Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-19 Leeward Exh B (Item 2 Council Bill No 120 PL-CC-2022-000001) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 19, 2022 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED BILL NO. 120 AMENDING CHAPTER 24 AND CHAPTER 25 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, RELATING TO PARKING SPACES AND CHARGING STATIONS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES (PL-CC-2022-000001) was called to order at 9:43 a.m. in the West Hawaii Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Barbara DeFranco, Michael Dela Cruz, Clement"CJ" Kanuha III, and Mahina Paishon-Duarte ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Zaheva Knowles and Faith "Faye" Yates ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Kekai, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Zendo Kern (Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner, via Zoom), and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (BILL NO. 120) (PL-CC-2022-000001) An Ordinance amending Chapter 24, Article 8, and Chapter 25, Article 1 and Article 4, Division 5, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as Amended), relating to providing, maintaining, and dedicating parking spaces and charging stations for electric vehicles. The purpose of this amendment is to establish requirements for providing parking spaces equipped with an electric vehicle charging station in places of public accommodation and to establish requirements for parking in these spaces and establishing penalties for violations of those requirements in compliance with Sections 291-71 and 291-72, Hawaii Revised Statutes. VITOUSEK: Item number 2, initiator is the County Council, Bill number 120, PL-CC-2022- 000001, an ordinance amending Chapter 24, Article 8, and Chapter 25, Article 1 and Article 4, Division 5, of the Hawaii County Code 1983, 2016 edition, as amended, relating to providing, maintaining, and dedicating parking spaces and charging stations for electric vehicles. The purpose of this amendment is to establish requirements for providing parking spaces equipped with an electric vehicle charging station in places of public accommodation and to establish requirements for parking in these spaces and establishing penalties for violations of these requirements in compliance with Sections 291-71 and 291-72, Hawaii Revised Statutes. We have Councilmember Heather Kimball and Mr. Noel Morin from the Big Island Electric Vehicle Association participating by Zoom. Our staff presentation will be by Christian Kay. KERN: Mr. Chair, while he is doing that, I just want to—if I may? 1 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Absolutely. KERN: I want to make sure everybody has access to files in their computer. They are on the desktop. There's background report,public testimony. So if anybody needs assistance with that, let us know, and our team will help. Thank you very much. KAY: Thank you, everyone, for your patience. Tracie, real quick, can I confirm that you are seeing the opening page of the presentation,please? CAMERO: Yes, Christian, I can see the presentation right now. KAY: Great, thank you very much. Again, this is a County Council-initiated Bill number 120, related to regulating, the regulation of electric vehicle chargers, charging stations, parking spaces. So the request and purpose is as follows: The Hawaii County Council has introduced Bill number 120, which seeks to amend Chapter 24, Vehicles and Traffic, Article 8, and Chapter 25, Zoning, Article 1 and Article 4, Division 5, of the Hawaii County Code, relating to electric vehicle charging stations and provision of and enforcement for EV parking spaces; the purpose of this bill is to establish in County Code requirements for providing parking spaces equipped with an EV charging station in places of public accommodation and establishing requirements for parking in these spaces and penalties for violations of those requirements in compliance with Sections 291-71 and 291-72 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. This is the brief legislative timeline. Legislation creating these sections of HRS was passed back in 2012 to require the provision of EV charging stations and associated EV parking spaces in places of public accommodation, to provide for a penalty structure, and to provide for a penalty structure for illegal parking in those spaces. Those sections were updated in 2021 to amend language around EV charger requirements, to clarify that EVs parked in designated spaces are required to be actively charging, to allow for owners of parking facilities to charge a fee for the EV charting systems, requiring that EV chargers be maintained in good working order, and allowing law enforcement or parking enforcement officers to access private property to enforce provisions of the section,provided they contain an EV charging station. Finally, in 2021 HRS 291-73 was added to allow counties to adopt an ordinance to enforce the requirements found in those sections. Bill 120 is the culmination of the County Council's initial effort to adopt such an ordinance. So we'll start with what's in the bill. It starts with definitions. Bill 120 proposes to amend Chapter 24 to include definitions for"Electric vehicle," "Neighborhood electric vehicle," "Fuel cell electric vehicle," and"Electric vehicle charging system." Bill 120 further proposes to amend Chapter 25 with definitions outlined, with the definitions that were outlined above and add additional definitions for"Alternating current Level 2 charging station," "Direct current fast charger," "Networked charger," and "Place of public accommodation." The preceding list of definitions are largely copied directly from sections of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. One of the main definitions that's really the crux of the bill is this what is a"Place of public accommodation," and that's defined in Bill 120 as, "a business, accommodation, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, or transportation facility of any kind whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made 2 EXHIBIT B available to the general public as customers, clients, or visitors." The definition goes on to offer 12 examples of places of public accommodation; however, those examples were not meant to be an exhaustive list. The intent of this bill is to be broadly inclusive of any places that meet the preceding criteria, regardless of landownership. So specifically, we talk about proposed amendments to Chapter 24, and that's the Vehicles and Traffic section of our County Code. The bill seeks to amend Chapter 24 with a section related to parking privileges by requiring that only EVs may be parked in parking spaces designated and marked as reserved for EVs, and only EVs that are actively charging may be parked in a parking space equipped with an EV charging station. Furthermore, proposed section related to penalties indicates that any person who uses the parking space in violation of the parking privileges section above shall be guilty of a traffic infraction and fined according to provisions in the HRS, and those are: According to that, the fines shall be not less than 50 dollars nor more than 100 dollars; and the fined parry must also pay any costs incurred by the court related to assessing the fine. Now, amendments to Chapter 25, our Zoning Code, the bill seeks to amend Chapter 25 with the section related to parking for electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations as follows: For new parking areas and places of public accommodation, for each increment of 50 parking stalls, an owner shall install and maintain a good working order at all times EV chargers in dedicated EV parking spaces based on a schedule between adoption of the ordinance and the years 2023, 2025, 2027, and 2029, respectively, on an increasing scale of required chargers and plugs and dedicated parking spaces depending on when the parking area is constructed. And so I just made a little table here indicating by the end of 2023, at least two networked AC Level 2 chargers with at least two plugs, and then going on from there, and ending in 2029 with at least eight, pardon me, networked AC Level 2 chargers with at least eight plugs per increment of 50 parking stalls. Continued proposed amendments to Chapter 25 now speaks to existing parking areas in places of public accommodation with over 50 parking stalls that apply for Plan Approval to the Planning Department, the owner will have an additional two years to come into compliance as follows so it's the same schedule, only it's two additional years ending in 2031. Finally, all other existing parking areas and places of public accommodation that do not need to apply for Plan Approval will need to comply with the requirements of HRS 291-71, and those are one EV charger and one dedicated parking stall for every 100 parking spaces. I need to just clarify, in our background recommendation report, we incorrectly said on page 6 that all other existing parking areas, I had it limited to 50 parking stalls, that's not accurate; it's in all other cases regardless of number of stalls, as long as they have at least 100 parking stalls, the HRS would apply. Okay? And so we look at things like enforcement, kind of enforcement, or compliance, will likely be enforced by proactive compliance on the part of a landowner or based on public complaints for violations of the Zoning Code requirements. And so I can tell you just, for example, we have, when we've done Plan Approval, applied these requirements to larger parking areas, so there is a few in Hilo that have come in recently that we required EV parking stall relative to HRS requirements because that's the law currently. 