2026-10-06 - Policy Committee on Planning Land Use and Economic Development

01:16I have one.

01:18>> Aloha and good morning. Welcome to the

01:21policy committee on planning, land use,

01:23and economic development. If you could

01:25kindly take your seats and silence your

01:28cell phones or take your conversations

01:30outside, that would be extremely

01:32helpful. I am calling this meeting to

01:34order at 10:30 a.m. We are meeting at

01:37Hilo Council Chambers. Today is Tuesday,

01:39October 6, 2026. Present for committee

01:42are council members Heather Kimell,

01:44Michelle Gimba, Rebecca Viegas,

01:49Fresh Onishi.

01:52>> Um, joining us shortly are council

01:54members Matt Canala E. Kleinfelder,

01:56Haka, Inaba, and James Hustus. Jen

01:59Kagiwada is also present here in

02:01chambers. I apologize that was not

02:03intentional. Okay. At this time, we will

02:05be taking statements from the public.

02:07Mr. Ariselli, if you could please

02:09introduce members of the public here to

02:11testify. Thank you.

02:13>> Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I just

02:15want to note that we do have a couple

02:16testifiers here via Zoom and in our Kona

02:19chamber. So, what we'll do is we'll

02:20start with our testifiers here, take our

02:22Zoom testifiers, and close it out with

02:24our Kona testifiers. With that being

02:27said, our first testifier here in the

02:29Hilo Chamber is Christine Macau to be

02:31followed by Kleikini. Both testifying on

02:34Bill 147. Christine, when you're ready

02:37to begin, you can come up to that

02:38testifier table. Hit the green button at

02:40the base of the mic to turn it on.

02:42Introduce yourself and you'll have three

02:44minutes.

02:50Aloha, council chair and council

02:53members. My name is Christine Macau and

02:56I am a BNB owner in Leilani Estates

02:58where I have resided for 27 years. I'm

03:02here to testify in person on bill 147.

03:04I've chosen to testify in person and I

03:06have also emailed all council members

03:08with additional information and clarity.

03:10Email was sent yesterday, October 5th at

03:1312. Please take the time to read my

03:15email and contact me if you'd like to

03:17discuss further. I am asking council

03:19members to please revisit a new category

03:22or some type of relief on property tax

03:24for hosted BNBs. In my situation, my

03:27annual property tax increased to $1,797.

03:32Previously, it was 200. The best and

03:34highest use of my home is by far my

03:36residence. This same sentiment was

03:38reiterated by Jeff in planning who used

03:41the terms incidental and subordinate to

03:44describe the use of a home as a B&B. My

03:46mortgage will be ch charging me two

03:49times 1797 for a total of 35.94

03:53for the next 12 months.

03:55This charge will add approximately 300

03:57additional to my monthly mortgage. In

04:00addition, placing my homeowners in a

04:02commercial category may affect my

04:04mortgage cause me to refinance and find

04:07insurance, which will all result in

04:08additional cost. I am a low-income

04:11resident. I have managed to support

04:14myself through the small B&B income I

04:16receive and my fixed income of social

04:17security and the help of my ohana. My

04:21home is fulfilling the need for housing

04:22for a low-income resident. Me.

04:26I will no longer be able to pay my

04:27mortgage and I will have no other option

04:29than to sell my home if I don't receive

04:31BNB income due to the expensive property

04:33tax, registration, platform increasing

04:35costs, state and local taxes, lack of

04:37guests who choose to visit Hawaii and

04:39the current economic atmosphere. I have

04:41seen the same situation in B&B check

04:43groups. Many BNB owners in Hawaii will

04:45choose to no longer operate their BNB.

04:48If council changes classification and/or

04:50rates for property taxes, I will not

04:52receive a refund as payments to property

04:54taxes are non-refundable. I invested

04:57everything I have in my home, blood,

04:59sweat, tears, and funds with the attent

05:02intention of creating a B&B.

05:05I have been in business for four and a

05:06half years, and I have obtained all the

05:08honor badges on the platforms. All my

05:10reviews are five-star, and my neighbors

05:13didn't even know I was operating a BNB

05:14until I told them.

05:17I began my B&B in an effort to share my

05:20peaceful quiet forest.

05:21>> Three seconds, please.

05:23>> My peaceful, quiet, forested retreat

05:24with guests. I have been successful in

05:26providing a positive and memorable

05:28experience to my guests. My intention

05:30was to pass my home on to my children

05:32who were born and raised here. I may

05:34have no other option at this point than

05:35to sell my home as I will be unable to

05:38pay my bills. Please consider the result

05:41of bill 147 and vote as a true

05:43representative of Hawaii County

05:45residents for the benefit of the

05:48residents that you represent. Mahalo.

05:52>> Thank you so much for your testimony.

05:53Our next person testifying in Hilo is

05:56Kaikini

05:57to be followed by Thomas Martin via

05:59Zoom.

06:04Klay, when you're ready to begin, you

06:05can turn the mic on by hitting the green

06:06button, introducing yourself, and you'll

06:08have three minutes.

06:12>> Oops. Sorry.

06:14Aloha. Good morning.

06:17I haven't been here for a while, but um

06:20that must that may be good news. But

06:22anyway, um I'm here today. Good morning,

06:25everybody. We do appreciate that we are

06:29able to come and speak to our county

06:32council members. Believe it or not, we

06:36really appreciate it because we feel

06:38that there are many like us that cannot

06:41attend for many reasons, many many

06:44reasons. Uh but since I'm retired

06:47uh I I found it uh a time to come which

06:51was the general plan 2045 and it opened

06:53up a new world for me which is come and

06:56learn about what's going on in your

06:58government. Come and learn about the

07:00people that have been elected. So it's

07:02been an educational um journey.

07:08So anyway, I've learned a lot. So I in I

07:11am in opposition to bill 147

07:14and I think you know instead of reading

07:18all of the words the main reason for my

07:21opposition is that small businesses

07:25are inundated with rules regulations

07:28laws that make it very difficult for

07:30them to operate and succeed. I believe

07:34that one bill 147 is one of those

07:36things. It's one of those rules and

07:38regulations that create government

07:40overreach. It creates government

07:43excessive rules and regulations.

07:46Bureaucracy.

07:47Let's call it a word.

07:51It's straight up bureaucracy.

07:54People, ordinary people are very smart.

07:58When they are in trouble, they figure

08:00out a way to supplement their income to

08:02save their homes. Uh I'm a small, you

08:06know, a vacation renter. I get I guess,

08:09you know, but we strayed away from that.

08:13We're not doing so much of that because

08:15of all these laws that are coming in.

08:17And so the number one thing for my my

08:19other half is I don't understand the

08:21law. I don't want to violate the law. I

08:24don't want to, you know, break the law.

08:26I don't want to I don't want I don't

08:27want to. So therefore, these are

08:29obstacles for ordinary people. They

08:33don't understand the laws that you

08:34write. That's your jobs, right? The

08:36county charter says you legislate. You

08:39make policy. Well, I think the voices of

08:44the residents should be heard when it

08:46comes to

08:47>> Seconds, please.

08:48>> When it comes to legislation. So, we're

08:51going to work on that. Anyway, mahalo.

08:53Mahalo. Newa. I really appreciate the

08:56opportunity to come and see you all

08:58again. Some of you made it again through

09:01re-election. Well, that's good. Let's

09:03see what happens. Aloha.

09:06Thank you very much.

09:09>> Thank you so much for your testimony,

09:11chair. Our next testifier is via Zoom,

09:14Thomas Martin, testifying on bill 147,

09:17and then we can go to our testifiers in

09:18Kona. Thomas, when you're ready to

09:20begin, you can unmute your mic via Zoom.

09:22Introduce yourself and you'll have three

09:24minutes.

09:31Mr. Martin, I've just sent you a request

09:33to unm unmute. I'm sorry.

09:36>> There you go. You can introduce yourself

09:37and you'll have three minutes.

09:39>> Can you hear me? Okay.

09:40>> Yes, we can.

09:41>> My name is uh Thomas Martin, and I'm

09:44asking to I'm I'm grateful to be able to

09:45speak to you, the honorable chairperson

09:47and council members. I appreciate the

09:49opportunity. I'm asking I'm calling to

09:51ask for some compassion and some

09:53empathy, not just for me, but for others

09:55like me who have been significantly

09:57financially and emotionally harmed by

09:59bills 108 and 147 with no apparent

10:03benefit to our county residents. I think

10:06those bills are well intended. However,

10:08if you look more carefully at these at

10:10this situation of high value homes,

10:13there's no benefit.

10:15So uh as an example, I purchased a lot

10:18in call waterfront in 2012 and in 2016

10:23we began construction but because of

10:25long delays getting permits and a

10:27relative shortage of skilled

10:29subcontractors in that area. So my

10:31contractor said our home was not

10:33completed until 2020. As you know, when

10:36Bill 108 was passed in 2018, the

10:39non-conforming pathway was only eligible

10:42was only open to people who could show

10:43that they had actually rented prior to

10:45the spring of 2018. And at that time, my

10:49planned and in vacation home under

10:51construction was not was not done yet.

10:54However, I erroneously thought that I

10:57met the that I met the criteria for a

10:59hosted vacation rental because I met the

11:01IRS criteria of living here more than 12

11:04months a year. So therefore, according

11:06to the IRS criteria, it could qualify as

11:08my primary residence. But the planning

11:10committee notified me in the spring that

11:12my understanding was wrong and that

11:14subsequently we switched our

11:16advertisements to 31 days minimum stays

11:20and since then we've only had one reser

11:22reservation made for next year. We have

11:24none for the holiday period which were

11:26usually extremely competitive and and

11:28very popular. And up until that time,

11:32we've had we've generated more than

11:34$225,000

11:36in excise and transient accommodation

11:38taxes paid to the county. In addition,

11:40we've paid our local cleaners more than

11:43$50,000 to clean our home between each

11:45of these visits. We live here six months

11:47a year and we rent six months a year.

11:50And in addition to that, our renters uh

11:52have have patronized many businesses,

11:54shops, and other tourist companies,

11:57which brings further income to the

11:59residents of our county.

12:02But while the main purpose was to create

12:03more affordable housing, barring high

12:06value homes from being short-term

12:07vacation rentals will not create will

12:09not create more affordable housing. If

12:11I'm forced to sell and others, I know

12:13there's another neighbor in my

12:14development also in the same position.

12:16And if we're forced to sell our homes,

12:17>> 30 seconds, please

12:18>> because of lost rental income, they

12:21they'll be quickly bought by very

12:22wealthy off island residents who only

12:24occupy them for two or three months like

12:26most of our other neighbors in Kala

12:28waterfront. So, I'm asking you please to

12:31consider the dam the the financial and

12:34emotional harm that these bills have

12:36caused the high value homeowners and

12:38please consider making high short-term

12:41vacation rentals possible for high value

12:43home and residential zones or at least

12:45allow me to complete to apply for the

12:47NCU pathway since my vac vacation home

12:50was not was under construction at the

12:52time of the deadline. Mahalo for your

12:53consideration.

12:55>> Thank you so much for your testimony

12:57chair. At this time, we can go over to

13:00Kona for their testifiers. The first of

13:03which is Clark Kahavai to be followed by

13:06Trey Livingston. Both testifying on Bill

13:08147.

13:10Gentlemen, when you get to the testifier

13:11table, you can turn it on by hitting the

13:13green button, introducing yourself, and

13:15you'll have three minutes.

13:33[clears throat]

13:40Gentlemen, you can turn that mic on by

13:42pressing the green button. Oh, it seems

13:44like we've lost

13:46connection.

13:52Chair, I think we had a brown out for

13:53the network. The entire system went

13:55down. So, we are reconnecting to Zoom as

13:57of right now.

13:58>> Let's call a recess. Chair.

14:00>> Uh, we're going to go into recess until

14:01our tech issues are sorted. We're in

14:03recess at 10:43. Thank you.

15:02Don't go too far.

18:44You good?

20:59Thank you. I am calling this meeting out

21:00of recess. The time is 10:50 a.m. You

21:04may proceed in Kona. Mahalo for being

21:07here.

21:09>> Thank you so much, gentlemen. Again,

21:10[cough and clears throat] whoever would

21:11like to start first, please uh introduce

21:13yourself and you'll have 3 minutes to

21:16testify on Bill 147.

21:30Oh, sorry. It seems like we're still

21:33muted.

21:36D, if you could unmute us, please.

21:42There we go. Sorry about that,

21:44gentlemen.

21:46If either of you would like to start,

21:48please introduce yourself and you'll

21:49have three minutes to provide your

21:51testimony.

