2026-11-05 - Policy Committee on Planning Land Use and Economic Development

00:00to the 34th session of the Policy

00:02Committee on Planning, Land Use, and

00:03Economic Development. Today is Thursday,

00:06November 5th, 2026, and I'm calling this

00:09meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Present

00:12for committee today are council members

00:14Jennifer Kagiwada, James Hustace, Uluka

00:16Inaba, Matt Kenneally Kleinfeilder,

00:19Michelle Galimba, Heather Kimball.

00:21Joining us shortly is council member

00:23Fresh Onishi. Excused for today is

00:25council member Rebecca Viagas. At this

00:28time, we will be taking statements from

00:29the public. Mr. Araceli, could you lead

00:31us through that process?

00:33>> Thank you so much, Madam Chair. We do

00:35have one testify via Zoom, David Stout,

00:38testifying on Bill 208. David, if you're

00:40ready at this time to provide your

00:41testimony, please unmute, introduce

00:43yourself, and you'll have 3 minutes.

00:46>> Sure. My name is David Stout, and I am a

00:48resident of Waimea, and I speak in favor

00:50of Bill 208. Um

00:53I It's uh one of the things we're

00:55looking forward to in retirement is to

00:57be able to uh exchange our home and be

01:00able to travel where

01:02I

01:03We don't have I mean, it's it's um

01:06we're not looking for payment or remun-

01:08remuneration. It's just that we'd like

01:10to be able to exchange our house and not

01:13receive any compensation, and we'd like

01:15that to be exempt from

01:17um

01:18any tax laws.

01:21That's it.

01:25>> Thank you so much for your testimony,

01:26and with that, Chair, those are all the

01:28testimonies you have for your meeting.

01:30>> Thank you. And at this time, I'm

01:31actually going to I'm going to transfer

01:32the chairmanship to

01:33>> Part you're doing Well, you may do so

01:35now, but we have a testifier here, but

01:37>> Oh, I apologize. Sorry.

01:38>> like to pass the baton now, I won't stop

01:40you.

01:42>> I'm sorry. Didn't realize you had

01:43another testifier.

01:44>> The time pass?

01:46No?

01:47>> Feel free to pass the baton.

01:47>> Okay, super duper.

01:49Um Sherman Warner, please come forward.

01:53Provide testimony on Bill number 208.

01:59Mr. Warner, if you just activate the

02:00microphone, there's a button there with

02:02a green sticker on it. The light will

02:03turn red. It means you're ready. And if

02:06you'll have 3 minutes, and please um

02:08start by introducing yourself and

02:10proceed.

02:12>> Good afternoon, Chair Cook, Vice Chair

02:14Galimba, and members of the Policy

02:15Committee on Planning, Land Use, and

02:17Economic Development. I'm Sherman

02:19Warner, a resident of Waimea, and I'm

02:21here to testify in favor of Bill 208.

02:24Since retiring 25 years ago and

02:27returning to Hawaii, where I spent the

02:28first 25 years of my life, my wife and I

02:31have participated in more than 50 home

02:33exchanges.

02:35With one or two exceptions for very

02:36specific and unavoidable reasons, these

02:39have been direct and simultaneous

02:41exchanges. No cash or any other forms of

02:44payment, including cleaning fees, have

02:47been paid or accepted. These are

02:49net-zero transactions without reportable

02:52income of any kind.

02:55The owners of the homes we stay in,

02:57whether in Europe, New York City, or the

02:58Bay Area, are staying in our house while

03:00we're away. We own one home, so our home

03:04exchanges have absolutely no effect on

03:07the available housing stock in Hawaii

03:09County.

03:10Instead of leaving our house empty while

03:12we travel, there have been 60 tourist

03:14families putting money into the Hawaii

03:16County economy during our absence.

03:20We have only two grandchildren,

03:238 and 12 years old, and they live in the

03:26Bay Area. My wife and I are 85 and 82

03:29years old, and we treasure the time we

03:32have remaining to watch our mau opuna

03:35grow up.

03:36Our son's home doesn't have a guest room

03:38or space for us to stay.

03:40Without home exchanges, the cost of

03:43staying in a Silicon Valley hotel or

03:45Airbnb, renting a car, eating meals in

03:49restaurants would be prohibitively

03:51expensive.

03:52With home exchange,

03:54airfares are our only significant cost.

03:57If Bill 208 fails to pass,

04:00each visit to our family would cost many

04:02thousands of dollars more.

04:05Watching Max and Vivian grow up is one

04:08of the great joys of our lives, our

04:10remaining lives.

04:12And a failure to pass Bill 208 would

04:14cause us to consider

04:17leaving Hawaii to be closer to them.

04:20For 43 years, I've been a patient at

04:22Memorial Sloan Kettering

04:24Kettering Cancer Center, one of the

04:26world's leading cancer treatment

04:27centers, where I've been treated for

04:29multiple melanoma cancers.

04:32At the time that we sold our New York

04:33City home and committed to moving back

04:35to Hawaii,

04:36I developed a stage three melanoma.

04:39And my follow-up treatment continued

04:41after our move to Hawaii.

04:44I continued to see the the experts,

04:47which actually are

04:49globally recognized experts.

04:52My oncologist is one of the people who

04:54is expected to solve the problem of

04:56creating a genetic vaccine for melanoma.

05:00All of my trips back, and there have

05:02been many of them, to be regularly

05:03monitored, to participate in

05:06as a guinea pig in cancer vaccine

05:09studies.

05:11I have often used home exchange to be

05:13able to afford those trips.

05:15Uh even my doctors at Queens say, "Don't

05:18give that up. Keep seeing those guys.

05:20They have expertise and equipment and

05:22technology that we don't."

05:24>> Mr. Warner.

05:25>> Yes.

05:25>> Mr. Warner, over here. Hi. Your time to

05:28give your testimony um is elapsed.

05:31If you have a very quick final remark,

05:33>> I uh

05:34>> Okay, you have 30

05:35>> Hawaii County has nothing to gain by

05:36applying short-term vacation rental laws

05:38to our simultaneous home exchange.

05:41Well, we would be required to deal with

05:43a plethora

05:44of GETs

05:46and spending thousands of dollars

05:48unnecessarily, losing our property tax

05:50exemption,

05:51and reducing our valued time with

05:53family.

05:54>> Thank you for providing your testimony,

05:55Mr. Warner.

06:01>> Mr. Clerk, before I um

06:03relinquish the chairmanship to Ms.

06:05Galimba. Our Council Chair has requested

06:07that we take up Bill 207 first.

06:10>> Okay. Thank

06:11>> So, this time I will pass the

06:12chairmanship to Vice Chair Galimba at

06:141:42 p.m.

06:19>> Thank you, Chair Kirkwood.

06:21Um Mr. Hendricks, could you please read

06:23in Bill 207?

06:25>> Bill 207 amends chapters 2 and 11 of the

06:28White County Code 1983-2016

06:30edition as amended relating to

06:31affordable housing, establishes the

06:33affordable housing requirements for

06:34various types of development, prescribes

06:36income-based pricing, eligibility

06:38preferences, resale restrictions, and

06:40other regulations for affordable

06:41housing, requires at least $15 million

06:43annually for an affordable housing

06:45production fund, offers incentives such

06:47as density bonuses, relaxed construction

06:49standards, and expedited permitting for

06:51certain developments, and should it pass

06:52Council members Kirkwood and Inaba.

06:55>> Chair motion to forward Bill 207 to the

06:57Council with a favorable recommendation.

06:59>> Second.

06:59>> It's been moved by

07:01Council member Kirkwood. Seconded by

07:03Council member Inaba.

07:05To forward Bill 207 to the Council with

07:08favorable recommendation, Council member

07:10Kirkwood.

07:11>> Thank you, Chair Galimba. Um

07:14this has been a very valiant years-long

07:15effort to do a comprehensive review and

07:19now overhaul of our county's affordable

07:21housing policy.

07:23I think the central question that we've

07:24been asking ourselves as Council and as

07:26Office of Housing and Community

07:27Development is how can we require new

07:30developments to contribute to affordable

07:32housing while making it financially

07:35feasible to build that housing, protect

07:38long-term affordability, and ensure that

07:40developer contributions actually produce

07:43measurable public benefit.

07:45Um I want to just mahalo nui my

07:47colleagues, especially um Chair Inaba,

07:49for his, you know, leadership and

07:51support and um support from Council

07:53members Eustace and Kagiwada, and last

07:56ad hoc Council member Lee Loy and

07:57members of the Office of Housing and

07:59Community Development for working so

08:01diligently with the Council and engaging

08:04our offices and the community so that we

08:06can bring forward this body of work

08:08today and feel free to come forward

08:09because this has been a very

08:11collaborative process and it's I think

08:13it's been very um useful to be working

08:16in partnership because as we dove into

08:20reviewing this code and engaging members

08:22of the community, we found that there

08:24was lack of clarity by the office and

08:27the community creating a certain level

08:30of uncertainty on how to proceed with

08:32housing development. Um so it's been an

08:34honor to work with you folks to clarify

08:36that language so that you have

08:37everything that you need to ensure that

08:40developers are in compliance and you

08:42know how to execute and track um the

08:45various agreements.

08:46I think a really useful way to review

08:48this bill is through five questions. Who

08:52has to contribute housing?

08:53How must they contribute? How can they

08:55satisfy their housing obligation? How

08:58does the county ensure lasting

09:00affordability? And what does the county

09:02offer in return in terms of incentives

09:05and financial support to make that

09:07affordable housing easier to build?

09:11The bill before us expands development

09:13subject to requirements, changes credit

09:15rules, adds an in-lieu fee, extends

09:18affordability restrictions, increases

09:20funding support through the housing

09:21production fund, and establishes new

09:23development incentives. It also improves

09:26how the county will administer its

09:28housing policy and holds developers

09:30accountable to their commitments. One

09:32thing that we kept hearing over and over

09:34at least on the council side um and from

09:36community is when the developers say

09:38they want to do something, we want to

09:39see

09:40actual tangible housing result from

09:43these um

09:44agreements that are approved.

09:47Um so right now I will take the body

09:49through section by section just a

09:51high-level summary and then we can dive

09:53into various details. Um section 11.4

09:58has to do with which developments must

10:00provide affordable housing. So as we

10:02know, chapter 11 is primarily triggered

10:05through rezoning.

10:06A residential project rezoned to

10:08accommodate five or more units or lots

10:10generally must must satisfy an

10:13affordable housing requirement. The

10:15developer owes credits equal to 20% of

10:18the residential residential units or

10:20lots.

10:21This bill retains that five unit

10:24threshold and 20% requirement, but it

10:26expands the applicability to include

10:29subdivisions creating five or more lots

10:32smaller than five acres even when no

10:34rezoning occurs.

10:36It also counts existing dwelling units

10:38on the parcel when determining when

10:40whether that threshold is met.

10:43The bill also extends requirements to

10:45certain commercial and mixed-use

10:47projects generating more than 100

10:49full-time equivalent jobs.

10:52It provides employment

10:53estimation formulas based on acreage and

10:56floor area.

10:58Sections 11 five through seven

11:02speak to how developers can satisfy

11:04their housing obligations.

11:06It retains several existing compliance

11:09methods and introduces another. The

11:11existing methods um include affordable

11:15for-sale units, rental units, finished

11:18lots, land conveyance, infrastructure,

11:20eligible credits, and we are introducing

11:23the idea of an in lieu payments.

11:26The bill also changes where off-site

11:28contributions can occur.

11:31Rather than relying solely on the

11:32existing 15-mi radius, it permits

11:35qualifying off-site housing and land

11:38within the same judicial district or

11:41within 15 mi if outside that judicial

11:43district.

11:45We also cleaned up language around how

11:47credits can be earned. It also requires

11:50at least 10% of the required credits to

11:52be earned at the two-credit level when

11:54satisfying the obligation through the

11:56specified for-sale or rental production

11:58methods. This bill also introduces a

12:01pathway for um certain locally owned

12:04small-scale rental developments of no

12:06more than 25 units on no more than three

12:09acres of land.

12:11Um 1123 has to do with that in lieu fee.

12:15This is a new compliance option. Again,

12:18instead of building affordable housing

12:20or purchasing credits,

12:22a developer with an obligation of no

12:24more than 10 credits could pay the

12:26county a fee.

12:28This money must be spent on affordable

12:29housing within the same judicial

12:31district as the project, and developers

12:34gain an initial compliance option, and

12:36the county gains potential funding for

12:38more affordable housing projects.

12:42Section 118 has to do with affordable

12:44housing guidelines. Um, this provides

12:47the ability for the office of housing

12:49and community development each year to

12:51determine the price of affordable

12:53housing, the price of finished lots, and

12:55monthly rate rental of dwelling units at

12:57various

12:59AMIs.

13:00Sections 9 through 14 um, discuss how

13:04affordability is maintained.

13:07These provisions govern eligible buyer

13:09or renters um, of the affordable homes,

13:12how these homes are marketed, and how

13:14long these restrictions remain in place.

13:17It specifies deed restrictions, buyer

13:19eligibility review, recorded agreements,

13:21and enforcement procedures. The bill

13:24also establishes clearer resale pricing

13:27requirements generally tied to AMI

13:30affordability levels with adjustments

13:32and reasonable compensation for any

13:34improvements that are made.

13:37Section 1115 has to do with housing

13:39credits. Under the current system, a

13:42developer that produces more qualifying

13:44affordable housing than required can

13:46earn excess credits and transfer them to

13:48another development. This means that

13:50market rate projects can fulfill their

13:52affordable housing obligations by

13:54purchasing credits generated elsewhere.

13:57In an audit by then county auditor Tyler

13:59Benner, they found that purchasing

14:01credits had become the most frequently

14:03used compliance method in the projects

14:06it reviewed at approximately 44%.

14:09This bill changes that system in a few

14:11ways.

14:12It generally prohibits issuing new

14:14excess credits for affordable housing

14:16constructed beyond existing obligations.

14:20It gives existing

14:21excess credits a 10-year period

14:24after the ordinance takes effect before

14:26they expire and retain specific

14:28treatment for credits issued under HRS

14:3146-15.1

14:33including credits earned related to

14:35Department of Hawaiian Homeland

14:37projects.

14:38Again, to be clear,

14:40Bill 207 does not eliminate housing

14:43credits as a compliant mechanism. It is

14:47um

14:48eliminating the ability to keep

14:50generating new excess credits that can

14:52be sold to other developers.

14:55We're almost there, guys.

14:5611-17 um

14:58talks about this section of code

15:00superseding previous requirements,

15:02resolutions, and ordinances related to

15:04affordable housing policy within the

15:06county.

15:0711-18 uh provides the opportunity to

15:10Office of Housing and Community

15:11Development to develop rules in order to

15:15administer this section of code.

