with the planning committee meeting june second two thousand and sixteen please come to order to about nine o three my name is diane couch and the chair of the committee and with us today is the vice chair robert carol good morning ok members before we get any further can everybody turn their phones on to silent mode make sure much of it is so we don't have far with pauline martin and passing out some stuff and of the hon a district office we have for morning ways we'll get back to you just a little bit all right on the agenda members we have two items p c forty two which is ownership durational requirements for short term mental home permit applications and p c twenty six proposed amendments to the comprehensive zoning ordinance relating to enforcement of better breakfast homes and short term mental homes we're going to start public testimony shortly for individuals testifying in the chamber please sign up a desk outside the chamber door of testifying from the remote testimony site please sign up with just office staff testimony will be limited to the items i just listed on the agenda today pursuant to the rules of the council each testifier will be allowed to testify for up to three minutes upright m m we're also going to be allowing an additional minute conclude testimony you'll get a green light for three minutes and then we'll turn yellow with one minute left and when it turns red that's the end of you four minutes please wrap up four minutes is is a good long time all right when testifying please state your name in any organization you may be representing right members ready for public testimony ok thank you right first to come up i have only one person signed up to testify so far we have david shortly has offered a resolution for transmission to the planning commission zohan advisory committee in order to insert some amendments into the enforcement provisions of the bed and breakfast and short terminal home of ordinances those of you working who were here at the planning committee meeting a few months ago witnessed testimony from a couple and honorable the gentleman i believe was on the hon advisory board and he was speaking about his neighborhood which used to be local folks long term rental housing and has been essentially flipped into a vacation rental community that's disrupted their traditional lifestyle and the gentleman if you recall was so choked up he couldn't speak and his wife had to take the microphone he said that he'd submitted a request for service nothing happened he spoke in person to the planning director and nothing happened and the reason why nothing can happen is that the enforcement provisions and those ordinances say that the department of planning may com force meant if there is a complaint against an illegal rental it does not say that it shall commence enforcement so council chair whites proposed amendments change that they change the word made to the word shall and in addition they impose some time frame within which the department would take action on a request for service there are safeguards to protect people whose advertisements for short term rental orbit and breakfast are not within their control and i guess that's the main thing on like to say i think it's a balanced fair way of kind of closing a loophole and supporting some  ladies there's one other person that's coming down the testify please sign up in the back fill out the form very very clear enforcement for short term rentals has never been effective we've talked about it for more than twenty years and it doesn't solve we haven't solved his problem at all at this point the approach that is currently being administered isn't working we need to different approach ok we can we can put in timeframes of say you must do this or something but the approach is not working having said that i want to emphasize the magnitude of the problem the magnitude of the problem is not and has never been thousands of thousands of short term rentals it was back in two thousand and when a study was done by the quine institute approximately eight hundred rentals representing approximately eleven hundred units ok i don't think that has changed dramatically what has changed since then is we've gotten about three hundred of those eight hundred units permit and i'm pleased to say that that part of the system has worked well but we still have some number that we need to address and we're not addressing those by saying you can't get a permit because most of them they couldn't get a permit to begin with they were they're not eligible for a permit they're wanting to rent something that's not legal to be rent d they may not be the ownership requirements so the idea that we say we've done in force mint by banning someone from getting a permit or restricting them that doesn't address and foresman in any way shape or form enfor is stopping the use and the use continues even for folks that have gone through the permanent process and then denied those folks are continuing the use so i'd like to hear discussion  from the committee today about alternate ways of going about enforcement i'm very disappointed today to not see the presence of the zoning administrator who might be able to give us some insight as to why the current system is not working but there is no question about it the current system is not working and only half of them we are a i want to make it very clear we want in force meant we want unpermitted operators to stop operating we want people who want to make this use to get permits that's what we've been working towards for our entire existence so please work towards trying to figure out next chance what do you think it is well here's here's the bottom line first you have to identify the places ok and that's not a fixed number that's a number that with that is going to continue to change people go into the business they get out of the business they buy a property they sell a property they so the idea that the ones that exist yesterday are the ones that will exist tomorrow is wrong so it has to be an ongoing effort that's number one identify who they are then number two is inform them inform them of the need for a permit inform them of what they need to do to shut down then if they don't shut down that's really where the enforcement begins ok the identification of them is easy it's easy it doesn't take much much effort to go online and