21:57>> Aloha council. My name is Clark Kahovi.

22:00I am an owner and operator of a property

22:03management company here in Kona. We

22:05manage about 200 properties across

22:08long-term and short-term portfolios. Um,

22:11I know there are many transit vacation

22:12rentals that are operating illegally. I

22:15am not here to speak for them. I'm here

22:17to speak for the owners that and

22:19property managers that have continued to

22:21adjust and adapt to all of the

22:23regulations that continue to come out to

22:26make sure that they're operating

22:27properly by the book. I want to start

22:29with a current operational process that

22:31was created by bill 108 which council

22:34member Kimble was also a big proponent

22:35of as part of the NUC application

22:38process in planning department rule

22:4023-12

22:42applicants have already been required to

22:44disclose the maximum number of guests

22:47permitted to both the county planning

22:49department and affected neighboring

22:51property owners and lesses. Furthermore,

22:54every year we are required to provide a

22:56listing link for the property to the

22:59planning department as proof of

23:00compliance. It has to be approved to

23:03renew the license each year. So to all

23:06of a sudden say that occupancy is to be

23:08limited after owners have made

23:09purchasing decisions, design decisions,

23:12and investment decisions is going to

23:15invite litigation.

23:17I've been quiet for a while while

23:19listening to people much smarter than I

23:21spew assumptions and treat college tries

23:24as fact and testimony. I'm not here to

23:28tell anyone what they should decide on

23:29this bill, but I am encouraging everyone

23:31on the council to fact check everything

23:33you are being told. I am hearing that we

23:36should limit occupancy based on building

23:38code. I'm hearing that we should change

23:40a currently well-known industry term to

23:43mean something else regardless of the

23:45repercussions that that it could cause

23:47because we called a couple lenders. I'm

23:50hearing let's just pass it and then

23:52we'll fix it later. I'm not an expert in

23:54the law. I'm not an expert in politics

23:56and I'm not an expert in developing. But

23:59as someone whose business relies on

24:01operating within rules and regulations,

24:03I am an expert in citing my sources and

24:05leaning on actual experts in their

24:08field. So when I say I could not find a

24:10single building code that limits

24:12occupancy on transient rentals, I say it

24:15confidently. What I did find was

24:17building code chapter 5B which was

24:20effective September 1st, 2021 enacted

24:23through ordinance 21-61

24:26permitting build permitted buildings in

24:28>> 30 seconds please

24:30>> at the time of the adoption of this

24:32chapter may have their existing

24:34permitted use or occupancy continued if

24:38such use or occupancy was legal at the

24:41time of the adoption of this chapter.

24:44Our own Hawaii history teaches us that

24:47changes to land rights can have

24:49consequences lasting generations.

24:51Promising to address protections later

24:53is not the same as putting those

24:56protections in place before the people

24:58are affected. You can amend the law

25:00later. You cannot undo the harm it

25:03causes in the meantime. Thank you.

25:06>> Thank you so much for your testimony.

25:07for our next testifier. If you'd like to

25:09turn that uh mic on by hitting the green

25:11button, introducing yourself, and you'll

25:13have three minutes.

25:15>> Good morning, council members. My name

25:17is Trey Livingston, and I'm testifying

25:19today in my individual capacity. I'm

25:22providing comment on the bill. I would

25:25like to ask why the motion is to pass

25:27the bill on first reading. Short-term

25:29vacation rental regulation has been

25:31under development since 2018. There have

25:34been years of testimony, revisions, and

25:36economic study. Not to mention, this is

25:38our fourth committee meeting this year.

25:41Given that history, moving this bill

25:43forward so quickly with only one council

25:45reading seems dismissive of all that

25:48history, the process, and the public

25:50involvement up to the state. And you may

25:53see there are fewer people attending the

25:55meetings and testifying, but please

25:57don't take that as proof of um consent.

26:03Secondly, regarding commercial

26:04neighborhood zoning, using our MLS, I

26:07found there to be only 106 unique

26:09parcels zoned CN on the island, and 50

26:12of those parcels are in TMK districts

26:153-1 through 3-4.

26:18The recommendation to remove CN came

26:20through the Kona Community Development

26:21Plan Action Committee. I respect their

26:23work, but I question whether we want the

26:26Kona CDP action committee to be driving

26:29regulation islandwide, especially when

26:31there's no equivalent HILO CDP action

26:34committee to speak on behalf of half of

26:37those properties that would be affected

26:38in this instance. If the premise of

26:41registration for TDR use is that it's

26:44commercial,

26:45why exclude that use from commercial

26:48zoning?

26:50My third point is regarding the

26:51terminology bed and breakfast.

26:53Understand the goal is consistency with

26:55other counties, but each island has its

26:58own development history and consistency

27:00only works when the underlying

27:02conditions are the same. There's also a

27:04variety of terminology used among the

27:06other counties. So adopting bed and

27:08breakfast does not necessarily make us

27:10consistent with all of them.

27:13I believe hosted transient vacation

27:15rental or some variation thereof more

27:17appropriately describes the use here on

27:19this island and it also lessens some of

27:22the concerns surrounding financing and

27:24insurance that can come with using the

27:26term bed and breakfast.

27:28I also have two requests for clarity. We

27:31have been told that the five-bedroom

27:32limit is driven by rules in chapter 25,

27:36but I've also heard references to the

27:37building code and other requirements.

27:40But other than that general reference to

27:42chapter 25, I haven't heard any specific

27:44provisions or specific codes that

27:48requirement.

27:51Finally, could you provide clarity for

27:53dwellings that were constructed on lots

27:56created post 177 1976

28:00where the dwellings were built post 1976

28:04but they were permitted as single family

28:06dwellings or an ohana dwelling and they

28:09did not also receive a farm dwelling

28:11notice.

28:12Please help us understand how those

28:14properties will be handled under bill

28:16147. Thank you.

28:20Thank you so much for your testimony,

28:23chair. At this time, those are all the

28:25testifiers you have here at the

28:27beginning of your meeting.

28:28>> Thank you, Mr. RSelli. And I I just do

28:30want to clarify something that was

28:32mentioned by the um previous testifier.

28:34We are actually in committee. So, the

28:36motion on the floor is to send bill 147

28:39to the council with a favorable uh

28:42recommendation. We are not at first

28:43reading. We are still deliberating in

28:45committee.

28:47Thank you. Um, at this time we're going

28:48to take things out of order. Um, Mr.

28:51Clerk, so if we could please start with

28:52Bill 154.

28:56If anyone would like to testify in Bill

28:58154, please speak up now.

29:05Hearing [clears throat] and seeing none,

29:06bill 154 amends chapter 25 articles 15

29:10and seven of the Hawaii County Code 1983

29:122016 edition as amended relating to

29:15commercial parking lots and garages.

29:17Removes commercial parking lots and

29:19garages as a permitted use in the

29:20general village commercial industrial

29:22commercial mixed limited industrial

29:25general industrial and downtown Hilo

29:27commercial zoning districts introduced

29:29by council members Inaba and Vegas. This

29:31was referred to the planning commissions

29:32on May 4th, 2026 and communication 866.3

29:37from managing director William Vante Jr.

29:39dated August 24, 2026. Transmitting for

29:42council's consideration and action

29:44letters from the Winward and Leeward

29:45planning commissions and communication

29:47866.4 from planning director Jeffrey W.

29:50Darl dated September 15, 2026.

29:53Transmitting a PowerPoint presentation

29:54for bill 154.

29:57>> I have a motion.

29:59Motion to forward bill 154 to council

30:03with a favorable recommendation.

30:05>> Thank you. There's a motion by council

30:06member Inaba and a second by council

30:08member Viegas to forward bill 154 to the

30:11council with a favorable recommendation.

30:12Council member Inaba.

30:13>> Thank you. Uh this bill as the clerk

30:16shared was forwarded to the department

30:19and to the planning commissions for

30:22their review. Uh, Director Daryl did

30:24give a

30:26Are you supposed to be giving a

30:27presentation today, director? No, I know

30:31you had before.

30:33>> No need.

30:34>> No need. Okay. Um, but director did give

30:37a favorable recommendation

30:40uh and made two additional

30:41recommendations. One was to remove the

30:44Hilo downtown area from this bill and

30:47then the other was to require a use

30:49permit for uh resort zone property

30:53moving forward. Uh so the Leeward

30:58planning commission forwarded their

30:59favorable recommendation based on the

31:02planning director's two recommendations

31:05and the Winward Planning Commission

31:07forwarded their favorable recommendation

31:09but they did not include uh their

31:12support for removal of the downtown Hilo

31:14area. Today we have uh two amendments.

31:17I'll start with mine. So move to amend

31:20bill 154 with the contents of

31:22communication 866.6.

31:26>> Thank you. There is a motion by council

31:28member Inaba, second by council member

31:29Viegas to amend the con bill 154 with

31:32the contents of communication 866.6.

31:35Council member Naba.

31:36>> Thank you. Um this is the second

31:38recommendation which is to

31:41move uh the or to require a use permit

31:45for resort zone properties. So, for

31:48example, in the Kaidua Kona area, there

31:52are still properties that um are resort

31:55zoned and could potentially start doing

32:00um paid parking. With the bill as

32:02currently written, uh this amendment

32:06would require a use permit before the

32:08Leeward Planning Commission in this case

32:09for Kona or the Winward Planning

32:11Commission if it's here in Hilo. Um, so

32:15not saying that it can't happen, but

32:16just saying that uh we need to send it

32:19to the commissions for approval. So ask

32:21for your support on this amendment

32:22866.6.

32:24>> Thank you. Members, any questions on

32:26communication 866.6.

32:33Seeing none, all those in favor, please

32:35say I.

32:36>> Any opposed? Motion carries with nine I

32:39votes. Bill 154 is amended with the

32:41contents of communication 866.6. Council

32:44member Yava.

32:45>> Thank you. And then um just want to put

32:47a quick mahalo to council member Kagi

32:50who's prepared this other amendment um

32:52to [clears throat] address the other

32:53recommendation by director Darl.

32:56>> Council member Kagi.

32:57>> Thank you chair. Um yes. I'd like to uh

33:00amend bill 154 as amended with the

33:04contents of communication 866.5.

33:08There is a motion by council member

33:09Kagiwada and a second by council member

33:11Inaba to amend bill 154 as amended with

33:14the contents of communication 866.5.

33:17Council member Kagiada.

33:18>> Thank you. Yes. So this does take the uh

33:22downtown Hilo area out of this bill. Um

33:26and the reasoning for that I've I've

33:28spoken with the director on a few

33:30occasions as well as uh business people

33:32in downtown Hilo. Um, Hilo, unlike other

33:37commercial areas uh on our island, does

33:39not require any parking for businesses

33:43in the downtown area when they build.

33:45So, we do not have um the regular

33:48parking requirements um that for

33:51instance they have over in Kyua Kona.

33:53Um, so this having potential for

33:58commercial lots is kind of the only

34:00potential way to expand um possible

34:03parking given that we do not require

34:06this um like we do in all the other

34:08areas. So yeah, just looking for people

34:10support. I will say there's also a small

34:12housekeeping um just to align with the

34:15other parts um to add uh instead of it

34:18just said for the um university district

34:22um that there was a maximum of 20% of

34:26university district's land area may be

34:28used in commercial use including

34:29parking. I just uh am proposing that we

34:32change that to include parking lots and

34:34garages because that's the way we've

34:36been citing it in in the rest of this um

34:39code.

34:41Happy to take any questions.

34:42>> Thank you for your work on this. Any

34:44questions for the maker?

34:46>> Seeing none, all those in favor, please

34:48say I. I.

34:49>> Any opposed? Motion carries with nine I

34:51votes. Bill 154 as amended is amended

34:54with the contents of communication

34:55866.5.

34:57Any other amendments for this measure?

35:01Any general comments, remarks,

35:04questions? Council member Kagiada. Oh,

35:06>> I was just um

35:09I guess I was looking at 806.7.

35:13Is that not

35:15>> um

35:15>> uh that is for bill 147.

35:17>> Oh, sorry. I'm sorry.

35:18>> All good.

35:19>> Uh I was looking at 866

35:24three.

35:27Oh, no. Okay. I'm sorry.

35:28>> Those are not amendments.

35:29>> Yeah, those are not from the I'm done.

35:30Thank you. I

35:32>> You're welcome.

35:34Seeing no other comments or lights on,

35:38going to move forward with the vote. All

35:39those in favor of forwarding bill 154 as

35:42amended to the council with a favorable

35:44recommendation, please say I.