15:1711-19 has to do with reporting back to

15:20the council regarding affordable housing

15:23agreements and quarterly reports related

15:25to housing activities and progress

15:27around the county.

15:29Sections 11-21 to 22 are regarding the

15:33affordable housing production fund. This

15:35bill proposes at least $15 million

15:38be annually appropriated to affordable

15:41housing production.

15:43The uses that are articulated here match

15:45what is contained in um chapter two.

15:48This bill also abolishes the county

15:50housing revolving housing program

15:52revolving fund and transfers those

15:54unobligated balances into the production

15:56fund.

15:57And finally, 11-24 provides a list of

16:00incentives for

16:02housing developments.

16:03Um these are

16:05suggestions that were offered by members

16:07of the community, um you know, nonprofit

16:10housing developers, small business

16:11developers about what they would

16:13appreciate in terms of an incentive. All

16:16of this was reviewed and vetted by the

16:17various departments. Public works,

16:20planning,

16:21finance to ensure that this was actually

16:23something that they would be open to

16:26relaxing in order to incentivize

16:28development. Happy to take any questions

16:30that folks might have after council

16:32member Inaba provides his Manalo. Thank

16:34you.

16:37>> I don't think I have any more Manalo.

16:39Thank you, council member Kirkwood for

16:41for walking us through every part.

16:45Just maybe a highlight again 11-24, the

16:49buy rate exemptions.

16:51Chapter 11 as it stands,

16:53a requirement based chapter. So, what we

16:56have here for the first time is

16:57something that folks can use if they're

16:60doing more than 50% affordable. They

17:02have access to these buy rate

17:03exemptions. So,

17:05we're trying to

17:07put that incentive out there

17:09and not have it just be a requirement

17:11based.

17:13And as we all know over the last few

17:15years with our excess credit issues and

17:18we have normal reporting now, but to to

17:21phase that out finally. So, within 10

17:24years if this bill passes, all of those

17:27excess credits would then be

17:30null and void. So, I think we're we're

17:32heading in the right direction to allow

17:34credits to be simply a method by which

17:36we quantify whether or not somebody has

17:39in fact achieved their affordable

17:42housing requirement.

17:44I'll stop for now, but I I do want to

17:46Manalo council member Kagiwada and

17:49council member Husta. It was a great

17:51team and we spent hours and hours with

17:54housing.

17:55So, appreciate you all. Manalo.

18:01>> Chad, I did want to invite members of

18:02office of housing community development

18:04to come forward.

18:06Any comments that they might like to

18:07share, but also to be available for

18:08questions should any arise from the

18:11body. Thank you.

18:22>> I hope it's it off.

18:25>> Hi.

18:27>> Hello.

18:27>> I'm here for questions. Yep.

18:30>> Would you like to make a statement or

18:31just take questions?

18:33>> Um

18:34just uh this this was a culmination of

18:38work that um started quite a while ago.

18:40I think this has been 3 or 4 years of ad

18:43hoc, 3 years of ad hoc committee.

18:45Um

18:47a lot of work

18:49going into this bill to clarify our

18:52affordable housing agreements

18:54obligations and primarily credits. Um

18:57so, a lot of good work in the bill.

18:59We're generally supportive of the bill

19:01as as being part of um the ad hoc um

19:05consultation.

19:06Um so, thank you for, you know, working

19:09with us on this.

19:11Um we're here for questions that may

19:13come up and um Christina Plummer is with

19:17me and she is our subject matter expert

19:20on chapter 11. So,

19:22we're here for that today.

19:24>> Thank you. Councilmember Eustace.

19:27>> Thanks, Chair. I appreciate the

19:28opportunity to kind of work through the

19:30early stages of of this bill. I just

19:32wanted to ask a couple questions to

19:34Housing Administration here. Um

19:36your Corporation Counsel is well who is

19:39in the back of the room. Okay, perfect.

19:41Uh Administrator, we talked previously

19:43about Act 211 a little bit. Um this is

19:46kind of a new requirement for

19:48kind of the county inclusionary housing

19:50initiatives and mandates beginning in

19:532029.

19:56Um so, I'm just curious if Corporation

19:57Counsel has looked and reviewed Act 211

20:01against Bill 207 for consistency sake.

20:09>> Hello.

20:10Thank you, uh Council. Deputy

20:12Corporation Counsel Sylvia White.

20:15Um I advise the Office of Housing and

20:17Community Development as well as the

20:19county. Um I have reviewed Act 211 that

20:22was passed in July of this past year.

20:25Um and as far as that's concerned, the

20:29the requirements of that particular bill

20:30will start triggering on July 1st of

20:322029.

20:34So we do have a few years to come into

20:36compliance with that particular bill.

20:39In that particular bill, any county

20:41whose mandates are over 10% of

20:45affordable housing requirement for an

20:46overall project would have to undergo uh

20:50a study in line with chapter uh sorry,

20:53with Act 211. That particular study

20:55would go towards um

20:57feasibility of the project and the

20:60affordable housing requirements as well

21:01as uh nexus and proportionality tests.

21:06So that is going to have to be done

21:08whether we pass this bill or not

21:11because we are a county that has an

21:13affordable housing requirement of 20%.

21:16So this particular bill does not upset

21:19that. Um this particular bill does still

21:21have a 20% requirement. So as far as Act

21:25211 will go

21:27whether or not this bill is passed, we

21:29will have to do a needs requirement if

21:31we want to keep our affordable housing

21:32policy

21:33even as is.

21:35Um so for this particular bill, this

21:37particular bill does make a number of

21:38changes. Um

21:40clarify some things, add some new

21:42incentives

21:44but it does not disturb our otherwise

21:47mandate of overall 20%.

21:50>> At At this stage with kind of um

21:52significant revisions to chapter 11,

21:54would it be worth though incorporating

21:56that those requirements as laid out in

21:58Act 211 at this point?

22:01Even though I know you're

22:02DCC, you're saying this is a couple

22:04years out.

22:05Should we at least try and incorporate

22:07some of those requirements in here at

22:08this point?

22:10>> Um so the requirements would be a policy

22:12choice

22:14at that point. So

22:15if you do not want Act 211 to trigger

22:20within our county, we would have to

22:21reduce our affordable housing

22:23requirement to 10%. So that would be a

22:26policy choice of this particular body.

22:28If this particular body feels that 20%

22:31is an admirable goal,

22:34then we would need to get a need study

22:35done. And we have a date certain in

22:38which we need to have that need study

22:40done. Whether or not you think it's a

22:42cost-benefit analysis of worth it to go

22:44forward today, that's going to be up to

22:47this particular body.

22:51>> Okay.

22:52Do we have any other studies that kind

22:54of exist as a foundation

22:56for what those are what's required under

22:57Act 211?

22:59>> Uh well, I do know that the housing did

23:02conduct a study, um the Kaiser Marston

23:05study, which did answer did go to try to

23:09answer some of the does answer some of

23:11those questions, but not all of the

23:13questions. So, there would need to be a

23:15new study because it

23:18it did not anticipate these particular

23:20questions that are being brought up by

23:22Act 211.

23:23>> Right.

23:24Right.

23:25And this analysis could consider like

23:27our different different housing markets,

23:29construction types across the island

23:30then and particular communities that

23:32vary in

23:34challenges and needs?

23:36>> That's correct. That's what Act 211

23:38would be requesting. Um the Kaiser

23:41Marston uh report did go through

23:44different

23:45um

23:47How do we say this?

23:48Different construction types within the

23:50different communities within our county,

23:53but it doesn't go as far as what Act 211

23:56is requiring.

23:57>> Okay.

23:58Okay. Thank you for that. I just going

24:00to change change topics just for a

24:02second here.

24:03You know, one of the

24:05one of the conditions is uh the phasing

24:07out of existing credits. So, kind of we

24:10I've received some testimony of the

24:12body's received testimony on it, too, in

24:13terms of

24:15uh landowners that have um

24:17credits. And so,

24:21just want to see, you know,

24:24do you believe that

24:28You know, I think it's uh 11:17, right?

24:39Is it 15? Okay.

24:41Okay.

24:45But in 11:17, it adds some language

24:47about

24:48existing

24:53You know, does that sufficiently protect

24:55existing credits, the previously earned

24:57housing credits?

24:59Including the transfer of through those

25:00provisions there.

25:02Or does it Do we need like additional

25:03language to kind of help eliminate some

25:05of that uncertainty in 11:17?

25:09>> Okay. So, as far as section 11-17,

25:13um what appears in the bill today is

25:18for the most part exactly the same as it

25:21appears in our chapter 11 presently. The

25:24only amendment is to include

25:27this particular new bill.

25:29So, this language is exactly the same.

25:32Every new iteration of um

25:36amendments to chapter 11 is included in

25:39section 11-17.

25:42So, it's just indicating that

25:44the rules have changed and if you don't

25:46already have an affordable housing

25:47agreement that locks in the way that you

25:50are satisfying your affordable housing

25:52requirement, you're going to have to

25:54meet the new requirements. So, that's

25:57a a

25:58a layman's interpretation of this

26:01particular section.

26:04Yes. So, as far as

26:06as far as existing credits go,

26:10if this bill passes, the expiration date

26:12will start

26:14within I believe it's 11-15.

26:17>> Yeah.

26:18Yeah.

26:19>> Yes.

26:20So, the way that it's written now, the

26:22credits would have an expiration date 10

26:2610 years after the passage of this bill.

26:29So, they would still have 10 years to

26:31utilize those credits in any means or

26:33fashion that they deem fit.

26:36>> And then administrator and DCC, I mean

26:38just

26:39looking at the existing credits and our

26:40inventory of existing credits,

26:43we've had questions on the dais about it

26:44and some challenges in the past about

26:46it.

26:47Um

26:49I mean, does this

26:51How how complete is that list in terms

26:52of what's being held by developers

26:56and landowners throughout the county?

26:58How exact are we there with those with

26:59those figures on the existing credits?

27:06Okay, sorry.

27:07>> Um

27:08as part of our work with

27:10the county audit that we're meeting all

27:12of the

27:13six or seven recommendations, it has

27:16been to clean up all the credits and to

27:18certify. Um we have a a very

27:21prescriptive process of how we certify

27:24those credits, but we have not completed

27:26that process for all of our developers

27:28that are holding

27:29excess and bonus credits. Um we're

27:32working through that credit inventory

27:34and we provide that to you on the

27:36quarterly reports.

27:37>> Right.

27:37>> But there Not all of the developer

27:40developments, especially [laughter]

27:41>> [clears throat]

27:41>> the the very old credits that are being

27:44held, um it's taking a little bit of

27:46archival work and rebuilding

27:49kind of the the history of how they

27:50earned those credits. Um we haven't

27:52certified all of them. I think we have

27:56right now credit-wise Is it

28:00a little over a thousand housing credits

28:02on the books.

28:03Um

28:05>> And we can

28:06Can we break them down Can you break

28:07them down to see what has been based

28:09upon development activity versus land

28:12donations to the county?

28:14So, that's it's broken down through that

28:15that mechanism. You can kind of see what

28:17has been done.

28:18>> Yeah.

28:23Yes.

28:24That's part of our That's part of our

28:26work to verify to to authenticate those

28:29credits is to see how they were earned

28:32and then to to verify that the credits

28:35were legitimately earned and they're

28:36still on the books. Um we've had to do

28:39some of that cleanup work with some of

28:41the credits that were um

28:45provided during

28:46probably not great time of OHCD's

28:50history. But anyway, um

28:52yeah, so we're working on it, but I

28:53understand the question and and whether

28:56or not we have um we're giving the the

28:59developers who are currently holding

29:03excess or bonus credits historically,

29:06whether we're giving them enough time

29:08from passage of this.

29:10>> Is 10 years enough time?

29:11>> years enough time? And I think

29:13>> a question for you. I mean

29:14>> Yeah, I think that's a a very worthy

29:16question knowing

29:19um

29:19>> Cuz some of these are really old

29:20agreements, so I understand the

29:22the initiative and the policy to kind of

29:25move this forward, you know, kind of get

29:27that get the market kind of flowing in

29:28that sort of space, but some of them

29:30have been

29:31land donations to the county. Some have

29:32been development agreements, individual

29:34agreements, all sorts of different kind

29:36of situations. So I might My question to

29:38the department is is 10 years enough to

29:40kind of Otherwise, how many are we going

29:42to expire in 10 years?

29:45>> That's a really good question and I

29:46think that that

29:49should be evaluated and it and I think

29:51also having those conversations with

29:54developers that are holding these um old

29:58credits to say what are their plans for

30:01for expiring their credits. What what

30:03plans moving forward do they have?

30:06Um sometimes our developers are very

30:09restricted in in how they can utilize

30:12those credits just financially and the

30:15ability to

30:16to sell them, geographically restricted

30:19or use them on their own parcels. Um

30:23they've got to come up with the capital

30:24to develop.

30:26And

30:26>> And some of them don't have the capital,

30:28too.

30:28>> Yep.

30:28>> Right?

30:30So some of them have

30:31given or donated land, have made

30:33commitments, but

30:34don't have the capital to kind of

30:36activate and move on some of these. So,

30:38there might be some challenges there.

30:40I'll just I'll put a pin in it there for

30:41now. Thanks, Chair, for the time.

30:43>> Thank you. Council Member Pagewata.

30:45>> Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Council

30:48Member Kirkwood, for really leading this

30:50over several years and and leading us

30:52all. Um I just want to highlight a few

30:55other things in here or put a underline

30:58under them of things that I'm

31:00you know, I think are really good in

31:02this bill. Um one of the things that we

31:06did was to

31:08raise the um

31:11AMI uh credit make

31:14allowing people to earn credits for um

31:18AMI up to 140%. It was originally 120%

31:23of the AMI, and I think that's really

31:25important given the information that we

31:27and feedback we got from OHCD about um

31:30what they're actually seeing every day

31:32when they talk to people.

31:34Um

31:35similarly, I think um

31:38yeah, several of several of the ways we

31:41tried to increase those amounts slightly

31:43just to really meet the need in the

31:44community.

31:46Um

31:47the affordable housing guidelines, I

31:50think

31:52uh

31:53are somewhat new and and interesting as

31:55well as the um

32:01Where was it? Sorry.

32:03So many pages.

32:06Oh, the use of the affordable housing

32:09production fund. Uh

32:10those uses being put in there that

32:12really we tried to talk through some of

32:14those. Um some of the standard ones.

32:17Most of these things the

32:19OHCD is already doing or maybe doing in

32:22the smaller way, but could be expanded

32:25potentially down the road. Things like

32:27the purchasing of deed restrictions um

32:30on properties.

32:31Um

32:32but they're already doing some of that

32:34as well as, you know, just

32:36rehabilitating structures to make them

32:38habitable, buying properties, all those

32:41kind of things that can be used for

32:43and most importantly infrastructure for

32:45development of affordable housing.

