[0:58] are adjourned at 11:09 A.M..

[0:58] Mahalo.

[0:58] >>

[0:59] >> council member ashley

[0:59] kierkiewicz: welcome to the

[1:00] 27th session to the

[1:01] land use, and economic

[1:01] development

[1:17] 11:32 A.M. Present for today's

[1:18] committee hearing are

[1:19] >> council member jenn kagiwada:

[1:21] >> council member james hustace:

[1:22] >>vice-chair dennis "fresh"

[1:23] onishi:

[1:24] >> council member rebecca

[1:24] villegas:

[1:25] >> council member michelle m.

[1:25] Galimba:

[1:26] >>council member heather l.

[1:28] Kimball:. Joining us shortly,

[1:29] >>chair holeka goro inaba: and

[1:30] >> council member matt

[1:31] kanealii-kleinfelder:.

[1:32] I apologize. Council member

[1:40] inaba is in chambers. And matt

[1:41] has just arrived. Thank you. My

[1:42] name is ashley kierkiewicz.

[1:51] Chair of this committee. Let's

[1:52] hear from statements from the

[1:52] public.

[1:55] >>clerk: thank you. I believe we

[2:00] have no testifiers. Let's check

[2:08] again. Ot seeing any.

[2:14] We can jump to bill 175.

[2:15] >>yes.

[2:16] >>

[2:17] >>clerk: is there any testimony

[2:18] for bill 175? Hearing none.

[2:18] >>

[2:18] bills for ordinances

[2:19] 25-50, as amended, an ordinance

[2:20] amending chapter 6 of the hawaii

[2:21] county code 1983 (2016 edition,

[2:21] as amended), relating to

[2:22] transient accommodations

[2:23] changes certain responsibilities

[2:23] for proposed vacation rental

[2:24] laws under ordinance no. 25-50

[2:25] from the finance director to the

[2:25] planning director;

[2:26] exempts prospective vacation

[2:27] rentals that have submitted a

[2:27] valid use permit or special

[2:28] permit application from

[2:29] ordinance no. 25-50; and

[2:29] requires any funds collected

[2:30] under ordinance no. 25-50 to be

[2:31] deposited into the short-term

[2:32] vacation rental enforcement

[2:32] fund.

[2:32] Reference: comm. 964

[3:17] intr. By: council member kimball

[3:21] motion to forward bill 175 to

[3:26] council with a favorable

[3:26] recommendations.

[3:28] >> this is the registration

[3:31] process for tvrs. Starting with

[3:34] section 6, what this

[3:36] non-codified section would do is

[3:38] to ensure that folks who have

[3:40] submitted an application for a

[3:42] special permit under the current

[3:44] bed-and-breakfast laws would be

[3:45] considered deemed registered.

[3:47] The reason for this is that

[3:49] there are probably going to be

[3:51] differences in the application

[3:53] process before and after the

[3:55] passage of bill 147. So we

[3:57] wanted to make sure that folks

[4:06] that had already had their

[4:06] application received and

[4:07] approved or accepted by the

[4:08] department even though it had

[4:12] not yet been processed would

[4:13] considered deemed registered and

[4:16] wouldn't have to submit a new

[4:17] one. The second section here is

[4:20] to make clear under section 7,

[4:26] that the funds from the

[4:27] enforcement of the registration

[4:28] ordinance and the fees

[4:30] themselves would go nto the

[4:33] short-term vacation rentals

[4:35] enforcement fund. I would like

[4:37] to name that fund the tvr fund

[4:39] but there is a reason it is

[4:41] under that name.

[4:45] The other, under section 8, as

[4:47] we were discussing 173, this is

[4:50] where there is a grace period of

[4:52] four months created between

[4:59] SEPTEMBER 1st and DECEMBER 31st,

[5:00] for anybody to register.

[5:01] Basically we are doing this

[5:06] again as an uncodified section

[5:06] that gist

[5:07] ves the director the

[5:13] ability to waive the period. If

[5:17] there is a reason for it to be

[5:21] longer than necessary. And the

[5:23] editorial process was being

[5:25] developed by the planning

[5:26] department with the consultant.

[5:28] It was clear that most of this

[5:30] process would actually fall

[5:32] within the planning department

[5:33] rather than the finance

[5:34] department. You can see that

[5:36] shift where the finance director

[5:38] was made to the planning

[5:42] director. Other than that, it's

[5:43] pretty much just editorial to

[5:46] make sure that cross-references

[5:49] are correct. There is one error

[5:50] that unfortunately I did not

[5:51] have the time to create the

[5:53] amendment for it and I would do

[5:55] that in first reading under

[5:57] section 4. There should be

[5:59] language in there that this is

[6:03] this section applies only to

[6:04] special permits that have

[6:06] already been issued or use

[6:08] permits that have been already

[6:11] issued or accepted by the

[6:13] department. I will fix that at

[6:15] the ext stage. Happy to ake

[6:16] any questions.

[6:18] >>thank you for the overview. To

[6:19] note for the record that

[6:21] leadership from the planning

[6:22] department, director darrow and

[6:24] deputy are here in council

[6:31] chambers. Members, any questions

[6:31] or comments?

[6:32] >> 2345b

[6:33] >>chair holeka goro inaba:

[6:35] thank you. I'm wondering,

[6:36] director, regarding the

[6:38] effective date of the ordinance.

[6:42] Would it be for you folks to

[6:44] need through DECEMBER 31st to

[6:47] get rolling. I don't know if

[6:50] that would fit the rehab

[6:53] discretion in our ordinance

[7:00] effective dates.

[7:01] >>chair, MAY I respond?

[7:08] >> sure, go ahead.

[7:09] >>the effective date of the

[7:09] ordinance will still be

[7:10] SEPTEMBER 1st. That's when the

[7:12] registration portal will be

[7:14] opened. The next section

[7:16] codified would allow for people

[7:18] to register between

[7:20] SEPTEMBER 1st and the 31.

[7:23] So we do want to leave the

[7:26] effective date the same. That's

[7:39] just allowing a g

[7:43] >>director, anything to add?

[7:44] >> planning director jeff

[7:47] darrow: aloha. Good afternoon.

[7:54] Good morning. Chair, vice-chair,

[7:55] members of the hawai'I county

[7:56] council. So, yes, this

[7:58] particular date is like a grace

[8:00] period for, it's my

[8:01] understanding, it's a grace

[8:03] period for people that have been

[8:05] operating to come in to

[8:08] register. After that date, we

[8:13] would enforce, and do our

[8:15] enforcement. There will also be

[8:16] a grace period which will be

[8:19] introduced in bill 147, which is

[8:25] making its way back up to the

[8:27] council at this time. It's

[8:34] passed through both planning

[8:35] commissions with favorable

[8:37] recommendation and this is

[8:39] related to tvrs and everything

[8:40] to do in the zoning code. That

[8:42] grace period will be a period of

[8:43] time that we can work with the

[8:46] applicants to resolve any issues

[8:47] they have, but to allow them to

[8:49] continue operating as we work

[8:51] with them whether it's

[8:53] permitting or land use permits,

[8:55] those kind of things.

[9:04] >>okay, thank you, director.

[9:05] >>thank you.

[9:05] >>vice-chair dennis "fresh"

[9:10] onishi: thank you. For

[9:12] registration, it seems to me you

[9:14] would need the finance

[9:16] department also helping with

[9:19] this registration because of the

[9:22] list of what's needed. If not,

[9:24] your department is going to need

[9:26] more manpower to do all of this

[9:30] other research or contacting

[9:32] real property tax. Any comments?