to identify these properties notifying them is easy that's that's piece of cake but it hasn't been done ok let's be clear it has been done but then the hard part is ok we've notified this person and they haven't stopped operating well that's that's where you know we need to make the effort we have not made that effort and i don't know council members by so what the the answer is there whether it's to hire a third party to do it but all i can tell you with absolute certainty is twenty years of the current system has has yielded little to no results you know i appreciate your answer and i can't think about twenty years but i can trying to find a solution that's going to make everybody happy and i don't think we're going to find it i think that we have to kind of do something reasonable and just live with it this step forward that we made was getting two hundred ninety five people permit it that's that was that was a major major step whether we will ever get more of those permit it depends on whether the permitting process will let them through narrowing the scope of the permitting process and making fewer and fewer people eligible to get permits i think is counterproductive but nevertheless the bottom line is those who haven't gone through the process or can't go through the process we have to figure out a way to address it ok thank you very much and  again thank you for your support through all of this i appreciate it thank you thank you members any further questions seeing none we have one other person has signed up to testify katherine clark aloha council members my name is katherine clark and i'm a board member of the maui vacation and less so ca and over the past several months we've been before you to ask for a fair permit process even though this is enforcement i really can't understand why anybody would think that we don't although we believe in the right to a fair permit process we also believe that enforcement must be swift decisive and it doesn't have to be a fair process or enforcement it's the two together that will create the legal industry that we all desire it's not effective to give a warning which includes banning a property but not follow through to be sure that they remain closed it's infuriating to see properties that have five or six r f s still advertising and still operating and equally frustrating to see properties that have been advertising for years with no contact from the county sadly we realize that not all prior operators will take advantage of the generous six month period to apply or will even qualify under the terms of that period that will be their loss if they're not successful in getting a permit we fully expect the county to enforce against them and we fully support that effort there are a few simple things that could be done to assist the enforcement process for example a page on the county website that operators can link to when responding to inquiries this page would explain the need for a permit and the basic rules this could discourage visitors from booking  promoted property they might realize that it could be closed at any time when a permit expires most owners aren't even aware the county should contact them to advise they no longer have a permit and all advertising must be removed a list of banned properties and if we're really serious about letting people know about the need for a permit perhaps it's time who approached the real estate industry and ask if they could include a form that would be signed when a property is sold could indicate if the property is known for a vacation rental or if they use requires a permit and they'll be some such as condos that never have the option to be short term renters but more than any other  action this problem will be solved by consistent diligent afferent and monitoring the advertising it's tedious but we're at the point where it's actually manageable the county cannot rely on the public to be the enforcer via the r f s system to i believe the realtors have across the state of hawaii a standard set of documents that they use when a house is sold i think maui county is a little bit unique but if there was a forum that very clearly said you can not vacation at this property without a permit or you can never vacation rent this property as is the case in some condos or this property is legally zoned for vacation rental one two or three thank you i don't know at least nobody could say then that they weren't told ok thank you thank you thank you members any further questions the test fire seeing none thank you and will go back to the district offices one more time how the district office thank you remember seeing that there's nobody in the gallery wanting to come down and nobody at the district offices without objection will close public testimony no objections ok public trust money is close thank you ladies ordinance relating to the enforcement of bed and breakfast homes and for terminal homes we'll start with p c forty two members this communication in this communication nineteen dash sixteen dash ninety five was the short term mental home bill to establish ownership durational requirements for five years were certain exceptions instead of approving the proposed amendment to the to the pending bill the council referred the proposal to this committee the short term mental home bill passed without the amendment and is now ordinance number four three one five two thousand and sixteen staffers distributed copies of the ordinance this morning for your use and the reason we have that is that's the official language now and both of these items today are going to affect that official language ok council members carol carol's memet is set forth in a new proposed bill that is attached as exhibit one to a resolution referring to the proposal to hold the amendment will for two exceptions to the requirement first to provide for an exception for properties that have had a short term ritual per permit within three years of the due to purchase this one thing that people seem to feel good is we are very very limited it's extremely limited we addressed the new whole building in the original ord imagine what it's like for you as chair chain to get this to a point where we can take some action and i totally agree with mr carroll about you know the length of time we've been kicking this around but it is emp so i think we have to do it right otherwise