32:48Um

32:50one of the other things, let's see.

32:57Oh, um

32:58one of the things I also really like

33:01that was put in here is about as

33:05developers are developing these um

33:08developments,

33:10uh that

33:11looking at the affordable housing

33:14pieces, that those don't get left till

33:16the very end. Um

33:18so, it's not like you you build all your

33:22uh market rate uh homes, sell those and

33:24then just do affordable housing later,

33:26maybe, but that those are kind of built

33:29into the process a little better, um

33:31bringing it up front.

33:33Um

33:35and I will just say that um it was

33:38wonderful that Council member

33:42Kirkwitz was very um good at bringing

33:45uh

33:46the public into discussions and having a

33:49couple of forums that we brought both uh

33:52nonprofit and other developers into the

33:54discussion to give feedback on this

33:56process as we went along. Um and I'm

34:00also just seeing a couple of the

34:02testimonies that may have some

34:04additional good ideas, so um I will be

34:07happy to, you know, look at some of

34:09those. Um I think things like uh

34:13potential property tax relief can be in

34:16a totally separate bill, though. That

34:18that is probably a more appropriate um

34:21as a tax bill. So, but I'm happy to

34:23explore that um

34:26it as additional ways that we can

34:27encourage affordable housing um being

34:30built in our community. So, I just want

34:32to thank the whole team, OHCSD,

34:35uh

34:36Corporation Council as well. And just um

34:39Ashley, thank you so much for for

34:41leading this and keeping this for so

34:42long. Um, I yield at this time.

34:46>> Thank you, Councilmember Kimbell.

34:49>> Thank you. Um, first of all, yeah, I

34:51want to mahalo the ad hoc and

34:53Councilmember Kirkwood, Councilmember

34:54Elefante for putting together this

34:56rather hefty piece of legislation that

34:58is long overdue and um, I know I just

35:01want to acknowledge what a heavy lift it

35:03is to have put this all together and and

35:05thank you to the LRB team as well,

35:07housing team, corporation counsel. Um,

35:09so just to to start off, um,

35:13I don't I'm going to ask a lot of

35:14questions. None of these are like

35:15outright criticisms. The the bill as a

35:17whole I think is is definitely where we

35:19need to go, but I want to focus on the

35:21questions that I have. Um, so starting

35:24with um, corporation counsel Juan, um,

35:27the way credits were explained to me is

35:29like a stock certificate, right? And

35:31that they don't have any value on their

35:33own, but they have the value at the time

35:36that their sale is negotiated.

35:38And

35:39the stock certificate obviously those

35:41don't have any expiration date. So kind

35:44of

35:45along the questions of Councilmember

35:47Hustace,

35:48um,

35:50can you walk me through the legal basis

35:52for an expiration date and the

35:54protections we would have by

35:57I can see have having an expiration date

36:00on any newly authored certificates, but

36:04previously um,

36:06distributed certificates like what is

36:07the legal basis for allowing us to put a

36:09deadline on their usage?

36:12>> Okay, well, first off, I I think that

36:15there is an error in trying to think of

36:16them as stocks

36:18because they're not stocks. Um, they

36:22they only inherent value is that to the

36:24county, which is there was an affordable

36:26unit being produced.

36:28And quite frankly, an affordable housing

36:30unit that was produced in the 90s

36:33is going to be worth and valued way less

36:36today

36:38than an affordable unit that was built,

36:40let's say, just 2 years ago.

36:42Right? But the credit for an affordable

36:44housing that was built back in the '90s,

36:48or rather

36:49let's say 2005. Let's make it more

36:52modern chapter 11.

36:54And I only say that because back in the

36:56'90s the calculations were different for

36:58housing policy. So, if we're looking at

37:00current calculations for an affordable

37:02housing credit

37:04starting around 2005 to now calculations

37:07are more or less similar.

37:09So, a unit that was built in 2005 is

37:12going to be in a far less state. It's

37:14going to be valued far less, not to

37:16mention its construction

37:18was far less. You could have easily

37:20built a home in 2005 for $125,000.

37:25That same home today

37:27exact same

37:29you're going to be looking at

37:31maybe about 325 at the cheapest.

37:34The credit that you would have earned

37:37for building a unit then to now is still

37:40only going to be depending on the AMI

37:43one credit.

37:45So, at this point in time the benefit to

37:47the county

37:49that unit that was built in 2005 2005,

37:53that affordability is gone.

37:55If it was a sold unit, it was gone in

37:572015.

37:59If it was a rental unit, it was gone in

38:022025.

38:05A unit that was built today is going to

38:08have a new affordability term, right?

38:10It's going to be 10 years

38:1215 years respectively. According to this

38:15bill, it's going to be

38:1715 25 years respectively.

38:20So

38:21the credits that are being earned and

38:23the benefit that has been construed to

38:25the county related to that credit

38:27diminishes over time.

38:29So, it would make sense that if we still

38:31have credits on the books from the '90s

38:35that those credits are going to have

38:36less value to the county over time

38:40than to the person who originally

38:43created that credit.

38:45>> Thank you for that very detailed

38:47explanation and um

38:49Council member attorney up I'm sure you

38:51remember the conversations we had with

38:52corporation counsel before about looking

38:54at it a little differently. So, one

38:56recommendation I would have to the

38:58authors is as part of the legislative

39:00record through a communication or

39:01whatever have a modeling of the concept

39:05that was just presented by corporation

39:07counsel so that when we have to defend

39:10the position that sunsetting these is

39:13appropriate there is something to be

39:15referred back to. It doesn't need to be

39:16part of the code, but some sort of

39:19document um just and I only bring this

39:21up because a previous corporation

39:24counsel gave us different advice. And

39:26so, I'd like to make sure that we have

39:27that

39:29applied in the legal

39:31in the legislative history. Um I'm

39:33sorry. Um Council member yeah.

39:35>> I just want to note for the record that

39:37the explanation I gave you was not a

39:39legal explanation, but that was the

39:42explanation and the thought process of

39:45the ad hoc as we were creating this

39:47particular limitation.

39:48>> Yeah, I understand that in the context

39:50of where we are right now you're you're

39:52giving me an explanation. What I'm

39:53recommending to my colleagues is that

39:55they have some sort of formal

39:56documentation that backs backs up that

39:59rationale with the legal description

40:02that

40:02>> That's fine.

40:03>> Yeah, thank you.

40:03>> Thank you.

40:04>> Um

40:06similarly another document that would be

40:08really helpful for me as I'm having

40:11trouble just through the words

40:12visualizing the shift of the AMI and the

40:16changes of the credit calculations. And

40:19so, if a table or a chart of some kind

40:21could be presented at the next hearing

40:23from the makers or from the housing

40:25department that would show

40:27how that moves and I'm presuming that

40:31I mean what what I presume will happen

40:33is that we will have fewer

40:36units produced at the very low end and

40:39potentially more than what than we are

40:41seeing now. Again, we know the program

40:43doesn't work great so and more in that

40:45higher AMI AMI range. I that that's how

40:48I'm reading it, but is is that the

40:51understanding of the department and is

40:53that in alignment? I would

40:56Is that in alignment with where you

40:57think the needs are in terms of

40:59incentivizing affordable units?

41:05>> I think the goal and intention is to

41:08incentivize

41:09units at the higher AMI, not to reduce

41:13the number of units at the lower AMIs.

41:16Those are still needed.

41:18Um

41:19I believe we can bring the table showing

41:22the shift in the credit. That would

41:24A visual would probably be best. Um

41:29I don't think the credits We We just had

41:32a discussion about this. I don't think

41:34the credits earned at the higher AMI,

41:37the incentive incentivization

41:40at the higher AMIs is really the

41:42limiting factor for the development of

41:45units at a at 80% to 120% or 140% It

41:50really comes down to financing. So, you

41:52know, there's a lot of subsidy at the

41:54lower

41:55with tax credits. There's a lot of

41:57subsidy. There's very little subsidy in

41:59the workforce,

42:01you know, range. So, um

42:04We're We're hoping to incentivize

42:07through credits, but it's not um

42:10it's not enough.

42:12>> Yeah. Okay.

42:13All right. Well, if if the makers

42:15wouldn't mind providing that sort of

42:16shift graphic, that'd be helpful for me.

42:19Um One of the things that I You know, I

42:21like adding the subdivision action as a

42:23trigger. I like expanding the commercial

42:26and industrial as a trigger. I'm

42:28wondering that we've had a number of um

42:32rezones, for example, come in

42:34um and I'm sure that these happen

42:36outside of the rezone process.

42:38Subdivisions just for like family or

42:40intergenerational. So, you know, I've

42:42I'm a

42:43family and we've got five kids. We want

42:45to break it up into five lots.

42:48Um

42:49Under the way I'm reading this now with

42:51the subdivision piece, that family would

42:53have to sell one of those lots or pay

42:56the in lieu fee.

42:58Um is there

43:00any

43:01thought could could we put in a

43:03mechanism to

43:05provide for

43:07intergenerational subdivision very

43:10carefully constrained, right? So people

43:12weren't taking advantage of it so that

43:14they would not be subjected to this. Is

43:17that the

43:18You're nodding, so yeah, but that's one

43:20of my considerations. The other is also

43:22whether or not CPR needs to be included

43:24as an action um that would have a house

43:28affordable housing requirement. Um I

43:31need to talk a little bit more with the

43:32planning department about that. I don't

43:33know to what extent they're actually

43:35doing CPRs on anything but RM anymore.

43:38But that's another area where we might

43:39want to add it. Um realizing my time is

43:41up. If there are other questions from

43:43other folks, I do have a handful more,

43:46but just keep going. Okay.

43:48Um

43:49the Okay, we talked about the family

43:51subdivision. Um another since you're

43:54here

43:55DCC along um

43:58the there's a the

44:00test

44:03Where's the the rental test for 50%

44:07residency

44:08it's 5B, C I believe.

44:15No, D. Sorry. A qualified resident owns

44:18more than 55% of the interest in the

44:20development whether directly or through

44:21a legal entity.

44:25Um

44:26just wanted to make sure that that's

44:28been vetted as a legally

44:32viable

44:36mechanism, right? Because we use the

44:38qualified resident, qualified student,

44:40and all of that to do the preference

44:41list, but it's not a requirement and

44:43that's what how we've been able to work

44:45within the fair housing act. I was just

44:47wondering if that that one has been

44:49vetted.

44:52That requirement.

44:55So,

44:57the reason why that would be a trigger

44:59when it comes to

45:01um the eligibility requirements would be

45:05because it is

45:08theoretically, if you make it too

45:10restrictive, could restrict a consti- a

45:13person's constitutional right to travel,

45:15right? To move from one state to another

45:17state.

45:18Um the

45:20this particular requirement is saying

45:22that um basically, it's giving

45:26it's incentivizing an alternative way of

45:29meeting an affordable housing

45:30requirement by a developer, and if that

45:34developer is 50 like because your

45:36developer can be more than one person,

45:38right? It can be a company. And as long

45:40as that company is owned 50% or more by

45:45a resident

45:47of the state, then they can utilize this

45:50particular program. Does that make

45:52sense? So, it's more It's It's

45:54incentivizing a a a local business.

45:58Not not an individual, and it doesn't

46:01otherwise prevent

46:03the individuals who would otherwise

46:05reside at that development.

46:07So, it's a it's a different Okay, so

46:09this is this is

46:11if I'm if I'm looking at the right

46:13section.

46:14>> Right. Okay, yeah. We're We're at We're

46:16at um

46:1711-5

46:19B1D.

46:23And maybe I'm not understanding it. So,

46:26that that that is applicable

46:28>> Yes. So,

46:29>> to the developer, not

46:32>> to the developer, not the person who's

46:33actually renting one of the units.

46:36>> Okay. And we can do that without any

46:38constitutional violations with respect

46:41to

46:42>> Yeah, no. This would be just

46:44incentivizing a local business.

46:45>> Okay. All right.

46:46>> Um so, for this one, it's a developer uh

46:49I'm just uh reading out loud. Uh this is

46:53this particular section 11-5

46:55B is for a small-scale rental

46:58development.

46:59>> Mhm. And so, the requirements are the

47:01applicability is for what type of

47:04small-scale rental development would

47:06qualify for this alternative method for

47:10meeting the affordable housing

47:11requirement.

47:13>> Okay. I I think to the makers there

47:15might be a tweak or two just in language

47:17there to

47:19make that expressly clear. I'll I'll

47:21I'll work on something

47:23there. Um

47:26Uh

47:29Oh, um okay, another mini thing, 11-9

47:34E2,

47:35this has to do with the the land buyback

47:39program. Um so, you have all of the

47:42applications.

47:44Two says, "Notwithstanding the

47:45foregoing, at any time after all

47:47applications for income-eligible buyers

47:49have been exhausted, the housing

47:51administrator might may authorize the

47:53county to purchase any unsold or lot at

47:56the affordable sales price." Um

47:59I think there needs to be a time frame

48:01there in terms of exhausted by such and

48:04such a period because

48:07it could go on forever if there's no

48:09sort of date at which it needs to be

48:11exhausted by. Does that make sense?

48:17Yeah, but that only applies to the

48:19period of

48:21It doesn't apply It It doesn't apply to

48:23that second period.

48:25Just the first one.

48:26With respect to the listings and stuff.

48:32Yeah.

48:32Um and then the

48:35uh

48:36The other thing is the in-lieu fee

48:37calculation just for the um

48:40administrator. Is that Is that on par

48:43with what we're seeing in other

48:44jurisdictions? It seems I mean, I I know

48:46our our jurisdictions are so expensive.

48:50Um is that about on par with how in-lieu

48:52fees are being calculated in other

48:54municipalities?

48:56It seems high, I guess is what I'm

48:58saying.

48:58>> high and it is in line with Maui County

49:02and Kauai,

49:03but it is high.

49:04>> Yeah.

49:06And

49:08how successful have they been in terms

49:10of collecting in lieu fees instead of

49:12developing the

49:14>> It's a It's a important question.

49:16>> Yeah.

49:16>> Yep.

49:18>> Do we know what's the answer?

49:19>> No, I

49:20That's something for us to take a look

49:22at.

49:22>> Okay.

49:23Yeah.

49:24All right, there's

49:26That's another one where maybe there's

49:27modeling or graphing in terms of other

49:29jurisdictions and where those

49:33where those in lieu fees fall in

49:34relationship to AMIs in the area and how

49:36successful their programs are in terms

49:38of

49:39replacement through in lieu fees. Um

49:44The Oh, I I do have a problem with the

49:4660-day timeline for the building permit.