35:46>> Any opposed?

35:49>> No vote by council member Galima. That

35:51is eight eyes, one no. Council member

35:54Galima, bill 154 is sent to the council

35:58with a favorable recommendation.

36:02Mr. Clerk, are we good? Excellent. Let's

36:05move forward with the next item on the

36:07agenda. Bill 147.

36:12I'm hearing a static noise, Mr. RSLE.

36:15Thank you.

36:20>> Last chance. If anyone would like to

36:22testify in Bill 147, please speak up

36:24now.

36:25>> Thank you so much, Chair. Just noting

36:27that we do have one testifier via Zoom,

36:30Dell Otsuka, who would like to testify.

36:33Dell, at this time, if you could unmute

36:35your mic and introduce yourself, you'll

36:38have three minutes.

36:41>> Good morning. Can you hear me?

36:44>> Yes, we can. Good morning.

36:45>> Yeah, good morning. Um, I know it's

36:48brief. So, can we just look at the

36:50actual real life data from the past four

36:52years regarding the very operations this

36:55bill targets? For the last two years

36:57before this council took office and the

37:00two years with this council, short-term

37:02vacation rentals have consistently

37:04driven 710 million in direct lodging

37:08revenue into the island economy every

37:10year, multiplying that to 1.3 billion

37:14including the total annual spending. So

37:17over the last four years, that is over

37:19$5 billion dollar poured into directly

37:22into local businesses, workers, and

37:24their families. And this bill is moving

37:28so fast. You know, I've read a lot of

37:30stuff and it is so fast. And it doesn't

37:32look like a housekeeping. If this

37:34started in April and you're trying to

37:36pass it in September, that's that's

37:38pretty fast. But it's also very

37:41comprehensive and it's very confusing.

37:44But the end result is if you're only

37:47expected to make $15 million by imposing

37:50this, that hardly makes sense. Not

37:53fiscally, not just doesn't make sense.

37:57And so

38:00I don't know what to say. You know,

38:04you don't need a frantic new fee system

38:07or stream to fund their the departments.

38:10You don't. And if you're only projecting

38:14$3 to5 million from these residents,

38:16you've already collected so much. So

38:19rather than

38:21focus on getting more, you already get a

38:25lot. They contribute a lot. So

38:30I just say vote no. This is not the

38:32right time to impose this. It is not

38:36because if you look around Hilo as well,

38:38a lot of business are closing. families

38:40are moving into other famil family's

38:42homes because they can't afford to live

38:43here. And if renting one room is going

38:46to create such a massive revenue, I

38:51would like to think again because I

38:52don't think so.

38:54It's not broken. So don't try to fix it

38:57because you will only break it farther.

38:59And that's all I have to say. And I did

39:02include a lot of um stuff on my written.

39:05So if you've written you've read my

39:07written then you would have seen it's

39:09more detailed. I just think that this is

39:14not the right time to be pushing this so

39:16fast because it involves more than just

39:20taxing them you know so and it's the way

39:23it was done

39:24>> 30 seconds please.

39:26>> Thank you. You know from the time you

39:28impose the bill 47 to ordinance 25-5

39:33I mean 50 it's and then bill 147 looks

39:37like it's just rushing through giving

39:39you space to do what you want to do and

39:41this is just not the right time and it

39:44is not right and it's not fair. So,

39:47thank you so much.

39:49>> Thank you for your testimony. And with

39:51that, those are all the testifiers we

39:52have for this item.

39:54>> Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

39:56Bill 147 amends chapter 2 and chapter 25

39:59of the Hawaii County Code 1983 2016

40:02edition as amended relating to transient

40:04accommodations. Establishes operational

40:06standards and use regulations for

40:08transient vacation rentals which include

40:10hosted bed and breakfastes BNBs and

40:12unhosted short-term vacation rentals

40:14STVRs. Allows BNBs as a permitted use in

40:17the single family residential zoning

40:19district. allows BNBs as a permitted use

40:21in areas within the residential

40:23agriculture, family agriculture and

40:25agriculture zoning districts that are

40:26also classified as state land use, urban

40:29or rural. Allows STVRs as a permitted

40:31use in the entire multiple family

40:33residential district and in certain

40:34coastal areas adjacent to general plan

40:36designated resort or resort node areas

40:39and other residential zoning districts.

40:41allows STVRs as a permitted use in the

40:43downtown Hilo commercial zoning district

40:45and makes various conforming

40:47housekeeping amendments introduced by

40:49council member Kimble. This was referred

40:50to the planning commissions on April 10,

40:522026. This was postponed on September 1

40:55and 15, 2026. Note, there's a motion

40:58already on the floor by council member

40:59Kimble, seconded by council member

41:00Kagiada to recommend passage of bill 147

41:03on first reading and

41:07communication 806.7 from council member

41:10Heather El Kimble dated August 27, 2026

41:13transmitting proposed amendments to bill

41:15147 and communication 806.9 from council

41:19member Heather El Kimble dated September

41:201, 2026 transmitting a document entitled

41:23BNB hosting scenarios in SOOU

41:25agricultural district.

41:28>> Council member Kimble.

41:29>> Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um, first of

41:31all, I just want to once again mahalo

41:33the department and um particularly LRB

41:36for their help in continuing to massage

41:39this document and try to get us across

41:41the finish line. I want to start the

41:43discussion today by saying I really do

41:45think it's of imperative that we move

41:47this out of committee today. the

41:48registration process has already begun

41:51um starting September 1st and we need to

41:54um get things in line so that everything

41:57is copathetic for the department. Um I

42:01also the amendment uh proposed

42:04there's one that you were just delivered

42:05about an hour ago 806.14

42:08that is a replacement for all previous

42:10amendments um based on our discussions

42:13last time. I do think this is important

42:15to pass as well today, but regardless, I

42:17think it is important to move 147 um

42:20forward. I wanted to start by um just

42:23responding to some of the comments made

42:27by testifiers just to um

42:30clear up some some confusion that is out

42:32there. First, I wanted to acknowledge I

42:34did receive your email and I share your

42:36concern. And I do think it is um

42:39something that we need to revisit with

42:41regard to people that live in these

42:43homes but also rent a room or two um to

42:46be able to make ends meet. And I was

42:47disappointed 173 didn't move forward.

42:50But we I do hope to revisit that again

42:52sometime because I do think there is

42:54there's a concern that I have there as

42:56well. With respect to 147 creating more

42:59bureaucracy, I think that that's um one

43:01of the fundamental things that I want to

43:03get across about 147 is that through the

43:05process of developing

43:08121 and having the STVR discussions and

43:10build developing 147, you know, it

43:13became clear that the original intent

43:15around the bed and breakfast law as it

43:17is in code now was that in residential

43:20areas a use permit is required. And so

43:23what we're doing here is actually an

43:26attempt to remove that level of

43:27bureaucracy and say we haven't regulated

43:30it that way for all of these years. So

43:32we're not going to keep requiring a use

43:34permit if we don't pass 147. The

43:37consequence is that everybody that is

43:40operating a hosted rental in the

43:42residential areas will now be required

43:44to come in and get a use permit.

43:45Therefore adding to the bureaucracy that

43:47you claim that 147 is creating. Um, with

43:52respect to the rental on Coha

43:54Waterfront, again, has nothing to do

43:56with 147. That particular scenario is

44:00um, already not a legal short-term

44:02vacation rental on Bill 108. That's why

44:04they've already been notified by the

44:05department. Their true course of action

44:07is to either re seek a resoning

44:09ordinance for the parcel or to try to

44:11become a resort node in that area.

44:13There's nothing with regard to 147 that

44:16creates that problem, that scenario that

44:18was provided there. that is already

44:20existing law through 108. Um I do want

44:23to ask our building division chief to

44:25come forward and speak to the occupancy

44:27issue. Um I do have to take a little bit

44:30of offense to that testifier statement

44:32that I think one of the things that I am

44:34known for on this council is deep

44:37research and I don't say anything

44:39without having

44:41really thoroughly analyzed it. And I

44:43think you have been on this board with

44:45me all this time know that I take

44:48research and valid research as

44:52paramount. And so u just want to say

44:54that but if you could building division

44:56chief can you speak to the two

44:59components of occupancy. One of them is

45:02the change in building code requirements

45:05when you go from five bedrooms to more

45:08than that. And then the other is the

45:10requirements with um respect to the

45:12building code particularly the fire code

45:15and um that occupancy component which is

45:18where that part is coming from to

45:20clarify that for the testifier.

45:24>> Thank you. Council member Kimble. I'll

45:25I'll try I'm I'm going to need your help

45:27here again. Can you repeat? Can we go

45:29one at a time?

45:30>> Okay. Let let's start with the building

45:33code.

45:36Um moving what happens with regard to

45:38the building code when you go from five

45:41bedrooms to rent to more.

45:44>> Uh sorry I'm paraphrasing here. I don't

45:47have the code book in front of me. We

45:49purposefully don't memorize it. It's for

45:51reference. Um my understanding is once

45:54over a certain bedroom count then it

45:56would no longer qualify as that. um

46:00lower level of risk would move the

46:04structure into a higher level of risk

46:07category meaning more like a hotel,

46:09motel, transient rental. It might be

46:11called something different in the code,

46:13but that's the basic tenant with that

46:16five guest room. I believe they use the

46:18word five guest room,

46:20>> right? And and basically by moving a

46:24dwelling from one category of risk to

46:27another, there becomes a higher burden

46:30of some of the

46:33building code requirements. For example,

46:36uh egresses and um ADA compliance and

46:40other other components that would not

46:43apply if you had five bedrooms or fewer.

46:45But now because you're moving into this

46:47additional this higher category of risk,

46:50there are additional building code

46:51requirements.

46:53>> Yes, that's my understanding. I agree.

46:55>> Thank you. And so, you know, therefore,

46:57there is there are mechanisms within the

46:59code 25 itself. Right now, if you are

47:01renting more than five bedrooms, you go

47:03for a lodge or you go for a hotel and

47:05then you have to comply with these

47:06building code requirements.

47:08Additionally, so let's talk about the

47:09occupancy. So, occupancy is really tied

47:11to the fire code and the requirements

47:14for um fire suppression, particularly

47:17sprinklers. Can you speak to that? That

47:18is a newer addition to the code if I

47:20recall.

47:22>> Um, council member, all due respect, I

47:24can't speak to the fire code. We got to

47:26get fire in here to speak to that. But

47:28for the building code, um, I can speak

47:30to occupancy is part and parcel of the

47:32building codes and determines is

47:35handinhand with use and with, uh, level

47:38of life safety risk. Okay. So, I guess I

47:41should rephrase that. It's it's um in

47:44terms of your requirements when

47:46permitting

47:47a dwelling, the occupancy would come to

47:51play with regard to those fire

47:52suppression requirements as as an

47:54example.

47:57>> Sorry, could you rephrase? I'm trying to

47:59follow.

48:00>> Yeah. No, sorry. Um you know, it's it's

48:02not important. I think the the the body

48:04gets the gist and if you just stay here

48:05and ask questions. I mean the key the

48:07key component here is that you there are

48:11different building requirements once you

48:13get to more than five bedrooms for rent.

48:15Um if I may chair have a little

48:17flexibility.

48:18>> Absolutely.

48:19>> Thank you. Um the last thing that I

48:21wanted to um just highlight is, you

48:24know, with the last testifier, I I just

48:27want to be really clear that with

48:31without the amendment, this really

48:34doesn't remove any places where an STVR

48:38is currently permitted. And I think that

48:41there is some perception out there that

48:43it does. Um there within the amendment

48:46there is a change and I will go over

48:47that momentarily but um you know one of

48:50the key sort of things that seems to

48:53come up periodically is that there is

48:54some change to where it's permitted and

48:56it that that is not part of this bill

48:59for the the short-term vacation rentals.

49:01Um with that chair I'd like to go into

49:02the amendment. Um thank you. [laughter]

49:05Um going into the amendment. So motion

49:08to amend bill 147 with the contents of

49:10806.14.

49:13There is a motion by council member

49:15Kimble and a second by council member

49:17Kagiwada to amend bill 147 with the

49:20contents of communication 806.14.

49:24>> Thank you. Um I apologize for this

49:27arriving to you just today. My intention

49:29was to get it to you sooner. Um but

49:31there I believe LRB has a lot of stuff

49:33they're processing. I think mostly

49:34coming from Council Member Kirkwood's

49:36office. Um but the it's it's here with

49:39you today. Okay. And what I will say

49:40about this is um it is not very

49:44different from all of the amendments

49:46that I presented to you before. So there

49:48were four amendments produced before.

