Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0608.047 2020-2022 J�-gVfOF kjY ,i Lee E.Lord G4``4,W •i Managing Director Mitchell D.Roth *: Mayor — Robert H.Command �f'r•NA"•N� Deputy Managing Director £ OF W, junfv axf a ail ffYxr, of f hr, ffiapr 25 Aupuni Street,Suite 2603 • Hilo,Hawai'i 96720 • (808)961-8211 Fax(808)961-6553 KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg C • Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740 (808)323-4444 Fax(808)323-4440 r June 22, 2022 a Maile David, Council Chair Vj and Members of the County Council Uj County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair David and Members: SUBJECT: County Council Initiated (Bill No. 120) (PL-CCI-2022-000001) Amendment to 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 As required by Chapter 7, See. 6-7.5 (a)(3), Hawai'i County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions' letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced request. Sincerely, MITCHELL D. ROT Mayor TCouncillnitiatedE VBill Enclosures cc: Planning Department Comm. Ref. a: T Ref. p .I 3 2022 County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. - - Mitchell D.Roth Dennis Lin Chair mayor = �'�''%• Michelle Galimba,Vice-Chair Gilbert Aguinaldo Lee Lord Lauren Balog Managinngg Director •'•,— ,:•'• •r;'���° *`� Louis Daniele TF 4F'NA� Wayne De Luz County Of H aw-ai`i WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hativai'i 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 June 21, 2022 Maile David, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawai i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair David and Council Members: SUBJECT: County Council Initiated (Bill No. 120) (PL-CCI-2022-000001) Amendment to 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 Windward Planning Commission ("Commission"), at its duly held public hearing on May 5, 2022, considered County Council Initiated Bill No. 120, 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 (EV). The Planning Director forwarded his favorable recommendation to the Leeward Planning Commission (Commission) for Bill 120 with twelve (12) suggested revisions to clarify and strengthen the bill. After the Director's recommendation was complete, the Planning Department received a set of suggested amendments to the bill from Couneilmember Kimball's office. At the May 19, 2022 Commission hearing, Planning Department staff presented the Director's recommendation, which included analysis and adoption of several of Councilmember Kimball's suggested amendments, as part of his official recommendation as follows. The Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council on Bill 120 with the following proposed changes: 1. Under Section 1. Purpose., correct the reference to the Hawaii Revised Statute (HRS) section from HRS 291-71 to HRS 291-73. Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Maile David, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii June 21, 2022 Page 2 2. Under Section 24-245.6. Penalties., correct the reference to the HRS section from 291-71 to HRS 291-72 and delete the close quote at the end of the word "Statutes" at the end of the sentence. 3. Under Section 3. Definitions., consider changing or expanding the definition of the term "Networked Charger" which did not exist anywhere else in the bill to match other similar references in the body of the bill (e.g., "Networked" and "Network-capable"). Councilmember Kimball proposed to shorten the term to `Networked' throughout the bill. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 4. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (a), clarify the size/type of parking spaces required to be considered a dedicated electric vehicle parking space under the requirements of this section. Councilmember Kimball proposed to add the qualifier "standard size" to clarify the size/type of required parking space. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 5. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (a), clarify that the number of EV designated parking stalls shall correspond to the maximum number of plugs required under the development schedule articulated in sub-sections 1-4. Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments added language indicating that the required number EV stalls correspond to the required number of plugs. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 6. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (b), change the term "plan review"to "Plan Approval," clarify the reference to an additional two (2) years to comply with subsection (a), and add the reference to a "standard size" parking space referenced in number 4 above. Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments clarified the refence to "...an additional two years" by including a similar EV Charger installation schedule to account for the additional two-year timeline for existing places of public accommodation that submit for Plan Approval. I 3 I Maile David, Council Chair I and Members of the County Council } County of HHawai`i r June 21, 2022 'i Page 3 7. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (c), identify a compliance trigger for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval requirements (e.g., come into compliance within a certain amount of time from the code change, based on public complaints, etc.) 8. Clarify the apparent conflict between the number of parking stalls required for each EV charger vs. each plug on an EV charger. The Director recommended that Section 25-4- 54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (e) be amended to match Councilmember Kimball'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. 9. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (f), consider articulating requirements for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible EV parking spaces. Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments added the requirement that at least one (1) of the designated EV parking spaces shall be an ADA accessible EV stall. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 10. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (h), define what is considered a "reasonable" fee due to the subjectivity of reasonableness. Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments deleted the "reasonable" qualifier. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 11. Under Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (a), include a ratio, formula, or equivalency table to compare the charging capacity between alternating current Level 2 charger and a direct current fast charger. Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments added a ratio allowing one (1) DC fast charger to replace six (6) Level 2 plugs, as long as there is at least one (1) other Level 2 plug to accommodate EVs that cannot charge on a DC fast charger. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. { Maile David, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii June 21, 2022 Page 4 12. Under Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (b), consider adding an exemption for locations that do not have established internet access. In addition to the Planning Director's recommendations (as amended) outlined above, Councilmember Kimball recommended the following additional amendments to the bill: 1. Delete Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (g), which states: "Every parking facility that meets the size criteria must comply with the requirements of this section regardless of ownership, except as otherwise provided in section 25-4-54.2." The deletion was recommended because the "regardless of ownership" qualifier contradicts the aggregation privilege allowed in HRS 291-71. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 2. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems, add the following language with the appropriate subsection item lettering: "(x) 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." The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 3. Amend Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (b)(1) to read as follows: "(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." The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 4. Under Section 3. Definitions., amend the definition for "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 it is already covered by Chapter 5D of the Hawaii County Code. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. Maile David, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii June 21, 2022 Page 5 5. Under Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., add subsection (c) as follows: "(c) 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 application for plan review." The Director agreed with the proposed addition and recommended that the Commission adopt the change with a suggested change to the term "plan review" to "Plan Approval." We are enclosing the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation report containing twelve recommendations, Council Member Heather Kimball's proposed amendments to Bill No. 120 dated April 29, 2022, the Planning Department's Power Point presentation and draft transcript of the public hearing. Sincerely, Michelle Galimba, Vice Chair Windward Planning Commission ICouncilInititedPL-CCI-2022-001 wpc I Enclosures: • Planning Department Background Report • Planning Department Recommendation • Memorandum dated April 29, 2022, from Councilmember Heather L. Kimball to Planning Director Zendo Kern and Members of the Windward and Leeward Planning Commission • PowerPoint Presentation • Draft Hearing Transcript �3" �n� .xw.. � � aka' �„� �.•�' �: "�:" r�i' ^:a'sa � 7 a „a - r � �` �.'�"'G�r'�'n'x� � �•;s n�. :•�.� �v,�"n `�' '�." � ��'xa.r.`+� >r#G** f rid+•,�3..r.. r"- P r. ! ! iY,! _ ' 1. �•� - °..:� . s. xr i "J I. a���1�#. 5'' '.•h�.. E n.. �'f<I*'I I•��'i Y'+n SSr� �I *,'".. - �'�wj ,�. � I ,�n.E•i.. a s n.�'vl r� E"� -" H��'i��" �I ��y� J• � i�'.x n n���;i nye- t a $ v t �x•G�' ° a x'a 3a y�'I•! Ya.xr r,�,�5. a ah orf-, }. �;€ r £f!i it E�� :Gf ;.* � �t �a : a J � a: x k •a.. �,v ,3E f h�E a+iu�"�- ' v .�.;•J Eu � a i r& y v sN / n A�;..�- �' r !: �� � x�€ !�. ! f•`*�•• E iI� K. � � ",�"�•J �.� '�;.*" �'3� t'a �!��.��� k ^'� "n' v �, ! fiN! x u a E a,�•, ..n Y�. „ a•�s nN >E n ! ;,i *.•i s N �+ ,, YG`r r '�'# �k r t !a€i' r c x x a q^kE ENi'� J';>i'� ;z '� � ��yea��a« #fir`n' 5 �:.. i n'�x` W�€� �� �#a 'E��¥*"fin vxu E�•�n.y_m,E!.+iJ n a � x .d yx' •'" it, � !f�.i G } � �S.xT „! d{'I ��I t''{ 'Y'� S'7 �h t iit 4 E K ..y,;'fi+ �.� � �., ���'�� � '-aN"=+...#:,.P"���" ��j:�i EF�r9�a,�a°��.a.�a,.�-� , ,Ea"���'n J-iu..0 E* e ry r 1 iG'�H•It�s��i; �. ! tJ=� I� ,�: :s= '� }; 'ar x ! a ���t�� < �` ,� �G�, •� J §�,. St iIG ! ix SSI .,rv-u:..�:.a'x�r~•- �- �k � :n �' kk� �,al-a�.- '� �:... uN- �x�w.v! E��I�� � v.... C >� }a•::. ;�,`*. u # ** 'fir' € i - ?s 6 a a Exa � r �* j�v" a•�� X "� K '�.,'-_ is���,g�.i-#�,yl,�k,,,,- .�^i=� #.x�>x-� �.,�„r a}�*'"^ :... �' i�'�h��'s�i(I'''��s � �i iE,I�tti"� -:€ v a '• --r#Y.y n �t��„ "t}iq���:'Eh�`It'� �����It�'s s"xx �'ul��.°?f�4� hy- �, �'r s�� r r �. a.�i E.G a !: .k,,,�°.'�..�.'s��1.� $�r�a. �a �� sE��� '�ni•*k�a 1���`z�, ;r-axis�i'�I•I:' ��h ,F,� +a^' i ti'''� �k{�*'~i i ;'�;'f �J�E i�.-8 E I,�6t3 .e„n F_-:..i..�"'' k '� .lit G :� Ri£.h+t,..�'• #n�I-E�"i4,YW' I� �v�, � .m '� �9 4 IE - uE I I 1.:. ' " �n''�'��'��• 5�� r� ! � r xs J�t,�xv. �, '�,a, v a"! �'.� E!- - &'� °* y,,,� N � ;�, � F���& .fie �•yv. {'' r y=a� �E f i G�"v�E sE • �;r -,* �n.",�� i� � ��" � J �"N,,x. *�"" !3'* i 11���,ylt�5�,�,a���'�za I.r,l�,t l�a`�as _• i� ;! � n � ��+4 ��s�rt�„;�' .r� ��x�.. n?k�ays i v=�� �'�� ��. c �i�.IEf.�4 X � .:a'krk.,t : n' ''=`"�'rr x"::� � *"4��n yJ.'��!,. �•£,� r��= -'..,r Jv n a a r.4 -�.. � s u :x, n"v': a v� eJ'•"#a a- `° §� sa `a '.o- a}• r h pt '.G.i „� v ' 'r ,'a.X**-=-�.*5 r. -~~ 'fi sI n an 4.'r ,�i � X c� .kms�-u, �..�:t�.J*,} r• * �t a ~r�a��r*k*v� Y y, ¢a^ Y En �, �z v J* .-r- a �. ice,. ¢s••..� -� rx E� �n :"x nis� x � r tr n ���� •* a J ">a�y.�a �.�' -1+� '��� .rxa.}� "��r q:�r.��� •� �' ���'t *Z � f¢ ;� �#�y a � � ��,E,"a r r r}. '�" a...,��.a�-'•�, •-lad'x�'$ a r �' *. �G�'�•a},�. r;s�h � � ( � .s �, '�;, N �' r -;`` t+ t r ;x 'v.: { � -'*,�v" rF.. "h `a:".�•'" ulxr.,ar a^ v°� JENOM �5 ,E�•�� 'uu ��.t�xr*��" *+.x�� �..,x �naa a * ��'�r aN#.rI�E�3 ��,a�;:�'�t t 4 � - u Y ra $f £� . ' " ....xa.'a ...' qa r ' * nfun x,a>3•� i §i t `'+ # n , i .� n:�7 � £a-�G�f �.. t � s xt�"'- ' •a*s'c a� n !� t i i E � m cn "00 ®' sD M M -o O m D � � � m D -� D r- = Z � m ---� m Q D> Z (D z o m � r D D m O .� m z O Crim - z 70 D �`' O �' m C zn c= z "' M � -n _ .O o O rn � rn M m Z Z --i n0 d m r- <0 r -� C rn D m C: o A > ® t„ > O N 0 z = CA)co r '00 O 0 0 m C- m D z > _ cn rn U r- Z , n -i n n -7 z n a m Q Urn, d c� n —i m rn M D C/) Q r c„ - D � > n m n. r cn Q Q < 0 Q > O _ > _ o cn �v z z7 � m m Q D 0 rn Q 00 O > D � rn D � rn 0 Q cn C� p A Q > �° m D m Q cA ® O C Q F n z z m m 0 , (j D -1-� -� rn Cn Z 0 m Q m m Z N -n _ ® m o o O O z m a, D z z (� n m N --1 n O m rn m O r- O m rz e z m D -n m S o -n n Z > D Q Cn Q -i z m rn z ® < rn = .0 D m tV =� = G rn � O z ° _ °z n 7 m n z rn � Z , Q W rn z > -i m D O Qom' ° z ° ° m m > c , S C D - Q ° D C m Cn Q i° m (�} rr -° Q --i J n m D 0 > m �'-� Z2 D D > Z -n -, y C z 0 = m D O Q -moi 0 Z Z° Z � o '-� C/ z -< r - D •moo n d Q 0 M- D m Q --1 N ° O J < r- C �% ® '%1 ° z D z � „ D N C © D rn Q . ° O � n z m z m D 0 C) ° D --� D o ° m n cry = Q � D rn D O m m > i° z 0 m O rn >z Z C z - Z '� C QC/-) zQM = Qo > eco rn Z n `t9 0 � m O � -o o z > D N 0 e ° G� z m > z Q r O -� 0 7u �: n z m 0 --i --a O Q 0 m 7uG� ° -' rn Z � i Z D -n C„ D v, O D � ° G� �' Q -moi D m O O m - rn C m .V D Q Z rn PJ rn � ti Y rte* �re �k Ir"ty3l+i § h x `•�I. c�a 4 �; air 4�'� �t3 t 4I''Itns r ¢ O Q rn rn Q O n O Q D Q rn O Z n -� - mC ° ; ozon � oo � N 5ZZ rn -„ D < rn crn z Z Z m m � Z r- z O � - o ® n O � � _, c 0 z 0 -I O w y ( rn � � -0 O °° D 0 D -n 0 Q _ -" Q Z - D w C -� -< m Q O--i Q m Z j C/1)x a %` Z -z rn C Q OQ rn z Q rn Q rn 0 m rn 0 �_ > rn O k D `" -Zi � m Q m --� �,, z O rn Q z � rn Q m � rn---1 rn Q z _ r-z 70 1 < z Z O m Z rn O O �' a rn rn (� rriZ = � D �' Q rn D �' Q �' O rn � z �j Q Z m „ w . . -I _ -► < z z D Z o=o > O rn a y Q n-1C)C) z rn N O m D rn Q Q Z „ Z o izp � a ° z D � oom m X rn Q rn rn r y Z m ('} _ �" Z Q D Nn c4 m Qul om, rn m m wrn a ` a rn rn Z Z QU, rn n z ; -< ,- = > n rri Z rn m n D r- D -Zi o crn rn C m � � � D ;� � D Z � rrn.._ Z rn -' Q Q' Q Q = O n D -TIc 0 G} m r- rn m z rn rQ'_- Q r `� CZ GI c i G k � �.