3 EXHIBIT B So, continued proposed amendments to Chapter 25, the section further requires EV charges to be maintained in good working order, and that dedicated parking space with appropriate marking and signage that indicates that"Parking is only for EV's that are actively charging"must be provided for all EV chargers. Furthermore, this section clarifies that designated EV parking spaces shall not displace or reduce accessible stalls as required by the ADA. The section requires every parking facility meeting the size criteria to comply with requirements of the section, regardless of ownership except as allowed for the alternatives and exemptions section of the proposed bill. Finally, this section allows site owners to charge a reasonable fee for the use of the charging station. Further proposed amendments are section related to alternatives and exemptions for EV parking. This provides the Planning Director the authority to determine that if EV charging requirements can be satisfied by a smaller number of direct current fast chargers, he can do so so long as the overall charging capacity at the place of public accommodation is equal to or greater than the capacity required under the bill. Additionally, places of public accommodation can be exempted from applicable requirements, should the location not have established electrical service or adequate electrical infrastructure to provide sufficient current for EV charger implementation or if the location is identified as being in the highest flood risk zone as established by FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map. So the Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commissions forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for Bill 120, with the following recommended revisions—and before I jump into that, I'll give you a little bit of peek into how the sausage is made. So we received the draft bill, understanding that we are going to carry it to the Planning Commissions, reviewed it and had some conversations with Councilmember Kimball's office and Councilmember Kimball just to give her an idea of what some of our concerns and proposed changes were. So that's largely what's going to be listed here. Due in part to timing, Councilmember Kimball was able to submit back to us some proposed revisions of her own. So the next section will talk about what the Director's recommended changes are and then talk about any proposed revisions that the Councilmember provided to us, and if those met up and matched, will show where that took place and then give you an idea of the Director's support for that. So with that preamble in mind, let's get into this. Our first recommendation is under Section 1 of the bill under Purpose is to correct the reference to the HRS Section from 291-71 to 291-73. The reason for this is it's in HRS 291-73 that allows counties to adopt ordinances to enforce the requirements of the section and not what was listed. Under, our second recommendation is under Section 24-245.6. Penalties, correct the reference to Section 291-71 and delete the close quote at the end of the word"Statutes" at the end of the sentence. This is just clerical; the bill incorrectly references HRS Section 291-71, which does 4 EXHIBIT B not make mention of any fine schedule. The correct reference should be 291-72. The close quote after the word"Statutes" at the end of the sentence is likely a typo. So this is a note: Section ILB. of Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments addresses this recommendation. The Director agrees with the proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation 3 from the Director is under Section 3. Definitions, consider changing the term "Networked charger"to match what is in the body of the bill. Reason for this is the term specifically as presented, "Networked charger" is not used anywhere else in the body of the bill. "Networked" is used four times under Section 25-4-54.1(a), and the term "Network-capable" is used in the definition of"Direct current fast charger." The recommendation here is to consider expanding the term "Networked charger"to include those alternative references. So this is another where the Councilmember proposed the change under Section ILC. of her amendments; it was addressed by shortening the term to "Networked,"which is fine, it satisfies the same thought. The Director agrees with the proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation number 4 from the Director under Section 25-4-54.1(a), clarify the size and type of parking spaces required to be considered a dedicated EV parking space under the requirements of this section. The reason for this is the Zoning Code allows for different types of parking stalls for compliance with parking requirements, for example, we allow for compact parking stalls, which may not work for, you know, all types of EV, electric vehicles. So the Director suggested that the Councilmember, or the Council, consider adding the qualifier, "full size," or provide specific minimum dimensions required for a dedicated EV stall. Section I.A. of the Councilmember's proposed amendments addresses this recommendation by adding the qualifier, "standard size," for the type of required parking space. The Director agrees with the proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Furthermore, the Director recommends the "standard size" qualifier be added to Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendment under Section LB, which would be as follows. So again, this is the Director's fifth recommendation. Under Section 25-4-54.1(a), clarify that the number of EV designated parking stalls shall correspond to the maximum number of plugs required under the development schedule. There was some confusion; was it number of chargers, and then another was number of plugs, which needed to be addressed. The section was unclear as written that each required plug needs to correspond with the number of dedicated EV parking stalls, for example, after 2029 each increment of 50 parking stalls shall include eight EV-designated parking stalls, because there would be eight plugs. Under Section I.A. of the Councilmember's proposed amendments, it was addressed by a recommendation by adding language indicating that the required number of EV stalls corresponds to the required number of plugs. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation number 6, under Section 25-4-54.1(b), change the term "plan review"to "Plan Approval" and clarify the reference to an additional two years to comply with Subsection (a). The reason for this is there is no such reference to"plan review" found in the Zoning Code; however, Plan Approval is a process through which parking requirements are reviewed by the 5 EXHIBIT B Planning Department. The reference to "an additional two years" is confusing; the intent of the provision should be clarified. In response, under Section I.A. and I.B. of Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments, pardon me, the note is that they still reference plan review even in her amendments, so the Director maintains his request to change this to Plan Approval. Under Section I.B. of the proposed amendments clarifies the reference to "an additional two years"by including a similar installation schedule to account for the additional two-year timeline. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation number 7, Section 25-4-54.1(c) shall identify a trigger for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval requirements, for example, within a certain amount of time from the code change or based on public complaints, etcetera. The reason for this is the requirement for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval to comply with section 291-71 has no timed compliance trigger other than, or other enforcement mechanism, so it's unclear how the existing places of public accommodation meeting that size criteria will come into compliance. Recommendation number 8 is, clarify the apparent conflict between the number of parking stalls required for each EV charger versus each plug on an EV charger . Under section 25-4-54.1(a), it appears the number of dedicated parking stalls corresponds to the number of plugs available, and the Councilmember confirmed that; however, under the section 25-4-54.1(e), the bill requires a dedicated EV parking stall for all EV chargers, which can include several plugs. The Director recommends that 25-4-54.1(e) be amended to match the Councilmember's proposed changes to Section 25-4-54.1(a) that require the number of dedicated EV parking stalls to match the number of required plugs. The ninth recommendation here from the Director is under Section 25-4-54.1(f). It does not allow EV designated spaces to displace or reduce ADA accessible stalls but that does not address requirements for ADA accessible EV stalls. Consider adding a section referencing ADA requirements for EV stalls. The reason for this is in 2012 the State Disability and Communication Access Board, DCAB, issued an interpretive opinion related to the requirement of EV charging stations to be accessible for all public buildings, facilities and sites constructed by or on behalf of the State or any county. According to this opinion, "Where EV charging stations are provided, five percent, but not less than one, of each type of EV station shall be accessible." In addition, the opinion articulates design requirements for the ADA-accessible EV parking stalls. So in response Section I.C. of the Councilmember's proposed amendments address this by adding the requirement that at least one of the designated EV parking spaces shall be ADA accessible EV stall. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation number 10, under Section 25-4-54.1(h), define what is considered to be a "reasonable" fee. The reason for this is the qualifier "reasonable" is subjective and difficult to enforce. We consider adding a fee cap or a fee schedule based on a number of kilowatt-hours charged. Under Section ILD. of the proposed amendments from the Councilmember, it was addressed by deleting the word"reasonable." The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. 6 EXHIBIT B Recommendation number 11, under section 25-4-54.2(a), consider including a ratio, formula, or equivalency table to compare the charging capacity between alternating current Level 2 chargers and direct current fast chargers. So again, this is the section that allows the Director the authority to kind of make a decision on whether, or using fewer fast charges as long as it meets the same capacity level. The reason we are requesting this is the tool will help the Planning Director determine charging capacity between those two different charger types. Under Section IILC. of the proposed amendments that was addressed by proposing the ratio allowing one DC fast charger to replace six Level 2 plugs as long as there's at least one other Level 2 plug to accommodate EVs that cannot charge on a DC fast charger. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. And finally, Recommendation number 12, while Section 25-4-54.2(b)(1) allows for an exemption to the requirements of 25-4-54.1 if the location does not have established electrical service or lacks adequate infrastructure to provide sufficient electrical current for EV charger implementation, there is no similar exemption if internet access is unavailable. So the reason for this is the bill requires both alternating current Level 2 chargers and direct current fast chargers to be networked or network-capable, respectively, but there is no requirement in the bill for an internet connection to track charger use or to be remotely accessible. Consider clarifying whether an internet connection is a requirement for implementation of this proposed, or this section of the proposed bill. And so those are the Director's 12 recommendations and some of the proposed changes that kind of address the recommendations from the Councilmember. In addition, in her amendments there were some additional proposed amendments, and they are as follows: She proposes to delete Section 25-4-54.1(g), which states that"Every parking facility that meets the size criteria must comply with the requirements of this section regardless of ownership, except as otherwise provided" in the exemption section. The reason for this is the section contradicts the aggregation privilege provided in HRS 291-71, which allows owners of multiple parking facilities within the State to designate and electrify fewer parking spaces than required in one or more of their owned properties, provided that the scheduled requirement is met for the total number of aggregate spaces on all their owned properties. So the example here is UH, University of Hawaii, right; so if they've got, if they meet their requirement for all their EV parking spaces on Oahu, they can be exempted from adding EV parking spaces here on Hawaii Island. And as we understand it, because this is a privilege allowed under HRS, our bill cannot delete that privilege or run counter to that privilege. So in that case, the Director agrees to the proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. The second additional proposed amendment is under section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicle charging stations and electrical vehicle charging systems, add with the appropriate item lettering, "Electric vehicle charging stations shall only be required to be available for use by the public during such times as the place of public accommodation is also open for public use." There was a comment that we received, saying, well, if, you know, the gates are locked the bill, the language of the bill as currently written might require people to be able to come and still 7 EXHIBIT B charge. So the reason is to clarify the time that EV charging stations are required to be used. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Additional proposed amendments to amend the Alternatives and exemptions section to read as follows: "The location does not"under Subsection (1), sorry, Subsection (b)(1) "The location does not have established electrical service or lacks adequate electrical infrastructure to provide 240-volt electrical service for electric vehicle charger implementation." And again, these, this is the section that references alternatives and exemptions. So the Councilmember just wanted to clarify what it meant to not have adequate electrical infrastructure to the site, and again, to clarify and quantify what is meant by "sufficient electrical current." The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Under Section 3. Definitions, amend "Electric vehicle charging system," "Alternating current Level 2 charging station," and"Direct current fast charger"to delete references to installation compliance with Article 625 of the National Electrical Code, as that's already covered when the County adopted Chapter 5D of the Hawaii County Code, and that's the County's Electrical Code. So,just, the idea here is if those sections change and we have them specifically referenced, then we have to amend the Zoning Code coming through in the future. So the Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Additional amendments under Alternatives and exemptions, the Councilmember proposes to add Subsection (c) as follows: "Owner(s) of multiple parking facilities within the State who intend to use the aggregation allowance provided in Section 291-71, Hawaii Revised Statutes, shall provide the director with documentation to demonstrate that the electric vehicle charging requirements have been met at the time of the application for a plan review." The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change with the suggested change from "plan review" again to "Plan Approval." And the idea here is we want some, we want them to provide some evidence that they've met their requirement under this aggregation opportunity. So those are the Director's proposed changes and some additional proposed changes from the Councilmember, and so, in addition, this letter that came in on April 29h from Councilmember Kimball, she is requesting the Planning Commission consider the following discussion points to help strengthen the bill, and they are as follows: For existing places of public accommodation that come in for plan review and would be subject to Section 25-4-54.1(b), what other criteria should exist for the EV charger requirement to be triggered? Some plan reviews may not have anything to do with parking. Should they have this requirement? So that's certainly for you to consider, but the Director has crafted a response: "Places of public accommodation where EV parking requirements are considered under this bill would occur, thus all will have a parking component. Additionally, most circumstances where Plan Approval is triggered, required parking is considered." So I think, certainly you folks can discuss that, but just to give you an idea of how we deal with parking under Plan Approval as a matter of practice. Based on the preceding, the Director believes current language of the bill would be sufficient. 8 EXHIBIT B And the second discussion point is for existing lots, if the EV charging parking stall requirements put them in violation of any other Zoning Code parking stall requirements due to needing an ADA accessible stall and perhaps converting stalls from compact to standard size, what should happen? Can the Director approve a variance? Should they be exempted from putting them in or allowed to modify these requirements? This idea is because there is the, maybe the requirement that at least one of these EV parking stalls is accessible, if you have an existing parking facility that is just,just currently meeting our parking requirements, if we have to convert one or two of those stalls to an accessible stall, what happens? And so one of the suggestions was like, is there a variance or something like that? And so we said while the Director has the authority to grant the variance from requirements of the Zoning Code, we would prefer that adoption of a new ordinance would not create a non-conforming circumstance that would require a variance. Therefore, the Director recommends that the bill include language to allow a maximum number or percentage of parking stalls that can be converted to accommodate ADA compliant EV parking stalls even if it reduces the overall number of stalls otherwise required by the Zoning Code. So because this is going to amend Chapter 25, our Zoning Code, this would also be law and could supersede what our existing parking requirements would be. So, next steps from here are we are going to have a presentation from Councilmember Kimball and Noel Morin, and then you as a Planning Commission may approve all, some, or none of the Director's suggested recommendations, and those include the proposed changes from the Councilmember. The Commissions may also offer their own revisions to the bill. The Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions' recommendations will be forwarded separately but at the same time to the County Council for the consideration and decision. So two weeks ago the Windward Commission heard the same presentation and provided their recommendation. So once we have your recommendation, we'll package everything up and send it up to the County Council for consideration. So with that, I am done with my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions when my time comes. Sorry, and then I will get set up to have Councilmember Kimball and Mr. Morin come in. VITOUSEK: Thank you, Christian. KIMBALL: Are we good? VITOUSEK: There you are. Okay. KIMBALL: All right. VIOTUSEK: Thanks so much, Councilmember Kimball and Mr. Morin. Would you please raise your right hand? Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter before the Planning Commission? KIMBALL: I do. MORIN: I do. 9 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Please proceed with your presentation. KIMBALL: Thank you so much, Chair Vitousek and honorable members of the Commission. Thank you for all your time today deliberating this bill. It is something that I have been working on for probably about nine months; it's like producing a child. And, you know, even at this stage the child needs a little more education and evolution. And so I'm grateful for your time today to add your expertise to this piece of legislation. I wanted to just talk a little bit about the context and the purpose from my side of introducing this bill and what I'm hoping to achieve, and then Noel who is here from the Big Island Electric Vehicle Association has some slides to share basically to give you just the lay of the land where we are with EV adoption and charging infrastructure across the island right now. So, you know, on the surface this is, very clearly it's an environmental bill, right? It's about reducing carbon emissions, it's about better air quality, and it's part of this important transition that we need to make as a community and as a state and as a country to non-ICE vehicles, or internal combustion engine vehicles. And so it is all those things. But fundamentally, for me, what was really the trigger here was it's a bill about equity. And it's a bill about equity because the cost of electric vehicles are coming down to be comparable to a typical ICE vehicle, and there's even starting to be a secondary market for electric vehicles, but if you are a low or moderate income person, and you have, you don't own your home and you are renting a home, or you are, you know, in an apartment complex or something like that, you don't have the ability to take advantage of owning an electric vehicle because you can't have that charger at your home, you need a place of accommodate, public accommodations where you can go and charge reliably and know you are going to be able to get home. There's substantial cost savings to owning an electric vehicle aside from all of those environmental benefits because you are not paying for gasoline and you are also not paying a lot of those maintenance fees that take place; you don't need oil changes, you don't need new air filters, and so the cost over the lifetime of owning an electric vehicle, there's significant cost benefits. And so we want to make sure that that opportunity is widely available for all the members of our community, as well as creating those environmental benefits. There's some, you know—and thank you, Mr. Kay, for doing such an excellent job of going through the nuts and bolts of the bill. To the Commission, welcome to how the sausage is made. It's a, it's a messy and detailed process, but eventually, we get to something, something beautiful. You know, at the bare bones, we are trying to create the ordinance, as the HRS enabled us to do, to actually meet what is already in the Hawaii Revised Statutes. So it's already law that there are these required one charger per 100 stalls, but we wanted to go a little bit further, and that is moving that requirement down for new development to 50 and then also adding this stepped up, so every two years we are increasing that requirement. Why did we do that? Well, we are Big Island; people drive a lot more. And so we needed to make sure that there were more places of public accommodation to charge so that people can get, you know, from school to work to doctor's office, and they are not going to be