Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2018/06/18 (2016-2018)Committee on Planning 27th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii June 18, 2018 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 2:45 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Vice Chair (via videoconference from Hilo) Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member (came in later) Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member (via videoconference from Hilo; came in later) STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Carol Fuller: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in support. Charla Thompson: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in support. Stephanie Donaho: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in support. (representing Kohala Coast Resort Association) Rick Cabados: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in opposition. Kevin Hopkins: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. Jon Olson: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in support. Pamela Small: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in opposition. Ranae Keane: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. PC -27 June 18, 2018 Mark Ericson: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in opposition. Louisa Lee: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. Pia Cummins: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. Debbie Sharp: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in opposition. (representing Aloha Kai Properties) Axel Kratel: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Have we taken all the people wishing to testify? Just let me know if any of the outer sites have anybody else. Okay, well then seeing none, I will close the Public Testimony portion of our meeting and we will move on. Mr. Clerk, can you read in Bill 108, Draft 3? COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications.. (There were none.) ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills ORDINANCES: for Ordinances. Bill 108: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE 4, AND Draft 3) ARTICLE 5, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS Defines where short-term vacation rentals would be allowed, establishes Regulations for their use, and provides a way for an owner or operator to obtain a nonconforming use certificate that would allow them to operate in a non - permitted district. Reference: Comm. 739.83 Intr. by: Ms. Eoff and Mr. Kanuha Postponed: May 8 and June 5, 2018 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Eoff, seconded by Mr. Kanuha, to recommend passage of Bill 108, as amended, on first reading.) Page 2 PC -27 June 18, 2018 CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. At this time, I'm going to be relinquishing the chair to Ms. David. Is that all right, Ms. David? MS. DAVID: Yes, that's fine with me if Vice Chair O'Hara concurs. MS. O'HARA: I do. Relinquish Chair: At this time, Chair Eoff relinquished the chair to Council Member David. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Let the record show that I am assuming the chair of the Planning Committee and opening it up for discussion. Ms. Eoff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: Thank you. I just wanted to comment on a few points that were brought up during testimony today and just a few thoughts that I've had as we're moving through this process, and then I would like to hear again from our Council. But one thing, I wanted to address the State law regarding the use of overnight stay on ag land zoned after the 1976 that we added into the bill, but that is not a County provision, that is State law. We have to abide by State law. It trumps any County zoning, so, that is why that is there. We'll probably be discussing that more later, but I just wanted to put that out there, that whether we put that there or not, it's already illegal. So, that's one thing. Another thing is that this has been a really interesting and so far, I'd say positive process that we're going through, but it's very difficult to balance these competing interests. I think that our bill from the beginning has taken a kind of moderate approach trying to be legal in most all aspects, and we've corrected some things and added some things along the way. But, it's still going to be difficult to please all the competing interests and we've heard from different points of view, but I still believe that we've taken an approach that has tried to take into consideration, not only the business side of it and people whose livelihoods are now dependent on their short-term vacation rentals, but also the peace and expectations of living in a residential neighborhood. That was the purpose of our tackling this and taking so much time to refine it. I'd like to still thank all of the Council Members who participated, whether it's been through a written amendment or just through suggestions. I think we've really discussed this bill thoroughly, and although I still think we have a little ways to go, at some point today, I believe that we should send this off to the Planning Commission later on, after we've reviewed the things on the table today. I think that it would behoove us to allow the Planning Commission, with their expertise and advisers, to go ahead and take a look at what we give to them and then we'll be hearing back from the Planning Commission with any further recommendations and suggestions, and changes. So, I would like to see us head in that direction today. Other than that, I'd like to yield and open it up to further discussion, Council Members. Thank you. Page 3 PC -27 June 18, 2018 ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff Mr. Kanuha? No? Okay, Council Members? Ms. O'Hara, go ahead. Motion to Amend: Ms. O'Hara moved to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 739.139. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Discussion? Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. Some of these points, we actually discussed in our previous meeting and it was left to revise per the discussions that we had at our last meeting. Just going over some of the changes, what's been added back in Section 2 is the private covenants piece that prohibit the use of any unit "shall not be invalidated by this chapter." In other words, private covenants that prohibit short-term vacation rentals are not affected by this ordinance. And while that may not be absolutely legally required in the bill, I think it helps to provide clarity for those who are reading the bill, both from the agency side as well as from the public. Another thing that came up is "affordable and workers' housing units, constructed with Federal, State, or County funds and developed for those purposes, are prohibited from use as short-term vacation rentals." This comes from comments that were submitted. We've received hundreds and hundreds of comments, but that comes from comments that were submitted. We had discussed registration of all short-term vacation rentals including those that are in allowed districts. Those allowed districts are the vacation commercial village and General Plan resort node zonings. And in one of the things that I heard in our previous discussion was that charging a once a year fee was not as desirable as charging a one-time fee. So, that was changed in section (b)(A) and they would "pay a one-time fee of $250 for accommodations with one bedroom or less, and $500 for accommodations with more than one bedroom ...... The other thing that was added, and this is for those in conforming districts, meaning where it is an allowed use, is verification of notification letters, or verification that notification letters had been sent to all owners and lessees of record. This is a somewhat of a standard process in many of our permitting processes, and it falls upon the applicant to submit those verification letters. That would help to assure that the property that is being permitted has always been a good neighbor, so to speak. That was reduced to 300 feet from what had previously been 500 feet because of discussions at the county last time. The good neighbor policy is the same as had been previously. Complaints and public information in—causes the director to receive and track complaints regarding short-term vacation rentals, provide information about rules, policies Page 4 PC -27 June 18, 2018 