2026-09-15 - Policy Committee on Planning Land Use and Economic Development

00:50Aloha. Welcome to the 31st session of

00:52the Policy Committee on Planning, Land

00:54Use, and Economic Development. Today is

00:57Tuesday, September 15th, 2026, and I'm

01:00calling this meeting to order at 9:00

01:02a.m. Present for committee are committee

01:05members Heather Kimell, Michelle Galima,

01:08Rebecca Viegas, Matt Canaly,

01:10Eleinfelder, Holaka, Inaba, Fresh

01:12Onishi, Jennifer Kagiada, James Hustus

01:16is joining us momentarily. My name is

01:18Ashley Kirkwitz, chair and presiding

01:19officer.

01:21Oh, I'm sorry. Council member Hustus is

01:23joining us from Kona. I see you there in

01:26a blue shirt.

01:28>> Okay. All members are present for

01:30committee. At this time, we will be

01:32taking up statements from the public.

01:34Mr. Ariselli.

01:36>> Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

01:39>> We do have an couple testifiers here in

01:41Hilo as well as some via Zoom and Kona.

01:43So, what we'll do today is we'll take

01:45our first two testifiers here in Hilo,

01:47transition to our testifiers in Kona,

01:50then do a couple via Zoom before

01:52rotating again. So with that being said,

01:54chair, your first two testifiers are

01:56here. The first of which is Robert

01:58Golden testifying on Bill 147 to be

02:01followed by Dell. And I'm sorry I

02:05couldn't read the last name. But Mr.

02:07Golden, when you're ready to begin, if

02:08you could introduce yourself, turn that

02:10mic on by hitting the green button at

02:12the base of the mic,

02:15and we will begin whenever you start

02:17when you whenever you state your name.

02:19Sorry. Three minutes.

02:21Aloha, Council representatives. It's an

02:24honor to be here. Uh, I could have gone

02:27to the local office in Bajoa, but I

02:30actually wanted to look you in the eye

02:32rather than through a Zoom connection.

02:35Um, I already have submitted my

02:37testimony regarding Bill 147

02:40and it's obviously very dear to my heart

02:42just to come in here and to speak to you

02:44personally. Um, for those of you who

02:47don't know me, um, I moved here to

02:50Leilani Estates with my partner in in

02:542013

02:56and I stated this emphatic I state this

02:58emphatically that I plan to be buried

03:00here. Um, this is my home. I've come

03:03from New York and um, I feel home here

03:08and I've come here. I've dedicated

03:10myself to the uplift of my community. I

03:14founded helped to co-found an

03:16organization now called Puna Rising

03:18Ohana 501c3 organization that's been

03:22here thanks to the initial grant from

03:24the county in 2021.

03:27Um and uh my partner and I operate two

03:31Airbnbs,

03:33one on an adjoining property. I mean

03:35I've submitted this testimony, but I

03:36just personally wanted to come here just

03:38to show the real person behind that

03:40testimony. Um, and this work here we do

03:46in Airbnb, it provides us with income

03:48that enables me to do all my work

03:51proono. Um, and I just feel this special

03:57calling. I don't know why, but I've been

03:59called here to be here. Um, and I just

04:03ask you um to to use this opportunity. I

04:08totally agree with you. people who do

04:11short-term vacation rentals need to pay

04:13their taxes. There's just no question

04:15about it and that there needs to be

04:18appropriate legislation to to make sure

04:21that happens. And we have paid our taxes

04:24on both properties, one that is uh has a

04:27non-conforming use certificate and the

04:29other one is in our home where there was

04:31no need to register um when the

04:34legislation went through a number of

04:35years ago, but we still we pay our taxes

04:37on both. Um, but I just want to remind

04:42you that you hold within your hands the

04:47ability to make this easy for people or

04:49to make this difficult. [bell]

04:52>> Wow.

04:52>> 30 seconds, please.

04:53>> So, so simply put, you know, please

04:56remember that I really think the bell

04:59weather of the health of this county

05:00lies in zip code 96778.

05:03It has alice numbers of 70% which means

05:08that 70% of the population is at risk

05:11and the more we create opportunity the

05:13more we can create income here and

05:15[snorts] the economic studies show that

05:17that the Airbnbs vacation rentals are

05:20one way of creating income for people

05:22here local people here so just thank you

05:26and um it's an honor to be here

05:29>> thank you so much chair your next

05:31testifier is Dell Osuka testifying on

05:34bill 147 and then we can go to Kona for

05:37the two testifiers following Dell. Dell,

05:40when you're ready to begin, please

05:41introduce yourself and you'll have three

05:42minutes.

05:45Good morning, Deluka. And like Mr.

05:48Golden, I come before you like I've done

05:50in the past because it seems like

05:52written testimony isn't enough. So, I'm

05:56here on 147 and I just want to say if

06:01you haven't written my test my

06:03testimony, you'll understand what I'm

06:05saying now. And it's not to penalize

06:08anybody or say anything negative. It's

06:10just what I saw. Um I was on the mind

06:13I'm in the mindset that we conduct

06:15ourselves a certain way when we're in

06:17certain places, especially in this

06:19chamber. But what I saw on September 1st

06:23was constituents pouring out their heart

06:26outs on this bill, saying it is not

06:28fair. But I saw some of you go behind

06:31and have your snacks. I found that to be

06:34very rude and very disrespectful

06:37because all they have is 3 minutes. But

06:41I don't expect you to read all the

06:43written testimonies, but I'm going to

06:46shorten it here.

06:50Number one, the housekeeping. I

06:52understand part of it is to address

06:55housekeeping, but we need to address the

06:57housekeeping in this very county office

06:59or in your chambers because, as I

07:02mentioned in several testimonies, $12

07:03million or $15 million was spent on

07:07consultant fees alone in the Department

07:09of Environmental Management. That's one

07:12year, 13 months. You multiply that by 23

07:16departments and you have a massive $345

07:20million all on consultant fees. So what

07:23I'm trying to say is if we're going to

07:25target just 04% of the population with

07:28this bill,

07:31you're expecting them to recoup $12

07:33million of lost revenue tax. You could

07:36have just stopped one department or

07:38several departments a little bit of the

07:40consultant fees. You wouldn't have to go

07:43and look for targeted groups to try and

07:45recoup some money that we've lost or we

07:47want. You can just look at it. It's $345

07:51million. And if that is a that's just

07:54basic math for one year and that's on

07:56consultants. I understand we need

07:58consultants.

08:00But you bring them in, they implement a

08:02program, it works fine. You have your

08:04trained people, they can continue. If

08:06you need help, you bring them back for a

08:07consultant fee. Not so much to introduce

08:10reintroduce this software system because

08:13as you know the general plan 2025 from

08:17the planning department

08:19>> 30 seconds please

08:21>> prematurely launched what they had then

08:24and it failed miserably. The county paid

08:27so much money and this is the same

08:29system that we're using to determine

08:32whether or not we can push this tax

08:34classification through. So all I'm

08:37saying is please, you don't have to vote

08:39on it. Or if you do, please vote no.

08:42Four of you are leaving. What kind of

08:44legacy are you going to leave everybody

08:45that come after you that we wanted to

08:48push this through because we think it's

08:50good, but we really don't know. All the

08:52data is not in there yet. It is. It

08:54would be insane.

08:56>> Thank you so much for your testimony, D.

08:58We're going to have to move on. Chair,

09:00your next testifiers, the next two we'll

09:02take are in Kona before taking our first

09:04two Zoom testifiers. Scott, if you could

09:06take it away with our Kona testifiers,

09:07please.

09:09Thank you, Ry. This morning, we have

09:10Sarah Lind Pedro to comment on bill 147

09:15to be followed by Lance Owens

09:18in opposition of bill 147.

09:22Sarah, go ahead and state your name for

09:24the record and proceed. You have three

09:25minutes.

09:27>> Super weird doing this in front of no

09:28one. Not Not no one, James. Um, chair

09:33and council members, thank you for the

09:34opportunity to testify today. I'm Sarah

09:36Pedro, the president of West Hawaii

09:38Association of Realtors. I just wanted

09:41to provide comment today. What I'm uh

09:44sharing is just a brief summary of our

09:47full testimony that we submitted in

09:50writing on bill 147 again yesterday.

09:54I really just wanted to highlight three

09:56things. First, we're concerned about the

09:58five-bedroom limitation. their legally

10:01permitted single family homes in resort

10:03and resort node areas with more than

10:05five bedrooms. We don't think Bill 147

10:08should unintentionally prevent those

10:10properties from operating simply because

10:12of the bedroom count as long as those

10:15bedrooms are permitted and the property

10:16meets all the applicable safety parking

10:19wastewater and occupancy requirements.

10:22Second, we support keeping CN zoning as

10:26an area where TVRS can operate. CN

10:29already allows a number of commercial

10:31uses and we don't see a clear reason

10:33given to remove it while allowing TVRs

10:36in other commercial districts. And

10:39third, we have concern about changing

10:42what has historically been considered a

10:44hosted rental into a B&B classification.

10:48That change may have unintended

10:50consequences beyond just registration.

10:53Particularly when it comes to lending

10:55and how lenders classify or finance

10:57these properties. We want to make sure

11:00we understand those impacts before you

11:03make any of those changes. Again, if you

11:06can review my written our written

11:08testimony as well, that would help. And

11:10thank you for your time and for

11:12considering our comments.

11:19Thank you, Sarah. Lance, go ahead and

11:21state your name for the record and

11:22proceed. You have three minutes. Thank

11:24you. My name is Lance Owens and aloha

11:27and good morning, chair and council

11:28members. I want to raise a concern about

11:31the unintended consequences of

11:33classifying hosted rentals as bed and

11:35breakfastes, particularly when it comes

11:37to residential mortgages and insurance.

11:40I've attached three exhibits, and I

11:42apologize. I under the impression the

11:44meeting was here. I had a copy for

11:46everybody. So, my apologies on that. Um,

11:50[clears throat]

11:51in fairness, I've attached I'm sorry,

11:54the three different exhibits A, B, and

11:58C, and there are three different

11:59mortgages here in Hawaii pulled from

12:01public records. One of them's from 2005,

12:05one's from 2019, and one of them from

12:072026. Two are residential mortgages, and

12:11one is a home equity line of credit or a

12:13heliloc. I've intentionally removed all

12:16names, addresses, lenders, loan amounts,

12:18partial and recording information, and

12:20anything else that could identify the

12:21borrowers or property. The identities

12:24aren't important. What these actual

12:26mortgage documents say is that's the

12:28important part. I've also spoken with

12:30leadership in Hawaii's mortgage banking

12:32community and with insurance

12:34professionals. because of their

12:36positions, they are unable to testify

12:39publicly and I won't identify them. But

12:41I would encourage the council to

12:43independently reach out to leaders in

12:45these industries before making this

12:46change. I want to be clear, calling a

12:49property a bed and breakfast does not

12:50automatically put a mortgage into

12:52default, but Fanny May especially lists

12:56bed and breakfast properties as

12:58ineligible. and Freddy Mack list

13:00properties used primarily for commercial

13:02enterprises, including bed and

13:04breakfastes as ineligible. These actual

13:07mortgages also contain requirements

13:09concerning insurance, default, and

13:12lender remedies. This isn't just about

13:14today's hosted rental operators. Life

13:16circumstances change. Any homeowner

13:18could someday need to rent a room in

13:20their home. None of us know what our

13:22circumstances will be 5 or 10 years from

13:24now. And many of us, these homes will

13:26someday pass to our children or those

13:28that we leave them to. Their

13:30circumstances may be different from ours

13:32and they will have to live with the

13:33decision we make about these properties

13:35today. So my question is simple. Why

13:37introduce the potential risk when the

13:40county can regulate the same activity

13:42under a separate term such as host

13:44hosted rentals or terms that your other

13:46terms you're currently using?

13:49Thank you.

13:51>> Thank you, Vance. That's it for Kona for

13:53now.

13:54Thank you so much. Chair will take our

13:56first two Zoom testifiers next before

13:58going back to Kona. The first of which

14:00is Sherry Rockwood to be followed by

14:02Martino Wing. Sherry, when you're ready

14:04to begin, please introduce yourself and

14:06you'll have three minutes.

14:09>> Aloha. My name is Sher Rockwood and I am

14:13going to be reading something, but I do

14:14want to stop and uh well, you know what?

14:17I don't even want to read anymore.

14:19I do ask that you guys listen to us.

14:25We had a choice when we moved here and

14:28the market crashed. I came over from

14:31California selling time share. I love

14:34being with people and talking to people

14:36and putting people on vacations.

14:39After almost 20 years of doing that

14:41between here and California, I started

14:43coming up with a really bad health

14:45issues that made me step out of the

14:47industry. Two months later, my husband

14:50got laid off. And this was way before

14:52going through COVID here, going through

14:54an artificial missile crisis. A year and

14:56a half later, living here, having the

14:58housing market crash. We've been on the

15:00roller coasters here. We don't want to

15:02leave. We did not buy this house to make

15:05money. We bought this house to grow old

15:07in. I look and I've been digging around

15:10into other businesses out of your home.

15:13They don't lose that 3% cap. We rent two

15:16small rooms that became really one

15:18because one, we have more of a sitting

15:20room. Instead of overcrowding with four

15:22people, we have a occupancy for one or

15:25two. We live on property. If there's

15:27noises, we've never had problems. We get

15:29postcards from people in Japan. I have a

15:32local lady that comes from Aahu and

15:34she's a buyer for a company out here.