�..� #.'4• r a � ��,a c �. c # � b n.. ! `�: i a � t 5 yx 3 a� [i:.. Z D > o m C/) m ® n �, m z C/) z rn N m < -< M C y O m m m rn mc � z D z -� D O m O O70 � z = m O rn O z O D rn : D Z 0 �7 m m -p z v n m m = _� m > n O 0 z z () > < Q m -n < O Z m �> z n �> _ �„ n O = m z cn =� J- °p c/D > > z 0 �> O m n � .p Z Z O r D O O O O i m 0 - Z m n O rn -o Z m m C ® ?> D .� m C/) n m > cn - "C = n O � w z y O z m -i z 70 � _ � rn - < n z Q n O O rn D > m ph CO z O m -i > 0 O ;;u . 1 70 rn D 71� 70 m O � O 71� 50 0 �-' m O z O n z < O rn � Q 70 D zrn m z Q 70 o C) rn 0 p � Z <n m Q n rn �' m m 1.L 1Lk V c4 �_ ---iD n r ` V 0 0 0 0 -n _ —h —h —h —h x~€ DWAM : Q N N N N DZ m D Z 7 0 0 0 0 n n n < Z n Z N N Ncr, N � oil C) m Z Z m _ o z cD (D om o rn o 0 0 _ rn o o o o cW � -n �" � C) N tU N CSD Q m a rn D D D R z z { C"? D -� ® N tD CD CD N N N NIN Z M Q rn 0 0 0 0 D z C/ t!1 CD rn0 r- Q to v) M m z Q D D D D r o o iP-Mm rn z CD FD CD CD e 0 Q Q Q Q m G z > rn Q V) cn V) Q rn z z , 00 CT h N 4 MAN D Q Q m D rn .. D - _ C) z Q z . z D �} a £•y i x.. ��' k�., !: � *, 5 � x::� xi *-� h�i�'lkx�.x�.�v E 4 n a i • m _ y z 0 -i -� _ c --� n > m 0 0 _ D ® -Q _ m CD M C7 0 p m 0 � � � � m m z D > z z rn70 '- -z-i '- ---j O rn Q r C/) m m m m 7' O Z O rn C o it = O D m -h -h -h -h - k m D m > O rn 0 0 0 0 Zi rn m cn O CAw cNr, D O O C Z n z z z z Cj - rn Q � m m m m -n 70 O ao o o o o O �- ,- r- 77 717 717 717 rn > O N cD CD (D rn k, r rn n rn O � D D D 0 O m m n nn O O Z7 G n -Q r �} O CD CD CD CD N N N -ten _' r � � � =T D D D O rn G� m Q Q Q Q Z r G O > z -� -�co Q CQ CQ -� -� rn O OK -n O z m N �� m c� O c" O z O y zo ►- mrNM D n DUM p O m (7 - O z _ rn = S OC) 0-1 -p N x' G � m m rn z 0 Dcn = o O - -i Z rn 7 D z OO 0 n Z Tl -n z n Cn o —1 -n z O Z o C Z S_ rn z rn rn ® rn m m y rn C y _ - O > O O s p 0 cn O i C Z � o 70 m m � n ® m >> m -�� m n m p i° � n - - m O 0 D m rn o z D 0 � m ® n m -i m cr> X _ni � ® C/) m o m b o > C �' n � zc) n `m > 7�_,- z O m v z Z z s O G� D 0 > n r � - --o O = o n a � m n Q n C -4 �+ M _ Z m m z O � m � O - � O z C„ z ,, N � o � D m O = m to m o G� 0 C/) 14-4 y 14-4 > m = rn C/') 70 Z _Z rani 70 � Z O ?> Z C/) O z r� > �' � rn o -a m 7 -� 71y 0 ,-. � m n Z m - O > Q � rn O rn � � O rn -rn0 70 -0 n 76 O -n i- -a A ?> -=+ 7� O m �- > n m z Q �- O o � O � � n `" > o '- O = z z O o m C fTl r- o rn � i � } '�k� s�5.,�'x••��k� �Edi.- i E�!��',rk I!�ft�'. �'.;�� ��._F ��;,�..� } x 4�ku. x. ,;5 k �aI x...,��}5�'i i�„.I i�>r*���:�ii'��h�I '� �, �x a �'-s�y� � vi -a cmn > > m = C/) m -p O p o ® C7 m - rn '� O z :� �O om 0 _ � zOM m mmD O ® a m DO rn m O D T' ,m- rr� i° > m m - m n c -o c C z rn D > D = % . n ---i G� F D c D m � m z O 0 VI Z 70 � � O O ' m rn Z m cra > --i y — w D rn • m = O m m n mrn rn . < O n > C7 z rn rn m Z -n O Cir, m j zAll m � -� rn � D o O m O n rn "' rn - m > C m s-L7 A m N O n cn O m z z ® trt rn O r M X N cin Z D '- �' 0 � c''-� z v' m - �— z rn -0 -v Z mom m n D m < z > r rn n n CIO 0= O � n S O O - � -v Z C -DC7 Z Z m = c� O C7 {N O C/-) m M -� z Q O Z rn rn m - Z O D '_ � > -n D O z z c� > O O Z k-m R{M ' ! 3 0 r- --1 0 0 m > 0 Z > r > Z Z 0n ,, — Um o m Zy C) nc: n m o�: z 0 n n m -< 0 0 0 n 0 z o zm C C/7 m C/-) n m m z > oo z 0 z M :� Z C/-) < M M -4 C/) 0 Z z smomm -T'l C) 0 0 0 -4 > V) z x .r� D rnQ o "' 3 n. c ,C, (D O CL win o ►� NQ ® n � o n c�' o 0 Q � o � Z� n o Q CD � z n (D C/) -�. o o n o o o -� n o ej E �4` {^ �' fi''� I ru v r �'� �"a N{ E� to � s .� �*� �:�' �;'. -•a i � r� s I k €� co CD D Q.. 0 :3 �;O D- o p Q (D D- 10 m � �� oc� rip � CL- 0* n O . ao Q -Q � n z� 0 c �� cn o -�, o � nQMD• - s sow � o `� Q — `� �- cQ 3 (D � Q Zo o o n Sao � - � � o (D 0 H ca OIL Q c a rn o - a (D � Hca �„ � --� � ►., QCo- CDoo -�- Q � Q � o yT Q (—D � n Cl co o 0 Cp C CD cD Q O > 5 I E '' � ?IIy s� � ,* �Ny s'ji��:k'yI a�� w .��� t � n �'�:.,� ��,h z '� a �I'j"a i�'`I I � �fi P� (y�:. ~•;. i k 4 Y +i II �}ti - o _ n � O n -�- 0 ® m fD Q- j ® p� l 1 CA) CL :D O ° CD n a 7C) < O a O NCD I ® n CD D O S 0.. (D Q I 0 C) �` n 0- cQ -+ cQ �? c ? o � �" ° I ::3 _ m -�- --1 =z 0 0_ "< (D 3 0 --+- '� O -+- .�. ® 0 (D :D CD --� 3 O C} � -�- CD `s' O :7Q � � O CD -�, Q OroQ 0C)- (D O O CD (D R O 0 n07 07 Q O -� � ° C° (D (D — � 3 ° � C) D -�- =- O C ---s :EcD SD (D (D O —I 0 < � - 0` CD 0 n O O - CD m0- �D (DD `C3 CD O 0 O -,� �0 n `/) n (g I �.� "���s� �� 4 ��c �,.�;� �x��u���4�h R�"�E•� a�'��s�x� yx -� a x t ��.t u x '$ >' ��,�� x * sx *> s Imp G 0, rNO, s�j 4 PR .00x Q D CD CD CD c O 3 O n n: O O O C :3 CD CD o 0 ® m Ln CL — � �- O O -�, O Q.; Ste, ►� ®" O Q CD Q 07 O . tQ cn cn n. O n c) n ID Q Q CD 3 �D tD ° sem° a �. Q ° a � � c� cQ QQ � M U-) Q CD = Q ,-� C a CD _. � � ;-; mn ul --. (D CD (D CD C CSD 717 CQ cO Z3 CQ m E3 O —5 Q CD fD cn V,cr, cn N• `" -0 -0 (D O O O 717 �. ZD Q CD � g C Ln E3 _�- � � O � `� � • �O c.+- �- CSD cy Oil Q CD ® O CDQ (Q X (D tD (D o u) � ®. O 0 O _® 3 0 CL Q O Q ® � p CSD Q N O -� crO cO � (Q v CD CD -►- -h (D C O CO Cj} -'"% ::T CD -� Q o .Q rD —0 � 0 Qrn c0- CT < Q cp m � cQ � � - 0- p � o � � cD � m � (D QUO oC C� C.� � Ul � (D O �o -Q Q � Q- � c�• CO � ..--+. f� O (D O O.- FYI '���i� $41'L'�€i! }i 4 I s^ £ �, � Y}��E•��'P?�I � ib jR � # "3 �# f i y � :k k t� �.;....,f.�*t ;��I E I#��},d ,� k f� V I E i %' �E # i k'�f Y < k • �+�, � � �' # I i3 {3{ O (D 70 O • n (D Q ® O CD Q (D � (A7 ® j p {D p. po p CL (D O (D ® v, O n (D ® 55 O Q O D _. 3 p p p -.� -• O S� (1} O ---►- — Q C CSD (D --�- O.. Q.. O p 0 CD C4 � Q n p °-�. � `� � � CD �- O a CD• (,D � 3 (D (D c n p 0-- � -� O O CSD Q — �. Q Q (D p �_ �Q F'I 3x" O Q Q n ® 01 a 3 01 CLcnmom ® . o (D _. O Q c mac. nca ° � oQCO(D (° > o naso n -p -s 7 x a ` n CQ � ( :3 cr, Q CD ` n � o o (DO O 70 c� 3 ; 7 � o m � v :3 na n ~h t ,� +x..x ,� ~••' �Ha � i � t r w r � � '� ; ty a4p� tI G tI I�.xtltk r �' x t t £,t §k ri z r4s (D n QcyCp 33 -3 0 70 CL ® Q.. `O - t7 M Q O ®. < - Q; a m n O U' O co Q Q cD C wfte Q Q �, Q n (D -F R i CQ O < < CD 4N CD c n D (D n - p• Z(/)) Q CD Q Q v z A. O C � 3 C � �. � �• O` 3 Ca i O (D O - C Q 0-: QC n- �.:a a �,a.,a" •a'.�Ei, �!�i~'i � �a c Vit:. � f �'�k �.� � }k.. *"� �' 'x�� 'xi a x 'u x � "�,r 5 ��i E '� � � S �' i#~tilt i i�SEd iE"�r'���'���i kX k-.� � c'� k"w.g 'E•. E" '"�-`'"'K rc £ '..� � �.� ��I i x�G, �. � �{ �k i ;h x S cx �- �. � s XI ;k � r 4 [E z � a�' E Ai � Io-, xf4 „X, � t 5 '•ti � c },�i �,� y x Q0 (D m nQ' CD Q Q cp 0 O U, C O c p O • . n Q vy (U =�' (D n (D c.s (Q (D O Q `- � � (D c CD , CD n � � (-/)- n �Q� 0- 0 3 5 ^> � cr, � 3 -►- m > tD O -Q rn CD O . O O p CL CD --�., O pA -�- CD Cp �- _. � Q oCT � � Q UT -.1 6p -s n` �' cry C7 � �_ C O O' O ® `C O p O Q ('D ( Q D- C Q R'1 —�+- --� Q cry =S t' Cp CQ 0 rn 3 C) O (-:3 0Q—z C Q �� • 0@Q O -+. Q a � o0 -Q =so � �" �• � � Q cry Q C m n —� ::3- (D D �" 0 p Q (D CD CQ (D O Q.. -I p -Q � CD L � C n (D 7o ® CD �_ p Q (D _ C� CSD cn �' � Q n CO �a Q (DD 0 tQ � y. (D Q CD Q Q Q � ;n 03 --� CO (D Q Q � tD cs, Q ® 00® > (D_ � CT _ 0 Q D c(DD �' � � � Q ® opo � 0 I `��'� xk3 ?. • i � r! 7,$��fi� �kn S I4�r3��;I�Et� � v �e S �i '� rI �' S �` f A„���I 1 I � K..� �'• � � fi��tl�Ai £SEI IR � �I I° I I I� � II I u dl I � � � j � Q Q_ (D � . o (D (D A 0 n �- ° N C) cl ICL Q ® 0: -Q bil Q °fig Qa Q • y Q ® CD 0 Q C-Z om -� ° Q- To o Q � (D cg � � QQ (D Q. T is Mi I NMI' fi Q CD n (D -0 - C} CD O ° CD CD `O n Q O (D tD ® � � � " 3 CQ n _® -�- QQ CQ Q O •C � n 07 1 -�- O Q C O v, fD --- ® 3 O ® , (D Oul rn � ca � Qin Q O O H O CQ t0 O CQ � O n ® O O n Q O CT -t-, �2' C CD p .� y n O �- (D 0 : - CD -, O � O CQ x` CD --, -� cn —+- cr Q � i,+F Milk': � a s�}:a '�; ��r�'�' z Y � � �1 � Y f` `�.i 'i, Z i•i � x' � `e r(S 'I "? €s ' t I i cn5- o ' n Q � N CD Qo _ =i4n o n - zt: Q® :DC" �. CL 13 O -�, (D � n _ CD '< (D C 0 Q � = n- `ilD QQ ® tQ Q Q , 67 n _ rr -�- O `s Q CD -7 O -� (D -+ n -s (D O � (D n CQ `-� "' DQ Q- Q tD O Q O � cn n C �- = -0. --+- ~� (D �- -s (D (D O° - (p 0 DL Q (D `n -�. O r- -� O Q 3 `� (D n n -+- (D < CD CD . (D c n _ � � � c� (D (D 0 O n 0 -1Ln � c6, ---I --� (D (D C SD -h ° (D C -+ (D (b � CD CD -�' m0 to a b'fjI S y.�,y a' ray y5''y,.t- 'i'y7y aii' ry r 5 s r I � h a n > N n CL o a CDCL CD ®. Q -4- -+ f D -� (D CT0 ::) 3 :3- Q (D Q � CD -� a CD Q 0 -0 (D CD Q fD -Q �° � : - = --N (D n a v, CD --+ Nti' e, O a13 a Q ID O @ z� CD D ® 0 `" Q =� O a (D (D O Q O CD Q- �- C� -e, Ln CD 3SCD ® � -. n O a Q - (D ° � �• � � � aQCp, : ca -� � a � Q -� Q DL 0 {D CD (D Qy • ID CD CD z - CD Q (D Q �j 3 CQ CD . Ln c Q Q a a < Q Q cn 3 f } ^ CL Q { o O X ®® n @ rn O O O _. -� o p c Q - O con T O �D ta f2 O O -t V � ! ® /"'f1 r CD CL �- c _. �- GO • C) Q CD Q (DD O Q �} (1) =5 O � � C o � n Q QCL o' -. cq �, (D —• 3 (D ZZ Q- n n0 ov c CD Q ®' (Dn Q cD -- n o o Q, - n QCL o ----i Q Q 2 O cD Q. cD ® • a = cD (D CD Q (D0Q �- Q. CQ 7 �- CL Q rk ,K v w t`n° �. Q n < " W = 07 0 n `° -� ccDD n n O n (D _. Q < n -� n° i o n -t, Q :D CL Q CQ @ FD 0 o CD ZCD Q Q : n. (D n ® 0 (c) 0'n o ® (D C CD (D . �2 CQ �G CD :3 lk CL 0 o CD � �•` � CU . o C o nti D (D n > (C) ® �' Q (.0 � to CD � Q 0 3 -< Q ' � � rn n o Q o 3 < D (D —7 �- Q (D CT DL n =` Qc-Q C D Q c CD n CD Q (D oo, -� � o (;,.. 4t'� t x �r R I Is19 I( ' Er € r �I�r '^:• ,s a x,.!I X ' � a �# �I s >yI 3 � � � I i�#.x ,� �I FM��� .x x,— %s' ai 'ts% *,. y2. tx*y'm t �;~•i��x� � # y � ��r� Iq'..k�I§i �rkK @' t>; IR§SI i .�f i `I 6 • ISR - 1 a° x fz 4r t IR"""Ak�'a a € � ■ 0 cn C) CL Q O O cD < (D 0 0D- 4- O .� -• -e 0co n ° CD p T CD {D p -0 _�- C n p n _® CL CD O Q V n Q O n (D -� < ° n n 0- ' ° �- . ° ° o n3 _ Qo0- CQ Q CD 3 CD � (D `• cD p -� 0 0( D -. 3 �' . . p 00 � T ° v cam. O -�- Q CD O `" Z p L �• :3 n 3 � (D D O Q -+ S x I ro CD ®. o tD -CD CD O t ZZ 3 � � � � �' � ® cD � �- ® oID ma ' _. �- ----% - • C � � (DJQ ® moo Hca Q � ° � � c0 rn0 -o -�. s o �- V) Ln cy -0CT -� � o � < < o -+., _ � o C o - �, o � � o = Q C) � `" ..CO Q Q n C C Q Q COD O n n (D 0 n CD �_ ® CD O O O Q ® �2 O c O ® CD CD C) t� O O D -� CSD Cp Ca QQO -0 -� � O O Q Q• D n 0 O — Q Q O CO O 0- 0- n CQ o D- oo0 oo. V` Go`�-e- n C Q O Q C U, v_za n O D _ O ® O 00 (D �3 n @ � -s — cp �- < Q O O O p Q < O n v� O O (D n Q o n < Q o ® -a Q Q Q• o �- �- o QQo0Q Cq ° Q �° o' er• o �' Q_ < x. p --+, `�- Q' o � (D n- � � � c � ° Q, no QQ - � o � � noon ® ooh^ � Q o n co 0 Ln o - N L o cD (D C Q -Q � Q Q @ C7 Ln oQ � QQ ° CD D � soQ Lnoo � 5 � � �' •N (DC � � Q Q000Q No cD � � g o `Q Q © O CD GO (Q zz- Q �- CD �- �_ GO < Q Q CD Cp Q . �+ Q Q Q ® `C Q - CD cn Ln s ;��ttv P-��.." ��I'��,� �'"-�.f'#�.,.�� `.`� € � � „?••.� a£ �-.,, '��� �;<., � t# } ��.r �i'r�'r� �a �vrx'�'��n r a.4 �s� a f,k.r x� � _h � .�. t t� r �`i r�-# 3 'i•.t i'"r�.v"'��. f �x t x ,t a I 3 ■ c/) M m m m nm a � z a .r. � z m m z D 'D -i ® - to O O LA m (j z LA Q Q n -n> C/) O Q ® ►- > m C� rn rn m > C� cry v� C > � ---4 O M D O cn s' Z D � 00 --� r- > _ > m z -G m z m n > Z z m C '� rn 0 70 Z- O n 0m rn �O z D d0< o r m (A 0 C/') C/) rn 0O O m I CA � n d m 0 Z z Z drn rn 0 Z m C/7) M iz Q m r-7 d Z O z o Dm q no07 -K C/) m z n rn o � r � U m } # �# � ,`�� il�� ! � '���# s tx*� ���'n•. : m q z # '� 'tF x r =K:� ".'�.ka�n.y a��.n`.�.�'��.*I x�',�F r .r, x � WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 5, 2022 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED (BILL NO. 120) was called to order at 10:41 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Dean Au presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dean Au, Lauren Balog, Louis Daniele III, Michelle Galimba, and Dennis Lin ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Wayne De Luz 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), and Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador (Windward Planning Commission Secretary) INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (BILL NO. 120) 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 of Sections 291-71 and 291-72, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Secretary's Note: "—" indicates indiscernible speech due to internetltechnical difficulties or simultaneous talk. AU: So, let's move on to agenda Item#3. So, this is an Initiator County Council, Bill Number 120. 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 dedicated 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 of accommodation and to establish requirements for parking in these spaces and establishing penalties for violations of those requirements in compliance with Section 291-71 and 291-72, Hawaii Revised Statutes. So, at this time I'd like to call up Christian Kay for staff presentation and I would also like to welcome our County Council Member Heather Kimball and Nolan [Noel] Morin. So, please go ahead, Christian. KAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning to members of the Windward Planning Commission and welcome Commissioner Daniele. Give me a moment I'll share my screen. Okay, can everyone see that? Okay, excellent. Again, as the Chair stated, this is a series of 1 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) amendments to two (2) sections of the Hawaii County Code. It's a little bit different, I'll be going over the proposed changes and we'll have some discussion on the Director's recommendation and some proposed amendments from both the Director, as well as from Councilmember Kimball who submitted some additional changes after the original bill was forwarded. So, the Bill 120 the request and purpose are as follows. The Hawaii County Council has introduced Bill Number 120, which seeks to amend Chapter 24, Article 8 and Chapter 25, Articles 1 and 4, Division 5 of Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended), relating to electric vehicle(EV) charging stations and provision of and enforcement for electric vehicle 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 Section 291-71 and 291-72 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). So, a brief legislative timeline to give you an idea of where this authority came from. Legislation creating both HRS 291-71 and 291-72 was passed in 2012 to require the provision of EV charging stations and associated EV parking spaces in places of public accommodation 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 pee, pardon me a fee for the EV charging 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, a new section of HRS was added and