[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