15:37Her post last time was, "I always look

15:39at their availability first to make sure

15:42before I make my appointments because

15:44they made me feel so at home." We are

15:47not big investors. We're fighting to

15:49stay alive here in a place that we love.

15:53We're asking you to be treated like

15:55homeowners that live in a house that

15:58deserve the property tax breaks. If you

16:00have to raise it some, I guess I

16:02understand. But why why are you guys

16:05doing what you're doing to us where we

16:07could have just sold our house, did

16:09Airbnb out of here, paying the same

16:11property tax, bringing a lot more people

16:13when if there was parties, we wouldn't

16:14be here un hearing it. Our neighbors

16:17love us. We love our neighborhood.

16:19Everyone keeps up their house and anyone

16:20that owns the Airbnb, their house is

16:22kept up or they wouldn't have

16:24businesses. I don't know what you guys

16:26are afraid of, but we're just all asking

16:28for help. And that's all I'm going to

16:30say. Aloha.

16:33Thank you for your testimony. Chair,

16:34your next testifier is via Zoom. Martino

16:36Wing and then we can go back to Scott

16:38and Kona for the next two. Martina, when

16:41you're ready to begin, if you could just

16:42introduce yourself, and you'll have

16:43three minutes.

16:46Aloha chair and committee members. My

16:48name is Martina Wing, a Big Island

16:50resident for over 25 years, and I'm

16:52testifying again on Bill 147 after

16:55submitting testimony on September 1. The

16:58last meeting was postponed because it

17:00ran too long.

17:02This weekend, I rewatched the two-hour

17:04presentation on the tower website. I had

17:06started it before, but I was overwhelmed

17:08that I had to stop partway through. This

17:11time, I watched it all the way. The

17:13educational part on how to sign up was

17:14short. More than half of it was Q&A. I

17:17researched my TMK, my tax status, my

17:20property class, and more. With every

17:22extra minute I spent on it, I felt like

17:24I have to make this process work for me

17:26and my retirement. [clears throat]

17:29But the overall feeling I have is being

17:31trapped. This is the plain truth I want

17:33on the record today. This has been a

17:35four-year project and it's still not

17:37ready. In three and a half months, a new

17:39council will be sworn in, replacing four

17:41of the nine of you. I understand

17:43legislation is hard to write and I I

17:45will give you that much. But the

17:47approach has been wrong from the start.

17:49Top to bottom doesn't work. Imagine if

17:51we had roundts along the way instead.

17:54But no, the only chances I have had are

17:57three minute minutes of testimony,

17:59reading the newspaper and watching

18:00lengthy webinars. I remember the

18:02introductory webinar four years ago and

18:04the outcry from so many people. Here we

18:07are still today. And Councilman Onishi

18:09said it well last time. Why is there

18:12still this much testimony? Why are there

18:14still this many unanswered questions

18:16from the constituents you're supposed to

18:18serve? Even the fact that the last

18:20meeting ran so long and had to be

18:22postponed proves this point. Tourism is

18:24the bread and butter on the big island

18:26and this industry is one of the few real

18:28chances so many of us have to take part

18:30in it. We are living through the perfect

18:32storm and I mean I mean it literally

18:35since 2020 the state has wanted less

18:37tourism since 2022. The county has

18:40wanted to crack down on us and now two

18:42hurricanes without even making their

18:44ranked landfall have devastated our

18:46neighbors in Caou and beyond. I do not

18:48have a solution to offer you today. What

18:50I have is this. I'm a small business

18:53owner who has worked tirelessly, like so

18:55many others in this room and online, to

18:57build a recurring income from an

18:59industry that feeds nearly all of us.

19:01And right now, I feel trapped with no

19:03clear way out and no end in sight.

19:05Mahalo.

19:09>> Thank you for your testimony. We can go

19:10back to Kona for the next two

19:11testifiers, please.

19:14>> Thank you, Reley. The next two here in

19:16Kona got Nancy Pikio

19:20to be followed by John Pelier both to

19:22comment on bill 147. Nancy state your

19:25name for the record and proceed. Three

19:27minutes.

19:29>> Good morning, Chair Kirkwitz and members

19:31of the committee. My name is Nancy

19:33Pikio.

19:35We need to increase the availability of

19:37workforce housing for Hawai's residents.

19:40One tool is to restrict the use of

19:42housing as unhosted short-term vacation

19:44rentals. That said, the zoning code in

19:47Honolulu, Maui, and Kauaii now limit

19:50STVRs to within their resort or vacation

19:53districts. But if the current draft of

19:56Bill 147 is adopted, it'll increase the

19:59number of short-term vacation rentals in

20:01non-visitor districts in the county of

20:03Hawaii. Please amend Bill 147.

20:07First, chapter 25 currently does allow

20:10short-term vacation rentals in the RM or

20:12multifamily residential districts.

20:15However, when bill 108 was introduced in

20:172018, that legislation did not identify

20:21STVRs as a permitted use in the RM

20:24district. The planning commission did

20:27not recommend that to the council. Only

20:30after intense lobbying did the council

20:32amend and approve draft five of bill 108

20:36to allow short-term vacation rentals as

20:38a permitted use in the RM district.

20:41Therefore, unless we remove STVRs as a

20:44permitted use in the RM districts, more

20:46multifamily condos will be converted to

20:49STVR use. Their purchase prices will go

20:52up and developers will continue to be

20:55incentivized to build new RM projects

20:58targeting the visitor industry market.

21:00You can fix this. Please amend Bill 147

21:04to remove STVRs as a permitted use in

21:07the RM district.

21:09Next, Bill 147 also seeks to amend the

21:12Hawaii County Code to include STVRs for

21:16the first time as a permitted use within

21:19the CN neighborhood commercial

21:21districts. Please consider that under

21:24Hawaii County Code, the purpose of the

21:26CN district is to provide quote goods

21:30and services to a residential or working

21:33population on a frequent need or

21:36convenience basis unquote. But if the

21:40STVRs become a permitted use in the CN

21:43districts, the result will be that all

21:45housing, whether multif family, double

21:48family, duplex, single family within

21:50existing or future CN districts will be

21:53legally entitled to be converted to

21:55short-term vacation rental use. Please

21:58amend Bill 147 to remove STVRs as a

22:02future allowable use within the CN

22:05district.

22:06>> 30 seconds. The Big Island residents are

22:08desperate need for housing for our

22:11families, both for fe simple units they

22:13can afford and long-term rentals

22:16reasonably near places of employment. In

22:18its current unmended form, Bill 147 will

22:22worsen this emergency by expanding the

22:24use of residential units for SGVR

22:27market. Mahalo for considering my

22:29testimony and have a good day today.

22:32Thank you.

22:33>> Thank you, Nancy. John, go ahead and

22:35state your name for the record and

22:36proceed at three minutes.

22:38>> Aloha, no Kako. Aloha, chair, vice

22:40chair, members of the committee. I'm

22:41John Pelleter, chair of the Kona

22:43Community Development Plan Action

22:44Committee, testifying on behalf of the

22:46committee with comments on bill 147. The

22:49committee supports communication 806.7

22:52and 806.8, which would amend Bill 147 to

22:55remove unhosted short-term vacation

22:56rentals as an allowable use in

22:58multifamily residential and neighborhood

23:00commercial zones. In its testimony to

23:02the Lever Planning Commission on May

23:0414th, the committee found that allowing

23:06unhosted STVRs in RM and CN districts is

23:09inconsistent with the Kona CDP's housing

23:12and transportation goals. Section 4.5.2

23:15to emphasizes that affordable housing

23:17within the urban core is essential to

23:19maintaining a diverse and viable

23:20community. While transportation strategy

23:226 recognizes that affordable housing

23:25near major employment centers would

23:26serve to decrease the number of people

23:28who fill our roadways commuting long

23:30distances to work every day. Our MNC

23:33districts residents serving districts

23:35situating within the Koner urban area

23:37are well positioned to provide this

23:38housing. Allowing housing in these

23:40districts to be used as unhosted

23:41vacation rentals undermines these

23:43objectives.

23:45Recent data on Hawaii Island's housing

23:47market underscores the need to preserve

23:49and increase housing intended for local

23:51residents. The 2025 County Commission

23:53economic impact study on vacation

23:55rentals found that 93% of Hawaii owns

23:58vacation rental listings were unhosted.

24:01The University of Hawaii's economic

24:02research organizations 2025 housing

24:05factbook also found that 67.8% 8% of

24:09condominium purchases on Hawaii Island

24:11were made by out ofstate buyers. On

24:14Oahu, where short-term vacation rentals

24:16are more restricted, that figure was

24:17just 19.9%.

24:20In Kona, where the 2025 median

24:22condominium price was $670,000

24:26compared with 1.195 million for a single

24:29family home, condominiums can provide a

24:31more attainable pathway to home

24:32ownership for local working households,

24:34allowing additional housing in these

24:36districts to operate as unhosted

24:37vacation rentals risk further reducing

24:39the supply of housing available to local

24:41residents.

24:43Committee would like to extend our

24:44sincere appreciation to the planning

24:45department, the Winward and Leeward

24:47Planning Commissions, and the Office of

24:48Hawaiian Affairs for their support of

24:50our proposed amendments to bill 147. We

24:52respectfully ask the council consider

24:54this broad support as it deliberates on

24:55these important amendments. We believe

24:58this alignment reflects a strong

24:59recognition of the importance of

25:01preserving and increasing housing for

25:02our residents. We also appreciate the

25:04thoughtful discussion and consideration

25:06of these amendments at the county

25:07council. I'll hold for the opportunity

25:09to testify. I'll be available if you

25:10have any questions. Thank you.

25:13Thank you, John. That's it for Kona.

25:16>> Thank you so much to our Kona

25:18testifiers. Chair, our next testifiers

25:20are via Zoom. The first of which is

25:22Caitlyn Miller to be followed by Heather

25:24Karate. Caitlyn, when you're ready to

25:25begin, please introduce yourself and

25:27you'll have three minutes.

25:29>> Uh, thank you. Aloha, Chair Kirkowitz,

25:31and members of the committee. Uh,

25:33Caitlyn Miller, executive director of

25:34the Hawaii Mid and Short-Term Rental

25:36Alliance. Uh, apologies for not being

25:38able to attend in person today. Um,

25:40mahalo for your continued work on bill

25:41147 and your willingness to address

25:43concerns raised throughout this process.

25:45Today, I want to briefly highlight some

25:47remaining concerns as we review the bill

25:49and the subsequent amendments that have

25:51been provided. First, definitions. We

25:53continue to support language that

25:55clearly distinguishes a BNB where the

25:57host resides on the same building site

25:58or lot from a hosted TVR where the owner

26:01operator resides within the same

26:03dwelling. Clear definitions are

26:05important because these uses operate

26:07differently and should be regulated

26:09accordingly. Second, hosted rentals on

26:11agricultural land. We appreciate the

26:13work toward creating a pathway for these

26:15operators. These are residents renting a

26:17portion of the dwelling they actually

26:18live in and we believe that when the

26:20rental remains secondary to the primary

26:22residential use of the property, it

26:24should not require a special use permit.

26:26We encourage the committee to preserve a

26:28reasonable pathway for these residents

26:29to continue operating. This leads us to

26:32our biggest remaining concern. the

26:33special use permit process for existing

26:35operators. We are not asking to exempt

26:38existing operators from regulation. We

26:40are asking for a streamlined transition

26:41period for residents who were already

26:43operating before these new requirements

26:45were imposed, some for decades. We are

26:48already seeing an existing operator face

26:50a process that will approach a year with

26:52required improvements and cost

26:53potentially approaching $200,000.

26:56For many residents, that isn't a pathway

26:58to compliance. It's effectively a

26:59pathway to closure. We believe there's a

27:02reasonable compromise for a limited

27:04period. Create a streamlined process for

27:06qual qualified existing operators for

27:08reasonable conditions appropriate to the

27:10existing use that would help residents,

27:12but it would also help planning and the

27:14planning commissions process the initial

27:16wave of applications more efficiently.

27:18After that transition, new operators

27:20would enter into the process knowing the

27:22requirements from the beginning. There's

27:23a fundamental difference between

27:25imposing known requirements on someone

27:27starting new use and imposing those same

27:29requirements on a resident who may have

27:31been operating for decades. Finally,

27:33regarding the RM district amendment, we

27:36ask that RMZ owned properties within the

27:38recognized resort nodes remain eligible.

27:40Properties already located within county

27:42recognized resort areas should not lose

27:45eligibility solely because their

27:46underlying zoning is RM. Our goal is to

27:49find workable compromises. Our goal is

27:51not to eliminate the regulation or

27:53health and safety requirements. It is to

27:55separate those obligations from the

27:56question of whether an existing use is

27:58appropriate and create a reasonable

28:00transition that allows res

28:03>> allows residents a realistic opportunity

28:05to comply. Uh mahalo for your time and

28:07consideration today. I will be available

28:09uh via Zoom for questions if needed.

28:12>> Thank you for your testimony, chair.

28:14Your last testifier this morning is

28:16Heather Karate testifying on Bill 147,

28:19of course. Heather, whenever you're

28:20ready to begin, please introduce

28:22yourself and you'll have three minutes.

28:24>> Right. Thank you. Aloha, Chair Kirkowitz

28:27and member members of the policy

28:29committee. My name is Heather Karate. I

28:32live with my family and Captain Cook and

28:34we operate a fruit farm and B&B farm

28:37stay in the state agricultural district.

