Hello, how are you? Good morning. Welcome to the 20th session of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Development. Today is Tuesday, September 3, 2024, and calling this meeting to order at 9 a.m. Community members and meetings here in the 3D Council, Chambers 25, are police street. Community members, closing our council members to the Evans, Jennifer Coguato, Rebecca V. A. Guest, Heather Kimball, Holoka Inaba, Michelle Gremba, and C. V. Lai. Council member Matt Kennedy, the council member, there's absent, my name is Ashley Cretch, Chair and Presiding Officer of the committee. Before we get into order of the day, Mr. Clerk could you pre-deftly bet, could you pre-deftly test the amount of hate you are? Thank you so much Madam Chair. Just noting that we do have a couple testifies to you as soon as you do a candidate. We will start with our zero-eye testifies to you as we wait for some of these in-pokes to log in. So I first test the file here in the middle who is JVIN to be followed by a MAID as you both test the file on Dose 121 and 122. Drawing when you're ready, you can just really do so yourself. You have three minutes to test the file on Dose 121 and 12 unless you wish to transition and when you do just let me know and then I can reset your time. I'm going to do a little bit of that and test it right today as a private citizen. Try and keep it safe. Then I can click it on the phone too. Wow. I'm like, how to do that? Okay. Okay. No need to do it right now. Test by another private citizen today. I would like to check and borrow another counter council members. I'm also testing on Bill 122. Tested right today, Bill 21. To the one-chest private city center guiding Bill 121, and the reason that I'm next to put forth by the council, why do you not believe that we're dividing? Shirt terminals will result in more housing availability for more affordable housing. I thought the bill was moving in the right direction. the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the operating system, the first round, 30 pages long, which is much too long, pretty much because of the read digested understanding exactly how it will affect them. The minutia that has been added along with the amendments is imposing unnecessary restrictions on your constituent's lives. For example, very clear home trades, very clear home trades, if they are not a run up right to one transaction because it always might get some points on the trade. Did you write your own people for poll or something if they got points on a credit card? What next? Do we call it a tar on a joint property through 200 feet from the main valley? What's the difference with that Nick? It seems like every time you'll click something you'll, there's a description to it that compilates the order. Despite of all the arguments and how they test the money, including the quality, the reference piece of the money, I'm keeping ties at 30 days versus 180 days. The council has now pushed forward with 180 days like us. Also, it's by the test money to delay the policy of the bill, until after the economic study the economic impact study the concept is pretty important. And of course, the end of this bill is going to be in nightmare. Most likely for important enforcement for years, the beginning of the coming of the late course at all. The privacy of this bill is to get everyone who is working short-term to register that there is so much to understand and comply with, does not even just keep operating without registering. Also, the fees to register only will be the most likely of those who are going to register in 30 seconds, just to get one state. This bill is becoming a minus-concerned fee that will be very one you占 to get for it here to please listen to your constituents. Good to touch on down on 222. Again, I'm putting up a very nice job down and touched on it as private citizen and I'm below resident. Thank you for the opportunity to see a testimony of the guidance proposed by the test-fired in opposition to Bill 122. The testimony that I had heard is advanced during the way that this cherished and preferred lodging for many visitors. In fact, parental members and discussing this bill have questioned the purpose of this bill. What positive outcome is expected by repealing that we have discussed as a preliminary use? The owners of these properties have worked long and hard to obtain the required special use permit. With the passage of this bill, they will be going to look together with all the members' short term rental properties and have to remove the registration every year. This is not a current requirement for a special use product and is unfair to these owners. Please be considered the passenger dispelled and it is not needed for a wanted. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is made this year also testifying on the same two items. No, you can do it if be just ready to do so yourself. You'll have three minutes unless you wish to transition between the two, just let me know and I can reset your time. Good morning. Johnny and I did not concur. I could have played it's a day. I did a movie with Christmas Preparation. I did a movie with 50 audience. I did a movie with 50 audience. I did a movie with 50 audience. I did a movie with 50 audience. I did a movie with 50 audience. I did a movie with 50 audience. I did a movie with 50 audience. I did a movie with 50 audience. I just want to show you what's happening. Can I just ask you a quick quick quick visit? Thank you. I've had some time on it. Thank you. I've been trying to pass the guitar as a wheelchair volunteer, other people in my industry, and I've been watching this bill on this slide line as I've been facing. I on the side lines as a citizen. I've lost my husband two years ago. I made some changes in my personal life, sold my home, bought a new home. I have the ability to have a long term rental at my property, and I have had the tated to do that, because I'm unsure about what the wrong vocations to will be. This bill, every time I think, okay, now I'm going in the right direction, then it takes another turn, and there's no one going in the corrective direction. I'm a great business person. I'm aware of what's going on here. I question how many of my fellow videos out there understand what might happen to their income, what might happen to their tax picture. And ask me to please stop. Please do the economic impact study and then let's revisit the situation. Chapter 25 is a bit A brand of social engineering that is unholy island like. Thank you. On Bill 122 and I apologize. Mary one second, we're going to take a quick recess. Word recess, thank you. Yeah. So nobody heard my beautiful prose? Order at 910 AM. Miss Bichair, sorry about that. You may proceed with your testimony. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. I'd like to apologize for the typo in my submission. I put 124. It should have been 122. And all I'd like to apologize for the typo in my submission. I put 124, it should have been 122. And all I'd like to say to that is it's embarrassing. It looks like a money grab, because that's all the difference it seems to be making. So leave these people on bed and breakfast. At least the ones that are already there, grandfather of them. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony chair your next testifier will take via zoom and then we'll transition to our coma testifiers That being said your first testifier via zoom is Janice Palmer Glenny to be followed by Alex Folsom Janice is testifying on bills one two one one two two one three four and one eight one Janice when you begin if you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes for the slew of bills unless you wish to transition. Let me know and then we can reset. Okay, thanks. I'm going to transition between the answers this morning. Thank you. Aloha, council members, I'm testifying first and support of Bill 134. Changes zoning are critical to the quality of life of all residents. Residents and lawmakers have ample opportunity and information to make decisions based on quality life concerns including those spelled out in the regional plans like the Cona Community Development Plan. What we see too often are rezoning requests that disregard critical tenants of the CDPs particularly regarding concurrent infrastructure. The intent of this bill is to increase transparency by allowing the public and the representatives a better opportunity to understand what land use changes could potentially mean to surrounding neighborhoods and communities while allowing the public more opportunity to be proactive rather than reactive to those changes. I'm going to speak to Bill 122 sorry 121. But it's alluding to one to his well I understand and appreciate that nuances and details are necessary parts of creating legislation that can be enforced. Which is one of my top priorities for writing her passing legislation. However, despite my continued participation in the process I admit my ignorance and the understanding again about much of this included and being discussed in these bills. Not like the first two testifiers I have a nagging sense that there are too many concessions being made to those who support the concept of STVR and that the planning director and maybe those working on the bills and council are overly accommodating the industry and property owners. We think they have an entitlement to renting their properties as commercial enterprises. Meanwhile, STVR gains create huge losses for many local residents and the housing market. One reason much of the public has misgivings is that our planning director knows so intimately how those nuances can help or hurt those STVR owners since its business prior to being director was helping them navigate and often circumvent STVR restrictions. I asked Chair Kimball and or the planning director to please please explain specifically why the concept of limiting unhosted STVRs to resort or commercial areas. It doesn't seem to even be being considered or apparent as one of the most fair sensible clean ways to prevent abuse of laws and neighborhoods that simple compromise would also help ensure that off-violent multi home owning land owners don't co-opt what might otherwise be resident housing. I look forward to continue discussion clarification of these bills and again I ask that no decisions be made on any of the three STBR bills until the public and other council members have ample time to grasp the deep. All the details of them all stakeholders need full disclosure and time to ensure the goodwill of those who are most important in this decision making process which are as always the people who live on this island. Transitioning to bill 181. I and many other members of the public continue to be dismayed by the general plan process despite the bath knowledge and intent of planners working hard to create a good document. The public has doubts and questions about the origin of items included in the final draft as well as what's missing and mistakes that might be being made. As with STVR legislation there's an underlying dis-ease, underlying dis-ease knowing that the planning director has so much power over the contents of the final plan. One of the critical ways to help delay those doubts is to rescind the amendment made in the 2005 general plan ordinance process that forbid substantive changes from being made on behalf of the public by the council That amendment as planners know was made at a different time and for reasons that aren't currently germane In fact, not allowing substantive changes seems almost illegal or at least it should be as I testified previously Holding so-called workshops and more public meetings as a waste of everyone's time. If unelected and compromised leaders ultimately have sole discretion over what the content of the map of our island's future is going to be. The public remains largely unaware of the contradiction and lack of transparency that holding toothless council meetings would mean to them and their collective future. Mahalo to council representative Inaba and others for working through this challenge. I ask that all Council members use your integrity and wisdom to support Bill 181 in a form most conducive to replacing the amendment added to the 2005 general plan. So that Council can make substantive changes to ensure best, most community driven plan possible. Hello for your time today. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is Alex Folsom testifying on Bill 121. Alex, if you could just reintroduce yourself when you begin, you'll have three minutes. Mahalo. Hello, everyone. My name is Alex Folsom and I'm a senior policy manager at Airbnb and Mahalo for the opportunity to comment on Bill 121 related to the Trans-Unicomitation Rental and Hosting Platforms. Airbnb appreciates the efforts that Hawaii County Council has made to create the sustainable long short-term mental program. The council has already passed a resolution requesting an economic impact study on short term mental and their effects to the island's economy. We urge the Council to complete the important study to better understand the potential negative impacts of bill 121 before moving forward and acting for their legislation. Last month, travel tech and local economists at Klangjer and Sim's released their own economic study on the local short terminal industry. It found that short-term rental guests on Hawaii Island spent over $1.3 billion in 2023 alone approximately 10% of the county's GDP. In addition, the same report finds that short-term rental guests represent about 43% of the entire island's tourism and visitor market. In its current form, Bill 121 creates on-erased registration requirements unreasonable registration fees and confusion for residents who currently host, but will be unsure if they will be able to in the future. The measures economic consequences could be severe and have a lasting adverse impact on the livelihoods for those who rely on tourism on Hawaii Island. We urge all of you to one, simplify the rules, the license requirements, the registration process to reduce the initial registration fees, and three, create clear guidelines for who can host, so it's clear to everyone. We encourage the county of Hawaii to follow through on its resolution to conduct the economic impact study on short-term rentals and their effects on the Hawaii economy before moving forward with Bill 121. We're committed to work with you, and if you have any questions, please let me know. Mollle. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, at this time, we'll transition to Kolda for their first two testifiers. Scott, please. Thank you, Rady. This morning we have Carol Burns, in opposition of Bill 121 and 22 to be followed by Joshua Montgomery, in opposition of Bill 121. Take your name for the record and proceed. You'll have three minutes per item. Okay. My name is Carol Burns. I live in Kaila Kona. I'm a SCVR host. I want to oppose the bills at the 121 as it is and ask that you wait until there is an economic impact study that was passed after great discussions and needs to be adhered to. The bill is way too complex, not understandable by many people, and it And it just should not go forward until it's addressed, until the economic impact study is completed. In 122, I think it's not advisable to have a different clad to fold the B and B into everybody else in the rental market. People work long and hard to get their B and B's established. And even though I provide breakfast for my guests, I am not a B and B. And I think it should not be the people who have those should not be lumped in with everybody else. So I oppose both those bills. Thank you. I agree with all of the things mentioned by the first two testifiers. I think they were very clear and it's just a travesty that this is even being considered to move forward without the economic impact study. Mahalo for your time. Thank you. Josh, I'm going to state your name for the record and proceed you have three minutes. Hello, I'm Josh, we're Montgomery. I'm here to oppose Bill 121. I wanna start by talking a little bit about the registration. There's been some talk that this bill should be passed in advance of the economic impact study because it's just a registration. And I'm looking at this legislation page after page after page after page after page of text. This is not a registration. This is a full on regulatory effort. And it needs to wait until after the economic impact study is completed. A couple of the other items that are substantive to the bill itself is the platform definition. If you have two vacation rentals and you have them on a website, you are a platform. And you will be held to the same account as Airbnb or BRBO that have millions of listings. And as a result, you will have all the same reporting requirements under this bill, and you'll be subject to fines of up to $10,000 a day. There's no mechanism to reset the fees and the fines here. So if you have a guest park in the wrong spot and You get reported that's $2,500. Six months later, you have guests that stay up too late at night, make some noise. That's $5,000. A few months later, you have another minor event. That's $10,000. And then from that point on, if one of your guests parks in the wrong spot, the planning director can and will find you $10,000. The planning director is not following the laws that's written today. Today the law says that if you have a host or an operator that lives on site, it's not an STVR. The planning director is enforcing the law against people who live on site and calling their operations STVRs because of permitting problems on the property. They're doing that right now today. There's an ethics complaint moving forward this month about that issue about the planning department not following the law giving the planning department more discretion and more power to shut down families and their incomes is just egregious parking and tiny homes there are families that will not be able to meet the parking requirements of this legislation those people will be shut down when this legislation passes. There are people who are running tiny homes, yurts, tents, and other novel opportunities for visitors to visit our islands. Those people will be shut down immediately when this law passes. So the story that anybody can start when at any time and operate is simply not true. And finally, we've had a lot of discussion about an economic impact study about the actual results of this long legislation, all of this regulation, and what it will mean to families in the local economy. Please summarize. That hasn't been done yet. And so passing all this regulation in advance of that, simply because it needs to be done in some accelerated timeline to solve a problem that doesn't exist is really egregious and then it's a piece of power. So I'd encourage you to table this issue until after the economic impact study is done and listen to your constituents, almost all of whom are saying don't pass this bill. Mahalo. Thanks for your testimony. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, we'll transition back here to our in-person testifiers here in the Heelow Chamber. Next up being Mark Sidmore, testifying on Bill 121. Mark you have three minutes once you begin if you could just reintroduce yourself. Aloha, Mark Sidmore. I've testified before. I want to thank Council members for taking the time and putting these amendments forward. I have testified before. I want to thank Council members for taking the time and putting these amendments forward. It's a lot of work, but it shows me and kind of rekindled my faith in local government that you are actually listening, especially Mr. Kimball. You've changed my mind about your approach. One of the things that I wanted to discuss was the Contextuous Lots Amendment that was put forth but then withdrawn at the last meeting. There is some question of why and that's an insurance issue. In lava zones 1 and 2 we can get HPI A insurance for our home. We can get very expensive commercial insurance for our business. There is no such insurance in lava zones one and two for mixed use. So if we live and run a business in the same TMK, we cannot get any insurance. An anonymous evidence, you had a question about has this been verified and thought maybe the insurance commissioner could help. I've had long conversations with the insurance commission's department, but they don't offer any information on insurance policies, but I assure you if you call any reputable insurance agent, mixed use insurance and lovazones one to two just does not exist. So I applaud the efforts in this Kimball to put this issue together as contiguous lots. That would allow us to keep our homeowners insurance on our home and allow us to keep the commercial insurance on our business. Most of the lots in love zones one and two in Pune, Pahoa, I'm in Cajana, Beecha, States are very small. They're 9,000 square foot lots. It's not uncommon for people to buy three lots and develop them as one building site. If we cannot comply with the hosted regulation of living on the property, then we get no insurance or we lose our business. The other way this could be done is VDAs. So we could then register our business as unhosted. So there's two mechanisms. Unfortunately, really only applies to lava zone one and two, but we are the poorest people in the county. And we need to do whatever we can just to stay afloat. The other issue with VDAs, people were saying, well, we don't want more hotels, we don't want more STVRs. This is a way of controlling growth. If you're allowing people to stay near the attractions they want to be at, the beaches, the golf courses, volcanoes, then they're not on our roads, which are already overburdened. And then the hotels won't build in volcano or a hotel won't build in volcano or hotel won't build in cana or something. So this is a way of controlling growth and controlling growth is the only way to move forward but not controlling growth just ends up in a big traffic jam mess. So I'm available if anyone has questions. I'm not sure if I was able to be clear enough but But this is our situation in lava zones one and two. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, at this time, we'll transition to our Zoom testifiers. David Louis testifying on Bill 121 to be followed by Chuck Flarety testifying on Bill 181. David, if you could unmute your mic, you'll have three minutes if you could just reintroduce yourself when you begin. Hi, good can you hear me? Yes we can sir. Good thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. My name is David Louis. I'm the former attorney general of the state of Hawaii. I've been involved in this issue for quite a while and I represent Airbnb. I just wanted to I have submitted written testimony that lays out some of these things but I just wanted to highlight some of the things. Here's the problem. All bills and legislation that either counties or the state engages in has to be constitutional. You can't do unconstitutional things. And this bill being as it is a very abrupt change in the law that goes into effect almost immediately and has many problems is likely unconstitutional is gonna lead to litigation and unfortunately is not gonna accomplish what I think the county council and some of the people would like to accomplish. This is not the way to do it. Now you folks are all familiar with this bill so I'm not going to go through the things but I do want to point some of these things out. What happens is this bill immediately changes the designation of transient accommodations and short-term rentals by changing definitions and immediately is going to infringe upon the vested rights of a number of people who have been renting their homes legally for perhaps decades and has never been regulated. These vested rights cannot be abrogated in this manner. There are cases at the U.S. District Court in Honolulu that are very clear that vested constitutional rights can't be abrogated and the intermediate court of appeals of the state of Hawaii has also said that. I'd just like to note that although the state passed 40 an amendment to HRS 46-4 that said the counties can go ahead and change definitions and things like that. That only changes the statute, but it does not change the underlying fundamental constitutional rights that people have and that are gonna be abrogated. And 30 seconds please. 30 seconds. So I just wanna have you folks look at that. This is discriminatory and raises equal protection issues because it tries to discriminate between out of state and in state people. And so I think you should hold this bill. But thank you very much for the opportunity and I refer you to my written testimony. Thank you. Thank you so much for the opportunity, and I refer you to my written testimony. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Chair, your next testifier is Chuck Flarity testifying on Bill 181, and then we can transition to Colna for their next testifiers. Chuck, when you begin, if you could just reintroduce yourself, you'll have three minutes. Wow, O'Grawley. Aloha, Madam Chair and members to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. I'll go to the council. of Horts, the intent and the potential legal impact of bill 181. We very much appreciate council member Enobba's efforts to go down this rabbit hole, which has been very, I guess you could say interesting. What we would, what the, we submitted late testimony and I apologize for that, but it does provide some additional information and bases that could actually allow Bill 181 to become even more effective on that I think, well, we think a plice legal president that we believe applies to Bill 181. The fact is that the ordinance that was passed back in 2007 created this 10 step general plan conference of review process did not anticipate that there would be a gut and replace amendment of the entire general plan. If you look at that at what those 10 steps are and you throw in a gut and replace a amendment it makes any council initiated amendment mood, it just throws a wrench into that whole process. So given, it's clear that the county council was trying to establish a organized, clear process for the comprehensive review. We believe that there's a statement, a clear statement rule that applies that says that that basically this council can pass legislation that makes a clear statement about what the intent of the existing law is. So it sort of it relates to a soft time meaning rule where you can more loosely interpret it along. And I believe the Corporation Council had referred to the doctrine of absurdity, where you avoid absurdity, where if a law creates an absurd result, again, you can use soft plain language and try to clarify using the clear statement rules. So we think those are all important. The reason they are is because not only can you remove that language that is prohibiting the County Council. 30 seconds please, 30 seconds. The amendments, we provided some solutions in our written testimony that would allow the council to make other amendments to clarify this process given the reality that we have now. One of the final statements I would like to make is that the public workshops that were held on August 28th and 29th were not by definition workshops. And so again, we're it's the process has been corrupted I guess you would say. So. Thank you so much for your test, I'm sorry for the, for Bill. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Chair. At this time, if we could transition to Kona to finish up with their testifiers, Scott, if you could. Thank you, Rayleigh. Next two testifiers here in Kona, Joe Schleckenberger, second burger, an opposition of bill 121 to be followed by Chris Adair, also an opposition of 121. And just build a little stitch your neck to the record for C. Learning I'm Joe Schneckenberger from Kailu, O'Connor, and I am in opposition of county bill 121. You've certainly heard some reasons already why you should not do it. I'm just going to mention a couple things. One is if it is a registration, then it should just simply be a registration, take some hints from the DCCA, which registers many, many, many more businesses than vacation rentals on the big island and they charge $10 to for the initial or $50 for the initial registration and $10 per year for registration. That should be enough if you are just going to register than just register for $10 a year renewals. Second, we talked about the people talked about the environmental or economic impact study that certainly seems anybody with common sense would certainly want to do the economic impact study before they move further with this bill. It occurs to do the economic impact study. We're talking $1,300 million just on the big island in revenue that comes from the vacation rentals. Do the economic impact study first? As the former Attorney General mentioned, there are pieces of this bill which are unconstitutional, I suggest that you do a study on the constitutionality of all of the various parts of this bill before you move forward with it any further. So again, I think you should table the bill until after the economic impact study is complete and then you should do an unconstitutionality study before you move further. Can Kill or Table Bill, County Bill 121. Thank you for your time. Thanks, Bill. This way, it's a great record. Appreciate it. Three minutes. My name is Chris Adair. I live in Hello, Hello. And I just want to go back to some of my previous testimony and talk about Bill 121's impact. We, if we were not allowed to rent or if there were some restrictions for renting, like many people I have spoken to across the island. My property is set up for vacation rentals. It's not set up for a long term. Long term rentals. If we did not rent to vacationers, this property would not turn into long term housing. I've heard a lot about why we want to pass this bill and a lot of people keep saying that this will provide more housing for local residents. I live in a large property which is why I have extra rooms available on five acres. My property would not be an affordable property. We use the vacation rental income to help us pay for this property. We rent rooms out in order to do that and number of people who you have heard from that is how they pay their bills. That is how they pay their mortgage. Secondly, I think everybody who has testified today and everybody who's testified in many of the most recent meetings. The economic impact study cannot be understated. We need to know what this will mean, what this bill, the impact of this bill will have. We need to know what the true economic impact is on this island. We've heard a number of numbers about how much money we get from tourism and then specifically how much money we get from short-term vacation rents. I think that that is something that we need to really seriously consider before we go through and pass a bill that could have significant impacts on that. Thank you for your time and I really appreciate you listening to us. Thank you for your testimony. The last testifier here in corner is Machi Moinoi. You comment on bill 181. People head state your name for the record and proceed after. My name is Machi Moinoi. Thank you everyone for this opportunity. I am just going to say that who we pack I'm representing who we pack this morning and we continue to support the intent of bill 181. We I concur with Chuck Florida's comments earlier. The words gotten replaced and misguided use of community. Input and workshop has been since the beginning, something that has been in our testimonies of warning and still till August 28th, we feel that we're not being heard with the process. So with that said, the amendments recommended to bring extra clarity so that our county council and planning commissions have the ability to make amendments is very vital and important. And that's all I have to say. Thank you so much. Thank you. Back includes testimony here in Kona. Thank you so much to our Kona Testifiers. Chair, just reaching out to one individual in our Zoom room with the name registered under Merrill. Merrill, if you'd like to provide testimony at this time, you'll have three minutes. You can unmute yourself if so. If you do not wish to provide testimony, feel free not to. But just asking, checking, if the Zoom user Merrill would like to provide testimony at this time. You can unmute yourself. Chair, hearing nothing. Those are all the testifiers you have at this time. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, if we could start with bills for ordinances. Is there any more testimony for Bill 121 draft three? Hearing none, Bill 121.3, immense chapter 25, articles 145 of the Hoi County Code 1983, 2016 edition as amended related to transit accommodation rentals and hosting platforms. Appeal section 254.16, through section 254.16.3 related to short-term vacation rentals and establishes new provisions for transit accommodation rentals and hosting platforms for transit accommodation rent rentals introduced by members Kimball and Kirkowitz this matter was referred to the planning commissions on January 30th and postpone on July 8th and August 20th, 2024 and there is a motion on the floor by Miss Kimball seconded by Miss Kirkowitz to recommend passage of Bill 121 draft three on first reading. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Let the record reflect at 9.41 a.m. I am relinquishing the chair of the committee to my vice chair as I'm one of the co-introducers of this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Courgowitz. Teeing it off, Ms. Campbell. Thank you. Again, thank you for the folks that made time to testify today. Appreciate you being here. I have some amendments that I'd like to start with. The first being a Housekeeping Amendment in Communications 675.465. So motion to amend Bill 121. What, after we on draft three with the contents of communications 675.5. We'll be back on the councilmember Kimball seconded by councilmember Kirkowitz to amend bill 121 draft three with a contents of communication 675.465. Thank you. So the first section of this amendment is the committee's of communication 675.465. Thank you. So the first section of this amendment is some additional clarifying and editorial corrections to the definitions, particularly event and gathering, which we amended last time. There was an additional parentheses, and not parentheses, quotations in the definition of transient accommodation rental, but the one thing that I wanted to highlight there is that we did add tense to the list of transient accommodations that are excluded from the definition of transient and accommodation rental. And so I want to speak to that in particular, you know, there's mention of sort of non-unusual accommodations and their ability to be provided as transient accommodation rentals. First I'll note that tiny homes, there are no minimum square footage that is, that with respect to permitting, so people can permit tiny homes. The issue is that they have to be affixed. They cannot be on wheels. And so that is in chapter five, our building code. Additionally, YERTS can be permitted as a dwelling. So those are also accounted for with that respect. Tents, however, and campgrounds are actually a permitted use or in some cases a special permit is required. So they would not fall under the transient accommodation rental process. They would fall under the campground provisions that are in the code. And I encourage my colleagues to ask planning to expand on that if necessary. But that's what happens in the definition there of Transient Accommodation Rental. Section 2 of the amendment removes the wording at the time of construction. As you may recall, Councilmember Kirkwoodson, I had two kind of overlapping bills or amendments to this section. The language at the time of construction applied to the code. Since the code language has been taken out of this phrase, that second part of the phrase becomes irrelevant. So that's a clean up there. Section three of the amendment, as you recall last time we proposed an amendment. And this actually speaks to the testimony from the attorney from Airbnb. What he was speaking to, and if you've read the written testimony, was that we've changed the definition of transient accommodation rental to 180 days or less. Their assertion was that folks that have been renting for more than 30 days up to 180 days would then lose vested rights. As you may recall we did put forth a nonconforming use process for folks that are renting 30 days or more to 180 days. With that was also this provision that nonconforming use permit would continue to apply with the allowance to do more than 30 days. This section here clarifies that that is for the newly issued nonconforming uses, people that were issued a nonconforming use for unhosted for less than 30 days. This that does not apply to them. So a little confusing but there's going to be two different nonconforming use strategies with respect to unhosted rentals. And that second strategy with the folks that have only rented for more than 30 days, up to 180 days, that is in addressing, that was put in place to address that potential constitutional issue. The last section here, section four, has to do with the advertising and reporting by platforms. There was some lack of clarity there, and the language has been amended to reflect that even if people of their are listing multiple TARs that are under their own ownership, they will not have a reporting requirement for web pages that they host. And then there's language here to clarify that January has 31 days and not just 30. So hopefully these amendments make sense to everyone happy to answer any questions as we move forward. Thank you Thank you discussions on the amendment Councilmember Kagi water. Thank you and thank you for this and the explanation. I'm still a little bit confused about section three. So could you maybe just walk through what this would actually look like for somebody with the way it's being presented now? Council member Kimball. Yes, thank you. So it's kind of odd here as it's taken out of context, but basically when Bill 108 passed, folks that had an unhosted rental outside of the permitted areas, the resort zones and whatnot, they got a non-conforming use certificate that allowed them to continue to operate. Because we have changed the definition of a transient accommodation mental from 30 more than 30 days to 180 days, we had to provide an opening for folks that have only been renting more than 30 days to get a nonconforming use certificate because they were not awarded that opportunity in the first go around under 108. And so that again awarded that opportunity in the first go around under 108. And so that, again, provides that opportunity for the nonconforming use certificate. What this section does is clarifies that if they get the nonconforming use certificate under that provision, they are only allowed to continue operating from the 30 days or more because if they were going to do less they should have gotten the non-conforming user to pick it back in 2019 when they had the opportunity under the Bill 108. Thank you. I understand so it's just as we've been talking about this whole time, allowing people who have been legally operating to continue legally operating in the same manner that they have been already. Okay, thank you. Bye. All right, no further discussion on the amendment. I am in support. So with that, all those in favor of amending bill 121 draft 3 with the contents of communication 675.465 please say aye any opposed motion carries nine eyes. Go ahead councilmember Kimball. For the second amendment, Chair, or if I motion to amend bill 121 draft 3 with the contents of communication 675.466. We'll be back Council Member Kimbo seconded by Council Member Perkowitz to amend bill 121 draft 3 with the contents of communication 675.466. So if you remember at the last hearing, I had an amendment that contained both this language and then language allowing for folks to rent while they were away. And this language seemed to be amenable to folks whereas the second did not. So what this language does is allow folks to operate a transient accommodation through a non-conforming user to pick it on an adjacent lot. As provided, that transient accommodation rental is within 200 feet of the owner's primary residence. I don't recall if it was asked before, during the hearing or someone made a comment after where did you get 200 feet? I just pulled that out as a starting place and so I'm not sure if that is the right number. It seems reasonable to me. You know, the understanding that the hosted rentals are different because there's that proximity to the location so that they can manage any activities by the renters and whatnot. So again, what this proposes to do is allow folks to with a non-conforming new certificate operate a hosted TAR when the TAR actually is on a adjacent building site. The reason for using this as a non-conforming use is we don't want to kind of open the door to this, just being kind of the status quo that you can buy multiple lots. But it will address the situation as presented by the testifier where this is already in place. And they're not able to get that insurance, particularly in lava zone 1 and 2. So happy to get that insurance particular, particularly in lava zone one and two. So happy to take questions and guidance as to whether the 200 feet is appropriate. I think if folks have a different idea about that, what I'd like to do is pass this amendment and then I can come up with a follow-up amendment to tweak that number, but it seems like a reasonable distance. Thank you. Discussion? That's right. Councilmember Cunyeli Klein-Folder. Thank you. Plenty of director. I have a question for you. Good morning Chair and members of the committee's endocard and planning director. Good morning Chair members of the Council of Chief Darrell planning department. Good morning gentlemen. How are you doing? Good. Good. Good. Have a good Tuesday. My question is on the building state and I may have asked this before but the building state we have a definition for that anywhere. It's not in this bill. I know that. If you could give me one sec, I've got like 400 icons. I just have to find it. Okay. Okay. So I'll kind of leave as you look for that, Jeff. My question is 200 feet. The wording here, if the transient accommodation mental is located within 200 feet of the owner's primary residence on a building site, a G sent there to. This is saying that the transient accommodation will be within 200 feet of the building itself. Correct, but on a different building site. And I'm thinking parcels, thinking the actual house that the person is living in, I'm trying to make sense of this. Councilmember Connelly, Kleinel, there are just to help the planning department building site means a parcel of land which is occupied or is to be occupied by a principal use and accessory uses or a building or group of buildings and includes a lot and a plot. I think we've had this discussion before and that comes from chapter 25. Okay. So the way that I'm reading this is you would measure 200 feet from the primary residence across a property line to the next residence on that and that would set that distance. That's the way I'm reading it. That's the intent. Okay. So, I put the public, like I can say, I see this, where is this looking for the building site definition because not of a TAR bill. It's, it's within the zoning code 100 definitions. Okay. Chapter 25. Okay. So if I have a home on parcel A, and next to me is parcel B, and within 200 feet of my home on parcel A is my transient accommodation rental on parcel B. That would be allowable correct. That's the interpretation of the way this is written correct. Okay and if I have a parcel C next to parcel A and that's within 200 feet I can have another transient accommodation rental. With parcel C be adjacent to your primary residential parcel. Yep. So like two different directions. Yep, so I'm dead center in the middle. I got one and two. So both properties touch my property and my two different homes on the outside of my primary residence are within 200 feet. I would probably ask that question to the maker. OK. To the maker. Council Member Kimball. Yes. The way that this is currently drafted is that you could have multiple adjacent parcels with multiple TARs within the 200 feet and those would be permitted as a non-conforming use. So essentially the attempt is to grandfather in things that are happening that are not really legal right now but we've kind of let it go. So you'd basically take that primary residence into 200 foot radius around it and any adjacent parcel would them fit that? Is that they also have to have been operating prior to that particular time? Okay, so this is really for existing non-conforming or just existing? They would be non-conforming in the sense that they're coming in. The word non-conforming in the TAR is problematic, but that's the term we're using. It means that these were operating legally previously, but at this point, we're saying that if they were operating prior to this, we're granting them a nonconforming user to thank you. Okay, Jerry, you're up for now. Thank you. Council member Lidoy. Okay. Chair, I yield for now. Thank you. Councilmember Lee Dauin. Oh, thank you. Thanks, fellas, for being here. Director, tell me again, you're understanding when you read this. It's from the property line or from the building, the physical building site. I would interpret this as from the primary residence. So wherever that primary residence is located on the site, drawing out 200 feet from there, and that could cross over that wood cross over a property line. If right for the adjacent parcel adjacent. So just trying to walk it out because we also know that they have building setbacks, right? And I'm struggling because some of these building setbacks might be already 200 feet to the property boundary line. Because it depends on what their zoning district is. Yeah. So our larger setbacks, if it if it's not within say the conservation or coastal areas is going to be you know 20s on the side 30s on the front. That's going to be your egg zoning. So I think it would also depend on the width and depth of the parcel and where the house is located on there. We have some areas that have flag lots that are very long and the person may have their house at the very back, say a flag lot that goes back 900 feet. They may have their house situated around 700 feet. The other parcel adjacent could have the house sitting on the front of it. That line would probably not measure out. Okay, and we're just testing it to the maker. I think the other concern I have as, you know, listening to some of the testifiers in absolutely, there was a time when properties out in Puna were just so easy to buy up, you know, you had the same owner by multiple properties. And what I'm struggling with is there's no language in here to the maker to identify that it is the same owner that the continuous or to contiguous properties are owned by the same individual hosting or or or doing this non-conforming use. You know what I'm doing director? I'm just trying to take it out for a walk and see if it works or we end up with more concerns, loopholes, and needs to, more language to address what we're really trying to capture. I think part of the question is for us to run through and the part of it is to the maker of the amendment, not what that intention was. I don't want to stay within my lane on running that through. I didn't make the amendment, so it's hard for me to speak to those particulars. But what I don't know is how many of these situations we have on how many, not how many, right? Because the one parcel with the adjacent, that's one thing. Are there many that have four, five or six of these and basically a little miniature in? I don't know. Because this isn't regulated, we really won't know until this comes in. So that's kind of shooting in the dark on that one. Okay. Thank you. You know, to the maker, just... That's my style. You know, I tend to walk these things out just to test it. You know, I'm just trying to get to a place where we have something where people can begin to evaluate whether it's for a fiscal impact statement or just for more public input. Maybe to the maker if there's ways, I hear you saying, you know, you're looking for feedback specifically on this 200 feet. Those are my thoughts. I think clarity around whether it's from the physical building site by definition or from the property line would be helpful, but also maybe some assurances that it is the same owner would help to. Those are my thoughts, I yield. Council Member Cruz. Thank you, Chair. I also kind of flagged the same points that Council Member Lee Lloyd just raised about, you know, the interpretation of this particular amendment for nonconforming use could be any adjacent site. You didn't actually have to own it. So I think the clarification around, if you are operating in this way, and I have a number of constituents that have reached out and they have, it's a nonconforming use that we want to recognize in our code just ensuring that their primary residence and this adjacent parcel owned by the same person that prevents I think some abuses in the system and you know in thinking about something that councilmember Canaley E. Kleinfelder mentioned about how there could be potential loopholes where you're looking at lots on either side of the primary residence, you could just limit it to one. You could just limit it to one. Really appreciate you bringing this forward to resolve some concerns that may constituent strays to the yield. Thank you, Councilmember Codewater and Councilmember V.gas. Thanks just a real quick thing more for the public but I think when I'm talking about it before we were talking about hosted but clarifying that we're talking about owner hosted here not just any hosted so we're not talking about operated hosted just owner hosted and my understanding is that these adjacent properties meeting this criteria would also then be considered owner hosted. So I just want to clarify that and I see that the maker is notting. So thank you. That's all I needed. Council member V. Agas. Sure. I just have a quick question about section 1. 