you know we're going to put going to suffer because the unintended consequences of making these kinds of laws are far reaching you know we're looking at a significant part of our economy and w all know that you know kitchen and vacationers are the important part of how we pay our bills so i want to be very careful about how we deal with this to do what we're talking about across the board is not going to hurt those people who have a lot of money and i don't think it's going to have any effect on housing because if we're talking about these high end five million dollar ten million dollars fifteen million dollar homes that i've discovered are more there's more of them than i thought you know i'm beginning to know more about this kind of of building that is here  what we're trying to protect of course is affordable housing and we want to make sure that it's a billable for local people because we're all trying every way we can to find places for them to rent so to do this across the board  affordable homes and leave behind here and leave people out of it because you know not going to make any difference i i can't afford to be in a home that is very very expensive and of course i don't earn a whole lot of money i'm a consummate ember but you know even for people that are looking for a home some people were trying to help the people who were killed at the county and the people they work in stores or wherever they're working they cannot afford these high  homes they can afford affordable homes say we want to target a restriction to protect affordable housing that's clear to me and i have no problem but i don't know that we should do this across the board and try to include those on because they're the ones who pay the taxes look at who's paying a high in taxes these people with these properties that cost a lot of money so that's that's the kind of debate that's going on with me in turn in myself we have some of the lowest wages but the highest highest property values you know rental so there is a huge we have one of the hugest disparity and that alone personally this job i have this is the most money i've ever made as an income after working thirty two years in the tourism industry so you know i am grateful for what i make here today and my staff you know we all know what  are most of our staff make here and there have a tough time you know one of them practically rented to you all lived in it because she couldn't find affordable rentals with her husband and daughter so there's some negativity happening in our community and so if this is going to help assist putting keeping our local families home and in the house and you know i want to see how this pans out and this is a important and mister and i tend to agree that i still believe the root of the problem isn't what you're talking about the root of the problem is inventory we're not building we're not solving you can talk all you want you can gab all you want the fact is if a deal we build will never solve this problem will never solve this problem building is the solution to this problem and we have not and i've gotten the latest facts from from the housing division most showed that i say that because now i've got the numbers to back it we've done a really bad job in building blame their weak session blame whatever you want to blame we have done a poor job in building and until we turned it around all of this is just band aid just putting a band aid on the problem it's not solving the problem it is putting a band aid on the problem and it's going to continue to grow on this week and higher and well big deal they're not dead on they're not affected in this no matter what we do but the bottom line is we need inventory for the people to start living units for people to live in and that's the answer to the whole question but in the meantime i do support this because it's  a band aid it's the hundred fifteenth band aid we've put on in all the years i've been here that's what we've done we've never solved anything we just seem to put band aids and then our members pontificate all kinds of stuff but we don't really get to the cross the problem we need inventory thank you joe thank you for having me have a couple questions for you one what is your experience with some of this type of sales going on immediately i think we've all heard the stories of someone who gets a notice of warning for operating and they say oh when i bought the home my realtor told me that i could do vs in rental i don't really have anecdotal or or research based evidence of the frequency with which people buy homes for the purpose of doing short term  rental we hear about it happening but i can't say that we have a collective answer to that question of how frequently it happens  or what the impact is on housing most typically used by local families and really can't say i think everyone has an understanding that the certainly an impact but i don't know that we've quantified that in any way ok so if we if this were to pass and go out to the planning commission but before it comes back is there a way you can get that should be fairly simple i would think to look at anybody who's applied for a permit to see when they bought the house you know we could look i put that together all right thank  you members missed by so thank you very much here you know i am aware that this is going to go to the three plane commissions and then it will come back to us for a final decision but again the closest thing that we send to them with the council's backing or with our history i think is important because they're going to ask you know what did the council discuss when we go before we got this so of course cleaner we sent it to them the easier it will be to get this through the system and hopefully save some time because you know these two like i said these things just go on and on and on and i can be comfortable with sending it to them because it's you know we've got to send it to them and if we don't get it out of this committee it's been sitting here how long already what this one says the twentieth of may since the twentieth of may but the whole issue of of this thi inventory of what we have and the premise that we keep hearing over and over is that the market is impacted because people have units that they are using for short term rent kitchen rentals or whatever they're using them for but they're not renting