worried about being stranded. The other thing—and you'll see this a little bit in Noel's presentation—is because we are a rural community that is fairly largely dispersed, a lot of those bigger parking lots are in Hilo or in Kona, and you have other areas of the island where there aren't 100-stall parking lots. 10 EXHIBIT B And so in order to have the fair and equitable distributions of these chargers across the island, we need to be able to, we targeted that slightly smaller lot. I'm happy to answer any questions after Noel gives his presentation. Again, he is going to just give you a sense of where the market is and where we are with infrastructure on the island. So I don't know if we need a little time to transition so Noel can show his slides, or can you just go ahead and do that? MORIN: I think I should be able to do it. Are you able to see the screen? VITOUSEK: Yes. MORIN: Yes? KIMBALL: I can, but I don'tCommission, can you see VITOUSEK: It's blocked by the pictures, though. One second. Okay, we are good. MORIN: Excellent. Aloha, good morning, my name is Noel Morin. I'm a resident of Hilo. I've been involved in advocacy for electric vehicles for over a decade, and as stated, I'll be sharing some information about EVs and EV charging to offer you additional context. Let me start by saying that the electric car is just one of a number of solutions that will help us enhance our transportation system and enable a clean transportation future. We can, in addition to electrifying our cars, we can reduce the need for cars, right? With some of the things I've listed here, we can also increase the efficiency of our vehicles, regardless of the type of a vehicle. Now, if we must drive a personal car or own a personal car, I think it really behooves us to make that an electric vehicle, and I'll share our reasons now. So the main reason is the ability to immediately contribute to solving important problems. Driving electric allows us to reduce emissions and contribute to climate action. They allow us to improve local air quality. They help us break our addiction to oil. As we know, we import a lot of fossil fuel from countries like Libya and in fact until recently Russia, so this dependence also represents an energy security risk. This dependence also exposes us to pricing volatility, right? We see gas prices going all over the place, and it adds to our already high cost of living, something that we are unfortunately experiencing today. They also allow us to maximize our transportation dollars; as mentioned already by Councilmember Kimball, the traditional vehicles are more costly to fuel, as well as maintain. So let's, let's zoom into the pocketbook benefits. Again, we touched on this briefly, but I'd like to expand on a few things. First of all, electric cars are very, very efficient, 80-plus percent efficient, and that's because most of the energy that we put into the battery is actually used to operate the car. They also charge their batteries, they recharge their batteries, whenever the car is slowing down, so if you are coming down a hill, for example, you are adding more energy into the battery. On the other hand, gas cars are only about 20 to 30 percent efficient. What that means is that, you know, you fill up your tank and only about 20 or 30 percent of the fuel is 11 EXHIBIT B actually used to propel and operate the vehicle; most of the energy is actually lost as heat, so it's, it's wasteful. Heather already mentioned that EVs are easier to maintain, there are much fewer moving parts, no oil changes, etcetera. In fact, there was this recent consumer report study that showed the average savings over the lifetime of an EV is around 4,600 dollars, and this is mainly because of the fueling and maintenance savings. Key takeaway here is that most of the energy that you put into your electric car is used, it's not wasted, and it's also very cost-effective to maintain. The other thing that I want to highlight or emphasize, and this was already mentioned, is that long-range EVs or EVs that have over like 150-mile range, for example, they are becoming more and more affordable and within the reach of many. So EVs are no longer playthings for the high-income households; they are now becoming available for and accessible to everybody. And this is thanks to competition, economies of scale, policy pressure, and consumer demand, which is resulting in more manufacturers stepping up. And the other thing that I think is also really important here and especially to Hawaii is that the makes and models are starting to expand. We will soon start to see the electric F-150 and also the Rivian, which are these electric trucks that I predict once they are available here, they are just going to ramp up the demand for electric cars. An important development is that many governments across the world have announced future bans on the sale of gas cars or have now aggressive goals to electrify their fleet. And what you see here is a list of these governments, and their announced phase-outs for the sale of gas cars. And Biden recently also mentioned the goal of 50 percent of new cars needing to be zero-emission by 2030. So you'll see that there's increased global recognition of the need to decarbonize ground transportation. And manufacturers are starting to respond; many of them have declared that in the future, not too distant future, the cars that they produce will not be fossil fuel vehicles. Even Toyota, right, really popular brand here, they've committed to billions of dollars to electrify their cars over this decade. So this is a, you know, it's a wake-up call for fleet owners, for car dealers, for consumers, and at some point, it's going to be really difficult to purchase a new gas car, and this really highlights the need for us to future-proof Hawaii. So where are we here? This is an update as of March, and we have close to 19,000 EVs in the State. Here in on our island we have about 1,300. We have about 185-190,000 cars here, registered cars here on this island, over a million in the state, so we are like about less than a percent of the cars that we have here are electric at the moment. What's interesting is that the trend is really positive, right, it's almost like a 30 percent growth here over a year. So we are going to see more and more of these cars being made available and adopted. So what's holding us back? Cost is less of an issue. Form factor is less of an issue. We believe that public charging, or inadequate public charging, is a challenge. It's also an enabler for us. And I'd like to dive into that a little bit. This just explains the different types of charging. Level 1 is essentially your, you know, your standard 110, 120 outlet at home. Some people rely on that, and they can get about 40 miles of range overnight. Level 2 is the most popular, and for people who have sort of like a dryer vent in their garage or they can afford to get a fast, sorry, a Level 2 charger in their garage, they can get 20 to 25 miles or so per hour. And then the fastest is DC fast charging, this is what was mentioned earlier, so, you know, you can top off your car in less than an hour with a DC fast charger. For those of us who have access to an outlet at home, 240 outlet especially, you can do most of your charging at home; 80 percent or so of your 12 EXHIBIT B charging can be done at home. You essentially, when you come home, you plug in your car; when you are ready to go, you unplug and, you know, it's topped off. And that's how generally people with EVs who have home charging are able to deal with EV ownership. However, not everyone is able to enjoy this, right? We have a lot of people that live in condos and apartments, they rent homes, and they don't, they just don't have the access to home charging, and as a result, the prospect of getting into an electric car and relying on public charging, especially at this point in time, makes it daunting and also a deterrent to adoption. We have chargers across our island. This, you know, this shows here the various chargers; we have Level 2s and DC fast chargers that you can find across office building, shopping centers, etcetera. However, there are gaps. There are some chargers that haven't worked for years and, you know, despite our efforts to encourage repair, you know, those things have not happened. This map here shows the situation currently around the island. The one on the right are the Level 2 chargers, and you can see, you know, where they are approximately located. On the left you have the DC fast chargers. And so we have about eight DC fast chargers and around 33 or so of the Level 2s. What's important, and you can see here, is that there are these deserts, you know, these areas where there just aren't any charging stations. And if you reflect on where those places are, you can also appreciate, you know, the populations, right, the people who live there. So it's going to be important for us to address this to enable adoption. So what does this mean for local business, right? This is a big question. There is obviously a cost to implementation and maintenance of these. I would like to offer that this can be a win- win. In fact, it is a win-win for local businesses. There is a service that's needed, a service that they can monetize, meaning they can charge a fee for use. It can also provide or be a competitive advantage for business, right? There is a lot of focus on sustainability these days, and being able to have a charging station at your, you know, your site, can be an advantage, right, they can be a draw for customers. There are costs associated with the installation of the stations; Level 2 equipment and an installation can be anywhere from 10,000 to 30[,000], and the DC fast chargers are much more expensive, especially with infrastructure that might be required. There are offsets available. So there is an EV charger rebate program. This has been, this is managed by the Hawaii Energy Office. There is a—and I think I have another slide here that shows the details—and then, as mentioned earlier, there is a commercial EV Make-Ready project that is before the PUC that, once approved, will allow for a number, a lot of those installation costs to be supported by HECO. So let's talk about the rebate. So this is a rebate program that a couple of sessions ago got sustained funding, so three cents of the barrel tax goes to funding this rebate program. And it allows local businesses, owners of multi-unit dwellings, condos, etcetera, to actually apply for and obtain financial support for the installation of charging stations. You see here, Level 2, you've got 3,000 to 4,500 per station, and then for the DC fast chargers, up to 35,000 per station. There is also a lot—I'm sure you've seen this there is a lot of support for the buildout of EV charging infrastructure at the federal level. It remains to be seen, you know, what will land here, but my understanding is that the Department of, the State Department of Transportation is 13 EXHIBIT B actually accountable for coming up with plans that would allow for these funds to translate into infrastructure for us. And then I'd like to just summarize that the carbonization of our transportation sector is critical, right? It's critical for climate action, for cleaning our air, and also for ensuring that, you know, our transportation dollars are maximized. We can reduce the need for cars, but at the end of the day personal cars will be required, and it's going to be important for us to make sure that the benefits, including the economic benefits, are available for everybody. And one way to make that happen is to have a robust and reliable public charging infrastructure. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Commissioners, there's a lot of information, did anybody have questions? PAISHON-DUARTE: I just have a request, Chair. VITOUSEK: Sure. PAISHON-DUARTE: Can we take a five to ten-minute bio break, please? VIOTUSEK: Absolutely, yeah, so we are going to take a five-minute recess, and then we'll be back at 10:40. [Chairman Vitousek called a short recess at 10:34 a.m. He called the hearing back to order at 10:40 a.m.] VIOTUSEK: Okay, we can reconvene. Okay, awesome, we are back in. We've had presentations from County Planning Department, from County Council, and from Noel with the Big Island Electric Vehicle Association. At this time I'll open the floor to the Commissioners for questions for all three. CAMERO: Hi Commissioners, can you please unmute that camera? I muted it during the recess. VITOUSEK: Okay, we are just going to open it up for questions from the Commissioners. Anybody? Vice Chair DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Hi. I'd like everybody to sort of chime in on this. It's about rental cars. You know, we are a huge tourist destination that that generates so much income. What part is rental car companies play in the electric vehicle world and how do they fit into the picture of all this? KIMBALL: [Inaudible microphone muted] VITOUSEK: You are on mute. DEFRANCO: Oh 14 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Not, not you KANUHA: Heather. VITOUSEK: Councilmember Kimball. KIMBALL: Hi, sorry, I heard you mention rental cars, and that's about it, I didn't hear the exact question, I apologize. But I, you know, without hearing the question, and you can repeat it— DEFRANCO: tDEFRANCO: How many KIMBALL: but the rental car market is actually a huge part of this as well, because those are folks that are coming here, they don't have a place to charge, they don't, they can't charge at home, so having the opportunity to charge at public accommodations is going to be really important as well. DEFRANCO: Right now how many, can you rent an electric vehicle now? KIMBALL: You can, but there are certainly not very many, and the charging capacity issue is largely part of that problem. DEFRANCO: So they are going to play a role in providing rental vehicles. Do they play a role in participating in how this is funded or incentives or? VITOUSEK: Probably insomuch as that they would be under the same requirements of the parking component, so if they have a parking stall, which they would have at their area, they would have to have a certain number of stalls as per the proposed rule. I think an area where it would be kind of a next step beyond the language of this, would be making a goal towards requiring the rental fleet to be electric by a certain date, which would, you know, as we all saw during COVID, a lot of the vehicles on our roads are rental cars, and that will be sending a pretty good message to people who are arriving in Hawaii that this is an environmentally friendly State, and then be able to take the experience they've had with electric vehicles here and go back to where they are and have that be something that normalizes electric vehicles for them. But that would be beyond the scope of this, but as a future goal, I think it's a fantastic suggestion. KERN: Mr. Chair, if I may KIMBALL: Agreed, and I know that there have been a couple of proposals before the legislature in recent years to require at least a portion of a new rental vehicle fleet be converted. We will see at the State level there has been a requirement that State vehicles, that their new acquisition of vehicles be converted to electric vehicles, and you may see something similar with respect to the county fleet as well. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Director Kern. 15 EXHIBIT B KERN: Yeah, thank you. Just, my feeling around this is that this is one of many steps to come. This is a movement in the right direction. We are in a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario, if you will, right? So we need the charging stations to have more people adopt utilizing EV, which then moves into rental cars. The more stations we have, the easier it is for them to come in. And I think at some point, the numbers in here will be really low, and that by adoption these numbers will be far greater; at some point it will be much more than eight because of the amount of EVs that we'll have. So I think what we'll be seeing over this time is piece by piece by piece to hopefully get the entirety under control here in the next few years. That's the goal. KANUHA: And just moving forward, Director Kern and Councilmember Kimball,just what is said in that recommendation and then in this bill, for public accommodation, does that include, I would say, homeowners who are in that stage where they've got a short-term vacation rental type of area? Just a quick question, something that I was thinking about. KERN: In this case, it wouldn't, because the requirement is based off the number of parking stalls. So if you have 50 stalls, it would be your trigger. At some point in the future that may change, but right now it would be more to a hotel. KANUHA: A hotel? KERN: Yeah. KANUHA: Thank you. PAISHON-DUARTE: So I want tooh, pardon me. VITOUSEK: Please go ahead. PAISHON-DUARTE: I wanted to know, will owners be, would they be able to require a lessee to take on the cost for maint- implementing and maintaining an EV station? Would that be permissible or is that prohibited? KIMBALL: If I heard the question correctly, that with lessees, would it be possible for property owners to require their lessees to contribute to the development of infrastructure? Can somebody give your thumbs up PAISHON-DUARTE: Correct. KIMBALL: if that was the question? VITOUSEK: Correct. KIMBALL: Yes. So, yeah, that is a possibility, it's not prohibited by this. So that could be an arrangement between the lessee and the owner. VITOUSEK: As with any tenant improvement situation. 16 EXHIBIT B KIMBALL: Mm-hmm. VITOUSEK: Any other questions? DELA CRUZ: Mahina,just to follow up with your question. Are you referring to, when you say "lessee," is that for landlords? Is that what you were going to[Commissioner Paishon- Duarte nods] okay, thank you. PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, correct. DEFRANCO: So my only other thing is that technology is changing so rapidly about, you know, everything, how you charge things, and I don't know much about it, so VITOUSEK: You might have to hold your microphone closer. DEFRANCO: Can, you can hear me, there you go, okay. Technology is changing so rapidly. And so we put in all of these stations now, what happens in a few years? What if they change it? I mean VITOUSEK: I agree in that the technology that is identified as Level 2 chargers are not likely to be the preferred charging mechanism; as we saw, it takes two to three hours, was it, to reach 80 percent charge, which is going to slow the growth of electric vehicles because people aren't going to want to spend two to three hours hanging around waiting for their vehicle to charge in a public space. As Director Kern mentioned, this isn't the solution, it's just one step, and having them, the language to allow for reduction of the amount of Level 2 charges in exchange for putting in the fast charge, which KANUHA: I believe, too, with the infrastructure being put in place in the very beginning, it's like it needs chicken before the egg, so I think, you know, it's a good step moving forward. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I guess a couple of questions that I have in, there was—and I'm sorry for not being able to reference it directly on, there's a lot of information, let's see, which recommendation was it? The one regarding stalls versus plugs. I think now, I'm not an expert in any of this, but my understanding is that sometimes an electric vehicle charging station will have multiple plugs that fit into different vehicles, like there would be three different plug options to go in there—so perhaps if the "plug" is going to be used, it should be defined to mean a source capable of charging a vehicle, you know, so it's not the three different plugs that are on the one attachment to fit different types of vehicles, but it's the ability to charge the vehicle through the cord itself. If that makes sense. KIMBALL: Yeah, so—and Noel is the expert on all things charging, but I think I can respond to some extent—so Level 2, DC charger does have a specific format in terms of how it can plug into the car, and so what you are talking about is a little bit captured by that exception where they can have the DC charger to accommodate for the number of plugs required, but they've still got to have that Level 2. And it's like when you put new software on your computer, it's got to be 17 EXHIBIT B backwards compatible. So, you know, to the comment about how the technology is changing, it is changing, it'll probably get you will see more robust. The main thing that's happening right now is the chargers are getting more robust, they are lasting longer, they are better quality. But there is probably always or for quite some time going to be this backward compatibility requirement where the Level 2 charging is going to be a necessity. Just to mention another investment by the federal government in addition to the money that's put in place for EV infrastructure development, there is also a significant amount of money going into developing U.S.