49:48I just I think that's a problem. I I I

49:51think when we're talking health and

49:52safety with a building permit,

49:54especially with affordable housing, just

49:56because we want it to be affordable

49:57doesn't mean it shouldn't meet health

49:59and safety standards. So, I'm not

50:01supportive of a time limit on the

50:03permit, and um

50:05I would if if you I You said you'd talk

50:07to DPW about this. I'd like to hear

50:09their

50:10position on that, but personally, I

50:11think that that's a

50:13That's changing. Okay, excellent. Um and

50:16then just relating again to the other

50:18variances that are possible,

50:21um there's there's the height limit,

50:24some of the setbacks, and whatnot. Um

50:27Just because of recent conversations

50:29that we had, I would want to exclude the

50:32ability to

50:35um

50:37This is Let's see, section

50:4011-24

50:42A

50:442 C, um

50:46the ability to wave perimeter

50:47landscaping buffers and screening, blah

50:50blah blah. Um anything that would be

50:53related to a fire barrier or some sort

50:56of fire mitigation effort be excluded

50:58from what can be waived

51:00for this. Again, um I think that's

51:04important and then just finally question

51:06to the makers.

51:08The

51:09revolving fund, the county housing

51:11program revolving fund that's being

51:13abolished. Just wanted to make sure that

51:15there are aren't any other

51:17cross-references to that in any other

51:19parts of the code that we need to clean

51:20up as well. I'm not sure that how that

51:23one was

51:24was created. I didn't have a chance to

51:26follow up on that before the meeting.

51:28But those are the comments I have for

51:30now. Again, mahalo the team for all the

51:32hard work in putting this together. I

51:33know it was a heavy lift. Thanks.

51:37>> Council member Elechi.

51:39>> Thank you, Madam Chair. So

51:43are you folks

51:47that is the department okay? I mean, you

51:50folks don't have any like concerns or

51:53like any

51:55like reasons to have other departments

51:59to really look at all this?

52:02>> I believe there's at least four other

52:04departments that are involved in this

52:07and should be consulted.

52:09>> be involved but it's not yet.

52:11>> Yeah. No, they were involved.

52:13Yeah.

52:14But

52:15if you're asking for questions here,

52:18there are other departments

52:20that have should weigh in on this. Yes.

52:23>> Okay. Okay.

52:25Um

52:26I do like some of the things that are in

52:28here but then there are some that I

52:30think

52:32needs to be really reviewed at. Um

52:37Another concern I have is about that

52:39section 11-21.

52:43And that's giving at least 15 million

52:45per year.

52:47Which we're going to increase by 10

52:48million.

52:49Right? Cuz right now it's only five.

52:52So

52:54if we do increase it or if this does

52:56pass it goes to 15, we're really tying

52:59the hands of the county in the future.

53:05And

53:06that's I I I cannot see doing that part.

53:09I mean, I think we should go

53:12if if there's needed, then maybe if

53:14there's extra surplus, then we can add

53:17it to the fund, but not something where

53:19we need to.

53:21Was that?

53:22Okay. Well, I would really like to see

53:25that be adjusted first before I can

53:28really support this, right? And so,

53:31maybe it should be

53:33we should be postpone it because then

53:36that way, I guess the other departments

53:38can really review this because

53:42Did Did you Did

53:44housing did send this out to the other

53:46departments already for review?

53:50>> I I believe that it was sent by ad hoc

53:52committee to the departments for review.

53:54>> Okay. But then

53:56>> ad hoc committee's work.

53:57>> Right. And then, um

54:00I guess to the

54:02makers, so did the different departments

54:05that you folks sent it out to respond

54:06back to you guys?

54:07>> Yes.

54:08>> They did?

54:10Okay, cuz I'm hearing differently.

54:13And so,

54:14I think there is a miscommunication

54:16someplace.

54:19And so, I

54:20I guess

54:22I would I would recommend that if we can

54:24just postpone this and I guess get the

54:27other departments here so we can hear

54:29from them on what was mentioned.

54:33Yeah. And I think that would be great.

54:34Or hopefully, maybe we can table this

54:38for now and then trying to get the

54:40different departments here like

54:41planning, public works,

54:44and have them answer some questions so

54:46that for me, I would be feel more

54:48comfortable.

54:50But just a suggestion.

54:51>> Thank you, uh Councilmember Reynoso.

54:54>> Yes, thank you. And thank you everyone

54:55for your feedback regarding the

54:58participation of various agencies at the

55:00county in the formulation of this bill.

55:04They were sent a copy of the draft bill

55:07and their feedback was incorporated. So,

55:11I do hear that there's concern now

55:13regarding um some of the by-right

55:16exemptions.

55:17Um

55:18but everybody did have the chance at

55:20this point based on the number of

55:22meetings that we have left. Um I hope

55:26that we can get this over the finish

55:27line that doesn't leave us the room to

55:30postpone, but we will be working closely

55:32at this week to the managing director

55:34this morning uh and asked for the

55:37amendments from any relevant agencies so

55:41that we can have that prepared for first

55:43reading. And that also covers

55:46the $15 million per year appropriation

55:49as well. And I think with the office of

55:52housing uh I'm not sure what

55:54communication happened on the

55:55administration side, but maybe the $15

55:58million didn't make it to finance, but

56:00they're looking at it today with

56:01concern. So, we will be looking at how

56:04we can adjust that um at the next

56:07reading. Thank you.

56:10>> Council member Cornegy, Klein filter.

56:18>> Uh to the makers or to housing, why do

56:21we insulate hot water pipes?

56:28Okay.

56:28>> It's not a question for our department.

56:30>> This well, this maybe it's general.

56:32General thought process. Why do we do

56:33it?

56:37>> That's a That's a building code

56:39question.

56:39>> Great. Good answer. Okay, to the makers.

56:44Okay.

56:46We insulate hot water pipes because it

56:48keeps the water

56:50hot.

56:52So, you don't lose heat

56:54to your environment, so you save money

56:58on the cost of heating water.

57:02But the reason I brought it up is it's

57:03one of the things that is allowed to

57:07be removed from requirements.

57:12And when I see things like that built

57:14into

57:16code

57:19where we're willing to let developers

57:22modify things that save homeowners money

57:25in the long run, I become concerned

57:27about the direction

57:29of what we're trying to accomplish when

57:31we build affordable housing.

57:33At that point, it becomes very clear to

57:35me that the affordable housing we're

57:37trying to build is affordable for the

57:39developers to build,

57:40but not for homeowners to maintain and

57:42run for the lifetime.

57:44That's very concerning.

57:46It's specifically listed in 11-24

57:50number two

57:52B

57:53that with the concurrence of the

57:55director of public works

57:58we can reduce, relax, wave, eliminate,

58:01or modify any requirement, standard, or

58:03obligation applicable to a qualifying

58:05development

58:06as may be provided under this code

58:08relating to

58:10streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,

58:13installation of hot water pipes, etc.

58:17This is fairly standard language, but it

58:20we have to take a look at that because

58:22if that's the county's direction,

58:24we'll build cheap

58:26so we can make cheap housing so we can

58:29call it affordable so that the

58:30homeowners have to deal with the

58:31problems later and they have higher

58:33energy costs for the next 20 years

58:35because we said, "Hey, no need."

58:38So, it's cheap so you can buy it.

58:40That should be addressed.

58:42Um Ms. Juan, I really appreciated your

58:44comment about the credits. That was

58:47probably one of the better ways I've

58:48ever heard it explained

58:51as far as credits being provided and

58:53then their slow or quick

58:56decrease in value.

58:58Oh, and especially when it comes back to

58:59the county and how you provide that

59:00credit and what it means to a developer.

59:04So, thank you for that. That was nice.

59:07Uh I'm hoping that my my simple

59:12question about why we insulate hot water

59:14pipes

59:15raises this level of awareness of how

59:18the county views what we do with

59:20affordable housing, why we're building

59:21it,

59:22and who we're building it for.

59:25Cuz we need to have that discussion.

59:28Uh next year we're looking at a flat

59:31real property tax revenue.

59:33There's not an increase expected.

59:37Uh we've had a continued push towards

59:40ordinance-based required funding

59:42sources. This one was the AHP getting

59:44$15 million.

59:47That was a step up by $10 million, which

59:49was pointed out by Council member

59:50Onishi, uh thankfully.

59:53While it may have been omitted or

59:55forgotten to be removed from this bill,

59:58that $10 million increase

1:00:01is more than substantial. It's huge.

1:00:05And based on what we've seen in the the

1:00:08past with

1:00:10other funding sources being applied by

1:00:14the housing department towards

1:00:16purchasing of homes,

1:00:18I would have concerns with the

1:00:19appropriate

1:00:20appropriation of $15 million versus $5

1:00:23million towards the affordable housing

1:00:25production fund.

1:00:28Uh to the department or to makers,

1:00:30whoever wants to answer, uh

1:00:31in regards to agricultural lands, will

1:00:34state land use or county zone

1:00:37and that acreage requirements,

1:00:40what does that mean for districts like

1:00:42Puna,

1:00:44where we have three-acre parcels,

1:00:47five-acre parcels?

1:00:50Does affordable housing become an option

1:00:53in private subdivisions,

1:00:56where we have three-acre parcels?

1:01:05To the housing department or to

1:01:06>> Council member Nowee, go ahead.

1:01:07>> the makers.

1:01:08>> Sorry, sorry. You're asking the current

1:01:11triggers are on the top of page four in

1:01:14section 11 uh bottom of page three

1:01:17section 11-4.

1:01:19Um so those are when

1:01:22we need to when affordable housing

1:01:24requirements are imposed. So sorry, can

1:01:27you restate what your question is?

1:01:30>> Yeah, I'm looking at

1:01:3411-4A

1:01:36affordable housing requirements shall

1:01:38apply to all new rezonings that may

1:01:40create additional residential uses

1:01:42including rezonings to RS, RD, RM, RCX,

1:01:46RA

1:01:47and FA districts and APD rezonings where

1:01:51lot sizes are less than 5 acres.

1:01:57I'm

1:01:58trying to understand what exactly

1:02:02how far we're allowing affordable

1:02:03housing to go in our agricultural areas.

1:02:08>> That would be to the extent allowed by

1:02:11the zoning code.

1:02:13>> Okay.

1:02:13>> So what this does doesn't allow further

1:02:16than what the zoning code allows for,

1:02:17but if you are

1:02:19um seeking a rezone and it's going to

1:02:22result in a certain number of housing,

1:02:25you know, well let's say

1:02:27four or

1:02:28fewer dwellings, there's no requirement.

1:02:29Five or more, it triggers it, but if

1:02:32your zoning doesn't even allow for five,

1:02:34then you wouldn't be able to be

1:02:35triggered by this section. We're

1:02:38following We're going within the zoning

1:02:39code.

1:02:40>> What is an APD rezone?

1:02:44>> Agricultural project district.

1:02:50>> Okay. So like these might be areas where

1:02:53the planning director could weigh in,

1:02:55yeah, which might be the concerns that

1:02:56were mentioned earlier. Oh, he is. Mr.

1:02:59Daryl, like magic.

1:03:03Aloha.

1:03:04Uh aloha chair, vice chair, members of

1:03:06the

1:03:07coun- uh

1:03:09county council. This is uh Jeff with

1:03:11planning.

1:03:13Um

1:03:14you know, the the requirements that you

1:03:16just read off uh Council member Connie

1:03:19Alii Klienfedler actually within the

1:03:22chapter 11 currently.

1:03:25So, this has been standard up to this

1:03:28point. It's just

1:03:30uh being added to the new bill.

1:03:34>> Thank you. So, the

1:03:38>> You can finish.

1:03:41question.

1:03:41>> Okay, Jeff. So, I want one more

1:03:43question. I'll try and I'll try and put

1:03:44it all in one. So, in in areas like Puna

1:03:47where we have 5 10-acre lots, if someone

1:03:49comes in to rezone that project

1:03:53or that agricultural lot into smaller

1:03:55lots

1:03:56or to create one lot with more purpose

1:04:01would that allow for affordable housing

1:04:03to be done differently than it is

1:04:06currently or this is just

1:04:08this is the same idea being pushed

1:04:09forward? Understanding what you just

1:04:11said, I'm just trying to

1:04:13wrap my head around new projects that

1:04:15are in the area where I live that I've

1:04:18been watching pop up.

1:04:20Uh something like the group home or

1:04:21group living facilities bill that came

1:04:23through which then proceeded to allow

1:04:26for group living facilities to pop up in

1:04:28residential neighborhoods

1:04:30in areas where I don't think they should

1:04:32be.

1:04:33So, does that does this language in the

1:04:36affordable housing requirements

1:04:38open up existing land where we have

1:04:41private subdivisions three to five acres

1:04:43in size and lot size

1:04:46and push us into the realm of affordable

1:04:48housing can be built off of our county

1:04:51water maybe?

1:04:52This is in alignment with state bills

1:04:54that are walked in the door this last

1:04:56session that were very interesting.

1:04:59>> So, typically what happens is uh

1:05:03in

1:05:04this particular section that we're

1:05:06looking at 11-4,

1:05:08the trigger that we're looking at is

1:05:10rezonings. So, rezonings require

1:05:14uh under

1:05:1625-2-46M

1:05:21it requires that you have county water

1:05:24available for the new for the lots that

1:05:28are going to be creating, correct? So,

1:05:31if you're in an area that doesn't have

1:05:34county water available or a private

1:05:36system that meets county uh dedicable

1:05:40standards, you're not going to be able

1:05:42to rezone.

1:05:44Um but we have had, you know, in your

1:05:47particular area, there is areas where

1:05:50water is available. And when they have

1:05:52come in to rezone, we have triggered

1:05:56affordable housing requirements when

1:05:59those rezonings come to us uh

1:06:03are creating smaller agricultural lots

1:06:06and they go beyond four lots, so five or

1:06:10more lots. Uh they will end up having a

1:06:14condition within that rezone uh

1:06:17requiring an affordable housing

1:06:19agreement.

1:06:20>> Does bill or does that act 209 that

1:06:26was it HB 1728? Does that have any

1:06:29weighing on this situation where

1:06:32affordable housing could use catchment

1:06:34given that recent bill that was passed

1:06:37by the legislature?

1:06:39>> We're interpreting that it does not

1:06:42apply as a means of

1:06:45um

1:06:46of

1:06:48initiating a rezone because our code

1:06:51clearly says

1:06:53to rezone, you have to be uh you have to

1:06:57have county water available.

1:07:00What what that bill was basically

1:07:02saying, I mean my

1:07:05understanding is that if you're required

1:07:08if you had county water in your area and

1:07:11you were required to hook up, this bill

1:07:15says you don't have to, you can use

1:07:18catchment.

1:07:19But we're not applying that bill uh to

1:07:23re-zonings because of our current code.

1:07:28>> Okay, so if you didn't have county water

1:07:30access for an affordable housing

1:07:32project, you couldn't use catchment in

1:07:35lieu of county water

1:07:37to proceed. Okay, thank you.

1:07:41Okay.

1:07:44>> You good?

1:07:45>> Good.