and procedures pertaining to short-term vacation rentals, and the Director shall adopt rules, in accordance with Chapter 91. These will be the administrative rules that will oversee the implementation of this measure, this bill, or ordinance Now, something that's new that we didn't discuss last time is this cause for the Director's duties in the event of an emergency, and this came out as a result of what we've been seeing as a result of the lava inundation in Puna. We have lost an estimated 350, maybe 400 short-term vacation rentals so far. Given that the estimate was close to 1,000 in my district previously, that constitutes 40 to 50 percent of the inventory that had been on the market previously. So, this phrase reads, "In the event of an emergency, natural or manmade, where multiple short- term vacation rentals are lost in any given district, the director will facilitate the replacement of such inventory in the district of origin, including accepting applications for new short-term vacation rentals, and proposing changes to County zoning districts, or both, to allow growth in the industry." I'm not wedded to that wording, but it was the best that we could come up with. I haven't had an immense amount of time to work on this bill, it's been busy the last few weeks, but that was the language that we came up with and that has passed muster with LRB (Legislative Research Branch). Planning might have something to say about that and I'm going to ask Daryn if he could come forward and we can have that discussion. (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Daryn Arai came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. O'HARA: I also changed the $500 flat fee to a graduated fee based on the amount of TAT (Transient Accommodations Tax) paid that since—letter (e) of my revisions. Then with enforcement, one of the things we were listening to there was input from OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs), who felt that the fines and penalties were not significant enough to deter inappropriate action. So, we have beefed that up a little bit in the enforcement section. All fines collected in connection with one time, with the short-term vacation rentals will go into the same fund as the one-time registration fees. That will be the money that the Planning Department shall hopefully use to enforce and provide sufficient personnel to track the short-term vacation rental industry. So, those are all of the amendments proposed in my communication and I would love to hear from my fellow Council Members as to their concerns. Mr. Arai is here to answer questions, as is Roy from the Mayor's Office. Roy Takemoto from the Mayor's Office is also here. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Before I go to the Council Members, Deputy Director Arai is at the table and Executive Assistant, Page 5 PC -27 June 18, 2018 Mr. Takemoto, would you like to come forward also, in case there's some questions from Council Members on this end? Thank you very much. Council Members, continued discussion or questions for our department. Does anyone in Hilo wish to speak? (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Roy Takemoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. LEE LOY: Chair? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Well, I was going to actually ask the Deputy Director and Mr. Takemoto what the feedback was on this amendment. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Deputy Director, would you care to respond? MR. ARAI: Good afternoon, Daryn Arai, Deputy Planning Director. As far as the amendments offered by Council Member O'Hara via communication 739.139, we did have, well, I personally had some questions, and, I was able to quickly convey it to the Council Member at the last minute. Sorry, my intention has been elsewhere lately. For example, I think as she was going over her proposed amendments, she wanted some feedback on the provision that would give the Director certain latitudes during a declared emergency event. There are a lot of points that were not clear. For example, what is an extended period of time? Multiple units lost? If we're going to make certain or take certain actions based on something expressed in the Code, it's nice to be able to lock it down because one may argue what does multiple mean? What does extended mean? When this Bill 108 was originally introduced, my perception of it was to simply sort of like sunset short-term vacation rentals in areas that were outside of places we deemed or Council deemed appropriate for such type of use, which is basically the resort designated areas, which is why you built in the non -conforming use certificate, which is basically, if you were there in areas that were not deemed appropriate for these types of transient accommodation use, then you may stay there until such time your certificate—you no longer renewed a certificate, for example. That would then sunset that particular use. So, the emergency event, while I totally understand that it would have a significant effect on inventory, so you want to replace that inventory, does that run counter to the original intent of the bill, which is basically to move these units into the more appropriate designated areas? So, a lot of it was more of these types of functional questions like maybe we need, for clarity, how to implement or what was intended? But, I didn't see anything that is—that I would consider Page 6 PC -27 June 18, 2018 substantially flawed to the point where it undermines the whole premise behind the proposed bill. I hope that is sufficient of a response. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Deputy Director Arai. Anyone else would wish to comment? Ms. Lee Loy, do you wish to comment or do you yield? MS. LEE LOY: Just a quick follow up with Mr. Takemoto, if he had any further comments. MR. TAKEMOTO: Just general principle comments. I think on fees, would be better to just keep it simple. If we're always trying to move things faster through the system, the more complicated it is, the more checks we have to do, the longer it takes. So, either reduce the fee if that's too high, but just keep it uniform, whether it's the one-time fee applied to all registrants or the non -conforming certificate fee. As for the disaster provisions, I'm not sure if it really is appropriate. I kind of agree with Daryn's comments. A lot of the disaster recovery actions would be addressed in a recovery plan specific to that disaster. In this case, vacation rental units are a consideration in what is being talked about right now as far as where appropriate areas could be. So, to isolate vacation rentals as something to be looked at during a disaster recovery, I don't know if it's needed. So, it'd be kind of out of place to see that here just for vacation rentals. The verification with the notice provisions, that's always an onerous thing. Again, time consuming, invites a lot of, I think, neighborly disputes among each other. I'm not sure if that's really needed here. So, those are my comments. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Takemoto. Anyone else? MS. LEE LOY: Chair, if I could finish. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Sure. MS. LEE LOY: So, thank you, Ms. O'Hara for listening to some of the concerns and even the comments that were provided in OHA. Like Mr. Arai and Mr. Takemoto, that area in which the Planning Director has in the event of an emergency, that seems to go contrary to the original intent of this bill, which was to really get these vacation rentals back into the types of zoning that supports it, with the basic infrastructure, the water, the sewer, and out of our neighborhoods that are being incredibly impacted by what's been described as small hotels, parcel after parcel. I really appreciated the "Affordable and workers' housing units, constructed with Federal, State, or County funds and developed for those purposes, are prohibited Page 7 PC -27 June 18, 2018 from use as short-term vacation rentals." I think that specific language nails exactly what affordable housing was developed for and not to be turned into a business. So, I really like that enhancement of the bill. The rest of the stuff, I'd like to hear from my colleagues what they think. And maybe if there's a way to divide the question as far as some of the amendments within this communication. But, I'm also ready to move this forward and provide a charge to the Planning Department and the Planning Commission of what we want to see. And if there are more refinements, they are the best body to evaluate this against the existing Code and their various rules, policies, and procedures, including a notification to surrounding property owners and addressing that through a contested case or some process that they already have. But, I am—it might not be perfect, but we're close and we're ready, and it's time for us to take the next step with the people who do this on a daily basis. So, I yield at this time. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I've been listening and we've had some great testimony. Listening to Ms. Fuller and Ms. Cummins, I take what they said very deeply because I hear what they're saying. A couple of things I wanted to touch on and I'll come back to that in a second. First of all, we've had a lot of things kicked around about the fee schedule, and I'm mindful and I think back on some of the constituents that have contacted me. I have a constituent in Waikoloa Village that she is able to afford her house here by having a vacation rental that she does part time so she can visit grandkids on the mainland and all that. And trying to find a balance in there, as Councilwoman Eoff has said, this is going to be tough to find something that works. A fee schedule for something like that, at $500 is pretty stout for her to deal with. So, I do like a graduated fee schedule. I've listened to Planning, I get what they're saying. Mr. Takemoto, I get what he's saying, but also, we have to think about the people that have this and what they're trying to accomplish. Agriculture, Ms. Cummins, I listened to you very carefully on that one and one of the problems with agriculture in our society today, not just Hawaii County, State, but our nation as a whole, is people are forgetting about agriculture and that agriculture actually takes care of society and feeds it. And with agriculture comes sounds, noises, and odor sometimes. If we are legislating the ability to have that away, we're going to make a mistake for our society. So, I listened very carefully about that. If people wants to come and visit agriculture, terrific, but you visit agriculture, and they don't make accommodations for you as far as trying to limit when it gets started in the morning. Agriculture starts early and it goes late. It's dirty and that's just the way it is. So, I've listened to you very carefully about that and I agree with what you're saying on that. Page 8 PC -27 June 18, 2018 Ms. Fuller, I also listened to you about the mini hotel. I think what we're talking about here as a vacation rental is, and we're going to have to get into the conversation on hosted versus non -hosted and all that, and we're going to have that conversation as well. But, I hear what you're saying about a mini hotel as opposed to someone who may have a neighbor. We've heard some other good operators that people don't even know it's a vacation rental or people look forward to having the vacation rental there because it's an interesting cavalcade of people coming through. What we're talking about and what you're talking about is something that's deeply impacting your life and the characteristics of the neighborhood. That's very concerning to me. We've heard the balancing of the economic side and I get it so people can make ends meet, but also, we can't make ends meet at the expense of everybody else in the community. So, we have to try and strike a balance in there. I've listened to the conversation about the sound and how much sound is allowable sound. I get we don't want a 24 hour a day, seven days a week Spring Break party going on next door, but then also, there are long time renters or homeowners that make a lot of noise anyway. So, I'm not sure how we're going to strike a balance in that, but I think we have to have a talk about that. Generally speaking, what we're talking about is a good neighbor policy and being respectful of each other's space. What I mean by that is noise as well as impact and influence. I do agree with Councilwoman Lee Loy that we are getting closer to something that may work, but I think we still have some problems with this. I do want to move this forward because the more time we work on perfecting it, the less time it actually is going to be in place, and we're not going to be impacting the people positively that we need to impact positively. So, with that, those are my comments right now, listening and reading. We've got some great testimony and input from a lot of different angles and a lot has been incorporated. I'm still on the fence on these fee schedules and all because I think we have to be mindful that some people are just very part-time and they want to be compliant as opposed to someone who may be offering a lot more. So, we've got to look for a matrix that works for everybody there. I'm going to yield at this point, just because I needed to get those comments put forth and I think we need to have more discussion, but I do want to get this thing moving forward as well. At this point, I yield. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: I just wanted to ask a question, among other things, ask a question of Ms. O'Hara and it relates to the amendment that's contained in Page 9 PC -27 June 18, 2018 subsection (b)(1) and (2), a one-time fee, "$250 for accommodations with one bedroom or less, and $500 for accommodations with more than one bedroom... Why is it a one-time fee? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. O'Hara, do you care to respond? MS. O'HARA: Sure. Can you turn your mic off over that side? Okay, thank you. If I recall correctly at our last meeting, I had proposed an annual fee and that was discussed and it was recommended that it not be an annual fee, that it be a one-time fee. So, that's why I've changed it. It was previously in my first draft, once a year. MR. CHUNG: Unless I'm reading this correctly, what's the deal with the annual renewal then? It still seems to be in there. I don't think it was deleted. It looks like in addition, there's provisions for annual renewals. MS. O'HARA: I'm sorry I'm not following where you're discussing. MR. CHUNG: It's contained in Section (2) of the bill. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Mr. Chung, I think Ms. Eoff can answer that question as far as if—Ms. O'Hara, I believe Ms. Eoff would like to respond to that question if it's okay? MS. O'HARA: Go ahead. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Alright. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: Mr. Chung, there are two separate schedules with the properties located in allowable districts. There's just a one-time registration fee, whether it be a sliding scale or a one-time fee, and that is separate and distinct from the renewal for a non -conforming use certificate, which in the bill is required every year. So, those that are operating in legal districts would not need to renew every year. MR. CHUNG: Okay, that explains it. Thank you. Then I also wanted to address this other matter about the Director duties in the event of an emergency because really, the first time I saw that, I had some concerns about it. I would just as wellnormally, I would say I would vote in favor of this amendment to let it move forward, but this one is a bit onerous. As Ms. Lee Loy stated, it kind of flies in the face of what we're trying to achieve, I think, because I haven't really heard anyone really articulate clearly what we're trying to achieve. But nonetheless, we can kind of surmise from the context of everything that's gone through. But, what I find particularly objectionable is that this is a mandate to the Page 10 PC -27 June 18, 2018 Director. It says, "the director will facilitate." If it said, "may facilitate," no problem. I like some of the provisions and enhancements as Ms. Lee Loy termed it in the amendment, but, unless that word is changed, I can't support it. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Anyone else over here? Mr. Kanuha, go ahead. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I did want to say thank you, Ms. O'Hara, for cleaning up this amendment and working on it. I know you've been extremely busy with everything that's happening. The majority is a step in the right direction. I do really want to send this to the Planning Commission as soon as possible, but there were some issues that I had with the amendment that were stated earlier by a few members, as well as the Planning Department, which were that emergency clause that Mr. Chung spoke about. I didn't really like that being part of this. I understand the reasoning for it, but there were some issues that I had with it and I can do without that clause in this amendment. I'm not really completely set on the one-time fee of $250 for those that are in the allowable districts. I mean, if the Council decides that they want to do that, fine. Our reasoning behind this was we're saying that this is an allowable district. So, for us to almost have people pay for that registration was kind of like we're allowing you guys to do that but pay this amount of money. So, that wasI didn't really think that was necessary, but if the Council decides that that's the way to go, I'm okay with it. We were just trying to get people to register. We want people to register. We want to know where vacation rentals are and so, by charging them in the allowable spaces, it kind of almost flies against them wanting to register. But, if the Council wants to go in that direction, I'm okay with that. Maybe the Planning Commission has a different way of doing it. The testimony previously that spoke about the verification to the neighbors, the testifier said he might have issues with his neighbors and providing information to them about what's happening on his property. I agree, but it's good for the neighborhood to know what's happening in their neighborhood, whether it's vacation rentals around or whether it's bed and breakfast around. I think it's advantageous for the neighborhood to know exactly what's happening around them. There were a few questions about the ambiguity of how you deal with noise that is excessive. I don't know how you're going to deal with that. I don't know how we're going to deal with that, but some people brought up measuring decibel levels. I mean we've had issues in a lot of our places trying to deal with decibel levels and Department of Health trying to figure that out. It's extremely difficult. I have no idea how that's going to be managed or—but trying to be a good Page 11 PC -27 June 18, 2018 neighbor is everything that we all hoped for, not only within our neighborhoods, within our ag lots. We try to live that spirit of aloha. So, it's going to be difficult to manage the good neighbor clause, but I really think you have to show a good standard to have when we're dealing with issues of vacation rentals being next door and all the issues that have been happening. We've heard from the testimony and we've seen a lot of the issues that have been happening with vacation rentals or even regular rentals, but I think it's a good policy to have in there of showing people that do rent these places that this is acceptable to us in a county if you're going to have a vacation rental in a residential area or an allowable vacation rental. The annual renewable fee in these non -conforming areas, having that fee schedule, again, that's going to be difficult for the Planning Department to move forward or to try to regulate. It's an additional amount of work that they're going to have to do. It's already a ton of work that they're going to have to do currently with this bill, and to do that fee schedule, it just compounds the issue of burden on the Planning Department. Again, that fee we put in place was to make it simple. We're saying this is not in a conforming area. But, if it's the will of the Council if they want to do that fee schedule, we just wanted to make it as simple as possible. Thank you for the additional couple seconds. But, I do want to move it forward to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. I think we've gotten to a good place. There are some issues that we need to work out or hopefully we can advise the Planning Commission on some of the issues that we've had and the community has had. With this amendment, there are a lot of good things in it, but there are a few things that I'd really would be hesitant to vote in favor of the entire amendment as is. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I just want to echo something that Councilman Chung said concerning—yeah, I have a bit of a concern with the Director shall facilitate getting new rentals up and running in the event of an emergency. I don't like that wording, so for the amendment as a whole, that's problematic for me. I yield. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else on the Kona side? If not, I'll reach out to Hilo. Alright Hilo, is anyone wishing to entertain further discussion on the amendment? Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Chair? Okay, let's see. I've always had problems with this bill and its grandfathering basis. I appreciate the testimony about making it a quota - based bill. The problem with the grandfathering basis is you're still going to have clusters in neighborhoods that are desirable for the tourist, the coastal areas or up around Volcano. You're still going to have a clustering that is going to be Page 12 PC -27 June 18, 2018 disruptive to the community. Whereas if it was quota -based, we wouldn't have to face the problem of the emergency clause that I've tried to include in this bill. That clause is a little problematic and I personally have no problem changing the "will" to "may." I think that's a reasonable amendment to this, and if that's all that it takes, that's great. But it is, for me, a deal breaker on this bill, given what has happened in the Puna district and if we're ever to see economic recovery, we will need that assurance. I don't agree with Mr. Takemoto in that this is going to come about as a result of planning that we're going to do to recover Puna. I don't believe that's going to be the case. We would have to come in and change Code in numerous ways if that were to be the case, and I don't see that happening with the initial planning stage of that recovery. That is not a discussion that we're even having and I don't think it will be part of that. So, I do disagree on that. I also think implementing a graduated fee schedule is not that complicated. We wanted simplification of this bill, absolutely, but $500 flat fee per unit is just not equitable. And it's easy enough in today's world with technology, which the County should embrace all that and much more, to apply said fees. We do have to check to make sure they're in compliance with the tax office and that they are paying their GE and their TAT tax. So, this is doable. Furthermore, charging a fee for the conforming districts, I'm going to call them conforming versus non -conforming just to simplify, relates to the fact that we still have to do a substantial amount of work within the context of the Planning Department in order to verify that they are meeting all of these requirements. Complaints may be rolling in for the good neighbor policy. We have to do our due diligence at the county level and I don't see a problem with charging for that. I think in fact, the reason that the County is in the dire straits it is budgetarily, is the fact that we don't charge fees for our services often. So, I think it's beneficial to do so and spread the cost across the industry more and not just punish the non- conforming portion of this industry. So, those are just some thoughts I have in listening to the discussion so far. I also think we need to go a little bit deeper into the agriculture discussion because Puna is very disadvantaged with its non -conforming agriculture, and we have thousands and thousands of lots that are non -conforming to their County zoning. That isn't going to change anytime soon. We're talking but it's still kind of in the concept stage about some blanket amendments that could be done, but I see this as punishing a district that has probably the most archaic and inappropriate zonings with regard to ag. My lot, not even 9,000 square feet is zoned one -acre ag. That is very common in Puna and could I be doing agriculture, even subsistence agriculture? Yes, I have a Page 13 PC -27 June 18, 2018 kitchen garden but I could not probably survive off of my little tiny yard if I had to. It's not true agriculture. I appreciate the need to preserve real agriculture, but we have some problems because of bad land use planning sixty years ago that we have to address now, and it has to be done in the context of this type of bill. Like I said, if we cannot have some way to remedy the grandfathering clause, especially as it applies to my district of Puna at this point in time, I would not be supporting this bill. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Do you yield, Ms. O'Hara? MS. O'HARA: Yes, thank you, Chair. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Anyone else on the Hilo side? Ms. Ruggles, go ahead. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. This has been a great discussion and I thank Ms. O'Hara for making these amendments, I know you've worked really hard on them and they're constantly being refined. First, I have a few questions. What would verification letters, or people have to verify that they sent letters to their neighbors. What would that verification look like? MS. O'HARA: Chair, may I answer? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Yes, you may. MS. O'HARA: Okay. Normally, when they—we're having problems with the multiple mics. Mr. Arai can perhaps correct me, or Mr. Takemoto, but I believe that usually, that's in a form of a verification from the post office that said letters were mailed to a list of particular addresses. Is that correct? MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai, Planning. Yes. The postmaster can certify that the list was sent, the notice was sent to the identified landowners. They could also do an affidavit, and that would suffice as well. So, we'll look at various practical means of verification. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. Does the Planning Department, is it tasked with taking inventory of other industries that we regulate and helping reestablish them after a disaster? MR. ARAI: Daryn from Planning again. No, it does not. If this bill is adopted in its form, then it would be a unique exercise on our part. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thank you. So, what I'm seeing here is a goal of balancing a healthy economy and allowing people to use their property how they like with a reasonable expectation that a resident has neighbors and preserving Page 14 PC -27 June 18, 2018 neighborhood character. So, there are things about this amendment that I really like and there are a few things that I don't. But overall, I think it has more positives than negatives. The first thing is that I like that every vacation rental must pay and register, instead of just those, which feel like are just in my district. I like the tiered non- conforming amendment. It doesn't have to be complicated because they have to verify the TAT anyway for that applicant. So, in that process of verifying the TAT, they just have to find out what tier they fit under. It's a very simple tiered system. I like the notification letters. I like the fact that they'll have to send a letter to each of their neighbors and the letter specifies how for them to provide a complaint, and that then the Planning Director can put that in the file and review the complaint to make sure that vacation rental is a good neighbor upon annual renewal. I like that the amendment, the affordable housing units can never be turned into short-term vacation rentals. The disaster part, I am a little more ambiguous or just uncertain about because I just don't know how appropriate that is, especially given the intent of this bill. Also, the enforcement aspect, Ms. O'Hara added a pretty harsh enforcement here. $1,000 per day or offered rental rate, whichever is greater, for every single day that the vacation rental was used as a vacation rental. That's a really tough amendment, and that's just for the first offense. It doubles after that for the second, and even it goes beyond double from the first offense to the third offense for each day of violation. So, that really makes the public take this bill seriously. But overall, there are things that I like about the amendment and these are things that I don't like. I would like to hear more about everyone else's specific thoughts and what options we might have. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Anyone else? Ms. Eoff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: Thank you. I want to talk a little bit more about Ms. O'Hara's concern about the grandfathering in because there were—there have been a lot of concerns about that. Speaking with our Corporation Counsel and Planning experts, what we have understood is that anybody that is operating currently and legally operating currently, is given the opportunity to apply for and receive a non -conforming use certificate. It's not like we really have any choice about that. It's legal. It's the only legal way for us to go forward. We can't deny anybody that's operating legally currently. We can't deny them the opportunity to continue that use, as much as we may wish we could. It was the only kind of fair way not to completely upset the industry as well. Page 15 PC -27 June 18, 2018 I really don't know that there's any other way except for the way it's stated in here to address the grandfathering, besides what you've suggested with a sliding scale on the cost of renewal fee. But, if you want to ask Mr. Arai to explain that further, I'm sure he could, but I don't understand why you continue to question that aspect of the bill as a reason for not supporting it when we've only tried to approach it in a legal manner. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Are you yielding? MS. EOFF: Ms. O'Hara, I don't know if you want to comment or maybe we could ask Mr. Arai to further comment if I haven't said that clearly enough. But, there really wasn't too much wiggle room there as far as what our responsibilities would be to non -conforming areas that are currently operating legally under our current laws. MS. O'HARA: Chair, can I respond? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Yes, you may. Go ahead, Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Ms. Eoff, what I meant by that was using a quoteeverybody, turn off your mics. Using a quota basis, which I have advocated for at a level a little bit above of what is currently existing, would allow the same response, meaning it would allow you to legitimately register and recognize existing short- term vacation rentals. So, it has the same impact as the grandfathering clause. The reason the grandfathering cause is a little bit problematic here is the very reason that I submitted the emergency clause. It's because it cuts off when a district has lostin my district, we've lost one-third of the short-term vacation rentals. To the best of my ability, that's maybe not accurate, but to the best of my ability, that's what we're estimating right now. So, that's a significant reduction in the industry. Somebody mentioned in testimony there are five jobs associated with every vacation rental, and I can't tell you how many people are unemployed in my district as a result of that loss. So, for our economy to revive, and believe me, people are going to want to come to my district. Visitors are going to want to come to my district. For whatever reason, people are attracted to natural disaster and they like to view the volcano. They like to view the impacts of the volcano, and we would like to keep those people in our district, allow them to stay overnight in our districts, and spend money at restaurants in Pahoa Town, and shop at the stores. That's the way we build our local economy. So, I have to say that the grandfathering clause is problematic if we don't somehow counter that. I realize that Mr. Takemoto gave us a ray of hope that it might be considered in some way in our recovery planning, but I don't think that's necessarily going to play out in a timely manner. So, I'm just advocating for putting something into the bill now. Page 16 PC -27 June 18, 2018 MS. EOFF: Okay, I think I understand more clearly now. It's not the grandfathering process itself, it's just that it doesn't allow for the growth in the recovery from what was lost in this particular situation. Is that correct? MS. O'HARA: That would be correct and it doesn't allow for growth in the industry at all. There might be districts that are under served by the short-term vacation rental industry. I don't know, I haven't done the analysis, but I think it's important to understand that maybe we should have some kind of flexibility in this bill to allow some growth. MS. EOFF: And before the situation in Puna, I