Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWMTC 2020/07/07 2018-2020Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit 2311 Session Hawai `i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii July 7, 2020 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit ORDER: was called to order at 11:20 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Hilo, Hawaii, by Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Ms. Karen Eoff, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member (came in later) Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (via videoconference from Kona) STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Darryl Oliveira: (representing Hawaii Island Housing Coalition and HPM Building Supply) Christopher Delaunay: (representing Pacific Resource Partnership) Joe Belisario: (representing End Users) Dean Au: (representing Hawai `i Regional Council of Carpenters) Bill 179 (Comm. 989), in support. Bill 179 (Comm. 989), in opposition. Bill 179 (Comm. 989), comment. Bill 179 (Comm. 989), in support and in opposition. PWMTC-23 WAWL A AiiMINIA CATIONS: nunFR nF RESOLUTIONS: BILLS FOR ORDINANCES: Sharon Hirota: (representing County of Hawaii) Max Newberg: (representing Hawai `i Regional Council of Carpenters) Dennis Boyd: (representing Kona -Kohala Chamber of Commerce.) Tom Leonard: Bill McCowatt: (representing Koa Architects) Patrick Hurney: (representing Habitat for Humanity and Community Alliance Partners) July 7, 2020 Bill 179 (Comm. 989), comment. Bill 179 (Comm. 989), in support and in opposition. Bill 179 (Comm. 989), in support. Bill 179 (Comm. 989), in support. Bill 179 (Comm. 989), comment. Bill 179 (Comm. 989), in support. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. With that, I'll be closing public testimony. Mr. Clerk, read in Bill 179, please. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Communications. (There were none.) The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for Ordinances. Page 2 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 Bill 179: ESTABLISHES A COUNTY CONSTRUCTION CODE RELATING TO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED SYSTEMS WITHIN A BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY AMENDING THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), AS FOLLOWS: ADOPTS NEW CHAPTERS 5 (CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE), 5A (BUILDING CODE), 5D (ELECTRICAL CODE), 5E (ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE), AND 5F (PLUMBING CODE); 2) AMENDS CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-39; CHAPTER 3, SECTIONS 3-14 AND 3-15; AND CHAPTER 25, SECTIONS 25-1-5,25-4-10, AND 25-4-60; AND 3) REPEALING CHAPTERS 5 (BUILDING CODE), 9 (ELECTRICAL CODE), AND 17 (PLUMBING CODE) Establishes a new Construction Code for the County of Hawaii by: repealing existing Chapter 5 (Building), Chapter 9 (Electricity), and Chapter 17 (Plumbing); creating new chapters for installation provisions for Building, Electrical, Energy Conservation, and Plumbing; and combining administrative provisions from Chapter 5, Chapter 9, and Chapter 17 into a single, new chapter. The amendments also include adoption of a new electrical code based on the 2017 National Electrical Code and adoption of a new plumbing code based on the 2012 Uniform Plumbing Code, adding a new appendix for tiny house building standards, and transitioning the County from requiring separate construction permits to a single -permit system. Reference: Comm. 989 Introduced by: Ms. Lee Loy (B/R) (Note: Comm. 989. 1, from Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, transmitting hardcopies of public comments received and answered.) Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend passage of Bill 179 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Clerk, if you could help me. I have a PowerPoint, really quick, in an effort to kind of level -set and kind of demonstrate to the Council, you know, how complex the work that went into this bill. We also have Robyn and Neal Tanaka from our Building Division, who were very instrumental in drafting and crafting this particular 200 pages. But we really couldn't have done it without Leslie Chow over in our Legislative Review Branch. I'll never forget the day Chair Chung sAt me down and said, "Sue, we're going to revise our Building Codes," and I was going to be—almost 18 months ago when he did that, and I thought it was crazy; but here we are, 18 months later. So with that, the first slide. Page 3 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 (Note: At this time, Council Member Susan K. Lee Loy provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is made a part of the record see, Comm. 989.2.) CHR. LEE LOY: One area I do want to speak to, that we heard a lot of testimony about, is the various appendices. So in addition to Appendix L, which is our Factory -Built Housing appendix, and that was actually moved in, in 2012, so it's been part of our Code for the last eight years. But other appendices that are also contained in Bill 179 is something I'm really excited about is the use of indigenous architecture and indigenous plants. I think it speaks volumes to what we can use here locally and provide aesthetics with indigenous architecture. And then, we took a big leap to add in tiny homes as another tool in our toolbelt to provide housing. With that, we have Robyn here, from Building, and she brought a few friends. For all the other Council Members, if you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them, or we have Robyn and her team. (Note: At this time, Acting Building Division Chief Robyn Matsumoto and Acting Deputy Chief Neal Tanaka came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. MATSUMOTO: Good morning. My name is Robyn Matsumoto, I'm the Acting Building Chief right now; and then we also have Neal Tanaka, Acting Deputy Building Chief and then our electrical and plumbing supervisors both in Hilo and Kona here to help with any questions technical. We're super excited about this bill. I mean, it's been longtime waiting. It's, you know, a lot of changes and it's also a lot of the same stuff. The information there is still there, but maybe in a cleaner language. Excited about the tiny homes to provide, like Sue said, another tool in the toolbelt for the people of the community. And so, do you have any questions for us? MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, thank you. Hi, Robyn, thanks for being here again today. And is that Neal next to you? Sorry, I can only see the backs of your heads. MS. MATSUMOTO: Yes. MS. VILLEGAS: Great. Okay. I just want to thank both of you for taking some time with me the other day to go through this bill, and what it means and how Page 4 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 it's put together, the purpose of it being put together. I also want to thank the Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce and their Permitting Task Force. For all of the months and years that they have put in; the hours that they have dedicated to working with this document, working with you guys to try and identify ways to continue to improve it. I just want to bounce a couple of things off of you, and just for confirmation, not only for myself but for others watching this. Currently today, as we are looking at and transitioning the Construction Code, Bill No. 179, Draft 1, from Committee to Council, the parts that are essentially being—what's due in August and must be complete is the electric—well the Administrative Rules, right, the transition to all of the Administrative Rules under—into one chapter; and the Electrical Code and the Plumbing Code, otherwise are the two things running off of an August