[9:38] >> sure. When this program was

[9:39] first created back in 2018,

[9:51] there were a number of

[9:55] positioning that were allocated

[10:00] for the s tvr program and that

[10:02] was funded by the enforcement

[10:04] fund and that fund had quite a

[10:07] bit of money from registration

[10:10] and annual fees. Overtime, it's

[10:16] depleted to the point that it

[10:17] very well could run out within

[10:21] the next year. It was also the

[10:22] intention for the planning

[10:24] department to come back and not

[10:27] only work with the unhosted

[10:30] short-term vacation rentals, but

[10:33] also, regulate the hosted

[10:34] vacation rentals. That's what

[10:37] this is doing. When we did the

[10:41] original unhosted, we took care

[10:43] of registration, we took care of

[10:45] all the finances. The one thing

[10:46] that's being introduced into

[10:54] this new bill is he oversight

[10:57] of the taxes. It's really

[11:03] focusing as well on making sure

[11:03] they have their g. E. T. Tax

[11:07] and tat tax. Finance will be

[11:11] part of it. We have a platform

[11:15] on board called decker and we'll

[11:18] be doing a webinar to be able to

[11:20] present what they are doing. But

[11:22] they have an enforcement

[11:29] platform that monitors what's

[11:30] going on around the island as

[11:34] far as licenses, stvr's and so

[11:36] forth as well as the

[11:38] registration platform and we'll

[11:40] do the webinar showing how that

[11:42] works. We have a payment system

[11:45] set up ready to go so everything

[11:47] can be done online. I think we

[11:51] are okay. At first, we are just

[11:54] trying to identify the roles

[11:55] between the finance director and

[12:01] the planning director. This

[12:02] seems to fit.

[12:03] >>so this eliminates the finance

[12:04] director completely?

[12:07] >> she is involved. As you look

[12:14] through this, there are certain

[12:14] aspects that the finance

[12:15] director remains a part of this.

[12:22] >>are you talking about section

[12:23] 6-45?

[12:23] >> in the registration section,

[12:24] she is take own, the

[12:25] ut, the finance

[12:26] director.

[12:26] >>yes.

[12:29] >>but through his process,

[12:34] there will be an avenue set up

[12:36] for payments for taxes are made,

[12:38] they work with finance

[12:39] department, the platform that we

[12:42] have been working on has been

[12:44] working with both planning

[12:45] department and finance.

[12:49] >>so my thing is, sometimes with

[12:52] government, it's better to list

[12:54] it or to at least mention about

[13:05] it instead of just going with no

[13:05] knowledge. Say, the

[13:06] administration changes, you are

[13:07] no longer there. New people come

[13:08] in. You read this. They MAY not

[13:15] have an idea of what the intent

[13:17] was.

[13:22] >>yeah, again, up to this point,

[13:24] it seemed more appropriate,

[13:25] planning department has been

[13:28] taking he lead n establishing

[13:32] this process. And we have

[13:34] experience in doing it based on

[13:38] our previous launch of our

[13:40] registration. Again, if you

[13:44] look at the bill even in 645,

[13:46] you will see a reference here

[13:48] and there for the finance

[13:50] director to be. It mainly is

[13:53] making sure that we are all

[13:55] updating our information to have

[14:02] current and updated information.

[14:02] But they basically take care of

[14:05] the tat and g. E. T.. We take

[14:06] care of the land use.

[14:09] >>but this, we are talking about

[14:11] the registration part. The tat

[14:13] is separate, it's afterwards,

[14:14] after the fact.

[14:17] >>it's part of the registration

[14:17] process.

[14:18] >>that they havehat?

[14:24] >> yes, they identify. They

[14:25] cannot move through it unless

[14:27] they identify that they have

[14:28] those. But overall, all of the

[14:30] questions that are being asked

[14:31] and the information has to do

[14:33] with the land use.

[14:35] >>my last question is,

[14:37] anticipation of when do you

[14:41] expect your staff to be

[14:43] functioning 100 percent because

[14:46] right now as you said, funding

[14:49] got reduced. So there is really

[14:50] not many staff members there,

[14:51] right?

[15:01] >> we have five unfunded

[15:02] positions, I believe.

[15:03] >>right. So this happening, how

[15:03] long will it take?

[15:10] >> asap.

[15:11] >>I understand it.

[15:14] >>let's see, yesterday.

[15:20] >>it's going to take time.

[15:22] >>I don't want to go into great

[15:23] detail, but we have been working

[15:26] with finance on making sure that

[15:29] once this plan begins, because

[15:31] we have another number of

[15:35] employees that are going to be,

[15:37] that are currently during

[15:40] particular jobs in hat we have

[15:43] now. When this launches n

[15:44] SEPTEMBER 1st, everything is

[15:46] going to shift. So their roles

[15:49] are going to shift. So we feel

[15:52] very confident on being able to

[15:55] make sure this thing runs

[15:57] smoothly. We will immediately

[16:00] once things start running begin

[16:03] to advertise for those needed

[16:03] positions.

[16:05] >>so then, listening to what you

[16:07] are just saying, those positions

[16:11] might not be important to be

[16:12] hired because if you have staff

[16:15] that could be starting

[16:17] SEPTEMBER 1st and running this

[16:20] program, then you might not need

[16:21] the extra staff?

[16:25] >> those staff that are the ones

[16:27] that aren't there, the reason

[16:30] why they aren't there is because

[16:32] we didn't want to continue. We

[16:34] needed them, believe me. Several

[16:38] of them are inspectors. So we

[16:39] needed them.

[16:42] >>you needed a long time ago.

[16:44] >>yes, but the problem is the

[16:46] more we deplete that fund, the

[16:48] faster we would run out of

[16:50] moneys to pay for people that

[16:52] are currently in those

[16:53] positions.

[16:54] >>my last thing to add to that,

[16:56] why weren't these positions paid

[16:57] by general fund?

[17:00] >> it was just set up that way.

[17:02] We've requested that and that is

[17:04] the goal. I think what needs to

[17:08] happen n my understanding is

[17:11] finance wants to make sure that

[17:14] once the program launches, that

[17:18] it is clear that there is going

[17:20] to be income to be able to

[17:24] sustain the program, hift the

[17:27] positions into the general fund

[17:29] and the moneys will also go into

[17:31] the general fund instead of this

[17:33] separate fund. There is a plan.

[17:35] >>okay, thank you.

[17:36] >>thank you.

[17:36] >>

[17:37] >> council member ashley

[17:38] kierkiewicz: thank you. Any

[17:45] other questions or comments?

[17:46] Council member

[17:47] kanealii-kleinfelder?

[17:51] >> MR. Onishi, thinking about

[17:53] the correlation between the

[17:59] department of finances, our tat

[18:01] reporting, is it important to

[18:03] have finance built into some of

[18:07] this process that's being

[18:07] created?

[18:10] >>

[18:11] >> planning director jeff

[18:12] darrow: they are very involved.

[18:20] We have meetings weekly with the

[18:21] platform that has been hired.

[18:21] They are in all the meetings.

[18:22] They are an essential part of

[18:24] this because the information

[18:26] that will be coming in will be

[18:30] going to both planning and to

[18:32] finance. But their information

[18:39] is going to be different than

[18:39] our information that's coming to

[18:47] us. Theirs will be related more

[18:48] to taxes and ours will be

[18:50] related more to the registration

[18:51] and land use.

[18:56] >>looking at the first section

[19:02] 6-45 registration. Just

[19:02] throwing it out there. Not that

[19:03] there is a problem. A person MAY

[19:08] not operate a stvr property and

[19:10] what used to be finance is now

[19:12] planning director in a format

[19:14] prescribed by the now planning

[19:16] director. Is it important that

[19:18] the finance and planning work

[19:20] together within this document?

[19:24] To create the perfect

[19:26] application or you like it the

[19:33] way that it is with all planning

[19:33] driven?

[19:43] >> this registration process was

[19:43] created with collaboration with

[19:44] the planning and finance

[19:47] department as well as tenant

[19:48] entity.

[19:50] They have a lot of experience

[19:51] with the registration process.

[19:53] the information they needed in

[19:54] the registration is part of it.

[20:02] But I

[20:09] to the maker, did finance have

[20:13] planning work together with this

[20:13] bill?

[20:15] >>

[20:15] >>council member heather l.

[20:17] Kimball: f I MAY, chair. It's

[20:19] important to note that this

[20:21] amendment doesn't actually

[20:23] include all references to the

[20:27] finance director that was in

[20:28] 25-50. The difference here

[20:30] particularly with section 6-45,

[20:32] is that we initially thought we

[20:35] would house the registration

[20:38] process in finance and connect

[20:41] the plan. What happened is we

[20:43] have housed registration in

[20:45] planning, but it will actually

[20:47] connect to finance. There are

[20:51] other references in ordinance

[20:51] 25-50 particularly around the g.

[20:54] E. T. Tat and property taxes

[20:55] with the finance director. Those

[20:57] are not being amended here with

[20:58] this particular ordinance.

