Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2018/07/24 (2016-2018) ReconvenedCommittee on Planning 28th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii July 24, 2018 RECONVENE: The reconvened meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at 3:15 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Karen Eoff, Chair. 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, June 5, and 18, 2018 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Eoff, seconded by Mr. Kanuha, to recommend passage of Bill 108, as amended, on first reading.) CHR. EOFF: Because Bill 108 is the only agenda item and I'm the co -introducer of it, I'm going to relinquish the chair to Council Chair Valerie Poindexter today. Normally, a chair would be relinquished to the Vice Chair but she's in Hilo and Maile David was chairing these meetings for us, but since she's not here, we're going to turn it over to Val. I appreciate that, so, thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Relinquish Chair: At this time, the Chair relinquished the chair to Council Chair Poindexter. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, let the record show that I have assumed the chair. We're on Bill 108, Draft 3, so, Council Member Eoff MS. EOFF: Thank you. Today, we have several amendments in front of us that we have either had circulating for a while or maybe presented, just in this last few days, or even today. So, some of them are very simple, some of them are more complicated, and I really appreciate the Planning Director being here today. Director Yee is here in Kona. In Hilo, we have Roy Takemoto from the Mayor's Administration and Corporation Counsel Amy Self, who is assigned to Planning, and I'm not sure if Deputy Director Daryn Arai may also be in Hilo. But, we have a lot of resource people to answer questions and I understand that we do PC -28 July 24, 2018 have a lot of communications to go through, so, we'll try and do it as—with less confusion as we can. I just wanted to say that this has been a really great exercise. It's a very complicated and difficult subject matter to begin to enforce something that we've never enforced yet. So, it's a lot of new territory, although, we are the only county in the State that hasn't adopted some type of regulation for short-term vacation rentals and we know that we need to do this. It's still have been difficult to find all the right language and make sure everything's fair and legal. Council Member Kanuha and I, who have worked on this for probably eight months or more, and the Administration has worked on it even longer to be prepared to present this bill and move it forward. But, taking a very, I'm not going to say middle of the road, but just a fair approach, something that would acknowledge the importance of the vacation rental industry and the opportunities that it affords but also to protect our neighborhoods and make sure that we don't have this proliferate in areas that it isn't appropriate. So, I just really appreciate everyone's patience, and now that Council Members have really kind of dug in and come up with some very good and additional ideas that we have here to consider. So, I'll just yield and let the discussion proceed, Ms. Poindexter. Thank you very much. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. We have a motion right now by Council Member O'Hara that was seconded by Council Member Lee Loy. So, right now on the floor should be Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents of Communication 739.139. So, I don't know if Council Member O'Hara wants to withdraw that and we go back to Bill 108, Draft 3, and then move on from there with amendments. Council Member O'Hara. Withdraw Motion Ms. O'Hara withdrew her motion to amend Bill 108, to Amend: Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 739.139. Motion to Amend: Ms. O'Hara moved to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 739.229. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Okay. Some of the changes in this newer communication, newer draft, are that instead of having a tiered fee for the nonconforming use certificate renewalI was made aware by Corporation Counsel that doing so, basically, would be a tax. If it was based on the taxes that they are paying, as a tiered way of charging the fee, it looks more like a tax than an actual fee, because a fee has to be for the processing of the registration application. A request for certificate and that process should be basically the same for every individual application. So, you think of a fee as kind of a flat fee for that reason and not a tiered fee because Page 2 PC -28 July 24, 2018 that then reflects more of a taxation. So, I have lowered that to $250 from what was originally intended to be $500. The reason I felt that was a good option to do is that we, in my amendments, I'm also asking for those that are in conforming zones to pay a one-time registration fee to the Director of Finance. That is also $250. So, the lowering of the renewal fee for nonconforming from $500 to $250 will be offset by that other collection in terms of gathering money, which is intended to be for the enforcement piece of this bill. Another change that came about in Communication 739.229 is that while we try to put together an enforcement process that reflected the information that, or the testimony that we received from OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs), and making it much more strenuous than what we currently have in the Code. Again, Corporation Counsel felt that could not be supported and instead, it's going to reflect the existing penalties and fines as stated in the Code. So, those were some the major changes between my Communication 739.139 and 229. So, I guess that's enough for us to commence discussion. With that, I yield to see what others think about these amendments. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. Council Members? Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I have a question about the enforcement. What does the enforcement in the Code, say? Does anybody know? MS. O'HARA: We have Amy Self here from Corporation Counsel, perhaps she can help us with that. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Would you like to call up Amy? MS. RUGGLES: Yes, please. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. O'HARA: Amy's getting situated. She's one-armed right now, so, it's taking her a minute. MS. SELF: Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self. The Zoning Code already has an administrative enforcement section, and that is Section 25-2-35. So, it provides—it actually follows the section of the Hawaii Revised Statutes 46-1.5(24), which is what gives the County the authority to issue fines for violations of its ordinances. So, you can't go beyond what the State has—the authority that the State has given the counties. So, that's why when you look at 25-2-35 under Administrative enforcement, it provides the whole process for sending a notice of violation, which it has to provide certain information. Page 3 PC -28 July 24, 2018 The order has to have certain information, and in the order, you have to explain to the alleged violator that they have to cease or desist from the violation, correct the violation, or pay a fine. The fine is "not to exceed $500 in the manner at the place and before the date specified in the order," and then there's also a daily fine not to exceed $500 per day. Then in addition to that, it gives the process for if they do not agree with the Planning Director's decision of issuing a notice a violation and order, then they have the opportunity to appeal before the Board of Appeals. And all the violations of 25, which is our Zoning Code, all those appeals are required to go to the Board of Appeals. That's in the County Charter. So, any final decision by the Planning Director has to be appealed to the Board of Appeals, and that would be any violation of Chapter 25. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thank you, Amy. I hear what you're saying that we cannot go beyond the authority of what the State has given the County and our current fine is not to exceed $500. Is that daily or is that per violation? MS. SELF: Well, there's an initial—the amount of the fine is not in the Statute but it has to be a reasonable fine. MS. RUGGLES: It has to be what? MS. SELF: Has to be reasonable. In other words, it can't be so extreme that the court would end up deciding that. Because, like I was telling you before, even if you get a judgment in court or if, let's say they lose, they appeal up to circuit court and ICA's (Intermediate Court of Appeals), Supreme Court, or whatever, and the appeal process is finished and they are found in violation, they can still you can't impose the fine—the Planning Director cannot impose the fine until after the appeals process is completed. Once it's done, then they can impose the fine. But, even once they impose the fine they can still contest the amount of the fine. So then, you have to go through a whole other appeals process and that can go up to court and the court would decide whether or not it's an appropriate amount for a fine based on the violation. So, in our Code, our Zoning Code, it sets the fee to be—there's an initial fee of $500 and then each day that the violation continues and has not been corrected, there's an additional $500 per day. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, I see. Thank you. MS. SELF: Or not to exceed $500 per day. MS. RUGGLES: So, I'm assuming that the portion of Ms. O'Hara's previous amendments about the enforcement fines were—she took them out because you Page 4 PC -28 July 24, 2018 told her that this goes beyond the authority of what the State allows the counties to do? MS. SELF: Well, not the actual fine itself because like I said, the Statute doesn't say how much the fine has to be. But, the problem was that the same thing with your amendments, I know we're now talking about those right now, but the problem is that you already have, in Chapter 25, a section on enforcement. So, if you're going to impose a larger fine than what is already stated in the Code, in other words, going beyond the $500, then you either need to amend this section that provides "it shall not exceed $500" for every zoning violation or if you want to make the violations of the short-term vacation rental more than that. Then, there has to be some way to indicate that within this section so that when someone's reading this, they'll know that they have to look at a different section or to know how much the fines are for the short-term vacation rental violations. There's a couple of ways you could do it but that's for the Council to determine. - know that Roy Takemoto had found a way toI need some company. Because we had discussed this yesterday. (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Roy Takemoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. TAKEMOTO: Roy Takemoto with the Mayor's Office. We were going to look at what other counties did. We try to learn from their experience. MS. RUGGLES: I'm sorry, I can't—can you guys hear him? You sound really muffled. Is there anything we can do for that? MR. TAKEMOTO: Let me try again. Can you hear me now? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Yes. MR. TAKEMOTO: We were going to look at other counties and learn from their experience to see if there was a need to do a differential exceptional fine for short- term vacation rentals. But, we didn't have a chance since yesterday to do that investigation. But, one option is just to see what the experience of this bill is and amend it later. You find a need that such a differential is needed and move this bill forward, unless you have a proposal now that you want to MS. RUGGLES: Yeah, I hear you. So, based on feedback from—we called the other counties, and I don't know if now is the time to be bringing this up, but basically, I'm just concerned about the ability of this bill to actually be effective in completing what it set out to do, which is to regulate these short-term vacation rentals in areas that they're not necessarily allowed in neighborhoods. I'm concerned because if the fine is not to exceed $500, that could really just be a cost of doing business and it could really put a lot of burden on our Planning Page 5 PC -28 July 24, 2018 Department. It just creates a big mess. This bill isn't going to be effective unless its enforcement is effective and $500 for a short-term vacation rental per day, that's nothing. I just want to clarify, Amy, you mentioned that the courts will actually decide whether or not a fine is "reasonable"? MS. SELF: Well, that's if they—if the violator, let's say they end up being found by the court, if it goes up to the courts, they can always—once the fine if being imposed, they can appeal that decision because that's—they can contest whether or not the fee is too high. So, there's various criteria listed in the Statute that the agency, this being the Planning Director, can consider when he has to determine whether or not he thinks the fine is too high for the type of violation. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thanks. MS. SELF: So, if he doesn't like that decision, though, that decision is appealable and they can appeal all the way up. MS. RUGGLES: But as far as who decides whether or not a fine is within our authority which is given to us by the State, that would be the court if the owner appeals? MS. SELF: If he appealed it up. I mean first, he would appeal it to the Board of Appeals to ask the Board of Appeals to lower the fine. If that doesn't happen or if he's not satisfied with what the Board of Appeals says, then he could appeal it to circuit court, and then on up. MS. RUGGLES: Great, so my question was that would be the only way to determine whether or not a fine is reasonable within our authority given to us by the State? Is through the appealing process? MS. SELF: Yes. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thank you. And just for the record, Kaua`i's fine go up to $10,000. They've been—I mean when we talked to them, their we talked to one Council Member, he said that he wishes the fine would be higher because it wasn't effective. Maui said the same thing. MS. SELF: Wasn't effective in what way? MS. RUGGLES: In deterring short-term vacation rentals in nonconforming areas, and actually, being effective in requiring the short-term vacation rentals register. And we also want to keep in mind that we want to be efficient and so, by having a high fine, we're deterring people while funneling more resources into the Page 6 PC -28 July 24, 2018 Planning Department for having an effective regulation. But, I will be supporting this amendment and I'll yield at this time. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. Further discussion, anyone in Hilo? MS.O'HARA: Chair? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: When I was summarizing the changes to this communication, I neglected to bring up, it's on page nine at the bottom of my communication and its section (e), Director duties in event of emergency. We discussed this at length in the context of my first communication and it was found that the language was not acceptable by Planning, and there were questions asked by other Council Members. So, I sat down with Mr. Arai, who is here as well, Deputy Director Arai, to hash out appropriate language. So, section (e) now reads, "In the event of a declared emergency, natural or manmade, where a significant number of nonconforming short-term vacation rentals are permanently lost within any given judicial district, the director shall assess the effect of such loss upon the affected district and if deemed necessary, initiate legislative and administrative opportunities to restore such loss in short term vacation rental capacity within the district of origin." Now, those—what we have currently in the way of administrative opportunities is basically your special -use permit, which is the process that we use for the B&B Code. That's the only way that we can effectively get around State law, that tells us that we can't have overnight accommodations on agricultural lands, except in counties with three islands or more. And there is a move to possibly change that State law, but as we all know, that may take time. It may not get done. So, this was the best language that we could come up with and get supported, with the Planning Department's help. Now, as far as initiating legislative opportunities, that would involve blanket rezonings or potentially reclassifications of lands, and we all know that in the Puna district, we have some very odd zoning that was put in place 60 years ago or more that isn't really reflective of current use. So, that does open the door for that potential legislative change. So, that's what the emergency clause, as I referred to it before or flexibility clause, that's what we came up with as the only way to allow initiation of say, new short-term vacation rentals in a district, like Puna, where we just lost one-third of the industry inventory. It's not ideal in my opinion, but we do have some restrictions here, State law, and it is the option that we came up with. So, I just wanted to draw attention to that. Page 7 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. MS. O'HARA: Mr. Arai is here if anyone has questions for him. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Eof£ MS. EOFF: Thank you. Ms. O'Hara, I just wanted to thank you for producing this revised amendment that took care of some of the major concerns, and I really appreciate what you've done here and I want to support it. I do have concerns about the enforcement and the fines. I want to make sure that the fines will deter people from doing something illegal, however, maybe today or right now, this Council isn't really in the position to fix that issue. But. I would like to know once this moves to the Planning Commission, if that's something that we could encourage further discussion and investigation to make sure that we do have a bill that people will be, I don't know if you want to say feared, but would be afraid to violate because the fine could be great. So, I think that's something if we could just put it on the record for further investigation. I would like to support Ms. O'Hara's amendment in the state that it is now because I think that as this does go through the Planning Commission process, and it will come back to Council again for several more readings, we have time to reevaluate some of the kind of minor details. But, I think all in all, the gist of the bill and the structure and everything else that Mr. Kanuha and I have been advocating that we do hear, is still intact. So, I'm very much in support of the current amendment on the floor. But, just to let you know, there's two other minor kinds of housekeeping things that Dru and I have to introduce as well today. But, this one was kind of a major amendment. MS. O'HARA: Chair? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Yes, go ahead. MS. O'HARA: There's a discussion ongoing here. I don't know if there is anything that the Administration wants to share with us. You have comments that you would like to share with the Council? MS. SELF: No. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: And we have Director Yee here too. Feel free to say if you want to share something with the Council. Do you want to? Okay, go ahead. MR. YEE: Planning Director, Michael Yee. It's been a fast and furious couple of days already. So, I know Amy and Roy are over in Hilo. I wanted to confirm that Roy didn't have any—because we had worked pretty hard yesterday at trying to Page 8 PC -28 July 24, 2018 vet the previous communication, if Roy had any outstanding issues on this latest communication. I do want to comment on the 300 -foot noticed area. Again, I don't have a rub on keeping it in for now because I think that's what Planning Commission can help work out details, but trying to notify folks in an area that something is permitted is not what we practice now. Something's permitted, it goes on. Having something that's permitted and then saying you have to inform folks 300 feet around you is a step in a new direction. Again though, we understand the impact that the vacation rentals have on neighborhoods. So again, I think having that discussion carry on to the Planning Commission would be okay. Regarding the fines, there's this step of what State enables us, then we have the County Code that has enforcement, Chapter 25, and then we step into section 9 of the Planning Department Rules of Practice and Procedures. Within that, we have a fine schedule and yes, after multiple times the max fine is $500 a day. Is that too low? Possibly. Not just for vacation rentals but for other violations we may see. It's been a while since we revised it. I don't even have the year when it was last revised, but it's been a while. So, I think it would make sense. Usually, we like an ordinance to come down and then we go through the Planning Commission, we eventually write the rules. Given the importance of this, given that there is a bit of kind of this chicken and egg kind of thing going on where people want to know how we're going to enforce, I can try to work with the Planning Commission to review both this bill and review the rules at the same time so they kind of go hand in hand, so you kind of know how we plan to implement, hopefully. It won't guarantee that the vote happens all concurrently but a little more transparency of how we think this can roll out. So, those are some of my comments. So again, I want to just double check with Roy in Hilo if he had any outstanding things on this latest communication. MR TAKEMOTO: We had our discussion internally before the benefit of Councilman O'Hara's bill and she hit a homerun, I think. You hit on all the issues that we had identified. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Are you done, Roy? MR TAKEMOTO: Yeah. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just wanted to take this opportunity to sort of report to you on what the feedback of the other counties were. First though, Page 9 PC -28 July 24, 2018 Mr. Yee, I'm really appreciative that you're willing to work with the Planning Department on coming up with a fine scheme to go hand in hand with the bill so we know what to expect, and we know what we're passing. First, out of all of the counties, they said that they are overwhelmed with appeals. Kauai has four people dedicated to their vacation rental enforcement and they said that they're bogged down so they need—they advised us to really have bring in the resources to be able to enforce on that level. All of them said they needed higher enforcement penalties. On Maui, they said that one of their problems is the Planning Department isn't required to act on a complaint. So therefore, there's always complaints that are just sitting there for years, the neighbors with vacation rentals. Kaua`i's enforcement officer actually just got back to us, like 15 minutes ago, and so, Nelson just texted me what he said. He said that the manager of a vacation rental must be able to receive all communications including written notices and warning and violations, otherwise, the owners dodge the legal notices and they stall the process. He also said that the county should have an ability to place a lien on the property violating the short-term vacation rental. That's pretty much the basics. That's kind of something to start with. I'll yield at this time. Thank you. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Go ahead, Council Member Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you, Chair. I do commend my colleagues for a lot of work on this. I'm listening and reading and sorting through the different amendments and trying to sort through the different concerns. One of the things that, in reading through here, coming back from the agriculture standpoint, as I read through this, it would appear that we can grant a nonconforming, and I'm going to need some clarification from Planning on this, it would appear we can grant a nonconforming use in agriculture if the lot existed before 1976. Is that an accurate statement? (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Daryn Arai came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai, Deputy Planning Director. Council Member Richards, that is correct. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, we've had innumerable testimony on different aspects on this. We haveI can think of one farmer right now who's financing building a farm by having short-term vacation rental on his property as it stands now. I don't know when that was subdivided. A situation like that, what happens to that individual? Page 10 PC -28 July 24, 2018 MR. ARAI: I would think that once enacted and the requirements of the bill is pushed out to the public, people, like the farmer, will probably try to apply for a nonconforming use certificate. At that time, we will have to investigate the property and if it's a lot that was created after 1976, then, only farm dwellings are allowed on agriculturally designated lands and it has to operate as much, which would mean that we would be compelled to not issue a nonconforming use certificate to that farmer who's using the dwelling or purposes other than agriculture. MR. RICHARDS: So, that would disallow this? This bill would disallow something like that? MR. ARAI: In that circumstance, I believe so, yes. MS. SELF: It's actually controlled by State law, under HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statute) 205. MR. RICHARDS: I got that, but there's other things in conflict with all of this as well and we're trying to sort through all of this. What my intent here is to try and figure out a metrics. We talked about agriculture. We pride ourselves that we're going to support agriculture and when we find some methodology to help ag get going, we seem to be able to take that away from it. So, that's what I'm trying to find a way because to start up an agriculture is difficult and the cash flow usually takes years. So, to have something that works to get this, not this person, but the entity running is what I'm talking about. So, I'm trying to figure out how we can do this and be supportive of that going forward. I got the intent, I know what the intent is. I also think there's value in being able to have people visit bonafide agriculture to develop a better understanding of agriculture. That's what I'm looking for in trying to figure out how to make this work. So, it is encompassing and is inclusive and not exclusive. MR. ARAI: Based on our—I totally get what you're saying and it's not only agriculture. We have heard of people depending on short-term vacation rentals, say, to keep the family's home in the family, to finance the education of their children. There's all these really personal reasons, right? But, as it pertains to ag lands, part of the rub, as Amy mentioned, is that we as the County, are compelled to administer the requirements of State law as written, and as written, overnight accommodations are simply prohibited for that County—for all those counites lacking three islands. I mean, go figure, right? MR. RICHARDS: We just got a new one. Page 11 PC -28 July 24, 2018 MR. ARAI: Okay, we won't go there. I'm just saying I hear what you're saying, but, we have been, in years past, approached the legislature trying to say, "Why is this privilege granted only to select counties and not to the State as a whole?" I totally agree that it would be great to have the special permit be the vehicle to assess these types of overnight accommodations on a case by case basis. It's totally reasonable and I think that is the real reason why the special permit process was provided by the Legislature in the first place. So, I think that's where the push really needs to be and then at least there's a vehicle by which people can make the ask of the County, and we'll assess it individually. MR. RICHARDS: I think that's why we have people in this and we don't, at all, doesn't come out of the books. It's to assess on a case by case, but I'm looking for the exceptions. So, though again, I support the intent and I know the direction we need to go, I fear we're going to take out some people, like you said, that we're going to lose some of our local people in doing this, and that bothers me a lot. So, I'll yield at this point. Thank you. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. It sounds like everybody's really settling into this amendment, so, I will call out, specifically, that notice to surrounding property owners that Mr. Yee spoke of. I agree, we have a process and if they're in a permitted area, why are we creating a new process? But, as he mentioned, you can work that out down at the Planning Department, Planning Commission level. As we chart a new course, and maybe this is just food for thought as you take it to the Windward Planning Commission and Leeward Planning Commission, and the rest of the technical experts in the department, I'd like to see language and specifically, to the director's duties, along the lines of if they're given this authority to allow for some of that to go back, I'd like to see a qualifier that it could not or shall not exceed or be equal to the affordable housing in that area. So, tie it to something where we're not pushing our local families out with these nonconforming permits. I'd also like to see, with your rule amendments on new zoning changes, prohibition of transient vacation rentals. Again, equal to or less than the affordable requirements of that new zoning, and make it a deed restriction. Regarding the enforcements, I'd like to see them higher. I think that's the only way we're going to get them out, is if these enforcements really hurt. And I know what Ms. Self is explaining, but I still don't think well, I still think we could have place -holder language that if the State were to amend their enforcements, we could go up as the State amends their section. So, we could have some wiggle. Page 12 PC -28 July 24, 2018 Then finally, with the need for housing because of the events in Puna, we talked a lot about the transfer of development rights and how that might provide opportunities to guide housing or growth in preferred growth areas. I think there's another opportunity there to ensure that those growth areas are really serving the community. But again, I don't know it's capping it, but keeping a balance between the business, the affordable housing, and keeping housing for our local families available. Those are my comments for right now, and just food for thought for the Director. I yield at this time. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion on Communication 739.229? Are we ready to vote on that amendment? Okay so, on—we're on the motion to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with Communication 739.229. All those in favor say "aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents Amend: of Comm. 739.229 was carried by the following voice (Approved) vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Poindexter – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member David –1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so now, we are on Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended. I know we have more amendments, so, who wants to go next? Council Member Kanuha, do you want to? No? Council Member Eoff Motion to Amend: Ms. Eoff moved to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 739.143. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Eoff MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. This is basically a bit of a housekeeping amendment. We neglected to add the use into the sections of the Code where it will become permitted. So, if you look at the contents of 739.143, you'll see just the sections of the Code where the use would be permitted and the addition of the term "short-term vacation rental." That's all it does. It should have been in the original draft but it was just left out. So, unless there's comments from the Administration, I'd like to urge us to support this, then we can move forward. It's not really an option, it's just something we would have to do. Page 13 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Anyone else with any questions or concerns on this amendment? Ready to vote? Okay. So, on the motion to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended, with the contents of Communication 739.143, say Ic aye. Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents Amend: of Comm. 739.143 was carried by the following voice (Approved) vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Poindexter — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member David —1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Now we are at Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended. Now we have one moreI'm looking at the list of communications, I know we had another one and I think that's a housekeeping one also. So, Council Member Eoff. MS. EOFF: So, Council Member Kanuha and I have another amendment that was circulated today, it's Communication 739.231. I hope everybody has that one. The bill previously had a date ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Just a motion first. Motion to Amend: Ms. Eoff moved to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 739.231. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: So, on that communication or amendment, Council Member Eoff MS. EOFF: Okay, what that does, the bill had a date of July 20, 2018 in it. In an earlier rendition, it had a January 20, 2018 date, but because the bill has been taking quite a long time to get through this process, and it still will be several months before we do adopt something, we've been advised that it would be better to just put in the language that says that if "the property was in use prior to the effective date of this ordinance" rather than state the July 20, 2018, that it would be more appropriate and if we need a little better explanation of that, I think Ms. Self can explain it. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Do we have any discussion or do we need more clarification from Ms. Self? Or are we okay to vote on the amendment? Okay, Council Member Eoff Page 14 PC -28 July 24, 2018 MS. EOFF: It changes it in three spots only. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. MS. EOFF: Just consistently. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any more discussion? Ready to vote on Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended twice, with the contents of 739.231. All those in favor say "aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the Amend: contents of Comm. 739.231 was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Poindexter — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member David —1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Now we are at Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended three times. I know we have another amendment. So, Council Member Ruggles. Motion to Amend: Ms. Ruggles moved to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 739.141. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. So, this came from a community meeting I had on Bill 108. It was good feedback from the attendees. It amends the definition of "reachable." Well first, it also amends the section on Annual renewal, so instead of just having one police report being a condition of denying the renewal, it's at least three and it changes the definition of "reachable" from "being able to answer the telephone at all times" to, and being present within one hour. So, it changes it from being able to answer the telephone at all times and be at the vacation rental within one hour to being able to answer the telephone within one hour of the call and to be physically present at the rental no longer than three hours following a request by a guest, neighbor, or County agency. And this came about because it didn't seem fair or reasonable to take someone's vacation rental away just because they weren't able to answer the phone right when we called them. It's kind of rough, you miss one phone call then you lose your vacation rental. So, this gives a little bit more reasonableness to this. I look forward to my colleagues' feedback. Page 15 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any discussion? MR. HENRICKS: If I may before you proceed. Just some—because this section was amended by the first amendment in 229 from Ms. O'Hara, there's just a few issues here that need to be brought forward. If you look at what's in Ms. Ruggles' amendment, it says a renewal fee of $500 because that's what it said at the time. This subsection (f) was split into two subsections where you see the renewal appearing in the fourth line? That is now a new subsection under a subsection titled Denial. So, there are a few issues here with that. My only concern would be that the committee is fully aware when it says it's amending to read as follow, this doesn't really fit right now with what has been done to this point. Because if we don't use any discretion, we kind of look at that, we take the $250 back to $500, we take the formatting back, and we really don't want to apply discretion when we're making these amendments later. We really want to make sure the committee knows exactly what the amendment is on the floor. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: So, I'm wondering if an amended version should be on Council Member O'Hara's amendment. MR. HENRICKS: Well, we're on the draft as amended several times. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Right. MR. HENRICKS: The reason why I don't bring anything up on the last two amendments is because those fit neatly into other areas. There was no overlapping language. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, didn't conflict. MR. HENRICKS: This one, we have some issues. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Right. Let me ask the Planning Director, if this is on record already, what we're discussing, does the Planning Commission get this information and would be able to make those types of recommendations? Or would you prefer it be done here at this level? MR. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. I want to kind of defer to Daryn that has a little more experience with working with Planning Commission. My instinct is we can handle it, but I really want to double check with Daryn. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Mr. Arai. MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai, Deputy Director. I'm actually having a hard time keeping track right now, so, it would be great if you kind of get it packaged up as best as you can. I think the last time you asked us a question was about the record Page 16 PC -28 July 24, 2018 being transmitted to the Planning Commission, so, they're aware of the back and forth and the discussions throughout the whole process. I think that's a good call and it's something we can definitely look at as long the minutes from these committee meetings can be readily available. Be that as it may, I think it's best to kind of synthesize it down as best as you can because when we transmit a bill and we post that bill on our agenda, it's going to read draft whatever. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think the challenge is, it's going to start getting wonky. That being said, I would love to discuss some of these amendments to provide the Planning Department with a direction on what the Council likes or doesn't like, and then send these amendments, maybe not in this draft of the bill to the Planning Director for them to further evaluate and make their background report and recommendations, which would then also provide insight as to which amendments would be, as Mr. Arai says, nicely synthesized into one bill, and then weigh the pros and cons of each. Mr. Yee, any thoughts on that? MR. YEE: Yes, we're playing with Playdoh not clay that's going to harden by the time it comes. So, I think there's a lot of room to understand kind of where you folks are weighing in on and having that discussion with Planning Commission, having the feedback will get there to be able to suggest revisions back to you. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Go ahead, Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: So with that, speaking to Ms. Ruggles' amendments, yeah, I think they're reasonable. I think the amendment to provide them a reasonable time if this was part of a bill, I would support this amendment. I yield. MR. YEE: I do want to address Section 2(f)(4), second page, "At least three police" and then it goes on with reports. We were discussing this. There's kind of a slippery thing with police reports because is there a loophole here for people to just call and place a police report? I understand the intent of trying to, again, gain some metrics so communities can try to address things with the Planning Department when somebody's doing something wrong. But, I also would say if you read the entire section, it's trying to provide several different items which we can evaluate if they're not in compliance. So, I think adding three police reports, I thinkI would advise to strike "at least three police" and just keep it as reports. That would be one suggestion on my part. Page 17 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Eoff MS. EOFF: Thank you. Looking at Ms. Ruggles' amendment and given what Mr. Yee has just said, it would be possible to amend, for Ms. Ruggles to amend her communication, what is it, 141? And just leave the part about reachable because we haven't touched that part in the bill so it wouldn't make a conflict. believe we could make that change because I agree that it's more reasonable. Then, if we strike the other part under the police report part, then we wouldn't have a conflict with what's been done to the bill so far. MS. RUGGLES: Okay. MS. EOFF: I believe. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk? MR. HENRICKS: So, this committee was interested in pursuing that the motion would be to divide the question that's before you because these are separable items, essentially, where you could vote on item two or item one, but not together. MS. EOFF: You mean MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, someone could move to divide the question. The question for the Council right now are these amendments one and two. So, somebody could say, "Move to divide the question," and if that motion is favorable, then you could vote on these separately or just choose one for simplicity. MS. EOFF: Okay, we'll see if Ms. Ruggles would like to do something like that and then we could at least adopt, into the bill, the reachable, the change to the definition of "reachable." ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles. Motion to Divide Ms. Ruggles moved to divide the question. Seconded the Question: by Ms. Lee Loy. MR. HENRICKS: Madam Chair, to make this simple, why don't we just have a vote on this motion to divide the question? That would make this kind of two separate amendments, assuming that the vote is favorable. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any discussion on that motion to divide the question? Okay, all those in favor say "aye." Page 18 PC -28 Vote on Motion to Divide the uestion: (Approved) July 24, 2018 The motion to divide the question was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Poindexter — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member David —1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: So now, we can talk about the two separately, so, we'll go to the first one. Okay so, we're on MR. HENRICKS: I'm sorry, Madam Chair, so let'sessentially, what we're kind of doing, unfortunately, in kind of a circuitous route is amending her amendment. So perhaps, the thing to do would be to, just for parliamentary procedure wise, is take a vote on Section 1, take a vote on Section 2, if anything comes out, then we go back to the main vote and it'll hopefully be clear that it's only on a portion of this. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Why wouldn't—okay so, would it be best for her to withdraw this and put two separate communications in so it's real clear in the minutes? MR. HENRICKS: Well, my understanding was we're kind of getting to the point where we want to just vote on things and kind of move this along. So, taking time to retype things, I thought— ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay so, we're on Section 2 of Bill 108, Draft 3, and that's what we're going to be voting on. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Based on Planning Director Yee's concern, I'm not going to support that section. I yield. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay so, this is on the section with the police report. Is that the—okay, Section 2. Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just want to clarify for the Council that this is the section that's causing us the problems with fitting into our amended bill. So, I encourage you to vote no. Thanks. MS.O'HARA: Chair? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O'Hara. Page 19 PC -28 July 24, 2018 MS. O'HARA: We had a recommendation from LRB (Legislative Research Branch) that we just take a short break because Leslie can easily piece together all the amendments up to this point and then we can be looking at that. Then, we can move forward with this bifurcation of different amendments in a much easier fashion. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: We need to take a short break and maybe that should be done. How does everybody else feel about that? MS. RUGGLES: Chair? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: I think that's unnecessary. I think it would take more time to do that than if we were to just vote down Section 2 and vote in Section 3, if that is the will of the Council. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. So, does anyone else have any concerns about Section 2? So, let's vote—Council Member Richards. MR. RICHARDS: I think it's time to pump the breaks a little bit and slow down. We're throwing around so many different amendments and things are all tangled. I appreciate what Councilwoman Ruggles is saying, but slow down a little bit. We have a lot of different opinions, a lot of different amendments and even Daryn is sitting here having trouble keeping track of it. We all are. So, I think we slow down the whole process a little bit. We're talking Draft 3 with three amendments, does that make it Draft 6 yet? Or we haven't voted on it yet? So, maybe slow down and get a summary of everything. So, I think we should take a short break and let LRB catch up to us. I yield. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Eof£ MS. EOFF: I think that we do need to get a clean draft of where we're at, but I think we could probably adopt the change in the definition of reachable before we do that so that Leslie can put all that in. If people understand what's going on with Communication 141, I think we could—Jen made it pretty clear, just vote down the Section 2 and adopt Section 3 of it and then we'll have a new definition of reachable. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: You know, Ms. Ruggles has provided a very bright line of what she supports and doesn't support in her own amendment. I agree, it's getting a little frankensteined at this point, but I would rather get through this amendment and then have LRB maybe retool it for us. I yield. Page 20 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so what we'll do is we'll get through this amendment and then we'll take a break. Okay. MR. HENRICKS: Madam Chair, before we take any breaks, I guessI'm just kind of wondering when we get through this amendment, where would we be going from there? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: After that amendment MR. HENRICKS: What amendments are still viable? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Right, and I think that would be it. I don't know if Council Member Ruggles was going to introduce more amendments. Were you still going to do more amendments? I know I just got two. Are those the new two that—I guess what Jon is trying to figure out, or our Clerk is trying to figure out is LRB is going to go do all this work— MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, I mean I'm assuming it'll take some time and we'll have to produce a Draft 4 regardless of what happens today. So, when I look at 233 and 232, which have come out, they're both about enforcement, correct? So, 229 just eliminated an enforcement. It was essentially repealed from there, so, I'm wondering if either of these are in play at this point. Really don't have a Section 25-4.3 Enforcement any more. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles. Point of Order: MS. RUGGLES: I have a point of order. So, we're still on 141 as divided, here, looking at Section 2. If we vote this down, I will make a motion to approve Section 3 and then we will be back at the main bill Draft 3, in which we can support or we can discuss Bill 108 or we can introduce more amendments like we have. MR. HENRICKS: I do understand that, but the two amendments that I'm aware of that are still here amend a section entitled Enforcement in Bill 108, Draft 3. When 739.229 was approved, that section was repealed from the bill, so, it's no longer there to be amended. So, I don't know if 739.232 and .233 are valid. There is no section entitled Enforcement any more. MS. RUGGLES: Right. Can we talk about that when we get to it? And can we finish MR. HENRICKS: Right, but I was just trying to get to the point where are we going to take a break to create an in -process draft and if that was a valuable use of our time. Page 21 PC -28 July 24, 2018 MS. RUGGLES: I see. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: You still have the floor, Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: I yield, thank you. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Let's just vote on this one right now and then we can take a break for everybody's sanity and figure it out. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Good, is that a call for the question? Okay so, everybody is okay with voting? Any other discussion? MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, let's have Ms. Ruggles make a motion to approve Section 1, item 1 I should say, in 739.141 please. Because I'm going by items, it's item 1. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Right. So, Council Member Ruggles, can I have a motion to approve Section MR. HENRICKS: Maybe I have a better idea. It doesn't seem like anybody favors it. We can justif there's no objections, the Chair can just we can just say if we can just discard that and move on to item 2. There doesn't seem much point in making a motion and voting against it. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Right. Okay so, let's discard that. MR. HENRICKS: That seems reasonable. As long as everybody's on the same page so to speak. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: So, now on Section 3 on "reachable," Council Member Ruggles. Motion to Amend: Ms. Ruggles moved to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, Section 3 of Comm. 739.141. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thanks. We already discussed this. I'll yield. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? Council Member Chung. Page 22 PC -28 July 24, 2018 MR. CHUNG: I certainly understand where Ms. Ruggles is coming from. She wants to make it a little bit more relaxed and fairer to people who might fall in this category, but, try taking a look at the language of this, okay? ""Reachable" means being able to answer the telephone at all times." That's clear, okay? You take out the clause, "at all times" then it reads, "means being to be able to answer the telephone within one hour of the call." Now, we don't know what call that might be. I mean assuming it's from someone, and "being able to answer the telephone within one hour of the call." So, you get one call, you didn't answer the phone, but you were able to answer—it just doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. You know, when we do ordinances and when we make amendments to ordinances, I would hope that since it's the law of the County, it's going to be very clear and worded correctly. This does not make any sense to me. It has to be reworded for me to vote on this thing. I know where she's coming from though. Thank you. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Any other discussion? Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, like I mentioned earlier, I support this direction, but, we've got words on paper and they have to have real teeth in them. I'm going to be supporting this section because I support the intent, but at some point, we're going to have to clean up the language so it has the type of teeth that we want legislative bills to have. I yield. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I'd like to move to strike the words "of the call" and replace them with "respond within one hour of a call by a guest, a neighbor, or a County agency." ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so you're striking—say it again, "of the call and" MS. RUGGLES: And replace it with respond—excuse me. Strike "within one hour of the call" and replace it with "respond within one hour of a call by a guest, a neighbor, or a County agency." ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. MR. CHUNG: I just need clarification. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Sure. Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: I mean if Ms. Ruggles could read the entire definition. Page 23 PC -28 July 24, 2018 MS. RUGGLES: Sure. So, it would read, "means being able to answer the telephone or respond within one hour of a call by a guest, a neighbor, or a County agency." MR. CHUNG: Then I have one question. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Go ahead. MR. CHUNG: If I may. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Go ahead, Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: But that goes it makes it more restrictive than what you had provided earlier, which says you can go no longer than three hours. MS. RUGGLES: That is to be present within three hours. MR. CHUNG: But, I didn't hear reference to that in what she just read. MS. RUGGLES: I didn't read the whole thing. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, so I want the whole thing. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. MS. RUGGLES: Okay. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles, go ahead. MR. HENRICKS: I would appreciate that as well and very slowly so that I can even reread it back before there's any vote taken. And we don't have a second yet, too, but that's okay because we're still figuring out the motion. MS. RUGGLES: Thanks. ""Reachable" means being able to answer the telephone or respond within one hour of a call by a guest, a neighbor, or a County agency and being able to be physically present at the short-term vacation rental no longer than three hours following a request by a guest, a neighbor, or a County agency." MR. CHUNG: That's fine. That's good. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. MR. HENRICKS: I don't have that. I mean I'm justI can't follow that. Page 24 PC -28 Recess: Reconvened: Withdraw Comm. 739.141: July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. MR. HENRICKS: And rewrite it down. She did read it for the record. It seems that there's clearly some appreciative response so there is some understanding. just am a little bit concerned at this point about I don't really feel that's amending this amendment with a few words here or there. This is kind of going far away from what we permit. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to take a short recess, and if Council Member Ruggles, if you could speak with our Clerk on how best for us to move forward on this. I think that would be the best thing instead of all of us trying to do it. So, I'm going to take a brief— MS. O'HARA: Chair, could I just say one thing? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Sure. Council Member O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: I appreciate what Ms. Ruggles is trying to do but beware that when you get that specific in the languageI mean what if the police calls? I didn't hear police. It could be County agency, it could be State police. I mean just beware that you could get calls from other places that affect your short-term vacation rental. So, I think you want to keep the language a little more general than get that specific. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to take a is it okay to take a 10 -minute recess? Or five -minutes? 10 minutes I think we normally take. Okay, we're going to take a 10 -minute recess. At 4:28 p.m., the Acting Chair called for a recess. The meeting reconvened at 5:18 p.m. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, I'd like to call this meeting back to order. Council Member Ruggles, you have the floor. Go ahead. Ms. Ruggles announced the withdrawal of Comm. 739.141. MR. HENRICKS: For the record, Madam Chair, can we also have Ms. Ruggles withdraw her motion on that divided question to approve Section 2? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, can you withdraw the motion on the divided question on Section 2? Page 25 PC -28 Withdraw Motion to Divide the uestion: Motion to Amend: July 24, 2018 Ms. Ruggles withdrew her motion to divide the question. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, that should take us back to Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended and amended and amended. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. MR. HENRICKS: We're on the main motion as amended. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: So right, we are now at Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended three times. MR. HENRICKS: Correct. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay so, Council Member Ruggles, you have a new amendment? Ms. Ruggles moved to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 739.234. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. So, the final language we got here reads, ""Reachable" means being able to respond via telephone to a request from a guest, neighbor, or County agency for his or her presence within one hour of receiving that request and be physically present at the short term vacation rental within three hours of receiving a call from a guest, neighbor, or County agency, when that guest, neighbor, or County agency requests the presence of the reachable person." We wanted to make it as clear as possible. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Any questions? Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: I guess it's okay. You know, I kind of just whispered to Ms. Lee Loy because this thing has become so convoluted and it's very difficult to follow all of these things. But, is there—this may come very easily to Ms. Eoff and Mr. Kanuha, but there is a provision in here that requires that the reachable person's contact information be given to the neighbors? I mean where is that? Maybe if someone can MS. RUGGLES: I believe in thesorry, can I MR. CHUNG: No, I just wanted, just as a reference, if someone could point me to where that might be in this. Page 26 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles, do you know where that is? MS. RUGGLES: In the amendment, Ms. O'Hara's amendment, I believe that we just adopted, it requires a letter be sent to the neighbors with the reachable person's contact information. MR. CHUNG: Okay. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Good. MR. CHUNG: Where is that? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: In her amendment of 739.229. MR. CHUNG: I'll just take your word for it then. MS. RUGGLES: Actually, it's not actually in here, I made that up. Sorry. MR. CHUNG: So, it's not in there? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: It's not in there? Council Member O'Hara, we were talking about your amendment. MS. O'HARA: There we go. Sorry, I was talking and it wasn't being transmitted. It's on page 11 of my communication. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you very much for that clarification. Okay so, on page 11, Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: 739.229? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: 739.229, page 11 on what section? Is it short term MS. O'HARA: Section 3 towards the bottom, "`Reachable" means being able to answer the telephone at all times, being able to be physically present ... `— ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: No, I think you're—are you on 739.229? Page two, I think. Okay, page two. MS. O'HARA: Well, it's in different places. Page 27 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, it's—here, page two, item (3)(D) "Verification that notification letters have been sent to all owners and lessees of..." MR. HENRICKS: Madam Chair? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Go ahead, Clerk. MR. HENRICKS: You know, what I see here is under, what is labelled as (c) Standards, on what I'm seeing as page eight. It says, "The owner or reachable person shall reside in the County of Hawaii and shall be reachable by guests, neighbors, and County agencies on a twenty-four hour, seven days -per -week - basis. The owner shall notify the planning department of any changes to their contact information forthwith." I don't know if that answers Mr. Chung's question, though, of how a neighbor or any other County agency other than the Planning Department, would be aware of that reachable person's phone number. But, I would point out, though, that was, out of deference to Ms. Ruggles, the definition for "reachable" already presumed that they would know. That they would be, some way, that a neighbor or a County agency other than the Planning Department would know how to contact the reachable person. Because for what I'm seeing here, it's really just the Planning Department and it also says that the reachable person's contact number is on the inside of the door. So, that gives it to the guests. Clearly, the Planning Department would need to know their number, but I don't know howI can't see in here anywhere a neighbor or a County agency other than the Planning Department would have that information. But again, that goes beyond Ms. Ruggles' amendment. That goes to the issue of the definition of reachable person in the first place, which already provides that they would have to answer telephone at all times and being physically present within one hour following the request by a guest, neighbor, or County agency. Perhaps one could look at the current definition as not being amended saying that the request would be made to the Planning Department or the police and somehow, they would know. I don't know. It is, I think I understand Mr. Chung's question and without really heavy analysis of this bill, I think that there's a point to be made there that these people that are supposed to be able to reach the reachable person wouldn't know how potentially. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Right. Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: Because I like the effort that was made by Ms. Ruggles in putting this together but because the word neighbor was included in there and really, when you think about it, that's one of the reasons why this whole bill was drafted, right? It's to address some of the complaints that were coming about from neighbors. So, if they don't have a way to reach this reachable person, Page 28 PC -28 July 24, 2018 then, it becomes problematic. So, I think that's something else might have to look at. I don't want to belabor this point but I'd be more than happy to vote in favor of this, but I think we have to go one more step at some point. Thank you. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: And, at the Planning Commission, would they take that up? Because we're going to be sending something to the Planning Commission that's not going to be an absolute of everything that we want, but we would want some feedback from them. Is that something that they would look into? MR. YEE: So, as I messaged before, this is not like any other ordinance that we usually just have a streamlined approach to it. I think, as always, the Planning Commission will have revisions that it's going to recommend to you folks and we're going to have to chew on those and clearly, as Daryn stated before, we'll get the transcripts. We'll be sure in our background and recommendations to the Commission that we're highlighting these issues for discussion for them. So hopefully, at that level, they can craft some suggestions for you folks. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Any other discussion on that? Because I see that as because we could stay here forever for years doing this and next Council comes up and we're still doing it. Or do we just kind of move it ahead and get the opinion and recommendation and then go from there? Because it'll come back to us for more recommendations. Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: I mean as I said, I'm okay with—I'll vote in favor of this amendment, but if maybe Mr. Yee could make it a point to talk to the Planning Commission and maybe they could include something or a further clause to this definition that perhaps, each neighbor shall be provided the contact information of the reachable person. MR. YEE: So, on record, I'm stating that I see the issue in terms of if the reachable person has to be a neighbor, if there's not way for the neighbor to know the number, then it's a useless statement. So, I understand that and we'll try to address it. MR. CHUNG: Alright, thank you. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I think Mr. Chung brings up a really good point and this could be easily fixed even ifI mean it can be fixed within the Planning Commission. All we need to do is amend the portion of the notification letters to include the reachable person's contact information. And even if the Planning Commission misses that, I don't believe that would be significant enough of a Page 29 PC -28 July 24, 2018 change to have to send it back to the Planning Commission after it gets back to Council. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. MS. RUGGLES: Thanks. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Any other discussion? Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to be voting in favor of this because I really believe the situation has gotten to a place where we need a little bit more technical review and its applicability to other sections of our Code. One thing I am reminded of is that, something that Mr. Arai mentioned a few meetings back, that the title of this bill is broad enough that whatever comes back from the Planning Department, with its background recommendations, and any suggestive edits, that the title is broad enough where we can discuss those refined pieces of language and begin to insert it into the bill where it wouldn't need to go back to the Planning Department. So, I'm ready to vote on this amendment. Mr. Yee has made it very clear on the record that he understands our intentions, not only with this, but the enforcement and other areas that we see as maybe loopholes that he can address and provide the background information for us to make a very informed decision and vote on the merits of a piece of legislation that has been properly vetted and given the appropriate due diligence as it applies to the rest of our Zoning Code. That said, I'll yield, but I'm ready to move forward. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Any other discussion before I call for the vote? Okay, looks like we're ready to vote on this amendment. On the motion to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended three times, with the contents of Communication 739.234 say "aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents of Amend: Comm. 739.234 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Poindexter — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member David —1. Excused: None. Page 30 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so now, we're at Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended four times. Is there any further discussion or are we going to do a motion? Council Member Ruggles. Motion to Amend: Ms. Ruggles move to amend Bill 108, Draft 3, with the contents of Comm. 739.144. Seconded by Mr. Chung. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: This is talking about enforcement though, Section 2, and Private enforcement. I don't know if—Mr. Yee, do you have Communication 739.144? MR. YEE: Yes, I do, and I know Corporation Counsel Amy Self and the rest of us had reviewed this prior. If you want comment, I would leave it to ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. Thank you for allowing the discussion. So, this came from O`ahu's Code. It was brought to our attention that currently, people are not able to institute civil action unless they've exhausted all their administrative remedies. And since there is no requirement within the current bill for the Administration to respond and enforce, this amendment would give neighbors, within 1,000 -foot radius of any legal short-term vacation rental to institute civil action and forego the administrative process. So, this would do two things: it would relieve pressure on our department because if they decide to file in civil court, they won't need to go through the administrative processes, and it gives neighbors options. And again, this was take from O`ahu's Code, and the only thing that was changed was that their—wherever their Zoning Board came in, we replaced that with our Board of Appeals. I look forward to getting your feedback. Thank you. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Any other discussion or questions? Go ahead, Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: Well, I was—this is kind of a lengthy amendment and I'm just — I need some quiet time to just be able to read this. I can go outside and you guys can discuss this, but, I also want to hear what you guys say too. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Should I take a five-minuteno, don't take a five-minute—Council Member Kanuha. Well, I don't know if you want to hear what he has to say or if you want to ear plugs on. Council Member Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to hear from the Director about this amendment. Page 31 PC -28 July 24, 2018 MR. YEE: I'd like to defer to Amy Self to be able to articulate the issue we have with it. MR. KANUHA: Hi Amy. MS. SELF: Hello. MR. KANUHA: Do you have any comments on this 739.144? MS. SELF: Well, my concern is that our County Charter gives jurisdiction for appeals of zoning violations to the Board of Appeals. So, any—in fact, it says any final decision by the Planning Director is to be heard by our Board of Appeals. I haven't looked at what Oahu, what their Code says, but I don't know that they have such language in their Charter. So, I don't know that the court because we already have a process in place for dealing with these violations. I don't know that the court would want to have original jurisdiction over this. It seems to me that they would want to defer to the agency that hears these kinds of appeals. So, that's the problem I'm having with it. MR. KANUHA: So you're saying, Amy, that this kind of—this amendment goes against what our Charter says? Yes? No? MS. SELF: Yeah, if it's an appeal, if it's a violation of the Zoning Code and somebody appeals the decision of the Planning Director, it has to go to the Board of Appeals, according to our Charter. MR. KANUHA: Okay so, this goes against the Charter? MS. SELF: Yes, because it says our Board of Appeals doesn't have special MR. KANUHA: Okay, so yes. MS. SELF: In or primary jurisdiction, but they do. MR. ARAI: Excuse me, if I may. Daryn Arai, Planning. Beyond just whether or not it violates Charter, I mean basically, this amendment would just eliminate due process. As Amy mentioned, there's already a process should there be an appeal, whether that appeal is by the operator or an appeal by a neighbor, but there's already a process. So, this amendment would attempt to skip it and take it directly to the court and basically, avoid all due process that's afforded any other person or entity that wishes to appeal the decision of the Planning Director. MR. KANUHA: Okay, I think I got somewhat of that answer. Page 32 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: I had an opportunity to briefly skim through this and I agree with Ms. Self and Mr. Arai. I know where Ms. Ruggles is coming from and I certainly can't disagree with the intent, but what's happening here is it appears that this provision, and only because Honolulu puts it in their ordinance, it doesn't mean they're any smarter than us, I will say that. It allows the neighbor to be placed in the shoes of the County in some regards on the one hand, when it says, "under the law." And on the other hand, in equity, which would be injunctive relief, which I think they would probably be allowed to pursue anyway, even if we don't put something like this. I think the whole thing about us not them not having to exhaust all of their administrative remedies is really a red herring in my opinion. Because there is that process and they could go in equity if they wanted to. This is very strange. It's awkward. It's very difficult to articulate what my objections are, but it's just not right, no offense. Thank you. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: I'm going to honor what I mentioned earlier. I wanted to have these conversations so we could shove over our thought process to the Planning Director. For this particular communication, I would not support, although, I understand the intent because exhausting the administrative process can take 24 to 36 months, in which time, that situation continues to operate. I see Mr. Yee nodding his head. So, what we want to do it shorten that window. So, I would speak in favor to the intent of shortening that process, but I also want to maintainI don't want to put in an ordinance that's contrary to our Charter. So, Mr. Yee, our thoughts and then MR. YEE: Again, we have to be careful that we just don't craft something for just vacation rentals. We have violations of other land use which we try to enforce, and we exhaust all our legal remedies in those cases. So, again, though I understand the intent, if there's a long, drawn-out process for this, the negative impact on a neighborhood can be great. So, we've got to strike that balance. Again, every island is struggling with it. There was some State legislation that was being proposed to give more teeth for fighting violators, vacation rentals, and those didn't pass the State. That would have enabled more leeway for us. So, trying to fight this fight has to come through various means and none of it which we can probably solve here today. So, I would recommend that we continue to understand the intent and push it down to the Planning Commission. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair, I yield. Page 33 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: Now we're talking about a situation where something is drawn out and I certainly understand that too. But then, again, I didn't read this real clearly or carefully. But then, that could mean that these attorney fees that would be awarded could actually be against the County because it might be something where a neighbor would actually file an action against the County. The reason why I don't think we should concentrate too much on this drawn out system is because if someone wanted to file an action, they're not precluded from doing it, and it would be in the nature of a writ of mandamus, right? Forcing the County or the governmental entity to do what they're mandated to do. But, I don't want to put something in there that puts us on the hook for attorney fees and things. I mean if the court deems it appropriate, then so be it. But, I don't think we should be putting that in here. So, there are things available to a private citizen, but it's not necessary to put it in the Code, I believe any way. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. So Council Member Ruggles, hearing all what has been said, I don't know if you would consider withdrawing it, or do you want to go ahead with the vote and see where that goes? Council Member Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I'd like to respond first. First, I appreciate you entertaining the discussion and just to clarify, I'd be curious to see what, within O`ahu's Charter, is different from our Charter that allows them to do this. I mean really, this was also to be a way to alleviate some of the burden on the Planning Department. But, if it's against the Charter, then I guess it's a no go. I'm just concerned. I'm just going to say this now since Planning is here, it's that exhausting the administrative process cannot only take 36 days or 48 months or years. It could actually take forever because there's no requirement within this Code to require the department to act on enforcing any complaints. So hopefully, we can get something along those lines while we're working out the enforcement process. Also, I just want to state for the record that I think we're going to be hard pressed to find one consistent fine and enforcement process for all zoning violations that are not too weak for short-term vacation rentals and not too excessive for minor zoning violations. When we look across the country, it's consistent that if we don't have a really strong enforcement for short-term vacation rentals that it's just simply not effective. We want to make sure that all the work that we're doing here actually Page 34 PC -28 July 24, 2018 makes a difference. Anyway, with that, I'll move to withdraw Communication 739.144. Withdraw Ms. Ruggles announced the withdrawal of Comm. 739.144. Comm. 739.144: ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. MR. CHUNG: There's a motion? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Not a motion, she just withdrew it. MR. CHUNG: Maybe if I can make statement too. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: I will allow you to make a statement. Go ahead, Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: Okay. Because I don't disagree with what Ms. Ruggles is trying to achieve. So, I was just going to say, I mean, inasmuch as it's going to be withdrawn, it's moot, but maybe if Mr. Yee could, again, take these concerns and the different viewpoints that were laid out during this discussion to the Planning Commission, then they can deal with it, yeah? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: And they'll have the minutes that will be given to them as Mr. Yee had talked about. So, at this time, this is withdrawn. So now, we are back to Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended four times. Council Member Eoff. MS. EOFF: I don't have an amendment so I was just going to make a statement too. I don't know if can do that without a motion on something. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Are you going to make a statement? MS. EOFF: I wanted to make a general statement. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: General statement on Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended four times, you may. MS. EOFF: Well, just with regards to the communications that I had already read before today that Jen had submitted, it was 144, 145, and 146, and had a conversation with the attorney. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: You're referring to some that wasn't even read in? MS. EOFF: Yeah. Page 35 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: So, if you want to stay general. MS. EOFF: Because generally, as Mr. Chung and Ms. Lee Loy had been sort of talking, I feel that same way that there are some conflicts with our Charter. There are some very serious things that we need to look at when putting in language regarding enforcement and fines, et cetera. Earlier, Amy Self made a statement that I was really comfortable with becauseor, maybe it was Director Yee. He said that when this is discussed further with the department and the Commission, they are going to be looking at rules regarding this particular bill, and relooking at the fines and other rules in our Zoning Code. I think that we're loud and clear that we want to make sure this is enforceable. We want to make sure that the fines are enough to deter violators. I mean I think you get that, so, if there's a way we could—and plus, we have a problem right now amending a bill that's already been amended three or four times with these new communications, it just doesn't mesh. So, I feel like I personally am ready to make a motion to refer this to the Planning Commission as it is right now, it'll be a Draft 4, and let some other experts take a look at some of the concerns that we left hanging a little bit. I'm really happy with what we've done to it up to this point as far as intention and everybody taking sort of ownership and getting into this and providing suggested amendments. So, I don't know if everybody wants me to make that motion right now to refer to the Planning Commission, and I didn't want to be rude to Ms. Ruggles for all the work that's she's done on all of these communications, but they all seem to have a common theme, and it's sort of problematic in this point in time. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: If you want to make a motion, if there's no second then that means that nobody's ready. Or, they'll discuss it and say, "I don't think we're ready." So, it's up to you. I mean, unless you want to yield at this time and want to see if there's any other comments. Do you want to yield? Okay. So, is there any other discussion or comments? MR. RICHARDS: Chair? ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I think we could spend quite some time having more and more comments. I am not in disagreement, how's that for a double negative, concerning trying to get a little bit more input on this. It would appear from the hours of testimony, the literally, hundreds of communications we received on this, the interest and the concern as we work on this legislation, we are headed in the right direction. Page 36 PC -28 July 24, 2018 From my gathering, I'm speaking for myself, the primary trigger of a lot of this has been a poor neighbor. We have heard it all. We have had people that have said this is the greatest thing, "It helps me balance my budget." We've had people say this is the worst thing, it destroys the neighborhood. We've had people say have met some great people. We have people able to stay on the island because we're able to do some of this in some capacity. We have agricultural entities that are building themselves because they're able to cash flow with this. We have other agricultural entities that are being affected by neighbors who say they shouldn't have ag in ag areas because of this. We have heard it all and a lot of it comes down to the neighborhoods and what we're doing to those. Trying to strike that balance, and you guys have heard me say this before, solving this, I think when we hit the balance and everybody is equally unhappy, we'll have probably struck the balance. I don't think we're near there yet, but we're getting closer. I think our direction, like I said, is appropriate and is right, but I'm concerned that we're going to leave some people that really are helped—our local residents are really helped by this, if we aren't careful when we make the decisions in crafting it. I have a constituent who spends time with her grandkids and family on the mainland and does a very limited vacation rental. If she's not able to do that, she will have to leave. I don't think that's appropriate. On the other hand, I have another, for lack of a better term, a mini hotel that is adversely impacting the community, and that's also not appropriate. As I read through this bill as it's written, it would seem that mini hotel would be allowed, and I don't think that is appropriate. So, we're headed in the right direction. I do appreciate all the work that everybody has done as far as getting us there, and this is a tough one. It is difficult. I do think we need more input and I do think we need to have oversight. But again, I keep coming back to the agricultural standpoint. Agriculture can flourish if we get the obstruction out of the way, and this goes back a long time ago when we were looking for other ways and other venues for cash flows into agriculture. I think we'll be very short sighted if we prohibit this from coming forward and allowing agriculture to somehow participate in this. So, I am prepared to move it forward so we have a good understanding from the regulatory people and how it does apply to other things. However, that doesn't mean I support everything in it so far, because I'm troubled by some of the stuff in it right now. But, by the same token, this has been circulating around and being discussed and discussed of for the last six months or so. We do need to move it forward, but I don't think we have the document drafted quite right as of yet. I foresee it going to Planning and coming back to us and getting tweaked again before it's all said and done. Page 37 PC -28 July 24, 2018 I needed to say that because the Big Island is an interesting thing. We have a little bit of everything and I don't know how we're going to craft it so it satisfies everyone. But, I think if we keep in mind that we have to have the good neighbor policy and the intent of having a good community and good community relationships as kind of our underlying foundation, and figure out how to build a process around that, I think we will make less mistakes if we do that. So, at this point, I'm going to yield and I'm prepared to make it go forward with the caveat that I'm not prepared to support it as written as of yet. I yield. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion? Council Member Eoff. Motion to Refer: Ms. Eoff moved to refer Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended, to the Planning Director and Planning Commissions pursuant to Section 25-2-43(b), Hawaii County Code. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Is there any discussion? Council Member Eoff, do you have anything? MS. EOFF: Well, I'm sorry I jumped the gun a little bit with the discussion, but I really appreciate the work that we've done. I think there's still a few points that do need honing in on with the help of our commissioners and our department people and attorneys, and public input, which is all going to be part of that process that we're going to get there. Yeah, we may not be able to completely appease everybody's concerns, but there's still some concerns out there that are unfounded. I believe there's still some misunderstandings about who the bill actually will affect and who won't be affected. So, some of those things will have a chance to get cleared up and most importantly, I think some of the things that Ms. Ruggles has been trying to do today that may be better served by discussion and researched further as far as enforcement and fines. I think we need to really impress upon the Commission to help us through that part of it. So, that's about it. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Anybody else? Council Member O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Before we wrap this up, I just have to say this. I know we put in a lot of work on this bill and everybody's yawning because it's late, but, I really feel this bill disparages against Puna. It has to do with our very old, and maybe what was at the time, inappropriate zoning decisions that were made for Puna back 50 years ago. And as a result, I would like to see this move forward to the Commission, just to get it off of our desk. But, unless it comes back with some substantive recommended changes, I'm not going to be able to support this bill as written in its final reads. Page 38 PC -28 July 24, 2018 It really is disturbing that we are, of course, beholden to State law on the ag piece and that we have been unsuccessful in changing it, if I understood Mr. Arai's testimony earlier. I guess there have been attempts to change that and I think we should continue to try and change that, because not all ag is really well-suited for ag, and the ag that we refer to in Puna as our legacy ag lots, the substandard, nonconforming ag lots of Puna, are an example of that. This isn't ag land being taken out of high -valued ag use, this is ag land that's classified C, D, and F on the scale. Good luck trying to make that work for you in terms of making a living on a small ag lot like that. So, there is a need to supplement income on these properties, and we also have the premier visitor destination on the Big Island. But we're in Puna, not able to cash in on that, not able to drive our economy because there's nowhere for people to stay. We just lost one-third of our inventory in Puna with the lava flow, one-third of our short-term vacation rental inventory. If people don't stay in Puna, they don't spend in Puna, they don't shop at the stores, they don't eat at the restaurants. So, I really see this as a negative for Puna in the way this bill is written. I've always wanted it to be a quota basis not a grandfathering basis. So, if there are no substantial changes when it comes back from the Commission, I will be voting no on this bill. I just want that to be clear because I have heard my constituents and they are very upset and against this bill, and that is primarily the Puna crowd, not necessarily from all over the island. Do we need to regulate? Yes, we do. I just don't feel that I can support this bill as written. So, I just wanted to say that. Thank you. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. I don't see any other lights on so I'll just wrap it up. I think we're doing the right thing byI know I'm supporting sending it to the Planning Commission because it takes it to a different level and it's a public process. I think that's the beauty in what we've got to do. It's still a public process and I'm sure the Planning Commissions, too, will have to deal with State laws when it comes to ag. Our hands are tied on that. People who are doing vacation rentals in ag are already doing it illegally by State law, right? Isn't that correct? Because State law says you cannot, except for can you just state that? MR. YEE: Yes, except for the 1976 date that we have. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: 1976, right. But, the ones after that— MR. YEE: Are operating out of compliance out of State law. Page 39 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Are operating out of compliance of State law. So, all that will get talked about and tossed around and maybe, we have to start lobbying our State representatives to change some of the laws. I don't know. But at least now, moving it up to the Planning Commission, we can still have that public process while we're doing some work with our State representatives as well. Okay so, to vote on Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended four times, or to refer to the Planning Commission, all those in favor of referring say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to refer Bill 108, Draft 3, as amended, to to Refer: The Planning Director and Planning Commission was (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Poindexter — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member David —1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Bill 108 is referred to the Planning Commission. MR. HENRICKS: Just to clarify, both Planning Commissions and the Planning Director as well. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Yes, Planning Commission and the Planning Director. So, can I have a motion to adjourn? Page 40 PC -28 July 24, 2018 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 6:02 p.m., Mr. Kanuha moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Poindexter — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member David — 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, this meeting is adjourned. Approved: (.-: � �, ff� �, e, �- � Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Planning Committee KE/jm glgljq2 (Date) Page 41