deadline, correct? MS. MATSUMOTO: That's correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. And in my conversations with you, you pointed out that there are no amendments to the State or County. I'm sorry, there are no amendments to the Electrical Code because it's an industry standard? MS. MATSUMOTO: Yes, that's correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, great. And then when we look at the Plumbing Code, there are some amendments that you guys are bringing forward to the Plumbing Code? MS. MATSUMOTO: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, fantastic. So essentially, I kind of wanted to bring it down to focusing on those departments. And I'm hoping maybe you could—and if it's appropriate, you let me know what's most appropriate to present to your—you know, I don't want to overlook the issues that have been brought forward by the Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce and their leadership team, and we talked about those specifically the other day on the phone. But I'm really grateful that you guys expressed the opportunity and the interest to sit down and go through the list of suggestions, that unfortunately they didn't see or feel, were taken into consideration and reflected in this bill as intensely or as adequately. But those due dates timelines are not until November, correct? MS. MATSUMOTO: That's correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So I just wanted to put out there that I look forward to sitting down with you guys and going over some of these other things. Because it was really challenging to understand what our testifiers were saying. One of the Page 5 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 challenges of wearing a facemask when speaking into a microphone is something like that. So just because, you know—essentially, the Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce resides predominantly within District 7, which represents my constituency. I just wanted to read one of the statements here, is that, the general feeling is that there are numerous requirements placed on the community in this bill, in the forms of timelines, fees, and building specifications, and yet there are no corresponding performance requirements for the Department of Public Works. And while this document is related to Public Works, it's also come to my attention that there is such a cross-pollination between this process, with Public Works and with Planning. And so there's really an opportunity for us to recognize and to connect some of the standards for both departments, is what my hope is. And then just pointing out, the City and County of Honolulu did an audit on their permitting process, and they concluded that there was no point in attempting reform without direct and transparent accountability for administering the process. And so I really look forward to working together to identify some means for accountability and certainty for people that there won't be arbitrary decision-making, that there's going to be mutual accountability, and that the timelines are going to be relevant, and how we can synchronize those efforts to serve our public better. And with that, Neal, I would just love—when we spoke the other the day, you shared some—you know, in the interest of supporting DPW's (Department of Public Works), the strides that you guys have made in shortening the permitting process. Can you share with me, with the Council here and the public, some of the transition in those numbers, and how providing the staffing has helped to improve the process in your department? MR. TANAKA: Sure. Neal Tanaka, Acting Deputy Building Chief. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of you all today. It's an honor, as always. And I appreciate your support with regards to Bill 179, Rebecca, thank you for letting us talk to and speak to the concerted effort that we at the Building Division are making to push through building permit applications. I mean, we are aware and very mindful of the effect of construction on our economy, especially in such times as this, which COVID has presented us. The numbers that I presented to you as well as the other Council Members, I'd like to speak just to Building Division's numbers right now, if that's okay. And as of last year, the Council approved additional positions for plan reviewers. I think it was evident that we needed the help when it came to reviewing plans. And prior to that, we were at about 31 days at the Building Division, on average, to review a plan in Hilo, and about 24 days in Kona, on average. This year, after implementing those positions, working on training and consistency, we've got it Page 6 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 down to about eight days for Hilo, on average, and seven days in Kona. So, we're seeing a significant increase in efficiency and plan review. As you mentioned, there is a cross-pollination, if you will, between Planning and Building, and other divisions and departments they've included within the building permit process. It's an incredibly complicated process of which this bill only addresses what we can control with regards to the Building Division. And so each other department or other agencies, they have their own challenges -that we're open to helping work with them to make this process even more efficient as possible. We're hoping with the addition of the staff members, the introduction of this ordinance, the effect of the one -permit system. And a future implementation of the EnerGov System, I think that transparency, the accountability that everybody is looking for, is definitely going to show and reveal the concerted effort countywide, inclusive of the Building Division as well as the other departments to achieve that goal of an efficient plan review and permit process. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Neal. I appreciate that. With that, I yield at this time. CHR. LEE LOY: I see your light on, Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: And thank you. From talking with me this morning, I know it was pretty last minute, but I think one of my concerns was, how long was the public review period for this? Was it just seven—it's seven days? MS. MATSUMOTO: Yeah, it was just available for seven days, the initial review. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. So that alone concerns me and raises red flags, right? Because when we talk about the Building Code, you know, in the construction industry, and we heard—my husband was in the union, part of the Carpenters Union several years back. And he's what they call the "framer." You know, his specialty was in framing. And just talking about him, but what about—and he considers himself retired now because all that framing got his back out. But what about all of those other people who have those—in that construction industry that rely on building a home versus— You know, I heard about factory -built housing from HPM (Hawai`i Planing Mill). Testified in strong support of it, noting you know, of course affordability. Habitat stated that they could possibly double, you know, the amount of work they did with factory -built homes. But, you know, at whose expense? You know, when we look at weighing the pros and cons of factory -built housing, it extends beyond affordability. You know, when we're looking at the future of our construction trade, what risk ? Page 7 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 In times of—and I agree with the Carpenters Union when I called the Carpenters Union to ask them their thoughts on it. Because at first I gave it to my husband to review and I said, "What do you think of this?" You know, he said, "Well, I'd be out of a job," you know, and alone. And