49:50Housekeeping amendment, the 31 to 179

49:54days, the RM, and the CN. I've put them

49:58all in here. So other than that, the

50:01content hasn't changed too much other

50:03than some of the discussion points we

50:05had. um particularly council member

50:07Onishi's comments regarding the parking

50:09requirements. This this new amendment

50:12removes that language and just sticks

50:14with what's in the code now with regard

50:17to rentals for um over 180 days. So

50:20that's been been cleared up. Um the

50:23other thing that I would like to just

50:26highlight is um we did clarify some

50:30wording around the state land use a

50:33district and I just want to make it

50:35clear and that was this was provided in

50:37that diagram that Maya created for you

50:38guys. Miss Jackson created for you guys.

50:41Um the if there's no farm dwelling on

50:43the property in state land use egg then

50:45there's no special use requirement. So,

50:47if you're in a pre-1976 lot, those first

50:50dwellings on those properties are single

50:52family homes doesn't have to comply with

50:54HRS 205. Um, however, if there is a farm

50:58dwelling on the site, then a special use

51:00permit will be required for um that uh

51:04hosted rental. Um the other sort of

51:08global change per the request of this

51:10body was to eliminate the terminology

51:12bed and breakfast, replace it

51:14exclusively with hosted. Um so that has

51:17been done as well as removing the

51:18terminology STVR and replacing that with

51:21the term unhosted. So there's

51:22consistency now um between chapter 6 and

51:26now chapter 25. Um in the definitions it

51:29does reference that there's that tie to

51:31the the previous nomenclature. Um so

51:34happy to take any questions on this

51:35amendment. I know it's a lot. I did also

51:37provide with you a draft two um of what

51:40this would look like with the amendments

51:42included just to um help clarify what

51:46this amendment is covering. So thank you

51:51>> on the amendment. Council member

51:52Kagiada.

51:53>> Thank you. I just want to um thank the

51:56the maker for these changes and

51:58especially um kind of clarifying the

52:01language, moving away from the bed and

52:04breakfast um classification back to uh

52:09what I think is much clearer uh hosted

52:12TVs and unhosted TVs. I think that's

52:15going to be a lot easier for the public

52:17to understand. And it seemed like um the

52:20real estate community was especially

52:22concerned with that around some issues

52:24around um insurance and mortgages and

52:27things like that. And it just seems like

52:29this this will be clearer and easier for

52:32people to um work with. So I just really

52:35appreciate the flexibility and your your

52:38um changes there. Um I'll be supporting

52:41the amendment. Thank you.

52:43>> Thank you. Any other comments on the

52:46amendment? Council member Canal

52:47Einfelder.

52:48>> Thank you to Miss Kimmel one. So, Bill

52:54147.

53:07Sorry, I'm putting my thoughts together.

53:10The amendment is lengthy.

53:13This this is the bill that

53:16is replacing.

53:20Sorry, we had a lot of bills. This is

53:23this is a new bill

53:25>> or this is our continuing discussion on

53:27bill 147

53:29continuing.

53:31>> Th this is the continuing discussion on

53:33bill 147. I think what you may be

53:35thinking about is bill 121, which some

53:38of this, if you recall, is came from

53:42bill 121. I I broke 121 apart um into

53:45the different pieces so it' be a little

53:47bit easier to digest.

53:48>> Okay. Okay. Thank you.

53:52Thank you for bringing the amendment

53:53forward.

53:55It is Thank

53:58you. Okay. Thank you.

54:00>> Okay. Anyone else

54:03on the amendment?

54:05>> Council member Enaba.

54:08>> Yeah, I appreciate that we have the

54:11hosted and unhosted.

54:15I don't recall myself and I think this

54:17is something that has been has continued

54:20to be an issue is messing with

54:24the term bed and breakfast. And I think

54:27that this amendment

54:29still does that. It's changing

54:33a definition um an established

54:37definition. So

54:40I don't know that I can support this,

54:42but again I I need more time to read

54:45right now, but that's just a first

54:46comment looking at what's happening

54:48here.

54:50>> Thank you, Council Member Kimell.

54:51>> Yeah. Um, I I appreciate the the

54:55concern, Council Member Anava, and I I

54:57have to say I struggled a little bit

54:59with understanding

55:02what the body wanted as a whole because

55:04I think different people wanted

55:05different things with regard to the

55:06definition. Um, I think there what I

55:09heard was that some folks just wanted

55:11consistency between 26

55:14um, sorry, six and 25, hosted, unhosted,

55:17all under the TDR umbrella. Um, I think

55:21there was another component that was

55:22like trying to identify bed and

55:24breakfast as something different than

55:27hosted rentals. And the only way really

55:31that bed and breakfast are different

55:33than hosted rentals is if they had

55:36acquired a use permit or a special use

55:39permit prior to this. And so I think if

55:45there is a desire to preserve the bed

55:48and breakfast definition, we bring it in

55:51and we say it's a it's a hosted rental

55:53that received a use or special use

55:56permit prior to the effective date of

55:59the ordinance because the I you know one

56:01of the things that I I thought I heard

56:03was that there was maybe a distinction

56:04between being ownerhosted versus

56:07operator hosted and there's not. So you

56:09can you could have gotten a bed and

56:11breakfast or a special use permit,

56:13sorry, a special use permit for a bed

56:14and breakfast with an operator or an

56:16owner host. So that that is not sort of

56:19a distinction. Um there's not a

56:22distinction with regard to whether or

56:24not you serve breakfast. I mean you

56:25could do that in either one. Um, so you

56:29know the the

56:33what I would hope is

56:36because I think the the body is leaning

56:38towards moving to this consistent

56:40terminology of host hosted and unhosted.

56:44I'm I'm amendable to bringing back in

56:47the definition of bed and breakfast as

56:49it stands now and just clearly saying

56:51this is these are bed and breakfast

56:54because they received a use per permit

56:56in the past and and that I think is

56:59something I can bring back at first

57:00reading if that's critical but again I

57:03was I was struggling to kind of satisfy

57:05everybody's request with regard to that

57:08terminology.

57:10>> Thank you council member Hustus.

57:13>> Thank you chair. Uh, thank you, Council

57:14Member Kimell. This is kind of the

57:16direction. I wasn't in kind of

57:18encouraging it in terms of streamlining

57:19it. Um, wasn't able to get an amendment

57:23out on from my office in time. So, thank

57:25you for bringing this forward. Director

57:27Darl, can can you just uh answer this

57:29question about because this was I was

57:31getting push back from LRB about this

57:33actually in terms of the definition and

57:35with a bed and breakfast and the

57:37differences between what is being

57:39proposed as a hosted TVR versus some

57:44intricacies in a bed and breakfast and

57:46my I thought there was some

57:48understanding of um even occupancy was a

57:52smaller number there too a number of

57:54guests in that space beyond beyond on

57:56like the breakfast being served and all

57:58those different pieces which I think

57:59you're trying to capture council Kimble

58:01in in the transition here there are some

58:05other smaller nuances between my reading

58:08of 2547 in terms of bed and breakfast so

58:11could you just state those director

58:14>> sure uh aloha chair Kirkitz vice chair

58:18Kima members of the Hawaii County

58:21Council Jeff Daryl with the planning

58:23department so in relation to section

58:282547

58:30in our current zoning code for bed and

58:32breakfast. There are a number of

58:35differences in relation to um what we

58:39see in the current uh proposed 147 and

58:43amendments. Uh one of them is that um

58:47that you you know you it's it's clear

58:51when you um operate a bed and breakfast

58:54the the understanding is that breakfast

58:58will be served right in this particular

59:01amendment changing it to hosted TVR and

59:04and again this is something that was

59:06brought out even through 121 um you

59:10don't have to serve breakfast either in

59:13this

59:15um as a B&B and you can serve breakfast

59:19even as a hosted TVR. Uh the definition

59:22is flexible, right? There's a difference

59:24between the amount of people uh within

59:29our current code versus the proposed

59:31code. Our current code says um 10

59:35guests, no more than 10 guests within

59:37five rentable bedrooms. The current code

59:41allows two per bedroom and two for the

59:45dwelling. So, a total of 12. Um, in

59:49relation to um operations,

59:53um they're they're pretty similar. Uh

59:56the parking is similar. um especially

59:59with uh council members uh Onishi's um

1:00:04amendment to the parking requirements

1:00:06for short-term um rentals or or rentals

1:00:10less than 180 days. Um the signage um

1:00:15those kind of things. Um overall they're

1:00:18very similar. Uh I don't see um a real

1:00:22major difference there. Is there

1:00:24something that you're trying to

1:00:26>> I'm just looking for your recommendation

1:00:28in terms of that we have some voices in

1:00:30community that are saying they've been

1:00:31operating at bed and breakfast for a

1:00:32long time and the shift is now lumping

1:00:34other towards types of hosted TVR into

1:00:37that category maybe stripping some of

1:00:39the what they've been identified with in

1:00:41the past. So trying to find and and some

1:00:43of the conversation before was you know

1:00:46you have hosted TVR as that as that

1:00:47header which which council member Kimble

1:00:49is proposing here in the amendment and

1:00:51then B&B is absorbed part of that. Is

1:00:55there another recommendation you have

1:00:56that it's subsidiary of or is there

1:00:58other pieces we think we're missing that

1:01:01um to capture that essence?

1:01:04I you know

1:01:07there really isn't I mean we have people

1:01:11that rent rooms without serving

1:01:14breakfast and we have people that rent

1:01:16rooms serving breakfast identified as a

1:01:20B&B. Um for uh since bill 108 was passed

1:01:25and we had the term unhosted

1:01:28the term hosted became familiar with

1:01:32many people. They they identified

1:01:34themselves and the department referred

1:01:37to them [snorts] as hosted rentals,

1:01:40people that did not fall under Bill 108,

1:01:43yet they were renting rooms out of their

1:01:46house and they resided there or an

1:01:49operator resided there. They really

1:01:51truly were fitting under the definition

1:01:54in the zoning code of a bed and

1:01:56breakfast. Um, we didn't have a term

1:01:59hosted rental. We tried through Bill 121

1:02:03to solidify that definition, but it

1:02:06didn't pass. people um came out and

1:02:09talked about uh their um their you know

1:02:16their

1:02:17uh hope that BNB would be the reference

1:02:20that bed and breakfast uh coming to the

1:02:24future bed and breakfast is proposed and

1:02:27now there's why are we proposing bed and

1:02:30breakfast why don't we propose hosted

1:02:33rentals or hosted TVR I think we And I

1:02:37think this definition captures both. Uh

1:02:41so I think we would be okay moving

1:02:43forward.

1:02:44>> Okay. Thank you. And and while while we

1:02:46have you up on the on the stand here

1:02:47just for a moment. Um and you shared

1:02:50this last time in terms of

1:02:53and maybe this is not appropriate during

1:02:54the amendment, but the um the number of

1:02:57bedrooms and we had our division our

1:02:59building division chief talk about it

1:03:00and you talked last time about the

1:03:03those that are operating with more than

1:03:04five bedrooms now are technically

1:03:07unlawful. That's what you said last

1:03:09time. Correct. Well, they could be. Um,

1:03:12it they have

1:03:13>> they could be you said last time that

1:03:15they were they are they were operating

1:03:17illegally because they were operating

1:03:18with more than five bedrooms.

1:03:19>> No. What I mean, let me clarify. If they

1:03:22have a special permit for a lodge,

1:03:25>> y don't though.

1:03:27>> A lot of them don't. they've been

1:03:28operating as.

1:03:29>> If they don't, then just like the hosted

1:03:32rentals operating now without a use

1:03:34permit or a special permit as a B&B,

1:03:38these would be operating illegally as a

1:03:41lodge or an inn without

1:03:44uh a particular permit. Unfortunately,

1:03:46in residential zoning right now, there's

1:03:49no avenue for them. we can look at an

1:03:52avenue for them if that's something

1:03:54you're interested in uh creating. Right

1:03:57now, typically you'll see them in the

1:03:59state land use agricultural district

1:04:01coming in for a special permit. And we

1:04:04do have we don't have a whole ton uh you

1:04:08know of them, but we have a few around

1:04:11the island.

1:04:12>> And it's also the case for those that

1:04:13are so some of them are operating these

1:04:15um mixed family residential, multif

1:04:17family residential. They've just

1:04:20received these letters from planning

1:04:22department or they've been they've

1:04:23received them a while back now and now

1:04:24they're kind of

1:04:25>> this general you were referring to the

1:04:27>> Yeah. And I've received some other

1:04:28emails about it too in that same same

1:04:30area.