them to long term mentors and the reason they do it of course is because they can make more money with the short term than they can with the long term which makes perfect sense if getting get a thousand dollars a month and you can get a two or three hundred dollars to do the math you know in there it makes sense but because this would be across the board ok this  is an example anybody my point is if we won if the goal is to increase the supply of portable rentals do we need to apply this to commission fine but it will come back to us i'm not going to change my mind about that i tend to agree that maybe if we put a limit you rented so i'm for i understand the concept and i'm very happy to see that this is here we'll see what kind of amendments may come out any other further discussion on this corporation counsel do you have any comments about this one ok thank you all right well the committee chairs ok chairs recommendation is to pass this resolution three and adding the words within six months after the data than that one of the ordinance establishing this exception to the ownership requirement any comments from the planning department or corporation coun crickets crickets over there go ahead mr gray it's helpful to have a clear date certain and so after this goes to commissions and comes back to council maybe perhaps at that time we can establish esta not you know april twelfth or some sort it can be the first day of the month or the last day of a month you know if we can make it july or december that's helpful too so it's just a clear cut off so when this comes back and we know a general time frame in my so you'd rather see a day i'd rather take certain i think for now leaving it as as is proposed to within six months is is good to leave that in i would suggest that when it comes back and we have an understanding of what six months will look like at that time we can pick a date certain gotcha that is roughly six months from then just so it's it's clear and we don't have you know an open ended short timeframe in the bill but for commission we can change it back certain order to ok q any other comments on this all right seeing all those in favor of the motion please say i honor all the all those amendment we still have the main motion any other amendments the chair would be open to a motion to add a value in number one  smaller building step i mean spices pointing at herself so yeah i was using her as an example but didn't want to use her name but so there are people like that you know that have big big properties but very little off smaller applicant for at least five years part of the date of the application and has a building value of less than one million dollars of that work for the planning department had done and it proves that house and i personally don't have it with me but i am not surprised and if it goes commission we can discuss it i want on the way back through if it passes mr carroll you had a if a house is valued a million dollars or more the building itself let me be very honest that it's probably never going to be a rental and i use the word never going to be ran through my mind my colleague any day any time show me that show me because i have rentals right up in way to go heights but those homes are not one million dollar the building of their own ok again i'm using the be able deal you know being very specific and hopefully the planning commission can do some due diligence in departed this is normally the planning commissions and take a look at our minutes to sort of get more of it because if you just look at the this you know legislation it does it really go on to the finer details of what we all read you know smoke about it and things of that nature do they are not necessarily typically know we don't send them the minutes we prepare a staff report that provides what we feel is the that any further comments saying none of those in favor please say i oppose no ok but the measure should let the record show that the measure passes for i's one no miss cochran with two excuse all right members that brings us to the main motion unless anybody else has any more amendments ok seeing none and no further discussion all right members now i'm going to entertain a motion to file county communication sixteen dash ninety five to move her from stitcher it's been moved by mr carroll an breakfast homes and short term rental homes members we last consider this item at our committee meeting on march seventeenth two thousand and sixteen the subject matter of the communication is a proposal to make revisions to the enforcement for reasons of both chapter nineteen point six four relating to bed and breakfast tomes and chapter nineteen point six five relating to short term mental homes of the maori county code council chair white prepared a resolution to refer proposed bill to the planning commissions for their review and comment please note that on may twenty third two thousand and sixteen ordinance numbered forty three one five became law and amended chapter one thousand point six five therefore the proposed bill will need to be revised to incorporate the m to the code by ordinance forty three one five and we have that there i wanted to turn this over to chair white i don't know where he is but let's talk to the department about this first b ordinance and then the identical changes proposed for nine hundred sixty five which is the ordinance and i think it might be easier if we jumped ahead to the s t r each provisions well let's let's get everybody on the same page members you'll see data in the bottom right three seventeen sixteen a request for legal services that have been signed up by mr hopper it should be the last thing prior to your testimony in the binder already have that the front top davis march tenth no there's one three seven well yeah i'm sorry it's received that the p c in the lower right hand corner is three intended i can read but i want their intent days and i really have a difficult time proceeding when i don't have the individual was made yesterday i made it a point through my committee media to wait until d h people got back because if i see this is the way they thought and i'm wrong oh then the public she's hurt because we're passing things out now i mean we can discuss it the problem is we're not getting his intent and that's what this was all about because i know he's put this together