[20:59] That's why you are not seeing

[21:01] them. But the finance director

[21:05] is included in section 6-45, sub

[21:11] section c, the finance director

[21:11] is also included in terms of the

[21:13] reporting from the hosting

[21:15] platform. So that compliance in

[21:17] having to do with tat is still

[21:19] there, and then there is also

[21:20] the ability for the finance

[21:22] director and planning director

[21:27] to make rules to join separately

[21:31] for this process. What you are

[21:32] seeing is the egistration

[21:35] process now housed nder the

[21:37] planning side rather than the

[21:39] finance side which is what we

[21:42] originally planned for but it

[21:45] works out better this way.

[21:46] >>thank you.

[21:48] >>

[21:49] >> council member ashley

[21:49] kierkiewicz: anyone else?

[21:53] Thank you, director, for being

[21:55] here. So, you are confident with

[21:58] the go live date with the

[21:59] registration process for

[22:00] SEPTEMBER 1st?

[22:01] >> planning director jeff

[22:02] darrow: at this point, things

[22:06] are looking a lot better than

[22:10] when it launched JULY 1st. We

[22:16] are working through the all the

[22:17] bugs. We are very impressed with

[22:19] the decker platform that has

[22:25] been hired. They are very

[22:30] flexible. Hey are very

[22:31] responsive. They are able to

[22:32] answer all of our questions,

[22:34] just very impressed.

[22:36] >>fantastic. You mentioned there

[22:39] being a community. Was it

[22:41] webinar, some kind of workshop

[22:43] to let folks know, this is a

[22:45] process, this is the portal and

[22:46] the documents you need in order

[22:48] to submit the application. Has

[22:50] the date been identified for

[22:52] when that webinar or workshop

[22:53] will take place?

[23:01] >> we urrently have a date. We

[23:02] don't want to advertise that yet

[23:02] because there are some tweaks we

[23:03] need to do to the registration.

[23:07] The webinar, decker has already

[23:08] said they would be able to

[23:14] present the presentation on how

[23:15] to go through the process, but

[23:19] right now, it's your standard

[23:26] stvr registration so it's more

[23:27] in line with what's going to

[23:32] happen with tvrs and s tvrs. We

[23:35] are hoping to have that done

[23:37] quickly and spread that news out

[23:40] when that webinar will be held.

[23:41] We are also going to very

[23:45] shortly put something both on

[23:51] hawai'I county tar.Com and

[23:52] frequently asked questions on an

[23:54] information sheet to bring

[23:56] everyone up to speed as to

[23:57] what's going on.

[23:58] >>would it be possible to

[24:00] announce the date and time and

[24:04] venue for this webinar at first

[24:06] reading? If this goes to first

[24:08] reading which is AUGUST 5th? If

[24:10] go live is eptember 1st, we

[24:14] want to be sure we are giving

[24:16] folks ample time for the webinar

[24:18] event. More time, the better.

[24:21] This is an excellent venue, on

[24:23] the public record and these

[24:25] meetings are available for

[24:27] livestream anywhere. We want to

[24:33] give folks ample time to know

[24:34] when the webinar will be

[24:35] available?

[24:36] >> absolutely. Do you want to

[24:37] join?

[24:44] >> sure, as an observer. I'm

[24:46] curious bout the workflow when

[24:48] the registration comes through.

[24:49] What is the turn around time.

[24:51] Walk me through what the

[24:52] planning department needs to do

[24:55] and if there is a requirement to

[24:56] pull from the finance

[25:05] department. I'm so sorry to

[25:06] emphasize the need to understand

[25:06] the workflow and how long it's

[25:09] going to take for reviewing and

[25:11] issuing registration number. So

[25:12] I want to be sure that this

[25:14] launch is successful and easy

[25:17] for folks to navigate, but also,

[25:19] on the internal side for the

[25:20] planning department and finance,

[25:23] there is clear lines of

[25:25] responsibility, and we are

[25:29] getting this turned around

[25:29] quickly.

[25:31] >>thank you for that question,

[25:33] chair. That has been like focus

[25:35] no. 1 in the planning

[25:36] department. We have been

[25:38] actively working on this

[25:40] particular process. How is this

[25:40] -

[25:43] going to work? How can we make

[25:46] this process as simple as we

[25:50] can. Not complicated. The

[25:52] process is these days that are

[25:59] complicated just complicate

[25:59] everything else. So what we are

[26:00] trying, our focus recycle now,

[26:06] ight now, our

[26:08] direction that we have given

[26:09] decker is that everybody that

[26:11] comes in, we are trying to link

[26:16] this program with an api that

[26:18] shares information as well as

[26:32] our gis system. It will be able

[26:37] to identify permitted zoning

[26:37] districts, things like that.

[26:38] When someone comes in to

[26:39] registers, as long as they have

[26:40] the information, they will be

[26:40] conditionally approved with a

[26:41] registration number. That number

[26:43] will be able to utilize for

[26:51] advertising on the hosting 3

[26:51] platforms. That is where the

[26:52] grace period comes in. On that

[26:53] registration form, are

[26:55] conditions. It says that you

[26:56] agree that these conditions need

[27:00] to be met to continue, but it's

[27:05] not at that time you are given a

[27:06] conditionally approved

[27:09] registration number. So during

[27:11] that period of grace time, the

[27:14] staff will be reviewing these

[27:16] registrations to make sure they

[27:18] are in a permitted zoning

[27:19] district, that they have been

[27:22] able to work out their building

[27:28] permit issues for the structures

[27:45] that they are utilizing for the

[27:45] tvrs. If they need a land use

[27:46] permit, a special permit that

[27:47] they have gone through that

[27:47] process and received approval.

[27:48] This conditionally approved

[27:49] number could be for a period of

[27:50] time. It could be a year. It

[27:50] MAY even extend after that.

[27:51] Additionally, if we have certain

[27:52] conditions in chapter 25 that

[27:54] you will see. One of them is

[27:59] that you cannot do a tvr in an

[28:00] additional farm dwelling. Things

[28:03] like that. Staff will review

[28:04] these simple conditions, make

[28:06] sure that they have met them,

[28:08] and then they will be given n

[28:10] approved number. From there,

[28:12] they won't really need to deal

[28:14] with planning anymore. They will

[28:17] just continually deal with the

[28:21] website where every year, decker

[28:22] will send them a notice, your

[28:25] annual fee is coming up and they

[28:26] will go on to the website and

[28:30] pay the fee. Our hope is that

[28:32] this is going to be smooth. Is

[28:36] going to get grace to be able to

[28:38] allow them to continue this

[28:39] transition and operate while

[28:47] they work through any bugs that

[28:48] there MAY be.

[28:48] >>okay, that's helpful. That

[28:49] was a lot of information and I

[28:57] want to chunk it out. Under

[28:58] registration there is ten areas

[28:59] of information that someone must

[29:00] meet in order for registration,

[29:02] names, tax certificates, all

[29:05] that stuff. They advance through

[29:07] the applications once those

[29:09] documents are uploaded, correct?

[29:12] >> correct.

[29:14] >>at the point of submission

[29:15] they will be given a number and

[29:22] that information is provided to

[29:23] the hosting platform?

[29:23] >> it's our understanding that

[29:24] decker will be maintaining that

[29:28] list and that list will be the

[29:32] list that they monitor the

[29:35] websites as far as ctive

[29:36] advertising. That's question

[29:39] I haven't asked decker, but I

[29:42] will. If they provide the

[29:48] hosting platforms, that

[29:48] information. But that's the

[29:49] information that they do what

[29:50] they call scraping the websites

[29:52] to find out if they are

[29:55] advertising with these approved

[29:56] registration numbers.

[29:58] >>yeah, that's the piece that

[30:01] i'm curious about because the

[30:03] registration system goes live

[30:05] SEPTEMBER 1st and given a number

[30:06] upon submission of an

[30:09] application. I would assume that

[30:16] platforms like airbnb and vrbo

[30:20] will be giving that information

[30:22] so they can be live. Is that

[30:23] how it works?

[30:31] >> again, one of the things

[30:34] brought up is the grace period

[30:35] introduced for the actual

[30:38] process. We are not looking at

[30:38] -

[30:38] enforcement.