1A2. Pursuant to section 205-4.5, Hawaii revised statutes, the transient accommodation rentals shall not be permitted in an additional farmed dwelling. And I wondered if you could help clarify how this relates to ag properties, because I think we're still waiting for the final determination from the state on ag. Council Member Villegas, I'm going to ask if the planning department can answer that question. Okay. Yeah, that's thanks for the question. That would be relating to the state-land use agriculture component within that section, which is the one that specifies the need for additional farm dwellings if you're doing additional dwellings on there on state-land use ag. And we don't have any response back from the appeal as of now. The lawsuit that you're referring to. Okay, so we're going ahead and making a statement for our county before we get a ruling from them. What is that kind of a difference? I think that's a different conversation. So what's before the judge is really around the June 4th, 1976 conversation around prior to that. It was looked at as the first woman was a residence and after that the first woman was a first farm dwelling. So that conversation is really around the nonconforming use allowability in the first farm dwelling, which is going to be your typical dwelling that's built in most places, like even paradise park, etc. The additional farm dwelling is really a separate agreement. It's a separate application that they actually have to show and prove that they have a certain amount of farming activity. And that additional, and that's the key word additional farm dwelling, is actually used by someone to engage in farming activities on the property. So this just clarifies that portion of the additional farm dwelling. It doesn't contemplate what the other conversation is, which is really around the first farm dwelling. Okay, so quick question just to walk it out with an example as Council Member Lee Loy. Let's say somebody buys a coffee estate and the coffee estate we all we've had numbers of conversations in council with people who've bought coffee estates and then come to us for non-conforming wanting to do weddings or whatnot because and their plea is we can't make a living farming coffee to which my response was no kidding. That's why members of council at the time who were coffee farmers had coffee land also had other jobs. But in this example, there are four farm dwellings on the property. Can they be rented out as four individual TARs? So in that case, we're going to assume that the parcel was created after June 4th, 1976. The first dwelling would be a first farm dwelling and the next three would be additional farm dwellings. Those three additional farm dwellings would not be allowed to be used in any form of transient accommodation rental. The first one, if it was owner-hosted, could be utilized as the way that this bill contemplates. Okay, so it does provide. Okay, so it provides for the opportunity for one TAR on the property. And but the other three would need to be used authentically as farm dwelling, which the intention was for people working in agriculture to have a place to live on the property that they were helping to farm essentially. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's that's helpful. Appreciate it. I yield. Councilmember Kimball. Thank you. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. Councillor Cunham. What I will do just to keep this clean is with the draw this at this time, but bring it back again with that additional clarity. But I appreciate the discussion on it. I did want to ask since I will be revising this, if I can just get briefly some feedback on whether or not in general the body would like to see a limit on the number of adjacent that would be allowed a limit to one or whatever before. So I can bring back a complete amendment. I did also want to just highlight that in cases other than in Lava's on one and 2 where you have this insurance issue, the proper course of action would be to consolidate the two lots so that they're on the same building site. But because of this inability to get both commercial and residential under the state-funded insurance program, that's why we have to look at this for that area in particular. So, Chair with your allowance, just if I can get some quick feedback on whether or not folks want to see that limitation. Council Member V. Agar. I would, I think that that's a wise way to go. Yeah, the intention of Bill 108 brought forth was to limit our short-term vacation rentals and the proliferation around the island. So while there's a good and healthy balance, the intention, I think of this legislation, is still to ensure that we have limits. And so I think one is wise, I yield. Councilmember Kakiwata. I'm wondering if that, if you have, for instance, a duplex or something like that that is a joining property that you own. Has that been discussed at all, I guess, as far as limiting the number because, yeah, it might, it would be interesting to know if we have that situation, I guess. And if that would cause significant problems for people who have already been utilizing it in this way. So I, I, I, just going to throw that question out there. I do, in general, think limiting it is a good idea. Any other suggestions, comments, comments? Contra, please, Roy. And no offense to the maker. I'll just always try and break things, right? And so to your point, what prohibits a property owner from doing a parcel consolidation reseptivision to consolidate three lots and then have more adjacent lots to do more rentals. So I'm just on the fence here. Maybe I just kind of want to walk it out with the director and the deputy director about other tools that's available within the chapter 25 and to the point, right? This was definitely an opportunity to register, get everybody, like we gotta figure out where we're at. So to the point, I think, I'll just go with the will of the body, but I might have a separate conversation with you after. I yield. Councilmember Coney, I need your client folder and then Councilmember Evans. Thank you. Director. Owner hosted lives on property B next door. It's within 200 feet of the residence. You can have your TAR. The ADU question is tingling in me because we're without ADUs though. So if PropertyBee is two homes, an ADU and a regular home. The first part is rented out long term and the back one is a TAR, is that allowable? Is now from in the reading of this bill, it says that you can only have one transient accommodation rental that doesn't mean you couldn't have one long-term rental and one transient accommodation behind it, but within 200 feet. Yeah. Excuse me. Excuse me. Thank you. I believe that that condition could exist. Yeah. Yeah, you're chair. Council member Evans. Thank you. Just in terms of potential writing a bill, I think it would be possible maybe to put in some language in terms of with exceptions for zone one and two. We would apply it this way. I think we would allow that so I we keep talking about trying to deal with the impact on the insurance and there might be a way to do some language that would really address this zone one or two problem just a thought to share. Thank you. All right. Any other suggestions? I'll be back Deputy Director Darrell. Thank you chair. Excuse me. We did request some clarification on this matter as well as another. So with the situation of the rental on the adjoining parcel, we just want to make sure that we're clear that if you have a primary residence on one parcel, and that host, that owner host, is going to operate Tars or has been on the joining parcels. He himself still has the ability to operate a Tara on his property. Okay, so that's one clarification. The other is on the first section of this Proposal Amendment 16.1. This was brought up as staff was reviewing this. It might just be a wording matter, but in number one, A1, it says the transient accommodation rental shall be located in a single family dwelling inclusive of a detached bedroom, Ohanah dwelling, additional dwelling unit or guesthouse, provided that no more than one transient accommodation rental be permitted on a building site. The way that they were seeing it and it's the way it's laid out in this is that the possibility you could use portions of each of those dwellings as part of the tar. So it might be better to a suggestion would be to keep it the transient accommodation rental shall be located in a single family dwelling inclusive of a detached bedroom and or guest house provided that no more than one transient accommodation rental may be permitted on a building site in a single family dwelling, Ohana dwelling or additional dwelling. Thank you. Councilmember Kimbo. Do you have a comment before I withdraw? Yeah, I have a comment. So I think for the, I'm not maybe so concerned about the number of units. I don't know that there are going to be that many properties that have a unit within 200 feet. That being said, the 200 feet thing I think maybe, if what is the intention of the 200 feet is that the the owner hosts can see the other unit or that they can respond or be subject to what's going on there. I just maybe I'd like to understand what the intention of that is. So the intention was to sort of keep that hosted element, right? And part of it is that responsiveness to be able to monitor what's going on on site, as well as the things that you've heard from other folks about how being the host, they're providing this experience, they're providing this interaction with folks that are actual residents. The thought was that if there were scenarios where you had two, five acre parcels and one was located way over here and one was a complete other side of the other one, then can you really call that hosted and we're starting to get away from that concept? So that's why there was a proposal that there be some sort of distance relationship between the dwelling so that it could still really meet the expectation of what a host in rental would be. All right, with that then I think I would support, you know, up to a quarter mile, I mean, 200 feet. Just, I know you pulled it out of thin air, but quarter mile I think is still reasonably close where you can have that sense of order hosted for a contiguous lap. So however you bring that back to us appreciate the discussion. Council member Kimball. I will withdraw my motion to amend with the contents of communication 675.466. The motion to amend has been withdrawn. Act to the main motion. Chair, motion to amend bill 121 draft 3 with the contents of communication 675.467. Is there a second? We'll be back on the member of the council member, second member of the member of the Limba to amend bill 121, draft 3 with the contents of communication 675.467. Thank you. So this was a amendment that was requested by the department to clarify that the process of providing a registration through this process does not constitute you know the permitting of the building or overwrite of CCNRs or any of those things there were some concerns in the testimony for example that HOAs that have CCNRs that prohibited TARs would be overwritten by this code, and that is not the case. So this just makes it crystal clear that this registration process does not constitute any kind of permit that is, or creates any privileges or rights beyond the registration and process. The billing code still applies, the fire code still applies. The any CCNR still apply. It is just a very limited scope provided. So shouldn't be necessary to say what it is. And so I'm putting that in there with this amendment. Thank you. Any discussion on the amendment? How's the number of events? Yeah, I'm just curious. You know how we're passing legislation that I know we're headed towards trying to lower our risk. I don't know if how this idea came about is a risk of the risk management. Folks come to you and say it because when you register a lot of stuff, right? Cars. I mean, there's a lot of stuff we register. I'm just kind of curious, you know, why we're getting into this language, because this might apply across the board if we're trying to kind of lower risk. So can you tell us how this came about? I believe that having some language like this will just make it clear for staff, where we've gotten into a lot of challenges in the passes around CCNARS and does the law override that whose jurisdiction is it where do we get involved in that. So we don't enforce CCNARS but they still exist and I think this is just clarity that what you got your STBR and we're trying to make it as simple as we can, you're still responsible for complying with all other laws. I think it's just a good clause to have in there in general. Okay, I'm just thinking to start setting precedence. I mean CC and R is, the CC and R is we all know. You know, when you buy and that's what you buy into, that's what you have to live by. It's except it's not that simple when you get into the inner workings up who enforces the CCNRs. You have somebody registering for a property to do this. The department doesn't enforce those CCNRs we've gotten into engagements where somebody felt like we were supposed to. Our legal counsel said it's not the department's role to enforce private covenants. And so therefore it was between the landowner and you know that the board of association to work through those issues and we just look at it from the land use perspective. Similar to how we have in our changes on applications, the special permits, the applicants responsible to comply with all other applicable laws. Chair with your latitude, I'd like to ask corporate council a question on this. Please go ahead, Corporations Council. Good morning. Oh, this is the strand's corporation council. Good morning. Thank you. You know, I really heard what the planning director said about. Sometimes, you know, people want clarity of how CCRs kind of fit in when we, you know, do things like what we're talking about today, which is registering your rental. Should we instead of putting it inside this particular chapter, should we maybe put it somewhere else in our county code that when it comes to CCRRs, I don't know some language of, you know, we're basically, you have to comply with CCNRs and none of the stuff that we pass will in any way affect your obligations to follow CCNRs. I'm just trying to figure out why we're carving it out right now and putting it here. That maybe it's a bigger question that needs to be put somewhere in our code. As a general statement, I'm not sure how much county law should be directing which should or should not be in CCNRs. Those are private, covenant and restrictions. And so the obligation of owners within a community association are to enact CCNRs that would not violate county law. And so, I don't think it would be particularly helpful to start listing specific laws that have to be in CCNRs, because you run the risk of someone coming back and saying well we followed these that you listed but not others. Have you seen this, have you seen this, you've seen this language that were? I haven't looked at it closely. Do you want? I'm just curious if we should have a blanket statement somewhere in our code about this versus putting this inside. 