-based electric vehicle charging, and so there was several million dollars put into the development of a location in Tennessee where they will be building these DC chargers. So there, one of the other concerns that has come up is if we will be able to get these charges rapidly enough, and the federal government is making a huge investment in developing this charging infrastructure. Noel, have I missed anything? You want to respond also to Mr. Vitousek's MORIN: Yeah, so it is the case that like for the DC fast chargers, you've got two standards; there is one that's called CHAdeMO and the other CCS. And the cars that are coming out that are compatible with DC fast chargers, they have either, either of those. There is an exception; Tesla requires an adapter where the user actually plugs into their adapter into the car and then they plug in the DC fast charger to plug into it, right? So there is this ability to leverage these stations either directly or indirectly through adapters. As far as Level 2 is concerned, you know, I think there is an impression that it has to be DC fast charger, fast chargers only. The reality of it is that all three, including Level 1 or 110 is relevant, right? If you are doing, you know, a week parking at the airport as an example and you have access to a Level 1- or 110-volt charging, that's adequate; you know, you don't want to be at a charging station and then you are done charging, and you are still there lingering, right, expected to move your car. Level 2, the same thing, if you are at, you know, you are shopping at the mall and you are there for a couple of hours, three hours, that may be enough for you to be able to get, you know, enough so that you've topped off. And then, of course, DC fast charging, this applies to our, you know, the group that I mentioned, we talked about earlier, right,people that live in apartments, etcetera, no home charging, they will definitely want to, we definitely want to ensure that they have access to DC fast charging. So they all, they are complementary. And as far as the technology evolving, all indications is that the battery electric format is just going to continue. It's the most efficient, and all the major manufacturers are moving into that space. There is some movement into hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, but that form is more likely more for the big trucks and, you know, heavy equipment versus the electric car. So, anyway, I just wanted to highlight that. VITOUSEK: Okay, so DEFRANCO: Mike, what about solar energy charging the batteries? Is thereI mean this is all plugging into HELLO, right, all into the grid? 18 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Yes DEFRANCO: Is there off-the-grid options now to charging butteries like solar? MORIN: Yeah, so the charging systems need access to energy, and there is the option to, you know, plug into the grid, which is the most common, but there are also the options for microgrids or for—and there is actually a good example at the community college here in Hilo where you've got a solar canopy, so it's a solar panel array, that tracks the sun. There is a battery system that's hooked up to it, and you can actually charge your car there. So that system is totally grid independent. So there are those solutions as well. I will say that they are more costly because you now have the need for, you know, the equipment and the batteries, but they may also be an acceptable solution where there is no infrastructure. So thinking about, you know, up on Saddle Road, for example, that might be ideal where you've got a lot of sun and you don't have the grid infrastructure required for charging, you can pop those up there and that could also work. So it's just one additional type of solution that we can avail of. KIMBALL: And I should mention that the charger that is associated with that solar canopy is the same charger that you'll see in the parking lot at Walmart hooked up to the grid. It's the identical technology. VITOUSEK: Okay. So it was Recommendation 8 on clarifying the conflict between number of parking stalls required for each EV versus each plug on an EV charger. And what was the resolution to that, that was recommended? KIMBALL: So what, yeah, so just—I'm sorry, am I interrupting? Go ahead, Director or KAY: Oh, no, I was this is ChristianI was just going to address that. Yeah, so there was a clarification that it's number of plugs per parking space, not number of chargers per parking space. And I think I understand your question maybe as, if there are multiple plug options on a single charger, but there's maybe only two power lines going to juice those plugs VITOUSEK: Correct. KAY: you want the number of lines to be the ability to charge the number of vehicles that come out of the charger, not the number of possible plug-ups. So it's a semantic thing that I'm seeing. So VITOUSEK: Yeah. KAY: so that's what you want to clarify. Did you hear that, Councilmember Kimball? KIMBALL: I did, and I'll have to think about the language of that. So, I mean, the typical development for the infrastructure would be you would have one line coming from wherever your power box is and then out to the charging location, and then you could have multiple chargers at that location. And some chargers, like you mentioned, have more than one plug. So, 19 EXHIBIT B typically, Level 2 actually has two plugs associated with it, so you are looking at a requirement of having to install one charger. So, does that help clarify KAY: Yeah, so KIMBALL: at all? I mean there is even scenarios I think where you have four plugs associated with one charger, so you'd have to have four different stalls for each of those plugs so that you could have four people plugged in at one time. KAY: Sure. This is Christian again. A possible suggestion or clarification would be to add a definition to what plug means KIMBALL: Okay. KAY: so that it's clear what you mean by plug. VITOUSEK: Yep, that was KAY: Is that helpful? VITOUSEK: that was the suggestion, yeah. KIMBALL: Great— VITOUSEK: reatVITOUSEK: Was to add a definition for plugs. KIMBALL: I also mention that the proposed amendment by Ms. Zelko is totally acceptable to me as well, so I'm going to add that in. And the recommendations by the Director, as well as the memo that I sent you folks, is going to be part of the public record that goes to Council, so you are welcome to just refer to those in terms of your recommendation; the Council will have those as reference materials. VITOUSEK; Okay, thanks. My next question on Recommendation 9 is the request for ADA accessible EV parking stall. Would that be restricted to ADA only or is it just the fact that it's ADA accessible? KIMBALL: It just has to be accessible VIOTUSEK: Okay. KIMBALL: so it will not be exclusively an ADA stall, but it has to have the, you know, striping and this extra space VITOUSEK: Got you, okay. KIMBALL: on either side. 20 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: In Recommendation 12, I guess, the question is in the process of plan review, where does HELCO review to establish grid capability come into the review of a retrofit for an existing structure? KERN: HELCO is not generally involved in the Plan Approval process. That would probably be something that would be worked out by the owner or lessee prior, as they would know that that requirement coming in so that they would have to work with HELLO, or whatever operator, to provide that infrastructure even if they are creating their own power source, right? So they would have to solve for how they would meet this criteria, and then we would verify it from the Plan Approval that they have the right number of stalls on their plan, and then before they get a certificate of occupancy, we would go back out and verify that those plugs and stalls are actually there. But we actually don't get involved in the HELCO portion of it. VITOUSEK: So the adequacy of the existing electrical infrastructure would have to be established by the applicant who is applying for it? And so they'd be coming in saying they've consulted with HELCO and they've determined that there is adequate or there is not adequate electrical infrastructure to allow the charging stations? KAY: So I think we would likely require some evidence from HELCO and not just their word VITOUSEK: Right— KAY: ightKAY: —say, yes, this is a situation here where we are going to try and apply for the exemption under the law, but, so it may be helpful, similar to the aggregation principle, to add some language in there to say we need some evidence, if they are going to be coming in and claiming an exception. So the FIRM, the FIRM map is pretty easy for us to look at, but something, some evidence from the provider to say, hey, we don't have the requisite capability for the infrastructure here VITOUSEK: Yeah, that was KAY: please give us the variance, please give us the exemption. VITOUSEK: If there could be language in there that qualifies review by the utility in determining whether or not adequate electrical service exists for the area. KIMBALL: That makes sense, no problem, okay. VITOUSEK: And if Jennifer from HELCO wants to weigh in on that, please do. No? Okay. Let's see, now, the question that Vice Chair DeFranco raised briefly about the source of power, I think is a good thing again to be looking out in the future, because it doesn't make sense to be charging an electric vehicle by burning a fossil fuel; it serves the same thing as burning a fossil fuel. So if there is ways of coordinating the use of energy and charging at times when the solar renewable resources are available. I don't know if that could be built in here. 21 EXHIBIT B MORIN: I'd like to comment on that— VITOUSEK: hatVITOUSEK: Sure. MORIN: I think that's a really, really important thing, I mean, at the end of the day we are working to decarbonize. And I believe at this point in time we are at 60 percent or so renewable, and there are aggressive measures to increase that over time. So on a positive note our EVs get cleaner over time, right, as the grid gets cleaner. More importantly on that last point, there are already these strategies, time of use strategies, you'll see this at the public DC fast charging, for example, where the pricing actually encourages charging during certain times of the day when you have abundant solar. So, and I think they are also time of use for home. So there are these different strategies that serve to encourage charging when the supply is there. And again, we are aiming for 100 percent renewable here, so at some point, you know, even if you are plugging into the grid and you don't have solar on your roof, you are actually going to be driving your car on renewables. KIMBALL: And then another tip point to make along those lines, too, is that efficiency factor that Noel mentioned before. The electric batteries are so much more efficient than the fossil fuel vehicles that even though, even if you were charging on a fully fossil fuel-based grid, you still use, what is it, about a third less over the lifetime of fossil fuel, produces a third fewer emissions. And, of course, our grid is nearly 60 percent renewable already, so that's even compounded. But, you know, important point that it's, it's all an ecosystem, yeah, the vehicles, the electric grid, and we are all anxious to reduce emissions as much as possible. VITOUSEK: The question on the trigger for retrofit of existing parking lots. Now, would that apply to parking lots that were in existence prior to 2012 when they were built before the rule came into effect? KAY: I'm not sure. Do you happen to know, Councilmember Kimball, if there is a, like a grandfather clause when legislation at the State was made? So the question was those lots that were created prior to the HRS change in 2012, are those grandfathered or not? And not, if not applicable, this bill would not be applicable to them? KIMBALL: No, there was not any grandfathering provision in the HRS that