1:07:47>> Anyone else?

1:07:53>> Go ahead.

1:07:53>> Yeah, I'll just um echo

1:07:56Council member Onishi that I it from the

1:07:58standpoint that I'd like to hear

1:08:00directly from all of the other

1:08:01departments that are influenced here.

1:08:02I'm I am willing to move it to a first

1:08:04reading, but I wouldn't be willing to

1:08:06move beyond that until we resolve some

1:08:08of these issues and um

1:08:10at least have them present at the next

1:08:12meeting to weigh in on things, so.

1:08:17>> Council member Krupicka.

1:08:18>> Thank you. I'll just I can wrap this up,

1:08:20Chair, if that's okay, or would you like

1:08:22to provide some comments before I do?

1:08:23>> Um yeah, I'd like to make just a few

1:08:26comments or questions um a kind of more

1:08:29global in nature.

1:08:30Um

1:08:32You know, I this this chapter 11

1:08:35delineates relationship between the

1:08:39county and the community and the desire

1:08:41for affordable housing and the business

1:08:43community {slash} developers.

1:08:46Um

1:08:47and so, you know, that relationship

1:08:51changes over the decades um

1:08:54and that's reflected, I think, in

1:08:57the excess credit situation and we don't

1:09:00really I don't believe we have that

1:09:04problem or it might not have been a

1:09:07problem. It might have been a good

1:09:08thing, actually, to have all those

1:09:10excess credits

1:09:12um generated at one time. I don't think

1:09:14there are if anyone

1:09:17generated excess

1:09:18credits in the last 5 years.

1:09:24Yes?

1:09:25>> Yes. Do you want me to bring Chris to

1:09:26the table?

1:09:27>> Sure, that'd be great. I'd love to hear

1:09:28about that.

1:09:41I think you got Could you Could you just

1:09:43give me a like an overview of like what

1:09:45the excess credit

1:09:48um

1:09:49sort of help Yeah, what what has been

1:09:51generated and sort of what the

1:09:54affordable housing market looks like

1:09:56recently?

1:09:58>> Sure. Uh Christina Plummer, uh Office of

1:10:01Housing and Community Development.

1:10:03Uh I I can think of the most two recent

1:10:06examples for projects that are very

1:10:07visible. The Kaiaulu Waikoloa project.

1:10:11That project generated

1:10:15a number of credits to fix issues that

1:10:17the past they had already been kind of

1:10:19pre-awarded, previously transferred, so

1:10:20they really only ended up with about 22

1:10:22and 1/2 new excess credits to them.

1:10:26Um and then the Waikoloa Family

1:10:29Affordable Housing just down the road,

1:10:31they also generated excess credits. It

1:10:34was 110 units.

1:10:36Most of them earned two credits each.

1:10:40When we deduct their 20% obligation,

1:10:43they were left with 170 credits.

1:10:47So, that was a pretty large award, but

1:10:48that is a very recent award. So, those

1:10:50are two very recent

1:10:53new um awards of affordable housing

1:10:55excess credits.

1:10:56>> Thanks so much for that.

1:10:58>> Sure.

1:10:59>> And so, and the more generally sort of

1:11:02the affordable housing

1:11:05market, like how does

1:11:08So, there were those two projects. I

1:11:09think we've I um

1:11:13we've approved a few more small projects

1:11:17recently um over

1:11:19by uh Kawaihae, I believe. Um

1:11:23but I

1:11:24have there like how many affordable

1:11:26housing agreements have you folks

1:11:30um

1:11:31generated in the last 5 years?

1:11:35>> Not very many.

1:11:37Um I think

1:11:39what, maybe three? I think there's

1:11:42they're not often, but I would just

1:11:45add the point that

1:11:47excess affordable housing credits are

1:11:49only available when they exceed their

1:11:51obligation. If there's a voluntary

1:11:54affordable housing project that does not

1:11:56owe anything, they wouldn't receive

1:11:58excess credit. So, those are only being

1:12:00awarded to projects that have active

1:12:03obligations to us and a agreement in

1:12:07place to earn those. I don't know if I'm

1:12:09answering the question, but I I think we

1:12:11have about three new agreements that

1:12:13we've entered in the last

1:12:15few years.

1:12:19>> Yeah, the the process of developing that

1:12:23affordable housing agreement, it may

1:12:25come long after you guys do the

1:12:27rezoning, right? So, the rezone

1:12:29ordinance. It's really when they they're

1:12:31further along um going into planning for

1:12:34plan review, and they need to to and

1:12:37they've solidified the plans of their

1:12:40development, and they have an idea of

1:12:42how they'd like to obligate or satisfy

1:12:45their obligation. And so, then we work

1:12:48with them. So, oftentimes,

1:12:50I mean, we have ordinances, rezone

1:12:53ordinances on the books that are still

1:12:56not in affordable housing agreements

1:12:58because they haven't moved along to the

1:13:02to the development phase. April, I got

1:13:04that

1:13:06right?

1:13:06>> Yes, that's correct. And I would just

1:13:09add um

1:13:10and thank you for those council members

1:13:13that worked with us on this in the ad

1:13:14hoc committee. There is a pretty robust

1:13:17section in this amendment that describes

1:13:20the affordable housing agreements, what

1:13:22the requirements are, so that those

1:13:25intentions are clear to the developers

1:13:27as well. Because I I think without that

1:13:30piece, there's a little bit of um

1:13:34I guess a lack of clarity or maybe

1:13:36misunderstanding of what the agreement

1:13:39does where the ordinance already

1:13:41describes that they have a condition to

1:13:45comply with affordable housing

1:13:46requirements. We are now stating

1:13:49what we're looking for and exactly as um

1:13:52administrative Costa said that

1:13:55what the plans are of what's to be

1:13:57built, how many credits are owed based

1:13:59on that plan, and how they plan to

1:14:01satisfy. So, it's very structured um and

1:14:04clear with that new amendment.

1:14:08>> Thank you and thank you to the ad hoc

1:14:11committee um for all your work in

1:14:13housing. I really appreciate

1:14:16um this bill and um all that it is doing

1:14:20to clarify and hopefully produce more

1:14:24affordable housing. Um

1:14:26Councilmember kind of you Klein folder,

1:14:29you had some more questions.

1:14:31>> Yeah, a couple more.

1:14:32>> Briefly. Yep.

1:14:33>> Okay.

1:14:34>> Yeah, go ahead.

1:14:36>> Um for the Kaiser Marston study

1:14:41thing, let's call it a thing.

1:14:44Uh 11-9A

1:14:46through F, sale of lots and units,

1:14:49consider capacity to monitor and

1:14:51enforce. Is that built in

1:14:54to the bill as it is right now?

1:14:59So, this should be the sale of lots and

1:15:00units. The suggestion was consider

1:15:03capacity to monitor and enforce.

1:15:06Uh which should be the OHC D. Is that

1:15:08within this bill that we're looking at

1:15:10right now?

1:15:12Funded by the HP or in a different

1:15:14section?

1:15:21>> Are you

1:15:22you're asking how we monitor and enforce

1:15:25or or that this bill

1:15:28specifies how we monitor?

1:15:30>> Well, two parts. Are you? If you are,

1:15:32then I don't need to ask the second one.

1:15:33Number two, if you don't, is it built

1:15:36into the structure of this new bill?

1:15:39>> Yes, so we do monitoring and enforcement

1:15:41of all of our affordable housing

1:15:43agreements.

1:15:44>> Okay.

1:15:46Okay.

1:15:49Um and then my other question was

1:15:51regarding around or revolving around the

1:15:53ability of the developer

1:15:56to provide the county

1:15:58both land and or infrastructure in lieu

1:16:01of

1:16:03housing credits?

1:16:07If a developer was to build an

1:16:09affordable housing project, build

1:16:12themselves infrastructure to serve their

1:16:14project,

1:16:15could that same infrastructure be

1:16:17donated to the county to serve future

1:16:19projects in the area?

1:16:21Which I find would be self-serving in

1:16:24the event of a developer using that

1:16:26methodology.

1:16:32>> I don't know how often we've used the

1:16:35donation of infrastructure. Never. Yeah,

1:16:38never. I I I think that is just a very

1:16:43um

1:16:44that would be a very complex

1:16:47conversation and agreement that would

1:16:49would have to be probably

1:16:52at the administration level. You you

1:16:55could possibly imagine the

1:16:58the donation of infrastructure that

1:17:00supports affordable housing as being a

1:17:02community benefit, but we have not seen

1:17:05that in a satisfaction of an affordable

1:17:07housing agreement that we work with.

1:17:10>> So, we haven't, but it is in the bill.

1:17:12And I

1:17:13we've seen in the past where we've been

1:17:15given land

1:17:17in different

1:17:20capacities to satisfy different needs

1:17:22for the developer to build out a

1:17:24project. Maybe not for affordable

1:17:25housing, but

1:17:27for different developments or industrial

1:17:28areas, things in the past. This doesn't

1:17:31work out to the county. We get a piece

1:17:32of land, we have to develop it and build

1:17:34the park. The park is supposed to be the

1:17:37benefit or the fair share contribution

1:17:39by the developer.

1:17:42I'm I'm trying to shy away from getting

1:17:44more infrastructure or

1:17:47land that doesn't actually benefit the

1:17:49county, but is the easy opt-out for the

1:17:51developer to

1:17:54cover their fair share contributions

1:17:56or their affordable housing

1:17:57requirements.

1:17:59>> I know with the

1:18:00uh

1:18:01the donation of land, OHCDA determines

1:18:04that the

1:18:05land there's is feasible for development

1:18:08and appropriate for affordable housing

1:18:10development. I think we've moved a long

1:18:12way in that area where it's not just any

1:18:16land. It's not land that doesn't have

1:18:18infrastructure tied to it. It I mean, we

1:18:21we have we have land from the '80s that

1:18:24we haven't been able to develop fully

1:18:27on. So, I think the office has moved

1:18:29quite quite a ways into um

1:18:33evaluating the land that is being

1:18:36offered and the developer that it is

1:18:38being offered to before we will enter

1:18:40into that agreement.

1:18:42We won't enter into an agreement for an

1:18:44affordable housing for affordable

1:18:46housing obligation to be satisfied with

1:18:49land that cannot serve affordable

1:18:51housing.

1:18:53>> Beautiful. Thank you. Cuz that was an

1:18:54issue in the past. Okay.

1:18:57I mean

1:18:59I do need to mention that I like a lot

1:19:01of parts of this bill.

1:19:04The parts that I brought up are the

1:19:05parts that bugged me.

1:19:07That's usually where I start.

1:19:09Um so, I would like to see a better,

1:19:12more succinct bill brought forward at

1:19:13our at our next hearing.

1:19:17Otherwise, I won't support it.

1:19:20I And just just for the record,

1:19:24we should be looking at creating

1:19:26affordable housing

1:19:28requirements

1:19:30that create cheaper

1:19:34maintenance and cheaper costs of living

1:19:38for the residents who are in them.

1:19:41Some of these things are built in

1:19:43requiring solar hot water systems.

1:19:46But when we start detracting all of the

1:19:48good things,

1:19:51curbs, gutters, sidewalks, water pipe

1:19:53insulation

1:19:55to make it cheaper to build, we're not

1:19:57doing a service to the people who get

1:19:58the house in the long run.

1:20:00I'm I'm reminded of that project by uh

1:20:04Keithfulks

1:20:06where they they subtracted out a half

1:20:08inch of pavement cuz it was cheaper.

1:20:11Yes, everyone said it was okay.

1:20:14But in the long run, that that road is

1:20:16going to be handed to the homeowners who

1:20:19live on the streets.

1:20:21And that half inch of pavement is

1:20:23another 5 to 10 years of life on that

1:20:24section of roadway.

1:20:27We granted them that ability through

1:20:29that ordinance.

1:20:30It's not beneficial to the people who

1:20:32live on the street.

1:20:33But it is cheaper to build.

1:20:36So,

1:20:37I'd like the council now and future to

1:20:40really think about what what we're

1:20:42hoping to achieve with affordable

1:20:44housing. Not just is it cheap to build

1:20:45and cheap to buy

1:20:47cuz interest rates have more of an

1:20:48impact on that

1:20:50than the how cost of housing, which is

1:20:52crazy right now.

1:20:54But what does it do for the folks who

1:20:56buy it?

1:20:57Thank you for listening. Okay, bye.

1:20:60>> Council member Eustace.

1:21:03>> I I have just a couple mini edits um

1:21:07in in section 11-5

1:21:10um B2

1:21:14the the rent-based affordability

1:21:16standard, there's a reference there to

1:21:1711-7. I think it's meant to be 11-8.

1:21:21And then the word uh per rental intel

1:21:24under the subsection in the second to

1:21:26last line of that paragraph.

1:21:29Earns one credit per rental intel under

1:21:32the subsection.

1:21:34Yeah, 11-5

1:21:38B

1:21:39one

1:21:41No, B2. That paragraph rental based

1:21:44affordability standard. There's just a

1:21:46typo. There's an L there where it should

1:21:47be unit. It says intel.

1:21:49And then on um

1:21:51page 10, um section 11-13

1:21:57B

1:21:59two

1:22:00B, there you have and in B and or in C.

1:22:04So, I think the and is supposed to be

1:22:06removed. Just a couple of things I

1:22:07caught.

1:22:10>> Very close reading.

1:22:12>> Councilmember Lee, is this

1:22:14>> Thanks. Thanks, Chair. Um

1:22:17Okay, so let's see. Section 1124, your

1:22:20priority exemptions, right? We So, we're

1:22:22It might be a question for our planning

1:22:24director. Uh Jeff, if you're still

1:22:25online, Director Daryl.

1:22:28Um

1:22:29allowances increase height limits

1:22:32reduce setbacks, reduce or eliminate

1:22:34fair share.

1:22:36Director Daryl, just a question for you

1:22:38possibly on

1:22:41floor area ratios.

1:22:45>> Okay.

1:22:46>> And if that's a

1:22:47>> What are we looking?

1:22:48>> This is section 1124. And just an

1:22:50overall question about floor area ratios

1:22:54as a permissible allowance

1:22:57with particular safeguards. And just it

1:22:59would Do you consider that a a space to

1:23:05allow for more affordable housing units

1:23:08on a on the property?

1:23:12>> Mhm.

1:23:14I think we would have to

1:23:17I I don't think I'm ready to answer that

1:23:20right here. You're saying 1124.

1:23:24>> So, it's not it's not in there right

1:23:25now.

1:23:26>> I see.

1:23:27>> Thinking of a another space to create

1:23:30more opportunity.

1:23:31And if that would be one

1:23:33and looking for your feedback on kind of

1:23:37guidelines, allowances, and maybe even a

1:23:39question for

1:23:40for building two, but um

1:23:44it are some safeguards about floor area

1:23:46ratio for properties.