25, 4, 16, 7. I make a comment because I think we're heading slightly off the topic of the amendment. Just for your notification, just chance and Councilmember Evans, I gave C and R as an example, but this is not specifically directed to CC and R's. There had been language in Bill 108 with respect to CCNRs that we opted to take out because we kind of agreed with you that it doesn't need to be in there. Laws are laws and they all apply, but one of the things that I understand was happening at the planning department was folks were saying, well, if I get this registration, I can just build an up-and-up on permitted structures and make them TARs. Well, building code still applies as another example. CCNR still applies. So the intent of this amendment is to provide clarity to the public that regardless of whether or not they get a registration, all the other laws apply. Now we shouldn't need to say that, but that's really just the only intent here is to say just because we give you a registration it doesn't mean that you're street legal. I guess I don't believe we need to put it in code. I think, you know, if people have a hard time understanding law, you know, you know, we can possibly, part of the registration process, maybe put a little aster that can say in no ways does this have any influence on your CCNRs. I don't know. I just don't see putting in a law like this. Just going down the slippery slope of, you know, do we start putting it everywhere else? Because people somehow think that this law is changing CCNRs or overlaying CCNRs, I wouldn't want to get into that interpretation. So I know that's just my recommendation. That's why I said do we need to put it if we did I would put it somewhere else in code kind of a statement about none of our code really influences the CCNR because you're when you buy you sign up for the CCNR and that's a whole different. I mean the code on CCNR is there's a lot of code on that in the state law. Anyway, that's just like thought. Yeah, please. The provision that you reference doesn't have a specific reference to CCNRs. The question about does it have to be there as a matter of law? As a matter of law, it doesn't need to be there if it's in there for some other policy reason that this body believes is important. Then, you know, that would be up to this body. But as a basic matter of law, no CCNR can be in violation of county or state law. All right. With that, again, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Director Kern. Briefly? Just real quick. All right, with that. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Director, current. Briefly? Just real quick, I think part of the intention was not to go down the CCNR path that the intention around it, I believe, was that we're trying to create some latitude around this registration process, trying to make it a little more inclusive for folks and to reiterate that you're still responsible to comply with all the laws is really the intention in there because we will get pushed on latitude from the Department of People will come in and say, well this says X, so I'm going to go there and then we're going to have to come back and say, well no, no, no, you still have to comply with all other applicable laws. So I do think having a statement in there will be very helpful for the planners and the practitioners that will actually be administering this code. Thanks. Thank you, director, for the discussion. All right, with that, I hear what you're saying, council member Evans. Do we put it everywhere in the code? Do we put a blanket statement for what something we already know should be, I think, in the case of this specific bill and a lot of the conversation is generated. It will be helpful to have this included. So I'll be in support of this amendment. All those in favor of amending bill 121 draft three with the contents of communication 675.467. Please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries nine, aye's. Council member Kirkowitz. Chair motion to amend bill 121. Draft three with the contents of communication 675.468. Moved by Council member Kirkowitz. Seconded by Council member Calimba. to the .468. More by Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor in response to feedback from my colleagues when we adopted the visitor destination area framework at our last committee meeting about wanting to make it clear to the planning department that we are going to prioritize areas that currently have high concentrations of trans-inacommodation rentals when we think about establishing VDA designations. Again, we're just creating the framework. No communities have been offered up. If designations. Again, we're just creating the framework. No communities have been offered up. If folks like this language, we can adopt it today, but if you have feedback on how we can further strengthen it or make that distinction, I'm all ears. Thank you. Councilmember Glimba. Thanks. I just wanted to thank Council Member Perkowitz for this amendment. I think it's a useful piece of purpose language so that the ideas that we consolidate rather than spread the Englishmanials throughout communities help. Thank you. And support. Councilmember Coddiali, Klein Felder. Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate the amendment and the listening. I think just to the planning department, this VDA section is already in the bill now. But I have concerns about this for a number of reasons. If I read this sentence, this is from the purpose of applicability. This designation applies to areas that have high concentrations of transient accommodation metals ensuring these operations are consolidated in appropriate locations. My big challenge with this is that just because we have high concentrations of TARs in an area, doesn't mean that that's an appropriate location for all those TARs. That's just there's an issue there. That's built in saying that well, because we have lots than that area should be open to having more or be considered a special area to have more of them or be okay. And my challenge is if they're not in an area that is resort, if they're not in an area that is designed for that kind of activity, They're probably not conforming. And to just say we should have more and create an area for them to be okay in, is gonna create more issues in the community. It creates issues in our infrastructure. It just creates a proliferation of TARs where they may not be wanted by community or just because they've been there forever. So I'm just voicing that concern. It's already in the bill. I can understand the reasoning. I can think of communities that supply us to immediately. But I just feel like this is going to be problematic. So I'm just putting that on the record and appreciate the amendment. Thank you. Council member Evans. Yeah. This isn't a amendment. So I'll just comment. I'm, you know, I'll be supportive of amendments that make it better. But I'm saved my comments for the underlying concept because I'd really like to talk about how this applies with our general plan in land use designation. So I'll hold. Constable V. Underline. Thank you. Yeah. I just like to echo my concerns and kind of heartburn when it comes to the statements here. It just feels a little counterintuitive for me. You know, when Bill 108 was brought forward, there are land use areas in which J.R.'s are allowable in resort, predominantly, right? And as we navigated our way outside of those zoning areas, then you needed a non-conforming use. So with the intention of that to, once again, putting a cap on how many transient accommodation rentals we have on the island. And through this legislation, also requiring they become registered so that we know how many we have and they are required and held accountable to pay equitably. It doesn't make sense to me this is like reverse designating then going to places that already have lots and then opening it up by lots. I mean have a lot of TARs and then opening it up for them to have as many more because it's now zoned for that. It also applies to areas without adequate hotels or resorts and in proximity to visitor-related establishments or activities such as, golf course landmarks. I just feel like Arkham Aina, who can afford and who can still live in these areas, are going to be displaced if we open this up again. It just seems counterintuitive to me where we would open this back up when this would be areas. Having been at a hotel and resort this weekend and enjoyed it there, I was also very grateful that I don't see a future where there are more resorts on our coastline. We work capacity. We have plenty. We also have plenty of transient accommodation rentals, which was the intentionality of this original legislation. So it's counterintuitive to me on why we would create whole new areas. I don't necessarily see the need for that, and that's just another Pandora's box, which doesn't make sense to me so I just I have concerns with this and I won't be supporting I won't be supporting at this time I yield. Councilmember Kaguaro. Thank you. Yeah echoing some of the thoughts of my colleagues I also feel like this is maybe not the right direction we want to go opening up to a lot more TARs and feeling like yeah if there are a lot of trans-ina accommodations there already why would you want to ensure that there could be more with less Regulation around it so I yeah, I'm not really sure where this Where this amendment is going and I also have when we get to the original Part of this would like to discuss more of where that's going. So thank you. Council Member Lee Light. Thank you. I'm in support of this. Are they because it encourages pathways to where we want to see certain things happen? I think this coupled with the previous amendment that we just passed under 467, which basically says issuance of a transient accommodation rental doesn't like you still got to comply with all the other stuff and so I actually see these two things working together nicely if we want to encourage it in these respective districts. Okay, but here's some other things that you need to comply with also. Meeting infrastructure, meeting wastewater needs, you know, whatever those things that help drive economy and bring in the needed services. So people are not traveling or providing work in places close to home. Whatever that looks like, I like this amendment and specifically as it marries nicely with the previous amendment. So I'm going to be voting in support of this. I yield. Councilmember Gellimbo. Thank you. So yeah, I think as I said time this, that we, when we voted on the section that this amends, Velcane of Village is really kind of the poster child for this because it's near a visitor attraction that brings, you know, millions of people go to visit it, but there really isn't hotel accommodations there. I mean, there's a couple, but mostly it's very small scale. And I think to actually provide the ability for the community to ask for this resort node would prevent or not encourage the development of an actual resort there. So it's helping the community get the benefits of the visitor industry, which is more likely in a smaller type of accommodations than a full size resort. So there is different opinions in the volcano village about this. Some people are for it, and some people are against it. And so I think there is going to be a healthy discussion when and if a resolution or language comes forward to actually designate volcano village. And so I don't think it will be a foregone conclusion, but I think that there is definitely a case for a node to sort of concentrate these kinds of accommodations near the road, near the restaurant rather than sort of letting it spread out throughout the volcano area. So that's why I support this. I don't necessarily think that it's, you know, want to have the entire volcano village if it didn't become a resort node. But it could be a useful tool to keep the visitor accommodations in, yeah, concentrated, so that the folks that want a regular residential experience in volcano can then have their area and the visitor area can be concentrated in a way that perhaps is closer to ideal. Of course, it won't be ideal, but it would be better than not having it. So that's why with a little bit of heartburn, I do support this. On the amendment, council member Kimball. Yeah, thank you. Here, I appreciate some of the concerns I'm hearing and I think we can have a deeper discussion about that when we get to the main bill. But what I like about the proposed amendment is that another benefit of this vacation destination area is that the intent is for folks that are operating in these areas already and have a non-conforming use permit that will no longer be necessary, therefore relieving some of the burden on the department, which I think was one of the initial impetus for having this kind of proposal is, okay, we've already got this area with a high concentration of TARs operating on conforming use certificates. If we can just draw a box around that and say, okay, this is now a vacation node, these folks no longer have to do the ducts. They have to do everything else, but they don't have to do the ducks. They have to do everything else, but they don't have to do that. That alleviates some of the administrative burden on the department, which is I think another intention, or perhaps even one of the initial intentions of this section. And I think that is further clarified by this language. So I'll be supporting the language clarification. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Just want to make sure that we're discussing the specific words and the amendment, Councilmember Kaguata. Go ahead. Okay, you tell me, if I want to talk about this issue around the high concentration of trans-eanimation? That should I wait till? Yes. Okay. I'll wait. Thanks. Any other discussion? I don't see a, I mean, we've already established a framework for another amendment. I do like the language being added regarding ensuring that they're consolidated. I think it helps to kind of remind future councils and administrations what the intention of this designation is. What that will take a roll call vote on the amendment please. There's a motion on the floor to amend Bill 121 draft 3, the contents of communication 675.468. The question is on the amendment. Member Evans. Aye. Member Gellimba. Aye. Member Kagiwata. No. Member Konehli Kleinfeldt. Aye. Member Kimball. Member Liloi. Aye. Member V Lee Loy. Aye. Member Villegas. I'll hold it. Member Kirkowitz. Aye. Vice-Chairn Abba. Aye. Vice-Chairn Abba, you have seven members in favor to oppose members Coggy Water and Villegas, the motion carries. Thank you. Council member Kim will go ahead. Thank you. So back to the main motion, there's obviously still some amendments necessary here and there's still some outstanding questions. So it is my intention to kind of to walk through this bill one more time, talk about some of the global issues and then seek to postpone it again so that further work can be done. You know, one of the things that I just want to address is the complexity of this bill. And let me first say that once you get to page 17, everything after that is just housekeeping because there's all these little points in the code that transient accommodation rental is used and that has to be included. So that's why we get part of the reason we get so long. But 17 pages in and of itself for the most of the meat of the bill is lengthy. However, I have a lot of faith in the intelligence of this body to be able to read, interpret, and understand that level of complexity. And you know, this wasn't a competition to see who could write the longest bill, this was an effort to be as comprehensive as possible, address all of the different permutations the Parallel Department has experienced in terms of folks trying to get around some of the regulations. And well it is a lot, I think you can break it down into some really intelligible sections. Just to begin with, you have three different sections, skipping over the definitions, but you have three different sections. So the intent here is to say, okay, look, we're recognizing these three, these are where these three are allowed, you know, owner hosted, operator hosted, unhosted, and then there are specific conditions within those because those all present three different scenarios. But basically, if somebody is going to be looking at starting out a transient accommodation rental, the first thing they will do is say, what kind of my? Well, if I'm one, I'm going to look at older hosted. If I'm number two, I'm operator hosted, number three, I'm unhosted. And so, well, there are lengthy descriptions for each, everybody's gonna fall into one of those categories. The next bit of sections all apply to win to register, how to register the documentation that's necessary, and again this was a lot of this language was there to help the staff so that they can be very, very clear about what is expected from folks that are registering the materials that they can be very, very clear about what is expected from folks that are registering the materials that they're turning into the process. So once you look at sections 4 through 7, that's all about how to register, when to register, what's included. And then you have the statutory language that says, well, what's happens if you don't register in time? This is sort of necessary language in there what's happens if you don't register in time? Okay, this is sort of necessary language. In there, what happens if you're denied the appeals process? Again, there is all of this due process that we are statutoryly required to provide. It is extra language, but it's basically throughout the code, like it is not anything new or interesting. Then we talk about the nonconforming use certificates, how those are addressed. Again, just the clear, the length of it is tied to just providing that absolute clarity to the staff of what they're looking for