that's 291-73 to allow Counties to adopt an ordinance to enforce the requirements found within HRS 291-71 and 72. So this particular Bill 120 is the culmination of the County Council's initial effort to adopt such an ordinance. So, part of the changes to these sections of Code starts with definitions. The bill proposes to amend Hawaii County Code (HCC), Chapter 24 and that's the Vehicles and Traffic Code to include definitions for Electric Vehicle, Neighborhood Electric Vehicle, Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle, and Electric Vehicle Charging System. The bill further proposes to amend Chapter 25 our Zoning Code, with the definitions outlined above and add definitions for Alternating Current Level 2 Charging Station, Direct Current Fast Charger, Network Charger, and Place of Public Accommodation. The proceeding list of definitions are largely copied from sections of State Law of Hawaii Revised Statutes. So, one of most important definitions is what is a"Place of Public Accommodation". The HRS defines it, and it also is defined in the bill 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 available to the general public as customers, clients, or visitors. So, in the draft bill the definition goes on to offer 12 examples of places of public accommodation, however, those examples were 2 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) i f } i not meant to be an exhaustive list. The intent of the bill is to be broadly inclusive of any places that meet the preceding criteria, regardless of who owns them. So, getting into the actual proposed amendments to Chapter 24. Bill 120 seeks to amend Chapter 24 with Section 24-245.5 Parking Privileges. By requiring that only electric vehicles, maybe parked in a parking space designated and marked as reserved for electric vehicles and only electric vehicles that are actively charging may be parked in a parking space equipped with an electric vehicle charging station. Furthermore, proposed Section 24-245.6 Penalties. Indicates that any person who uses a 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 provisions are fine shall not be less than $50.00 nor more than$100.00 and the fined party must also pay any costs incurred by the Court related to assessing the fine. Moving on to proposed amendments to Chapter 25 our Zoning Code, they are as follows. The bill seeks to amend Chapter 25 with Section 25-4-54.1 Parking for Electric Vehicles, Electric Vehicle Charging Systems as follows. For any new parking areas in places of public accommodation and that's new as an after this bill is adopted. For each increment of fifty (50) parking stalls, an owner shall install and maintain in good working order at all times, electric vehicle chargers and dedicated electric vehicle parking spaces. Based on the schedule between adoption of the ordinance and the years 2023, 2025, 2027, and 2029 respectively on an increasing scale of required chargers and number of plugs and dedicated parking spaces depending on when the parking area is constructed. So, I've just provided a small table here that indicates that if you're building your parking lot and an area of public accommodation between 2025 and 2027 you need to have networks AC Level 2 Charger or Chargers that have at least six (6)plugs in that parking facility. Moving on now, the first section was for new parking facilities, the second section is for existing parking areas and places of public accommodation with over 50 parking stalls that need to come into the Planning Department to apply for Plan Approval (PA). The owner will have an additional two (2) years to come into compliance with the requirements as follows. So, instead of 2023 is the starting year we're starting at 2025 and going through 2031. Finally, all other existing parking areas and places of public accommodation that don't have a need to come in and apply for Plan Approval will need to comply with the requirements of HRS 291-71 which calls for I electric vehicle charger and one dedicated stall for each 100 parking spaces. I wanted to just make a quick note in my background and recommendation report I incorrectly identified that last section as needing to have at least 50 parking stalls. That's incorrect, this is essentially for any other parking area that meets the requirements of HRS that doesn't need to come in for Plan Approval would be required to follow HRS so that's 100 stalls or more. So, I'll just state that for the record and adjust the background and recommendation appropriately. So, for those parking areas that don't need to come in for Plan Approval, we asked the question kind of how this will be enforced? The answer is, it will likely be enforced by either proactive compliance on the part of the lot owner or based on public complaint for violations of the zoning code requirements that would come into the Planning Department. Additional proposed 3 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) amendments to Chapter 25 the section further requires electric vehicle chargers to be maintained in good working order and that a dedicated parking space with appropriate marking and signage that indicates that "Parking is only for electric vehicles that are actively charging"must be provided for all electric vehicle chargers. Furthermore, this section of the proposed bill clarifies that designated electric vehicle parking spaces shall not displace or reduce ADA accessible parking stalls. This section requires every parking facility meeting the size criteria to comply with requirements of the section, regardless of ownership except as allowed for in the alternatives and exemptions section of the proposed bill. And finally, the section allows site owners to charge a reasonable fee for the use of the charging station. Additional proposed amendments are as follows, there is this Section 25-4-54.2. Which speaks to Alternatives and Exemptions from these requirements parking for electric vehicles, electric vehicle charging systems provides the Planning Director the authority to determine that electric vehicle charging requirements can be satisfied by a smaller number of direct current fast chargers, so long as the overall charging capacity at the place of public accommodation is equal to or greater than the capacity required under Section 25-4-54.1. Additionally,places of public accommodation can be exempted from applicable requirements of Section 25-4-54.1 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 the Federal Emergency Management Agencies (FEMA) digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) or the FIRM maps. So, the Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation of Bill 124 to the County Council with the following recommended revisions. So, in the recommendation that we sent we included a set of twelve (12) proposed revisions. You should have also received around the same time, a communication from Councilmember Kimball dated April 29, 2022. And this was a set of suggested amendments and discussion points for the Planning Commissions, and this largely came out of a conversation that Councilmember Kimball and I had around the proposed bill, and some of our concerns or suggested changes or improvements that she graciously went ahead and made some proposed changes to. So, as I get into our 12 proposed changes, some of them were already addressed by Director [Councilmember] Kimball's document that she supplied to us. So, I will mark our 12 proposed changes, where her proposed amendments kind of address our concerns and come into alignment. And then, when we get into the discussion and voting stage, we can go over those in greater detail. So those are as follows: Recommendation#1 from the Director is under Section 1. Purpose. We suggest to correct the reference to the HRS section from 291-71 to 291-73. The reason for this is it is HRS 291-73 that allows Counties to adopt ordinances to enforce the requirements of 291-71. Our second recommendation is under Section 24-245.6. Penalties. Again, this is to the roads and traffic's section of Code is to 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. The reason for that is the bill incorrectly references HRS section 291-71, which does not make mentioned to any fine 4 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) 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, in this case, if you look at the document that Councilmember Kimball sent under her Section II.B of that document, she proposed amendments to address this recommendation to make the changes that the Director is recommending. So, the Director agrees with the proposed amendment and recommends that the Commission adopt this change. Under Director's recommendation#3 Section 3. Definitions. Consider changing the term "Networked charger"to match what's in the body of the bill. The reason for this is the term specifically as presented and that's "Networked charger"is not used anywhere in the body of the bill. The word "Networked" is used four(4) times and the term, "Network-capable" is used in the definition of"Direct current fast charger". So, the Director suggested to consider expanding the term "Networked charger"to include those alternative references. However, in Section II. C of Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments she addresses this recommendation by shortening the term to the word "Networked" and that would kind of similarly solve that situation. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends the Commission adopt this change. Recommendation#4 under Section 25-4-54.1(a). Again, in the Zoning Code that the bill should clarify the size or type of parking spaces required to be considered a dedicated electric vehicle parking space under the requirements of the bill. The reason for that is the Zoning Code allows for different types of parking stalls for compliance with our parking requirements for example there's a possibility of compact parking stalls which will likely not work for an EV charging station. So, Director recommended that the County Council consider adding the qualifier, full size or provide specific minimum dimensions required for a dedicated electric vehicle stall. In her proposed amendments in Section I.A. It was addressed by recommending adding the qualifier"standard size" for the type of required parking space. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change to send up to the County Council. Furthermore, the Director recommends the "standard size"qualifier be added to Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendment under Section I.B. which we'll talk about next. So, under Section 25-4-54.1(a). The Director recommends that the bill should clarify that the number of electric vehicles designating parking stalls shall correspond to the maximum number of plugs required under the development schedule that's laid out in that section of the bill. The reason for this is the section is unclear as it is currently written that each required plug needs to correspond with the number of dedicated parking stalls. For example, after 2029 each increment of 50 parking stalls shall include eight (8) electric vehicle designated parking stalls because that's the same number of plugs that will be required at that time. In Section 1. A. of Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments she addresses this recommendation by adding language indicating that the required number of electric vehicle stalls 5 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) corresponds to the required number of plugs. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation#6 under Section 25-4-54.1(b). Change the term "plan review"to "Plan Approval" and clarify the reference of an additional two (2) years to comply with subsection(a). The reason is there's no such reference in our Zoning Code to "plan review", however Plan Approval is the process through which parking requirements are reviewed by the Planning Department. Additionally, the reference to an additional 2 years is somewhat confusing. The intent of the provision should be clarified. So, in Section 1. A and 1. B of Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments it still references "plan review", so the Director maintains his request to change this to Plan Approval and under Section 1. B of Councilmember's proposed amendments she clarifies that the reference to an additional 2 years or she clarifies that reference by including similar installation schedule to account for the additional 2-year timeline. So, the Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends that the Commission adopt this change. Under recommendation#7 under 25-4-54.1(c). There should be a trigger identified 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 or what have you. The reason is the requirement for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval to comply with the requirements of State law has no time compliance trigger or other enforcement mechanism so, it's unclear how existing places of public accommodation meeting that size criteria will come into compliance. So, the Director's recommendation is to add some language on how those places will come to compliance. Recommendation#8 is to clarify the apparent conflict between the number of parking stalls required for each EV charger versus each plug on an EV charger. We talked about this a little bit before but there's another section of the Code where there's a disconnect or a conflict. So, the recommendation here is to clarify that. So, under Section 25-4-54.1 (a), it appears that the number of dedicated parking stalls corresponds to the number of plugs available and that's what Councilmember Kimball's change actually proposes. However, there's another section of the bill 25-4-54.1 (e), that requires a dedicated parking stall for all chargers which can include several plugs. So, the Director is recommending that subsection (e)be amended to match the proposed changes to subsection (a) that require the number of dedicated parking stalls match the number of required plugs. Recommendation#9 states that Section 25-4-54.1 (f), does not allow EV designated spaces to displace or reduce ADA accessible parking stalls,but it does not address the requirements for ADA accessible electric vehicle stalls. So, the Director wanted the Council to consider adding a section referencing ADA requirements for electric vehicle stalls. The reason for this is in 2012 the State Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB) issued an interpretive opinion relating 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 a minimum of 5%, but not less than one of 6 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) each type of EV station shall be accessible. In addition, the opinion articulates design requirements for an ADA accessible EV parking stall. So, in this case Section 1. C. of Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments addresses this by adding the requirement that at least one of the designated EV parking spaces shall be an ADA accessible EV install. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation#10 under Section 25-4-54.1 (h), we asked that the bill define what is considered a"reasonable" fee. The reason for that is, if you look at the HRS section, it allows owners to charge a fee it doesn't use the qualifier "reasonable", and the Director feels like the qualifier"reasonable"is somewhat subjective and difficult to enforce. So, we suggested that the County Council consider adding a fee cap or a fee schedule based on the number of kilowatt hours charged. To address this in her proposed amendments, Councilmember Kimball proposes to delete the word "reasonable" and so it's just that they can charge a fee. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation#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. Again, this section is the one that gives the Director authority to require fewer EV chargers as long as the same charging capacity is there by using direct current fast chargers. The Director feels like this tool will help the Planning Department to determine charging capacity between the different charger types. According to Section III. C., Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments, its address by proposing a ratio allowing one (1) Direct Current fast charger to replace six (6) Level 2 plugs, as long as there is at least 1 other Level 2 plug to accommodate electric vehicles that cannot charge on Direct Current fast chargers. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change, and then, finally, to Recommendation# 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 charging implementation, there's no similar exemption if internet access is unavailable at that place. Other reason for this is the bill requires both the alternating current Level 2 charger and direct current fast charger to be "networked"or"network capable"respectively, but there's no requirement in the bill for an internet connection to track charger use or to be remotely accessible. So, the Director wants the County Council to consider clarifying whether an internet connection is a requirement for implementation of the proposed bill. And so those cover again the Director's 12 recommendations and again, many of them were already addressed by Councilmember Kimball's communication. There were a few more additional proposed amendments in the communication, so they are as follows . 7 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) i The Councilmember 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 Section 25-4-54.2, which is the exemption section. The reason for this is this section contradicts the aggregation privilege provided in HRS 291-71. And what that aggregation privilege does is that allows owners of multiple parking facilities within the State to designate and electrify fewer parking spaces than required in one or more of their own properties; provided that the scheduled requirement is met for the total number of aggregate spaces on all their own properties. So, think University of Hawaii that's a statewide system. If they max out the number of charging stations in their facilities on Oahu to meet the overall requirements, they may not have to add those charging station and a new parking facility here in Hilo. So that's the State law allows that kind of aggregation privilege and because that privilege is enshrined in State law the bill cannot conflict with that. Additional proposed amendments from Councilmember Kimball are under Section 25-4-54.1 Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging system. She proposes to 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." The reason for this is to clarify the times that EV charging stations are required to be used, and so the Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. There is an additional proposed amendment to Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems Section (b ) (1) to read as follows. So, there's an exemption if the location does not have established electrical service or lacks adequate electrical infrastructure to provide 240-volt electrical service for electrical vehicle charger implementation. The reason for this is to clarify and to quantify what was meant originally by sufficient electrical current. The Director agrees with this clarifying amendment and recommends that the Commission adopt this change. Another proposed change is under Section 3 Definitions. The Councilmember proposes to amend the definitions for"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 it is already covered by Chapter 5D, which is part of our Building Code of the Hawaii County Code. So, I believe the Councilmember felt like it was kind of redundant, since our County Code already requires that. So, that the Planning Director agrees with a proposed amendment and recommends that the Commission adopt the change. This next proposed change was not part of the document that was provided to you from the Councilmember. However, she would like to add that under Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems she'd like to add a subsection (c) which would be worded as follows. Owners 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 application for plan review. And so, 8 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) this is addressing what we just spoke about with that aggregation privilege. The bill is proposing to require actual evidence that the owner is meeting that aggregation requirements. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting the change with a suggested change again from the term "plan review" to "Plan Approval", so that it's consistent with our Zoning Code. So, those are the kind of the proposed changes. In the memo from Councilmember Kimball there were a few other kind of discussion points that she wanted to bring up with the Commission to consider strengthening the bill. The first one is for existing places of public accommodation that come in for plan review or Plan Approval and would be subject to Section 25-4-54.1(b), what other criteria should exist for the EV charger requirement to be triggered. The statement here is some plan reviews may not have anything to do with parking should they have this requirement. So, this is something that certainly the Commission can discuss as they feel necessary. However, because the Commission may not be intimately familiar with Plan Approval and how that works. The Director is kind of going to make a response and statement, and that is that places of public accommodation where electric vehicle 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 already considered. So, the Director feels based on this the current language of the bill would be sufficient. But again, if the Commission disagrees, and then we can have that discussion later when we get to here. Then the second discussion point is for existing lots, if the electric vehicle charging parking stall requirements put them in violation of any other Zoning Code parking stall requirements due to needing an ADA accessible stall. Which is going to be larger than a normal stall size and perhaps converting stalls from compact to standard size, what should happen? Can the Director approve a variance? Should they be exempted from putting EV chargers in those lots or be allowed to modify the requirements? So, this question is more around those parking lots that are kind of maxed out on parking. So, when an applicant comes in for Plan Approval our County Code lays out how many parking stalls should be required, based on, for example, gross square footage floor area for commercial uses or other requirements based on different uses. So, in the case where if this bill is passed, if now an owner who's maxed out on that parking needs to provide an ADA required stall which may knock down below that minimum Zoning Code requirement for parking stalls. How should we deal with that? And so, the Director's response, again, is as follows. While the Director does have the authority to grant a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Code. The Department would prefer that adoption of a new ordinance would not create a non-conforming circumstance that would require a variance. Instead, the Director recommends that the bill include language to allow a maximum number or percentage of sorry that should say parking stalls not lots. That can be converted to accommodate ADA compliant EV parking stalls, even if it does reduce the overall number of stalls that would otherwise be required by the Zoning Code. So, really here if there was language in the bill which would be adopted as part of the Zoning Code, it would essentially allow for a certain number or percentage grace to allow for that possibility of having to convert existing stalls to ADA stalls. 9 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) So, I know that was a lot of information and again we can get into each of the proposed recommendations, later on. But, right now Councilmember Kimball and Mr. Morin and have been graciously made their time available to provide some more information on the context of the bill, and the reason for it. So, she's asked to provide a presentation and then from there when we get into the discussion or really the next steps are the Planning Commissions may approve all, some, or none of the Directors suggested recommendations, and this includes kind of the updated recommendations based on the proposed changes from the Councilmember. The Commissions may also offer their own revisions to the bill and ultimately both the Windward and Leeward Planning Commission's recommendations will be forwarded separately, but at the same time to the County Council for their consideration and decision. So, in two weeks we'll be having the same presentation and discussion with the Leeward Planning Commission and once we've got recommendations from both bodies, we will package those and send those up to the County Council for consideration on Bill 120. With that I will end my presentation here and happy to answer any questions, either now or when appropriate. AU: Thank you for that presentation, Mr. Kay, that was a lot of information, thank you very much. So, at this point I would like to call Councilwoman Kimball and Mr. Morin on, but I do have to swear you in. How about we take your presentation first and then we can take it to the Commissioners for questions. So, can both of you please raise your right hand so I can swear you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Windward Commission? KIMBALL: I do. MORIN: I do. AU: So, before you speak just, please state your name and the town you live in. You may go ahead, thank you. KIMBALL: Good morning, my name is Heather Kimball. I am the County Councilmember from District 1 and I live in Papa`ikou. I just want to say mahalo to you Chair Au and all the members of the Commission for joining me in this sausage making. This is what we're doing today. I'm not sure if any of you have ever had the opportunity to go through legislation like this,but as you can see it's an evolution and I'm grateful for your time today to help us improve the language of the bill and bring more thoughts, more ideas to the concept. Before I go into it a little more, Dean I just wanted to say mahalo to you and for all your service and leadership with the Commission. I'm sure you'll be greatly missed here. So, I just wanted to take a moment what we're going to do. I'm just going to give a little context here about the bill. I'm not going to go into the nitty gritty as Christian just did an amazing job of going over all of the language. Thank you, Christian it's a pleasure to work with you and then I'm going to pass it over to Noel Morin, who is here from the Big Island Electric Vehicle Association. To give us just a little bit of the lay of the land in terms of what the market is like right now for EVs, what the charging situation is and in particular, which I think will be of 10 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) interest to you folks what are the opportunities for businesses to find funding to implement this program. So, starting off this obviously adoption of electric vehicles is in part about reducing emissions, clean air, and getting us off of fossil fuel. So, it is an environmental bill. However, for me the reason that I chose to move forward with introducing this and enforcing the HRS is it's really about equity. In order to be able to take advantage of the lower cost of ownership of electric vehicles, which is you know you're not paying for gas every week and you're not paying for maintenance fees for oil changes, for changes to carburetors, things like that. In order to take advantage of that lower and moderate-income folks that don't have the opportunity to put chargers at the residents need places of public accommodations to make sure that they're able to use these vehicles and to get around. The market for electric vehicles is changing it used to be kind of a luxury item. As Noel will talk about the cost of an EV Sedan now is almost equivalent to a nice vehicle, an internal combustion engine vehicle. And then like I said, the cost of ownership over the lifetime brings the cost of ownership down significantly. In addition to just creating these places of public charging in compliance with the HRS. Let me just remind you that the HRS already establishes this rule and then just gave us in 2021, us being the Counties the ability to enforce this rule. We made some modifications because we're the Big Island and due to our geography people just have to drive more to get school, to get to work, and to get to the doctor's office. So, the ratio of one charger per 100 stalls just didn't seem appropriate for the level of use that would be necessary to really make EV adoption in Hawaii County accessible to all. I also want to