think we have, or at least I have discussed this with the Planning Director as far as into the future, and we had decided that could be dealt with at a future time if there was a need in certain districts or a desire in certain areas to overlay different or additional zoning districts where vacation rentals would be allowed. That was going to be for a future discussion but not really part of this bill, because this bill's purpose was to get a grip on what we have out there right now, to regulate it, and then to move forward. I understand your concern, particularly now for Pahoa, and I'm not really sure how to deal with it. But, I'm just wondering, if we stick to the bill without that particular emergency clause added where you've added that, it will drive the business to people who are hosting vacation rentals. It will then allow this business to thrive in a different way and it will really benefit residents of our island rather than encourage speculators from off island to come in and purchase up homes and use them solely for vacation rentals. It would, in a way, allow bed and breakfasts and allow hosted vacation rentals to proliferate rather than this other type of use that is causing the problem, where they're unhosted and are encouraging off island and even on island, but people to just buy second homes and take them off the long-term market and use only for short-term rental. So, I kind of in a way, appreciate that the bill drives the business to people who can then better afford to pay their own mortgage or host visitors in their own homes. Those are my thoughts, but I also wonder whether—and I agree, I like some of your amendments. I think all of us would support them but some of them are a little bit debatable and may take us to where we can't really get to a clear consensus. But, I'm wondering if we could figure out a way to adopt the parts to your amendment that are generally well accepted here and maybe good for us to pass on to the Planning Commission, and then leave some of those other points for a future discussion at the Planning Commission level. And maybe you could even provide them testimony if you want to further discuss some of your other amendments that maybe we can't all get to a point right now with. Because if we continue to debate, there's a lot of different specific points we could debate on. But, if we could send maybe some thoughts to the Planning Page 17 PC -27 June 18, 2018 Commission in a different way in the form of testimony, for instance, by you, but give them a bill that we are comfortable with, that might be one way to move ahead. I know we can divide the question within this amendment somehow. I'm not quite sure on the procedure for that, but I think we can take it apart and vote on it separately. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff Was that a question for how to proceed whether—because I remember Ms. O'Hara speaking to a postponement. So, I think what you're suggesting, Ms. Eoff, is that we address the amendments now as opposed to postponing it and coming back with the issues or the items that we would like either not remove but amended further. We're still on the amendment. So, what is the—Mr. Clerk, can I ask you a question as far as dividing the question regarding the different pieces of revisions to this bill? MR. HENRICKS: I was waiting for the question. Sorry. ACTING CHR. DAVID: So, if we entertain what Council Member Eoff is saying, we could do that with Ms. O'Hara's proposed amendments, we would MR. HENRICKS: I haven't heard anything other than a very, well, just a general concept of dividing this amendment up into smaller parts. So, I don't know. I presume that some of these parts touch each other and then those things could not be—things have to be separable and easily understood as separable. I'm just wondering if that—there's a lot going on here, so, it may be possible, but ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay, well, thank you for that because I needed to clarify that part, and I believe the discussion then would be either a postponement or we move forward. Comments, please, Council Members. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: I don't want to postpone this any longer. We've got to figure out a way to get this to the commission. We know that not everybody is going to be happy. That's just the way things are. There is no absolute in anything, so, we've got to figure out how do we move this forward the best way we can? How do we address the commission? What points can we bring up to the commission? Can the points, some of these amendments be at that commission level? Because they'll get all the documents. Would they get all of these hearing minutes? MR. HENRICKS: You're looking at me and asking me that and it's funny because I talked to Karen about that. I think Mr. Arai would be the best person to ask that question to. The only thing I would say is, well, he would be the best person, but if I'm a recipient, I probably want to look at something and it's harder to look at some things and then make decisions. Page 18 PC -27 June 18, 2018 MS. POINDEXTER: Is Daryn Arai in the Hilo Chambers? Now, once the commission gets something, say this doesn't go through, the commission will be able get this as the document itself that what we had looked at, all the different pieces of legislation that was proposed. Am I correct? MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai, Planning Department. Normally, what's presented to the Planning Commission isstarts off with the communication that transmits the draft version of a bill. So, if that communication to the Planning Commission does not include previous versions or discussions, then it won't make its way to the Planning Commission. MS. POINDEXTER: So, the Planning Commission will make decisions and not look at the minutes and part of the Council's discussion, but will just take the bill because I would think they would want to listen to our discussion. MR. ARAI: They may want to listen to your discussion. That is something that we can take on a case by case basis. Normally, we just start with the communication and then we build the background from there. And if that background warrants including all of the minutes and discussions, then we can do so as part of the background material that we provide to the Planning Commission. But, be aware that there have been many instances in the past where we've tried to provide background on a particular bill where there were simply no minutes available. So, at that point, we just tried to build the background on our own based on what we could glean. MS. POINDEXTER: But Council Member O'Hara would be able to testify or give input at those commission hearings? MR. ARAI: Absolutely. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, so she could possibly bring up these items as well, correct? MR. ARAI: Anybody can introduce anything into the record, no different than they can do here at the Council. Sure, by all means. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, points can be brought up at that I'm just trying to figure out how do we move this forward? Thank you, I'll yield at this time. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Anyone else wishing to comment? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, Chair. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. Page 19 PC -27 June 18, 2018 MS. LEE LOY: I think we're really close, and what I heard Mr. Arai said is we have some good bones with Draft 3. If we provide the department with a charge or a direction with more subsequent language, they can continue to vet it down at the Planning Department, build the recommendation and background document around those things. Council Members, along with the larger public, can provide testimony at both the Windward and Leeward Planning Commission. What I'm hopeful is in addition to Draft 3, possible suggestive edits to a Draft 4. My question is, if we do that, do we have to turn around and send it right back down to the Planning Department? Or would that be a finished revised edit that this body could adopt? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy, I will ask the question either to Mr. Arai or our County Clerk. Mr. Henricks, if the bill or the recommendations come before us from the Planning Commission with changes from what we submitted initially, and we act on it, whether we approve it, fine, but if we make further changes, does that have to go back again to the commission and the department? MR. HENRICKS: Mr. Arai, feel free to correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but once the matter has been reviewed by the Planning Director and the Planning Commissions, and you've accepted those recommendations, you're free to amend the bill without being compelled to send it back. You could, of course, decide to but you've fulfilled the Code's requirement of allowing for review and recommendation and it can be amended in practically any direction after that. ACTING CHR. DAVID: I see, and we can move forward as a body with those amendments? MR. HENRICKS: That is my understanding of how the Code is to be applied. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Deputy Director Arai, is that your understanding also? MR. ARAI: I believe so as long as the amendments do not depart too far away from the original substance of the bill, which given the purpose of the bill it's pretty broad, so I think you're good. My only concern is that you do not—when a bill is transmitted to the Planning Commission, the Commission generally assumes no different than the Director that it's pretty tight, you know, at least there's general acceptance from the County Council. If we get a Draft 3 and then we get peppered with proposed changes to Draft 3 by the Council Members who show up at the Planning Commission meetings, it sends a weird message. It's like if it was important to you, why didn't you vet it at committee before you sent it down to the Planning Commission? So, that's generally, I think, is the best process because then, if you have Council Members speaking to a particular bill and their suggested amendments conflict with another Council Member's, how Page 20 PC -27 June 18, 2018 are we, at the Commission level, supposed to decide which one has probably better traction before the full Council? That all being said, with some of the amendments identified in the most recent communication from Council Member O'Hara, I do have some comments on it. As I mentioned, I think it's just something for clarification and something to think about whether or not you want to incorporate it. So, when you're ready to kind of go through those amendments, whether you bifurcate it or not, if you want me to chime in on any particular one, feel free to do so. But, I think generally, the commission and the department would like to see something that is, for the most part, either by way of votes, I mean a lot of this is just counting heads, right? That we want to see something that can be generally supported by the County Council before we start chewing on it. MS. LEE LOY: Chair? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Is that Ms. Lee Loy? MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I'm hoping that this moves the conversation forward. I think what I did hear is everybody liked the affordable housing that seems to maintain the integrity and the spirit of this bill. I do want to speak to the Director's duties in the event of an emergency, and although Ms. O'Hara makes a very compelling argument on how to revitalize that area with some economic growth, there has been a lot of conversation about that area being in Lava Zone 1 and 2, in which future planning is looking at prohibiting. So to me, that particular Director's duties in the event of an emergency puts us right back into the same position to allow for economic growth in a Lava Zone 1 area. That really is the one that I just have the most problems with. Everything else, I think, can be easily vetted, whether we simplify the fee schedule. The permitting stuff, I'm really looking forward to the feedback from the department, but that's my scale. The affordable housing is a keeper. The Director's duties in the event of an emergency just doesn't make sense to me and everything else in between can be vetted. I yield at this time. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you for that suggestion. I think that's a great suggestion and I'm going to go to Mr. Richards first and then Ms. Eof£ MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you, Chair. So, I'm getting a little bit of mixed signals here. I'm not sure if we're supposed to clean this up before we send it. I definitely heard from the Deputy that they'd like to have something pretty much set to go and it makes sense from their perspective. I want to get this thing moved out of committee and get it down to them, but there is still a few things, especially coming back to the whole agriculture thing. That is near and dear and I think if we don't do something about agriculture and specifically address the concern, or Page 21 PC -27 June 18, 2018 attempt to address the concern, I think we're missing the boat. So, I want to know how to do that. If we're going to send it, then I'll go down to the Planning Commission and give testimony or try to amend it coming back because I think that's a big puka in this deal. I yield. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Eof£ MS. EOFF: Thank you. I'm kind of on the same wavelength with Ms. Lee Loy today because in one way, I guess there are a lot of good parts to this amendment, which I would want the Planning Commission to consider supporting, and I think most of us do. I have some problems with several of the other amendments, not that they're completely anything to worry about, but I just think that they need some more vetting by probably the department as well as the commission. So, I don't know how best to proceed though. I don't know if we want to go through each one or if we would consider just adopting this amendment and then sending our concerns alongside of it though, for areas that we're not really completely in favor of, but would like to hear feedback from the commission. I don't know, Mr. Arai, do you think that would be an approach? Or wouldI can see where we could separate some of these out right now though, but—like I think for instance, the first couple regarding the covenants and like Ms. Lee Loy said, regarding affordable housing, I think we can leave those. I would support those. I like the good neighbor policy how it's moved. I'm just not sure though, in the enforcement, I like stricter fines. I'm not sure, though, how to work with the department's concern about the sliding scale. I guess there was a suggestion. I think Mr. Takemoto made it that maybe $500 is too much and we should find a lower common denominator. But, if the sliding scale is something that the department could consider, I would support that. And as far as the Director duties and in the event of an emergency, I think there needs to be some work on that. I understand what Mr. Henricks has told us that by taking some out and leaving some in, we may not have a very good draft of the bill. He said some of the parts worked together so we can only remove some things, right? MR. HENRICKS: Things have to be separable in order to treat this as anything other than an amendment. They have to be separable, so we'd probably have to analyze that first, just to make sure, and then figure out a way to articulate that in a way—making motions to keep certain things and then removing others after we've done that analysis. MS. EOFF: I'm pretty certain that if we adopted this amendment and sent a Draft 4 that included all of this, I'm pretty sure the Planning Director and the department would then probably work on those parts that they're not comfortable with. Page 22 PC -27 June 18, 2018 Point of Order: MS. O'HARA: Point of order, Chair. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Your point, Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: I think what's under discussion, Mr. Arai would like to weigh in over here. I know you can't see him, but on the discussion that Ms. Eoff is presenting. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Deputy Director Arai, go ahead. Thank you. MR. ARAI: Thank you. I was just wondering and maybe this is a question for the County Clerk as well is that there are times when you can only take it so far and you're really not sure how to take it any further because you haven't really tested the waters. Yes, you've had multiple hearings before the County Council, but then as far as the administration standpoint and Planning Commission, you haven't kind of vetted it to that process yet. So, I'm wondering when the bill is transmitted, say if it's in a Draft 3, if that there could be certain language expressed within the letter transmitting the bill saying here's Draft 3, we haven't figured it all out but these are areas that we kind of want you to focus on a little bit more and help us. Whether it's a sliding fee or whatever, so at least it kind of directs the department and the Planning Commission to say these are good bones and we just need to sort of add on to it a little bit further or help us refine it by providing more input. So, with all that being said, there are some parts of it that I know Council Member Lee Loy, you highlighted the areas that you found you were in support of. I totally get it on the affordable housing part. It makes sense. From a practical standpoint, and maybe this is where your Corporation Counsel needs to step in is that a lot of State affordable or County affordable housing projects basically have a buyback provision within 10 years after sale. If they fail to buy it back, then you could actually sell it for market, right? It makes sense because you provide a stepping stone for the person who got it, you build equity, and they can migrate up to a better home. That being said, the person who ends up buying that affordable home is no longer affordable, it's probably market rate. So then, how do you exclude that from basically saying it was originally built as affordable and it shall forever be. So, I think you can kind of see the rub. But I understand why you're saying it. It does make sense for certain type of units that, especially workforce housing. Workforce housing, I think, should always be workforce housing. I think there are provisions that say the equity behind it only increases so must per year, right? In those cases, I see it totally makes sense but to just go across the board, you may run into problems. So, I just wanted to start there. If you want further discussion, I know Council Member Richards mentioned about the ag concern. I'm not Page 23 PC -27 June 18, 2018 exactly sure of the concern. I know there was the pre -1976 discussion going on. So, maybe I can try to help move that along if it could be clarified. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Mr. Arai, Mr. Richards is here, would you like him to answer that for you? Mr. Arai had a question for you. Mr. Richards is in the room again, so, Mr. Arai, what was your question? His concern regarding the ag amendment? MR. RICHARDS: Actually Chair, I was just off, so, I listened to the whole thing. Thanks, Mr. Arai. The concern, actually, I probably would articulate it as the right to farm. One of the communications we received was a vacation rental on ag land next to someone doing bonafide agriculture and complaints from the visitor about the bonafide agriculture next door. The noises, probably the getting up early, going to bed late, dust, whatever the case may be. Odors. I want to be sure that we are very clear that there is a right to farm and a right to ranch. That if a vacation rental is there, that they have no standing when it comes to the agriculture because the agriculture, that's what's supposed to be there, and the guests are invited guests into the environment and they should be there accepting it rather than criticizing it. So, I want to be very sure as we bring that forward. MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai, Planning. Thank you for that clarification. There is the State Right to Farm Act, and I forget exactly when it was adopted into statute, but basically, it says it does exactly what it says. You have the right to farm. So, we have had instances where complaints are filed with the Planning Department, whether it's a vacation rental or a spa or a place of healing and someone is doing ag and there are complaints because of the noise associated with it. Basically, not to appear insensitive, but we sort of shrug our shoulders. We said both of them may be out right permitted uses, but we're not there to preserve the sanctity of any one particular use. If it's allowed by law, then they have every right to exercise it to the extent the law provides. Because as you may know, there are other laws out there that controls what can or cannot be done, even on ag land. For example, application of pesticides is regulated by EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and Department of Health. Noise is regulated by Department of Health as well, 74 decibels, which is a little bit on the noisy side. So, that is not all land use. But from a land use standpoint, definitely, we do recognize the right to conduct agriculture on agriculture designated lands. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Deputy Director. Thank you. MR. RICHARDS: I need to respond. Page 24 PC -27 June 18, 2018 ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay, Mr. Richards, can you please make it really quick? We have a public hearing at five o'clock that we have to set up for. Thank you, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Real quick here. I want to be sure we work this out and I agree with you, Deputy, that there is the right to farm, I got that. But, I want to be sure that the people practicing agriculture are not the ones defending themselves. They are the ones that have the right to be there and it's incumbent upon the vacation rental to make sure that they are having to deal with the down side of it, not the agriculture side. They don't need to justify themselves. They have every right to be there and the others are the invited guest. So, we have to craft this somehow. I yield. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Council Members, we have five minutes to set up for this public hearing. So, Mr. Clerk, I imagine if we're not ready, we need to take a recess? MS. O'HARA: Chair, could I entertain an idea? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Yes, you may. Please make it quick because we have to set up this room for public hearing. Thank you, Ms. O'Hara, go ahead. MS. O'HARA: I have to be perfectly honest. No one at the Planning Department has been available to discuss this until 11:00 this morning. It's been a really busy time. I would like to ask for a postponement of the bill until the next meeting and perhaps I can get together with Planning. We can meet on this and refine some of the language so that it's more palatable having had this discussion today. So, that's an option out there rather than postpone the meeting, we could postpone this bill for one more committee meeting. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. Are you entertaining a motion to postpone at this time? Motion to Postpone: Ms. O'Hara moved to postpone Bill 108, Draft 3, to July 10, 2018. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Any discussion on the postponement? Mr. Kanuha, go ahead. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. I'll support the postponement. I understand the Planning Department is extremely busy with everything that's going on, but Daryn, can you give us your just make sure that you're available for Ms. O'Hara to go through this amendment. After hearing from everybody, hearing from the community, coming back every single time, we want to move the certain process forward. So, can we have that commitment from you guys? Page 25 PC -27 June 18, 2018 MR. ARAI: Sure. I'll make myself available. She can hunt me down at the EOC (Emergency Operations Center). But definitely, I see the importance of this and I think we really, I'm at that point where I do feel there's just some refinement and then we can move it on because I do want to see it go down to the Planning Commission for further discussion. So, I'll make that effort. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Alright, Council Members, all those in favor of postponing Bill 108 to July 10th meeting please say, "aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to postpone Bill 108, Draft 3, to Postpone: July 10, 2018 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. DAVID: May I have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 4:58 p.m., Mr. Richards moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha and carried by the following voice vote: Approved: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Planning Committee KE/jm Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much, we are adjourned. 6. a6. is (Date) Page 26