[30:40] >>I'm not even talking about

[30:43] that, just making sure the

[30:45] numbers are online for folks

[30:47] getting registered in order to

[30:56] operate this activity. The other

[30:57] question is the turn around

[30:58] time. I'm assuming lots of

[30:58] innings

[31:04] applications are coming through

[31:07] SEPTEMBER 1st. How much timing

[31:07] will you have around that

[31:08] initial operation?

[31:13] >> we have staff that will go

[31:14] through that information

[31:16] providing that information. To

[31:18] me, it looks like it will be a

[31:19] much quicker process than our

[31:26] previous process. I can't tell

[31:26] you exactly. It's going to be

[31:30] different for every registration

[31:31] depending on the issues but my

[31:33] thought is it's going to be

[31:35] quicker than the previous one

[31:37] which took hours to go through a

[31:44] registration and make sure all

[31:44] the information was correct and

[31:45] all the information that was

[31:46] supposed to be provided was

[31:48] provided. Keep in mind you did

[31:50] touch upon a point which I

[31:53] brought up to decker. Typically

[31:55] when you go to a website and

[31:57] filling out something, you have

[31:58] the ability to save and come

[32:01] back to I. Unfortunately that's

[32:05] not something that is available

[32:07] at this time with decker. So we

[32:11] are asking them to make it clear

[32:13] from the beginning that you need

[32:16] the information from the

[32:17] registration to be able to go

[32:19] all the way through the process.

[32:22] >>you will be timed out and

[32:24] start again.

[32:28] >>yes, if you don't have it all,

[32:31] it won't be able to completely

[32:33] and will not save.

[32:34] >>with this process, you will be

[32:35] able to track complaints that

[32:35] come in?

[32:37] >> yes.

[32:40] >>how those are resolved,

[32:40] enforcement from the planning

[32:43] process ill be in a particular

[32:47] profile for the vacation

[32:47] rentals.

[32:49] >>there is an additional program

[32:58] called rental scape that is part

[32:58] of this and they are actively

[33:00] monitoring all the active

[33:18] registrations, advertisements

[33:24] going on related to stvr's,

[33:26] airbnb and we will send out a

[33:28] courtesy letter saying we have

[33:29] been doing this search and see

[33:33] that you are advertising for

[33:34] this particular overnight

[33:38] accommodation without a

[33:38] rentaling

[33:40] registration number. You have a

[33:43] period of time to come in to

[33:45] register, if not, we will inform

[33:46] the planning department. When

[33:48] we get that and they haven't

[33:50] taken the next step, we will

[33:53] take the next step after that.

[33:55] >>that's for someone that is not

[33:58] registered. I'm talking about

[34:02] registered tvrs, and if they

[34:12] come in is the decker system

[34:13] going to have all the

[34:17] information and lability

[34:18] will you be able

[34:22] to track that information.

[34:24] >>they did say there is contact.

[34:26] they can be contacted via the

[34:33] website and information can be

[34:33] provided to them whether it's a

[34:34] complaint or whether it's

[34:35] questions or whatever it is.

[34:38] Planning department would

[34:43] typically if there is a

[34:45] complaint, we'll follow-up on

[34:45] that.

[34:46] >>where is that information

[34:53] being housed? Is it in your

[34:54] spreadsheet? What I'm trying to

[34:56] get at, will that information no

[35:02] matter who is handling, that

[35:05] information is in a repository.

[35:07] >>it's related to our epic

[35:08] system.

[35:10] >>I want an answer next time.

[35:12] Can we house that information in

[35:14] decker or is that going to

[35:16] require another widget to check.

[35:18] >>you are asking, so I'm clear,

[35:21] council chair, is that you want,

[35:22] if somebody wants to know how

[35:24] many complaints there were, they

[35:25] can go somewhere andee?

[35:28] >> I will get to that in a

[35:31] second. I just want to know,

[35:34] once a registration happens, a

[35:36] conditional number and eventual

[35:37] number s issued. If someone in

[35:39] the community were to call your

[35:41] office and issue a complaint

[35:44] about a registered tr, where

[35:47] does that complaint information

[35:49] go? In a spreadsheet or on the

[35:51] profile that was created within

[35:52] decker? I'm just looking to

[35:53] -

[35:53] understand where all the

[35:55] information is being housed so

[35:58] that we can track, you can track

[35:59] how those complaints are being

[36:06] addressed and resolved if there

[36:07] was any enforcement that needed

[36:08] to happen. That's all.

[36:09] >>sure. Ream quick

[36:11] l quick, I can answer

[36:14] that. Whether we ove forward or

[36:17] go back, complaints are always

[36:19] confidential. They go in our

[36:26] files and remain confidential.

[36:27] We follow-up on those. They are

[36:28] assigned to an inspector and

[36:28] followed up to that complaint

[36:29] and all the information is held

[36:30] within that file.

[36:32] >>okay, the decker system, my

[36:34] next question. Is any of this

[36:37] information publicly searchable?

[36:39] So any member of the public

[36:45] could go online and search for a

[36:47] vacation rentals that has been

[36:50] registered with the county?

[36:52] >> the people should be allowed

[36:54] to get that information. It

[36:55] needs to be available from

[37:25] planning and from finance as

[37:26] well. Dementia initiate

[37:27] well.

[37:27] >>vice-chair dennis "fresh"

[37:28] onishi: with certain systems,

[37:29] because I was working with

[37:32] public works. In the system,

[37:34] you can have these questions,

[37:36] evaluate the application when

[37:38] they submit? Right? So you

[37:42] wouldn't need staff? Then it

[37:46] could red flag certain areas to

[37:47] the applicant, this is the

[37:50] problem, right? Have you guys

[37:50] looked into that?

[37:53] >> I know building has. I don't

[37:54] think we have at this point.

[37:57] There is talk about it, but it

[37:59] hasn't gotten to the point that

[38:01] I think they are looking at cost

[38:07] and what it's going to take to

[38:08] implement that type of ai

[38:34] program. I'm not sure if it can

[38:35] be done with planning. That is

[38:36] regarding the needinging the

[38:37] the ai

[38:39] functions that are happening

[38:43] now.

[38:47] >>okay. I forgot my second

[38:47] question.

[38:50] >>I guess I can send you an

[38:53] email later because there is a

[38:55] professor at uh hilo that does

[38:57] some work with ai, and we are

[39:00] also looking at trying to get

[39:02] involved with doing certain

[39:04] things for the county with

[39:05] public works.

[39:08] >>I think I get like ten e-mails

[39:10] a day from ai companies asking

[39:13] to have us hire them.

[39:15] >>yeah, but something that could

[39:17] help the process.

[39:18] >>sure, of course.

[39:22] >>making it easier and also

[39:23] making it easier for the

[39:24] applicant. That's what we are

[39:26] here for is to service the

[39:29] applicant. Right now they can't

[39:31] even save their application. So

[39:34] making sure they have all the

[39:35] information. How many of them

[39:40] do have all that prepared? So

[39:42] you could have a lot of

[39:49] frustrated people out there.

[39:50] >>

[39:51] >> council member matt

[39:51] kanealii-kleinfelder: maybe I'm

[39:54] asking the same question a

[39:55] different way. We didn't want

[40:01] to use epic for this?

[40:02] >> I don't think epic has the

[40:03] capability of doing this. It's

[40:04] a web based program that needs

[40:06] to be online.

[40:06] >>okay.

[40:09] >>our epic system is like we

[40:12] house our information. You can

[40:14] submit into it and then it's

[40:16] assigned to somebody. This

[40:22] actually does the work for us.

[40:23] You end up going. You fill out a

[40:25] registration form, you create an

[40:27] account. You are able to go back

[40:32] to that account later to do 3

[40:34] additional upgrades or edits or

[40:35] change of information or pay

[40:37] your annual fees, all through

[40:41] this program. All of that

[40:42] information will be input into

[40:47] our epic system for us for

[40:48] information.

[40:51] >>so eckard is going to

[40:52] interact?

[40:52] >> yes.

[40:55] >>maybe we should cancel our

[40:58] epic contract and move it over.

[41:00] >>I'm not going to comment on

[41:01] that, but there has been a lot

[41:03] of comments.

[41:06] >>thank you. I yield.

[41:06] >> council member ashley

[41:07] kierkiewicz: one more question

[41:09] to ask the director.