knowing, you know, I've lived it for years, right? It's an up and down thing, because you have build homes then no more homes, build homes then no more homes. So you've got to really be able to manage your money when you're on the downslope, right? But if we have this factory -built housing, and the way the testimony came in it's like they're going to go full-blown with this thing, we're in trouble. The long-term economic effects that it will have on our jobs, for our carpenters, and not only carpenters, equipment operators, who have got to go there help put things together or whatever. It will affect those masons. Masons—there's unintended consequences. Long-term unintended economic consequences that we're not really looking at. You know, at this point, I'm willing to amend this and take out Appendix L. I'm going to have to talk to more of the construction people. I'm surprised—I'm really surprised that a lot of our independent contractors are not here. And I want to reach out to them and talk to them, and talk to regular carpenters who are concerned. You know, they're already struggling to feed their families and all. Yes, we'll make it a little bit more affordable for a family. Their cost will still be high. Living in Hawaii is ridiculous, right? But with that appendix in there, and you look at the long-term economic effects, those are the pros and cons of it. So it's not all about affordability. We've got to have a balance, and that's where I'm coming with this. You know, I've lived it. My husband is a carpenter, so I know the effects that this will have on many, many families throughout our State, but more so Hawaii County, adopting this. So that's why I'm willing to take that portion out. Concentrate on the tiny homes portion, and then let's see how—you know, during this pandemic it's so difficult, because we're trying to put something forward and from day to day we don't know what's happening, what's going to happen with our families. So we have the 201 H process. People can do affordable homes to the 201H process. The developers kind of take that brunt of the cost, right? So I don't want to see the factory -built housing in this at this point. I know it was in prior, then there was a company who tried and it kind of failed. Am I correct? Yes? But now, when I'm hearing some of the testimony coming forward, it looks like, "Whoa, we're going to go full-blown on this," and with no consideration of the impact of our economy and our workers. So that's why I'm willing to—I don't have that amendment now, but I'm looking to do it at the—if this goes to first reading at Council, I'm putting that amendment in to remove that clause. And then I'll gather more information. And I'm sure at that time we'll have more—the regular or what I call "lay carpenters." Because Carpenters Union is a great union Page 8 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 and they find jobs for their—but what about the ones not? My husband's not in there now. And like I said he's retired, so I not even concerned, but the younger carpenters. Anyway, that's what I have to say. I'll probably be bringing forth an amendment. And I just want to make sure that we look beyond just what we call "Affordable Housing." Because there's so much other opportunity for affordable housing; like I said with the 201 H process, as well. So, thank you. I yield, Madam Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Hi, Robyn, Neal. So conversations, I have other questions, but since we're on Section L, can you just make some comments on that history? Where it came from and how we or where we are with it. And I don't know who to ask, Neal or Robyn? MR. TANAKA: Neal Tanaka, Acting Deputy Building Chief. So the Appendix L—first off, Val, I appreciate you bringing that to light. Mr. Richards, if you would give me a second just to address Val really quickly? MR. RICHARDS: Yes, absolutely. MR. TANAKA: Yes, the seven days, with regards to asking for comment was a short period of time, but there were a lot of engagement from the public of which we incredibly appreciate for this. We got over 140 comments, right? Some related, some not. But we definitely got comments, and valuable comments, that helped craft what we have in front of you today. So, we do—this process of public engagement when it comes to our policies with regards to Building Division, our Building Codes, in my history it's never happened before, and so this is something that's new. We're still trying to perfect that process, absolutely. And it needs work. We have additional codes coming in November, and we're going to continue to open that process up to the public for their input, because it is really important that we take care of our community, right? But as Ms. Lee Loy mentioned, it doesn't start here. It starts at the State Building Code Council, which I'm the representative for County of Hawaii. And I can use those partnerships from industry to help me advocate for our island there so that it comes down, while sitting in front of you folks, to move something forward that's reasonable for us. With regards to the factory -built housing, yes, this has been in our code since 2012. And I think as you mentioned and I think of many people had mentioned, that the intent of this is to provide another option, another tool in the toolbelt to address our dire need for affordable housing. I hear you when it comes to Page 9 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 balancing the economy and how fragile it is, especially on our island; but the luxury, whether it's a luxury or not, but the options the choices make, right, to have an option to be factory -built or otherwise a tiny home or a custom home, right? Those are all avenues and tools that people can use to ensure that they can achieve housing. It was assumed or made mentioned in public testimony that this a policy that's trying to promote factory -built housing. It's not. What this does is definitely gives us an opportunity to regulate it, right, permit it, and to enforce it. Otherwise it would be running free, right, out there, right? But ultimately, when it comes to factory -built housing, it is an option. No one is being forced to take that opportunity, right? Likewise, with the tiny homes, no one is being forced. In fact, it's not our position at the Building Division to tell what choices you can make. We welcome any kind of ideas when it comes to affordable housing options, right? And if we can move them in, we'll work on it to do so. But don't get me wrong, I hear you when it comes to the fragility of our industries. So, Tim, I don't know if that also answers your question. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah. Thanks, Neal. It does address it. You mentioned that it has been part of the code from 2012. Val, I hear what you're saying. I have mixed feelings on it. I do like the part about consolidating our permitting process. And we've talked about this elusive EnerGov. It think when we get to that, that's going to address a lot of things. So I think there's no easy answer on this. But I do like also the part about regulating something, to make sure that there's a safety there. So, there's the Ying and the Yang of it. I had another question concerning amendment 5(a)3-3, relative horticulture buildings. This is probably, "I'm not surprised here at all" because it comes back to agriculture, right? Structures with nonrigid plastic sheets do not need to conform versus rigid plastic sheets, when it comes to the roofing on greenhouses. So how is this determination made? And I'll let you catch up. It's only 197 pages. Page 89. MR. TANAKA: Thank you. So, just right off the top, Tim. This is definitely the language that's in our existing Chapter 5, 2006 amendments. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. MR. TANAKA: I appreciate you bringing that up. As we approach November, the deadline to adopt the new Building Code, which is inclusive of additional amendments such as this, appendices with our amendments. We'll take a look at that to see how that can be clarified, right. Because there is some inconsistency there that I see. Page 10 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 MR. RICHARDS: So there's an opportunity that may be an amendment found its way through, we could expand that? Have conversation about it? Long and the short of it, we're talking about farmers that are doing a better job for the whole food self-reliance and food security. And the distinction versus rigid versus nonrigid plastic, quite frankly, I think this comes down to a Fire Code, which comes back to whether or not the rigid versus the nonrigid. So I think there's some area that needs to get worked on here. And I know this is not surprising because we've had this conversation several times. So is this something that we can work on and add amendment to? Not now? MR. TANAKA: You know, absolutely. It would be the time of the Model Code adoption. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. MR. TANAKA: Absolutely. And we're open to that type of feedback, for sure. MR. RICHARDS: Which brings up to my final question, on 101.3.2, Barbed wire. And then I read down further, it talks about barbed wire, when it's used in cattle or raising swine, but we don't always us barbed wire just for that. Sometimes we have horses. So species specific here? Again, coming back to agriculture. MR. TANAKA: Or it's for wild animals out. Okay. No, I hear that. I see that. I think that being specific has its pluses and minuses, right? And so I think that would be an opportunity to make an amendment there. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so let's have talk story. MR. TANAKA: Yeah. MR. RICHARDS: Again, that's what Committee us for, is to get things rolling. And so we'll come back and circle back and talk about this. MR. TANAKA: Yes. I think when we do address this in the Model Code adoption in November, we'll be bringing a bill forward, and at that time, is when we would be making the amendments to this for that. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Alright. And I'll remember that. MR. TANAKA: Please do. MR. RICHARDS: Alright. Because again, it's all about agriculture, and some things get missed just because not a lot of people look at it from agriculture's perspective. Chair, I'm going to yield. Page 11 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. I'm going to check Kona. Anyone else in Kona? Ms. Eoff, Ms. David? MS. EOFF: Thank you. Yes. Okay, so this is a pretty major accomplishment, so I just wanted to first thank everybody that worked on it over all of these months. To provide a revision of this magnitude is an awesome feat. And I don't to pretend to have every bit of it. But I really thank Neal and everybody that's talked to us individually; Robyn, Leslie, thank you for bringing out some of the highlights and explaining things to us, and a better understanding. At this point, I feel like this is mainly a major structural revision, which most people—even—I think everybody was testifying in favor of that. And the fact that it will help us to be able to use EnerGov software programs when they're up and running. I think all of this is really, really, a fantastic improvement going forward for all of our processes to be more effective and efficient. One thing I did learn about bills, especially ones that are this complex and this much of a change, is that when you cannot expect it to be absolutely perfect, where nobody has any critique, or problems, or misunderstandings or changes desired. But as you move forward, once we adopt something like this in this form, then I think in the next months, years, as we see where there may be other needed changes, those can always be revisited. I think the main thing we are tasked with at this point is to make sure that we accomplish something that meets are big goals. And some of the little things, I think we need to discuss further either in a, you know, few months from now. Like Ms. Villegas, I think, was assured that some of the deadlines for adopting some things aren't even right, you know, right here, right now. But I don't know. I want to address the Carpenters Union and some of those concerns. I don't know how valid they are. I really want to address our goal of achieving thousands of affordable homes in the near future, because I don't want to see our homeless situation grow any more out of control. Like Ms. Hirota had mentioned, I think some of the opportunities here will help us provide or help people to be able to afford homes of their own. I'm totally in support of that. So I want this to be a balanced approached. I have to find out about it a little bit more about what that is and what the benefits are of being able to provide either factory - made homes, which we already have in the code. So it's new, but I know there is maybe a new impetus to a manufacturing side of it. So, I don't know. I don't know how to console some of the concerns that were raised by the Carpenters Union. I feel like maybe if we learn a little bit more about some of the—what Neal started to address, the checks and balances in that, maybe we won't have such great concerns. But anyways, I really support being able to provide affordable housing. I really love, as Ms. Lee Loy pointed out earlier, this indigenous architecture approval Page 12 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 process and the tiny home section. Other than that, I'm not an expert enough to know about all of those details. But I totally trust the work that's been put into this. So I completely trust Leslie Chow for her attention to details, as far as legality and making everything mesh properly through the different code sections. And I think we've been very, very fortunate to have the expertise of people like Robyn and Neal at the helm of writing this process. So I'm just thanking them again and again. And yes, we have more discussions opportunities here. Not just this meeting, but two more readings. So I'm just keeping my ears open. But yes, I've heard everybody's and read everybody's testimony. And so, I just really thank you folks for the work that's been put in this thus far, CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Lee Loy. And of course thank you, Neal and Robyn, for reaching out to each of us. Had we not, this would have been such a huge piece of legislation to even digest. And I also want to thank Leslie Chow for actually explaining it a little bit more in detail, as far as what's being accomplished or trying to be accomplished at this point and time, which I understand it to be a consolidation of a process that in the end or the goal is to address the many concerns that we've been hearing about how long the building permit process, the approval process takes, and streamlining it so that people would not need to actually talk to a live body. And to find out where their application is in the process, that I really believe will greatly benefit the people in the industry and the community at -large. Also, I certainly can understand the testimony from Carpenters Union. Because in their line of business, yes, I would imagine at first -glance, this would pose some sort of a threat. Where you when you have ready-made homes, it definitely takes away from the industry. However, my questions would be in the prefabricated homes, whether they would apply or address only certain segment of our community. Like Ms. Hirota was referring to, that these fabricated