1:04:30>> This is it's zoned multifamily

1:04:33residential but it's a single family

1:04:35dwelling.

1:04:36>> Yeah. And so um I I I don't know the

1:04:40details but I believe it was through a

1:04:43complaint. And so the department

1:04:45notified them when that complaint that

1:04:47complaint driven piece back when it

1:04:49happened.

1:04:50>> We would follow up. Yeah.

1:04:51>> Okay.

1:04:52>> Um if you're operating as a unhosted

1:04:56um rental without uh either a

1:04:59non-conforming use or in a permitted

1:05:01zoning district, we would issue a

1:05:04violation.

1:05:04>> Okay. Thank you.

1:05:06>> Thank you.

1:05:07>> Thank you, Mr. Hustess. Council member

1:05:09Conal.

1:05:11I had a point of clarification on one of

1:05:12the director's comments that I think is

1:05:14important before we move on if it's just

1:05:16Okay, go ahead. Um, so just for

1:05:18clarification to your question, council

1:05:19member Houston is the current code is 10

1:05:22occupants for bed and breakfast and bill

1:05:25147 proposes 12. Two per bedroom plus

1:05:29two for the unit as a whole. So that is

1:05:31a distinction between the current

1:05:33definition of Ben Roest and the one

1:05:35proposed in 147. I think that the

1:05:38director flipped that. I'm sorry if I

1:05:41was that was what I meant.

1:05:44>> Thank you, Council Member Can Einfelder.

1:05:46>> Thank you.

1:05:52>> Okay,

1:05:54Mr. Daryl, what is what is RM? Why is

1:05:56that not allowed?

1:06:00>> Not allowed for uh short-term vacation

1:06:03rentals.

1:06:04>> It currently is.

1:06:11Director, we're on the amendment. So,

1:06:13council member is wondering why it's

1:06:14been stricken.

1:06:15>> I see.

1:06:15>> Yeah, it was stricken for the unhosted.

1:06:19>> So, if uh on the amendment, um if you

1:06:23look at um that section, it takes out RM

1:06:28and it allows RM within a building site

1:06:33that is situated with any of the

1:06:35following. a resort or resort node area

1:06:40as designated in the general plan or an

1:06:43area as open in the general plan that is

1:06:46adjacent to an area identified in sub

1:06:49paragraph A. and more importantly is uh

1:06:54subsection A4

1:06:57where it is identifying RM as a

1:07:00permitted use provided that plan

1:07:04approval for the dwelling used for the

1:07:06unhosted TVR was issued prior to the

1:07:10effective date of this ordinance.

1:07:14So the intention I believe is to take in

1:07:18to consideration the comments from um

1:07:21and and the maker of the bill can

1:07:23correct me uh from the uh Kona uh CDP

1:07:29action committee regarding uh multif

1:07:32family

1:07:33>> and then RM stands for multif family

1:07:35residential

1:07:36>> correct

1:07:37>> what is what is allowed on residential

1:07:38multi multif family

1:07:40>> typically I mean just generally you'

1:07:43single family, double family, multif

1:07:45family

1:07:46>> like condo buildings.

1:07:47>> Yeah. Condominiums, apartments, those

1:07:50kind of things.

1:07:51>> Okay. And so they're allowed to have

1:07:54under the amendment and the new bill,

1:07:55they're allowed they're allowed to be

1:07:59unhosted

1:08:00>> if they meet the criteria spelled out.

1:08:04They've received plan approval prior to

1:08:06the effective date or they're in a

1:08:08general plan resort note. Then

1:08:10afterwards going forward only if they're

1:08:13in resort mode.

1:08:15>> Correct.

1:08:16>> Okay.

1:08:21[clears throat]

1:08:22Um in the in 25-4-B

1:08:29where we describe the hosted transient

1:08:31vacation rentals

1:08:33where permitted.

1:08:36Um, we have the A allowance.

1:08:45>> What is the definition of a farm

1:08:47dwelling

1:08:49>> and where where is that contained in the

1:08:51code?

1:08:51>> It's within chapter 2054.5.

1:08:56I can bring that up if you would like me

1:08:58to. Basically, it's a single family that

1:09:01is uh located and and uh in works in

1:09:07conjunction with a farm.

1:09:10And what is the if I have a property,

1:09:14what is the dwelling that I build as my

1:09:17primary home called?

1:09:21If what uh what's important in this

1:09:25distinction is the year the the lot was

1:09:28created.

1:09:30>> Yes. I think I think

1:09:32>> I think the type the definition may also

1:09:35be important here.

1:09:36>> It is but um that the definition is also

1:09:41identified on that section on in regards

1:09:44to the creation of the lot. So it says

1:09:47that if the lot was created prior to

1:09:49June 4th, 1976,

1:09:52it is a single family dwelling. If it is

1:09:55after that, it is a farm dwelling which

1:09:58is a single family dwelling but it's

1:10:01it's in it's in relation to the a

1:10:04working farm

1:10:06which at this point is having uh actual

1:10:10act uh actual acro agricultural activity

1:10:15occurring on the property.

1:10:17>> Okay, one more time. So pre-1976

1:10:20the first home built on an a property

1:10:24>> is a single family

1:10:25>> called a single family dwelling

1:10:26>> correct

1:10:27>> an SFD

1:10:31>> post 1976 we call it

1:10:34>> a farm dwelling. Yeah.

1:10:36>> Okay.

1:10:37>> It gets uh more um in depth after that.

1:10:42Now the code has recently changed um to

1:10:46even refer to um it's it they don't

1:10:50refer to it as additional farm

1:10:52dwellings. They they refer to them as

1:10:54farm employee housing. So additional

1:10:58farm dwellings, farm employee housing.

1:11:02>> Okay. So when when we change the wording

1:11:05in the amendment to a hosted TVR

1:11:11is permitted in the following districts

1:11:13does not include a in the first section.

1:11:16Then the second section any agricultural

1:11:18district other than IIA

1:11:23blah blah blah blah then there is no

1:11:26farm dwelling on the building site.

1:11:30So that actually has two different

1:11:31meanings. There's a pre-1976 meeting and

1:11:34there's a post 1976 meeting, right?

1:11:37>> Well, if you're post 76 and you have a

1:11:41dwelling, it would be a farm dwelling.

1:11:44If you're pre76 and you have one

1:11:46dwelling, it's a single family dwelling.

1:11:51>> So, let's go. 376.

1:11:55My single family home I live in

1:11:59is not considered a farm dwelling.

1:12:03>> Correct.

1:12:04>> But I can build a farm dwelling on my

1:12:08property.

1:12:08>> You can?

1:12:10>> Yes.

1:12:14>> So, does number one or two like I'm just

1:12:17trying to wrap my head around this.

1:12:19>> Number two would apply at that point.

1:12:22So even though pre-1976

1:12:26I can have let's say both I can have a

1:12:29farm bill.

1:12:30>> Correct.

1:12:31>> Correct.

1:12:34But if I went by number one here I'm

1:12:37pre976

1:12:39I build this a farm dwelling on my

1:12:41property.

1:12:42I now have a farm dwelling on my

1:12:44property.

1:12:50But number two, if there is a farm

1:12:52dwelling on the building site, the farm

1:12:54dwelling is also the principal home of

1:12:55the host. But in pre976,

1:13:01so number one, uh, for clarification,

1:13:05number one was

1:13:07an easy way to identify those lots that

1:13:11are pre76 that have single family

1:13:13dwellings. They do not have a farm

1:13:16dwelling on the property. If you are

1:13:19pre76

1:13:21or post76,

1:13:23number two would apply

1:13:26if you have a farm dwelling on those

1:13:29properties. So either one applies to

1:13:32number two. Yes. Farm dwelling is also

1:13:36the principal home of the host.

1:13:39Okay. Because you're post 1976

1:13:43in which case a special permit is

1:13:45required.

1:13:49So pre76

1:13:52I have my single family dwelling.

1:13:59So you get this this is this is

1:14:01technical these even though it doesn't

1:14:02say all this information it's fairly

1:14:04technical these two terms number one and

1:14:06number two

1:14:07>> it's it's because of the state law that

1:14:11we need to work uh with in regards to

1:14:14these types of uses.

1:14:19We try to avoid referencing

1:14:23um HRS because it changes all the time

1:14:26and when we do we have to go in and

1:14:28change our code every time they change

1:14:31the code. It just changed again

1:14:33actually. Um

1:14:38the the heart of this and all these

1:14:40questions I'm asking is for for h for

1:14:44threequarters of our island were agg

1:14:47and these two this two two section these

1:14:50hosted TVR section for numbers one and

1:14:53two under B

1:14:58will have to me the biggest impact on

1:15:01what's existing in our community right

1:15:03now and a lot of money makers out there,

1:15:07sorry, a lot of residents using this as

1:15:10an ability to bring in income. But these

1:15:13this this cute little section right here

1:15:15under B is going to affect both future

1:15:21and present

1:15:24substantially.

1:15:26So I'm I'm trying to understand um

1:15:33what what the main issue is. But let me

1:15:37um our goal

1:15:38>> I am too. Something in here is giving me

1:15:40heartburn because this is going to have

1:15:41a huge impact. That's what I do know.

1:15:43This is going to impact crap out of our

1:15:45community.

1:15:46>> Okay. Up to this point

1:15:49um anybody in the state land use

1:15:52agricultural district pre76 and post76

1:15:56could do a B&B.

1:15:58Okay. they could come in and do a

1:16:01special permit and operate a bed and

1:16:03breakfast. Nothing prevented them from

1:16:06doing that up to this point. All of them

1:16:10would have required a special permit.

1:16:14What's happened now is the council has

1:16:17passed chapter six amendments which

1:16:20require everybody unhosted hosted B&Bs

1:16:26to come in and register. So they've gone

1:16:30through a process or are going through a

1:16:32process.

1:16:33We're trying to make it so that we don't

1:16:37um continue to make it like you you've

1:16:41gone through this registration now you

1:16:43should go through a land use permit.

1:16:45We're trying to minimize that process

1:16:48because they've come in and registered.

1:16:51We are aware of where they are, what

1:16:53they're doing. We can review them. We

1:16:55can observe them. We can work with them

1:16:58through our process that we've set up.

1:17:01We're trying to figure out as as council

1:17:05member Kimbo said avenues to make it

1:17:08easier. One is to permit these in the

1:17:11residential zones without a use permit.

1:17:14The other is to allow if you're in a

1:17:17single family dwelling that does not

1:17:19have the requirements for farming on

1:17:22pre76

1:17:24that shouldn't need to go through a

1:17:26special permit because you're basically

1:17:29not you don't have that requirement.

1:17:32Post 76 or a farm dwelling does have

1:17:35that requirement. There's nothing we can

1:17:38do to avoid that. That has to go through

1:17:40a special permit. We've already since uh

1:17:45September 1st and even before that have

1:17:48begun seeing a major increase in our

1:17:52department for special permit

1:17:54applications for bed and breakfast.

1:17:57So, it's it's I I I know that um

1:18:03you know, uh Council Member Kimell is

1:18:06really taking into consideration our

1:18:08ability, but if we ended up having to do

1:18:12a use permit and a special permit for

1:18:15every TVR on the island, we we couldn't

1:18:19do it. It would just it would be so

1:18:21beyond our capacity. Uh we just couldn't

1:18:24do it. But we want to create an avenue

1:18:28that they can come in, be registered,

1:18:30and operate legally.

1:18:37If I may, uh, Gene Campbell, Deputy

1:18:39Corporation Council, um, as you know, I

1:18:41[clears throat] work with the planning

1:18:42department.

1:18:45I don't know whether I can simplify

1:18:46this, but I'm going to try. Um it's as

1:18:51you know it's very very complicated and

1:18:53you're right it's very technical and I

1:18:55think one way to think about this

1:18:58approach for farm dwellings and single

1:19:01family dwellings and everything else is

1:19:03that the state law that as you know we

1:19:07can't change essentially governs who

1:19:09lives in which building right so a

1:19:13single family dwelling anybody can live

1:19:15there I don't need to be a farmer I

1:19:16don't need to get income from farming

1:19:18whatever just any old anybody can live

1:19:20in a single family dwelling. A farm

1:19:23dwelling on the other hand requires that

1:19:26somebody who lives in that house is

1:19:29essentially either the farmer, the guy

1:19:31who goes out and does the work or they

1:19:35own that land and they get their income

1:19:37or at least some portion of their income

1:19:39from that farming. And so when I the the

1:19:43section that you were just walking

1:19:44through is our best attempt to make sure

1:19:49that whatever we are doing and where we

1:19:51are letting these things happen complies

1:19:54with that state requirement for who has

1:19:57to live where. So we have a lot more

1:20:00leeway on those pre76 lots where anybody

1:20:02can live there. And that's why back in

1:20:05the day when we handed out

1:20:06non-conforming use certificates, you

1:20:08know, we had more leeway with that

1:20:10because anybody can be there. So it

1:20:12could be occupied only by rental people,

1:20:15people folks on vacation because they're

1:20:16not farming. But whenever you have a

1:20:19farm dwelling,

1:20:21all of a sudden it could never be an

1:20:23unhosted rental, right? Because somebody

1:20:26has to live in that building that is

1:20:28connected to that farm. And so even in

1:20:32the hosted realm,

1:20:34this is this is our best attempt to make

1:20:37sure that we're still complying with who

1:20:39gets to live where and how that works.