1:23:52>> I think we would have to

1:23:54um

1:23:56kind of understand that a little bit

1:23:58better before we get into

1:24:01um

1:24:02kind of getting a direction on it.

1:24:05Um

1:24:06maybe before next hearing we can get

1:24:09together and discuss it and kind of

1:24:12uh so I understand completely what

1:24:14you're asking.

1:24:15>> Okay.

1:24:15>> Um if you're looking for options,

1:24:18um one of the other options that came up

1:24:21during discussion today,

1:24:24you know, there's discussion about

1:24:26um you know, in the bill there's

1:24:28rezonings.

1:24:30Um there's subdivision.

1:24:32Uh there was a question earlier about

1:24:35CPRs, and typically CPRs

1:24:38are created through plan approval

1:24:42uh

1:24:43RM zone properties or uh you know,

1:24:47you'll find them in resort properties

1:24:49and stuff, but typically uh

1:24:51multi-family.

1:24:53Um that's an avenue we can explore uh

1:24:56because you'll have

1:24:58um condominium projects come up that

1:25:01trigger plan approval that they may have

1:25:04uh similar to subdivisions existing

1:25:08zoning and

1:25:11did not ever have conditions connected

1:25:15to that particular zoning. It was

1:25:18originally so.

1:25:19So, that's one area, but we can talk

1:25:21more about uh this floor uh ratio that

1:25:26you're speaking about as well.

1:25:27>> Okay. Thanks, Director. And then

1:25:29Administrator Costa,

1:25:32>> [clears throat]

1:25:32>> kind of looking at

1:25:35you know, Chapter 11 currently and then

1:25:37these

1:25:39these revisions here,

1:25:43what do you have in your toolkit now or

1:25:45what do we need to kind of measure

1:25:46outcomes

1:25:48that these these are being delivered

1:25:50upon. I know we have standards of

1:25:53you know, one unit for every five of the

1:25:55subdivision basically, all these

1:25:56different things in chapter 11 currently

1:25:58and

1:26:00we've we've accrued housing credits,

1:26:03we've all these different things. So,

1:26:04I'm really curious to see

1:26:07how we're going to how we're going to

1:26:08measure

1:26:10and deliver upon some of these policy

1:26:12changes and really see that these

1:26:14changes have actually made a dent or

1:26:16making progress. I mean, I know there's

1:26:19there's conversation about the amount in

1:26:21the affordable housing production fund.

1:26:23So, that's an ongoing conversation, but

1:26:26there there are all these other pieces

1:26:27and ensuring that

1:26:29how does it actually

1:26:31pencil out, right?

1:26:33And so,

1:26:34what are your thoughts on recommending

1:26:37either a reporting mechanism or

1:26:40what you can deliver upon in terms of

1:26:42how do we see

1:26:43really this this play out in practice,

1:26:46in the community?

1:26:51>> I

1:26:52I I think we're

1:26:54we think alike in the sense that

1:26:59this is our

1:27:02this is our our best thinking as a body

1:27:07around um

1:27:09the work that we do.

1:27:12And what makes

1:27:13sense to us

1:27:15in the work that we do in housing and in

1:27:18of

1:27:19administering affordable housing

1:27:21agreements, obligations,

1:27:24and it's very administrative, but what

1:27:26you're talking about is housing policy

1:27:28that really

1:27:32we can measure our success in

1:27:35producing housing. And I think with

1:27:38housing policy it's we can swing the

1:27:40pendulum too far one way

1:27:43and and really restrict anything from

1:27:45being developed, or we can reach we can

1:27:48swing the pendulum another way and

1:27:51there's liberties that are taken and not

1:27:53enough housing that's developed.

1:27:55I think Act 211 which you opened with

1:28:00gives us an opportunity and also the

1:28:02Kuleana to do a feasibility study to to

1:28:05determine how

1:28:07our code actually

1:28:10financially impacts developers and

1:28:14whether or not this code

1:28:16will produce affordable housing. Um I

1:28:20think we've gotten a lot better at our

1:28:24data management around our affordable

1:28:26housing agreements, ordinances,

1:28:29obligations, credits.

1:28:31Kind of in the infancy really as a

1:28:33department of really managing this in a

1:28:35in a very um

1:28:38transparent and succinct way, but we

1:28:41have to go a little further in our

1:28:43reporting on our quarterly reports to

1:28:46show

1:28:47how this is actually producing housing,

1:28:49how we are actually producing housing.

1:28:52And whether or not we've become too

1:28:54restrictive in some areas or or we're

1:28:57missing we're missing the

1:28:59the targets.

1:29:01>> Can we even measure

1:29:03current Chapter 11 and what's been

1:29:05delivered upon those policies?

1:29:07And and prior prior iterations of it

1:29:10too, can that ever be mapped out in

1:29:11terms of

1:29:12this is what has been tracked during

1:29:14this period of time and then this what

1:29:16is you know established some foundation

1:29:18for

1:29:19what this could possibly do. I'm I'm I'm

1:29:21just curious. I'm kind of throwing it

1:29:22out here, but I'm curious to see

1:29:26you know, we've had this had this on the

1:29:27books for a while. I know this members

1:29:29on this body of

1:29:30wanted to kind of tackle this here and

1:29:32kind of see areas where it needs

1:29:34changes, but

1:29:36really seeing how

1:29:38how it's delivered upon. I know

1:29:40Councilwoman Kanne talks about ROI on

1:29:41different pieces here and our different

1:29:42our different policy things, but this is

1:29:43part of that in terms of can this

1:29:44actually pencil out in community for

1:29:45developers. Can we actually activate

1:29:45some of these credits before they they

1:29:46expire. All all all of

1:29:49>> Can we actually activate some of these

1:29:52credits before they they expire all all

1:29:54of the above?

1:29:56>> I think we can we we absolutely have the

1:29:58data to show what chapter 11 produces

1:30:03when chapter 11 is followed and we can

1:30:05provide that. I think what's missing is

1:30:09what doesn't get developed because

1:30:12chapter 11 makes certain

1:30:15uh

1:30:16restrictions that are just

1:30:18hard for a developer to meet. So that we

1:30:21don't have a lot of data around.

1:30:22>> really hard they they may come in for to

1:30:25Director Daryl's office and be like,

1:30:27"Oh, no." And then he just no we don't

1:30:29we don't have that data. It's gone,

1:30:30right? They never move forward on it.

1:30:32>> We could talk about ordinances and

1:30:34affordable housing agreements that have

1:30:37never manifested, but it would really be

1:30:39the developer to tell the story of why

1:30:42or why not and it and it's any number of

1:30:44things

1:30:46that could cause a development to

1:30:48not occur or affordable housing not to

1:30:50be met.

1:30:52>> Thank you. Last question I have for you

1:30:53is

1:30:56more on the implementation side of this.

1:30:59And the the changes here in

1:31:04what is it your capability and your

1:31:06staffing in your office to kind of take

1:31:09on some of the changes in here and adapt

1:31:11and and shift and

1:31:15really implement implement what's in

1:31:17here.

1:31:19>> I see

1:31:20>> any hurdles or barriers?

1:31:22>> I think the I think the amendments

1:31:25help us to do our job better. They're

1:31:27they provide clarity and allow us to

1:31:30speak

1:31:32um

1:31:33with developers easier with regards to

1:31:38the conditions that are are being

1:31:40imposed on a developer. So I do think

1:31:43this uh you know the clarity in the

1:31:45sections that we work with most um

1:31:49really help us

1:31:50and we do have the capacity to do that.

1:31:53I think ongoing we we're always

1:31:55challenged with enforcement and making

1:31:58sure that

1:31:60these agreements are met and so that's

1:32:02that's very intentional that we need to

1:32:04look at agreements that are that are

1:32:07outstanding and see how they're tracking

1:32:10and moving.

1:32:11>> Thank you, Mr. Editor. Thank you all for

1:32:13this whole time.

1:32:14>> Thank you. Councilmember Krikwitz.

1:32:17>> Thank you. I just want to wrap this up.

1:32:18I know that Cherynova has to head to an

1:32:20event. Um

1:32:22but Councilmember Justus, you talked

1:32:23about the tracking piece and that's

1:32:25always a question I have is how do we

1:32:27like measure return on investment and

1:32:29the impact that we're having with our

1:32:30codes?

1:32:32I think this particular situation, it's

1:32:34very hard to do that because while the

1:32:36policy exists and it's a good policy,

1:32:39there are external factors that impact

1:32:42whether or not people take advantage of

1:32:44this policy now. Things like interest

1:32:46rates and whether or not infrastructure

1:32:48is available.

1:32:50Um so it's it's really hard to

1:32:52make an assessment and just and to say

1:32:55this was a success or what counts as a

1:32:58success because there are those other

1:32:59external factors. Um but I think the

1:33:01important part is it provides housing

1:33:04with the clarity needed to do its job

1:33:07and also sets the expectation out in the

1:33:10community. So there's

1:33:12there's no um

1:33:13there are no additional obstacles in the

1:33:16way to developing. It's all clearly

1:33:17written here in the code. I don't think

1:33:20we can get any more succinct. If

1:33:21anything, I think we did an excellent

1:33:24job staying within the 16 pages of the

1:33:27existing law within this ordinance and

1:33:29clarifying um so much of what has been

1:33:32um just a little bit fuzzy for housing

1:33:35and developers.

1:33:36Really appreciate all the feedback that

1:33:38has been provided. This has been a

1:33:40three-year

1:33:42effort um and a couple of the

1:33:44communications related to the ad hoc,

1:33:46especially this one for this uh

1:33:48particular council term, communication

1:33:5063.001,

1:33:53list every single department,

1:33:55individual, organization that was part

1:33:58of this process. Um we've had certain

1:34:01departments such as planning, water,

1:34:03public works, finance

1:34:05visit us throughout our time together on

1:34:08those monthly, sometimes bi-monthly

1:34:10meetings. Um happy to bring them forward

1:34:12again to revisit and check in. It's what

1:34:15you agreed to when we filed this bill.

1:34:17Still something you can get behind. We

1:34:19wanted to put a lot of ideas out there

1:34:21so we could have this robust

1:34:22conversation. I don't think we were

1:34:24expecting this to pass as is. The point

1:34:27is to figure out how do we build housing

1:34:30in a way that is economical, um is

1:34:33efficient, but also preserves dignity

1:34:36for the people that are going to be

1:34:37living in it. I don't think anyone here

1:34:39is trying to fast track or build cheap

1:34:41housing. We're just looking at what are

1:34:43some concessions that can be made so

1:34:44that we have actual housing that people

1:34:46are moving into.

1:34:48Things that folks addressed today, thank

1:34:50you for bringing them up. We will

1:34:51definitely be advancing um some

1:34:54amendments based on feedback provided

1:34:55today.

1:34:57Um

1:34:58I don't need to go through the list, but

1:34:59we will absolutely be moving We would

1:35:02like to move this forward um to first

1:35:04reading at council

1:35:06uh with the expectation that the really

1:35:09wonderful um feedback that our

1:35:11colleagues and the public have been

1:35:13provided will be advancing in the form

1:35:15of some kind of amendment so we can

1:35:17continue the very important dialogue on

1:35:19this important piece of policy. So just

1:35:21looking for everyone's support to get it

1:35:22to first reading. And thank you again on

1:35:24housing corporation council for your

1:35:26collaboration. Special shout out to

1:35:28Jacob Harry over at LRB for helping us

1:35:30to pull all of this together. Thank you,

1:35:32Chair.

1:35:33>> Thank you.

1:35:36Uh so,

1:35:38all in favor of forwarding bill 207 to

1:35:42the council with a favorable

1:35:43recommendation, please say I.

1:35:46Any opposed?

1:35:48Can we do roll call vote, please?

1:35:52>> On the motion on the floor,

1:35:54Councilmember Eustace.

1:35:56>> I.

1:35:57>> Councilmember Hinshaw.

1:35:58>> I.

1:35:58>> Councilmember Hagiwara.

1:35:59>> Aye.

1:36:00>> Councilmember Connelly Kleinfelter.

1:36:01>> No.

1:36:02>> I didn't hear I'm sorry, I didn't hear

1:36:03you.

1:36:04>> No.

1:36:04>> Thank you. Councilmember Campbell.

1:36:07>> Aye.

1:36:08>> Councilmember Onishi.

1:36:09>> No.

1:36:11>> Councilmember Rieger.

1:36:13Councilmember Kirkwood.

1:36:14>> Aye.

1:36:15>> Vice Chair Galimba.

1:36:17>> Aye.

1:36:17>> Vice Chair Galimba, you have six votes

1:36:19in favor with Councilmember Connelly

1:36:21Kleinfelter and Onishi opposed and

1:36:23Councilmember Rieger absent. The motion

1:36:24carries.

1:36:26>> Thank you. Can we go to bill 204?

1:36:31>> Is there any testimony for bill 204?

1:36:36Hearing none, bill 204 amends chapter 2

1:36:38of the Y County Code 1983-2016 edition

1:36:40as amended relating to the establishment

1:36:43of a town revitalization program.

1:36:45Establishes a town revitalization

1:36:46program to provide up to $1 million

1:36:49annually in grants and other financial

1:36:50assistance for improvements to eligible

1:36:52buildings and areas. Requires Director

1:36:54of Research and Development to procure a

1:36:55non-profit organization to administer

1:36:57the grant program. It was introduced by

1:36:59Councilmember Kirkwood and was postponed

1:37:00to October 20, 2026 and there's a motion

1:37:03on the floor by Councilmember Kirkwood

1:37:04seconded by Councilmember Houston to

1:37:06recommend passage of bill 204 on first

1:37:09reading.

1:37:10>> Councilmember Kirkwood.

1:37:11>> Thank you, Chair. Um

1:37:13there was really great feedback provided

1:37:15at committee that I would love to be

1:37:17able to talk about through this

1:37:18amendment. So, I'll go ahead go ahead

1:37:20and make a motion to amend bill 204 with

1:37:23the contents of 11.22.2.

1:37:25>> Second.

1:37:27>> Moved by Councilmember Kirkwood seconded

1:37:28by Councilmember Houston to amend bill

1:37:31204 with the contents of communication

1:37:3411.22.1.

1:37:37Councilmember Kirkwood.

1:37:38>> Two.

1:37:39>> Point two.

1:37:39>> No.

1:37:40>> Thank you. Uh thank you.

1:37:42There was a desire by a number of

1:37:44members on the dais to have this program

1:37:48be a pilot program, which is a fantastic

1:37:51idea. I think it's great for us to try

1:37:54things out, see how they do, and

1:37:55determine if this is something that's

1:37:57feasible and successful that we want to

1:37:59continue as a county.

1:38:01Um so, this particular amendment

1:38:02establishes that this town

1:38:04revitalization program would be a 5-year

1:38:06pilot.