he's done some real thoughtful dip but now we want to understand why and the rationale behind his real reasons for bringing this forward understood so well and i just don't want to be dissipating and get sick understood i'd like to hear front of the p smart will obviously would a little bit but we also don't have john repast called in sick today so he's not in so i would like to at least go through the department house some comments on this see if we can get their input on it and get it on the record and i like i said i have a few questions on enforcement in general even though mr reprises and dear go ahead sorry thank you chair i was just saying that if we were to start the discussion by looking at the us tear each language because which starts on page six yes it's because a lot of that language or language comparable to it addressing the same issue ads that has been enacted already ok then there are a couple of sections as we indicated to you in our corresponden in the middle of last month a couple of sections that we're not happy with but the action today would kill at the most the action today would be to send a bill the planning commission so we can continue that dialogue  and then there are also some proposed changes that we think are helpful and then once we get through that then it would be easy to say ok make those same changes to the be carette you it's relatively simple i mean given all that this committee has done on the whole ordinance these components today are relatively simple and believe me john would like to be here he's not able to be here he and i well let's let's let's move forward on that at least on the bill the section starting by unpaid six as i mentioned we did pass a bill forty three so those would be incorporated and if you could i'm going to pretty sure i'm going to be for it today roger if if you could come up with what you say has been already incorporated and the eight zero of the code fall of section a has been enacted maybe not the exact words but absolutely the intent of the entirety of  and it sure looks very similar ok all right department continue the way i read it but maybe i'm wrong is all i mean the one we passed out already is a little bit more strict  i don't see that it's any more strict ok it's for example what got in acted says evidence of non responsive management and what's before the committee today do or you probably have some concerns d is where we do want to have some discussion already essentially we don't think the quote unquote failure of enforcement is because the law says may instead of shall ok this is a good time to branch into that let's talk about what you think the failure over forcemeat is and first i want to make clear that the department's objective in enforcement is to achieve compliance stopping operation is certainly one way to achieve compliance but the goal of enforcement  the challenges to enforcement there are two main challenges to enforcement one is that it is virtually impossible to gather evidence as proof of operation without advertising it's very and the law currently says that advertising is evidence of operation and so as soon as we see advertising we can issued a notice of warning typically is and we've talked about this at length they will remove their advertising or they will adjust their advertising in a way that it's very hard for us to find it and once that has been done if we can't find advertising it is virtually impossible to prove operation to the extent that we can enforce against it and issue a notice a violation or even take the next step that is the biggest challenge is proving operation  we don't stake out properties we don't pounce on people showing up in rental cars with suitcases and asking who are you where are you from are you paying to stay here and we don't want to do that i'm not suggesting that we do that so that's the biggest challenge and certainly you know neighbors see that they see different cars coming and going and we understand that but for us to prove operation is very very difficult it's easy for people to operate illegally we haven't needed to do that with because back then that was before the air b n b s and the v r b o's and before the you know the level of online advertising opportunities that exist today so we are having those options you know if we were to utilize those options we would have evidence of operation already it's finding that evidence of operation that's the challenge there is also in forstmann is still complaint based and you know for all of our enforcement there was a time that we did proactive in force it was short term reynolds were backing off of that because of the upcoming grace period we don't see the point in issuing a new visa and pursuing enforcement if we're going to have this grace period so in force ms complaint based and people may know of all sorts of illegal operations if we don't get a complaint about it we're not going to be enforcing it we have just recently started pursuing court action against operators who have received notice is a violation and still have not stopped the court counsel can provide the steps of what that requires that is somewhat labor intensive on the department's part and also on our councils part but we think that once word gets out that we are taking this to the next step in actually trying to get a court judgment against illegal operators  that that might that might assist quite a bit of manpower is somewhat of an issue but even if we had a dozen more zoning inspectors there's still going to be a legal operators that we're not going to be able to to gather evidence against still operating so those are some of the frustrations we have and i believe in the code where we call for proactive and force in estero it's code at least so and we i know we gave you two positions that were for short term rental and i know you had a hard time showing those short term mental enforcement but keisha right right we will will take effect july first but this was this was when we when we first got the bill we passed two positions we we reallocated yeah yeah yeah  all right so but it made it to your point that we will be getting two new staff people in ziad who will be able to assist with the overall workload of that division that's freeing up the zoning inspectors to just do inforce meant rather than a lot of the clerical and permitting work that