1:20:42So hopefully that's a little bit

1:20:44helpful. Maybe

1:20:46>> it is. It is helpful and I thank you for

1:20:48both your answers and then it's but what

1:20:52I see is the impact on community

1:20:54testimony gets testimony kind of

1:20:56enlighten us to what's what's going on

1:20:59but in the reality for me is with so

1:21:02many a parcels floating out there with

1:21:04this ability that meet pre-1976

1:21:08and to have such such tight wording

1:21:12under this first section that actually

1:21:15touches so many people without even

1:21:17saying that it's touching them is

1:21:21it's almost underinforming

1:21:24the public on what's about to happen

1:21:28when we pass the bill even though it's

1:21:30standard right now.

1:21:32So, thank you for clarifying that.

1:21:34That's helpful.

1:21:37Um my la my last question is with

1:21:39unhosted TVRs

1:21:44can be done in a areas correct

1:21:52unhosted uh TVRS can only be done in

1:21:57state land use agricultural district if

1:22:00they've received a nonconforming use

1:22:03certificate previously

1:22:07or going forward

1:22:10with the use permit.

1:22:11>> No,

1:22:12>> that's in here.

1:22:13>> That is the new section.

1:22:15>> Yes,

1:22:16>> that is the um what we're trying to

1:22:20capture this 31-day rental to a 179 day

1:22:26rental. But again, that's on pre76.

1:22:30It wouldn't be allowed on a post76.

1:22:34It would need to be in a single family

1:22:36dwelling.

1:22:39>> Do you guys have a the cute little sheet

1:22:41that you're going to hand out to

1:22:42everybody? We um

1:22:46yeah, I believe it was communication

1:22:50um 11 uh 806

1:22:55uh 011 and and that's we still depending

1:23:00on what happens we may have to adjust a

1:23:02little but it's a really nice um

1:23:05illustration of the different options.

1:23:07Um

1:23:090.9. Oh, I'm sorry. 0.9.

1:23:11>> Oh, 0.9. [clears throat] I don't have

1:23:13806.11, but I, you know, I'll look for

1:23:15that. Okay. 806.9. I have

1:23:19>> Oh, this I saw this before.

1:23:21>> Yeah.

1:23:25Okay.

1:23:27>> Yeah, there's a lot to unpack here. Um,

1:23:29Council Member Onishi,

1:23:31>> thank you, Madam Chair.

1:23:33Just [clears throat] to clarify. Okay.

1:23:34So post

1:23:3676

1:23:39it was called farm dwelling.

1:23:41>> Correct.

1:23:42>> But you didn't have to do farming.

1:23:45>> You you according to um state law a farm

1:23:51dwelling is a single family dwelling.

1:23:53>> Right.

1:23:54>> Um that

1:23:56have the definition here because I know

1:23:59some people that are living on egg,

1:24:02right? one acre and it's a farm dwelling

1:24:05because it was built after 1976,

1:24:08>> right?

1:24:08>> And they're not farming.

1:24:12>> Okay. Right.

1:24:14Yeah. So, so you don't really have to

1:24:16have like was mentioned earlier that you

1:24:19need to be doing some kind of farming,

1:24:21right?

1:24:23>> Um I mean it is required,

1:24:26>> right?

1:24:28If they're not doing it, they should.

1:24:30>> I know. But we all know that, right?

1:24:32>> Yeah.

1:24:33>> So, I think maybe that's what we should

1:24:35not really mention or or

1:24:39it should be amended because, you know,

1:24:41like for Big Island,

1:24:43>> like for example, Sunrise Ridge, is that

1:24:47it might be a pre76 subdivision? I'd

1:24:50have to look at that.

1:24:51>> Okay. Okay.

1:24:51>> Yeah. Okay. Um there as I mentioned

1:24:55previously there was a change in state

1:24:58law

1:25:00uh again that changed the definition

1:25:02right and so now the definition changed

1:25:06um as you heard uh referenced earlier

1:25:11there was a requirement for agricultural

1:25:13income. uh that requirement has been

1:25:17changed to be active agricultural

1:25:21occurring on the property. So now

1:25:24they're not looking so much for you know

1:25:27how much income did you do but do you

1:25:30have active agriculture on your

1:25:32property? the amount that is unclear,

1:25:36right? It doesn't say if it's one tree

1:25:39or two trees or, you know, it's unclear.

1:25:44Okay. Certain counties

1:25:46>> literally and I guess for property tax

1:25:48wise then that's where you have to

1:25:50prove, right? Okay. So, I just wanted to

1:25:52kind of mention that um we did meet and

1:25:56we talked about how we could just

1:26:00simplify this for now, right? Because

1:26:03you folks need this,

1:26:07right, to help enforcement for the

1:26:09registration. Correct.

1:26:11>> Absolutely. If I could expound on that.

1:26:14So what's happened right now is we have

1:26:17uh chapter 6 that's been implemented as

1:26:20of September 1st. Registrations are

1:26:23coming in. People want direction as to

1:26:26what I need to do next. If we tell them

1:26:30what to do now, it will require them to

1:26:33all get a permit. Right? If we we were

1:26:37asking them thank God for the you know

1:26:40period of time for grace, right? there

1:26:42was a one-year grace period, but um if

1:26:47if they wait and this passes, then the

1:26:52residential zoning can just we can

1:26:55confirm they're current with uh the

1:26:58registration. We would just address the

1:27:01post 76 with special permits. Um so that

1:27:06is uh a dilemma we're caught in in the

1:27:09middle right now that we're dealing

1:27:11with. So

1:27:14saying that what you just said. So if

1:27:16with all these amendments,

1:27:18right,

1:27:21if we can like maybe do this certain

1:27:24amendments later, would you be okay?

1:27:27Would the department be okay?

1:27:29>> I I would I would uh

1:27:31>> because

1:27:33>> most definitely. I mean, anything that

1:27:35passes now, we could just come back and

1:27:37and address the amendments,

1:27:39>> right? Okay.

1:27:40>> But if we can address the amendments too

1:27:43because they are good amendments. Um I'm

1:27:46you know I'm open to both.

1:27:48>> Then also it seems like for some council

1:27:51members it is not real comfortable.

1:27:55>> Okay. Right. And so there's going to

1:27:57take time to digest all this. Right.

1:28:00>> Sure.

1:28:00>> So for me I'm looking at how we can help

1:28:03the department

1:28:05right with the enforcement side. Right.

1:28:08>> Yeah. But making it where we can come

1:28:10back and do amendments later once the

1:28:13process starts going right because then

1:28:16then that way too you folks can see what

1:28:19needs to be changed and maybe what don't

1:28:21have to be changed.

1:28:22>> Sure.

1:28:22>> Right.

1:28:23>> Yeah.

1:28:23>> Whereas we do all this and then now what

1:28:26if we need to change things again?

1:28:28Right.

1:28:29>> Yeah.

1:28:30>> To adjust. So I don't I would recommend

1:28:33if you can maybe work with the baker and

1:28:36just do a real simple one for now just

1:28:39to help you guys moving forward right

1:28:42and then coming back later to do some

1:28:45amendments just my suggestions. Thanks.

1:28:48>> Yeah, thank you council member. I think

1:28:50um 806.14 is as simple as we're going to

1:28:53get. Um council member Viegas.

1:28:56>> Yeah. Um thank you for that statement

1:28:57council member Kirkowitz. This is a

1:29:00complex issue, has been a heavy lift. I

1:29:03give credit to Council Member Kimell for

1:29:06continuing to have the vigilance and

1:29:08determination

1:29:10um and also for the overall

1:29:15continued attitude of listening to the

1:29:18body here and always taking those

1:29:21suggestions and recommendations and

1:29:23coming back with something that um takes

1:29:26that into account. Also want to honor

1:29:28Council Member Kirkowitz's participation

1:29:30in um original bills 121 and 122 and 123

1:29:35and 124 and

1:29:37>> yeah [laughter]

1:29:38>> on and on

1:29:39>> on and on and on and on. Um I'm

1:29:43comfortable with this uh amendment

1:29:47today. Uh, I take into great

1:29:50consideration the advice of the um,

1:29:56Kona Community Action Committee and um,

1:30:01John Pellier and Nancy Pikio and their

1:30:04direct recommendation and suggestion

1:30:07that

1:30:08uh,

1:30:10removing unhosted STVRs is an allowable

1:30:12use in the multiple family residential

1:30:15zoning district. and they list a number

1:30:17of reasons for that. Um, and also

1:30:24anyway the acronyms are making me feel

1:30:27insane. Um but I will be supporting this

1:30:30amendment today and moving forward and

1:30:33hope you know I also want to say to the

1:30:36public these are policies and the only

1:30:41constant is change and so as things move

1:30:45forward there will be people negatively

1:30:47and positively affected.

1:30:50The intention is to realign our

1:30:53community to have an opportunity for

1:30:56long-term housing. District 7 is

1:30:59inundated, overwhelmed, and

1:31:02disproportionately

1:31:04affected by the short-term housing

1:31:07markets for a number of different

1:31:10reasons. And so that in I would like

1:31:13that to be understood. Um, that's the

1:31:16deepest intention of this legislation

1:31:18and trying to

1:31:21improve on Bill 108, redefine things.

1:31:25And I also want to challenge the people

1:31:26that are out there. Please stop finding

1:31:28the loopholes. Please understand that

1:31:31we're trying to do our best to serve our

1:31:33community and ensure that people can

1:31:34find and afford housing, especially our

1:31:37Kahina and Makaana. So those that

1:31:41continue to nefariously manipulate

1:31:43systems that are put into effect in best

1:31:45way possible, you're not helping the

1:31:48collective of our community. So I think

1:31:51that honesty, integrity, and commitment

1:31:54to the collective good to ensure

1:31:56healthy, safe, affordable housing is the

1:32:00intention here and we ask for everyone's

1:32:03support. I yield.

1:32:04>> Thank you. Council member Kimble, did

1:32:06you have any comments?

1:32:08>> Yeah. Um, I I want to just It is a long

1:32:12document, but everything after page four

1:32:15is really just dealing with all those

1:32:17different sections in chapter 25 that

1:32:19talks about each donating district and

1:32:21what is permitted in each zoning

1:32:22district. So, they're sort of

1:32:24immaterial. I think your comment, this

1:32:26is as simple as going to get is the nail

1:32:28on the head. Um when the director made

1:32:31their recommendations to the planning

1:32:34commissions who both passed this you

1:32:35know supported unanimously favorable

1:32:38towards 147 there were a series of

1:32:40corrective and editorial amendments.

1:32:42That is the bulk of what is in this

1:32:45amendment is just things where we needed

1:32:46to make some corrections or there were

1:32:48errors there were omissions. Um the the

1:32:52couple of areas where there's not RM and

1:32:55I'm glad you brought that up um Council

1:32:57Member Connie Lee Kleinfelter because

1:32:59that is a policy shift. RM STVRs are

1:33:03permitted in all RM right now as long as

1:33:05they're CPRed. What this would say is

1:33:07that going forward no new residential

1:33:10multif family units that have not

1:33:12received plan approval outside of the

1:33:14resort nodes will not be useful for

1:33:16STBRs. that is a a a shift in policy and

1:33:20I think it's an important one and one I

1:33:21support and it was the one that was

1:33:23recommended by the Kona CDP action

1:33:24committee. The other one is the CN um

1:33:27that is permitted that that was not

1:33:29permitted in is not permitted in the

1:33:32current code. It was added with 147.