just make a final note that providing these vehicle charging places, the place of public accommodation also allows us more readily loop in the rental car companies and allow them to provide more EV vehicles as part of their fleet. So, the visitors coming to our island are also reducing emissions, helping the environment along with our residence. With that I will pass it over Noel, to give again just a little bit of a lay of the land and then I'm happy to answer any questions about the content of the bill after that presentation. So, Noel over to you. MORIN: Thank you very much Heather. Good morning, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Noel Morin. I'm a resident of Hilo and I've been involved in electric vehicle advocacy for about a decade. I lead Big Island EV as well as Hawaii EV and I'll be sharing information about electric cars and electric vehicle charging for maybe the next 10 minutes or so and it will also be available for questions. I'd like to be able to share my screen here. Let's see, I hope you can see that. Let me stick this off to the side. Okay you're able to see it right, the screen. KIMBALL: Yes, we've got it Noel, thank you. MORIN: Okay. So, let me start off by just indicating that electric cars are just one component of our solution for sustainable transportation. We need to reduce the need for passenger cars to begin with, and there are many different ways to do that mass transit, bicycles, shared mobility, etcetera. These are all really important. It's really important because it's almost like an 11 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) impossible task to expect that all of the 1 million cars in the State or 185,000 cars on Hawaii island they will be able to overnight transform these into electric. So, this is really important. The other thing is optimizing transportation efficiency, and this is a really easy thing to do. It's really about public education and changing habits, so that we can be a bit more less wasteful I should say about our transportation patterns. So, trip planning, carpooling, even just making sure your tires are properly inflated will do a lot to save on transportation dollars. And, of course, we're not saying that we need to do away with a car, the passenger car. There will be a need for that especially here and our recommendation is that if we must drive in a car, let it be an electric car and I'd like to share the reasons for that. Well, as Heather mentioned earlier the key reason is our ability to immediately contribute to climate action and, as you know, transportation emissions are a big contributor to global warming and climate change right which we're all experiencing. Importantly, ground transportation contributes to air pollution, local air pollution and they have consequential health issues and then it keeps us addicted to fossil fuels. I'm sure you may know that a lot of the fossil fuel that we import comes from countries like Libya and until recently Russia. So, our dependence on fossil fuels also contributes to this energy security risk that we all should be concerned about. Lastly, there is an impact to cost of living. There's a lot of price volatility associated with fossil fuels as we see these days and it doesn't help that our traditional vehicles, gas vehicles are very inefficient, and I'll expand on that in a moment here. So, why EVs? Let's zoom in, and I think this dovetail nicely with Heather on your focus on equity. There's a tremendous number of pocketbook benefits right, and this should be available to everybody, not just the well to do. So, the first thing is that, because EVs are very efficient. They're up to 100% efficient, in fact. Because when you slow down the car and you take your foot off the accelerator, you're going downhill and you're just letting off the accelerator. You're actually recharging the battery. You're actually collecting back the energy and transforming that into electricity that goes into the battery. So, you're essentially able to recoup energy that you use when you're propelling the car. On the other hand, gas cars are up to what 30% or so efficient and what that means is that 70% or so of the energy dollars that you put in your gas tank is actually wasted. It's wasted as heat so there's a fueling efficiency component here that everybody should be able to avail on. The other thing that is important is that they're easier to maintain. I've owned an EV since 2011 and one of the cars we have, the original brake pads are still on the car right because you rarely use the brakes. No fuel. I'm sorry no oil changes as Heather mentioned earlier. The cost of ownership total cost of ownership is actually very low compared to a regular gas car. There was a consumer reports study that was published recently, and it showed that the average savings over the lifetime of an EV is around $4,600.00. So again, that is fueling and that's maintenance savings and again everybody should be able to avail of that. So, the other thing I want to highlight here is affordability right it used to be that to be able to afford an EV you needed to be high income, it had to be something for the wealthy. That's quickly change. There are so many different EVs now. They're long range over 150 miles per charge, and they are accessible to everybody. So, the point is I'm trying to make is that with competition, with economies of scale, with policy pressures to decarbonize, and also consumer 12 EXHIBIT G (DRAFT) demand. You have a lot of companies now that are stepping up and producing the cars and the prices are coming down. Lastly, utility. So, it used to be just sedans and now you have EVs of all forms, all shapes and sizes and I predict that once the trucks land here like the Ford F 150 and the Rivian we're going to see a lot, lot more people getting behind the wheel of electric cars. A really important development is, and this is where I'm referring to as policy pressures that many governments across the globe have already started to declare that they're going to be phasing out gas cars in the future. You'll see that we have some states in here as well. So, what this is saying is that it's actually a message to manufacturers and consumers that at some point it's going to be very difficult to purchase a gas car and I think it highlights the importance of us to future proof Hawai`i. This slide here just highlights all the different, it could have changed by now. The number of manufacturers that have responded with these commitments to phase out new gas cars in the future. So, as you can see a number of these are really familiar brands. At some point in the future, it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible to go to a dealer and ask for a gasoline powered car. So, again this just emphasizes the need for us to look forward and ensure that we're future proofing our infrastructure and ensuring that our communities, our people will be able to move forward. I'm going to now talk about public charging, and I think that this is one of the top enablers for the equitable adoption of EVs. This slide here just talks about the different types of charging. So, Level 1 is what you get at home. It's 110. You can plug your car in there and maybe you get about 40 miles overnight, and some people actually rely on Level 1 charging. My mother-in-law own some Nissan Leaf, and she just relies on this exclusively. Level 2 is 240, and this is what you typically would see in the public charging space. But you also have this at home if you have access to a 240 outlet or a dryer outlet for example and something like this will give you about 20-25 miles of range per hour that you're plugged in. The last one is the DC Fast Charger, and this was mentioned earlier, this is the quickest and most convenient and this one will top off or charge most of the battery in about 30 minutes or so. So, these are the different types of charging stations. Now, on note on home charging. Many of us who own EVs who have access to home charging relies almost exclusively on home chargers. If you have a 240 or even a 110 depending on how much you drive, you can actually just plug in when you get home and when you're ready to go again your car charged. It's very, very similar to your mobile phone, however, not everybody has this opportunity. As mentioned already we have many people who live in apartments and condos. They rent homes, where they can't actually modify the charging situation. In situations like that they're going to require access to public charging to be able to make the transition. If they don't have access to public charging, they're not confident with that then they're just going to have to continue to rely on their gas vehicles. So, it is a key to equitable transition for transportation. We have a quite a few EV chargers on the island already and you'll see here a number of these Level 2's and Level 3's you'll find them all over the place. Shopping centers, government 13 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) i offices, businesses, etcetera. However, one of the challenges and we've known this for a while, is that some of these because they haven't been maintained or just not operational; You have some of these charges that haven't been working for years. So, there's clearly a challenge. Now, this is a couple of maps that I got from Plug Share. It kind of highlights the location of the chargers around the island. On the on the left, you'll see the DC fast chargers there 8 of them I believe, and then on the right, you see the Level 2 chargers, and there are about 33 of them around the island. The main reason I wanted to highlight this is that you'll see the tool icon there that just highlights that it's not operable. But, more importantly, there are these gaps. Like these deserts where you just don't have any public charging. So, if you're living in Hilo and you need to go to Kona for work or for shopping and you need to charge, and you can't access a charger that's going to be a no go for that individual. They're going to just opt to not do it or find an alternative way to get there and back. So, I just wanted to again highlight that this is as Heather mentioned, this is an environmental issue, it's a planetary issue, it's an economic issue but there's this big social equity piece that we need to be concerned about. My hope is that Bill 120 will facilitate this. Now there's this question. So how do you pay for all this? Like what does this mean for local businesses? I wanted to highlight that my view is that this is a win, win this can be a win, win for local businesses. Hosting an EV charger can actually be a competitive advantage, and it'll hopefully be clear as we go through this. So. first, as far as offsetting the cost. There are incentives and there's another slide for this as well. So, there's a Hawaii Energy Commercial Charger Rebate Program that will offset the cost of charges that are installed. There's also Federal Tax Credits that site owners can take advantage of and then Hawaiian Electric has also special rates that are available for site owners. So, they can actually have reduced commercial rates for hosting a charging station and there are a couple of Dockets in front of the PUC. One is especially interesting because it's called the EV Charger Make Ready Program . Where a site owner can actually avail of the utility coming in and dealing with all the infrastructure up until the point of the charging station and sometimes that could be very costly. So, with that Docket hopefully getting pass the utility will have the opportunity to actually contribute as well to the cost of getting these charging stations installed. As far as benefits go, I mean very clearly there's the contribution to sustainability, customer loyalty, there's also the opportunity for to leverage the fact that when you're a customer and you're plugged in at a store you tend to linger. You'll be there for 30 minutes, 40 minutes, an hour and you may actually linger more because you're waiting for your car to charge. There have been studies. There was one that I read about Target, for example,just proving that customers that have EVs that are charging actually linger more, linger longer in the store. So, there are actually benefits that are associated with having a charging station. The hosts can charge for the energy. It shouldn't be free. I firmly believe it shouldn't be free, so the fee that they charge the EV owner can actually be used to sustain the operation. There are certain arrangements that can also be made where the placement of ads at the charging stations can offset the cost of the operation. So, there are a number of opportunities here for local business owners to offset the cost, but more importantly, taking a look at the net impact is going to be really important because there are also these other financial benefits. I mentioned earlier, 14 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) the commercial charger rebate program you can find this on their website hawaiienergy.com. So, for a new station it could be $4,500.00 per network station and then for the DC fast charger it could be $35,000.00 per network state. Now, the important thing here is that there was a State law that was passed last session, not this one last year, and where the program is now sustained with three cents on the barrel tax. What that means is that there could be over $500,000.00 of rebates annually that will be available to site owners to take advantage of, and that will help facilitate the installation of these chargers. So, these rebates can be used by local businesses, by non-profits, condo associations, apartment owners, even governments. So, this is a very powerful incentive for site owners. I think that was it on this one, and then lastly federal funding. So, Heather you may have the latest here, but my understanding is that there are monies that have come, that have landed or can be utilized by the State. My understanding is that the State DOT has the mandate to put together plans that would a allow for the leverage of those funds so that they can actually build charging station hubs across the State. So that will also help increase the number of charging stations. I'll summarize now by just saying that. One decarbonization transportation is critical to enabling our climate action. We need to address the climate crisis, reducing the need for personal