1:38:07Um, at the request of the department,

1:38:09additional, um, changes were made,

1:38:12including in section 2A with an

1:38:14establishment and purpose, again

1:38:16acknowledging that it is a pilot, and

1:38:18removing language related to any kind of

1:38:22loans.

1:38:23Um, Deputy Lynn has a banking background

1:38:26and he definitely does not want to be

1:38:28establishing this program or the county

1:38:30up, um, to any kind of loan program, um,

1:38:34within the county. Um, in terms of

1:38:36program funding, there was some

1:38:38consternation around

1:38:41the ability to appropriate up to $1

1:38:43million for this program. Um, so looking

1:38:45at a pilot where 250,000 would be

1:38:48appropriated on an annual basis. Um, I

1:38:51know that folks have made comments about

1:38:53legislating through ordinance how money

1:38:56is spent.

1:38:57I actually think that this is an

1:38:59excellent way for us to be very clear

1:39:01with the public about what our

1:39:03priorities are, and within the law

1:39:06articulate guardrails, requirements, and

1:39:08expectations. So this is a much more

1:39:11transparent way of allocating money

1:39:13versus just approving a budget, you

1:39:16know, close to $900 million where we

1:39:20don't necessarily know exactly how every

1:39:22single one of those dollars is being

1:39:24spent. So I think by having it in

1:39:26ordinance, it just provides clarity and

1:39:27transparency to the public.

1:39:30Also removed within program funding, um,

1:39:33the appropriation about administrative

1:39:35expenses because the code already does

1:39:37articulate, um, how that administrative

1:39:40expense is

1:39:41calculated.

1:39:43For grant evaluation criteria, making a

1:39:46couple of additions regarding, um, a

1:39:49requirement for a cash contribution, um,

1:39:52and then additional cash or in-kind

1:39:54resources committed, um, to the

1:39:57application

1:39:58could be weighed, um, more strongly for

1:40:01the application.

1:40:03Um, and then finally, within the section

1:40:06for disbursement of grants to the

1:40:09recipients, um, just making it

1:40:11abundantly clear that we would require

1:40:13documentation for work being completed

1:40:16and expenditures to just make reporting,

1:40:19um, back to this body and to the public,

1:40:21uh, much more robust.

1:40:24The department has also suggested,

1:40:27um, extending the reporting back to the

1:40:30council by 15 days to be in alignment

1:40:32with the recently adopted of code for

1:40:36research and development. And then, last

1:40:39couple of sections are regarding, um,

1:40:42this being a pilot and this program

1:40:44being repealed at the end of 5 years,

1:40:46unless the council takes further action

1:40:48via ordinance. Um, I think this

1:40:50addresses everyone's concerns, but happy

1:40:53to take any questions. Thank you, chair.

1:40:58>> Council member Eustace.

1:40:59>> Thank you, chair. Thank you, Council

1:41:00member for incorporating these

1:41:01recommendations. Thank you.

1:41:05>> Council member Bronstein.

1:41:06>> Thank you, Madam Chair. R and D?

1:41:09Deputy can

1:41:11chime in.

1:41:16>> Good afternoon again, again, Council

1:41:18member. Uh, Dennis Ling, Deputy Director

1:41:19for R and D. Um, just wanted to say

1:41:22thank you very much to Council member

1:41:23Kirkwitz for being willing to work with

1:41:25the administration and the department on

1:41:27some of these amendments.

1:41:29Uh, we are supportive of, you know,

1:41:31economic development and this this type

1:41:33of revitalization program. Um, and, you

1:41:36know, we're very happy to, you know,

1:41:38work together on a program that would

1:41:41fulfill both the community's needs and

1:41:43the county's, uh, priorities. So, thank

1:41:46you very much.

1:41:49>> I yield.

1:41:50>> Thank you. Council member Kagiwada.

1:41:53>> Thank you.

1:41:54Um,

1:41:55I'm probably going to be a no on this. I

1:41:58feel like

1:41:59R and D should be doing more to bring

1:42:02money into the county,

1:42:04um, than just being a

1:42:07department that gives money out to

1:42:11the community without, you know, uh,

1:42:14having

1:42:16specific things they need to do for it.

1:42:18I I it just to me,

1:42:20like you said you staffed up more now,

1:42:23you have more staff.

1:42:24I'd like to see more money coming into

1:42:26the county, more grant writing, more,

1:42:29you know, going after that and then use

1:42:31that money if if that makes sense to get

1:42:34it out to the community, but to just

1:42:37take this out of the general fund right

1:42:38now and we're struggling so much. We

1:42:40just talked about how we're going to

1:42:42reduce um,

1:42:45the recommendation that the ad hoc

1:42:47worked on for the $15 million a year

1:42:50uh, for affordable housing.

1:42:53Um, I just I I just have a little

1:42:56heartburn trying to say that we should

1:42:58be giving these grants that are

1:42:59especially going to, um,

1:43:01for-profit businesses and things. So,

1:43:05I I

1:43:06totally get the intent. I think there's

1:43:07some great work here.

1:43:10Um, I do love the, you know,

1:43:13the historic societies

1:43:15uh, program that I think you said you,

1:43:17you know, kind of took inspiration from,

1:43:21but I think the historic society is one

1:43:23thing to do this, but it's different for

1:43:25the county to keep

1:43:27just giving out a lot of grants without

1:43:29bringing in the money first. So, um, I

1:43:32look I I I look forward to

1:43:34R&D bringing in more money, um,

1:43:37hopefully in the near future and then

1:43:39figuring out how we we spend that

1:43:41wisely. So,

1:43:43um,

1:43:44that's how I'm feeling about it now. I

1:43:45yield.

1:43:51>> Seeing no other lights,

1:43:53um,

1:43:54let's do a roll call vote on bill 204.

1:44:00>> We're on the motion to amend.

1:44:01>> Oh, sorry.

1:44:02>> So, on the motion to amend bill 204 per

1:44:05communication 1122.2.

1:44:08Commissioner Eustace.

1:44:10>> Aye.

1:44:11>> Commissioner Rainville.

1:44:13>> Councilmember Kagiwada

1:44:18>> Aye.

1:44:18>> Got you. Thank you. Councilmember

1:44:20Connelly-Kleine Felder

1:44:21>> Aye.

1:44:23>> Councilmember Kimble

1:44:24>> Aye.

1:44:25>> Councilmember Onishi

1:44:26>> Aye.

1:44:27>> Councilmember Viegas

1:44:29Councilmember

1:44:29Kirkwood

1:44:32>> [laughter]

1:44:33>> Aye.

1:44:35>> Uh Vice Chair Golembiewski

1:44:37>> Aye.

1:44:38>> Vice Chair Golembiewski have seven votes

1:44:39in favor

1:44:42with Councilmembers Inaba and Viegas

1:44:44absent, the motion carries.

1:44:48>> All right, any further thoughts?

1:44:50Councilmember Kagiwada

1:44:52>> Sorry. Just obviously I was out of line

1:44:55and I was not speaking to the amendment

1:44:56last time. I was speaking more to the

1:44:58overall

1:44:59general

1:45:00bill, so sorry about that.

1:45:04>> No problem. I'm easily led astray.

1:45:07>> [laughter]

1:45:09>> Anyone else? Okay.

1:45:11Um

1:45:12roll call vote on bill 204, please.

1:45:15>> On the motion to bill to forward bill

1:45:17204 as amended to the council with a

1:45:19favorable recommendation, Councilmember

1:45:21Hustus

1:45:22>> Aye.

1:45:23>> Councilmember Inaba

1:45:25Councilmember Kagiwada

1:45:26>> No.

1:45:27>> Councilmember Connelly-Kleine Felder

1:45:36>> Aye.

1:45:38>> Councilmember Kimble

1:45:39>> No.

1:45:41>> Councilmember Onishi

1:45:42>> Aye.

1:45:43>> Councilmember Viegas

1:45:45Councilmember Kirkwood

1:45:46>> Aye.

1:45:47>> Vice Chair Golembiewski

1:45:48>> No.

1:45:49>> Vice Chair Golembiewski have four votes

1:45:51in favor, those being Councilmembers

1:45:53Hustus, Connelly-Kleine Felder, Onishi,

1:45:55and Kirkwood. Three opposed, two absent,

1:45:58the motion is lost.

1:46:01The bill be forwarded with a negative

1:46:02recommendation.

1:46:05>> At this time I will be passing the chair

1:46:07back to

1:46:09uh Chair Kirkwood.

1:46:12Um

1:46:13>> It's 202 by request, so

1:46:15>> Let the record reflect I have assumed

1:46:17the chairmanship at 3:22 p.m. Mr. Clerk,

1:46:21if we could please read in Bill 208.

1:46:23>> Is there any testimony for Bill 208?

1:46:29Hearing none, Bill 208 amends chapter 6,

1:46:31article 7, section 6-47 of the Wake

1:46:34County Code 1983-2016 edition as amended

1:46:37relating to transient vacation rentals

1:46:40clarifies a bonafide reciprocal

1:46:42non-commercial exchange of principal

1:46:43homes does not constitute a transient

1:46:45vacation rental. Introduced by Council

1:46:48Member Huestis.

1:46:49>> Chair, motion to forward Bill 208 to

1:46:51council with a positive recommendation.

1:46:54>> Thank you. There's a motion by Council

1:46:55Member Huestis and a second by Council

1:46:57Member Onishi to forward Bill 208 to the

1:46:59council with a favorable recommendation.

1:47:01Council Member Huestis.

1:47:02>> Thanks, Chair. I appreciate the

1:47:04testifiers today and I appreciate your

1:47:05patience here as well. Um

1:47:07we've worked through ordinance 2550

1:47:10and really the broader discussions about

1:47:12uh Bill 147 and TVR uh regulations and

1:47:16I've really considered continue to

1:47:18consider whether our regulations

1:47:20adequately distinguish between our

1:47:22commercial vacation rental activity and

1:47:24other arrangements involving the

1:47:26temporary use of a home.

1:47:28And so Bill 208 really seeks to clarify

1:47:30one of those distinctions.

1:47:32Uh the measure genuine you know,

1:47:33generally addresses reciprocal

1:47:35non-commercial arrangements between

1:47:37homeowners who temporarily exchange the

1:47:40use of their principal residence.

1:47:42Uh these arrangements may occur

1:47:43simultaneously or at different times,

1:47:46but they must involve actual

1:47:48reciprocity. Another party may pay

1:47:50provide payment, points, credits, or

1:47:53other separate compensation.

1:47:55Uh we're not talking about investment

1:47:56properties,

1:47:58you know, second homes or commercial

1:48:00vacation rental businesses. We're

1:48:01talking about two homeowners

1:48:03that are temporarily exchanging the

1:48:04opportunity to stay in each other's

1:48:05primary residence.

1:48:07I've had a productive and I know

1:48:08Director Daryl Stallings on line here, I

1:48:10believe, productive conversation with

1:48:11the planning department about regarding

1:48:13this measure and I appreciate the

1:48:15concerns raised about terminology.

1:48:17And the phrase home exchange is used

1:48:19broadly today, including by commercial

1:48:21platforms that facilitate a variety of

1:48:24arrangements. So, recognize that not

1:48:26everything advertised as a home exchange

1:48:28would qualify under this proposed

1:48:29exemption.

1:48:31Uh that's why I believe that precisely

1:48:34that the clarity in our county code is

1:48:35important.

1:48:37Rather than relying on, you know,

1:48:38commonly used term, we should establish

1:48:40clear boundaries and a really specific

1:48:42activity that we're addressing.

1:48:44You know, ordinance 2550 does not

1:48:46expressly address those reciprocal

1:48:47arrangements, leaving room for

1:48:49uncertainty about how they should be

1:48:52treated. So, bill 208 would provide

1:48:54greater clarity for homeowners and those

1:48:56responsible for administering and

1:48:58enforcing our regulations.

1:49:00And I remain

1:49:01open to any working with the planning

1:49:03department and corporation counsel on

1:49:04any refinements that would strengthen

1:49:06the language and prevent unintended

1:49:08applications.

1:49:10Ultimately, the the bill here

1:49:11legislation is the and it's

1:49:13straightforward to recognize a

1:49:14legitimate non-commercial arrangement

1:49:16between principal homeowners without

1:49:18creating another pathway for commercial

1:49:20vacation rentals.

1:49:22Thank you so much.

1:49:24>> Thank you. Is there a comment that

1:49:25Director Darrow would like to make? I

1:49:27see that you're joining us via Zoom.

1:49:30>> Thank you. Uh

1:49:32Council member Kirk Watie, I would just

1:49:34mention that uh

1:49:36uh this is

1:49:38um much needed, this language, and

1:49:41uh very clear. Um

1:49:43we've been uh speaking together with

1:49:46Council member Huestis on just some

1:49:48minor tweaks, but overall uh definitely

1:49:53uh

1:49:53uh

1:49:54something that that we're not intending

1:49:57to um have this type of

1:50:01uh activity come under TVRs, but to uh

1:50:07be exempt uh from having to

1:50:10uh submit a registration for that. There

1:50:14on the opposite side of this, the other

1:50:17part of this

1:50:18um

1:50:20this amendment deals with those that uh

1:50:24if they are doing um you know, that

1:50:27exchange for points or money or credits

1:50:31or whatever it is

1:50:33uh they will likely be required to come

1:50:37in and apply

1:50:39uh for a TVR registration.

1:50:42But, thank you.

1:50:43>> Thank you, Director. Councilmember Kimo.

1:50:45>> Yeah, just um wanted to offer my support

1:50:49for this amendment. Um you know, when

1:50:51when we were drafting the initial uh

1:50:55ordinance 2550

1:50:57um it was always intended and and the

1:50:59way I interpret the language now is that

1:51:01it does exclude home exchanges because

1:51:03there's no exchange of points or money

1:51:05or anything like that. But um and I did

1:51:09explain that to the testifyer. Um the

1:51:12the nice thing about this is it just

1:51:14makes that really really super crystal

1:51:16clear. So, um I'm happy to support the

1:51:19the changes in language and appreciate

1:51:22um Councilmember Hustace for putting

1:51:23this up. Thank you.

1:51:25>> Thank you. Any other questions or

1:51:26comments?

1:51:28Thank you, Councilmember Hustace for

1:51:29taking the initiative to put this

1:51:31forward.

1:51:32There's a motion on the floor to forward

1:51:34Bill

1:51:3528 to the council with a favorable

1:51:36recommendation. All those in favor,

1:51:38please say aye.

1:51:39>> Aye.

1:51:39>> Any opposed? Motion carries with seven

1:51:42ayes. Councilmembers Enaba and Viegas

1:51:44are excused.

1:51:46Mr. Clerk final item on the agenda, Bill

1:51:50212.

1:51:52>> Is there any testimony for Bill 212?