28:40We were recently um conditionally

28:43approved for a special permit for a

28:44BMBB. And over the past five years, as

28:49this bill has been evolving, I've

28:51advocated for agurism and responsible

28:55hosted farm stays on Hawaii Island

28:59so that farms can diversify and stay

29:01viable. I have to say I absolutely am

29:06clear that Bill 147 was never intended

29:09to hurt farmers in any way. I am just

29:13concerned it will. Um I also have to

29:16comment that the farmers I know aren't

29:19here not because they don't care or not

29:21because it won't impact them, but

29:23they're confused by the process, the

29:25bill, overwhelmed by it, too busy to do

29:28one more thing. They're worried one is

29:31worried that speaking up could affect

29:33their livelihood, but um I just don't

29:36want the lack of representation to be

29:38misunderstood.

29:40I fully support requiring agricultural

29:43applicants to demonstrate commercial

29:45agriculture through schedule F or

29:48comparable documentation.

29:50This I feel would directly support the

29:53goal of preserving a agriculture.

29:56Um the current process doesn't even

29:58require that. Um

30:02but beyond that, I think the process

30:05really should be equitable and fair with

30:07the BNB registration process. Farmers

30:10should not face major additional

30:13requirements and costs

30:16that other resident hosts don't face.

30:18So, I'm hoping today the council can

30:22really ask clear questions and get clear

30:26answers to understand the differences

30:29between the special permit process

30:31moving forward and the registration

30:33process and how specifically hosted

30:37rentals in state a district will be

30:39affected. and also to understand how

30:42many current hosts are impacted. Um how

30:46many are in the state a district um

30:48today

30:51having gone through this the special

30:53permit the current special permit

30:55process at our farm converting a fully

30:58per

30:59>> 30 seconds please

31:01>> to a bedroom required no physical

31:03changes to the room but it required an

31:05architect professional plans and a

31:07septic upgrade

31:10one change no physical changes but it

31:12cost more than $45,000 Our

31:16full project will probably cost

31:18hopefully less than 200,000.

31:21So, please protect working farms by

31:24ensuring the requirements are

31:26transparent and comparable to those for

31:29other residents hosting guests in their

31:31homes. This would be a meaningful win

31:33today for farms that need to diversify

31:35to remain viable. Thank you.

31:37>> Thank you so much for your testimony,

31:38Heather. Your time is up. And with that,

31:41chair, those are all the testifiers you

31:43have for your meeting this morning.

31:45>> Thank you, Mr. RSelli. Mr. Clerk, if we

31:48can please proceed with bills for

31:49ordinances. Bill 147 amends chapter 2

31:52and chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code

31:551983 2016 edition as amended relating to

31:57transit accommodations establishes

31:59operational standards and use

32:01regulations for transit vacation rentals

32:03which include hosted bed and breakfast

32:05and unhosted short-term vacation rentals

32:06and allows BMBBS as a permitted use in a

32:08single family residential zoning

32:10district. Allows BMBBS as a permitted

32:12use in areas within the residential

32:13agricultural family agricultural and

32:15agricultural zoning districts that are

32:16also classified estate land use urban or

32:19rural. allows STVRs as a permitted use

32:21in the entire multiple family

32:22residential district and in certain

32:24coastal areas adjacent to general plan

32:26designated resort or resort note areas

32:28in other residential zoning districts.

32:30Allows STVRs as permitted use in the

32:32downtown Hilo commercial zoning district

32:33and makes various conforming

32:35housekeeping amendments. It's introduced

32:37by council member Kimble was referred to

32:39planning commissions in April 10th and

32:40postponed on September 1, 2026. We have

32:43a motion on floor chair Kirkowitz by

32:46made by council member Kimble seconded

32:47by council member Kagiada to recommend

32:49passage of bill 147 on first reading

32:51with a variety of communications 806.4

32:55from council member Heather Kimble dated

32:56August 19, 2026 transmitting a

32:59PowerPoint presentation for Bowen 47. We

33:01have communications 806.5 through 80.8

33:05all from council member Heather Kimell

33:07all dated August 27th and all providing

33:09proposed amendments to bill 147. And we

33:11have communication 806.9 from council

33:14member Heather Kimble dated September 1,

33:152026 transmitting a document entitled

33:17B&B housing scenarios in SOU

33:20agricultural district.

33:22>> Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Um, council member

33:24Kimble.

33:25>> Uh, yes, Mr. Clerk, there's there's

33:27already a motion on the floor. There's a

33:28motion on the floor.

33:28>> Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, you

33:30know, I just wanted to start by saying

33:33thank you to all the folks that came in

33:34and provided testimony or submitted

33:36testimony online. Um, some of these

33:38folks I've been working with a long time

33:40and had several conversations, Heather

33:42in particular, um, we've been talking

33:44for years on this as well as the folks

33:45from the, um, uh, transient

33:48accommodation organizations. Um, I also

33:50just wanted to mahalo the planning

33:52department. You know, this has been a

33:54real partnership between my office and

33:56all of the folks over in planning to try

33:58to come up with something that is

34:00workable. Um, and then of course LRB. um

34:03this has been a heavy lift from the

34:05drafting standpoint and um I really

34:07appreciate all of their efforts to help

34:09get us to something that is both

34:12comprehensive um accurate meets the

34:14needs of both the department and the

34:16community. Um I I don't want to go too

34:19much into the details. I know we talked

34:21about it a little bit last time.

34:22Hopefully everybody's a little more

34:24fresh this morning. Um, but I did want

34:27to just really state clearly what

34:31happens if Bill 147 passes and what

34:33happens if it doesn't. Um, so if Bill

34:36147 passes, um, what it will mean is

34:39that folks that have a hosted rental in

34:42either state land use, urban or rural,

34:46they will not be required any longer to

34:48get a use permit to do that hosted

34:50rental operation. Um, if they're in

34:53state land use egg and they are a

34:56pre-1976 lot and they just have the one

34:59dwelling, they will also not be required

35:01to get a use permit for a hosted rental.

35:03Um, if we um do not pass 147, that

35:09doesn't affect the registration process.

35:11That is ongoing right now. Um, but what

35:14it will mean is that everybody that is o

35:18operating a hosted rental will have to

35:20come in for a use permit if they don't

35:22already have a bed and breakfast use

35:23permit. Um, this would be logistically

35:28very difficult for the planning

35:29department to manage. Um and then

35:33furthermore, you know, this is an an

35:35additional layer of bureaucracy um for

35:38those homeowners that are operating

35:40these um vacation rentals. You know,

35:43from the very beginning, the efforts

35:45around this process were to clarify the

35:49language around vacation rentals, create

35:53a registration process, but there's

35:55always been this sort of recognition

35:57that an STVR where there's no one on

35:59site is very different from a hosted

36:02rental. and um you know bill 147

36:05basically aligns past practices of the

36:08department with the code and um aligns

36:13us with other decisions like the Rosal

36:15decision um with regard to state land

36:18use egg. I'll leave it there for now.

36:20I'm happy to take clarifying questions

36:21from the rest of the body. I would like

36:23to discuss the amendments today, but I

36:25did want to invite Director Darrow up to

36:27just say a few words about their

36:29perspective on 147 from the planning

36:32department. Thank you.

36:48Good morning, Chair Kirk Witz, Vice

36:51Chair, and members of the Hawaii County

36:54Council. Jeff Daryl with the planning

36:56department. Um, not much more I can add.

37:01Um this has been quite a heavy lift over

37:04the past couple years. Uh with

37:07everybody's assistance, we're finally at

37:10that point again where we can uh try to

37:14um complete this process and move on

37:17with our actual registrations and uh

37:21land use permits. I believe the most

37:24important thing that was said already is

37:27that uh by passing this bill, it will

37:31help many people um not need to go

37:35through an additional process. Uh each

37:39um person that's operating a hosted

37:42rental in the residential zoning

37:44district would require a use permit at

37:47this time under our current bill. And

37:49I'm sure that um if we look at it that

37:53would be I would say thousands and that

37:57would help them but it would also assist

37:59the planning department in not needing

38:02to go through uh an additional land use

38:05permit process for each of these. We've

38:08tried to simplify this process from a

38:10land use standpoint as much as we

38:13possibly could. As mentioned previously,

38:16there are certain areas we just have no

38:20ability to be able to um

38:26permit that particular uh BNB or hosted

38:31rental within the agricultural zoning

38:34state land use which requires a special

38:36permit. And so we will part of this bill

38:40extends a grace period for them to take

38:44their time to come in and we will work

38:47with them through this process. Uh we've

38:50already begun working with uh quite a

38:52number of them. I think I've heard as

38:55much as 30 have come in at this point.

38:57Some tried to come in before September

39:011st. Some didn't make it. And we're

39:03working with some after September 1st.

39:06now. Um, and we've even worked on making

39:10that process easier for applicants to be

39:13able to come on uh go online and be able

39:16to apply for this particular uh special

39:20permit application. We're not being um

39:23overly restrictive on site plans and

39:26floor plans and information that we need

39:29for a simple PNB. Um hopefully um we'll

39:35get through this, but I'm here if you

39:36have any questions. Thank you.

39:40>> Thank you. Before we get to the

39:41amendments, I did want to offer members

39:42the opportunity to ask questions of the

39:44maker of the bill as well as planning

39:46director. Any questions here in HEL?

39:49Council member Kaggi.

39:50>> Thank you. Um just a couple. one is just

39:54speaking to uh the testifiers about the

39:57issue around insurance and designating

40:00um properties BNBs. If you could speak

40:04to that a little bit, if you looked into

40:06it and and clarify um for the public,

40:09that would be great and for us. Um and

40:11then I guess my other question is um and

40:15continues to be do

40:18what is the reason we don't seem to be

40:20distinguishing between properties that

40:25are

40:28owner occupied. It's their primary

40:30residence.

40:32um and

40:34hosted rentals that they just hire

40:37somebody in a standalone property to

40:40host. To me, those are still very

40:42different. And so, um I don't know if

40:45you want to take this or if the maker

40:47wants to take it, but those are my two

40:49questions. Thanks,

40:50>> Council Member Kimble.

40:51>> Yeah, thank you. Um, with respect to the

40:54first question around insurance and I'll

40:56add into that lenders. Um, I did make

40:58some calls around to some of the

41:01insurance companies here. They don't

41:03actually distinguish based on the term

41:05BNB. They distinguish based on the

41:07activity. So, if even if you are saying

41:09you're a hosted rental, if you're

41:11engaged in a commercial activity

41:12providing transient accommodations,

41:14that's going to affect your your

41:16insurance regardless. It isn't tied to

41:18that terminology. Similarly with

41:20lenders. Um, so I called a couple of the

41:23credit unions and a couple of the banks.

41:24If you're doing transient accommodations

41:26activity that it's it's not tied to the

41:28terminology, the word B&B, it is tied to

41:31the commercial activity of providing a

41:33transient vacation rental. With respect

41:36to the hosted vers um owner hosted

41:38versus operator hosted, um I don't know

41:40if we have corporation council um Jean

41:44Campbell available. I did ask her to be

41:46here today because I did think this

41:47question would come up. If you recall

41:49from our previous conversations around

41:51Bill 121, we are not permitted to

41:55legally distinguish between the two

41:58because of constitutionally protected

42:01um property rights and um the the

42:05commerce clause. So we have to treat

42:07them

42:09uh the same in terms of this land use

42:12regulation. where we can treat them

42:15differently is with respect to property

42:17taxes and I won't that's a whole another

42:19conversation so I won't go there but

42:21from a land use standpoint um there's

42:24there's not a legal mechanism to treat

42:26them differently that um we could use

42:32>> just one clarifying if I may thank you

42:35so is that because um we don't treat

42:39renters differently than homeowners

42:41basically is that what that is about

42:45>> it's that it's more that we cannot

42:48provide

42:49different

42:51property rights for people that live on

42:54the property versus people that own on

42:56the property and don't necessarily live

42:57on the property.

42:59>> Okay. Thank you.

43:04>> Corporation council, did you want to

43:05weigh in at all? I don't know if Deputy

43:09CC is not here.

43:13Okay, Director Darl.

43:15>> Yeah, just real briefly, one of the uh

43:18main things that in drafting this bill

43:21that they wanted to make sure was that

43:24uh and and it's right in the definition

43:26of uh BNB bed and breakfast is that the

43:30home for the host is their principal

43:34home.

43:35So it's not just somebody that's um you

43:39know there as a reachable person or this

43:42has to be their principal home moving

43:45forward. Um so that's that question is

43:48very specific in the registration. Is

43:51this the principal home of the host? Um

43:55if there is a host uh we have been

43:57receiving a number where it is owner

44:00occupied.

44:03Council member Kagiada, anything else?

44:06Okay. Any other questions? Council

44:08member Canal Einfelder.

44:10>> Jeff, following up on that question, how

44:12does the planning department verify that

44:14the owner lives in the house? Is it

44:15based on homeowners exemption,

44:17homeowners tax category, or you have

44:20people go out and knock on the door and

44:21say, "Do you live here? Who's the

44:23primary person?"

44:28I I mean, we take their word at it. it's

44:32if we were to get a complaint. Um, and

44:35rental scape also is our means of uh

44:39doing sweeps in regards to um particular

44:44activities. If if a particular rental is

44:49advertising that they're renting out the

44:51entire home um and we have a record that

44:56there's this is the principal home of a

44:59host um that's going to be a red flag

45:02and we will get notified of that

45:04activity. We, as mentioned, that's one

45:08of the critical questions when you're

45:10operating or coming in and registering

45:13for a bed and breakfast. Is this the

45:15principal home of the owner or host? And

45:18they have to answer yes to that question

45:21or they won't be able to move on. Um, so

45:25we take their word at it. But again, if

45:28something does come up as far as a

45:29complaint or uh something brought to our

45:33attention through rentalscape, we will

45:36follow up on that.