cars, and optimizing efficiency are really important. However, since cars are going to continue to be relevant moving forward, we need to figure out a way to allow for the equitable adoption of electric cars and public charging is the way to make that happen, thank you. AU: Thank you Noel for that presentation. Thank you, Councilmember Kimball. Commissioner's do you have any questions for staff or for, yes Commissioner Lin? LIN: Actually, I have quite a few questions but I'm in support of electric vehicles. I've actually buying a plug-in hybrid waiting for that to come in. But the question would be what is the cost to the businesses? Well, this HRS is requiring that you have to put in a stall,but what is the offering costs? The price of electrical supplies and materials is very expensive right now. What is the cost of labor to put it in? I'd hate to put this up bill in and require people to put in EV stalls. It's a big offer of cost to them, they pass on the cost to the consumer so that's one question. So, maybe I'll start with that. What is the cost of putting in an EV stall? KIMBALL: Sure, thank you, Dennis for the question. Starting just to clarify the HRS does require both the installation of the parking stall and the installation of the chargers and so for 100 stalls at the minimum. So, the cost of installing these chargers a large portion of it is that actual electrical infrastructure out to the charging locations. The chargers themselves, depending on what level you're purchasing could vary pretty significantly and maybe Noel can actually speak to some actual costs. So, that's why the electrical charging infrastructure for new lots is going to have to be there anyway to get to at least the one thing and then adding the additional chargers becomes less burdensome because you've already got that primary electrical infrastructure. The PUC Docket that Noel mentioned would actually allow HECO to provide that infrastructure for the customers and we hope that PUC Docket is resolved before this actually returns to Council for introduction. So, a lot of that cost for that the infrastructure piece would be developed by the utility. So, it can vary depending on how far you need to go from your current I i 15 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) electrical service out to the charging locations. There are things that you would have to put in, like the concrete barriers, labor is a highly variable so you're looking probably anywhere from $20,000.00 to $120,000.00. Noel maybe you have better numbers on that, depending on all those different variables with the respect to the site. MORIN: Yes, the top figure you mentioned is reasonable for a DC Fast Charger. While the equipment can be around $50,000.00 or so. When you factor in permitting and all the infrastructure that needs to be put in, it could be well over a$100,000.00. This is why I think the Make Ready Program that you mentioned is very much relevant. Now the cost for Level 2 again it really depends on the location and the amount of trenching, and all the infrastructure will have to be brought from the building to the actual location. So, costs will vary based on that. But the actual equipment itself the commercial Level 2 charger they're anywhere from $6,000.00 to $10,000.00 for a unit. I can get something more precise. I've requested that before and share that with this group. But yeah, so if it's a Level 2 you're talking about $10,000 to $20,000 dollars depending on what's already there. In some cases, if you have an existing charging station that just needs to be swapped out that is minimal cost. If you need to trench quite a bit, then that's another situation that would be another consideration. AU: Thank you. Thank you,Noel and Heather for trying to answer that question. It's a moving target like Commissioner Lin said, the cost of materials is so high, but I appreciate you trying to answer that question. Any other questions I know each Commissioner probably has questions. So maybe we can just stick with one Commissioner first so Commissioner Lin, can you go ahead and ask your questions. LIN: Sure, I guess the other question would be that fee that lot owners would charge at each station. I'm very concerned, I guess, in terms of how much they would charge because it relates to how many chargers are available to the public right now that have no cost. And then if you're going to implement in putting installs and chargers that vary in pricing it comes down to well, I know that, perhaps KTA or the County building has a charger that I only pay so much money for. But if I go down to this gas station, I have to pay double that amount. So that comes down to I think there's not one amendment about the fee. So what fee, what is reasonable? KIMBALL: I should respond initially by saying if you guys have other amendments or wording changes that's perfectly acceptable and we can accommodate those. Originally, we had the word reasonable in there and it did make sense with Director's recommendation to take that out because reasonable is not defined anywhere and that could mean different things to different people. The Director's original recommendation had been to set a cap or some other specific amount which I'm also willing to consider and explore. There may be legal issues with that, and the ability for businesses to conduct themselves. So, if that's something that the Commission feels is important to set a cap on it that's definitely something I can research in terms of would we actually have the jurisdiction or authority to apply something like that. In the interim, my reason for just saying okay let's just take reasonable out is that the market should actually drive the prices to be reasonable. Because if you, have it too high nobody's going to go there and utilize that charger. So yeah, that's kind of not a succinct response but, 16 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) again, we are in the sausage making process so I'm absolutely willing to take whatever the Commission's recommendation is on something like that. 7 3 LIN: Thank you, Miss Kimball because what it relates to is that you have these stalls are now on private property. If these properties are close to the public at certain hours. What's availability for other people who are hey I'm traveling across Saddle Road right now, and I have 25% left in 3 my battery, where do I go to charge. KIMBALL: Right and so that's actually speaks to one of the comments made by the Director about the whole network issue. While we recognize that there are parts of the island that are network deserts at this point in time. The reason that it's important that these charges be networked is for the exact reason that you mentioned. If somebody's coming across Saddle, they need to know if a charging location is available. That would be something that they could use one of the apps to identify. That provision that we put in not require gates to be open, so that people could use chargers. If facilities that are normally gated during non-business hours was really just in respect to their potential security concerns of leaving a parking lot open to make charging available when there's nobody there to protect this site. So, I think that addressing a couple of issues there about that amendment, about not having to keep the thing open, but also that network components. So, that people will be able to check and make sure that there are chargers available before they make their trip. Noel I see you maybe want to chime in on this too. MORIN: Well, the previous comment or previous question regarding charging rates. There's actually precedent. We have all of the DC fast chargers there is a fee for use, so there is information there that we can garner and leverage. They're fifty-one (5 1) cents to sixty-one(6 1) cents per kilowatt hour and then the same thing goes for Level 2's. It's rare these days to see a free charger and well Home Depot used to be free. Well, it was free until their system broke down and all what we're seeing is that these charging stations that are being replaced are being replaced with network systems and they're also going to be required a fee for use. So, there is precedent, meaning, we can take a look at what's happening right now in the marketplace and base it off of that. But I think Heather as you described if we leave it to the market the rates will govern themselves. If someone's charging too much their charging station will not be used. Anyway,just wanted to comment on that that we have precedent. LIN: Chair, I have one last question and it comes down to the cost per kilowatt hour. So, maybe it's two parts. One is Noel, you mentioned that the fee is like 51 cents, or something to a kilowatt hour. I pay residentially forty-seven (47) or forty-six (46), forty-two (42) something like that in the 40's person per kilowatt hour. How much does it increase your electric bill by charging it as a 120 volt versus a 220 or having it charged at a DC charger— i MORIN: Sorry. I i LIN: —: So, because the other part is that what is Hawaiian Electric doing to subsidize the costs of electric vehicles. If they're still using fossil fuels to generate electricity and they're passing on that costs to those charging stations for electric vehicles that kind of contradicts itself. 3 17 i EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) i i 3 MORIN: Yeah, well so, the grid is being decarbonized. So, if we're buying electricity through and we don't have solar on the roof we're just getting off the grid directly or we are using the DC fast chargers that they have. It's clearly there's still some fossil fuel input into that system but we're seeing it change over time. We're decarbonizing as we go and that's one of the beauties of the electric car is that it gets cleaner as time passes. But to answer your question about cost. Even with the 51-61 cents per kilowatt hour for the DC fast charger which is costly. It's costly or more costly than doing it at home. You pay for the convenience and there's a lot of costs associated with a DC fast charger, which I believe is part of the fee. But I've done some calculations and even at that rate let's say 50 cents a kilowatt hour. That's comparable to gas and I think what's important is that it's a situation where there is a financial benefit for going electric that doing so would allow you to get more for your transportation dollars and we're seeing that. Even with that rate of 50-60 cents a kilowatt hour the cars are just more efficient and it kind of trails with gas. Electricity will eventually go up, but gas would also be up there, and based on the comparisons I've done they are at par. When you do it at home it's even better. If you have solar on the roof it's even better. So, there's clearly some education that we need to also do as we move forward with this, but to your point the 61 cents seems a lot but if you compare it to what it would cost to fuel your gas car it's very much on par. Comparing to similar size cars I don't know Tesla Model S with the model or a BMW 5 Series, for example, you take a look at that, and you'll see that's very similar price wise. KIMBALL: So just to give you some context Dennis, I have an electric vehicle myself a Chevy Bolt and I go charge it at Walmart from time to time, and the first 2 hours are free, and then it takes me about 3 more hours to get full charge. So yes, 5 hours and they charge $2.00 an hour. It cost me about 6 bucks to get fully charged, which gives me about 300 miles. The other point I wanted to make about what HECO is doing as Noel mentioned for commercial businesses, they are offering reduced electrical rates for EV charging. So, they are part of the solution here and trying to incentivize the adoption of EV installations in commercial spaces. LIN: Thank you that's it for me Chair, thank you. AU: Thank you, Commissioner Lin for your questions. I guess, can we take it over to Commissioner Galimba. Do you have questions? GALIMBA: Sorry, I didn't raise my hand, and I think the other Commissioners have more pressing questions and if I have a question, I'll raise my hand after them. I AU: Okay, thank you, since you're the vice Chair, I want to give you a chance first but go ahead, Commissioner Daniele. DANIELE: Yeah, actually I got some questions and comments. I think this is great. I guess one question is really going to look at what's the lifespan of the equipment that you're going to be putting in? I'm personally off grid completely and run my whole life on solar. Invested quite a bit of money up front, but I know this equipment that I purchased I might have for twenty(20) to i 18 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) thirty(30) years. So is this equipment that we're going to be putting in these parking lots as robust. Because, then that defrays the cost over time of the infrastructure and things like that. So that's one question. KIMBALL: Okay I'll start with that and good on you for being off grid. So, definitely the chargers and their lifespan and their quality have improved significantly since we've started seeing some of these charges go out. In addition to the federal money that Noel mentioned on the slide. A significant portion of that is going to developing in the United States, the manufacturing process both for the batteries and for EV chargers. So, the newer models are definitely more robust and have a longer lifespan than some of the early models. We've got what 4 chargers in front of the Aupuni Center where my office is, none of them work right now. The 4 over by the judiciary building that I think Christian has used none of them are working right now, and these are the older models, and they just weren't as sturdy. One of the really important parts of this bill is that requirement to keep the EV chargers in working order. In addition, there wasn't typically at the early stages the level of service available that is now currently available for these charges. There's a whole employment sector developing around both EV maintenance and charger maintenance that didn't exist before. So, you have both higher quality chargers out there and better ability to maintain them, which should improve the lifespan. I did also want to mention just in respect to one of Dennis's questions about connecting to the grid which still has some fossil fuel tied to it. Because of that efficiency that Noel mentioned even