1:33:35We're taking it out with the exception

1:33:36of the resort notes which is basically

1:33:38just bringing it back to what is in

1:33:39chapter 125 right now. The other parts

1:33:42that are material are the very last two

1:33:45sections which provides the grace period

1:33:48and it provides um the ability to um

1:33:51wave the signage posting of requirements

1:33:54for folks when they're doing their bed

1:33:56and breakfast application so that we can

1:33:58process. There will be a a boatload of

1:34:00them coming through and we just don't

1:34:02want signs everywhere. So, we're just

1:34:03removing that requirement. Other than

1:34:05that, seven pages five through the rest

1:34:08are just those corrections to those

1:34:10sections of the code.

1:34:12I would I would urge everyone because

1:34:14there are corrective components in this

1:34:17to pass this today and get us back to um

1:34:20147. If there are many additional

1:34:22changes like bringing back in the

1:34:24definition of bed and breakfast and just

1:34:25assigning that to use permits and

1:34:27special units for use permits before,

1:34:29let's do that at first reading. I'm

1:34:31happy to bring that forward. But um in

1:34:34order to help the department

1:34:37147 and these corrections are important

1:34:40to move through and I ask for everyone's

1:34:42support. Thank you.

1:34:43>> Thank you. Council member Kenny E.

1:34:44Kleinfelder.

1:34:45>> Okay. Sorry Jeff. You did good. Okay.

1:34:49I'm just thinking I'm just trying to

1:34:50wrap my head all the way through it.

1:34:52Right. If I just looked at number one.

1:34:56If I'm pre-1976

1:35:00and I build a single family dwelling on

1:35:02my property

1:35:06and then

1:35:07I decide

1:35:11to build another dwelling.

1:35:18I now have a single family. No, no, no,

1:35:20no. Yeah. Yeah. I do have a single

1:35:22family dwelling and now I have a farm

1:35:23dwelling. Right. pre-1976.

1:35:27But if I just stopped right at number

1:35:28one,

1:35:30no

1:35:33a hosted TVR

1:35:35is allowed

1:35:38on a use land. Sorry, on state land use

1:35:42a

1:35:44if there's no farm dwelling on the

1:35:46building site. So, if [clears throat] I

1:35:48just read that real literally,

1:35:51and if this is intentional, then fine.

1:35:53But if I read that literally,

1:35:57no vacation rental hosted

1:36:00is allowed

1:36:02on a pre-1976 lot with a single family

1:36:06dwelling and a farm dwelling because

1:36:09this says there is no farm dwelling on

1:36:12the building site.

1:36:14When that becomes conditional

1:36:17and I build a farm dwelling, there's now

1:36:18a farm dwelling on my building site.

1:36:21There is no longer hosted vacation

1:36:23rental available to me just because I

1:36:25built a farm dwelling. Is that correct?

1:36:28>> You would go to number two.

1:36:30>> I But why? Because this is an or

1:36:34>> it's

1:36:36if you only So if you only have a single

1:36:41family dwelling on your property, that's

1:36:43one.

1:36:45If you add a farm dwelling or if you're

1:36:49post 76, it's number two and a special

1:36:54permit would be required.

1:36:57Well, I don't know if it's just me, but

1:36:59I'm reading this differently.

1:37:03To me, I take this as if I just looked

1:37:05at number one. I and I understand

1:37:07there's one and two under this section,

1:37:09but a pre-1976 lot that builds a single

1:37:12family dwelling and then adds an

1:37:14additional farm building, which is fine.

1:37:16Anybody can do that. As soon as you do

1:37:18that though, just looking at number one,

1:37:21you are not allowed to have a vacation

1:37:23rental. And I know that I can drop down

1:37:25to number two. This has different

1:37:27implications as well because we're

1:37:29discussing pre and post 1976.

1:37:32But if I just looked at number one, and

1:37:35if this is intentional, then fine, so be

1:37:36it. Number one, as soon as there's a

1:37:40single family dwelling, because that's

1:37:41what a pre-1976 house is called, and you

1:37:44put a farm dwelling on your property,

1:37:46which is allowable by state code and

1:37:47county codes, you you're within your

1:37:50realms. But according to this section,

1:37:52now a hosted TVR is no longer permitted.

1:37:56I I don't even have to go to number two

1:37:58because

1:37:59I just cut myself off.

1:38:02Is it am I maybe it's Campbell or or you

1:38:05whoever wants to answer unless I'm

1:38:06missing something.

1:38:07>> I I I believe you're possibly reading

1:38:11into it too much. It it is meant

1:38:16it is

1:38:16>> I agree but this is county code. Once we

1:38:18put this is a law. Um

1:38:22I mean what we can do I mean we still

1:38:24have a little time if there's there it

1:38:28could be adjusted to be a little clearer

1:38:31maybe um so that this isn't so confusing

1:38:34but the way we read it is

1:38:38the number one was meant for those a

1:38:41lots that only have a single family

1:38:44dwelling. There is no farm dwelling.

1:38:47Once you put a farm dwelling on the

1:38:49property, whether it's pre or post,

1:38:53number two applies

1:38:56where the farm dwelling is the principal

1:38:59home of the host. Correct.

1:39:07I'm not in love with the wording.

1:39:10I think it's problematic. I really do. I

1:39:12think that you packed a lot of

1:39:13information into this

1:39:16as I spent the last 20 minutes wrapping

1:39:18my head around these two sentences

1:39:19because I know how many people this will

1:39:21affect and I'm still not sold on the

1:39:23language.

1:39:24>> I I think we can make it clear.

1:39:29>> I I think there is an issue in the

1:39:31language here. Corporation council, you

1:39:32might want to take a look at that. Maybe

1:39:33I'm crazy. Okay. But number one, when as

1:39:35soon as it says there's no farm dwelling

1:39:37on the building site, that to me locks

1:39:40out. That even locks out number two

1:39:42because as soon as you say there's no

1:39:44farm dwelling on the site, a pre76 lot

1:39:46can have a single family dwelling,

1:39:49that's the right term, plus a farm

1:39:51dwelling. But as soon as there's no

1:39:52farm, soon as you say there's a farm

1:39:54dwelling on the property,

1:39:58you've just locked yourself out of a

1:40:00hosted vacation. I don't know if that's

1:40:01purposeful, okay, but I know I can go to

1:40:03number two, but it just doesn't it

1:40:06doesn't

1:40:08align that one. I I think I can clarify

1:40:12this if if given the opportunity.

1:40:14>> I think they did to me already, but I'm

1:40:16just not

1:40:16>> No, I I think there's still a

1:40:17fundamental piece that's missing that if

1:40:20I may

1:40:21>> include Okay. As the law is written

1:40:25right now, any bed and breakfast or

1:40:28hosted rental on state land use egg

1:40:32requires a special use permit. What is

1:40:35being proposed in 147 is that if

1:40:40you are have a single family home

1:40:42because it is a pre976

1:40:45lot, you will no longer be required to

1:40:49get a special use permit. So, I think

1:40:51what I'm hearing from you is a concern

1:40:53that a whole bunch of people are going

1:40:54to have to come in and get a special use

1:40:56permit. They would

1:40:59except with 147. We're saying if you're

1:41:02on a pre-1976 lot and you're doing that

1:41:04special that hosted rental in a single

1:41:06family home, you don't need the special

1:41:08use permit because the entire mechanism

1:41:11of the special use permit is based on

1:41:13that definition of the farm dwelling.

1:41:16Now, we could have used language of

1:41:18pre-1976, post9676,

1:41:21but if you look at that document

1:41:22provided by Maya Jackson, there were

1:41:25other scenarios where you have a

1:41:26pre-1976 lot, you have a single family

1:41:28home and you have an ohana or you have a

1:41:31pre-1976 lot and you have a guest house.

1:41:35And so, the cleanest way because the law

1:41:38that we are subjected to is the HRS

1:41:41205-4.5.

1:41:43The cleanest way to define it is around

1:41:45the farm dwelling because state law

1:41:47requires somebody living in that

1:41:49dwelling that is connected with farm

1:41:51work. Does that help

1:42:00kind of

1:42:02>> helping?

1:42:06>> Okay, maybe this is me. Good luck.

1:42:09>> Um, we are at 12:11. Our next committee

1:42:12starts at 12:30. Um, if there are no

1:42:14more questions or comments on this

1:42:15measure, I do want to move forward with

1:42:17a vote because council member Hustus

1:42:18also has an amendment and that I'd like

1:42:20to move this out of committee today. Um,

1:42:22there are opportunities to massage some

1:42:25language. I I think that there are

1:42:27members that have expressed interest in

1:42:28clarifying certain sections. So, we

1:42:30welcome those at the next committee

1:42:32hearing. Um, any other questions or

1:42:35comments on this measure? Overall, very

1:42:38good fe I I appreciated all the work

1:42:40that's gone into this particular

1:42:41amendment. I can't support it because of

1:42:43the inclusion of 254C. I would have

1:42:46preferred a robust discussion on that

1:42:49particular piece separate from this

1:42:51measure. So, I'll be advancing something

1:42:53at the next reading. All right. U Mr.

1:42:55Clerk, if we could please do a roll call

1:42:57vote on the motion to amend Bill 147

1:43:00with the contents of communication

1:43:02806.14.

1:43:04>> Thank you, chair. on that motion to

1:43:06amend bill 147 with the contents of

1:43:08communication 806.14.

1:43:10Miss Kima

1:43:12>> I

1:43:13>> Mr. Hust

1:43:14>> I

1:43:15>> Mr. Inaba

1:43:16>> no

1:43:18>> Miss Kagiada

1:43:19>> hi

1:43:20>> Mr. Connie Kleinfielder

1:43:21>> no

1:43:22>> Miss Kimble

1:43:24>> I

1:43:25>> Mr. Nishi.

1:43:26>> No.

1:43:27>> Miss Viegas.

1:43:28>> Hi.

1:43:29>> Chair Kirkowitz.

1:43:30>> No.

1:43:33>> Chair, you have five votes in favor with

1:43:35Mr. Inaba, Mr. Caneli Kleinfelder, Mr.

1:43:38Onishi, and yourself voting no. The

1:43:40motion passes.

1:43:41>> Thank you, Mr. Hust.

1:43:43>> Thank you, chair. Uh, first question,

1:43:45director. I'm curious on um ordinance

1:43:472550. I asked you this last time. I'm

1:43:50going to keep asking you about this.

1:43:52what has been our uptake and intake of

1:43:54of and I know you said last time people

1:43:55are waiting for what's happening here in

1:43:58the deliberation but I'm curious how

1:43:59people are you know going into that

1:44:01system accessing it submitting

1:44:03applications so they uh we've had a

1:44:07steady stream of what we call BBRs um

1:44:11which are hosted rentals and Tstrs

1:44:16which is our unhosted um they're about

1:44:19the same I would say 50 each have come

1:44:22in at this point. Um, we've gotten an an

1:44:26incredible amount of inquiries from the

1:44:30public. Um, a lot of them are asking

1:44:34questions about Bill 147, what they

1:44:38should do, um, in regards to the fact,

1:44:41like I said, we're kind of in this limbo

1:44:44state. Um, most of those are bed and

1:44:46breakfast because STV STRs are typically

1:44:51in a permitted zoning district. Um,

1:44:54you'd have to be in there. Um, so

1:44:58there's two things that we're

1:44:59anticipating happening. Um, once uh

1:45:03whatever happens with Bill 147 happens,

1:45:07we we probably will see an influx of

1:45:10registrations come in. Additionally,

1:45:14um I believe there in um 2550

1:45:18there was a time period to allow people

1:45:23to come in without any kind of

1:45:25enforcement. That was to January 1st.

1:45:29Once that time period passes, what uh

1:45:33Rental Scape or Decard, our um the one

1:45:37who is uh overseeing our enforcement

1:45:41program of rentalscape, they are going

1:45:43to um send out a courtesy letter to

1:45:47everybody that's operating but has not

1:45:50registered. We definitely will see uh a

1:45:54major u increase in registrations at

1:45:58that point

1:46:00>> because we've got about two and a half

1:46:02months, two a little over two months

1:46:03till the deadline and the economic

1:46:06impact study showed about 4,000.

1:46:08>> Correct.

1:46:10>> Okay. So, all right.

1:46:11>> Yeah.

1:46:12>> All right. Okay. Thank you for that. Um

1:46:15All right. So I would chair a motion to

1:46:18uh further amend bill 147 with the

1:46:21contents of communication 806.11.

1:46:25>> There's a motion by council member

1:46:26Hustus and a second by council member

1:46:28Onishi to amend bill 147 as amended with

1:46:31the contents of communication 806.11.

1:46:34Mr. Hust.

1:46:35>> Thank you chair. I'll keep this brief.