45:37>> What is what is rental scape?

45:39>> That is our enforcement program and also

45:41our registration uh platform.

45:45>> Third party operated or county operated?

45:47>> Third party.

45:48>> They they cross check rentals that are

45:50popping up or are on the market or

45:52available for rent.

45:53>> Yes. versus

45:55>> um

45:57there is a public portal that's going to

46:00be launched very shortly if it hasn't

46:02already where the public will be able to

46:04go and view the information on our

46:08island of uh the intention was so that

46:12uh there was questions before you know

46:14you can click on a property to see who

46:16the rental uh the reachable person is or

46:20uh information regarding that rental or

46:23whatever it is. But it's it's very

46:25impressive. Uh that's uh very um happy

46:31that we were able to get this particular

46:35um platform registration because the one

46:39we had previously was nowhere comparable

46:42to the uh opportunities and options that

46:48this particular program is providing to

46:51the county. they're able to monitor so

46:55much more than the previous and they're

46:57doing a lot of the monitoring versus

47:00staff having to go in and figure it all

47:02out on their own uh through this. And

47:04again, they are the ones that work with

47:08the registration process. So all of that

47:11information goes in to their program and

47:14becomes part of the information that

47:18they are uh presenting to us as well as

47:22to the public.

47:23>> What is the cost for rental scape?

47:26>> Uh I believe the year uh this year's

47:31cost was 289,000.

47:35>> Is that uh expected to be the same year

47:37over year? I I believe so, but I'm not

47:41sure. I've got to uh confirm that it

47:43might be less moving forward because

47:45this was the initial launch.

47:47>> Okay. And then maybe to the maker or to

47:51you or to maybe even real property tax.

47:56Um, but just thinking about what you

47:59just said and if this is designed to be

48:01bed and breakfast and the the wording

48:04I'm seeing is really keying in on

48:06hosted,

48:10why not require it to the homeowners tax

48:13class only? and why I leave it open to

48:16interpretation by or a possible followup

48:20by someone who might come to the house

48:22to verify because the homeowners tax

48:24cost would be very specific to

48:28>> primary homeowners only.

48:29>> I might not be the best person to answer

48:32that question. Um

48:38>> this I mean it's ongoing. We have three

48:40bills. So I mean let's let's just have

48:42fun with it and figure this out.

48:48Good morning, Lisa Mirror, Ro Property

48:50Tax Administrator. If I understand the

48:53question correctly, it's how come they

48:55don't um make sure they're already in a

48:57homeowner tax class when they register.

48:59So, for all those owners already out

49:02there that we are aware of that they're

49:04doing a hosted rental, they won't be in

49:06the homeowner tax class because they've

49:08already been designated to the

49:11appropriate tax class. since the

49:12homeowner tax class doesn't allow for

49:15any rental activity of under 180 days.

49:19So, more appropriately, they would look

49:20for if there was a homeowner exemption

49:22being provided, which is listed on our

49:24website.

49:27>> Does that answer your question?

49:30>> Yeah.

49:30>> Okay.

49:33And then your understanding of the bill,

49:35administrative mura, is

49:40that we're going to

49:43create a carveout for the bed and

49:45breakfast,

49:46new bed and breakfast category for these

49:49homeowners.

49:51>> Well, I'll be honest. Um, I had to ask

49:54for the bill to be emailed to me not

49:56long ago because I couldn't download it

49:58from Laserfish. So, as I read it

50:01correctly, what I understand this bill

50:03does is just

50:08it it's more for planning department

50:10under section 25, not so much real

50:12property. We're just here in case there

50:15were questions. Um, and we were asked to

50:17attend just in case anything fell into

50:19the real property tax side, not to take

50:21away from planning Thunder. I believe

50:23this one is more for them.

50:26>> Thank you, uh, Mr. Daryl.

50:32Just just reading through that the

50:33initial part of the bill. I mean we

50:35create the the definition of host. We

50:37create a definition of STVR or or at

50:40least these are amendments. Yeah. That

50:41are being brought in with bill 147. Not

50:44not the amendments coming to bill 147

50:46but what bill 147 actually does. So when

50:49we define host we divide it. We define

50:51STVR. We define TVRS.

50:55Well, what I see this really hone in on

50:58is a homeowner that's providing homes or

51:02a space for rental.

51:04Correct.

51:06It it applies both to the homeowner as

51:10well as to uh the host which would be a

51:14renter of that particular home.

51:19We look at the definition of principal

51:21home. Um, so that's where that keys in,

51:25right? It's um, it's not just somebody

51:28that stays there a month out of the

51:30year. They have to live in this home and

51:34the home has to be identified as the

51:36principal home for the people living

51:39there.

51:40>> I agree. which is why my brain goes to

51:43homeowners taxing us because that's

51:45principal homeowners

51:47and I and that's so I'm just trying to

51:50figure out why

51:53it sounds I mean from what we just heard

51:55is that um it doesn't apply if you end

52:00up using your home for rentals under 180

52:04days

52:06and again that um I'm not sure what

52:09happened through the previous um bill

52:13regarding tax relief, but that's always

52:16something we can look forward and

52:19possibly consider other options for

52:22relief.

52:25>> Okay, I

52:27>> thank you, Council Member Onishi.

52:30>> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, well, I have

52:33multiple, but I'll ask this first one.

52:35So, you mentioned earlier, so with

52:37passing this bill, it will help

52:40those that are doing B&B

52:44>> at this point. This is identifying

52:47people that are doing hosted rentals as

52:50BMBBS.

52:52>> Um it's a term I mean you could term it

52:56hosted rentals, but they're both uh um

53:01similar or the same,

53:02>> but like you're saying, it will help

53:04them in the process of registering. It

53:08will help them because they won't need

53:11to do

53:12a land use permit before the planning

53:15commission

53:16>> for those that are

53:18>> in residential.

53:19>> Residential. And what about the other

53:21>> the there's a number in the in the

53:24agricultural district that are operating

53:27out of single family dwellings that

53:29would be permitted. They would not need

53:31to go through a land use permit. There

53:34are some that are operating in farm

53:38dwellings. They would need to go through

53:40a special permit process.

53:42>> And then I think there was testimony

53:45from Kona about the resort.

53:49So maybe you can explain a little bit

53:51more about that

53:52>> the

53:53>> because they had some concerns, right?

53:54>> I think it was the uh multifamily

53:58uh RM district.

54:01Is that correct? Yeah. Um the resort

54:04zoning is basically where you want to

54:06see transient or hotels or tourism that

54:10kind of activity. So that's been

54:12permitted uh currently as well as

54:15proposed in the new bill in the in the

54:19multifamily uh residential zoning

54:22district, the RM district. It was

54:25permitted in uh bill 108. uh it is in

54:30our current code under 25416.

54:33It is being proposed to be permitted.

54:36One of the amendments takes it out as a

54:39permitted use but states after that if

54:44that particular existing

54:47condominium or um development within the

54:51RM zoning had received plan approval

54:54prior to the effective date then they

54:57are okay to go. It's basically having a

55:01cut off that anything beyond the

55:04effective date will no longer be

55:07permitted in the RM zoning district.

55:09>> So you mentioned about that amendment.

55:11So if the amendment doesn't get

55:13introduced to this existing bill,

55:16they'll be okay.

55:20>> Uh

55:21I believe so. Yes, it'll be a permitted

55:24use.

55:26Um, but I mean that's kind of working

55:29through these amendments. We have four

55:31of them we've got to get through and

55:34>> uh but I the original uh amendment

55:38there's been back and forth on this

55:42issue. I think where we're at right now

55:44is um allowing it in existing RM or

55:50those that have received the um the

55:54permit or the plan approval to be able

55:56to build. The intention with that is

55:59because we've heard from quite a number

56:02of people saying that they have bought

56:04their condominium or they were planning

56:06on building the condominium with that

56:09option in mind that's currently an

56:11allowable use for us to be able to cut

56:14it out and half of those people in that

56:18condominium are operating and the other

56:20half um they felt like that was um

56:25almost like a taking or taking away an

56:28opportunity that was available to them

56:30up to that point. And some of them said

56:32they even purchased with that. Yeah.

56:36With that intended money.

56:38>> Okay. Okay. I'll yield for now. Thank

56:41you.

56:42>> Thank you.

56:42>> Thank you. Um

56:45I had actually asked administrator Miraa

56:48to come forward today because of a

56:51number of constituents that have reached

56:53out that are not quite sure to what to

56:55do at this point. um

56:58they play by the rules, they want to be

57:00in compliance. Um but there are concerns

57:03about there not being any protections

57:06regarding amnesty and the potential of

57:08paying back taxes. And I know 25 is

57:12related to zoning. um this may not be

57:14the appropriate vehicle but I feel it's

57:16very important to just ensure that this

57:18is part of the conversation um so that

57:21this body or the future council um knows

57:25what to do next. So administrator your

57:27interpretation because that bill died

57:29trying to create a whole new class which

57:32I don't think many members were in favor

57:34of clearly because the bill did not

57:35advance. Um but the idea of providing am

57:40ad amn amnesty how is your office

57:43treating that now? What sort of guidance

57:46are you operating under?

57:50Lisa, property tax administrator here at

57:52Ko Joe assistant administrator. So

57:55currently when owners come into real

57:58property tax and they let us know that

58:01they are operating a hosted rental or

58:05doing rental of less than 180 days

58:06whatever the wording is then we adjust

58:09for the current year and go forward and

58:12we explain that to them. That's their

58:14way of self-reporting.

58:16If there's a complaint filed or it's

58:19found out through another means,

58:22then we can do current the current year

58:24which is allowed in the code up to two

58:27years back. And we usually check if

58:28there's been reviews and listings in the

58:30prior years. There are several ways we

58:33can look that up to confirm it, but we

58:35don't just take the complaints um by

58:38word of mouth. And that's how we've been

58:39doing it for all these years, even prior

58:43to the discussion that's happening with

58:46short-term rental or short-term rental

58:47having blown up so much lately. Um, and

58:51previously it that was even when it was

58:54a regular rental because until county

58:56council changed that two years ago,

58:57there was no rental activity allowed.

59:00And to be clear, it was rental activity

59:02or commercial use, not tied to

59:03agriculture. And so that's how we've

59:05always been handling it. when it's

59:07self-reported to us. We do current year

59:09forward. That is not in the code. That

59:12is something that we have been doing

59:13because it seemed overreaching to have

59:16the public come in and be honest whether

59:20they knew it was a requirement or not.

59:22Right. A lot of individuals don't

59:23realize all of the changes that have

59:26happened. Um that's how we've been

59:28treating it.

59:30>> That's very helpful. Thank you. I just

59:32wanted to make sure that was on the

59:33record and invite folks to ask any

59:35questions that they might have of the

59:37administrator.

59:40>> Council member Kimble.

59:40>> Yeah, just to make one comment on that

59:42and I don't want to conflate things um

59:44but I I have resubmitted a bill that

59:47will just address the amnesty that

59:49doesn't create the new tax class um

59:52which will come in I haven't even told

59:54administrator Mir yet but um I believe

59:57the first week of October. So that'll be

1:00:00coming forward to c basically codify

1:00:02what they're doing.

1:00:03>> Okay, that's helpful. So that there's

1:00:05future guidance in our code for

1:00:09Miss Mora and future administrators.

1:00:11Yes, thank you. Okay. Um if there are no

1:00:14other general questions for the

1:00:16introducer or planning department, um

1:00:18council member Kimble, I'm sorry. I

1:00:19wanted to check in with council member

1:00:20Houston and Con. I think your light is

1:00:22on.

1:00:23>> Do you have any comments or questions?

1:00:25>> I do have some questions for planning

1:00:26department if that's okay.

1:00:27>> Absolutely. Please proceed. I'm so sorry

1:00:29I missed you.

1:00:30>> No, that's okay.

1:00:32Director Darl, just um a couple

1:00:35questions on We talked about this a

1:00:37little bit last time and I don't know if

1:00:38I got a clear answer. If you know how

1:00:40many hosted operations currently exceed

1:00:42five bedrooms,

1:00:47I do not have that number. Um we have

1:00:52uh

1:00:54a number of and it's not very many. um

1:00:59of what we call lodges or ins that have

1:01:03come in for special permits. Uh right

1:01:08now the code identifies bed and

1:01:12breakfasts and STVRs as five bedrooms or

1:01:15less. Anything above that uh in the code

1:01:19is defined as a hotel, six or more rooms

1:01:24uh in one or more buildings. But it also

1:01:27can be termed an inn or a lodge. Um,

1:01:31typically we see these in agricultural

1:01:35districts

1:01:36and we've had some that have come in

1:01:39with quite a number of rooms. We've had

1:01:41some that just come in with six or seven

1:01:44rooms. Uh, but typically we see them in

1:01:48uh the agricultural zoning districts and

1:01:52apply for a special permit. Um, we've

1:01:54also seen where somebody had been

1:01:57operating as a bed and breakfast and

1:02:00they come in for an amendment to

1:02:02increase the amount of rooms uh over

1:02:05five. Uh, and again it'll be termed as a

1:02:08lodge or an inn. Uh, as in the past uh

1:02:13typically we receive complaints um and

1:02:17we will be made known that particular

1:02:20operations are going on. We cannot

1:02:22direct them uh to apply for a B&B unless

1:02:27or

1:02:29um

1:02:30a rental that is less than uh five

1:02:33bedrooms or less if they're wanting to

1:02:36go um to increase that number. We would

1:02:40then direct them uh to be able to come

1:02:43in as a lodge or an inn. The my

1:02:48understanding as well is that there is a

1:02:51significant difference the way that the

1:02:54building department looks at these for

1:02:58permitting

1:03:00>> and we kind of talked about that a

1:03:01little last time. Division chief spoke

1:03:03about that. [clears throat] Um but but

1:03:06they've been operating legally up to

1:03:08this point though. Correct.