[41:13] Registration 645-c, the duty of

[41:14] the owner to maintain the

[41:16] occurrence nd accuracy of the

[41:18] information provided. Any

[41:20] changes to the status, will that

[41:22] need to be shared via a form

[41:23] prescribed by the director or

[41:25] can that happen within he

[41:26] deckard system?

[41:38] >> 645-c?

[41:41] In the system, they have a

[41:43] change of information form that

[41:46] you can fill out and do that.

[41:48] Whatever it is. If it's change

[41:50] of ownership, that's a little

[41:51] different. There is another

[41:53] form for that, but any

[41:55] information you need to change

[41:56] on your registration, you can do

[41:59] that to that process and update

[42:05] it.

[42:06] >>sorry, the question that I had

[42:06] was also about the status. If

[42:09] they elect to terminate the

[42:11] registration, can that be done

[42:13] through deckard or another form?

[42:17] >> it will be done through

[42:23] deckard, cancellation, those

[42:24] things. As well as to update

[42:29] the particular status for the

[42:35] stvr's, whatever it is and they

[42:36] monitor that. We have a lot of

[42:37] questions and still have a lot

[42:39] to go. And one question was

[42:42] around people using the same

[42:43] number several times and they

[42:46] say all the time. They are

[42:48] constantly able to catch all of

[42:49] this activity online.

[42:51] >>thank you, director.

[42:52] >>council member heather l.

[42:53] Kimball: thank you. I want to

[42:55] encourage everybody between now

[42:56] and the first reading if we get

[43:12] there, to ook at the

[43:15] they have a lot of case studies

[43:18] here that show you the type of

[43:19] tools they have available. I

[43:21] think, director, perhaps if

[43:24] before the next reading, I think

[43:26] it might be useful to share the

[43:33] rfp that went out, just from the

[43:34] standpoint that you can see the

[43:35] features that were requested

[43:38] when we put out the request for

[43:40] proposals. This is what we do

[43:42] and it's not just the

[43:43] registration that they are

[43:44] providing but providing the

[43:47] search function that go through

[43:51] all the listings through vrbo

[43:54] and airbnb and will show online

[43:56] what is registered and what is

[44:02] out there for transient rental.

[44:04] There is a lot of value out

[44:09] there. There is a lot with ai

[44:11] in the process accepting the

[44:14] special application and tie into

[44:16] the existing platform. It would

[44:20] be great to see that rfp and the

[44:27] features. Tracking the

[44:27] violations and notices as well.

[44:28] >>thank you very much. Any other

[44:29] questions or comments? If not,

[44:31] we'll move to a vote on the

[44:34] measure. Seeing none. All in

[44:35] favor say, "aye"

[44:35] >> aye.

[44:41] >> any opposed? Motion carried

[44:47] with 9 aye votes.

[44:53] >>bill 175 will be heard at

[44:54] first reading.

[44:54] >>thank you.

[44:55] >>is there

[44:56] >>clerk: is there any testimony

[44:57] for bill 176? Seeing none.

[44:57] >>

[44:58] article 1, of the hawaii county

[44:59] code 1983 (2016 edition, as

[44:59] amended), relating to the

[45:00] general plan

[45:00] establishes amendment procedures

[45:01] for the general plan, including

[45:02] a comprehensive review every ten

[45:03] years and interim amendments;

[45:03] describes powers and duties of

[45:04] the planning director and

[45:04] planning commissions.

[45:05] Reference: comm. 968

[45:06] intr. By: council members inaba

[45:22] and kierkiewicz

[45:23] >>chair holeka goro inaba:

[45:27] motion to forward bill 176 to 3

[45:28] council with a favorable

[45:28] recommendation.

[45:29] >>thank you. We have a motion

[45:30] and second y council member

[45:34] inaba and onishi to forward bill

[45:36] 176 to council with a favorable

[45:36] recommendation. At this time,

[45:38] please let the record reflect

[45:45] that I'm passing the gavel to

[45:47] committee vice chair galimba.

[45:50] I'm the coauthor of the

[45:51] legislation. Thank you.

[45:52] >> council member michelle m.

[45:53] Galimba:

[45:53] >>chair holeka goro inaba:

[45:56] thank you. Bill 176, is our bill

[45:59] to codify in the hawai'I county

[46:05] code, our general plan amendment

[46:15] procedures both conferring the

[46:15] vering the

[46:16] comprehensive review as well as

[46:17] amendments to the general plan

[46:17] to the county director and the

[46:18] planning crore.

[46:20] Director. This bill, as

[46:21] we know, we were making

[46:23] amendments as we were locked out

[46:30] of the last comprehensive review

[46:31] part of because of the rules

[46:32] lived in the general plan but

[46:34] now we'll codify it. As an

[46:36] overview, this process still

[46:39] requires a ten year cycle for

[46:40] comprehensive reviews. It

[46:42] requires public notice and

[46:43] opportunity for public

[46:46] participation including at least

[46:48] one workshop in each council

[46:50] district. It gets us, the

[46:53] council, the opportunity to

[46:54] identify proposed amendments for

[46:57] the planning director to

[46:58] consider. Aain, the

[47:04] requirement for review by both

[47:06] the planning commissions which

[47:08] is required by our charter and I

[47:10] believe state law as well.

[47:13] Establish is a general timeline

[47:16] so we still have a three year

[47:18] window from initiation to when

[47:20] the planning department should

[47:23] be transmitting it to council

[47:27] for our action. If you

[47:33] reference communication 968.3.

[47:36] We have a graphic that shows the

[47:38] process. So we can just talk

[47:40] through it. The bill states hat

[47:42] prior to the initiation the

[47:43] planning department would work

[47:48] on creating a draft and at the

[47:50] beginning, the director would

[47:54] share this draft with us, and as

[47:56] part of the public notice inform

[47:58] us of whether the plan is being

[48:00] replaced at it was in this last

[48:03] round or if there is slight

[48:06] adjustments being made from that

[48:08] point. The council has 120 days

[48:10] to propose amendments via

[48:13] resolution for the director's

[48:16] consideration, and then the

[48:17] planning department has some

[48:20] time to work through those

[48:24] public workshops. The planning

[48:26] commission has to do with any

[48:28] other bill for ordinance that

[48:30] they recommend to the council,

[48:33] again, make recommendation onto

[48:35] the planning director's set of

[48:37] recommendations. I think the

[48:38] biggest change here for us to

[48:41] recognize is that when it's

[48:43] transmitted to the council, the

[48:46] council has full authority to do

[48:48] its legislative work. As we saw

[48:50] in the previous amendment

[48:52] procedures for the comprehensive

[48:55] review, we were barred from the

[48:57] removal or addition or taking

[48:59] any ubstantive amendments. So

[49:02] that language is gone. Being

[49:04] that it is a planning department

[49:06] initiated process, they are the

[49:08] ones who create the

[49:09] recommendations and send it

[49:10] through the commission even

[49:11] though we have an opportunity to

[49:14] chime in at the beginning via

[49:16] resolution, we found it

[49:18] necessary to be very clear that

[49:21] you have full authority to amend

[49:26] prior to the passing of this

[49:28] legislation. In addition, we do

[49:33] have a timeline as well. If the

[49:36] director does not provide the

[49:38] draft to the council within five

[49:40] years, that process is deemed

[49:43] closed. That's to allow us to

[49:51] have an opportunity to make

[49:51] interim amendments. Nothing

[49:52] prevents the planning department

[49:53] from republican

[49:54] initiating using the same

[49:56] draft they were working on, but

[49:59] there needs to be some kind of

[50:00] deadline which is what is being

[50:07] presented here. I'm going to

[50:07] hand it over to council member

[50:08] kierkiewicz to speak about the

[50:11] interim amendments.

[50:12] >> council member ashley

[50:13] kierkiewicz: this will be my

[50:15] public therapy session because

[50:21] with the last go around there is

[50:22] so much trauma and tension

[50:23] because of what was in the

[50:24] general plan itself and the

[50:26] future and the inherit authority

[50:27] granted through the charter.