when people come in, apply for these nonconforming use certificates. Section 17 is all about the operational standards. Again, one of the objectives of this bill was to make those clear so that they're easy to follow, ensure that they are enforceable by the department. We have tried to be as specific as possible and that's why it is wordy, although we tried to be economical with our language, right? We didn't try to put any extra words in there, but we needed that level of clarification, so it's easy for operators to follow, easy for us to enforce. And then we get into all of the language around violations. Again, what you see being reintroduced is the statutorily required language that allows for appeals for the due process around that. And then finally, we get to the area of the hosting platforms. Again, this was just to clarify so that we can have that relationship with the, I'm sorry, actually the vacation destination areas got inserted in there in between. But the sections 26 and 25 relate to property taxes. Again, this is kind of like that amendment we were introduced earlier where it's not necessary from the standpoint of this is already included in chapter 9. But we were 19, but we wanted to give folks with this bill a one-stop shop that says if I'm starting up with a short certification rentals, what are all the impacts that we see and if I may have two more minutes. Quickly please. Thank you. And administrative mirror testified to before is folks didn't have an understanding of what impacts there were on their property taxes when they began operating a TAR out of their primary residence. So we felt, okay, let's keep that in the same area of the code. So again, people are looking at starting one out, they're looking at one place. Again, vacation, destination areas, I'll let Council member Kirkwood speak to that a little bit more. And so, you know, one of the things that I had hoped to do before this meeting is to provide a very succinct outline of what sections of the bill do. What? I apologize. I did not have a chance to accomplish that task. But as much as that there is, it appears to be a lot in here, appears to be a lot of complexity. You do see duplication of other areas that are kind of required. And there is a strong intention just to be very, very crystal clear to the benefit of the staff in the department and people that are applying to start-up a transient accommodation rental. A couple of other outstanding things, there were comments about constitutionality. We do not just ignore the constitution when there has been a pretty thorough analysis on this. There is still yet some to be done and so I haven't had the benefit of having one of our corporation council who's kind of expert on this bill and has been working with us. So there's still some work that needs to be done there to make sure particularly two things operator hosted can be treated distinctly differently from owner hosted. That still remains a question. It has happened in other jurisdictions. So we are comparing that case law to the case law in that was raised in testimony the Alaska around. The other thing is whether or not the vacation destination areas presents a difference from what was presented to the planning commissions, significant enough that it needs to actually go back for their assessment, which I think is is an important discussion to have. I did want to just conclude by, you know, yes, it's a complex bill but interestingly enough perhaps ironically there was a study done by the Maui Trans and Accommodation Sendo Rental Association that the results indicated that 73% of folks out there want to see regulation of short-term vacation rentals and the closure of illegal rentals in our county in specifically, 14% of the folks just want to see the US shut them down entirely. Now, I would argue that this hample size of this particular data set, and again, this was provided for the transient accommodation rental agency, Mary ICU, ScullyBag. I will send you the link so you know what study I'm talking about. It's provided by SMS. But what it indicates to me is that there still continues to be on the part of the constituency across the state a desire to ensure that certain vacation rentals are regulated and that the legal operations are discontinued. Whether or not there's an economic study, there is an impact with respect to economic, the economics of our county with respect to the economics of our county with relationship to tourism in general. And there are some good data points provided in Maui's assessment that they just recently have published. But it is not the only story when it comes to TARs. We are also talking about the quality of life for our residents and I think that we need to continue to work on and move forward with this bill. With that, I will yield chair and again, my intention is to postpone it again so we can add further amendments. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Kirkowitz. Thank you, chair. You know, I actually think our bills become less complex over time. Over that I think we had about a year of community engagement and about, let me say, nine months or so of public hearings when you consider going to committee commission back here at the council. And I think council member Kimball and I have been incredibly responsive to issues that members of the community have raised. And we've actually found ways to achieve a win-win scenario. One testifier said that we had been making too many concessions. I disagree. What we are trying to do is balance a number of priorities where folks are struggling to make it here and need to find ways to support themselves, but also recognizing that we continue to find ourselves in a housing crisis. I just wanted to take a moment to have a conversation about the visitor destination area or VDA designation that is part of this bill. To be very clear, no communities have been identified as a visitor destination area. What we've done is we've created a framework that identifies priorities for what kinds of communities could be eligible for this particular designation. It is not zoning, it is a district overlay. There are not less regulations or no regulations in the VDA. Folks are still transiting accommodation rentals and would have to meet all of the requirements that are specified in this section of code. What we are doing is I think responsible and strategic and use planning, recognizing that we don't want more whistle-worts. That's not what we want here in Hawaii, Ireland, but there is a need for more accommodations and a diversity of accommodations. And so I wanted to give the Penn Department just a moment to, you know, offer up any other comments on, you know, how this VDA designation can be useful tool when we think about, you know, future land use planning. Thank you for the opportunity. You know, with the going back to Bill 108, what was contemplated at that time was unhosted, but what was talked about that was really gonna be put forward was bringing in the hosted conversation as well as bringing in the visitor destination areas or VDAs. And so what I'm seeing is kind of this is that, that next step, number of years later. So I think the VDA element of it, I appreciate it because it gives a framework. There's a framework in a process now. It doesn't go ahead and unilaterally just say, hey, you're done, but the community can come forward now and say, hey, we'd like to do this, go through that process and make its way through the process with clear direction and instruction on how to do so. And I think that's the most important thing. If you have the clear ability to do it and know how to do it, and there's a pathway to do it, at least somebody can have a fair shot. Whether it lands, whether those communities end up having a BDA, we will see. But at least there's a process for these folks to have a voice. We've been hearing folks coming up, wanting to have that voice, wanting to have that ability to do it. And so we're very supportive of the visitor destination areas. Thank you. Thank you, Director. I too will be supporting a postponement of this measure. I will also go so far as to say, once we get it into a place where we're more or less happy as a council, I would supporting postponement until we get feedback from the economic and fiscal impact study so that we can incorporate any recommendations that have come forward from there. Thank you, Chair Hale. Councilmember Kagiwata. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Couple things. Just on the visitor destination area, I just wanted to mention that I went to a gathering on Reeds Island a few weeks ago. And I was probably a dozen residents there from that community. And they are very concerned with the number of vacation rentals, short and vacation rentals in their neighborhood. And so us looking at adding or potentially targeting neighborhoods that already have a large number of vacation rentals seems to me to be just, I think one of my colleagues said counterintuitive to what we might wanna see. So in some places we already, the neighbors already feel there too many. And I just one of my colleagues said that there's a need for more visitor accommodations on this island. And I just was wondering if that's a study or where that's coming from because that's not anything I guess I've seen recently saying that we need more visitor accommodations on this island. And then my overall concern, I brought it up last time we had this discussion is that I really see owner occupied short-term vacation rentals are transient accommodation rentals, is being very different than either operated hosted. So owner hosted is being different than operated hosted or unhosted. And I would given who testified and the testimonies to me that were the most kind of compelling around why some of these changes might be hurtful to some of our actual residents who are trying to make ends meet. I'd really like to see the fees for the owner hosted rentals reduced substantially. So the initial registration fee and the annual renewal rates. I understand that based on my experience anyway, the calls that come in tend to not be for these and the oversight and the need for a lot of time by the county to deal with these as much less than either the operator hosted or the unhosted rental. So I really feel like there's a rationalization of why we should reduce these because I think less time is needed for them. Of course, if they need a non-conforming new certificate, they should still pay that amount. But I'd like to see those rates reduce substantially and maybe even as low as was mentioned earlier as $50 initial registration and $10 renewal for those people doing owner operated. So that's my biggest concern with this bill is I want to see that difference reflected in the fees as far as how those will be treated by our, but I, and then I guess my very last point would be I do feel like we should go ahead with doing this portion which is not have to do with changing tax rates and anything like that. I think doing the study is really important before we decide on what tax rates may be for these different ones, but as far as getting, starting to get people registered, I think we can go ahead with that before because we know we need to do that regardless. And then adjustments to amounts or tax rates or anything like that could be looked at once we've got that economic study. So those are my thoughts. Thank you chair. I appreciate it. I yield. If we can wrap up this conversation briefly, call some member Evans. Thank you. Thank you chair. Curious there are some comments about making a clearer for staff. So do you do rule making? Do you do administrative rules? And with a lot of this be more through the administrative rule process? We do do administrative rules so far what we've seen in the legislation legislation we support to be in the legislation and not in the rule. Okay, because it's just we keep the language just keeps expanding and I'm hoping we're not putting stuff in there that could go through the administrative rule process that could get that at that way. Because we can get a little into the nitty gritty detail and throw it in legislation. Yeah, so Rule 23 is what's currently governs. Short term vacation rentals do the process. And again, I'm supportive of the way this is laid out with the detail that isn't here. I think it's actually helpful in this case. Okay. Now the other thing is this land use designation. We're going through the general plan. We're letting everybody in the community know what our vision is, you know. And now we're adding this new land use designation. And so I feel the timing of it is off. It's just my gut instinct. Sorry, it could be a really good idea, but I don't think it should be buried in this bill. I think it should live organically in its own bill and have that discussion in the bigger. And yes, go back to the Planning Commission. If we're, again, it says land use designation so I need a little more clarity what why you wouldn't want to see that in the general plan. So thanks for the question you know we consider this and we're doing the general plan but really felt like at this point it needs to be more community-driven and just to do an overlay in an area saying voila this is a short-term vacation rental area now didn't seem like the right process, a team up a process where the community could come out and I think we'll see different responses from different communities, some very much supportive, some not necessarily supportive, and I've heard those two conversations. So I think allowing this to organically happen through the community to actually have the council hear that community and their thoughts was a better, more direct process for this particular conversation. I would like to see it as a separate bill so that the community who is very concerned about tourism capacity on our island, as a separate bill so that the community who is very concerned about tourism capacity on our island, as a matter of fact, the white tourism authority definitely went through a major shift because they created the visitor destination study and plans. There's visitors bureau, there's a lot of discussion about what we really want for visitors here. So I see it as yes, it could maybe be organically and not in the general plan, but I think, you know, we need a bigger engagement. I think with the community instead of having a short-term vacation rental bill, that's where I would like to see it land, is in its own bill. Anyway, just wanted to the author. I can see the wisdom in the idea, but I just don't like seeing it inside the short-term vacation rental bill. And yeah, and my final comment goes back to some of our testifiers. You know, a lot of times when you write bills on big topics like this, it's really nice to do it more in maybe you get 60 or 70% of what you want this time around and then the next time you get the next 30% but trying to get all things at all one time and one bill ends up creating a huge bill which a lot of people it really is to try to wrap your head around all the amendments and how that affects people individually. It takes a bit I think to digest it and I personally think it's growing to a size I wish it would be maybe two or three bills instead of this one bill that keeps growing, but is an editorial comment. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Evans, and the other discussion on the main bill as amended, Councilmember Lee Lloyd, and Councilmember Cunley-Klan-Folkman. Yeah, thank you, Chair, and I'll keep it brief. Absolutely in support of postponing, absolutely in support of waiting for the fiscal impact analysis or report. I think what's really nice about legislation is when legislation provides opportunities, and opportunities provide economic opportunities. That's why I'm right now in support of where we're at to my colleagues about the framework of visitor destination for short-term vacation rentals. Most recently we saw a lot of activity during our world sprints and so we did see a spill over right into our transient accommodation areas. It's because we don't have hotel accommodations right here in Hilo, but that's being driven by the state, something I hope to tackle in a few months here. But unless we have those hotel units available, there's no place else for this vacationers to be absorbed into. And what this bill does, it does that. And that visitor destination framework, make sure that we maybe even geo fence where this absorption can happen. I look at Hilo in and of itself, we have signature events, we just had wall sprints, we have Mary Monarch, I'm a big fan of downtown Ho-Ola-Lia. These are things that attract people to come during specific weeks, highly valuable tournament being another, but they're not sustained over big volumes of time. And so those peaks and valleys that we see, this bill helps address until we can figure out what we're doing with the state and our resort area, specifically downtown in Banyan Drive. I am in support of this bill and the frameworks around the visitor destination.illing over. So I'm happy that the authors kind of took that approach where we can at least provide some guardrails and maybe in some future legislation look at the visitor destination and industry as a whole and using our destination maps as another guide. But that's not what we have here in support, winning two post-bone, but the bigger ask for me is getting to that fiscal impact analysis. So I yield. Thank you, Councilmember Cunninghli, you climb further. Thank you, Chair. Director, the director. You have the visitor destination area section open about you. I have what's in draft three and W deputy has the amendment? Okay. Minus the amendment just looking at general provisions number three. When we say that sections 25 for 16, 1 16, 2 and 16, 3 shall not apply to transient accommodation rentals within a visitor destination than what applies to those rentals. Jeff's looking at the particular sections, but my understanding was these would be turned into basically unhosted transient accommodation rentals. So it would then move from a hosted or owner hosted or not conforming user certificate to just an unhosted transient accommodation rental if a VDA were to be established and those properties fell in that area. Jeff, is that accurate to this? Yes, okay. I kind of look at 24,16-12-3 as being how we define and how we qualify and how we look at transient accommodation levels. I understand your response, but I'm just trying to figure out then what requirements are set upon TARs in a visitor destination area if we remove all three sections that guide TARs. So as I'm misreading delete point three then, because point three would be the unhosted portion of that. That's right, because that means what we're saying is these fees won't, won't accept for those. So 16.1 is the owner hosted. 16.2 is the operator hosted. And then three would be the unhosted. So I would think that three would still, that would need to be amended because you would be paying those fees towards three because that would come under that grouping, but maybe the unhosted section of that, maybe council member Kirkowitz, if you could opine on that section as well. Council member Kirkowitz. Thank you. Our intention of that particular section was to make it clear that within this area folks would not have to apply for a non-conforming use certificate. There have been changes to the numbering of these sections. So there could have been an inadvertent inclusion of an area. I'm looking at my Mr. Clerk here, Jacob Erie, because he did help us in drafting this section. If there are areas that we need to clean up, so everything sinks, we can do that. Right, and that's that was my original statement that it does it takes out the NUC. It's not dealing with the hosted or the operator hosted it would just fall underneath a transient accommodation. Unhosted transient accommodation, I'm telling them that fee would be paid there. So then reconciling those numbers based on any of the amendments, I think would be a good idea. Yeah, Council Member Coney, I think, Klein, Felder, I understand your question and concern. I believe the other sections regarding the good neighbor standards and registration itself all still apply those are in sections other than 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3. I agree with all of your statements. There is an issue when we remove every single requirement in the three sections that define what a TAR can be, whether it's hosted, or operated hosted. And we remove all of those requirements and say anything goes in a VDA. And that's how I read this. And that's why I read it last time. And these sections have not changed. And yet we passed this law. And there's no requirements in the way that it's written. And that is problematic to say at least. We'll take a look at that. That's certainly not the intention. The intention, if you do a VDA in that area, fits underneath it, then they would basically become unhosted, transient accommodation rentals and follow that bucket of opportunities and restrictions. Understood. Thank you for looking that over with me. And then number two, although framed as something that would benefit the people of Hawaii, I have been having a principal residence within the county does not make you a local. It makes you a homeowner in Hawaii that owns a home. So I want to be careful the way we address terms and terminology, providing benefit to our residents and local residents in differing senses. I had challenges with this being adopted into this bill. I continued to have challenges with this section and I'm making it clear. Regardless of the purpose and applicability amendment that was provided this morning. My last question for the planning department. I can see in the last sections that were considered house keeping that we have added in the ability for TARs to be included in agricultural areas zoning. Sorry. Is that correct? Specifically, owner hosted TARs because of the language that we've reached out to. That's correct. The county zoning, county zoning ag. OK. So my follow-up question in this aspect then is, in a state land use ag area, where we created VDA, are we overstepping state law and saying that we will allow TARs to continue to proliferate in those areas. Because I don't feel like we have the ability to. But that's where we're going to be landing these videos from my viewpoint areas like Hawaiian beaches, paradise, park, volcano, different areas around the island that may not be allowable at state law levels. And that is my question to the Planning Department. County zoning, okay, understood we've added it in for owner-hosted, for a lot of areas that I represent. But where state land use does not allow for TARs, are we creating that allowance through the visitor destination area? So the VDA wouldn't override or conclude the conversation that's currently at the Supreme Court. It would go back to how Bill 108 was crafted and adopted. That if it was post June 4th, 1976, pre-June 4th, 1976, then I believe the VDA could do an overlay. And that would be looked at. If it was post June 4th, 1976, as it currently sits right now, that would probably not be resonating. We have to see what the Supreme Court says around that conversation, because that's the the conversation that's in front of them is it possible to restrict STBRs on state land use ag post June 4th 1976. Okay and then by adding in TARs owner hosted to our different county zoning like agricultural where they overlay on state land use ag have we overstepped our abilities of the county our view and what we've heard is no that we're in work consistent with what we can do there okay okay that was very helpful thank you that's area you all right councilmember Kimball or I think that please. Yes, thank you. I wanted to very briefly comment on the fees and I appreciate and hear Council Member Kagiwata's concern. However, just to couch this and sort of relative to other counties, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, sitting kind of kind of how Lulu registration is $10,000. Now we believe registration is $5,000. So even here looking at the fees, we are very well within sort of the boundaries. Now again, these were always placeholder, so I'm willing to consider other options. The other thing I wanted to mention, it was referred to in the presentations of testimony. This is roughly a 1.31.4 billion dollar industry in the county on average, the nightly rate. It on Taren's in accommodation, rental and granted, these are all kinds. So take it with a grain of salt, 350 a night. On average, there's a 20 to 30 percent occupancy, 66 percent occupancy rate, which means on average $7,000 a month being made by these. So if I look at what fees are appropriate, I think we need to couch that, keep that in mind. And again, these are numbers that I'm not just pulling out of thin air. These are numbers available in the Maui economic study that was intended to look at the meodalist, but actually does cover some of the information with respect to Hawaii County as well. So I encourage everyone to look at it. Finally, just because Councilmember Vegas and Coneley Kleinfelter got it up, they brought it up, is that when we talk about state land use ag, the prohibition there that comes from the HRS is the use of additional farm dwelling, specifically as transient accommodations, which is prohibited. When folks get the permit through planning department to build an additional farm dwelling, there is at that time an agreement that says you cannot use this for anything other than folks related to agricultural work. So even if a VDA replaced over an area that is state-led and used ag, the HRS would still prohibit certain dwellings on that site if they were permitted as additional farm dwellings from being used as TARs because that loss supersedes our county ordinance. With that chair, I'd like to make a motion to postpone bill 121, draft three is further amended to the October 1st committee meeting. Moved by Council Member Kimbo. Seconded by Council Member V.A. gets to postpone bill 121 to the October 1st committee meetings. Any discussion on the postponement? All those in favor please aye. Any opposed motion carries nine. I is bill 121 is post-pollant to October 1st. We're going to take a quick 10 minute recess. We'll be back at 1130. the calling this meeting back to order 1131. We are heading into bill 122. Is there any testimony? Sure. You have no testifiers for this item. All right. Bill 122, draft 2. I'm in chapter 25 and chapter 14, Article 4, Section 14, dash 20 of the Hoi County Code 1983, 2016 edition as amended relating to the repeal of bed and breakfast as a permitted use. Repels all provisions that allow for bed and breakfast establishments, introduced by members Kimble and Kirkowitz this matter was referred to the planning commissions on January 30th and postpone on July 8th and August 20th, 2024. And there is a motion on the floor by member Kimble, seconded by member Glimba to recommend the passage of Bill 122 Draft II on first reading. Thank you, Council you. Councillor Chenle. Chair, yes. I'd like to motion to postpone bill 122 as it relates to 121 and I'd like to see those conversations. Happened together. All right. Is that a motion? That was a motion to postpone to October 1st. Okay, a motion by Council Member Kimboa, seconded by Council Member Kirkwich to postpone Bill 122 to the October 1st Committee meetings. Any discussion on postponement? All right, if not, I'll just make a comment. As I did previously. I don't support the I'd rather not post ball, but I will vote in favor as so we can continue discussion, but not in favor of ending this with that on post ballman council member Kimball. loosely. It just because it was testified on today, I do want to reiterate that 122 does not take away people who have permits for not bed and rest already because that was raised by a couple testifiers. Those are rights granted to the property owners that this does not take away. But I encourage everybody to continue to push this off so that partners with 121. Thank you. Thank you. All those in favor of postponing bill 122 to the October 1st Committee meetings. Do you say aye? Any opposed? Motion carries. Seven aye's. Two excuse. Council members Evans and Glimba. It's 1134 passing the chair back to chair curcowitz. Thank you Vice Chair. Mr. Clerk, if we could please move on to the next order of business. Is there any testimony for Bill 134 draft 2? Hearing none Bill 134 draft 2, amendments draft to 25, article 2, Section 25242 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 2016 edition as amended relating to amendments initiated by property owners and other persons. As a provision requiring the planning director to submit a subject area building entitlement report to the applicable planning commission and the county council for each change of zoning district application. The report would identify permits, approvals and other lawful entitlements allowing for the construction of a building or buildings on any parts of the land within a quarter mile radius of the parcel for which the change of zoning district is sought introduced by members Inaba and Evans. This matter was postponed on March 5, and referred to the planning commissions on April 2, there is a motion on the floor by member Inaba 2, and by member Evans to recommend passage of bill 134 draft to on first reading and communication 741.5 from our Mitchell D. We did reach out to planning and some of the staff who overseas and works significantly with this section of the code was out. So we do have a round of conferences coming up and we'll have a lot of discussion and an amendment for us to take up at the October 1st Committee meeting. So with that, postponing request to postpone Bill 1. 34. 34. 34, thank you to our October 1st Committee meeting. Thank you. There's a motion by Councilmember Inaba. Seconded by Councilmember Beagis to postpone bill 134 draft 2 to the October 1st Committee meeting. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with seven aye votes, council members, Evans and Galimba are excused. Mr. Clerk, final item on the agenda, Bill 181. Is there any testimony for Bill 181? Hearing none, Bill 181, amendments chapter 16 article one of the Hoi County Code 1983, 2016 edition as amended and relating to the general plan. In the Nun Bill 181, Chapter 16 article 1 of the Hoi County Code 1983-2016 edition as amended and relating to the general plan. Insert some amendment procedures for the general plan, including a comprehensive review at least every 10 years, and interim amendments between comprehensive reviews. Describes the powers and duties of the Planning Director and Planning Commission to review and recommend amendments, and of the Council to initiate or adopt proposed amendments introduced by member Inaba. This matter was postponed on July 23rd, 2024. And there is a motion on the floor by member Inaba, seconded by member Raviegas to recommend passage of Bill 181 on first reading. Mr. Inaba. Thank you. We do have an amendment that comes in member Kim Bolin. I worked on together, but I'll let her introduce it. Chair, a motion to amend Bill 181 with the contents of communication 939.3. Second. There is a motion to amend Bill 181 with the contents of communication 939.3. By Council Member Kimball and a second by Council Member Inaba. Council Member Kimball. Yeah, thank you. First, I just want to start by thanking Vichari Inaba for proposing this legislation in the first place. It is extremely important, I think, to have the process for the general plan adoption in the code and not buried in the ordinance, which is the general plan. I also want to reiterate that in my perspective, this is something that is not standardized because we have not done it often. And so I think there is a lot of opportunity for us to really identify a clear process that will be used again and again as we move forward. But with that in mind, we have to be very mindful about what we force upon our future council members. So just some key points about this amendment as it's drafted. First of all, one of the things that I think became a point of confusion was the fact that we are going through what is called a general plan update or sorry, amendment right now. And yet if you look at the new general plan versus, proposed general plan versus the old general plan, it's not an amendment as we're typically used to seeing an amendment, it's an update. And so this amendment first contemplates changing the Nomenclature to say, okay, every decade we are going to have a general plan update. And I use that terminology based on the Webster's definition that we have new information and we're going to formulate a new document. And I think that is more true to what we have historically seen of the process. And I think it also represents what we expect. We expect these things to be different using new templates and new information. So that is one main difference. The other main component that I think is really important and critical to this question is the amendment process that it proposes, which now suggests that the there should the there is both the opportunity for the council and the planning commissions to propose substantive amendments to the general plan, but that there is a more process that includes for at least the council's sake, a resolution where we would propose all of those amendments that then gets kicked back to the Planning Commission, which I think is more in line with what the charter proposes as far as the oversight of the Planning Commission's on the general plan and the general plan of adoption. I want to just highlight the section 10 here, C10, which defines a subsans of amendment. I think this is important in terms of really kind of understanding the distinction between an amendment that is just clerical and editorial in nature versus something that really constitutes something that needs to have the public oversight and public input before it is included, which is what the return to the planning commission allows. I think that this amendment is a good start and there may be some things that we want to continue to negotiate and improve upon, particularly the timeframes for which things are turned around. But I look forward to everybody's thoughts on the revisions to the process. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Barinaba. Thank you. Yes. Again, just to recap what this amendment does without overstepping or having the council take completely different directions from the draft that was intended to be created with and by community and have been reviewed by the commissions. This gives us a chance to make amendments to the draft send or or create these amendments, send them back to the process, and be able to adopt them without having to adopt a general plan that may be flawed or that the council can get fully behind. So this is what this amendment does. It creates a new process that will allow us to get our general plan right when we do pass it. So ask for your support and we're happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Planning Director Deputy, please come forward. Have you received a copy of the proposed amendment? Great. We would appreciate your insights. sites. Thank you for the opportunity. We did receive the amendments. I have not had the opportunity to get into them. Jeff, on the other hand, has had the opportunity to look and tell a bit more. So, Jeff. Thank you for the opportunity. We received the Bill 181 and it's first draft. We did review it. There appeared to be just three minor changes within Bill 181, comparably to then 16.2, F and 16.3 F I believe. The new proposed changes to Bill 181 we received just recently and not only myself and staff, all several staff members have been looking at it, but I understand also, Corporation Council has been taking a look at it as well. I think we definitely need more time to go through it. It's very detailed as far as everything that's going on within there. I don't know if Councilmember Kimo had received some of our comments. Okay. So we have been actively trying to work on those, even in the short time. But definitely I think that we're moving in the right direction as far as really identifying particular, in particular, the process, as well as identifying what a substantive changes and then identifying what to do when those come up. It's very helpful. I know it's been always a question whenever that comes up even in council meetings when is something considered substantive. Thank you, Deputy. Judge Grant-Srance, would you like to weigh in at this point, please? On what's being proposed here? Thank you. Good afternoon, Elizabeth Grant's Corporation Council. I have been reviewing proposed graphs as well as really trying to understand the legislative history of the general plan and general plan amendment process since the enactment of the county charter to help provide a better context for the language of amendment. Unfortunately, it's been really painstaking and we're not quite done yet, but it seems like there's some momentum moving forward in terms of a process that everybody can live with. Thank you, Judge Trance. Councillor B�ckin, Lee, Quinnfelder. Thank you, Chair. To the department, thank you, Ms. Chance. To the department, do our action committees, Alan Wiede, take part or provide comment to your department? Because I really do find them to be good people from the community who are kind of working in different areas but have different perspectives and wanted to make sure or see if there's an ability for them to provide comment into the plan as it's being created. The same way we incorporate council and public but they're like a leg of you folks but want to see how they fit in. Yeah so during the general plan review process, we take it out to the action committees to stakeholder groups, communities, very broad across the board to the action committees are part of that process, yes. OK. To the makers, then, just a thought that as we look to really provide a detailed standard of how we complete and work within this update, which I really like, which you guys have done here, to incorporate the bodies that work in parallel with us and community, maybe even more so with the community that we do in some cases, incorporate those ideas and their concepts into this plan. And I like that you're really directed how it lays out, how it works, who provides what. But just bring out the idea that the action committees could be useful as far as being requested to provide their comments in a certain amount of time as well. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, I really like. Yeah, I'm just going to walk it out. I think the timing as far as 13 years and the 15 years, I like that, but I'm always going to lean in on there needs to be a commitment of resources for the general plan update to happen, whether it's towards the department, you know, towards a contract for services or just development within this, what am I trying to see? The action committee members. If there was a way, and I don't know, maybe I'll have this conversation offline with Judge Strants, is that there's first and foremost a commitment of resources to get it done, right? And in alignment to whatever proposed or initiated amendment is being forwarded. Because if it's substantive, you know, the amount of resources needed to happen that need to evaluate that adjustment would require, you know, something done through the budget process. But if it's just adjusting in the minimus ways, sure. I think the timeline works. I think there needs to be some clarity around that. I don't know how to adjust it right yet, because I'm reading it now, but I'm just trying to lock it out. Right? There always been, and just having a little bit of history behind the general plan update. There was always this idea where the general plan update would then filter down into our community development plans and ironically there would be kind of an adjustment where our community development plans would get a little bigger and our general plan would get a little smaller and that's how we actually would engage community is through the our community action plan. Those are my thoughts. It really is about being mindful of making this work and managing expectations because if it is a substantive edit to the general plan it's not going to happen in a committee hearing down at the Planning Commission and then two hearings back at the council that is absolutely unrealistic but maybe something smaller might work so those are my thoughts I can support this now for the framework but maybe that's something else we can flesh out. I yield. Thank you. Anyone else on the amendment? Can't remember being this. Yeah. I'm in full support. We'll just take a pause there. We're in recess. this. Thank you. Thank you. We are back in session at 11.51 a.m. Councilmember Vegas. Thank you. Happy to know that all of our emergency broadcasting networks are up and rolling. I want to thank the makers of this piece of legislation. Well, Mr. Inaba. For bringing things back around and finding the right way to say it in order for it to be possible legally, because that took some intensive navigating in order to come up with the right terminology. And having just attended a general plan community briefing and you know have taken some time to really look through the document and listening to the conversations here talking about the CDPs, community development plans and the organizations, the people that work in those groupings. I suppose what presents itself to me as being so vital for this piece of legislation for Council to be provided opportunity to have impactful input into the general plan is because in my experience and meetings in the last few months here, testimony has been brought by the CDP Action Committee and denied in its viability by some. The general plan is a beautiful document that has these ideals and the summation of our priorities and vision as a county, as taking into consideration cultural sites, climate change, natural resources, flood corridors, all these different things that I see and obviously value and stand in alignment with. But what I'm seeing in actuality is when the decisions have to be made by certain departments, they're not being made on that value system. And so I would like to see, I would like to have more opportunity to input into our general plan that there be a little more accountability that the decisions by departments be made based on the value systems that are being declared in our general plan. And so that's just kind of a personal and a professional perspective on that. So I think all the support for my colleagues, for our CDP action committees. And I hope that we continue to move forward listening to their guidance and their wisdom and their understanding of their roles and responsibilities and how that directly affects on a case by case basis each of these district and communities with everything that comes before us and council. Thank you. Anyone else on the amendment? Councilor Kagiwata. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, thank you. I do like what I'm seeing here in this amendment. I do like setting, resetting the public's expectation around what it is that gets done and an updated general plan is really what we're talking about. And so I think that's really important but of course very crucial to this is the council's ability to weigh in an official way on the general plan which also allows for public testimony and the public to. So thank you, thank you both for the original proposed bill and this amendment. I'll be supporting. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I think I'm mapping correctly here because there's potentially a lot of back and forth that's happening throughout this process. So after 10 years, the Planning Department would initiate review of the general plan. And you have three years to develop a document that is then submitted to various review bodies. We give ourselves two years to go through potential changes. So it's heard by the various planning commissions sent to council. We send recommendations back to director commissions for their review and it comes back to us. We're at about a year and a half. Are we giving ourselves as a council a deadline for when we need to adopt this plan? Because if not, things happen, right? Hurricane, volcanic eruption, global pandemics that shut things down or just temporarily disrupt our operations. I don't think that we've built in those complexities because that is the reality we're living in. And I worry that this language here says must initiate the process if not adopted in 15 years. So just wonder if we could have perhaps a little bit more wiggle room once the draft plan is submitted and the official review starts happening by the various bodies. Okay. I'm getting a thumbs up from the makers of the amendment. Council Member Kimball. Yeah, if I just may respond, you know, one of the questions that we asked ourselves is we had this timeline for when the process needed to happen by and it's like, well, what's the point of having a timeline at all if there is no consequence to not meeting it or there's not something else? What I think is proposed in this amendment is like a good first pass at that. But your point about some additional flexibility, council member Lee Lois point about monetary investment that went into the development of the plan. We don't wanna just throw the baby out with a bath water. So I do think that this needs further refinement and that as you said flexibility built in for unintended consequences. At the same time, we wanna keep things moving and on track. So finding that balance between getting it right and getting it done. What was the usage of strand? Getting it right and getting it done in a timely way. That's what we're trying to balance here. Great goal for government. Councilmember Evans, do you have your light on? Do you have a comment? Actually, you commented exactly what I was thinking as, you know, things happen. I was thinking elections. You might not have the same planning director. And so, you know, sometimes, you know, when you say, I was also thinking that as a potential of, you know, someone is in the middle of doing a comprehensive plan. There's a change over in May or change over in planning director things come in. Obviously setting up process, you know, making sure you're doing your community workshops, whatever that looks like, which someone commented today, what does a workshop look like? But getting that review, and for me personally, what I would like to see, I don't know how you could incorporate this, but how we do those workshops or whatever and more of a regional county-wide basis and you know because I know that they're doing it workshop in Kona and Hilo but they're going out to other parts of the island to give people maybe an overview but they're not calling them workshops so you know do we give everybody equal opportunity to weigh in? So, I'd really like to see more of a island-wide, more comprehensive, maybe workshop. I don't know how you'd put that in there, but, you know, how do we make sure that we get everybody equal opportunity to weigh in? But anyway, thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Director, I wanna make sure we're giving you a chance to take all of our comments into consideration and suggest some refinements to the amendment that's being proposed today because I think there's general consensus by this body that this provides much needed clarity, but there needs to be discussion about the engagement, but also the timeframe in which the review is happening. I also want us to maybe even consider a longer window for when the general plan is applicable in just looking at the three general plans that this county has adopted. They haven't been updated every 10 years. So I'd like us to maybe think about longer applicability window. Any comments before we go? Yeah, we're reviewing it with our long-range team and kind of reflecting on lessons learned over the years of adjustments and then trying to provide some insight and some comments. As we review it and this just makes its way through the process. Again, we do support having a refined, defined process. We think that that's a good idea. Okay, great. Any further comments? Seeing none, there is a motion on the floor to amend bill 181 with the contents of communication 939.3. All those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with 8 aye votes. Cons member Galimba is excused. Bill 181 is amended. Cons members would you like to postpone this measure to October 1st? Motion to postpone. Motion to postpone bill 131 to the October 1st Committee meeting. There is a motion on the floor to postpone bill 181 as amended to the October 1st Committee meetings by Councilmember Inaba, second by Councilmember Liloi. Any discussion? Councilmember Inaba. Yes, quickly. We'll just have wanted to let the body note during this postponement we'll have some conversation with planning, but I do want to remind the body that this really is an attempt to help us help community and make sure that the general plan we pass is Investor form as it can be and as this bill first started it was pulling the language directly from the current general plan with only the change to number 10, which was the ability of council to make substantive changes. So we see how it's kind of evolving. And I think we just want to be also mindful not to take this in a completely different direction, because that wasn't the intention. But we'll work with planning during this interim to get something good together for October 1st. Thank you chair. Fantastic. There's a motion on the floor to postpone bill 181 to the October 1st committee. Meeting all those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with eight aye votes. Committee member Michele Gallimba is excused committee is adjourned at 12 o'3 pm the policy committee on infrastructure and assets will convene promptly at 1 pm thank you