type homes would basically address the community that are low-income community, allowing them an opportunity to actually find something that's affordable. I don't believe— we still would have the owner/builder, and correct if I'm wrong, the owner/builder type of procedures. I think this kind of adds another choice for the people of this island. Because it is very expensive to live here. And I really would like to see this becoming, which I hope it will be, a balance where it doesn't necessarily take away from a certain industry. And I think right now we have to actually have a lot of options, given what we are being faced with right now. I, like Ms. Eoff, would like to know more about what type of—you know, the details, as far as the fabricated homes. Maybe it won't fit for everybody's use, and we would still be allowed—or, you know, we'd still have the Page 13 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 option. If I ever wanted to build a house with a swimming pool and three -car garage, I mean, I'd have to go out to a contractor and that sort of thing. And people that could afford to do that will still have the opportunity to provide work for that sector of our workforce. And if this prefab homes can address what we have all been talking about for I don't know how many years, that we need affordable housing, we need housing that local people can actually be given an opportunity to get. So I'm basically supportive of this whole idea to help the process. Because I think we've all experienced at one time or another having our applications or permits monitored or kind of have to follow up because it's taking so long. But that alone has its own issues. Because it just depends, it's kind of like—it depends on what kind of project you're after. So the reason I'm rambling is I'm trying to say that this is a very, very complicated issue. It has so many moving parts, and I would not have been able to be convinced to even take this on. So you guys are—the work that you guys have done is really appreciated. And I hope by the next reading we will have some clarity, because I think this is not meant to exclude any industry. I think the effort is being made so that we can address everyone's concerns and what's happening on our island right now. So with that, I'm going to yield for now. I'd like to hear what the rest of my colleagues are going to be—their input. Mahalo, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. David. Anyone else here in Hilo? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFLDER: I really appreciate everyone putting a lot of time and energy into this. I really got thank Sue for really jumping on this one and writing it out. It's not an easy task. I do have some questions. Some from our testifiers that I heard from and also just from my experience in the field. The August deadline is 2020 or 2021 ? MR. TANAKA: 2020. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFLDER: Thank you. Okay, so that takes care of that. And then as far as permits required for the solar industry; so what I'm reading in here is—sorry, I was writing those sections -5-3-1, looks like we are going to require—what permits are required for solar or photovoltaic (PV) systems, when we come down to modifications? MR. TANAKA: Currently, as it stands in our current process, a building permit and an electrical permit is required for a PV, right? Should that design change, whether you're adding modules or changing the inverters, or changing other mounted to the house, you would have to get a revision to that building permit as Page 14 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 well as the electrical permit. With the proposed language in our new Administrative Code, is we're trying to move to the one -permit system. All you would need to do is apply for one permit. You know, I would have to defer to my electrical inspectors on the impacts of adding additional panels with the capacity of the inverter, and how they'd like to see the additional requirement. But as of right now, it's listed as a revision as opposed to a brand-new permit. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFLDER: So a revision to an existing permit? MR. TANAKA: Right. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFLDER: So then when you see panels and inverters, but—I mean, inverters would take into account micro -inverters. So if you're going to require revision on a permit for exchanging a micro -inverter on a house, that would be interesting. I don't know if that's completely necessary, are they? MR. TANAKA: So we—when it comes to repairs and as soon as you're touching electrical or mechanical, yes you need to get a permit so that we can inspect to make sure that that is done correctly, as well as installed by the licensed contractor, right. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFLDER: So removing and replacing old equipment with new equipment that's similar, Gary? You've got to come up. You've got to come up to put it on the record. (Note: At this time, Supervising Electrical Inspector Gary Kaho`ohanohano, from the Public Works Department, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFLDER: I just want to make sure we're not burdening an industry that's been burdened with building permits and more permits from the beginning, and frustrated. You know, now we're taking care of them. MR. KAHO `OHANOHANO: Hi, my name is Gary Kaho `ohanohano, electrical inspector for Hilo, Hawaii. Anyway, your question, Aaron, I'm sorry, Matt, is that when you're removing and replacing, you've got to bonding and grounding, to make sure it's put back correctly, yeah, for the safety of the customer. And also, the installation is done correctly by the contractor. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So if something breaks, you know, like a micro inverter -and Enphase, and you've got to replace it, you get the warranty, go to the house, I've got to get a permit first now? Page 15 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 MR. KAHO`OHANOHANO: Yeah. So they're removing it and they changing it out, probably same -for -same. But again, we're checking for the bonding and grounding of the system, yeah, that it's done correctly done by the contractor. That's why it's required, a permit is required. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Is that new? MR. KAHO`OHANAHANO: No, it's always been. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Seriously? MR. KAHO`OHANOHANO: All the PV contractors are aware of it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So we're not adding anything? MR. KAHO`OHANOHANO: No, we're not adding. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. MR. KAHO`OHANOHANO: Okay, thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, thank you, sir. And then, Section 404.3, EV Vehicle Charger Power. That one's specific. I went through the Continuing Education class recently for the new code to keep my journeymen license open. But you limit to a—it's look like it's limited to a 30 -amp (amperage) rough -in for a charger. I have installed some chargers for Teslas that are over 30 -amps. So I am just asking if that is the limitations, as far as what you can go up to, or if that is just a random value that was chosen. MR. TANAKA: Okay, I'm sorry, can you give me the section again? MR. KANEALI `I-KLEINFELDER: 404.3. MR. TANAKA: Do you have a page number, to help look for that? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You know, I thought about doing that. I'm sorry. I didn't get that page number. MR. TANAKA: No problem. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, 174, number 43, "A new subsection 404.3 is added to the International Energy Conservation Code to be read as follows: An electrical rough -in of a 30 -amp circuit for future electrical vehicle charger may be installed in garage/carport area." I'm not arguing with the area, Page 16 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 just wondering about the amperage, you know, if we're going limit it to 30 amps only. MR. TANAKA: So this is with regards the Energy Code, right? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. MR. TANAKA: This Energy Code provision was introduced by the State at the time when we were adopting it to allow for the electrical vehicle charger. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Which is great. No problems, right? MR. TANAKA: Right. And it's an option. To address your amperage, I would have to defer to my electrical team. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I was just going to say that we installed a Tesla, I forgot what generation charger it was, but it was a—I want to say it was an 80 -amp breaker, and we ran number two copper -round cable just to meet the requirements, because it was really in between for us, yeah. So it might be worth maybe increasing the amperage on that to allow for a rough -in. Thirty amps is good for most chargers, but some of the newer technology coming in is going to be a higher amperage. MR. TANAKA: Right. I think its ultimately what the equipment is listed for. No? MR. KAHO `OHANOHANO: I've got to look into that. We've got to (inaudible). MR. KANEALI `I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. Yeah, no problem. Just putting it out there. It just caught my attention. MR. TANAKA: Very specific. I appreciate that technical expertise. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes, sir. Other than that, you know Appendix L. Appendix L, is this a new addition? MR. TANAKA: No, this is existing language in our existing Code as it is right now, from Chapter 5. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: From 2012? MR. TANAKA: From 2006. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: 2006? Page 17 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry. It's from our 2006 IBC (International Building Code), adopted in 2012. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Yeah, because I remember 2012 from our discussion. Okay, so 2006, adopted? MR. TANAKA: In 2012. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So we're not adding a new section MR. TANAKA: No. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that's good to know. Okay. Yeah, I do have to agree, seven days is a bit light for the kind of change we're doing, you know, especially to allow the industry to read over and respond. I know from my experience, usually when there's a code adoption, we just deal with it. And it's always fun dealing with the inspectors at the time of the inspection, when we do those rollouts and we change codes. And I'm speaking from experience. So I think the industry really did, it kind of rolls with the punches when it comes to what we have to do to meet new code requirements. But the amount of work you've put in to compiling it and consolidating it into one area, I like. I think that makes it easier for everybody. Seven days is a bit light for as much information as this moved and for some of the changes were put out. Is that right, seven days we gave the public, in general, comment time? MR. TANAKA: The initial period was seven days. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So I think what's important going forward is that people understand that they have more than seven days. Now they have about—they have two weeks until the next hearing and then another two weeks until the final hearing, which would be a progression through Council, yeah? MR. TANAKA: Right. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So that gives everybody, anyone watching, anyone in the—you know, outside, who provided testimony today, you have about, you know, a month to talk to talk to us or to talk to the Building Department to voice our concerns and get in front of any changes you'd like to see. I thought—we could talk about that yesterday. MR. TANAKA: Right. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's a good point for people. Because I think this is necessary and needed. But yeah, there's going to be discussion. Page 18 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 Again, I appreciate your time. Please look into the 30 -amp and see if we can increase that, if that's allowable in the code. Just giving new technology on the way down. Actually, it's not even new. Because this was like two years ago, I installed one of those. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, I appreciate that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, small but it may be helpful. Thank you, Neal. Thank you, Robyn. Thank you, Leslie. You're probably watching. Gary, David, I just appreciate your guys' time. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, thank you, Matt. Thank you, Ms. Eoff and Maile as well, with regard to the credit. It's definitely not just Robyn and I. I really am so proud of my entire staff, from Electrical, Plumbing, Building, Inspections, clerical staff even. They all gave their input with this regards. In addition to the public stakeholders, right, we were working with the public stakeholders from the very beginning with regards to communication. So yes, there was that seven-day initial timeframe, also knowing that it has to go through this process as well for the public as you mentioned, right? And so, yes it's not a perfect system or sequence of events. But we're here where we are based on the collaboration from our staff with the public, and with you folks, as well. So I appreciate that. Thank you for that. MR. KANEALI `I-KLEINFLDER: I've got to mention, too. I did talk to a couple contractors. The biggest concern I heard was you have to get control of the permitting system that exists now before you start making changes to the code. You know, I can see both sides. But I do have to say, our permitting system and the amount of time it took to get a permit out of the County was incredible before. And we know this. You know, I know that you could go to Kona and get a permit faster than Hilo. Given the data you supplied me, that doesn't sound like it's true anymore. It nay be faster in Hilo now. But again, the contractors are saying make the permitting system streamlined because that's what they want. More so than they want to see the code adjusted, they want to make sure that the process is streamlined. So we're making good steps toward that, the one permit system. Especially in conjunction with the EnerGov System, if and when it ever does show up. I know we talked about that, too. MR. TANAKA: Yes, we did. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And did you get kind of a timeframe? I know you probably not wanting this question, but did you get a timeframe for that? Page 19 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 MR. TANAKA: No. I appreciate the question. I think that it's important that we provide you with a clear-up date at another time. Shortly thereafter, we can set up a meeting with another communication to the Public Works Committee. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. TANAKA: To give you a full update. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that would be good. Yeah, streamline the process then do the legislation. We're at the legislation window already, understood. But the process as it was, was pissing off the public. So I'm glad that we've gotten a handle on that. I'm glad that this body was able to give funding for three more positions in the Plan Review Department to make that happen. That's our job as legislators. MR. TANAKA: Right. Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But I'm also glad that you're making changes within your own department and working on things like this. MR. TANAKA: Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yep, good changes. Thank you, Robyn. Thank you, Neal. Gary, thank you. Good to see you. And, David (Yamamoto), I see you back there somewhere. Thank you, Dave. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. I just want to make one comment regarding the IECC (International Energy Conservation Code) portion. That's actually going to have to come in a different iteration, because this bill really only touches Chapter 5, the electrical and plumbing, and it's actually captured in the title. And so that change can come possibly in parallel with this bill. But to touch that IECC portion that you're talking about, the amperage—and I've got to double-check with Leslie. Because it really was about the new framework, and really combing out the administrative portions of the Plumbing and the Electrical Code and leaving the installation portions. So, I'll be more than happy to work with you on that. And regarding the public comment period, yes I've heard the same concern. It was really short. But this is a very technical document, so a lot of the stakeholders that did engage really had the subject matter expertise in this area. And yes, there still is a lot more time between now and, you know, future hearings. I know my staff put also put it out to a number of stakeholders, including the industry unions and Hawaii Island Contractors and others who are involved with construction, and so besides what the department did, I know my staff sent it out to the better part of 80 other stakeholders. So there's been a lot of comments. And Page 20 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 walking back to Communication 989.1. There is still a lot there that we can still work on. With that, Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Sue, everyone that was involved in this really tall order. I mean, it was a monumental task, I think, over, you know, a very long period time to get to this point. And so thank you for everything that you've done to get us here. You know, we think about how do we jumpstart our economy in light of COVID, it's really going to come down to having this really efficient modernized permitting process, where you've consolidated all of that. Once we get EnerGov up and running, you know, it's going to be a really streamlined operation. And that's key because real property taxes are tax -based. And so we've got to make sure we're getting this permit these permits out, you know, getting folks employed, and that's going to amplify across our economy. So, thank you. I kind of want to lean in on the stakeholder engagement for a second, because there was so much time spent on putting this together. And, you know, I do echo the sentiments of some of my colleagues When a call went out, there was seven-day window to submit comments on a very technical document, And I totally understand and appreciate that special outreach was made to folks in the industry. But for the 18 months that, you know, the department and others were working to make the necessary updates, you know, I heard a lot of folks from Kona-Kohala Chamber coming to testify in support. It's great that they created that permitting Task Force and were involved. But what other stakeholders were at the table? And I ask that because there was an insinuation earlier in testimony that I don't really appreciate, but it alluded bit too special interests coming to the table and being involved. You know, I want to dispel any of that right now. And so maybe you can share with us the various stakeholders. Maybe from all four corners of our island that were represented, and part of the process for the last 18 months. I think that would be helpful. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, so as Ms. Lee Loy mentioned, we tried to touch base with more than just four corners. Realtor boards, contractors associations, public and private industry, engineers and architects, draftsmen. Other county jurisdictions, as well, right? There was never a thought in our mind that it was a special interest. I think for all who are in this, collaboratively to try and get and make this permit system and our administrative provisions as fair and equitable as possible, right? One of the efforts that we found, when we were starting this, is that had the three different codes saying kind of the same thing, but not—and creating the confusion. And so that input from the industry contractors were the engineers and architects and draftsmen, or even just the other jurisdiction, like what are you guys doing, right? We've got to that consensus based on that communication. Page 21 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 Yes, it's not perfect. There's a lot of work to do. But it is setting us up for the framework to be successful in the future. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: You know, Neal, you just rattled off of list of folks that were at the table. Sounds very broad and deep to me, and so I really appreciate hearing that, you know. County doesn't often engage community in kind of crafting this legislation, so you guys have, you know, broken the mold on that one. And it's great to know that there was a lot of engagement with community to build this product, so thank you. You met with a number of us to kind of go over the some of the changes to the code. One of the things that really peaked my interest was the fee scale for multiple plan reviews. So I'm just wondering if you could kind of elaborate more on that publicly. MR. TANAKA: Yes. So what this bill introduces is a plan review fee. Initially, what our data was showing is that we were seeing a percentage of our permit applications go through the entire process and then get abandoned at the end of that process, never to be picked up or moved through to construction. All of that work that was done could have been applied to actual permits, where actual projects were going to be completed, right? I think we requested—or in this bill, we've provided a 20 percent plan review fee at the initial upfront of the application to just incentivize, and more so push the public to be sure that the projects that we're trying to push forward so that we can focus on these applications. With the collaboration with the public to get this thing built, right, efficiently. So, we're not wasting time on unplanned projects. We're also introducing a resubmittal fee to address comments that don't get addressed from the public, right? In conjunction with this though, we're also working on our consistency in review, right. We're really trying to get our guys and women, who do the plan review, consistent, and making sure that they're all reviewing the same thing. And that it's communicated to the public in an efficient manner so that public can understand what the comments may have been. Something that we always encourage, is for the public to come in, should there be a miscommunication o r some level of not understanding what the comment is about. Because what we really want to do is provide a good package of submittal; because a clean package, a complete package for an application will get through the process, will be efficient, and will get approved for permit. It's the ones that unfortunately have challenges, with not addressing all the concerns of Planning, or Fire, or wastewater, State health, or sanitation, inclusive of our building requirements, as well, that require us to intake process: comment upon, get picked up, reprocessed, rereview, over, over, and over, until a cycle that's—it, unfortunately, can take up to eight times we've seen for one application last year. Page 22 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Eight times for one application? MR. TANAKA: Right. And so MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And over a period of how many years? MR. TANAKA: That one was roughly about a year -and -a -half. Because of course as we're done with it, then the applicant needs to go home and take it and address the comments, hopefully, right? And that's what—we're really trying to encourage and work with the public on getting that first passthrough in and get the permit issued. And I think it really is imperative that the communication between our plan reviewers and the applicant is robust enough so that we can move through together to get this thing done. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Right. And you said earlier, you know, you invite folks to kind of come in and talk story about the changes that need to be made. And because of COVID—I mean, it's so important that we have that digital infrastructure in place and EnerGov up and running so that we can use that platform, I'm assuming, to communicate to applicants on the progress of their permits and any changes that need to be made. MR. TANAKA: Thank you for saying that, Ashley. COVID is definitely allowed us to reassess our meeting procedures, right. I think that setting up an appointment process, of which the County as a whole has done, has really made that more efficient, right, and there's no people waiting to be seen and the communication is far more direct. So, thank you. And that's something that we that we're working towards, as well. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah. You know, I had a number of general contractors kind of called me and a little bit concerned about Appendix L, factory -built homes. Had to let them know, you know, this has been in the code for some time now. And had a local company not been moving on leveraging that tool that's already in our toolbox, I mean, I don't think any of that would have come to light today if we didn't have this bill in front of us. You know, having introduced in this Council, adopt it, you know, moving in the direction of having an affordable housing plan and strategy for our County. You know, moving towards doing that audit and analysis of our Subdivision and Zoning Codes, which I think are the next logical step after we get this framework and these codes in place. We've got to have all the options on the table, right? Factory -built homes are maybe an option for a family, but not all families/ And I think that—you know, when we look at how do we position recovery, I mean, there's going to be, I think, a lot of work within Capital Improvement Projects. You know, a lot of work to go around. Page 23 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 I like the fact that there are now many just a lot of different options for people to be able to leverage. When they think about, you know, "I want to have a home for my family." And so now, we are providing them that spectrum of options. Whether it is owner/builder type, you know, tiny homes, or prefab, or factory -built, let's put it all on the table and let the market kind of decide. Thank you again to all involved for bringing this forward. Thank you. Chair, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Ashley. Chair? MR. CHLNG: Yep. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, when you started this whole discussion, you made a comment about me sitting you down and saying, "We are going to come up with a new Construction Code." My recollection, a little bit different from that. I mean, basically over a few beers, I just asked Ms. Lee Loy, you know, because of her familiarity with the situation and permitting, "Sue, can you please come up with some legislation that's going to improve our building permit system," and that's all. And this really is just Part One of what I anticipate to be, you know, at least two or several legislative pieces, which will be our contribution to that larger puzzle. A lot has to come from within the administration itself. So, you know, it has to be a balanced approach, right? But—you know, this is almost like that other matter we had with native forests, which Ms. Poindexter introduced. You guys weren't here, but they had a flowchart showing how this thing evolved, right, from someone contacting Ms. Poindexter. And this is the same thing, you know. It's like kind of moving around and then utilizing our main resource, right, all of you guys, but also branching out to the various other stakeholders. So this is really good, yeah? May be short, but I think the vetting time was very lengthy, from my understanding. You know, the first time I really got to talk to anybody about it, and that's why I wanted to correct you. Because when you said "we" are going to come up with a Construction Code, that implies we, you and me, right? The first time I really talked about this thing to anybody was when the two of you came to meet with me the other day, right? And I had a lot of questions, and you guys were able to field them. You know, my main concern is that we have to try to minimize the human element in all of this, and I think that was made very clear to the two of you, so much so that I even suggested that perhaps we could even think of creating a separate position call, "The Permitting Ombudsman." I know you guys said, "Well, that's the job of the Board of Appeals." But I think this has to be a separate person who is really going to field all complaints from the public and to make sure that everything on the ground, the human part, is being applied fairly and equally, and Page 24 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 that's all. I think that's all anybody expects in terms of the application. Of course we still have to deal with making things faster and smoother, of course, right? But I really want to thank all of you guys for the hard work that you guys put in, because there's probably going to be more over the next several months. But thank you so much. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I guess, seeing no more comments, I did want to touch on one thing Ms. Kierkiewicz talked and Mr. Tanaka mentioned. You know, going through this, it was about vernacular and the shared language, because we were all talking about the same thing but kind of just using different terminology, and that's what this bill really does. And when you spoke about refining Chapter 23 and 25, that was something that was brought up a number of times, when I shopped this particular framework around. And I started the framework or discussing the framework with our Rotaries and our Chambers, from as far back as February. So this idea that there was a very limited window, there was a limited window but it's been discussed for the better part of a year now. So with that, what we do have is a motion on the floor send Bill 179 with a positive recommendation to the Council. All those in favor? Vote on Bill 179: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 179 on (Approved] first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali `i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy — 8. Noes: Committee Member Poindexter — 1. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: Okay. With that, motion to adjourn, please? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 1:10 p.m., Mr. Richards moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 25 PWMTC-23 July 7, 2020 Approved: CHR. LEE LOY: Alright. Meeting's adjourned at 1:10 p.m. Thank you, everyone. MR. TANAKA: Thank you, Council Members. s. n L. K. Lee Loy, (Date) Public JArks and Mass Transi mittee SL/na Page 26