[50:29] There was a lot of conflict

[50:32] there. This code amendment would

[50:35] provide clarity whether there is

[50:37] ambiguity and transparency and

[50:38] predictability within the

[50:40] process. I also really

[50:42] appreciate the fact that the

[50:44] process cannot go on

[50:47] indefinitely. This last general

[50:55] plan stands four mayoral

[50:56] administrations which is kind of

[50:58] insane. So this ensures that

[51:00] everyone involved in the

[51:02] department, the council t

[51:04] community, they know their

[51:05] responsibilities and know when

[51:08] to act and within what

[51:10] timeframe. There are separate

[51:12] procedures for the initial

[51:13] comprehensive review as well as

[51:14] interim amendment and you can

[51:16] see the process for interim

[51:19] amendment in section 16b, I'm

[51:25] sorry. I apologize. 16 f for

[51:27] council initiated. The council

[51:29] members can proposed amendments

[51:35] at any time. Those amendments

[51:36] would be transmitted to the

[51:37] director and both planning

[51:38] commissions prior to their first

[51:40] meeting for review. The director

[51:42] has 30 days to review and

[51:45] provide recommendations to the

[51:47] commissions. 60 days after

[51:53] revving the director's comments,

[51:54] the commissioners are to act

[51:57] upon what has been send to them

[51:59] t o them

[52:02] and respond to council and after

[52:07] that period with no response, it

[52:09] will be sent without the

[52:10] recommendation. The council MAY

[52:12] act upon revving those

[52:21] recommendations or 90 days after

[52:21] revving from the director for

[52:22] review whichever occurs first.

[52:24] There is a time frame here where

[52:25] the director can provide

[52:27] comments, if not the council

[52:29] will move forward. The director

[52:31] is also empowered through

[52:33] section g to initiate interim

[52:35] amendments. Again, very similar

[52:36] process. The director would

[52:38] propose an amendment, ransmit

[52:40] it to planning commissions with

[52:41] -

[52:43] a written justification for why

[52:44] he or she is making that

[52:47] recommendation for an amendment.

[52:49] Commission's review and send a

[52:51] recommendation to the council,

[52:53] and the council moves forward

[52:55] with its legislative process

[52:58] with either adopting amendments

[53:01] or rejecting amendments proposed

[53:04] interim amendment. I hope that

[53:12] provides clarity for how this

[53:12] process will play out in the

[53:13] future. It's best home is in

[53:14] the code, not the document

[53:16] itself. We are open to questions

[53:18] and feedback members MAY have.

[53:21] Thank you for the opportunity.

[53:23] >>thank you.

[53:23] >> council member michelle m.

[53:24] Galimba: council member inaba?

[53:25] >>chair holeka goro inaba: just

[53:28] as a follow-up, we do have

[53:32] communication 916.2. Which is

[53:34] written comments from the

[53:37] planning department on this

[53:39] bill. I do want to note that my

[53:42] intention is to hear everyone's

[53:49] feedback today and to postpone

[53:50] to the next committee meeting so

[53:51] we can work on this and come up

[53:55] with the right language moving

[53:56] forward. Director, do you want

[53:57] to walk through some ofours?

[54:00] >> sure.

[54:01] >> planning director jeff

[54:04] darrow: thank you, chair,

[54:06] vice-chair. Really appreciate

[54:07] the opportunity to work in

[54:09] collaboration with chair inaba

[54:15] on this. Oerall, we are very

[54:17] thankful for the time and effort

[54:19] that was put into this to spell

[54:22] this out much clearer than our

[54:26] last go around. Hopefully, I

[54:27] don't think any of us will be

[54:31] here then in the future. I hope

[54:42] not. But, but just in case. So

[54:43] on 16.1, we are just asking that

[54:45] they consider keeping the date

[54:54] of DECEMBER 5, 1971, as that was

[54:54] an important date in regards to

[55:01] the first adopted general plan.

[55:03] 16a, initiation, this is unique.

[55:06] Usually we initiate and then we

[55:07] prepare. This is prepare and

[55:11] then initiate. We are just

[55:13] concerned about that because

[55:16] typically what we do is take in

[55:19] input and then prepare.

[55:21] I can see this process working

[55:25] if you are looking at an overall

[55:32] comprehensive amendment of the

[55:32] current plan, and doing an

[55:33] amendment you go through it,

[55:34] make amendments, package it and

[55:36] then provide it.

[55:39] In what we just saw in the last 3

[55:41] go around, it was a completely

[55:46] new plan. Both 2040 and 2045,

[55:48] did not amend the previous

[55:51] plans. They basically created

[55:55] new plans. We incorporate a lot

[55:57] of direction from the council

[55:59] through the resolutions through

[56:02] the different agencies, and

[56:05] through public comments to

[56:07] incorporate and prepare that

[56:10] plan. But again, that's one of

[56:12] the things that we can work

[56:17] through as we postpone and meet

[56:21] together and come up with some

[56:29] language. Public comments

[56:32] workshops on 16b. Again, the

[56:34] concern was right now whenever

[56:38] there is a change to someone's

[56:40] property that would redesignate

[56:44] it to either open or

[56:47] conservation, that there be a

[57:04] notice provided. I think that --

[57:06] let's see, the planning director

[57:07] shall. We know the proposed

[57:09] process does not include the

[57:10] requirement to notify property

[57:20] owners. We recommend k

[57:24] 16d, we are just unclear about,

[57:26] we just are requesting some

[57:29] clarity on this particular

[57:36] process spelled out in 16d.

[57:38] Lastly, the legislative report.

[57:40] I'm sorry, one more before that

[57:42] again, we are asking to clarify

[57:44] the intent of the legislative

[57:47] history report and where it is 3

[57:49] filed especially in the case

[57:52] that the planning director's

[57:56] recommendations are rejected.

[57:59] Lastly, 16f, we are requesting

[58:04] that it remain 60 days rather

[58:07] than 30 days. 30 days is a 3

[58:10] pretty tight timeline especially

[58:14] given everything that goes on.

[58:16] Anyway, thank you.

[58:16] >>

[58:17] >>chair holeka goro inaba:

[58:18] thank you, director. I will

[58:20] briefly summarize that we for

[58:23] sure are willing to address. I

[58:26] will walk us through from the

[58:28] top of the director's comments.

[58:29] I don't think we'll be keeping

[58:31] the original 1971. We MAY have

[58:33] further discussion on that, but

[58:37] as of now, probably not. The

[58:40] initiation note, having the

[58:43] draft created prior to the

[58:44] initiation, it's something we

[58:47] felt would be helpful to

[58:49] everyone because when the

[58:51] initiation notice goes out, it

[58:54] informs us of how it's going to

[58:58] be. So, happy to, that's

[58:59] something I would like to hear

[59:01] from the body on, but again,

[59:02] they have three years from

[59:04] initiation to get something to

[59:06] council. So if planning

[59:08] department knows that the

[59:11] comprehensive review is coming

[59:14] up, they have potentially ten

[59:15] years to prepare some kind of

[59:17] draft to share as part of the

[59:24] initiation notice. When it comes

[59:29] to the closure, there was

[59:32] comments from the department

[59:33] regarding, being very clear that

[59:35] the council has the authority o

[59:37] make amendments because it says

[59:44] either pass or rject. So we'll

[59:45] be clarifying that language as

[59:45] well as the legislative history

[59:46] report to be specific about

[59:48] workshops not having minutes

[59:49] since they aren't recorded.

[59:51] We'll make sure we tighten up

[59:53] that language. E will make that

[59:59] change from 30-60 days.

[1:00:00] Generally not too much change

[1:00:02] from what happened. The most

[1:00:05] significant change is being able

[1:00:08] to make the required amendments

[1:00:11] when it comes to council.

[1:00:14] We won't be including the public

[1:00:16] notice. It doesn't change.

[1:00:18] Sorry, the notice to property

[1:00:24] owners either bus

[1:00:24] ecause this is

[1:00:26] the county's general plan. It

[1:00:30] doesn't change the actual

[1:00:33] intention and it takes resources

[1:00:35] to get the letters out. It is

[1:00:39] the county's mana'o on what

[1:00:45] could be and should be in the

[1:00:46] future and something we checked

[1:00:47] in with corporation counsel

[1:00:47] months back prior to working on

[1:00:49] this bill. I will stop talking

[1:00:51] now. We are going to postpone.

[1:00:53] Hear from you folks and then

[1:00:54] make the amendments for next

[1:00:57] committee meeting. Thank you,

[1:01:03] chair.

[1:01:04] >> council member ashley

[1:01:04] kierkiewicz: one thing to add.