they're having to do now because of staff shortages ok that helps and plus we have the grace period at this point but you're right however guy i think giving people notices of violation will get them more motivated to take advantage of the grace period right ok do you have snapshot for a thirteen month period from may first of last year through may thirty first of this year notices of warning we issued a total of three hundred twenty nine thirteen of those were for b and b two hundred ninety nine of those were for short term rentals and seventeen for other types of transit vacation rentals and following up on those we issued eight notices a violation  eighty three of those being for short term rental homes or transit vacation rentals and five being for b and b s and the vast vast majority of those were for operating without a permit a couple of those for permit violations  virtually all of them are for operating without a permit so with those notices of violation debate either cease operations or they're paying fines or how's that working out i don't know i can't answer that right now ok members any questions to the department about their important and activities or their concerns the the  short term mental portion of this bill carter first in reference to your last question are you going to put that in radio then they can do a response when they do have the opportunity to get the figures for your question do i need to voter  the code building code violations subdivision violations if someone's issued a notice of violation and they just don't come into compliance the option is for the department through the department of corporation counsel to file a complaint in court and ask the court to do several things one of them would be to basically force compliance the court could order that you either fix your building cease operating etc and then at that point if it's a court ordered compliance if the if the if there's a violation that continues there can be and can a contempt of court order issued by the by the by the court of the court could also issue if there's a require you know something mean torn down if it's  a legal structure or something like that in addition the court could order that fines be paid collecting those fines may be a different issue but but if that does happen then the county can can attach a lien to the property and basically  i think if it gets to that point in a lot of cases the person's going to come into compliance obviously if it's a if it's a use issue or if it's as if it's a simple issue of fixing your building i think that definitely will get people's attention it in those cases where the person just does not come into compliance that can be the next step and there are several cases where that's that's been the case i think the hope is that the person will come into compliance earlier but that doesn't always happen it does happen though that  sometimes if they get a letter from our office or from the department they recognize the amount of fines they come into compliance and then they can they can settle the fines out at less than the full finery depending on what the department would have proof and  it it's a completely different process they can go to the board of variances in appeals which is a nine member board that you're probably all familiar with they can decide basically if the violation was correctly issued or if there was an error and that decision can be appealed to the circuit court and then potentially all we have to the y supreme court and then after that the department can get into the issue of enforcing the order or collecting if it's victorious at those levels so i think what  after coming into compliance so i think that's that's some of what's going on in enforcement does involve actually going to court in filing a complaint like i said it's been done in other cases it's been done in vacation on cases before and in a couple of be fined how much is the limit on the fines and is there every jail posed by the courts well there is there is potential criminal enforcement it to my understanding i don't know if there's ever been criminal enforcement action oh three zero deals with civil enforcement and that's the only section that i'm that i'm familiar with that's been that's been undertaken by the by the department i think the police department would really need to be involved with the criminal unfortunate in the prosecuting you your first concern is the may turn into shall i correct that's correct and members just before that and this is on page seven of the  the proposed amendments that remove all of the word and i believe i guess that's that's the magical thing i guess so don't have to worry about that it's minor so d one any concerns with that one i believe we we can discuss if they if it's different from what has been proposed to the may vs showers one that is an obvious one that will be a big discussion when we have mr white here ok next thank you chair on on day one i believe during committee discussion we had actually asked for seven days to be increased to ten seven is was in the in the ordinance before the recent amendments it remained at seven day with the recent amendments we'll put it out there again that we want that increase to ten but if it remains seven we can live with that and the rest in number one we're ok with ok number two  number two or number three we would rather we would rather see deleted it again establishes a mandatory enforcement process  that could be problematic because if in one case if for some reason there is a situation that we did not meet those very precise deadlines then we could be accused of selective or inconsistent enforcement i don't know what the repercussions would be if we were to fail to abide by those strict timelines it just it seems problematic to me to have those definitive timelines and in enforcement action number one it leaves i don't know what the repercussions are would be if we fail to meet it and also it doesn't and members we're getting this down so that when we have the full discussion you guys can come up with your arguments and what we can discuss it as i mean we can amend as necessary since mr white isn't here i'd still like to go through this and get their concerns and then let you guys take a look at it and we'll bring this back when mr white is here and that way you'll have a chance to get your ducks in