1:03:09>> Not correct. Uh the operating

1:03:13>> we have but we haven't but we haven't

1:03:14helped them transition to lodges though.

1:03:16Correct.

1:03:18Typically what happens with um what we

1:03:22go through as far as planning is um we

1:03:25will receive a complaint and I'm not

1:03:28just talking about lodges. I'm talking

1:03:30about whatever activity. It could be a a

1:03:33auto repair business in a residential

1:03:36zone or something. And some of these

1:03:39activities could be operating for years

1:03:41without a complaint and then we get a

1:03:44complaint and they say I've been

1:03:46operating legally all this time. Uh the

1:03:49actuality is you've been operating but

1:03:52the term legally is

1:03:55I would say not correct. They would

1:03:57probably need if they're in an

1:04:00agricultural zoning a special permit to

1:04:02operate legally.

1:04:04right now in a residential zone to

1:04:06operate a rental more than five bedrooms

1:04:10there's not an option. Um we can look at

1:04:14an option moving forward if we find that

1:04:17there are a number of these and we could

1:04:20look at a use permit avenue. um we're

1:04:23not opposed to that, but again uh we

1:04:26look at legally um in terms of having

1:04:31that particular permit that is needed to

1:04:34operate that land use.

1:04:37>> So just to be clear,

1:04:40those that have six bedrooms or more

1:04:43are operating illegally.

1:04:46I I can't I mean we'd have to look at

1:04:49each one uh you know to make sure. Some

1:04:52could be operating in a commercial

1:04:54zoning and they may be legal. Some could

1:04:58be operating in a uh agricultural

1:05:00zoning. We would ask them to come in for

1:05:02a special permit. Some may be operating

1:05:05in a residential zone. As mentioned, we

1:05:09don't have an avenue, but we could

1:05:11direct them to just rent out five

1:05:14bedrooms instead of six or seven.

1:05:19Okay. It just seems that we that the

1:05:22department hasn't hasn't done a due

1:05:24diligence in terms of the numbers that

1:05:25are out there impacting community that

1:05:29some of these are operating potentially

1:05:31legally or illegally as you've just

1:05:33stated for the record that more than six

1:05:35bedrooms they are typically illegal and

1:05:37operating as such. Okay. Um

1:05:43would you have any concern

1:05:45um as using September 1st

1:05:49as a start of the new registration

1:05:50program as a cutoff to protect existing

1:05:52lawful hosted use bedrooms of five five

1:05:55or more bedrooms more than five

1:05:57bedrooms?

1:05:59I

1:06:00I would have a concern in the sense that

1:06:03we would end up treating them

1:06:05differently than what we are treating

1:06:07others in a similar situation that have

1:06:11five bedrooms or less. Um so

1:06:16>> the so if um if yeah so first thing we

1:06:22would need to do is look at this

1:06:24holistically. If it's in a residential

1:06:26zone, we would need to identify that we

1:06:30allow that type of rental up to a

1:06:33particular amount of bedrooms um through

1:06:36an avenue. Whether it's registration,

1:06:39similar to what we're asking now for

1:06:42those in five, if they're in an

1:06:44agricultural zoning, um we may be able

1:06:48to look at it how we're looking at it

1:06:49now. If they're operating in a single

1:06:51family dwelling, we could consider those

1:06:55possibly as permitted. Um, but again,

1:06:58these would require code changes. If

1:07:00they're operating in a farm dwelling or

1:07:03an additional farm dwelling, we would um

1:07:06have issues with that and there's no way

1:07:10we could override the state land use

1:07:13agricultural requirements for those

1:07:15particular operations.

1:07:18What what sort of standards would you

1:07:20see to recommend like a distinguish for

1:07:23bonafide a operation uh with with those

1:07:26accessory hosted accommodations on site?

1:07:31Typically when somebody comes in uh for

1:07:36overnight accommodations,

1:07:39we are looking at the agricultural

1:07:42activity that is occurring on site at

1:07:44the time they come in. when they come in

1:07:47to apply for the particular dwelling. If

1:07:51it is a additional farm dwelling,

1:07:54there's a quite an extensive pro process

1:07:57they have to go through right now. But

1:08:00part of that process clearly says that

1:08:03they're not supposed to use that for

1:08:05overnight accommodations. It's meant for

1:08:08farm workers to be able to actively farm

1:08:12uh the agriculture on site. Uh, a farm

1:08:16dwelling is typically your first farm

1:08:20dwelling and they are allowed with a

1:08:24special permit,

1:08:26but the additional farm dwellings have

1:08:28specific requirements

1:08:30um that it's it's for farm workers.

1:08:36>> Okay, there I think there's more to

1:08:37explore there. the the the registration

1:08:40program that we have operating right

1:08:41now. How many hosted or unhosted

1:08:44applicants have been applications have

1:08:45been received at this point?

1:08:48Uh looking at it this morning, we've had

1:08:51approximately 20 STRs

1:08:54uh which are the newly um they're the

1:08:59ones that came in after September 1st.

1:09:02And then we have um approximately 30 uh

1:09:08BBRs. Our feeling is um that they're

1:09:13waiting to see what happens with Bill

1:09:15147 because typically when we launched

1:09:19back in 108, we had a significant

1:09:23uh

1:09:24uh amount of applications come in pretty

1:09:28quickly um to be able to operate an

1:09:32SDVR. Uh but we we anticipate that um

1:09:37with whatever happens with bill 147,

1:09:40we'll see those numbers pick up quickly.

1:09:43>> And and what sort of looking at those

1:09:45applications that have been received? I

1:09:47know there were emails going out as well

1:09:49too, correct? To those that are

1:09:51operating already legally. Yes, those

1:09:54are the deemed registered um those were

1:09:58the ones that received uh permits or or

1:10:03were registered prior uh SDVRs and

1:10:07nonconforming use certificates uh as

1:10:10well as uh bed and breakfast that

1:10:13received a use permit and a special

1:10:15permit prior to September 1st.

1:10:19Have through those applications we've

1:10:21received, have you seen some outstanding

1:10:23or recurring conflicts between their

1:10:26status and chapter 25?

1:10:29>> Just two so far that um I've seen that

1:10:33tried to request a um short-term

1:10:38vacation rental in an area that uh is

1:10:42not permitted. It would allow a bed and

1:10:44breakfast uh but not a short-term

1:10:47vacation rental. So those two were

1:10:49returned uh with the request that if

1:10:52they wanted to resubmit and um request a

1:10:57BNB they would be able to go through.

1:11:02Okay. Uh last last question chair is uh

1:11:04for planning director here.

1:11:07Are there any categories of the

1:11:09currently lawful operators that you

1:11:11believe would lose their operate to

1:11:14ability to operate because of bill 147

1:11:16as it's currently written?

1:11:21I in looking at the overall bill as I as

1:11:26mentioned um before is that this bill

1:11:29will actually make it simpler for many

1:11:33uh doing the hosted rentals and

1:11:35residential as well as quite a number in

1:11:38the agriculture. The only big change I

1:11:41see is if the change happens to the RM

1:11:46zoning district where it would limit it

1:11:49to those that exist or have received

1:11:52plan approval, it would stop um the

1:11:56allowance of STVRs in RM zoning uh from

1:12:01the effective date. Moving on.

1:12:06>> Thanks, Sher.

1:12:08Thank you, Council Member Hustus,

1:12:10Council Member Galima, and then Canela

1:12:12Eclanfielder.

1:12:14>> Thank you, chair. Um, I have um

1:12:18one question about this discussion of

1:12:21five bedrooms or more. Um, and I wanted

1:12:25to ask the maker about this. Is there um

1:12:29I imagine that there is a building

1:12:31division permitting um aspect to this.

1:12:34Could you explain that?

1:12:38Yeah, thank you. Um,

1:12:41>> yeah. Um, so when uh building division

1:12:43chief uh was here, Erin Spilman, last

1:12:46time um you know, he expressed that per

1:12:50the building code, if you're renting

1:12:52[clears throat] more than five bedrooms,

1:12:54then you transition out of one class of

1:12:58building to another. And there's um

1:13:01additional requirements when you go from

1:13:03the residential class to this um other

1:13:06class, including if it's more than five

1:13:08bedrooms and your occupancy is over 10,

1:13:11then you need to start putting

1:13:12sprinklers in and other fire suppression

1:13:15uh pieces. So um the the original

1:13:19language that's in chapter 25 that is

1:13:21around the five bedrooms and defining

1:13:24five bedrooms or less as B&B and then

1:13:26more than that as hotel and in is really

1:13:28tied to this building co these building

1:13:31codes requirements um that have to do

1:13:33with the number of rooms for rent. Now

1:13:35that said you can have a sevenbedroom

1:13:38house have the host be in two bedrooms

1:13:40and only rent five and you're still in

1:13:43compliance with all this. It's when you

1:13:44get to renting six or more that you need

1:13:47to take one of these other permit

1:13:50pathways. Um, and that is because of the

1:13:52building code requirements.

1:13:56>> Thank you for that. Um, I wanted to

1:13:58shift to talking about um, special

1:14:02permits. Um, so how many folks are

1:14:06currently applying for a permit or

1:14:09special permit um on egg, you know, egg

1:14:13land um or have recently gotten a

1:14:19special permit for that use. So I don't

1:14:22have the exact number but it's

1:14:23approximately 30 um that I what what

1:14:27ended up happening is um you know there

1:14:31was information provided uh through um

1:14:35the release of bill 147. There was a

1:14:38webinar that was done. There was um

1:14:42frequently asked questions that was sent

1:14:45out to the um public and there was a

1:14:50specific date that was identified as to

1:14:54when the registrations would begin. And

1:14:58if you had come in prior to that date,

1:15:01you and you were doing a bed and

1:15:03breakfast and you received you were

1:15:05accepted,

1:15:07then you didn't have to pay the annual

1:15:10fee moving forward. And so we had quite

1:15:14a number try to get in under the wire.

1:15:16Um we still have some coming in. I think

1:15:20they were hoping they would get under

1:15:21the wire, but clearly the launch has

1:15:24begun and uh but we'll work with them

1:15:27through the process. That was the main

1:15:29reason why that influx uh occurred.

1:15:34>> Thank you. Um and could you talk a

1:15:36little bit about the difference between

1:15:38a special permit application and a

1:15:41registration permit? Just looking at

1:15:43them, the applications online, they do

1:15:46seem to be a lot of overlap. Um so if

1:15:49what's what are the differences between

1:15:52those two?

1:15:53>> So a registration is is relatively

1:15:56simple. Um I mean you you uh put in

1:16:03information that's relevant your owner's

1:16:06uh information if there's a reachable

1:16:08person that information. And then you

1:16:11just briefly speak to the amount of

1:16:14rooms the amount of parking. Um, if the

1:16:17host lives on site, if it's a principal

1:16:20home, um, these questions wouldn't apply

1:16:24if you picked uh, STVR. So, you would

1:16:28um, some of the questions would be

1:16:30blacked out, but mainly they're looking

1:16:32for the amount of bedrooms and the

1:16:34amount of parking and reachable person.

1:16:37Uh, that kind of information. And then

1:16:40at the end you have uh the compliance

1:16:45checklist, right? It's just, you know,

1:16:47are you in a permitted zoning? And this

1:16:49is why we ended up um going through the

1:16:54process and conditionally approving

1:16:58everybody that applies ex so that we

1:17:01could do the review that period of time

1:17:04where we have a grace period and be able

1:17:07to

1:17:09um check to make sure they're in a

1:17:11permitted zoning district. Check to see

1:17:13if they have the uh necessary building,

1:17:16plumbing, electrical. um check to make

1:17:19sure they're not operating in an

1:17:21additional farm dwelling, that kind of

1:17:23thing. And then just your typical safety

1:17:27requirements. Once they check those,

1:17:30they they're done. That that's the uh

1:17:34main part of registration. We have them

1:17:38in our system. We know who they are. We

1:17:40have their email address. Um we know how

1:17:43many rooms. At that point, Decard is

1:17:47able to use that information in the

1:17:48advertising. For a special permit, it it

1:17:53will still ask the same type of

1:17:55questions, but it's more um looking at

1:17:58the broader picture. How is this uh

1:18:03impacting agricultural lands? That's the

1:18:06main issue with special permits. Is is

1:18:09this having an impact to prime

1:18:11agricultural lands? Is it is it taking

1:18:14away from the agricultural inventory?

1:18:17When we look at BNBs, typically these

1:18:20are we we our requests are within

1:18:23existing dwellings. So there's not much

1:18:26of an impact that's already hasn't

1:18:28already occurred. Um and we make sure

1:18:32that uh as part of the application they

1:18:35are complying with the requirements of

1:18:37state law regarding agriculture activity

1:18:40on site. Um so that kind of typically um

1:18:46it's very rare that we will recommend

1:18:49denial on an application such as that.

1:18:52Uh we typically

1:18:54um re recommend uh that it be approved.