when you're charged the grid and the grid is using fossil fuel, you are reducing emissions by two thirds because of the increased level of efficiency of electric vehicles. So sorry to diverge. I just remember that, and I wanted to make sure I put that out there that it's even if you're tied to the grid, you're still doing good things if you're in an EV. DANIELE: Yeah, great. Thank you, thank you. Just a couple like observations I guess reading all the public testimony on this. Everybody was for this. There was really no one, not for this, and I think as a County, I think as a State, I think, as a Country, we all see where this is heading. There's going to be more and more electric vehicles being in service certainly over the next 5, 10 years. So, I think that being very proactive on this is a very good thing. But the whole repair issue seems to be the other issue that kept cropping up in the public testimony. I think you just address that with newer things coming out, newer models, better equipment, and things like that. So, I would imagine that most folks that have a parking lot with over 100 parking spaces would be able to absorb costs associated big corporations like Target and things like that. Would be able to absorb putting these things in. AU: Excuse me, Commissioner Daniele, can we just stay on track. We're asking questions. DANIELE: Yeah. AU: Yeah, we're just limited to just questions. DANIELE: Okay. Can you please go over the aggregation thing a little bit? KIMBALL: Yeah, so this is one of the provisions- 19 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) DANIELE: Thank you. KIMBALL: — in the HRS which allows the owner multiple parking lots across the State to satisfy their requirement in one location, rather than distributing or a fewer number of locations than distributing across all of their lots. And so, the example that Christian gave was right on. University of Hawaii can put all their charges in at Manoa and then, when they go to develop a new parking lot at UH Hilo, they don't have a requirement because they're using this aggregation provision. I will say that I think the aggregation provision is fundamentally flawed from the standpoint that it is those larger organizations that can actually take advantage of it. and what we see already is that they're putting all of that charging infrastructure in Honolulu and they're leaving out the neighbor islands. So, I'm hoping over time that this the State,may reconsider making that aggregation provision, maybe County-wide rather than being Statewide just because it puts our neighbor islands at a pretty significant disadvantage. DANIELE: Thank you that's all that I have right now. AU: Thank you, Commissioner Daniele. Commissioner Balog do you have a question or a few questions? BALOG: I actually got a question pertaining to what percentage of vehicles we have are currently electric vehicles, and what that growth looks like and maybe that pertains to that whole aggregation thing as well. KIMBALL: Yeah, Noel, do you have that slide around? MORIN: I'm looking for it. KIMBALL: Okay, if you'll give us a second, I believe Noel has the slide with the current level of adoption and the rate we've seen and increased adoption over the last few years here. There has been a market uptick in the level of adoption. I'm sure you see it on the streets, and you see more of those vehicles around. Do you have another question while we wait for Noel? MORIN: I can respond. So, I have a data slide here it was from the last count from January 2022. So, Hawaii island we have 1,272, a thousand two-hundred seventy-two EVs as of earlier this year end of January. We have about 180 to 185,000 or so vehicles here so it's less than a percent. Statewide we're close to 19,000 electric cars and we have over a million cars in the State so it's less than 2% for the State. The growth what we're seeing is the last I looked it was like 30%year-over-year and so it's climbing, it's accelerating, and if I may share one of the slides that I have here, I can show you that trend. Hang on let me just do this really quick. So, this here, this is again from January, as a period ending January and it transit from January 2006 all the way to earlier this year. You can see the trajectory of growth. I don't have a track for Hawaii island, but we see something very similar. When I started with the EVs here, we had like I don't know less than about 30 or so back in 2011. So, I hope this addresses the question that you have. 20 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) BALOG: Yes, it does, thank you for that information. I guess my other thing is the bill seems —"very good presentation so far, seems very specific to passenger vehicles or personally owned vehicles, and I am wondering about how this will relate to you said there's going to be trucks. I'm assuming there will be commercial vehicle considerations and how that would be addressed. KIMBALL: Yeah, so the market right now there are not plug-in heavy-duty type equipment. There's nothing on the market available for that yet. That is in development. We also have electric vehicle bus or electric bus infrastructure happening. We have 10 electric buses coming in and the appropriate charging to go with them. So, there is a commitment at the County level, at least for mass transit to electrify their transportation. It remains to be seen what kind of charging infrastructure will be required for the heavier duty vehicles. We may see some hydrogen come into that particular area. The hydrogen is less efficient than the battery electric vehicle and as far as the passenger industry the technologies is just so much further ahead with battery electric than it is with hydrogen. That I don't see us switching but you may see some hydrogen come into the heavier duty vehicle market. Noel do you want to contribute at all to that question? MORIN: Yeah, if the question was around trucks? Was it around passenger trucks or heavy- duty trucks like freight trucks? BALOG: I'm going to side of both a little bit because I think they're going to cross over because I think we're also seeing that some of these vehicles will impact businesses and it's going to eventually get better. MORIN: Yeah, so the trucks are coming. The Ford F-150 electric. It's already being launched and there's a heavy demand for that. The Rivian is out and there will be other electric trucks as well, and the charging infrastructure for those trucks are going to be no different from what we're talking about here. So, there'll be very similar to whatever DC fast charger, Level 2 charger that's installed out there, so those will be compatible. For the heavier trucks so tractor trailers and those freight trucks those are coming as well. They are available, and they will require different charging infrastructure. So, whatever is installed, we're talking about this being major fleet like County, for example, or State. They're going to be looking into or that would be part of the package to be able to do that, that type of transportation you would also need the heavy-duty on charging infrastructure. But it would be a different class altogether compared to what we're talking about here. KIMBALL: And I should mention along those lines that there's also development in the agricultural industry for electric farm equipment and USDA is putting fund towards rural infrastructure, charging infrastructure for specifically for farm businesses. As another source of supplying the charging requirements for commercial vehicles. BALOG: Thank you. My only question was actually battery cost,because as Noel mentioned actually maintenance of these vehicles was lower because like you said you haven't replaced your brakes. So, I'm wondering what a battery cost would be because that to me would seem the only thing that might actually be costly. 21 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) MORIN: Yeah, the battery certainly would be one of the most costly, if not the most costly component of the electric car and depending on the vehicle and depending on the size of the battery. It could be substantial. They are rated to last; I mean the warranties are 8 to 10 years. There are electric cars out there with over 100,000 to 200,000 miles on the same battery. To give you a scope for example, the Nissan Leaf, for example, a new battery through the manufacturer is probably anywhere from $6,000.00 to $8,000.00 to get that thing swapped out. It's going to be more with the bigger EVs. So, there is an expectation that they will last a while, and if there is an issue with the batteries to get replaced under warranty and if they're out of warranty then clearly that could be a costly repair. But you think about what you would need to do to overhaul a gas vehicle replacing a transmission, replacing an engine, or something along those lines. I'm not going to say it's comparable, but you know it's going to be a major expense as well. KIMBALL: And I will add again back to federal infrastructure spending the American Jobs Act included 7 billion dollars going to the Department of Energy to look at battery recycling and like I said local US battery development. So, we can improve the recycling market and that should drive down costs of battery replacement. There was a recent study published out of MIT which indicates that the lithium and in EV batteries when it's recycled is actually as good if not better when put into a new battery. So, the possibilities for recycling in the EV battery market are quite high. BALOG: Thank you both I'm done with questions. AU: Thank you, Commissioner Balog for your questions. Commissioner Galimba, you have questions? GALIMBA: Yeah, so I just wanted to ask some more like the process question. So, I just want to understand, so this already has been passed by the County Council once. Is that correct and is now out for recommendation or— KIMBALL: No, the Council, the Council voted to send it to you guys. So, because this is a revision to the Zoning Code Chapter 25, it needs to go through the Planning Commissions and, so our vote was to refer it to the Commissions. That actually provides an opportunity to briefly discuss why we're putting it in Chapter 25, and the reason for that is the HRS gave us the ability to adopt an ordinance to enforce these rules that they had already established. By putting it into Chapter 25, the Zoning Code there's already enforcement, a whole enforcement mechanism, Notice of Violations through the Director, fines, and whatnot that's established. And so, we don't have to reinvent the wheel and create a whole other enforcement mechanism. We're just kind of piggybacking on the enforcement mechanism that already lives in the Zoning Code and that's why the decision was made to put it into this chapter. GALIMBA: So, follow up question that I had. So, this Commission or this department is the only department that's being asked for recommendations then that goes to the County Council. Is that correct? 22 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) KIMBALL: Actually, I should say so before I even introduced this, I did farm it out to all of the departments for their feedback and comments that's just kind of the way I operate working on legislation. But, in addition, as part of the background from the Department they sent it out for review and feedback from the departments as well, and you can see, in your notation there wasn't anything provided. KERN: And, if I may, Mr. Chair. AU: Yes, go ahead. KERN: Yes, so this process is very similar to an applicant submitting an application, except it comes from the County Councilmember and it started up at the County Council they get that referral. Once it hits the Planning Department, we process it as similar to an application. Send it out for agency comments, reviews, and, as you saw our staff did a whole background report and recommendations. Worked with Councilmember Heather Kimball on this, to come up with the recommendation and some of the little fixes or tweaks or suggestions that we have ultimately to then come to you folks. Both Commissions will look at it, send forward recommendations and ultimately arrived back at the County Council for them to deliberate and potentially pass a bill. So, it's really gone through that really complete comprehensive process, thank you. GALIMBA: Thanks. So, some of our recommendations are that the language is unclear or vague. So, are we making the clarifications at this level, or are we just sending it up to the County Council and asking them to make those changes? KERN: So very similar to say a rezoning request, at Commission it can be deliberated, talked about, amended, voted up favorable or unfavorable or adjusted, it could be deferred to have more time to discuss it and think about it. So, this really does give the Commissions the opportunity to really opine on it, how you folks feel. KAY: And if I may jump in Mr. Chair. So, what we did is we looked at the draft bill to see how it fit within our Zoning Code and our standard practices here in the Planning Department and then made some suggestions for improvements. Councilmember Kimball and I had some great conversations, so we could express to her some of our concerns, some of the issues and some of the clarifications that we were looking at. And so, the outcome of that was her memo that she submitted that you have, and so the reason in the presentation that I went over our 12 recommendations and several of those that were kind of fixed or addressed by Councilmember Kimball's proposed changes. Where that if you are to adopt the Director's recommendations, they would be as amended by Councilmember Kimball's proposed changes as well. So, as we go through again, you have the opportunity to adopt all of those changes wholesale and make that recommendation up to the County Council. You can adopt some of them and not adopt others of them, or you can propose your own amendments to the bill. All of that, again, then gets packaged up both the Windward Commission and the Leeward Commission and these are just additional pieces of information that go up to the County Council for their consideration of the overall consideration of the bill. 23 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) GALIMBA: So, with some of the issues that were brought up here say, for instance, like what is a reasonable rate. It's sort of like we say the Planning Director's