a row and we can get through this miss hopper just to make a very broad comment i don't want to get into the specifics of this but  section d there on page seven that's kind of after that with a one two three and four two three and four mostly new sections i just want to comment that you know in section d came in that was originally done i think with myself in the planning department at the time to deal with the advertising issue making advertising its without a permit of violation all the rest of that though after the provided that i think was added by the vacation rental lobby who had had were looking at putting in special requirements prior to issuing a notice of violation under one thousand five thirty with respect to this violation in at the time i had raised concerns and still have concerns with really anything after d that differs from the general enforcement process under one thousand five thirty because it's frankly inconsistent with that and so when i saw this section even in the current code that conflict i mean perhaps there's an issue with that section and should be revised for all other violations but that was a concern we had raced back then when this ordinance had come in and i think would continue to have now so i think that's something to take under consideration whether you're creating an inconsistency with the process of issuing violations in this section versus what's universal throughout the rest of the co because i'm hearing syrians webware one thing in front of us and i'm hearing them see another right been nice it did work to start before they gave it to us we had seen this proposal before and made the same comments at that time so you had already seen it and it put them in any way that we know where they are being recommended i believe the origins of this language came from member of the public and at the time we commented on that and then when it was put into this format we commented again and commented to the committee in the middle of last month saying the same thing that we didn't want those two sections includ charter the maximum amount someone can be fined for violations a thousand dollars so that can go per day but that's consistent with that it's going to that's going to apply to vacation rental use as well so we have that same limitation ok and i guess i was referencing if it's a core you know kind of the core and they issue a fine the court system has a whole different set of numbers versus what i know we have that limit so it was more along the lines of the court can impose higher than we can think of that's a good point if the court issues an order i reckon can find someone in contempt and would have a different potential fly in scale a lot of times when the fine gets up there or if they've been operating for a year or so the it could be three hundred sixty five thousand dollars so the fines can be said you know pretty high at that point but you do make a good point if the court can independently if there's a court order that's being violated look at fines as well ok that was the that if someone receives a notice a violation and then let's say they cure the violation in some way and then they get another we find that they're violating again we can go straight to violation a second time we don't have to issue a notice of warning and that's from the enforcement side that's fine with i don't know if it would that plays into our councils concern that it's creating a different process for this type of violation versus other violations you know looking at it from that perspective it would be easier for all of our violation processes to be consistent but on this particular one it's pretty stringent and we're ok with that mr hopper well again just to know this is the first time i think the code has ever recognised a notice of warning period i don't know that that's not a requirement in this code i think it's something the department and our office is read as a state law requirement and good practice but the this section here i think that's going to be true of any  any violation of the person gets a notice of warning and then they get a notice of violation and then they seize for a while and then go back to the same violation and i think the intent here is repeat violation then they don't have to be given another notice of warning for the same activity because they've already been given a no disappointing for that same activity so i don't think this would alter that in it's i think that sections a bit unnecessary like the rest of the of the section but it's something that if it's if it's basically saying you don't have to give another notice of warning then and that is with the law is right now if the person is already been warned for the same activity and then given a notice of violation you don't have to add warn them and then let them come into compliance and then warn them again that that's not a requirement if they've been warned again of the same violation ok so you're saying that it's basically redundant to ninety five thirty well to open up another can of worms one thousand five thirty zero three zero does not get into notices of warning in those requirements these are entirely new in the code here and if we're going to deal with those issues though should be dealt with in the in hundred thirty where those requirements come in or the department's administrative rules which it has adopted under that section and i think are most likely required by state law but again that's something the department's administrative rules and dealing with them here in a code section for one specific violation where you've got one thousand five thirty dealing with all violations and rules dealing with specific types of violations can end up potentially i can understand the intent  but can can and can cause problems if if that's not looked at very carefully ok five any concerns with were ok with number five number five would certainly be warranted if two three and four are kept if two three and four were deleted then number five would be  section he is the ban language keep in mind that in the recently enacted ordinance section he has the long grace period section after it  that you don't see here but the grace period is still in place the current changes for the band say that operating without a permit shall result in the property owner being ineligible to apply for a permit for five years