1:19:00>> Thank you. It does need to go to the

1:19:01planning commission which obviously is a

1:19:04a little bit more of a hurdle but thank

1:19:07you for

1:19:08>> clarifying that and thank you. Thank

1:19:11you, Council Member Canal Einfeler.

1:19:13>> Thank you, Chair. Okay, Jeeoff, try to

1:19:15wrap my head around this. I'm I'm going

1:19:16to dig into

1:19:18uh my district and and a huge chunk of

1:19:20our island, mainly districts 456

1:19:23council. Those are all pre 1976 agots

1:19:27being over one acre, which equates to

1:19:30them being able to get a

1:19:33second dwelling without too much county

1:19:36bureaucracy. Correct.

1:19:38>> Correct. Um and those would be

1:19:43uh no farm requirements just its

1:19:46additional dwelling which is pre1976

1:19:48which is the interpretation by the

1:19:50county on the allowance of being able to

1:19:52build those extra dwellings. Correct.

1:19:55>> So the way that um we look at it is

1:20:00coming out of uh state law. It it refers

1:20:04to a particular date that if the lot was

1:20:07created prior to this particular date,

1:20:10the dwellings are considered single

1:20:12family dwellings.

1:20:14After that, if the lot was created,

1:20:16they're considered farm dwellings,

1:20:18right? Planning department came up with

1:20:21the term additional farm dwellings.

1:20:23anything that goes beyond your initial

1:20:26farm dwelling. And we as you come in and

1:20:31request additional dwellings, the in the

1:20:35requirements to be able to show

1:20:37agricultural activity on the property um

1:20:41increases um as you request those.

1:20:44That's been changed lately, but I won't

1:20:47go into that. To get to your question,

1:20:49the first dwelling we would look at

1:20:51because it's a pre76 lot would be a

1:20:54single family dwelling. The second lot

1:20:56would be identified as a first farm

1:20:59[snorts] dwelling.

1:21:01We have the applicants fill out a simple

1:21:04form for the first farm dwelling that

1:21:06says this is state law. These are the

1:21:10requirements. You're comply you you are

1:21:12required to comply with that. We don't

1:21:15do a farm plan. We don't uh go to that

1:21:18extent because we have literally

1:21:20thousands of first farm dwellings. We

1:21:23don't have the manpower to be able to uh

1:21:27manage that. That's why we've we've

1:21:30taken the initiative on any additional

1:21:33farm dwelling to put the heavier

1:21:35requirements.

1:21:37>> First farm dwelling is the second unit

1:21:39built

1:21:39>> on a pre76

1:21:41>> on the pre76. So, if they're operating

1:21:44the BNB on a pre76 in the first farm

1:21:48dwelling, that would trigger the need

1:21:50for the special permit. If they're

1:21:52operating out of the single family

1:21:54dwelling, that would be permitted.

1:21:59>> Okay, I'm going to get back to that in a

1:22:00second. So, this this applies to pretty

1:22:02much every major subdivision in Puna,

1:22:05Ocean View, which is that's that's

1:22:09tensions of blocks. Okay. Okay. So that

1:22:12that's again the understanding that we

1:22:16are creating an opportunity that's uh if

1:22:19this doesn't pass they would all have to

1:22:21come in for a special permit for those

1:22:24particular um those particular

1:22:27operations because

1:22:29>> if they're using them as a B&B.

1:22:31>> Yes.

1:22:31>> If it's a long-term rental it's fine.

1:22:33>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

1:22:36>> U so these would be mostly homeowners.

1:22:39Correct. You own a lot. You own the

1:22:41home.

1:22:42>> You live in the home. You have a second

1:22:44dwelling. Your first farm dwelling.

1:22:47>> And that would be defined then as a

1:22:48hosted

1:22:51>> hosted or passed.

1:22:54>> Yeah. Or PNP as it is now.

1:22:56>> Okay. U the bill is interesting in the

1:23:00definitions. STVRs are considered

1:23:03unhosted.

1:23:04>> Correct.

1:23:05>> TVRs are considered hosted. their their

1:23:09TVR is the umbrella term to uh for all

1:23:13of them. So both STVRs and BMBBS fall

1:23:17under TVR.

1:23:19>> Yes. And it's it's confusing because

1:23:21shortterm equaling ST vacation rental

1:23:25versus TVR which is transient vacation

1:23:27rental I think is confusing and may need

1:23:30to be adjusted.

1:23:31>> Okay.

1:23:32>> Because it just it's the same three

1:23:35letters but they mean different things.

1:23:36Sure.

1:23:37>> But they tie to each other and I hate

1:23:38that. Okay.

1:23:40Um there was we had 806.9 which was sent

1:23:44to us which is B&B hosting scenarios in

1:23:46SLU a district state land use. Yeah. So

1:23:49pre-1976

1:23:53uh I think this is meaning if bill 147

1:23:56passes

1:23:59then a special permit not required for a

1:24:02single family dwelling

1:24:06being a hosted rental

1:24:12and a single family dwelling with an

1:24:15ohana special permit not required and

1:24:19Even a single family dwelling with an

1:24:21ohana with an additional farm dwelling.

1:24:23No special permit required using those

1:24:26as vacation rentals.

1:24:28>> Not the additional farm dwelling.

1:24:30>> Not okay. So one long-term and then one

1:24:33>> you well the the additional farm

1:24:36dwelling is for farm workers, right?

1:24:39That's kind of clear. But yes, long-term

1:24:43or owner, but it definitely cannot be

1:24:47utilized for short-term vacation

1:24:50rentals. So the the most I mean the

1:24:53density impact would be single family

1:24:56dwelling with an ohana with an

1:24:58additional farm dwelling on a pre976 lot

1:25:04in the state land use agricultural

1:25:06district. Well, this that applies to

1:25:08pretty much the entire east side of

1:25:10Hawaii.

1:25:11>> You um

1:25:14>> this this is the document. I'm just

1:25:15looking at the document.

1:25:16>> It's it's that document tried to take in

1:25:20every possible um scenario, right? That

1:25:24is one of the very rare scenarios. Um,

1:25:28we have I I don't ever recall somebody

1:25:32coming in for an additional farm

1:25:34dwelling when there's been two dwellings

1:25:37on one acre already, right? Because the

1:25:41additional farm dwelling has to show

1:25:43that there's a need for that third

1:25:45dwelling based on agriculture.

1:25:48Um, and when you already have the lot

1:25:52almost developed to its full extent, the

1:25:55likelihood of you getting that approved,

1:25:58it was just used as a scenario um

1:26:02because of the fact that somebody could

1:26:04try to do that.

1:26:06>> Okay. So, let's let's tone it down then.

1:26:07Two dwellings,

1:26:08>> correct?

1:26:09>> So, we go put two dwellings on every lot

1:26:12across Puna with no special permit

1:26:14required.

1:26:16Puna to Volcano. I mean, all the way

1:26:18across the island, right? We double

1:26:20density.

1:26:22>> You You wouldn't It wouldn't require a

1:26:25special permit to build dwellings.

1:26:28>> No. Yeah. I mean, it says that special

1:26:29permit not required.

1:26:31>> No, I mean the that scenario there is

1:26:34for um hosted rentals or bed and

1:26:38breakfast opportunity. So, it's trying

1:26:40to tell you if you have this on your

1:26:43lot, you need a special permit if you're

1:26:46operating or you don't, right? It's not

1:26:49in relation to if you build two

1:26:52dwellings. It's whether or not you are

1:26:54doing the bed and breakfast in that

1:26:56scenario. Okay? So, I'll rephrase that

1:26:58then. So I could have my single family

1:27:00dwelling where I live. Another dwelling

1:27:03pre-1976, no farm plan required. Build

1:27:07the second unit. Bill 147 passes. I can

1:27:10now use it as a B&B. No special permit

1:27:13required.

1:27:15Correct.

1:27:16>> I would look at that scenario here. Let

1:27:19me pull it up. Um once you operate in a

1:27:23farm dwelling, it triggers the special

1:27:26permit. So you have to be in the single

1:27:29family dwelling not to trigger.

1:27:36>> Okay. So the wording that was put in

1:27:38this document, this is a scenario number

1:27:40two. Two dwelling units, single family

1:27:42dwelling plus an ohana. Host must reside

1:27:45in either the SFD or the Ohana.

1:27:49Guests may be housed in up to five

1:27:51bedrooms in the single family dwelling

1:27:54or up to five in the Ohana or up to five

1:27:57total bedrooms between both. Main thing

1:28:00being host must reside on property.

1:28:02>> Correct. So that is

1:28:06uh

1:28:08when you look at some of these older

1:28:10subdivisions, there was a period of time

1:28:12where ohana dwellings were per allowed

1:28:16and permitted. And so when you look at

1:28:20uh Paradise Park for example, when you

1:28:23bring up our GIS zoning map and you

1:28:26identify um Ohana dwellings, there's

1:28:30quite a number of properties that have

1:28:32Ohana dwellings. Those were not

1:28:36permitted as farm dwellings. They were

1:28:38permitted as single family dwellings. So

1:28:40you have two single family dwellings on

1:28:43that property.

1:28:44>> Okay. Yeah,

1:28:44>> the Ohana is considered a single family

1:28:47dwelling.

1:28:49>> So there is no there is nothing

1:28:51submitted to us as far as what a single

1:28:53family dwelling plus a first farm

1:28:55dwelling would be, but what I'm hearing

1:28:58is

1:29:00>> continue.

1:29:01>> Thank you. Would

1:29:04a special permit be required to have a

1:29:06vacation rental in your additional first

1:29:11farm dwelling?

1:29:12>> Yes.

1:29:13>> Special permit required? Yes. And I

1:29:15believe that's clear in the bill.

1:29:20>> And then anyone that's existing and

1:29:22operating a single vacation rental out

1:29:24of their

1:29:26>> farm dwelling.

1:29:27>> Yes.

1:29:27>> Yes.

1:29:28>> They're already in the program.

1:29:30>> No. I mean, that's why we're doing this

1:29:32because many people are operating

1:29:34without permits.

1:29:36>> Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I continue

1:29:39to have my concerns about density and

1:29:41build out especially in private

1:29:42subdivisions.

1:29:45Thank you.

1:29:47>> Thank you. And just so everyone's aware,

1:29:49I do plan to end the meeting at 10:55

1:29:51a.m. regardless of where we are so we

1:29:53stay on track with all of the agendas um

1:29:56that have been published and folks are

1:29:57going to be showing up for. So if we do

1:29:59not get through all of the amendments,

1:30:01we're going to postpone to the next

1:30:03committee meeting. Council member

1:30:04Kimell.

1:30:05>> Yeah. Thank you. Um I'd like to go ahead

1:30:07and start with um communication 806.5.

1:30:12A motion to amend bill 147 with the

1:30:14contents of communication 806.5.

1:30:18[clears throat]

1:30:21Sorry, there is a motion by council

1:30:22member Kimble, a second by council

1:30:25member Galima to amend bill 147 with the

1:30:29contents of communication 806.5.

1:30:33Council member Kimble.

1:30:34>> Yes, thank you. So um the bill 147 of

1:30:38course had to go through both uh winward

1:30:40and leeward planning commissions. Um

1:30:42both commissions approved 147

1:30:45unanimously with amendments proposed in

1:30:47the um director's report. This uh

1:30:51housekeeping bill incorporates um some

1:30:54of those amendments as um recommended by

1:30:57both planning commissions. Um, I will

1:30:59note that some of the the

1:31:01recommendations in the planning

1:31:02department are dealt with in other parts

1:31:04of the code or were um from a drafting

1:31:07standpoint not something that we do. So,

1:31:10they're not included. But I'll just walk

1:31:11you through very quickly. Um, section

1:31:15one here. Um, we're just making clear

1:31:18that for the bed and breakfast or the

1:31:20hosted TVR that's located on the same

1:31:23building site. So, that just clarifies

1:31:26that language. Um the second one here,

1:31:30section two with the definition of

1:31:32family. Um this actually addresses that

1:31:35occupancy rate and making sure that it's

1:31:37clear that we count when we count

1:31:38occupants, we count family different

1:31:40from we count how we count visitors and

1:31:43that actually has to do with the

1:31:45building code requirements around fire

1:31:46safety and whatnot. Um this third

1:31:49section, that language there is located

1:31:51in another part of chapter 25. So it's

1:31:53duplicative and unnecessary in bill 147.

1:31:57Um section 4 brings in um those

1:32:04situations where uh it is not considered

1:32:06an STVR. So those are all of the

1:32:09exemptions that are provided with

1:32:11respect to the TAT. So that is things

1:32:13like um students that are renting a

1:32:16dwelling while they're in school or um

1:32:19folks that are um here on a a military

1:32:23assignment. All those exemptions from

1:32:24TAT are are being brought in here as

1:32:27well as folks that are renting

1:32:28monthto-month under the landlord tenant

1:32:30code. And this is where we have the

1:32:31language where people are exempted if

1:32:33they're housing um temporary healthcare

1:32:36workers in the county. Um

1:32:39the next section here in terms of where

1:32:43bed and breakfasts are permitted. Um

1:32:45this is where we've changed the language

1:32:47a little bit to kind of get to what some

1:32:51of the the questions that um council

1:32:53member Connie Lee Kleinfelter was asking

1:32:55where if it's a pre76 lot, it's not a

1:33:00farm dwelling. So there's not going to

1:33:02be that special use requirement. But if

1:33:04it's post 76 or it's a pre76 with a

1:33:07second dwelling, you're going to have

1:33:08that requirement for a special use

1:33:10permit. So that um is clarified there.