[1:01:07] I feel strongly about a draft

[1:01:08] being circulated to the public

[1:01:11] and not going out and doing

[1:01:13] workshops where folks are just

[1:01:15] adding to the board. You are the

[1:01:16] planning department, you are the

[1:01:18] planning expert. You are

[1:01:20] supposed to know how to plan

[1:01:22] communities. I worry about

[1:01:29] giving so much free range to

[1:01:29] community where they start to

[1:01:30] misunderstand the point and

[1:01:35] function of a general plan.

[1:01:39] Starting the area where folks

[1:01:44] can comment on is one point.

[1:01:45] And one other thing is it would

[1:01:48] be great to also get a look back

[1:01:50] as part of the public initiation

[1:01:59] meetings about hat has been

[1:02:01] I know that there are maybe some

[1:02:05] procedures in the country 2045

[1:02:06] plan about reporting, but I

[1:02:08] think it's also fortunate report

[1:02:10] on where the county was

[1:02:12] successful or fell short on some

[1:02:13] of the goals that are in the

[1:02:15] current plan, and that MAY have

[1:02:17] informed the draft that folks

[1:02:19] arguing that you were

[1:02:20] recommending the council move

[1:02:24] forward on. So I'm not apt to

[1:02:27] agree with you that we just go

[1:02:34] out to community to say "what

[1:02:36] are you looking for?" I think

[1:02:39] the general theme to look for

[1:02:44] the working draft and look at

[1:02:46] comments from that. Thank you.

[1:02:49] >>thank you.

[1:02:50] >>

[1:02:51] >> council member james hustace:

[1:02:51] thank you, chair.

[1:02:53] . Hank you, council members,

[1:02:54] inaba, kierkiewicz for

[1:02:55] presenting this. I appreciate

[1:02:58] the work you put into this. I

[1:03:01] definitely felt that tension in

[1:03:02] the general plan process about

[1:03:04] our inability to make changes,

[1:03:07] small, large, whatnot. I

[1:03:08] appreciate you putting a new

[1:03:10] position here on our legislative

[1:03:11] authority. Thank you. My only

[1:03:15] question and I appreciate your

[1:03:16] sentiment, council member inaba,

[1:03:18] on trying to identify and really

[1:03:20] be clear about the closure

[1:03:22] process and what that looks like

[1:03:24] in terms of making sure it's

[1:03:26] clear with planning that these

[1:03:27] are the steps we are going to

[1:03:39] take and this

[1:03:44] condemn

[1:03:46] >>council member heather l.

[1:03:47] Kimball: first of all, to the

[1:03:49] makers, about the timeline, I

[1:03:51] just want to be sure I'm

[1:03:53] especially clear on this. Every

[1:03:54] ten years it will initiate and

[1:03:55] -

[1:03:56] they will have three years or

[1:04:00] they are supposed to have three

[1:04:02] years so that it's every ten

[1:04:05] years we get a new plan. I'm

[1:04:08] just not super clear.

[1:04:10] >>yes, we need to initiate

[1:04:11] within ten years of the initial

[1:04:13] approval and once initiation

[1:04:15] begins. Nothing has changed on

[1:04:16] that front. They have three

[1:04:18] years from nitiation to get it

[1:04:20] to council. And if they don't,

[1:04:22] they need to provide quarterly

[1:04:24] reports to us. If they fail to

[1:04:29] get us something within the five

[1:04:30] years, then it's deemed closed

[1:04:33] because we still are barred from

[1:04:35] interim amendments during the

[1:04:37] comprehensive review based on

[1:04:38] the rules we are proposing and

[1:04:41] that's to ensure there isn't

[1:04:42] confusion at the commission

[1:04:45] between an ongoing comprehensive

[1:04:48] review and something trying to

[1:04:51] throw in additional amendments.

[1:04:53] >>if everything went well, we

[1:04:57] could anticipate a 13 year

[1:04:58] cadence for a new bill? Okay.

[1:05:00] That's what I thought. I wanted

[1:05:05] to be sure.

[1:05:08] >>to the makers, was there any

[1:05:12] conversation about adopting the

[1:05:14] general plan as something other

[1:05:22] than an ordinance itself? That

[1:05:23] is one of the challenges that I

[1:05:25] have had with this process in

[1:05:26] terms of how it was brought to

[1:05:28] us is that the general plan

[1:05:31] itself is considered and

[1:05:34] ordinance and, while, I know

[1:05:36] that prescribes certain

[1:05:40] procedures tied to it, it also

[1:05:42] handcuffs it's in some ways too.

[1:05:45] I just wonder if you had any

[1:05:46] dialogue about that?

[1:05:49] >> we id not discuss changing

[1:05:55] it to a resolution based on the

[1:05:58] standing philosophy is that it

[1:06:02] is law and having it as an

[1:06:03] ordinance really provides that

[1:06:08] kind of force of law that we

[1:06:09] would want something that is

[1:06:12] supposed to guide development

[1:06:14] and incorporates input from

[1:06:26] state and county a

[1:06:27] >>okay, I will bring some

[1:06:29] comments more thoroughly next

[1:06:31] time on maybe some other options

[1:06:33] to discuss other than having it

[1:06:35] be an ordinance. I think it

[1:06:41] makes sense to -- corporation

[1:06:42] counsel, yes, the charter is

[1:06:48] part of that. Ys, go ahead.

[1:06:50] >>corporation counsel: rene

[1:07:03] schoen. T

[1:07:04] >>council member heather l.

[1:07:10] Kimball: well, however, now

[1:07:10] it's included, in this last go

[1:07:11] around, it was included as an

[1:07:13] attachment. I think even within

[1:07:15] the constraint of the charter

[1:07:17] language, I think there is

[1:07:17] -

[1:07:27] the last thing to the makers

[1:07:31] just trying to make sure I clear

[1:07:34] with respect to making it

[1:07:37] clearer what our authority is

[1:07:39] once it's delivered to us from

[1:07:41] the planning department, it

[1:07:46] seems from the standpoint of the

[1:07:47] absence within the creation that

[1:07:50] we have an authority that it

[1:07:51] becomes by default, the

[1:07:52] prescription, the authority that

[1:07:54] we have under the fact that it

[1:07:56] is an ordinance and we are the

[1:07:58] legislative body. Am I reading

[1:07:59] that correctly?

[1:08:00] >> yes, and that's something we

[1:08:03] are going to clarify with

[1:08:07] section 16b sub section b, says

[1:08:09] the director shall present the

[1:08:09] director's recommendation

[1:08:10] together with each commission to

[1:08:14] the council for its

[1:08:15] consideration

[1:08:16] consideration, period. That

[1:08:18] lends to our doing our

[1:08:19] legislative function, that we

[1:08:23] are going to clarify as well as

[1:08:30] in 16b-1 that the council's

[1:08:32] adoption or rejection of the

[1:08:33] recommendations that they could

[1:08:36] be amended as well. So, just

[1:08:37] more authority there and we'll

[1:08:39] have that language for next

[1:08:39] time.

[1:08:42] >>yes, I think -- I actually

[1:08:44] like that it's just our

[1:08:46] consideration and that's by

[1:08:48] default gives us all of our

[1:08:54] legislative authority. I think

[1:08:54] generally speaking, I like to

[1:08:55] preserve as much authority in

[1:08:56] the legislative branch as

[1:08:58] possible. However,, I am of the

[1:09:00] two minds of the fact that this

[1:09:01] is the general plan is something

[1:09:03] different than a typical

[1:09:06] ordinance, and if anything were,

[1:09:07] one would hope the legislative

[1:09:10] body would be helpful and what

[1:09:12] the planning department would be

[1:09:14] giving around an amendment, but

[1:09:15] I do have some concerns that

[1:09:18] anything too substantive should

[1:09:20] actually would potentially

[1:09:22] measure it further review by the

[1:09:24] planning commission, but I'm not

[1:09:26] sure where that line is for me

[1:09:28] or whether or not selling out. I

[1:09:29] guess we would have the

[1:09:32] authority if it came to us as an

[1:09:32] -

[1:09:34] amendment to send it to the

[1:09:36] planning commissions for review

[1:09:39] if anybody thought it was

[1:09:41] substantive or not. Anyway,

[1:09:44] that's some where I'm not quite

[1:09:50] settled on that position on.

[1:09:51] Thank you.