1:51:57Hearing none, Bill 212 amends Chapter

1:51:5914, Article 10, Section 14-65 of the

1:52:02Hawaii County Code, 1983-2016

1:52:04edition as amended relating to

1:52:06designated exceptional trees as the

1:52:08Kiawe tree, taking a palm, wiliwili tree

1:52:10grove, and kīpuka tree to the

1:52:12exceptional trees of the County wide

1:52:13table. Introduced by Councilmember

1:52:15Kirkwood by request.

1:52:18>> Can I have a motion to forward Bill 212

1:52:20to the council with a favorable

1:52:21recommendation?

1:52:22>> So moved, chair.

1:52:26>> Thank you. There is a motion by

1:52:27Councilmember Huestis and a second by

1:52:29Councilmember Kimball to forward bill

1:52:30212 to the council with a favorable

1:52:32recommendation. This was sent to my

1:52:34office and is being introduced by

1:52:36request. There were some recommendations

1:52:38by the Arbourist Committee

1:52:40to designate certain trees on Hawaii

1:52:42Island as exceptional. We have executive

1:52:45assistant to the mayor, Mr. Micah

1:52:47Alameda, joining us. Micah, is there any

1:52:49additional information you would like to

1:52:51provide to the body as we deliberate?

1:52:53>> Aloha, Madam Chair. Aloha,

1:52:55councilmembers. Mahalo for the

1:52:56opportunity. I'm Micah Alameda,

1:52:57executive assistant, Office of the

1:52:59Mayor. Nothing more to add,

1:53:00councilmember. I do want to apologize.

1:53:02Chair Jo Wagner was on earlier, but she

1:53:05had to jump off for another meeting.

1:53:07However, she will make herself available

1:53:09when this gets transmitted or referred

1:53:11to the full council just to answer any

1:53:14questions and speak to substance of

1:53:16these four recommendations. I am the

1:53:18staff secretary for this commission. I'm

1:53:20happy to answer any questions that that

1:53:22I can, but Chair Wagner will try to be

1:53:25there at the next council meeting to

1:53:27help answer any questions. Mahalo, Madam

1:53:28Chair.

1:53:30>> Thank you. Um, any questions for Mr.

1:53:33Alameda?

1:53:35Mr. Huestis.

1:53:36>> Thanks, chair. Mr. Alameda, could you

1:53:38just enlighten me about the kiawe tree

1:53:40in South Kohala?

1:53:42>> Yes.

1:53:43Thank you, Councilmember Huestis. The

1:53:45kiawe tree is um

1:53:47it is on private property of the

1:53:49Saludets Saudults. They are within the

1:53:52Kohala Ranch property.

1:53:55This kiawe tree was visited by Chair Jo

1:53:58Wagner and Vice Chair Michi Hanano.

1:54:01They described it as a beautiful kiawe

1:54:03tree.

1:54:05These residents do want to try and

1:54:07preserve it. They think it's the focal

1:54:09point of their property.

1:54:11They are originally from California, but

1:54:14they love living over on the west side

1:54:16of the island. They love that kiawe

1:54:18tree. They love their property, and they

1:54:20really want to try try

1:54:21as much of it as they can. Um, there was

1:54:23some some challenges that they needed to

1:54:26work through just in terms of like HOA

1:54:28conditions and requirements. Um, but

1:54:31once we were able to square that up, um,

1:54:33the committee voted in favor to

1:54:36um, recommend this tree as um,

1:54:39exceptional.

1:54:40>> I appreciate that and the background

1:54:42there. It is amazing how many kiawe

1:54:43trees we lost in the

1:54:45in the storms recently. So, I

1:54:47it it's challenging across the Ka'u

1:54:49region to see a lot of kiawe trees down.

1:54:51I mean, they're they're they were

1:54:52introduced, so it's um,

1:54:54yeah, they were just some of them were

1:54:56toppled over and have yet to be removed.

1:54:57So, it's

1:54:58just appreciate the background on that

1:55:00one. Thank you.

1:55:01>> Yeah, sure. No, of course. Um, I was

1:55:03able to go look at the Tahina palm at

1:55:05University of Hawai'i at Hilo myself.

1:55:07Um, that that's a gorgeous palm tree.

1:55:09It's really beautiful. Uh, joining me

1:55:11for that was uh, member George

1:55:13Applegate. Um, after that, he reported

1:55:15back to the committee and then they they

1:55:17recommended favorable recommendation for

1:55:19that as well. Um, the wiliwili grove at

1:55:23um, Jill Wagner's property, Chair

1:55:25Wagner's property. It is a beautiful,

1:55:27absolutely beautiful wiliwili grove. She

1:55:29has so many trees on her property, which

1:55:32really explains her depth and her

1:55:34experience and credibility when it comes

1:55:36to trees um, and conservation here on

1:55:39Hawai'i Island. Um, so uh, for that site

1:55:42visit, it was Joel Rothji, who is with

1:55:45the planning department. He's the

1:55:46planning director's designee on this

1:55:48committee and also joining Joel for that

1:55:50site visit was George Applegate. Because

1:55:53Jill Wagner is the chair and an

1:55:55applicant for that exceptional tree, she

1:55:57she was just there to host those two

1:55:59members.

1:56:00Um, and then the the last tree is the

1:56:02kapok tree, uh, which is down there in

1:56:04South Kona. Jill herself went to go and

1:56:06did a site visit there along with Joel

1:56:08Rothji and their report back was um, you

1:56:11know, phenomenal. You know, it's a

1:56:13beautiful tree. It absolutely should be

1:56:15preserved. Um, and you know, if you know

1:56:17Jill, she has such a passion um, for for

1:56:20trees and it is so it it's it's a

1:56:22blessing to learn and and watch her.

1:56:25And we also have Jean Campbell here, who

1:56:26is the Deputy Corporation Counsel.

1:56:28Mahalo nui loa, Jean, for, you know, all

1:56:30of your guidance. Appreciate it.

1:56:33>> Council member Galimba.

1:56:34>> Oh, thank you. Um Mr. On Lee, I wonder

1:56:37if you could just give us a or or

1:56:39um

1:56:41DCC Campbell, more a little more

1:56:43background on the HOA element for the

1:56:46Kiawe tree. Um what was worked out?

1:56:50Yeah, what are the issues and how it how

1:56:52they were worked out?

1:56:53>> Yeah, Deputy Corp Counsel Campbell, do

1:56:55you want to take a stab at that?

1:56:58>> Um

1:56:59I I guess it it may be that I'm not 100%

1:57:02in the loop. I'm not entirely sure what

1:57:03was

1:57:04worked out when we when we're saying

1:57:06that something was worked out. Um the

1:57:08designation of an exceptional tree is

1:57:11something that, as you know, is made by

1:57:13the County Council. And what it does is

1:57:15it says, you know, obviously that this

1:57:17tree that has been evaluated by the

1:57:19committee and it meets all of the

1:57:20criteria. And we think, you know, we

1:57:22think it's very special and and worthy

1:57:24of special protections. Um

1:57:27the

1:57:28I suppose the um

1:57:31attachment that it gets through the law

1:57:33is the County Planning Department would

1:57:37be able to um

1:57:40assess fines if somebody, you know,

1:57:43presumably the landowner or somebody

1:57:44else were to intentionally damage the

1:57:46tree. Obviously, trees don't live

1:57:47forever and um the committee has been

1:57:50working very hard and will be bringing

1:57:52to you some more amendments um to the

1:57:54existing list that's in the county um

1:57:57code because, as we know, trees don't

1:57:59all live forever and we some of the

1:58:01things that are on our list today um no

1:58:03longer exist. But, in the case of this

1:58:05Kiawe, the concern that was raised was

1:58:08that the um

1:58:10we were in the committee was informed

1:58:12that the

1:58:14homeowners association covenants and

1:58:15conditions and restrictions that affect

1:58:17the property that this tree sits on

1:58:20include a limitation of 30 ft for all

1:58:24vegetation that grows on the property.

1:58:26And we were informed that the the tree

1:58:28is currently I think about 50 feet tall.

1:58:31The concern that we had was that

1:58:34the property owners could be put into a

1:58:36difficult situation because the

1:58:39designation of being an exceptional tree

1:58:42does not exempt them from the

1:58:44requirements of their homeowners

1:58:46association covenants which preexist the

1:58:49designation and don't they're they're

1:58:52private covenant that applies to the

1:58:54property.

1:58:55So the homeowners could be put in the

1:58:56situation where their owners association

1:59:00is legally allowed to require that they

1:59:04trim the tree back to the 30 feet or

1:59:06less. And um

1:59:09I guess the the concern would be that if

1:59:10that were either done improperly or

1:59:13um somehow

1:59:15uh reduced the exceptional quality of

1:59:18the tree that then the homeowners could

1:59:20potentially be subject to fines by the

1:59:22county if the determination were made

1:59:25that that impinged on its exceptional

1:59:28tree protections.

1:59:30Um so just to be aware that there's

1:59:32there is this sort of balance with this

1:59:34one where the tree technically sounds

1:59:37like it could be in violation of it of

1:59:39the covenants that apply to the property

1:59:41today

1:59:42um and the

1:59:45um exceptional tree designation if if

1:59:48the tree had to be pruned back in a way

1:59:50that um eliminated its exceptional

1:59:52qualities could potentially subject the

1:59:54property owners to to fines by the

1:59:56county if we were to go in that

1:59:58in that direction.

2:00:02>> Thank you so much. That sounds uh quite

2:00:04complicated.

2:00:06I will yield for now.

2:00:07>> Sorry about that.

2:00:08>> No.

2:00:09Your

2:00:10explanation was good but sounds like the

2:00:12situation is complicated.

2:00:15I yield.

2:00:16>> Thank you. Councilmember Canady

2:00:18Kleinfelder.

2:00:20>> That's very important insights. Ms.

2:00:22Catlin, thank you very much. Uh Mr.

2:00:24Almeda, just want to compliment you on

2:00:25your beard. It's very nice.

2:00:28>> Mr. Councilmember?

2:00:29>> Ms.

2:00:30>> November. Um I had a question about the

2:00:32date in which these applications were

2:00:34submitted. I noticed that some of them

2:00:36are from May 2024 and then a couple from

2:00:402025.

2:00:41Is there nothing in our code that

2:00:42requires review of these applications by

2:00:45the body within a certain time frame?

2:00:47And I'm curious like

2:00:50did it really take that long to evaluate

2:00:52the applications before being able to

2:00:53come to council?

2:00:56>> Yeah, so there is no um there is no time

2:00:59to define requirement for the work of

2:01:02the arborist advisory committee. And one

2:01:04of the things that is unique about this

2:01:06particular committee is it expires with

2:01:09each um each new mayor. The this group

2:01:12is appointed by the mayor and expires

2:01:14with the mayor. And as is

2:01:17um

2:01:18very not unusual, you know, the when a

2:01:20new administration comes in they're very

2:01:22busy doing a lot of a lot of a lot of

2:01:23things and sometimes getting the

2:01:25arborist advisory committee up and

2:01:27running is not the very first priority

2:01:29on day one for um a new mayor and so

2:01:33sometimes it just takes time for the

2:01:34arborist advisory committee to be

2:01:36appointed and put in place and then to

2:01:38get into work.

2:01:40>> Madam Chair

2:01:41>> Unfortunately, but not unusual in life.

2:01:43>> Okay.

2:01:44>> You know, I'll just add that um you

2:01:45know, unfortunately

2:01:47for me two years almost two years ago

2:01:50the arborist advisory committee wasn't

2:01:52at the top of that list and then once it

2:01:54kind of got the bearings in place and

2:01:56and we had everyone activated and sworn

2:01:58in, then we took up the applications

2:02:00that were just sitting in the queue,

2:02:02which was waiting for us like the May

2:02:042024 one. But it is no excuse, right?

2:02:07And and that is where hopefully I can

2:02:09leave a legacy when my time is up here

2:02:12to make sure that whoever takes my place

2:02:14going forward, you know, has has a

2:02:17portfolio or something that that can

2:02:19really be um a base for them to work off

2:02:22of and and make their own. But you know,

2:02:25when I came in we it was it was rougher

2:02:27than I would have imagined,

2:02:29but that is not an excuse. It's just an

2:02:30acknowledgement and it shouldn't operate

2:02:33like this. It should be much cleaner,

2:02:34much more transitional

2:02:36and and it's going to be my goal Leon to

2:02:38make sure of that for the future. So

2:02:39call on me in a moment chair, you're

2:02:41absolutely right. Gene is correct too,

2:02:43shouldn't be an excuse for any new mayor

2:02:45who comes in, just get it done and

2:02:48that's what I'm trying to do.

2:02:50>> Hey, no judgement here. Not upset about

2:02:52it. Just really appreciate you taking a

2:02:53look at a previous administration's

2:02:55application and considering it alongside

2:02:58others that came in during Mayor

2:03:00Alameda's term and working so diligently

2:03:02to finally get this in front of the

2:03:04council. Appreciate you creating

2:03:05templates so folks that do succeed you

2:03:08have all the tools and information they

2:03:09need to hit the ground running as

2:03:12quickly as you. I don't know though, but

2:03:14try to match your pace and and your work

2:03:18ethic. So thank you Mr. Alameda and

2:03:20Deputy Corporation Council for your work

2:03:22on this. There is a motion on the floor.

2:03:24Oh.

2:03:26My little nice chair. My chair Nishi. Go

2:03:28ahead.

2:03:28>> I just wanted to make a behind you that

2:03:30screen. Is that

2:03:31>> Yeah, that's 56 right now.

2:03:33>> Yeah, right on. Yeah, looks really nice.

2:03:36Yeah. And on that note what you just

2:03:38mentioned,

2:03:39can you get some commissioners for a

2:03:41DEM?

2:03:43>> Yes, I've I've been listening to the

2:03:44conversation earlier today. I've heard

2:03:46every second of it. I have I have

2:03:49prospects in the queue right now that

2:03:50I'm in discussion with and then I will

2:03:53work with council chair Inaba. Maybe we

2:03:55can get a waiver.

2:03:56>> Okay, I'm sorry.

2:03:57Yeah, thanks. No problem. Thank you.

2:04:00Okay. Bye.

2:04:04>> I think it's my last meeting sharing

2:04:05this committee. So I was going to extend

2:04:07you a little bit of latitude.

2:04:09It's been a fun eight years y'all. Okay,

2:04:11there is a motion on the floor to

2:04:13forward bill 212 to the council with a

2:04:15favorable recommendation. All those in

2:04:16favor please say I.

2:04:18Any opposed? Motion carries with seven I

2:04:21votes. Council members Inaba and Piekus

2:04:24are excused.

2:04:25>> Hello madam chair, congratulations.

2:04:27Appreciate you.

2:04:29>> Thank you. The meeting is adjourned at

2:04:313:41 p.m. Aloha.

2:05:09>> Mhm.

```*