1:46:36You know, Bill 147 identifies uh

1:46:39advertising, booking availability, tax

1:46:43returns, uh third party information as a

1:46:46prima fascia evidence and then those

1:46:48things may establish that the property

1:46:50is being used as a transmucation rental,

1:46:52but they don't necessarily establish

1:46:54that a violation has occurred. So, this

1:46:56amendment makes a a clear distinction.

1:46:59It creates a rebuttable presumption uh

1:47:01that the property is being used as a

1:47:03transient vacation rental while still

1:47:05requiring that the county to determine

1:47:06whether that actual

1:47:09uh operation violates the code. It also

1:47:13requires a warning before an

1:47:15administrative fine is being imposed,

1:47:18giving the owner an opportunity to cease

1:47:19activity, correct the violation,

1:47:22demonstrate that the operation is

1:47:23lawful, and then the director must

1:47:25verify compliance before proceeding with

1:47:28the fine.

1:47:31>> I just want to confirm that all members

1:47:32have a copy of the amendment.

1:47:38>> Chair, it was submitted at last

1:47:39committee, so it should be in the

1:47:40records for all of you. It's not It was

1:47:43at it came up at committee last time. We

1:47:45just didn't have time for it. The

1:47:46discussion there.

1:47:49So, you should have a digital copy of

1:47:50it. I apologize. But the fines

1:47:52themselves are, you know, not being

1:47:54removed or reduced by any means. So,

1:47:56this amendment is simply making sure

1:47:58that before we impose any significant

1:47:59fines that there's and penalties that

1:48:01there's a notice, an opportunity to

1:48:03respond, and then verification of that

1:48:05violation.

1:48:07Thank you, chair.

1:48:11I'm having some um printed copies run

1:48:13off for everyone. It's not pinned to the

1:48:15agenda, so it's a little bit tricky for

1:48:16folks to find. Um thank you, Council

1:48:18Member Hustus, for that. Council member

1:48:20Kimell.

1:48:21>> Yeah. Um thank you. Um supportive of the

1:48:24first half of this amendment. Um it's it

1:48:26is a little redundant because of state

1:48:28law requirements um regarding the

1:48:31ability to refute a

1:48:35a claim, right? And so there's already

1:48:38require and director can speak to this,

1:48:39but there's already kind of that

1:48:40requirement of notification and

1:48:42opportunity to remedy the situation. Um

1:48:47the second half I I take issue with um

1:48:49because it it would limit the department

1:48:52from using permopacia evidence

1:48:55exclusively to determining whether or

1:48:57not somebody is actually operating. But

1:48:59there are other

1:49:02aspects of the operational standards

1:49:04that could only be or would be most

1:49:08easily identified through that same

1:49:10premopacia evidence. For example, um the

1:49:14operational standards don't allow for

1:49:17advertisement of like wedding services

1:49:20unless you have a special use permit to

1:49:22provide wedding services on the site.

1:49:24And so without the ability to go to

1:49:28those advertising platforms and identify

1:49:31people who are offering those services

1:49:33without having the special use permit

1:49:35and using having that premopacia

1:49:37evidence, I think that would hinder the

1:49:40um the department's ability to do

1:49:43enforcement at some level. So, what I

1:49:45would I would be happy to support an

1:49:47amendment that included the first

1:49:49component um and maybe look at words

1:49:52smithing the second depending on what

1:49:54you're trying to accomplish, but as the

1:49:57amendment is written right now, um

1:49:59because of that second half, I can't

1:50:00support it.

1:50:06>> Council member Eustace,

1:50:08>> uh thanks. I appreciate the insight

1:50:10there. I I kind of value them connected

1:50:13in in part there. Um I see them as part

1:50:16of that same due process framework. You

1:50:18know that the primmaascia is determining

1:50:21the that what the evidence establishes

1:50:24and then the warning provision

1:50:25determines what the county does with

1:50:27that evidence before imposing the fine.

1:50:29So that's that's kind of how I see it.

1:50:31So thanks Sher.

1:50:34>> Council member Enappa. Uh yeah, for the

1:50:39corporation council,

1:50:41have we had the opportunity to review

1:50:44this amendment? And I know uh for

1:50:46another bill that's currently going

1:50:48through council uh the litigation

1:50:51division specifically uh had wanted to

1:50:54chime in and that was more so uh

1:50:57speaking to notice as well. So wondering

1:51:00if we need to make sure that they're

1:51:03getting their eyes on this or if you've

1:51:04shared it with them. Um, I actually

1:51:07personally have not seen this amendment.

1:51:10Um, and I apologize. Um, the actual

1:51:14corporation council has stepped out for

1:51:15a moment, so I can't confirm with her

1:51:17whether she's reviewed it or not. Um, so

1:51:20I I think the answer is we don't have an

1:51:22answer for you right now.

1:51:27>> Okay. Thank you.

1:51:30>> It would be great to refine processes,

1:51:33director. um your corporation council

1:51:36that's assigned to your department is

1:51:38monitoring items that are being

1:51:39introduced related to this bill by the

1:51:42introducer by members of this body. Um

1:51:46do they need to formally request an

1:51:47opinion or can we just assume that

1:51:50amendments coming through for a

1:51:52particular bill will be reviewed and we

1:51:54can expect an opinion and a legal

1:51:56review?

1:51:58>> I agree and yeah that's typical. I think

1:52:01this was a unique situation.

1:52:04>> Okay.

1:52:04>> Um it seems like uh maybe all of us

1:52:08missed this particular because it was

1:52:11introduced at last hearing, but I I I

1:52:14had it. I um I would I would like to

1:52:17speak on it if I could.

1:52:19>> Absolutely.

1:52:20>> Thank you. So, um,

1:52:23uh, Council Member Hust, um, we've been,

1:52:26you know, we've been working with

1:52:29unhosted rentals for, you know, 6 years

1:52:32now, maybe longer. And this was a real

1:52:37help to the planning department because

1:52:41to be able to get a um a complaint

1:52:46and to have to go and investigate

1:52:50similar to our typical complaint like

1:52:52let's say we get a complaint that

1:52:54somebody's operating a baseard, right?

1:52:57We go over there, we can see all the

1:53:00trucks, we can see all the activity

1:53:02going on. It's much more difficult to go

1:53:06and observe somebody in a vacation

1:53:10rental

1:53:12um just by reviewing. And I've heard

1:53:14horror stories from other counties that

1:53:17they've gone to great lengths to try to

1:53:20find um to do that. Uh they'll go with

1:53:24police. they'll you know disrupt

1:53:27activity at the particular home to prove

1:53:30that this uh activity is occurring. When

1:53:34we look at the primaaccia evidence that

1:53:37we've been monitoring, it provides us

1:53:40with advertising

1:53:43um days that they are rented the amounts

1:53:46of money that they made for that

1:53:49particular rental um during that

1:53:52particular time.

1:53:55uh the reviews from people regarding the

1:53:58activity. So, it's very thorough and

1:54:02it's been extremely helpful for us to

1:54:04utilize that in our enforcement action.

1:54:08Um I completely agree. Um and it is our

1:54:12process that before we do anything, we

1:54:15send out a courtesy letter, which is a

1:54:18type of warning letter. We used to call

1:54:20it a warning letter. We softened it a

1:54:23bit by calling it a court courtesy

1:54:25letter because of the fact that it had

1:54:28um negative connotations even though

1:54:32state law refers to it as a warning

1:54:34letter. Um we our goal as mentioned

1:54:38several times before this council is to

1:54:40try to work with people to uh come into

1:54:44compliance. Um I'm I'm not sure if

1:54:48that's going to make any difference. It

1:54:49just um and I'm not really

1:54:53absolutely sure what that uh last

1:54:56sentence on B actually says in regards

1:55:00to what is being asked of planning.

1:55:07>> Council member Hus, do you want to

1:55:08clarify for the director?

1:55:11I

1:55:11>> mean, this was in in partnership and

1:55:13working with LRB to kind of present some

1:55:14of this language here and connecting the

1:55:17dots here. Um that rebuttable

1:55:20presumption.

1:55:22Yeah.

1:55:24Yeah.

1:55:28Is it is it a is it a statement that

1:55:32would like additional work done by the

1:55:36by the department?

1:55:48>> [snorts]

1:55:48>> Sorry, I don't have an answer on that

1:55:50one. That's this is this is what we

1:55:51worked with at LB on this. So, I don't

1:55:53know if LB wanted to provide any other

1:55:55insight onto this here.

1:55:56>> Not a problem. Thank you.

1:55:58>> Yep.

1:56:01>> Council member Kimell.

1:56:02>> Yeah. If I may ask a point of

1:56:05clarification to the maker, if I I think

1:56:07what I understand that you're trying to

1:56:09do with this second amendment is to to

1:56:12really reframe that piece about the

1:56:15burden of proof

1:56:18shifting from the owner

1:56:21with respect to these this primmaaccia

1:56:24evidence and

1:56:27making it clear that the primmaaccia

1:56:30evidence as identified side can be

1:56:33rebutted through this process. Not so

1:56:37much. I don't I don't I I'm hearing that

1:56:40your intention wasn't to limit the scope

1:56:42of what premopacia evidence could be

1:56:45gathered for. Um but it's just just the

1:56:48nature of how it would be used, which

1:56:50I'm okay with, but I think we need to

1:56:52change the wording to do that. And I'm

1:56:53happy to work with you to accomplish

1:56:54that if that's what you were trying to

1:56:56do with this.

1:56:57>> That's kind of the direction I was going

1:56:58with that.

1:56:58>> Okay. I I think that this is problematic

1:57:01in the wording that it has, but I'm

1:57:03happy to work with you to accomplish

1:57:05what you're trying to accomplish and I I

1:57:07don't have a problem with that.

1:57:08>> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And

1:57:11chair, if I

1:57:12>> Absolutely.

1:57:12>> Thank you. You know, and I director, I

1:57:15appreciate, you know, you're talking

1:57:16about the warning letters, but it's not

1:57:18spelled out anywhere. So, that was the

1:57:19attempt to kind of provide some strategy

1:57:22and the process about what we're going

1:57:24through. That's very clear to community

1:57:26members. And I think that's that's what

1:57:28I was trying to get out here and making

1:57:30sure that it was very clear because you

1:57:32know if that's if that's like an

1:57:34administrative rule if those are things

1:57:35that you're doing you know that's not

1:57:38necessarily out in front and center on

1:57:40these sort of things. So I wanted to be

1:57:41very clear in the process that we're

1:57:42going through these it just doesn't go

1:57:43to board of appeals that that there is

1:57:45the there are these step-by-step process

1:57:47and that future directors and future

1:57:49planning directors and the departments

1:57:50kind of carry these process and

1:57:52procedure forward.

1:57:53>> Appreciate that. Thank you.

1:57:54>> Thank you. Any other questions or

1:57:58comments? Sounds like you're going to be

1:58:00withdrawing and working with the maker

1:58:01of 147 to massage language that's been

1:58:04articulated in this measure.

1:58:06>> Yes, sure. I'll withdraw them the motion

1:58:08for now. Thank you.

1:58:09>> Okay. Great discussion. Glad we're all

1:58:11on the same page here. I don't see any

1:58:14other amendments

1:58:16hiding in the wings. Therefore, we are

1:58:19going to move forward on the vote for

1:58:22Bill 147 as amended. Moving it to first

1:58:26reading. Um, Mr. Clerk, if you could

1:58:29please do a roll call vote

1:58:31>> on the motion to forward bill 147 to

1:58:34council with a favorable recommendation.

1:58:36Sorry, Bill 147 as amended to council

1:58:38with a favorable recommendation. Miss

1:58:40Kimba,

1:58:41>> I

1:58:42>> Mr. Hustess,

1:58:44>> no.

1:58:45>> Mr. Inaba,

1:58:46>> no.

1:58:47>> Miss Kagi,

1:58:48>> I.

1:58:49>> Mr. Kylie Kleinfielder,

1:58:51>> no. Miss Kimble,

1:58:53>> hi.

1:58:54>> Mr. Onishi,

1:58:55>> no.

1:58:56>> Miss Viegas,

1:58:58>> hi.

1:58:59>> Chair Kirkowitz,

1:59:00>> no.

1:59:02>> Chair, you have four four votes in

1:59:04favor, five nos. Uh, the eyes were Miss

1:59:08Kimbo, Miss Kagiada, Miss Kimbo, and

1:59:11Miss Viegas. The motion moves forward to

1:59:13council with unfavorable recommendation.

1:59:15>> Thank you. That brings us to the end of

1:59:17the agenda. We are adjourned at 12:28

1:59:19p.m. Thank you.

```*