[1:09:52] >> council member ashley

[1:09:58] kierkiewicz: can I just say a

[1:09:59] point when council member

[1:10:00] kimball had mentioned how the

[1:10:01] general plan is presented as an

[1:10:03] exhibit to an ordinance. It

[1:10:05] wasn't always that way. The

[1:10:06] actually language of a general

[1:10:08] plan if you look at the drafts

[1:10:11] from 71 and 89, they were in the

[1:10:12] format of how we typically

[1:10:18] receive bills. So what you see

[1:10:19] here, bill 176, that's exactly

[1:10:20] what the general plans look like

[1:10:22] before it was adopted and put

[1:10:24] aside and made into a booklet

[1:10:26] with pictures. There was a lot

[1:10:29] more flexibility and room to

[1:10:30] make amendments because it was

[1:10:31] provided in a format that we are

[1:10:34] used to. We might consider going

[1:10:36] forward going back to what we

[1:10:38] know which is these bills for

[1:10:40] ordinances, not an exhibit. I

[1:10:41] don't think folks care about the

[1:10:43] pictures right now, director. I

[1:10:45] think they really care about the

[1:10:47] substance, the policy that we

[1:10:53] are going to guide our county.

[1:10:54] To your comment about sending to

[1:10:55] the commission. I think that was

[1:10:57] another tension point that we

[1:10:59] were trying to navigate as a

[1:11:02] body was how to define

[1:11:08] substantive. I think we all had

[1:11:09] a different range for what that

[1:11:10] looked like. I feel comfortable

[1:11:11] with the language as is. Where

[1:11:12] the council has the final say on

[1:11:14] what this looks like because

[1:11:15] that is what we do for every

[1:11:17] other bill for ordinance that

[1:11:19] comes through. We get the

[1:11:20] recommendation from various

[1:11:22] commissions and at the end of

[1:11:24] the day, we take that into

[1:11:26] consideration and move forward

[1:11:28] with either adopting or

[1:11:30] amending. O I would like for us

[1:11:33] to continue to exercise our full

[1:11:51] legislative authority a

[1:11:52] >>council member heather l.

[1:11:53] Kimball: one comment to your

[1:11:53] point, council member

[1:11:56] kierkiewicz. I think about a

[1:11:57] zoning ordinance and how that

[1:11:59] doesn't go live in the code but

[1:12:01] in a format of an ordinance that

[1:12:10] we can amend as we make

[1:12:11] receive it.

[1:12:11] >>

[1:12:12] >> council member jenn kagiwada:

[1:12:14] thank you. Just real quick. I

[1:12:16] just want to support what

[1:12:20] council member kierkiewicz said

[1:12:22] about I think it is really

[1:12:23] important that the planning

[1:12:26] department take the lead in

[1:12:37] setting the direction and giving

[1:12:37] the public something to kind of

[1:12:42] wrap their heads errands.

[1:12:42] Around. It's

[1:12:44] such a large document and you

[1:12:45] are the one with experience and

[1:12:47] education on this. I think

[1:12:49] people don't often know even

[1:12:51] where to start. So, it makes it

[1:12:54] really hard to get that civic

[1:12:57] engagement from a lot of people

[1:12:59] when it's just too overwhelming

[1:13:02] for them. I just want to second

[1:13:06] that I know it's a big shift and

[1:13:08] a different way of looking at

[1:13:12] it, but we are granting you

[1:13:26] first stab. So, yeah, I rea

[1:13:26] >> planning director jeff

[1:13:28] darrow: chair, thank you for

[1:13:32] those comments. The way the bill

[1:13:35] is written, it does give

[1:13:38] flexibility for the planning

[1:13:40] director, which is good. The way

[1:13:44] it's laid ut in 16a is that

[1:13:46] it's not like you are creating a

[1:13:48] new plan. You are creating

[1:13:50] recommendations for a general

[1:13:53] plan which MAY be recommended

[1:13:54] amendments or could be a

[1:13:56] recommendation for a new plan.

[1:13:58] So you are kind of giving a head

[1:14:00] start there. You are saying,

[1:14:02] this is the direction we want to

[1:14:05] go. And then you initiate and

[1:14:08] have to chime in. So that works.

[1:14:10] It looks like it will be good.

[1:14:17] The ne thing I did want to

[1:14:17] touch upon is what council

[1:14:18] member kimball touched upon.

[1:14:20] typically, we have been meeting

[1:14:24] with the most of the council

[1:14:25] members at this point regarding

[1:14:26] the amendments they would like

[1:14:28] to see now that the general plan

[1:14:34] has passed. If it as done

[1:14:37] previously, those would have

[1:14:38] been amendments that would have

[1:14:40] been considered during the

[1:14:42] comprehensive general plan. In

[1:14:46] meeting with everyone, I haven't

[1:14:47] seen anything other than some

[1:14:51] land use map changes and some

[1:14:53] minor adjustments in the

[1:14:54] language. There hasn't been

[1:14:57] anything that has really even

[1:15:02] though the way the previous

[1:15:04] general plan said is hese are

[1:15:07] considered substantive, right?

[1:15:13] A land use map change or a

[1:15:14] policy change. Those are

[1:15:15] considered substantive. But

[1:15:16] typically, a minor map

[1:15:20] amendment, really isn't that

[1:15:21] substantive. It's just really

[1:15:23] fixing something, things like

[1:15:24] that. What I think is

[1:15:31] substantive that we have seen

[1:15:32] and it's happened twice now. In

[1:15:33] 2005, it happened and it

[1:15:35] happened again recently where we

[1:15:35] -

[1:15:41] see a new plan that comes out.

[1:15:43] And again, I'm just using

[1:15:43] thanksgiving

[1:15:44] this

[1:15:45] as an example that we can

[1:15:54] consider as a substantive

[1:15:55] change. You are looking at one

[1:15:56] plan and another plan is

[1:15:56] presented. Again, this has

[1:15:57] happened twice now. This

[1:15:59] happened back fell

[1:16:01] in 2005 and

[1:16:04] happened again here. It would be

[1:16:05] good to have an opportunity when

[1:16:08] something like that comes

[1:16:09] forward to be able to llow the

[1:16:11] commissions an opportunity if

[1:16:13] that's the direction the council

[1:16:16] wants to go as far as adopting

[1:16:29] >>chair holeka goro inaba:

[1:16:32] thank you. E'll work further in

[1:16:34] two weeks with the planning

[1:16:35] department. Thank you everyone

[1:16:37] for your feedback. I want o

[1:16:39] clarify a point that director

[1:16:43] brought up regarding section

[1:16:45] 16a. The initiation notice is

[1:16:49] not, well, what is presented is

[1:16:53] not sharing what it's going to

[1:16:56] be recommended amendments or new

[1:16:57] draft. It is the recommended

[1:17:00] new draft. I want to clarify

[1:17:02] that because ten years from now

[1:17:04] when people look at that in

[1:17:05] minutes, I want that to be the

[1:17:09] record. It's not saying that you

[1:17:11] are going to do, you are

[1:17:13] providing amendments for the

[1:17:13] draft.

[1:17:14] >>thank you.

[1:17:17] >>thank you. With that, I move

[1:17:25] to postpone bill --

[1:17:26] >>sorry.

[1:17:27] >> council member michelle m.

[1:17:32] Galimba: I wanted to make a few

[1:17:33] comments and that would be I

[1:17:33] think also at that point of

[1:17:35] amendments at the very end by

[1:17:38] the council, I do feel like

[1:17:41] although we MAY feel we are

[1:17:46] wise, we MAY need some feedback,

[1:17:48] and I think although we felt

[1:17:51] like we were shut out, we were

[1:17:57] more just daunted by the process

[1:18:01] that substantive amendments

[1:18:03] would have to go through and a

[1:18:08] timeline that we were under. So,

[1:18:11] finding the way for it to not be

[1:18:16] such a daunting process, but

[1:18:20] still I think giving a little

[1:18:25] more weight to the planning

[1:18:47] department than the

[1:18:48] recommendations is something I

[1:18:49] would like to see. I don't know

[1:18:50] what that looks like but perhaps

[1:18:50] thinking bit

[1:18:51] thinking bit

[1:18:52] about it in the next

[1:18:52] few weeks.

[1:18:53] >>sorry about that, council

[1:18:53] member galimba baptism

[1:18:54] . We will postpone

Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development

Agenda

Transcript