set that initial requirement of one per 100, and it has not to this point been challenged. So, no, there isn't a grandfather—so this would also apply to anything, even if it was prior to 2012. VITOUSEK: And so what would we think is an ideal trigger for getting lots that are subject to those rules into compliance with them? Is it any form of permitting review? I think relying on the complaint-violation process isn't the most effective way of accomplishing it. KAY: Understood. So this is tricky, this is the third option, this is for all other lots that don't need to come in and get Plan Approval. Plan Approval is really our only kind of time point where we address parking, so if these lots already have 22 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: And would you mind just discussing briefly the Plan Approval and what triggers Plan Approval and what that takes place for some of the Commissioners? KAY: Sure, yeah, we have a Plan Approval section in our Zoning Code that lays out when Plan Approval is required, what different types of uses are required—generally for commercial uses, or if you are changing from residential to commercial or some kind of industrial uses. And it's not just parking, Plan Approval also looks at drainage, it looks at landscaping. So it's another opportunity for us to check in and make sure that through our Code we are able to address some possible impacts on the surrounding community, noise, visual impacts, drainage impacts, and things like that. So that's kind of, in a quick nutshell, what Plan Approval looks like. So anytime a shopping center wants to come in or a store wants to come in, and they meet the criteria to be triggered for Plan Approval, they would come in and submit to us a set of plans that showed parking, that showed landscaping, they would have already done a drainage plan that's approved by Department of Public Works, and once they meet all those criteria, then we would grant them Final Plan Approval, and then they can move on to construct their parking facility and then move on for occupancy. So you'll see in some of our commercial rezonings that come in front of you, there is a Plan Approval condition. So that's what that kind of looks like. Does that answer your question? VITOUSEK: Yes. KAY: Okay. And then, and so back to the original question about kind of what would that trigger be, once they've been granted Plan Approval, unless they are going to build another structure—so for instance, if anybody's familiar with Prince Kuhio Plaza in Hilo, the mall was built, and then they came in and built some additional structures that house like Vorizon Wireless and Genki Sushi and things like that, at that point they had to come back in and do another Plan Approval to make sure that the parking was sufficient, that their landscaping was consistent, those types of things but in a case where you have an old parking lot that's been there for 20 years and they are not building anything else, there is no other real hook to get them to come back in for another review. So that's why we kind of practically looked at it and said probably this is going to be based on a property owner coming in just complying on their own or based on the complaint system. So that's kind of the question; what other options do we have andI mean you could put a within two years, within five years, but it's difficult, it may be difficult to enforce. KANUHA: Okay, that was my question. Could you put in the language to make that two-year or five-year agreement—can you hear me? KAY: Yeah, and so maybe I can put her back onCouncilmember Kimball, because, you know, you drafted the bill. What were your thoughts or considerations for that third option for those that aren't coming in for Plan Approval? KIMBALL: Yeah, so a couple of things I'll mention, you know, determined by our Corporation Counsel, and when they were advising us on this bill that, yes, if they weren't coming in, if there wasn't any kind of trigger like the plan review process, or Plan Approvalsorry, I always mix it up then, then it would be possibly considered a taking if we went beyond what was established 23 EXHIBIT B already by the HRS. Part of the reason that you guys are having to review this is because it's going into Chapter 25, the Zoning Code. And the reason for that decision was because Chapter 25 already has a complaint process and a notice of violation and an enforcement process, so instead of having to draft a whole new mechanism for enforcement, we are just kind of piggybacking on what's already there in Chapter 25. Now, is it the ideal situation that it's going to be a complaint-driven process where Planning is actually going to have to go out and send a notice to somebody if they are not in compliance with the basic HRS? No. But, you know, looking at our other options, it's really the best we can do under the circumstances. So, you know, hopefully, it won't be—we will see, you know, once this passage is just a willingness to comply, but unfortunately, it's going to have to be a complaint-driven process for those, those lots that just meet the HRS requirement. Unfortunately, the State didn't give us any money for enforcement. KANUHA: Thank you, Heather. PAISHON-DUARTE: I have one question. VITOUSEK: Sure. PAISHON-DUARTE: What were the recommendations of the Windward Planning Commission? What was the, what did they determine? Are you able to say? KAY: Yeah, sure. They forwarded a favorable recommendation as written with the Director's recommendations and the, which include the changes that we spoke about in our presentation from the Councilmember. So, yeah. PAISHON-DUARTE: Mahalo. DELA CRUZ: I have a question. VIOTUSEK: Yes. DELA CRUZ: I guess this question is for Mr. Noel [Morin]. You know,just looking at the slideshow, you know, in regards to the Level 2 and the DC charging stations, especially like in high traffic areas, would there be some sort of study or surveys for each establishment? For example, like a hotel where employees are commuting from the Hilo side, if they do have electric vehicles, will they, you know, will there be some sort of studies whether it requires for the DC chargers or the Level 2 depending on the amount of usage based on, I guess, the amount of cars that are there? You know,just to make sure they get back home across the island or, you know, those certain high traffic areas. If that makes sense at all. MORIN: I'm sorry, I hope I got the question correct. I, what I heard was, is there going to be some dataI'm interpreting—will there be some analysis and data that will influence placement of the chargers and, you know, density of the charging infrastructure so that people are actually going to be able to, from the west side, for example, be able to make it over here and vice versa. Is that, did I hear that right? The sound is kind of 24 EXHIBIT B DELA CRUZ: Correct, yeah, so DEFRANCO: It's tied to workforce. DELA CRUZ: Yeah, tied to workforce, so, it's in making sure that, you know, if they are—I'll make an example, like the hotels, if there's an employee commuting from Hilo and they have an electric vehicle and, well, what type of, will there be a study or data, like you said, of what requirements of what charging station the establishment should have, whether from this the Level 2 or the DC charging stations? Will there be some sort of data? MORIN: Yeah, I, you know, defer Heather to you, but there is nothing that, at the moment, that dictates or that will influence that that I'm aware of—well, maybe I should take that back and, Jen, maybe you can chime in on this as well. So the backbone study and then also the survey, you know, the survey that was done by, is being done by HECO to identify via crowdsourcing, right, information from EV owners, would-be EV owners, where they would like to see EV charging infrastructure, that could be insight into that, into that, those requirements. And, so, yeah, I don't have a direct answer on exactly how this information might influence the, you know, the type of charging by venue or by host. I will say that cost is going to be a consideration, and there are also these situations where maybe space is going to also dictate, you know, what might be placed in there. My hope as a consumer and, you know, resident here and also an advocate for clean transportation, is that there will be a diversity of, abundance and diversity of these charging stations. And with the long-range EVs now, right, a lot of these cars that are coming out, they have 250, 300 range, mile range; people can go from east side to west side and have, still have a lot of charge, or capacity, when they get home. So being able to identify a DC fast charger nearby, you know, to top off is probably,just being able to access that is probably going to be what's needed versus having, you know, very specific requirements by, you know, by site. And, Jen, feel free to jump in as well, I know you mentioned something about the analysis that was done and the need for DC fast chargers and Level 2s. Anything you'd like to add? Jen has been having some trouble getting through for some reason. KAY: If I can address this really quickly. So the bill as written, and if it's adopted in the Code, will only be the minimum requirements, so a lot owner, landowner could add more if it was a benefit to like their workforce, and MORIN: Exactly. KAY: so there is no, there is no maximum. This is just what would be minimally required. VITOUSEK: And again, this is for parking requirements for public areas. This in my opinion again is not solution to this issue, it's just one step, I mean, they are still going to require to have charging stations like we would have a gas station somewhere around there where it can accommodate more people. But having this as one option available to everyone is a good first step. It's not, not the step, it's not the solution by any means. I think we all know that, but. 25 EXHIBIT B I guess my last couple of questions. One is the—and, Noel, you might know the answer to this best—the standardization of plugs. Is that something that should be built into the language so that we make sure that anyone who pulls up to any charging station can use it? So like I don't want to be stuck charging my iPhone on a Samsung charger. Is there a way of creating uniformity that anyone can charge at any station? MORIN: No, I think this is driven by the market. There is the standard, you know, for the Level 2s you've got this plug called J1772 and it's universal, so if you have an electric car the exception, again, is Tesla you can plug into any of those Level 2s. With Tesla, the manufacturer sells the car with an adapter that you can plug into the charging station plug and you plug into your car. So in general, for the Level 2s, it's totally standardized. For the Level 3s, or DC fast chargers, you've got the, you know, the pair that I mentioned earlier, which is the CCS and CHAdeMO, so there are two different standards, and car owners when they, or consumers when they buy the car, they are able to