse me. Ms. O'Hara, I believe that Ms. Self said that if you're questioning a legal—our position legally, we need to go to executive session. Point of Order: MR. KANUHA: Point of order, Madam Chair. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: I think the attorney-client privilege only pertains to the agricultural, that she was talking about. Does it pertain to everything? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Self? MS. SELF: No, it doesn't. MR. KANUHA: The RS is not—okay, never mind. MS. SELF: No, the—if we're going to discuss it, we really need to go into executive session. MS. O'HARA: Okay. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Self. Council Members, what is your pleasure? Are we going into executive session if you need to discuss this any further? Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: I would like to get the answers to these questions before, so, if we have to go into executive session, I would be willing to move to do so. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Alright. MS. O'HARA: And I know I need the rule, which rule was it? Page 24 PC -23 May 8, 2018 ACTING CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, we need to make a motion to go into? Hang on a second. You know what? Let me take a short recess. Recess: At 2:35 p.m., the Acting Chair called for a recess. Reconvened: The meeting reconvened at 2:37 p.m. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Council Members, we're out of recess right now. Ms. O'Hara, go ahead. Motion to Enter into Ms. O'Hara moved to enter into Executive Session in order Executive Session: to hold attorney-client privilege discussion regarding Bill 108, as authorized by Section 92-5(a)(4) of the Hawaii Revised Statute. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Clerk, do we vote? MR. HENRICKS: This is open to debate. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Alright, discussion as to whether we go into execution session or not. Council Members, any discussion? No, alright hearing MS. LEE LOY: I just have a question. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. I'm sorry. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I guess my question is who are we keeping in the room? As far as the Director, Amy, Deputy Director. I also have Roy Takemoto here. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Corporation Counsel wants to be in the room also. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, and Mr. Kamelamela. ACTING CHR. DAVID: And I think everyone else MR. HENRICKS: Any qualified County personnel would be appropriate. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Does that answer your question, Ms. Lee Loy? Are you okay with that? MS. LEE LOY: That's fine. I think we're just trying to figure out if Roy ACTING CHR. DAVID: I think Mr. Takemoto— Page 25 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MS. LEE LOY: Mr. Takemoto? You guys want him to stay? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Whoever from the County that was copied can stay in. Hey Scott, could you ask Ms. Pisicchio if she would like to stay, if she can. Council Members, all those in favor of executive session, please say "aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to enter into Executive Session was carried by Enter into Executive the following voice vote: Session: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards. Ruggles, and Acting Chair David – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung – 1. Excused: None. Recess: At 2:39 p.m., the Acting Chair called for a recess to clear the room. Reconvene: Executive Session convened at 3:28 p.m. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Council Members. We are back. I'm calling this meeting out of recess and executive session. Council Member Eoff. MS. EOFF: So, I know it's getting to where we're a little bit overwhelmed and tired, but I just want to make a proposal and then we could discuss it. I know I want to postpone—well, let me start over. I would like to amend this amendment because we meant to take out the deal about within 30 driving miles. I would like to make just that floor amendment today, and then amend this amendment with that change, and then I'd like to adopt the amendment so that we can look at a draft two of Bill 108. I know that Council Members will have amendments that they would like to offer after that, but I think it might be easier to work on an amended draft that's better than this first bill, and that way, you can propose amendments to the draft two. We can create it really fast and then I can circulate it so that people have something to work off of if they'd like to further amend. But for today, if it would be okay just to take out thatI'd like to amend—okay, here's my proposal. I'd like to amend Communication 739.78 by striking under the definition of reachable, I'd like to put a period after "County agency" and strike "and having an office or residence within thirty driving miles." Page 26 PC -23 Vote on Motion: to Further Amend: (Approved) May 8, 2018 Ms. Eoff moved to amend Comm. 739.78 by striking out the definition of "reachable," putting a period after "County agency" and striking "and having an office or residence within thirty driving miles." Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair David – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung – 1. Excused: None. MS. EOFF: Thank you. Now, I don't know, but it's up to the Council Members if you would like to discuss this amended amendment further or if you're more inclined to amend the bill at this time, and then postpone any further discussion until next committee meeting. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Alright, Mr. Richards and then Ms. O'Hara. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Again, Councilwoman Eoff, I agree with your amendments but I think people really want to work on this. So Chair, I want to ask, are we going to have a little bit of latitude with the draft two coming forward? I don't want to get stuck in procedural problems where we go amendment by amendment by amendment. In the past, we've, I don't know if it's suspending a rule but able to kind of put all of the amendments out to discuss them so that we can get a timely moving forward. I think that would probably be the most expediest way to get things done. Once we get the draft two back we can all play with it, come up with our own drafts, and submit to the group as a whole, and then when we bring it forward, talk story. Clerk, is that reasonable? MR. HENRICKS: I'm not sure what you are asking, I'm sorry. I apologize. ACTING CHR. DAVID: I think what you're asking, I think, is what Ms. Eoff is suggesting, that we move this forward to a draft two and then we would have a clean—we'd move to amend the bill with— MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, but coming forward, if we all have amendments that can be quite cumbersome to go amendment by amendment, if we could put them all on the table coming forward and talk story before we make any formal amendments. MR. HENRICKS: I think I understand. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Now you understand. Page 27 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MR. HENRICKS: I think what Council Member Richards is asking is for no one to propose any amendments until there's further discussion and hoping then, that as a group, you can form some consensus on what might be at least worth consideration and debate. So, I think he's agreeing to consider these amendments today, but then hold off on any further amendments by any individuals until there's more discussions as a group. Correct? MR. RICHARDS: Correct. ACTING CHR. DAVID: That makes total sense because I think it'll be a cleaner way. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. That's why we have the Clerk. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Are you done, Mr. Richards? MR. RICHARDS: I'm pau. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Two things, one, in the first amendment made here, sentence amendment, you've stricken private covenants. Is there an explanation for that or do I need to ask Ms. Self? Or can you provide why that has been stricken? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Self, are you there? Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Self Ms. O'Hara had a question. I'm not sure, did you hear her question? We can't hear you, folks. There you go. Thank you. MR. ARAI: This is Daryn. My recollection is that portion was stricken out because as I mentioned earlier, we don't get involved in private covenants, so why even express it in the Code? That was my recollection of why it was struck out. MS. O'HARA: Okay, at least I know why. I still think it's problematic. You're putting the onus on small subdivisions to go to court to deal with this problem, and that's very onerous for homeowner associations. I think we should recognize that a CC&R (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) has restrictions on that and allow those restrictions to stand. That's my personal opinion. I have to live in the subdivision that has those restrictions. And the second thing is if we—go ahead. Go ahead, Ms. Self, I'm sorry. MS. SELF: The County cannot get involved in the CC&R's of private associations and that's because we're not a party to those. It's a contract between the people who buy a home or buy a lot within a subdivision and that association. Page 28 PC -23 May 8, 2018 So, the County has no authority or we have no authority to interfere in a private contract is what it boils down to. MS. O'HARA: Okay, but as I read this, it's not a matter of interference, it's a matter of recognizing, and this has always been an issue I have had since I started in Planning in 2000. Other jurisdictions actually, Ms. Self, do recognize, that doesn't mean they enforce. That doesn't mean they are party to the private subdivision or the private homeowner CC&R's, but they do recognize them. Our County has been consistently taken the stance that they won't even recognize private CC&R's. And this, I think isI know it's caused all kinds of problems in my community and others where our CC&R's have a bit more strict interpretation of say, building heights and things like that, and homeowners aren't. While we try to make them aware, they sometimes aren't, and then they come in and it causes a lot of conflict and puts an onus on the homeowner's association to do the enforcement piece, which is very financially difficult for most homeowner associations. It's just my opinion, and I do know that there are other jurisdictions that do recognize CC&R's. So, I see this clause more as a recognition clause and I'm not sure why it's removed. So, that's just a question I had. My second point though was, given the work that the Council must do in the next couple weeks or next month establishing the budget for next year, is it unreasonable to ask that this be deferred for a couple meetings because I know with what's happening in my district, I'm consumed, and the budget is about all I can really deal with right now. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Council Members, any comments or discussions? Mr. Kanuha, go ahead. MR. KANUHA: Thank you and I appreciate everybody's comments. I really think that we should amend with this or go to the second draft with these amendments and for myself, I think we should postpone it to the next Council meeting where we can get input from the public on the second draft, and how to make it better. But again, like the private covenants thing, we took that out because we didn't want it as a point of contention in the bill. It was kind of a stated fact that we don't get involved in the private covenants of CC&R's, so why mention it and why mention it any ways. But, I think we should at least amend it to this draft because I think it's a better working document that everybody can better understand. So, I yield. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Anyone else regarding? Page 29 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MS. LEE LOY: Chair? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you very much. I agree with both Council Member Eoff and Council Member Kanuha. I do like the idea of this now becoming a nice clean document in which Council Members can then further amend. I think I shared some of my concerns with the Planning Department and Amy Self on what I think would improve this bill, and to some degree, got encouraged about how to enhance this bill a little bit more. And so, I will be doing that and working with the department on those suggestive edits. But, I'm a firm believer that I don't want to lose the momentum that we have going, and I would support a postponement to the next committee meeting, but not beyond that. I just wanted to share that with my other colleagues. I do recognize we have a very full schedule coming up, but I know that's why we have to work hard and that's what we got elected to do, is work hard. So, thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Eoff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: Thank you. I understand what Ms. Lee Loy said about the momentum. I don't really have a problem with postponing it longer for two weeks, but, I wanted to throw it out there that I think our next regularly scheduled Committee and Council meetings are both on the same day, if I'm not mistaken. Mr. Clerk, the next series of the Committee and Council meetings ACTING CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry, can I just make a note? MR. HENRICKS: I was unavailable because I was asking the Chair to make sure we deal with the amendment first and then maybe discussions upon what we do next. MS. EOFF: Okay. MR. HENRICKS: Because the amendment's on the floor. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. So, if there's no more discussion on the proposed amendment to the communication to amend Bill 108, can we vote on—all those in favor of the floor amendment MS. EOFF: We did that. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Please say "aye." I'm sorry, go ahead. Page 30 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MR. HENRICKS: I just want to be clear with the motion. The motion on the floor right now is to approve the amendments and communication 739.78 as amended with Ms. Eoff's verbal amendment. Okay, that's where we're at right now on the floor. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on The motion to amend Bill 108 with the contents of Amendment: Comm.739.78, as amended, was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair David — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung — 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Alright, now, we are back to the main motion as amended with the contents of Communication 739.78, as amended. Thank you. Discussion? Council Member Eof£ MS. EOFF: I would like to make a motion to postpone Bill 108, but I'm ACTING CHR. DAVID: You can continue your discussion on your preferences of whether we MS. EOFF: So, the choices I see is that we could ACTING CHR. DAVID: No, she didn't make it yet. MS. EOFF: I wanted to clarify the next Council and Committee day are on the same day. Is that right? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Yes. MR. HENRICKS: Yes, that is true because we have to deal with the budgets on the 22nd and we have potential travel issues on the 23rd, 24th, and 25th. So, yes, Committees and Council are scheduled for the same day, which is Monday, May 21st ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Eof£ Page 31 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MS. EOFF: I'm feeling like that day might be kind of crammed in. So, if we create the draft two right away so Council Members can work off it, I'm inclined to just postpone until the next meeting after that, but I mean I'm up for a discussion. If you guys think we can do everything on the 21st, at leastI mean there's another chance we could at least address the bill again and get some momentum, but I feel like the next meeting on it may be a lengthy one because Council Members are going to want to be really fine tuning the draft two now. Yes, and we'll be taking testimony. So, I'm thinking thatI don't know what the date is for the following meeting. ACTING CHR. DAVID: It's June six - MR. HENRICKS: June fourth, I'm sorry, which is also ACTING CHR. DAVID: For committees? I thought we were going to vote—oh, we're postponing? I'm sorry, the fourth. MR. HENRICKS: Right. We would still be in Planning Committee, which would be Monday, June fourth. ACTING CHR. DAVID: June fourth, thank you. MS. EOFF: The meeting is on a Monday again? So, both meetings in June are on Mondays? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Yes ma'am. Motion to Postpone Ms. Eoff moved to postpone Bill 108, as amended to Draft 2, to June 4, 2018. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? MS. LEE LOY: Chair? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yes, just for clarification, I'm assuming that this will—because it's a postponement, it will be set for another agenda in which we will be taking more public comment on a draft two. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Yes ma'am. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks for that clarification. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Alright, thank you. Mr. Kanuha. Page 32 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MR. KANUHA: I mean I understand, but we keep on moving this bill farther and farther down the line and again, momentum is everything. The public's involved. I don't like to move it that far down the line. I know we have an issue with Committee and Council that day, but, and? So, that's just what I say. I don't like it moving that far down. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Alright, thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Ms. Poindexter, go ahead. MS. POINDEXTER: It's not about Committee and Council for me, it's about community because I think it gives me time to speak with the community on draft two and time to pick it apart and the community needs that time. I don't like rushing it because we want to rush it. I want to make sure that the community can come well-informed and when they come to give testimony, that they have all the information and clarification as much as possible before coming. And for me too. So, I am supporting moving it to that date and it's not about Committee and Council, it's about community. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter, anyone else? Ms. O'Hara, go ahead. MS. O'HARA: I want to second that sentiment. I would like to be able to have a meeting in my community about this with the interested parties. I mean to do this in just two weeks does not give me time to do that and prepare proposed amendments. So, I agree that this is really about the community. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: I'm not going against what you guys are saying, I'm not going against the community either. We've had a lot of time, too, between when the bill was introduced until now. There's ample time to meet with community. So, having it in two weeks isn't going against community either. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Just in response, with all due respect, there's been some major changes since we've had conversations with the public and I had people coming in and I was discussing the other set of proposed amendments because that's what I had in my hand. This is much more extensive and I have not had those discussions with the community at all, and I do have about a thousand short-term vacation rentals in my district. So, I'm sorry, I really want to engage the community, and for me right now, that's going to be a little challenging. I would just hope that we have enough time to do that. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Anyone else? Mr. Richards, go ahead. Page 33 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MR. RICHARDS: I definitely understand what Councilman Kanuha is saying here because we have a constituency island wide that wants addressing this, and so, to his point, he's trying to make sure we keep the ball rolling. There's very good arguments on both sides of this. Councilman Kanuha is well spoken on that. He does support the community, I'm sure of that. He just wants to be sure that this doesn't back slip a little bit, so, I definitely hear what the Councilman is saying. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Eoff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: Yes, because I can see both sides of this, too, and I can see that if we were to postpone it just to the very next Council meeting, some of us might be able to work on it and bring forward some amendments. And it's possible that we could schedule it and take care of those and then still postpone it or recess that meeting to complete the discussion two weeks after that. So, I'm really torn. I don't know whether to keep it going or whether waiting a month has any negative effects on what we're trying to do here. I can see addressing some of it at the next meeting and then keep it alive in a recessed meeting until a following meeting to enable us to keep going. Either way, I guess we should still listen to our colleagues here. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff MS. LEE LOY: Chair? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I do want to keep this moving forward. I think there will be opportunities for us to take this out to community. I think we're going to hear feedback at our May 21st meeting, and I suspect we might even have to take a third stab at it, but that doesn't even preclude us from scheduling a special Planning Committee meeting also. So, I think we have a number of opportunities rather than just sticking to the various schedules that we have, take an opportunity to offer more suggestive edits, review it on the 21st, and then make a business decision, if need be, another Planning Committee meeting in June or a special date in which we could just address this solely. That's my suggestion. I'm going to be supporting Mr. Kanuha's position to keep this moving forward. Thank you ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Eoff Withdraw Motion Ms. Eoff withdrew her motion to postpone. to Postpone: Motion to Postpone Ms. Eoff moved to postpone Bill 108, as amended to Draft 2, to May 21, 2018. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. Page 34 PC -23 Withdraw Motion to Postpone: May 8, 2018 ACTING CHR. DAVID: Any discussion, Council Members? Ms. Eoff MS. EOFF: I'd just like to say that this draft two can be available as early as tomorrow. I just saw Wendy already did that. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay, I think we need to all speak. I'm getting confused as to who's saying what at what point in time. So, Ms. Eoff, go ahead. I'll come to you afterwards. If you're done, Ms. Eoff, I'm going to Ms. Ruggles. Ms. Eoff, are you done? Okay, Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I actually was hoping to speak before Ms. Eoff changed the motion, but I'm actually feelingI mean I'm in agreement with Ms. O'Hara on this, that more time is better especially with what's going on in our district in Puna. Yes, so I just wanted to state that. That more time would be better and there are substantial changes and it would be better if we did have time to go back to our communities. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Anyone else before I comment? No? Okay. Now the motion on the floor is to the 21st and personally, I understand what's being said about keeping this momentum going, but in my mind, this is such a complex issue and I think what I'm hearing from both Ms. Ruggles and Ms. O'Hara, that there is a lot of people in their respective communities that will be impacted, specifically by this measure. I think I'd like to afford them the opportunity to discuss this draft two with their constituents, and then afford the public to come in or have an opportunity to review draft two, given that there's, other things going on if Puna at this point in time. So, I don't feel like we're going to rush this through. It's not appearing to rush this through, I think we need to afford it ample time to address this complex issue because especially if we're going to be discussing further amendments to this. So, my position is, right now, I will not be supporting the postponement to the May 21 because of the MS. EOFF: Madam Chair? ACTING CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry. MS. EOFF: I can see that most of us don't want to postpone it now, so, is it possible to withdraw that motion again? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Yes, you may. And you can make another one. Ms. Eoff withdrew her motion to postpone. Page 35 PC -23 May 8, 2018 Motion to Postpone Ms. Eoff moved to postpone Bill 108, as amended to Draft 2, to June 4, 2018. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Any discussion on the June 4th postponement? MS. LEE LOY: Chair? ACTING CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, if it is the will of this body to postpone, I'll go ahead and support that, but I just want to put back on the table an option for a special meeting of just the Planning Committee, that maybe we can find a date in between those two. But again, I will support the will of this body. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Ms. Ruggles, and Mr. Kanuha, I'll go to you after. MS. RUGGLES: I want to say thank you, that's all. I agree with Ms. Lee Loy as well, I think that's a good option too. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you and I agree too. I was just stating my position, so all good. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Anyone else before we take the vote on the motion to postpone to June 4th? Seeing none, all those in favor to postpone Bill 108, as amended, with the contents of Communication 739.78 and further amended by floor amendment, please say "aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to postpone Bill 108, as amended to Postpone: Draft 2, to June 4, 2018 was carried by the following voice (Approved) vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair David – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung – 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, this matter has been postponed to June 4th, so now we have—don't run away people, we have one more. There is communication, if you look on your agenda, there is communication from our last Page 36 PC -23 May 8, 2018 agenda on the 24th. Communication 892, which we also—when we recessed, we also recessed this. So, I would like our Clerk to read in Communication 892. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 892: REQUESTS DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FORMATION OF A SHORT- TERM VACATION RENTALS AD HOC COMMITTEE From Council Member Eileen O'Hara, dated February 15, 2018. The purpose of the ad hoc would be to conduct research and discuss zoning district impacts, permitting, taxation, on -sight management and enforcement; and to gather further input from the public. Motion to Close File: Ms. O'Hara moved to close file on Comm. 892. Seconded by Ms. Ruggles. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. O'Hara, go ahead. MS. O'HARA: I submitted this communication because I felt that we could get a lot done through the ad hoc process on this bill, but if people want to continue to do it in the manner that we're doing it, which is to continue to hold hearings as a Council and then hear from the public, and we will hear from the public again at the next hearing, and it's still in committee, that's another way to do the same process. So, it's really up to the will of the Council. I've gotten the impression that people are not willing to or not really inclined to support the ad hoc approach. So, that's why I did it initially. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Any other Council Members wishing to weigh in on this? Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just wanted to say I appreciate Ms. O'Hara's idea on this. I like the idea of us continuing as a whole body to discuss this as much time as it takes because this is a big measure and to good to keep the public included as well. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Ms. Eoff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: I agree. I think that this is a great process and it'll keep us all abreast of all of the issues and the learning curve is happening pretty fast, but I think until such time that there comes a particular need or a special issue that we need to investigate, I'd rather continue on in this process. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy? You're good? Page 37 PC -23 May 8, 2018 MS. LEE LOY: Yes, thank you. I do want to thank Ms. O'Hara for suggesting the ad hoc committee. I think it was very bold and innovative, but as I've been going through this process and listening to testimony from all sides of the island, I recognize that keeping it in this form in which I can hear the concerns of the other districts while formulating suggestive edits, has been extremely helpful to me. So, I would not support the ad hoc committee right now, maybe at a future date, if we have to hammer out some technical information. But for right now, I just want to keep it in the process that we're moving in right now. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Well, I'd also like to thank Ms. O'Hara for her comments regarding this formation of the ad hoc because I think it's pretty clear to all of us here that at this point in time, I would probably not support an ad hoc because there are too many issues that we would not be able to specifically identify a single issue for an ad hoc committee to address. So, I like where we're going and I thank Ms. O'Hara. So, we have a motion to file communication, all those in favor of filing Communication 892, please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 892: The motion to close file on Comm. 892 was carried by the Filed following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair David — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung — 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. DAVID: I believe that concludes our agenda, Mr. Clerk. Thank you very much. May I have a motion to adjourn, please? Page 38 PC -23 May 8, 2018 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 4:02 p.m., Mr. Richards moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. O'Hara and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair David — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung — 1. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: We are adjourned. Thank you everybody. Approved: Planning Committee KE/j m (Date) Page 39