what's proposed here in the expands that to include the violator so for example if if the operator is a long term tenant of the property that would be the violator in addition to the owner of the property would be ineligible to apply not just for a short term rental home permit but also a bed and breakfast home permit and also the property itself would be ineligible to be used for short term rental or bed and breakfast home purposes for five years so it's not just banning the person it's banning the property we do like the idea of including the violator and the property in the band i'm not so sure about extending it to be in the purposes because sometimes a good solution for an s t r each operation is to move to b and b that is one way that some operators have been able to cure their violation because they're banned from s t r each but then they can still do b and b they have to meet those requirements or needs to be the person on site who runs the operation and typically the planning commission for example is more favorable of b and b s because you do have a long term resident on the property so not so sure about extending it to be in to two extending the ban to be in the permits and b and b operation well i mean i if the owner as with the five year ban in general i mean we're looking at issuing a violation and they're giving them notice and if they file an appeal that would have to be adjudicated i think  if they actually violated the if they actually violated the law and it says can't have a permit as a consequence of that i don't think that's a taking up their of their property they did not have that right to operate a vacation rental to begin with so that if they did in fact violate the law specifying this is a penalty is something that i that it's in the code it's been in the code for a while and i believe would would  withstand scrutiny it's different than saying you know you you in also taking is generally a loss of all economically viable use of the property there can be regulatory takings as well but you're talking about in that sense then i mean someone losing the right to rent their property short term doesn't mean they've lost all economically viable use of their property they can still rent a short term they can obviously live there they're not deprived of the of the of the whole right  with whether it's a process issue that's going to have to be determined by that's something that's that is going to be the reason why the person has to be notified of the violation and have an opportunity to contest the violation as well  so but yet inherently i don't think it's a it's a it's a taking issue as with the other five you know the other ban that you have currently whether it's good policy is up to the council so ok just cross my mind claim we think that f and g are really clarification's and k h as the council as one of the ones to be notified  of unpermitted operation so that's up to you folks whether you want to be notified so we don't have any issues so the list of notices a warning notice of violation and appeals and outcome of such a bill well that's the next thing at the bottom of page eight ok you have numbers one and two that are bracketed out so the current requirement is a list of unpermitted operations with internet advertisements warning notices a violation appeals and the outcomes of such appeals and we're ok with that i would we would ask that instead of saying notices of warning issued t unpermitted s t h operations that it would be notices of warning issued for short term run operations because as i discussed before we don't make a distinction in our database if we issue a notice of warning for n s t r h we don't distinguish the nature of the violation whether it's for not having a permit or whether it's for violating permit conditions so if and again the overwhelming majority is for uncommitted operations but  from the department as to chairs and intend to defer this item and bring it back when mr white can be here and we can discuss the differences there seems to be a lot of concurrence to some of these changes so yeah and terrified of the first half of the bill would take those same concepts and add them to the bed and breakfast ordinance correct so there really isn't a whole lot to from him but also my concern is we've sent stuff down to you to buy a commission without making our changes and got criticized by the planning commission for not doing that so i'm going to make sure it's exactly what we're looking for referencing what's in this year are this is that and i guess it will just concurrently i guess change if whatever changes happen here is going to coincide with correct the other bill forty three i said when you can see some of the language after de is already in the code it's language that requires before someone gets a notice of violation for advertising the department has to wait seven days for them to take it down that was put in and is more restrictive than one thousand nine hundred thirty or the code code is there's no requirement to wait seven days after an advertisement is located and at the time that was added  should govern itself as far as the enforcement tool available and if there's issues with violations not being issued you know that can be investigated in and discuss i don't not sure if it's because it says may instead of shall and departments are just saying i'm not going to do it i think there's other issues but you know that that was our position in it back when that had changed so i think it continues to be our position again from from d all below that but you know either the new economy back that's a separate that's a separate section of the code i'm just talking about the things after the advertising that they deal with the violation process that looks like it is inconsistent with one thousand five thirty including what's in the existing code which we think is not not a great idea to say you have to wait an additional seven days before issuing the notice of warning ok we think you and again that and what i want to do and i'll try to commit to do this before bring him back is sit down with mr white mr hopper and then the department see what they can agree on and the stuff that all of that is a valid that's one of the things that i would sit down with the department and say ok how can we do that and work with that so that's what we're going to try and do