specify if they want to have, you know, Level 2 only or DC fast charger, and when they opt for DC fast charger, the car, depending on what it is, will come with one or the other. There seems to be a standardization or a shift with the manufacturers to this thing called CCS, it's one of the types of plugs that are on the DC fast chargers, but all the ones that we've seen here, and I think for the foreseeable future, will have the two that I mentioned earlier. So, yeah, there will, there may be some challenges in the near term where someone has a car and they want to use the DC fast charger but they don't have an adapter. And we've seen that, we've seen that with some Tesla owners. But moving forward, I, you know, I don't think there is going to be an issue. The one issue that might be notable is the payment protocol, right? So today if you are going to use, there are like different types of providers here on the island even just here in Hawaii Island, and to be able to use the charging station, you either have to have the app on your phone and you interact with the machine, or you have a card that you can, you know, flash in front of the machine, or you pick up the phone and call the 800 number that's on the machine. So there is that variation in terms of how you pay. Fortunately, there are providers that are starting to look at this, so you don't, you know, you don't need to have a special account; you can just use your credit card, or if you want convenience, you get the app. So that's more of the challenge I think in terms of standardization. As far as the plugs go, it's, you know, what I mentioned earlier. VITOUSEK: So, I mean, does it make sense to include language about standardization in this ordinance or no? KIMBALL: I think, well, the Level 2 charger, the definition does include some of that language and specification, but I think, you know, one of the other points from one of the other Commissioners is adapting technology, we don't want to be too restrictive about the actual technology just because of the potential for evolution. But I think Noel is correct in saying that the market is really going to drive this, and so folks have already, you know, invested in these electric vehicles, they are going to want to be able to continue to use them. And some vehicles have the option to use, you know, two different types, so there is some flexibility in that as well. VITOUSEK: And I agree that with market driving a lot of this, but in this case, this isn't the market driving it; this is the government requiring it. So if we are going to be requiring it—and 26 EXHIBIT B we don't need to specifically limit the technology, but indicating that a standardized plug, when it may exist or wherever, so that we are not limiting other people, we are achieving our objective of having accessibility for more people and not just the drivers of a certain model of car. KIMBALL: Sure. VITOUSEK: And I don't know any of this, so I'm just asking these questions. I'm not an electric vehicle guy, I just don't know. KIMBALL: Yeah, no, I think, I think what I'm gelling around from what you are saying is maybe we want to, rather than specifying the plug types, we might want to put in some sort of compatibility requirement. What— VITOUSEK: hatVITOUSEK: Yes, that's the KIMBALL: do you think VITOUSEK: that's the suggestion, yes, is that not specifying plug type but indicating that they should be compatible for multiple vehicles. KIMBALL: Okay, yeah, that's some language that we can work on crafting. VITOUSEK: Okay, and then KIMBALL: Just give a little more definition VITOUSEK: my last question is, the County buildings and facilities, that should obviously be included in public space, right? And is the County going to be leading that initiative in retrofitting? I didn't see the charging stations when I pulled in. KAY: There are at the County buildings in Hilo. To the extent that they are maintained is another thing, but, yeah, they are, they have been installed. VIOTUSEK: So, I mean obviously, to me, if we are going to be requiring other people to do it, we have to be the leaders in example of how it's done and maintained and available and going beyond the minimum requirement. KERN: I can add to that a little bit. On the west Hawaii, we do have a couple, they are actually underneath the covered parking area, so you get to keep your car out of the sun and get it charged. We are actually working on a climate action plan in conjunction with R and D. And we are working on doing a kind of a baseline study on all of our assets and resources, which include our vehicles, and so one of the pushes is to electrify the entire fleet. And then with the, also with the hydrogen in other areas of that. So I'd say the County will be taking a massive lead in adoption of the electric vehicles, and then also as well as chargers. VITOUSEK: The charging stations here 27 EXHIBIT B KERN: Yes. VITOUSEK: —and other County park facilities that may trigger the 50-lot requirement. And it may not, you know, I still think that having those options available now, I guess that raises another question, you know, in rural areas a lot of parking is in unmarked stalls, you know, looking at County facilities around South Kona, Yano Hall, a majority of the parking is around the ball area, looking at Bayfront where people are parking on the side of the road for soccer and all that. Is this serving marked stalls in designated public use space only? KERN: My understanding is that it will be marked stalls in the public space, marked, in the most appropriate area, and if they are going to be located by ADA, it will probably be all in one area very close to the entrance. We just looked at a preliminary Plan Approval for a park, and they've got EV stalls in it. So they are already thinking this, they are seeing this. We are in those discussions, and they have mentioned here we go, we got our EV stalls. So it's happening. Probably not as fast as we would all like to, but it is happening. VITOUSEK: Yeah, awesome. Well, you know, that's it for me, I just want to thank you for letting us be a part of the process and trying to help wherever we can. DEFRANCO: So, Mike, so to go over the discussion so we can make a motion. Can we highlight I mean we are in agreement with, I'm in agreement with recommending as the Director, Planning Director' recommendation VITOUSEK: We should probably make a motion before DEFRANCO: revisions plus VITOUSEK: sharing our perspective on DEFRANCO: Okay, but I can't make the motion because we've said so many additions. I know there is a plug compatibility in there, with the HELCO change of word VITOUSEK: We could make a motion, and then do a secondary motion trying to put our recommended suggestions. And we didn't come up with any firm language, but these are suggestions for the County Council to consider in adopting the ordinance. DEFRANCO: Okay. Well, then I'll make a recommendation. I move that— VITOUSEK: hatVITOUSEK: A motion. DEFRANCO: Pardon me? VITOUSEK: Make a motion? DEFRANCO: A motion. 28 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Okay. DEFRANCO: Yes. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on Draft Bill 120, with the Planning Director's recommended revisions and to include VITOUSEK: Or you don't even need to DEFRANCO: Oh VITOUSEK: you can just do that, and then we can do a secondary motion to DEFRANCO: which, yeah, which shall be adopted. Okay. VITOUSEK: Okay, a motion to send a favorable recommendation. Is there a second? PAISHON-DUARTE: Second. VITOUSEK: Motion and a second. This time we can open it up to discussion, and I would start by seeing if—cross my fingers—Christian was keeping track of the things that we were saying. KAY: I hope you won't hurt your fingers. I'll do my best. And please, Maija or anybody else taking notes, or Councilmember Kimball, you are a fastidious notetaker, let me know if I've missed anything. VITOUSEK: Definition for plugs KAY: Sorry, definition of plug, that's definitely the first one, yeah—it's tough when you can't read your own handwriting. VITOUSEK: HELLO, HELCO review KAY: HELCO review, yeah VITOUSEK: process. KAY: so, yeah, add adequacy for the exemption, add qualified adequacy for exemption. So it may not, it may not just be HELCO review, though; you may have an engineer say, you know, electrical engineer say this isn't going to work, so VITOUSEK: Sure. KAY: Yeah, so that's two. We had a VITOUSEK: Compatibility. 29 EXHIBIT B KAY: Compatibility, yeah. KERN: You got Jennifer's? 25-4-54.1? KAY: And then, yeah, correct, the adding DEFRANCO: "Actively." KAY: "Actively"thank you—and then remove "at all times" from that language, yeah. KANUHA: Yeah. KAY: Okay. VITOUSEK: Okay? KAY: Was there any other, any others that I missed that-? KIMBALL: Those were, that's what I had in my notes. KAY: Okay. VITOUSEK: Okay, yeah, I think that covers it. And then I guess we can make a secondary motion. I'll be the motion maker. I'll make a secondary motion to include the discussion Christian, would you restate those four items? Just four? KAY: So there were the changes from the HELCO representative, changes to 25-4-54.1(a); and then it's to the adequacy for the exemption, that's the second piece; adding a definition for what plug is; and then the fourth is just the language around compatibility of plug types. VITOUSEK: Yes. KAY: Yeah, okay? VITOUSEK: Correct. So that was my request to amend. Is there a second? DELA CRUZ: Second. VITOUSEK: Okay, motion and a second. All those in favor? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. DELA CRUZ: Aye. VITOUSEK: Do we need a roll call vote for the secondary motion? 30 EXHIBIT B KAY: I think we should do a roll call vote, yes. VITOUSEK: Okay. KAY: And so, sorry, the second was from Commissioner Kanuha? VITOUSEK: Second was from Commissioner Dela Cruz. KAY: Dela Cruz, okay, thank you. All right. Okay, thank you. Chair Vitousek: VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. KAY: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. KAY: Thank you. Mr. Chair, your motion carries with five aye votes and no noes. VITOUSEK: And then we can proceed with a roll call vote on the primary motion. KAY: Okay, thank you. Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. KAY: Okay, Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kanuha? 31 EXHIBIT B KANUHA: Aye. KAY: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Thank you. Mr. Chair, the motion carries with five aye votes. VITOUSEK: Again, thank you so much Councilmember Kimball. Good luck with this. We are really, really for it. It's a great thing for our island. Mahalo. KAY: Mahalo. PAISHON-DUARTE: Mahalo. KIMBALL: Thank you, guys, so much for your time. I really, really appreciate the deliberations and the comments, the recommendations. So thank you for your input. Much, much appreciated KANUHA: Mahalo nui. MORIN: Ditto. Thank you, thank you very much for your leadership. Aloha. VITOUSEK: Aloha. The hearing ended at 12:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 32 EXHIBIT B