1:33:14In the next section where we're uh we're

1:33:17moving this STVR not permitted in a

1:33:19multif family dwelling um we've just

1:33:21moved that down to general provision. So

1:33:23that's been relocated from that section

1:33:26to um the the general provision section.

1:33:30Um, we have the comment here that it's

1:33:32subject to chapter 6, article 7 of the

1:33:34code. That's just a reference to the

1:33:36registration process in chapter 25. Um,

1:33:42you have the uh clarifying language

1:33:45about if there is a special use permit

1:33:48or a use permit that is in place for a

1:33:50TVR, those conditions that were provided

1:33:54with that use or special use permit

1:33:56supersede the operating standard. So,

1:33:58this was something that that um was in

1:34:01there already, but the language was a

1:34:02little vague. So, we just wanted to

1:34:04state that clearly. Um and then you have

1:34:06this is where you've moved that

1:34:08condominium property regime language. Um

1:34:12in the next section, you have the

1:34:13addition of emergency hazard information

1:34:16being posted. This was a request by

1:34:19civil defense and R&D to make sure that

1:34:22all transient vacation rentals had this

1:34:23information for visitors about what to

1:34:25do um if they hear the sirens or you

1:34:28know where how to evacuate all of those

1:34:29things. So we're happy to add that in.

1:34:32Um there the remaining uh comments here

1:34:36are just um clarifications other

1:34:39amendments editorial amendments

1:34:40requested by the department in the

1:34:42background uh report to the commissions

1:34:46and then I'll just take everybody to the

1:34:48very end in section six. There's two um

1:34:51uncodified sections here. One is um

1:34:55because we're anticipating an influx of

1:34:58potential permits to um extend that time

1:35:03period when the planning director is

1:35:06required to accept the request for

1:35:08special requirements. It's in rule it's

1:35:10set at 15 days. Um there's probably just

1:35:13not going to be the time to turn around

1:35:15everything within that time. So there's

1:35:16a grace period there as well as removing

1:35:20um the signage requirements. uh we

1:35:22didn't want to have signs all over the

1:35:24place as we go through this transition

1:35:25period and we're just waving that. If I

1:35:28may just one final one, the last section

1:35:30there is again another uncodified

1:35:32section that makes it clear that the

1:35:34planning director will um work with

1:35:37applicants and there's a time period to

1:35:39get everything into compliance where

1:35:41under which they'll operate under a

1:35:43conditional permit where they're u

1:35:45moving that through. So, as for

1:35:46everybody's support of this um

1:35:49housekeeping amendment bringing in the

1:35:51planning departments and the

1:35:53commission's recommendations. Thank you.

1:35:54>> Thank you. Director, do you have

1:35:56anything to add?

1:35:58>> Just hoping for support. Thank you.

1:36:02>> Okay. Any questions? Reminder, we're on

1:36:05communication 806.5.

1:36:08Council member Canal Einfolder.

1:36:09>> Thank you, director. They're looking at

1:36:11the changes to the definitions. Um

1:36:17so clarifying bed and breakfast now

1:36:20means a transient vacation rental which

1:36:23is a hosted rental

1:36:26that is located on the same building

1:36:27site as an incidental subordinate to the

1:36:31use of the building site.

1:36:34What is the

1:36:38what does that mean in regards to

1:36:40changing it from to the use of the

1:36:42principal home?

1:36:44So when we say principal we say

1:36:46principal home versus the building site

1:36:49we've now grown that area. Yeah.

1:36:54The so as mentioned before um backing up

1:36:59a little bit TVR was the umbrella. So it

1:37:04it it's not just hosted, it's unhosted

1:37:07and hosted. So BNB is a TVR which is the

1:37:12hosted portion of the TVR. Um located on

1:37:17the same building site, an incidental

1:37:20and subordinate. Um my

1:37:24hope was that we could take out that

1:37:26phrase of the building site. Um if you

1:37:31know um

1:37:32>> why why

1:37:34>> it it it's redundant. Uh we're already

1:37:37saying that it's located on the same

1:37:39building site previous. Um but it's it's

1:37:42incidental and subordinate to the use of

1:37:46as the principal home of the host.

1:37:50Um so that's

1:37:52>> that's the original language. The

1:37:53amendment changes it now to say not the

1:37:57not the subordinate use of the principal

1:37:59home but the subordinate use of the

1:38:01building site.

1:38:02>> Yeah, I would

1:38:03>> that's an interesting switch. Yeah,

1:38:05>> it it is, but I'm not sure if that was

1:38:08the intent. I I I it could have just

1:38:11been that um it uh building site was put

1:38:16in there twice. Um,

1:38:18>> building site touches back on host

1:38:21definition, which means a reachable

1:38:23person who resides on the same building

1:38:25site

1:38:26>> as not a TVR anymore, but a B&B.

1:38:36I'm just reading it.

1:38:36>> I hear you. I again the intent is that

1:38:40the host has to reside on the building

1:38:43site and that um that they have to be

1:38:48the the use of the building site is

1:38:53incidental and subordinate to the main

1:38:56use of the principal home.

1:39:02So the the main use of the bed and

1:39:06breakfast should be the principal home.

1:39:08>> Correct.

1:39:08>> Being the principal home,

1:39:10>> it should be subordinate and incidental

1:39:12to the use of a principal home on the

1:39:15building site.

1:39:18And that's the that's actually very

1:39:22similar to the current definition that

1:39:24we have now.

1:39:26So building so for you for planning

1:39:28department not for you Jeff but sorry

1:39:29for planning department

1:39:31the building site is redundant as an

1:39:35addition to the definition of BNB versus

1:39:38incidental and subordinate to the use as

1:39:42the principal home of the host.

1:39:58It's if it's confusing

1:40:00then then why are we doing this? I mean

1:40:02seriously.

1:40:03>> No. Again I think the um I would ask the

1:40:06maker the intent of the change. Um

1:40:10>> Kim the the wording switch in your

1:40:13definition of BNB

1:40:15>> in 806.5

1:40:18removing the

1:40:20this might seem manein. I'm just trying

1:40:21to put all this together. You know, the

1:40:24TVR is located on the same building site

1:40:26as and these are the the inclusions now

1:40:29in this amendment

1:40:32incidental and subordinate to the use of

1:40:34not the principal home but of the

1:40:36building site. And then moving around

1:40:39host host definition to remove transient

1:40:42vacation rental to B&B. Now I'm just

1:40:45trying to wrap my head around why.

1:40:48>> Yeah. So um this is to enable and align

1:40:52with the language that is currently in

1:40:55chapter 25 with respect to bed and

1:40:57breakfast. Um in terms of how we as a

1:41:02county and a state identify a principal

1:41:05home, it's not assigned to a building or

1:41:10a particular dwelling on a location on a

1:41:13TMK. It is assigned to the TMK as a

1:41:16whole. And so that is why um you have

1:41:21this addition of the language to just

1:41:23say we are talking about the whole

1:41:24building site as being the primary

1:41:28resident or the principal residence of

1:41:30the host and then um you know it is it

1:41:35is the bed and breakfast is incidental

1:41:37and subordinate to use of that entire

1:41:39site as the principal home of the host.

1:41:43So, it's it's really kind of an

1:41:45editorial change just from the

1:41:47standpoint of how we identify

1:41:50a principal home as being the whole TMK,

1:41:52not just dwellings on a TMK. Um, with

1:41:55respect to taking out the TVR and

1:41:57replacing it with B&B because

1:42:01hosts only apply to the bed and

1:42:03breakfast and not all TVRs, as Jeff was

1:42:05saying, TVR is this umbrella and under

1:42:08the umbrella of TVR you have STVR and

1:42:10B&B. Um and that so that again just an

1:42:13editorial change to just make it clear

1:42:14that only a BMB would have a host. Not

1:42:17all transient vacation rentals would.

1:42:20Thank you for that. I just want to touch

1:42:22on that. What you just said what I

1:42:24understand right now is bill 147 creates

1:42:27two definitions. STVR meaning unhosted

1:42:30short-term vacation rental. TVR meaning

1:42:33transient vacation rental that's hosted

1:42:36post having to preside on site. Correct.

1:42:40No, a TVR is a transient vacation

1:42:43rental. That's that's anything that's

1:42:44rented for less than 180 days. If you

1:42:48have a host on that TVR, then it is a

1:42:51bed and breakfast. If you do not have a

1:42:53host on that TVR, then it is an STVR

1:42:57research and vacation.

1:43:00>> Okay. Okay. I have questions. Thank you.

1:43:05Yeah, it's a little tricky because

1:43:06terminology that we've grown accustomed

1:43:08to is now being completely upended.

1:43:11>> Yeah. Director, do you have anything

1:43:13else to add?

1:43:14>> I just real quickly, I I believe the

1:43:16maker of the bill was trying to

1:43:20um take what's in the current code and

1:43:23and simplify it. Um, there's two

1:43:26sections in the current code and maybe

1:43:29this might make it clearer as to what

1:43:32the intent of the definition was. It

1:43:34says the bed and breakfast establishment

1:43:36shall be subordinate and clearly or

1:43:39customarily incidental to the principal

1:43:42use as a residence by its operator. And

1:43:46then the other part is the operator of

1:43:48the bed and breakfast establishment

1:43:50shall reside on the same building site

1:43:53as that being used for the bed and

1:43:56breakfast establishment.

1:44:02>> Director your mic

1:44:03>> trying to incorporate it into one

1:44:06sentence.

1:44:08>> Thank you. Um council member Onishi.

1:44:11>> Thank you madam chair.

1:44:19>> [clears throat]

1:44:19>> Mine was in regard director in regards

1:44:22to the parking.

1:44:24It's an additional

1:44:26stall.

1:44:28>> I'm sorry.

1:44:30>> Parking it's we're adding or requiring

1:44:34them to have other another stall. Did I

1:44:37read that correctly?

1:44:39Council

1:44:41member, could you let us know which

1:44:43section or which page in the amendment

1:44:45you're referring to? Thank you.

1:44:47>> Sorry,

1:44:47>> you're fine.

1:44:53>> I if I could real quickly uh

1:44:57uh Vice Chair Onishi,

1:45:00>> in discussions with the maker of the

1:45:02bill, Yes, sir. Council member Kimble,

1:45:04you know, we had um

1:45:09a pretty lively discussion on parking

1:45:13and

1:45:14we had you you had a section that's

1:45:18being added for bed and breakfast and a

1:45:20section being added for STVRs. When we

1:45:23looked at it clearer, it it seemed to

1:45:26make sense to just keep the current

1:45:30language that's in there in relation to

1:45:33the less than 180 days cuz it captured

1:45:38both the bed and breakfast requirements,

1:45:42one per rentable bedroom, one

1:45:45additional, and it caught the STVR,

1:45:49which was two for the dwelling.

1:45:52And so it seems like that may not be

1:45:56needed moving forward.

1:46:02Yeah, we were talking about the language

1:46:04that I believe you had put in in your

1:46:06previous term in council. That's number

1:46:08eight there in that parking section. It

1:46:09actually does cover um similarly this it

1:46:14basically says the same thing. you need

1:46:15a uh parking for each bedroom available

1:46:18for rent plus one extra for the the host

1:46:20on a bed and breakfast. Um so that is

1:46:23something that we're continuing to

1:46:25discuss about how best to to frame that.

1:46:27I'd like to put this forward as is and

1:46:28then we'll come back in with a with a

1:46:30one more tweak on that.

1:46:32>> But parking is for SUV is like the

1:46:34biggest issue that folks have with them.

1:46:40>> Okay. [clears throat] Well, be good if

1:46:42we could just have it all done one time.

1:46:46Isn't it coming back again?

1:46:50>> Chair, if I may. Um, I I did want to put

1:46:53that forward as another option today

1:46:55because we have four amendments. If we

1:46:57discussed all four of them and I had a

1:46:59sense of where people stood on the other

1:47:01policy one, I could come back with one

1:47:04cleaner amendment at the next hearing

1:47:07and we could just put that forward

1:47:08rather than doing each of these four

1:47:10independently. But as I've expressed

1:47:12before, this first amendment is

1:47:14housekeeping bringing in the

1:47:15recommendations from the planning

1:47:17commissions. The other three are more

1:47:19policy oriented in nature. And so given

1:47:21the time frame, I do want to make sure

1:47:22we have a conversation. I'm willing to

1:47:25to put this on hold for now, have those

1:47:27conversations about the other three, and

1:47:29then come back with one solid amendment

1:47:31that does all of them at one time once I

1:47:33know where people stand on the other

1:47:34issues.

1:47:36>> Yes. And I know that other council

1:47:37members are also working on amendment.

1:47:39So, that would be wise. Council member

1:47:40Onishi, do you have anything else? Okay.

1:47:43>> Council member, would you like to

1:47:44withdraw your motion on this

1:47:46communication?

1:47:47>> I'll withdraw my motion on communication

1:47:48806.5

1:47:50and then move forward with the motion.

1:47:52Want to make sure that it's clear for

1:47:53the record that the motion to withdraw

1:47:55has been noted by our clerk.

1:47:58>> Got a thumbs up. You may proceed.

1:48:00>> U motion to amend bill 147 with the

1:48:03contents of communication 806.6.

1:48:09>> There is a motion by council member

1:48:10Kimble and a second by council member

1:48:12Galima to amends bill 147 with the

1:48:15contents of communication 806.6.

1:48:19So, this is a an amendment that um

1:48:22creates the pathway for folks that have

1:48:24been renting from 31 days to 179 days

1:48:29after the passage of bill 108. Um since

1:48:32we've changed the definition here to be

1:48:35180 days or less for a transient

1:48:36vacation rental, aligning us with the

1:48:39tax code both at the f the state and the

1:48:41county level. Um we needed to create a

1:48:44pathway to grandfather these in. So, it

1:48:47is a use permit process for anybody that

1:48:49has been only renting, exclusively

1:48:51renting 31 to 179 days after the passage

1:48:55of Bill 108. They will also only be able

1:48:58to going forward continue to rent for 31

1:49:02to 179 days because otherwise they would

1:49:05have been in violation of Bill 108. The

1:49:08use permit process allows us to go

1:49:10through and ensure that they've actually

1:49:12only been renting for 31 to 179 days in

1:49:16that period. We are able to gather that

1:49:19information. Now, the reason that this

1:49:21wasn't included in the original bill is

1:49:23I wasn't sure how many of those like

1:49:26this there were out there. Based on

1:49:28feedback from um Airbnb and Expedia,

1:49:32maybe around 300. So given it that it's

1:49:35that many, we did want to create a use

1:49:37permit process um to allow them to be

1:49:40grandfathered in with this adjustment.

1:49:42So asking for everybody's support on

1:49:43this one. Again, I will listen to the

1:49:46discussion. If everyone is seems

1:49:48favorable towards this, I will put this

1:49:50into a comprehensive single amendment

1:49:52for the next hearing.

1:49:54>> Thank you. Um any questions on

1:49:56communication 8006.6?

1:50:01>> Council member Cany Kleinfolder.

1:50:03I hate I hate to put him on the spot,

1:50:05but we have um Mr. Shore here

1:50:09who's actually on the LU.

1:50:12We may not ever have this opportunity

1:50:14again. I'm just this this state land use

1:50:18a district

1:50:20discussion.

1:50:22And if you don't want to come up, I'm

1:50:23not I'm not going to bug you, but you

1:50:24are here. He was on the Luc.

1:50:30Could you could you just just if you

1:50:32could sir

1:50:36>> at the chair?

1:50:36>> Feel free to come forward. Yes. We have

1:50:39five minutes until we wrap up.

1:50:43>> Please introduce yourself.

1:50:45>> Please activate your mic. Thank you.

1:50:47>> Hello my co. My name is Jonathan Lek

1:50:50Shyer and as council member Caneli E.

1:50:53Kleinfelder noted I was the chair of the

1:50:56land use commission when we upheld the

1:50:58county's previous STBR ordinance which

1:51:02um prohibited STBRs on lots uh created

1:51:07after 1976.

1:51:10>> Could you just summarize what what that

1:51:14Rose Hill discussion is and where it

1:51:16stands right now today?

1:51:17>> Um so I have not served on the land use

1:51:20commission since 2022.

1:51:22Um, we were upheld by the Hawaii Supreme

1:51:24Court. The land use commission's support

1:51:27of the county's position was upheld by

1:51:28the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled against

1:51:30Rose Hill. Um, and

1:51:34the the crux of the case had to do with

1:51:36that. Um,

1:51:38the land use commission and the counties

1:51:40have a duty to protect the state

1:51:42agricultural district. Um and so with

1:51:45the exception of those earlier lots um

1:51:48and that date has to do with when a

1:51:50particular law modifying the state's

1:51:51agricultural district um uses was

1:51:54passed. Um the state and the county do

1:51:57have an obligation to protect

1:52:00um the state agricultural district from

1:52:02nonconforming uses.

1:52:04>> Okay. And you listen to the conversation

1:52:07today?

1:52:07>> I have been listening to the

1:52:08conversation. Yes.

1:52:10>> Any thoughts bridge briefly? um

1:52:16not not sophisticated enough to to

1:52:18really share with you at this time other

1:52:20than the fact that I I think it's

1:52:21important that you grapple really

1:52:23thoughtfully um as you are doing with

1:52:26this important issue um keeping in mind

1:52:30your significant public trust duties

1:52:32towards the state agricultural district

1:52:34as you do so.

1:52:36>> Okay, I thank you Mr. Shy.

1:52:40>> Thank you for your indulgence. I'm here

1:52:41for the next agenda.

1:52:44>> We're aware, Mr. Shawyer. Thank you. Um,

1:52:48okay. Any other questions or feedback

1:52:50for Council Member Kimell on this

1:52:53particular communication?

1:52:58Okay. All right. Seeing none, I'm going

1:53:00to take the lack of response as support

1:53:01and I am going to include this in the

1:53:03comprehensive amendment uh coming up

1:53:06next time. Um so I will withdraw the

1:53:09motion to amend with uh 147 with 806.6

1:53:14um and move forward to to move to amend

1:53:17bill 147 with the contents of 806.7.

1:53:22Second

1:53:23>> there is a motion to amend bill 147 with

1:53:26the contents of communication 806.7

1:53:29by council member Kimble and a second by

1:53:31council member Galima. Council member

1:53:33Kimble.

1:53:34>> Yes. So this um proposal would

1:53:39um remove the addition of CN as an area

1:53:44where short-term vacation rentals are

1:53:46permitted. So currently in the code in

1:53:51the CN zoning district, short-term

1:53:53vacation rentals are permitted in the

1:53:55resort nodes but not in other areas. Um,

1:53:59if this amendment were to pass, uh, then

1:54:02we would remove that addition of CN

1:54:06continue to allow it in the resort

1:54:08nodes, but outside of the resort nodes,

1:54:10SDVR's unhosted vacation rentals would

1:54:12not be permitted. This is in response to

1:54:14the Kono CDP action committee's request.

1:54:17So asking for my colleagues to indicate

1:54:19support or lack thereof.

1:54:22>> Yeah. Uh and I'll just say that I don't

1:54:23think two minutes is sufficient for this

1:54:25body to engage in robust conversation

1:54:28about this particular amendment. Um I

1:54:31would actually prefer that we take each

1:54:33matter up via its own communication.

1:54:35There was mano provided by vice chair

1:54:37onishi regarding parking related to

1:54:39806.5

1:54:41but I think my preference is for us to

1:54:43take up each amendment as you have

1:54:46presented in the various communications.

1:54:48Yeah. Thank you.

1:54:51With the amount of time we have left, if

1:54:53folks would like to provide mana on this

1:54:55particular communication, you are

1:54:56welcome to at this time.

1:54:59Council member,

1:55:00>> yeah, I just want to state for the

1:55:01record being that you are seeking um you

1:55:04know, our thoughts on these various

1:55:06amendments.

1:55:08My silence is not support. Um I think

1:55:11we're we're still unpacking. So, I just

1:55:13want to state that for the record that

1:55:15when we do come back,

1:55:18me not having said anything about some

1:55:20of these today doesn't mean I support

1:55:22it. I I think we

1:55:24It's good we were able to kind of just

1:55:26unpack it today, but further discussion

1:55:30will be had next time. Thank you.

1:55:34>> Thank you. Anyone else?

1:55:38>> Seeing none, council member.

1:55:40>> Yes. above to withdraw 806.7.

1:55:45Um,

1:55:45>> no motion necessary, but the record will

1:55:48reflect that this um motion has been

1:55:50withdrawn.

1:55:51>> Thank you.

1:55:52>> Um, if I can just ask then the chair and

1:55:55and whoever else would lay weigh like to

1:55:57weigh in um for clarity.

1:56:02The preference is to continue

1:56:05deliberating these individual items

1:56:09separately as separate communications as

1:56:12opposed to

1:56:14one single

1:56:17um amendment that would incorporate

1:56:20everything. I I I it's not clear to me

1:56:23where folks want to go and I'm I don't

1:56:25want to see this not move forward on

1:56:29procedural grounds. Um, so clarity would

1:56:33help in terms of how folks would like to

1:56:36see this information.

1:56:37>> Yeah, I mean given that we don't have

1:56:39sufficient time to get through

1:56:40everything, um, I think it's important

1:56:43for us to take a pause here now. We will

1:56:46continue to deliberate based on the

1:56:48communications that have been filed. I

1:56:50am aware of other council members

1:56:51submitting communications for

1:56:53consideration which may be in conflict

1:56:56with some of the communications that you

1:56:58have submitted. So, I think we want to

1:56:59make sure that we have all of the puzzle

1:57:01pieces on the table as we begin to build

1:57:03that picture. Um, again, I think council

1:57:05member Onishi provided some thoughts on

1:57:08how communication 806.5 could be

1:57:10improved, but like stated earlier, we

1:57:13will take each of these items up at the

1:57:15next committee hearing.

1:57:18Council member Inava, anything else?

1:57:20>> No, I think I [clears throat] think

1:57:21that's good because some of these

1:57:23amendments in their own light are a bit

1:57:26confusing. So again, if we're not

1:57:29completely in support of one of them and

1:57:31you bunch them all together, it's not

1:57:33it's probably not going to go over well.

1:57:35So I think it is best to keep them

1:57:37separate.

1:57:38>> Okay. At this time, if I may,

1:57:40>> go ahead.

1:57:41>> Um yeah, thank you. And and that's

1:57:43that's why I put them together

1:57:44separately initially because I some of

1:57:47these are very they they would represent

1:57:50a shift in policy for us that we have

1:57:52that that is different than the

1:57:54housekeeping ones and that's why I

1:57:55pulled them out to be separate

1:57:56conversations. Um the other thing if I

1:58:00just may ask real quick um I don't want

1:58:03this also to get hung up based on

1:58:06terminology and so as mentioned we have

1:58:10TVR we have hosted we have hosted being

1:58:13equivalent to bed and breakfast we have

1:58:15unhosted being um equivalent to STVR all

1:58:19falling under the TVR umbrella. I did do

1:58:21a cursory review of everything to see

1:58:24what it would take to just change

1:58:27everything to say hosted and unhosted

1:58:29and those both fall under the TV

1:58:31definition. It wouldn't be too ownorous.

1:58:33Um if that is something that people feel

1:58:36is critical moving forward, I'd kind of

1:58:38like to know today. It's like whether or

1:58:41not I need to put that amendment forward

1:58:42or not. Um, again, I don't want the

1:58:45terminology, the semantics to be the

1:58:47thing that is the problem here and happy

1:58:49to make that change, but it is not

1:58:52something I want to put forward unless

1:58:54there's an interest from the body

1:58:55because I don't want to confuse the

1:58:56matter further. Thank you,

1:58:59>> Council Member Inappa.

1:59:00>> Yeah, I think the we've heard testimony

1:59:03regarding the use or the the changing of

1:59:06what a bed and breakfast is. So, if we

1:59:08can preserve what that is and

1:59:12re define or reterm the rest of it. That

1:59:15might be a cleaner way to do it because

1:59:18right now we're looking at a change to

1:59:20the current definition in the code, but

1:59:22then we have amendments to the bill that

1:59:25further change those proposed

1:59:27definitions. So, I think at this point

1:59:29it might be better to just leave it

1:59:31alone or if we need to change the days

1:59:34currently defined in bed and breakfast,

1:59:36then we can do that, but maybe not mess

1:59:39with it significantly.

1:59:41um as is currently proposed.

1:59:44>> Council member Fan.

1:59:46>> Yeah. Um thank you for being willing to

1:59:49put that option forward. I agree. Um

1:59:52there are so many changes happening in

1:59:54the world right now in so many arenas

1:59:56and uh I know even for people in my

2:00:00family who operate in this sphere the

2:00:04changing from STVR to T

2:00:09Airbnb hosted all these transitional

2:00:11names creates fear and trepidation and

2:00:15um they're going to miss something. So I

2:00:18think there is some stability in keeping

2:00:20with those names for simplicity and

2:00:22trackability because I myself was

2:00:24completely confused with the TVR versus

2:00:27STVR. Acronyms in general people by the

2:00:31way [gasps] aren't great forms of

2:00:34governance. [laughter] Um, I mean they

2:00:36can be necessary for quickening

2:00:39conversations and whatnot, but I think

2:00:42especially if the acronyms accidentally

2:00:44create extra confusion because the first

2:00:48letter of a word means a different thing

2:00:51in an acronym that's related to another

2:00:53acronym. So [snorts] anyway, thank you

2:00:55for putting that forward and um uh and I

2:01:00do know that what you don't think is

2:01:02that heavy of a lift is probably a

2:01:04pretty heavy lift. So, thank you for

2:01:06your willingness to pick that up anyway

2:01:08to bring us back to a more simplified

2:01:11um pathway. I yield.

2:01:13>> Thank you, Council Member Kagi.

2:01:15>> Thank you, Chair. Just lending my

2:01:16support to going back to using uh hosted

2:01:20and non-hosted. feel like we describe

2:01:23STVRs, bed and breakfast using these

2:01:26terms every time. And so we're just

2:01:29creating extra bureaucracy. I think

2:01:31hosted and unhosted is very clear and

2:01:34people understand that and that's how we

2:01:37describe these um acronyms. So uh it it

2:01:42makes a lot of sense to me to to just be

2:01:44clear with hosted and uno unhosted.

2:01:46Thank you for that suggestion.

2:01:49>> Thank you. Anyone else?

2:01:52Okay. May I have a motion to postpone

2:01:54bill 147 to the October 6th meeting?

2:02:00Thank you. There is a motion by council

2:02:01member Inaba and a second by council

2:02:03member Kimble to postpone bill 147 to

2:02:07Tuesday, October 6th. All those in

2:02:10favor, please say I.

2:02:11>> Any opposed? Motion carries with nine

2:02:14eyes. Bill 147 is postponed and this

2:02:18committee adjourns at 11:01 a.m. Thank

2:02:21you.

```*