recommendations that we should define reasonable. So, do we need to define reasonable before we sent it up? KAY: Right. GALIMBA: Like 60 cents, or whatever or 20 cents? KAY: Right, so this is a situation where in our background and recommendation report are the Planning Director's recommendation was initially, please further defined what reasonable means. In response, Councilmember Kimball said, well let's take away that reasonable qualifier and so the Director agrees with that change and so that's now his kind of new recommendation. And, if you agree with that as a Commission, you want to send that up deleting that kind of reasonable language qualifier than that would go up as kind of your recommendation. Then the discussion we had here about letting kind of the markets set that rate would be what they would discuss up at Council. GALIMBA: Okay, so we can send something up and they can further deal with that at Council, right? KAY: Yeah, much like a rezone this is just a recommendation that's coming out of this body, the Commissions. Ultimately the final decision maker on this bill is going to be the County Council, as it is a code change. GALIMBA: Okay. KIMBALL: And if I may Chair. The recommendations that memo that was sent to you folks from my office is an official document and an official part of the records so as you deliberate you are able to reference it as, we approve the proposed amendment in such and such a memo. So, it is an official document that way and it will go through. So, it comes back to the Planning Committee at the Council, so it will go through the Committee hearing we can continue to massage it based on any recommendations you have today, and then, if it passes through the Committee, then it will go through the two hearings that Council as well. AU: Okay, thank you Commissioner Galimba for that question of process. It clarifies everything. Do you have any more questions, Commissioner Galimba before I ask my question? GALIMBA: I'm good,please ask your question Chair Au. AU: Okay, so I have one question for Noel and Heather. I don't know if he can answer this question or I'm sure you can, but I don't even know how much detail. What are the conversations, or what is the engagement with HELCO through this whole process? We're talking about costs, there's questions about cost, questions about you know whether this is good for the environment. What kind of engagements have you had up to this point and I'm sure they're pretty extensive and if you can or want to share with HELCO? 24 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) KIMBALL: Yeah, they have been pretty extensive in terms of us understanding what their capacities are with their ability is to help support the commercial side with either subsidies or rebates, or you know the Make Ready Program as mentioned. I will also just say that, as part of farming this out, I did share it with all what we have five Chambers of Commerce on Hawaii Island. I only received feedback from the Japanese Chambers of Commerce which supported the bill from the standpoint of where it enforced the HRS. They felt like the expansion beyond the HRS, which is that stepped up increased chargers per unit. They did not support that. So, they support the basic underlying bill, but they did not accept our expansion. Just to from a legal standpoint, the Council does have the legal authority to be more preemptive than HRS, so we are legally allowed to do that with new infrastructure, and new laws. The aggregation provision that's a privilege provided by the HRS, and the Council does not have authority to take away a privilege, and that is why we had to eliminate that one statement from the bill and add that exemption. So, it went a little bit beyond what you were asking, but just to directly answer the questions that we have had quite a bit of involvement and Jen Zelko would have been here today, but she had a commitment at another meeting. AU: Okay, well, thank you for that. Moving forward I think that would be a huge question on where HELCO stands on this. So, Commissioners, if you guys have no further questions. I'm sure we all have things that we want to discuss so before we get into the discussion if there are no more questions. I'm ready to entertain a motion. Well, first let's go well actually I'm going to make the motion. I would like to make a motion, but I want to ask all my fellow Commissioners do you have any more questions for staff or for Councilwoman Kimball or Noel? Go ahead Commissioner Daniele. DANIELE: Yeah, one quick question. This is a little bit more technical or when you get up to let's say 8 stalls or 8 plugs. Is it one charging station per stall or can there be one charging station servicing multiple stalls? KIMBALL: So, actually the way it's been defined in the revisions, so this was not in the original bill it was an area where there was a lack of clarity. It is one stall per plug. Now a charger may have multiple plugs. So, you may have a scenario where we have a charger that has 4 plugs and those have got to be able to go out to 4 different stalls. So, it's not based on the charger but it's actually on the plugs and that was a revision we made for clarity. I've been working on this legislation for probably about nine months it's like birthing a child. And when you're so close to something everything's crystal clear to you, but then you have other people read it, then all of a sudden, it's like oh they don't understand that in the same way that I do. So that was one of the revisions suggested by the Planning Department that we were happy to accommodate to clarify. DANIELE: Thank you. AU: Okay, Commissioner Lin, you have a question? LIN: Yeah, I have one question for the Planning Department. So, how many parking lots would be affected if we implement this bill? How does that improve the disparity of charging stations across the island? 25 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) i i r 4 KAY: So, it's somewhat difficult to say I don't think, I know we as a department haven't gone out and done an analysis of parking facilities island wide. So, that's why the bill itself has provisions for new parking areas, existing parking areas that need to come in for Plan Approval, and then existing parking areas that don't have a requirement to come in for Plan Approval. So those parking areas at like Prince Kuhio Plaza or Target or Walmart those areas largely already have those chargers and that infrastructure in place. I'm assuming largely because of the change in law back in 2012. And so just to give you an example of a new facility or an existing facility that needs to come in for Plan Approval. Our Zoning Code says for commercial uses it's one parking stall for every 300 square feet of gross floor area within the structure. So, you're looking at that 50-parking stall trigger would be at about 15,000 square feet of gross floor area within the structure. So that kind of give you an idea of size wise. So, yeah, it's a roundabout way of saying we don't know exactly how it's going to impact, other than to say that this at least provide some guidance on what to do in those situations where it's new existing with the possibility or the kind of the catch of the trigger at Plan Approval and then for those that don't need to come in for Plan Approval. So, for instance Prince Kuhio Plaza. They've already gotten Plan Approval when they built the original mall, the existing mall. So, all that parking that was required was based on the PA that was required then. The only other time they'd have to come back in for Plan Approval would be if they were building additional structures. So, when they built the additional kind of structures, where Verizon is and Genki Sushi is and things like that, they had to come back in for Plan Approval, which then we would assess them for other stalls. In other situations where the structure is already built there's going to be no more expansion that's those situations where if there's an existing facility, but no requirement to come back in for Plan Approval that either that a lot owner would have to proactively come into compliance with the HRS or it would be done on a complaint basis. So, in terms of enforcement of the provisions of the bill that's kind of the hooks where we would apply it. LIN: Yeah, thank you Christian because my concern would be like if we implement this and there's not that many parking lots that have that requirement, you might not actually increase the availability of charging stations on the island. Like if you're down in Pahala how many places in Pahala have more than 50 to 100 parking stalls or if you're up in Kohala, Kapa`au or whatever that location is. You're not going to have that many parking stalls up there either. So, how do we think about that, when we're looking at this bill because we couldn't be looking at existing parking lots like KTA or Target or Safeway. But in smaller areas where you only have like 10 parking stalls,but you don't have any charges in that location, what do you do then. KAY: I mean so — I'm sorry go ahead. KIMBALL: I was going to say, thank you Dennis your kind of just nailed it on the head as one of the reasons why we wanted to reduce that number is because we don't have the same volume of very large parking lot as they may be doing in Honolulu. I will also say that I did reach out to Parks and Recreation before I introduced this bill to get a sense of how many areas that they 26 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) would have and at the 50. It's about 20 that would have this requirement. Once you go up to 100 if you decide to revert it back to that it cuts that by about half a little more than half. KERN: If I may add to that. I feel like this is one step of many that are going to occur over the years. Right now, we're at an interesting point where we know that we need to move in this direction. We haven't quite hit that that delta where we have so many of EVs, so this is a movement, and I think to get people moving in that direction. With the understanding, starting with the bigger parking lots and, as time moves on more EVs come in we'll probably see this refined down. We'll probably see this number increase over the decades to come, even over the decade. So, I feel if we were to go smaller right now might be a little bit much and too much, and this is a good step in that right direction. It also doesn't take away the ability for somebody to put them in on their own and be able to utilize that and offer that as a service to get folks to come in, as I said, actually there's value there. So, as I said, we support this, and I think we'll probably be having another conversation and in a couple few years depending on how the EV adoption goes and things change here in the world. Thank you. KIMBALL: Yeah, Punalu`u Bakery actually has one. Just to draw people in because they know that's one of the few spots that people can stop and charge down there. AU: Thank you Commissioners for all your questions. Thank you, Heather, Noel, staff for all that information or if there's no more questions, I'm ready to make a motion myself. So, if there's no more questions. No! Commissioners? Okay, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on Draft Bill 120 with the Planning Director's recommended revisions, which shall be adopted. Could I get a second? GALIMBA: Yes, I'll second that. AU: Thank you Commissioner Galimba. So, let's go right into discussion. I'd like to go first. I think this is a good framework. This is a good start of what is coming. We all know it's coming it's here already. Noel has all the information, like Director Kern said, there's going to be many, many, many more conversations, a lot of the questions that we had this morning will lead into discussions of everything that's going to be addressed. Cost is always the biggest issue. I think at this point cost is moot because we don't know what's going to happen. The Federal Government might make laws, and we cannot control what the Federal Government does. Which will reduce costs for developers or who knows the way the rates are going right now, and the way things are going it's going to be super expensive. So, cost at this point, I think is moot. I think what the intention of this bill is to just move forward in the correct direction and the issue of cost will be addressed through those next many phases. It's good to think about it, but we really don't know what's going to happen. We really don't know what's going to happen with cost and but that's just my comments for discussions. I would love to hear from other Commissioners. 27 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) i LIN: Chair, I think you're correct in the terms of costs because material prices, fluctuate daily, but I am concerned in regard to availability is one. Two would be the cost that each charging g Y g� g station would charge. How do we determine that or if we leave it to the market, what is the market going to charge and then third would be accessibility? If it's on private, like I said, if it's on private parking lots how do people get access to it. But I do believe this is a great effort. Like I said I'm getting a plug-in hybrid, so I'm involved in this discussion as well. But that's some of my concerns and I think those will reflect with the public as all. KAY: If I can address the accessibility issue. The places of public accommodation are for both public and private properties. So, that is something that there's a proposed change to kind of limit access to normal business hours at this point, but the place of public accommodation is very broadly defined so. AU: Fellow Commissioners would you like to share any comments that you guys may have? KAY: Also, I'm sorry to interrupt Mr. Chair. I'm happy to go through, if you have specific recommendations that you want to look at, the Director's proposed language and then his recommendation to adopt some of the proposed language from Councilmember Kimball. Providing that as an opportunity, if you have specific questions about anything I can share the screen again. GALIMBA: It seems to me that there was sorry I just went. But it seems they largely we're in agreement if there's a place where they were not in agreement, could you highlight that. KAY: I think, for the most part the conversation was good, and all of the situations where the Councilmember Kimball's proposed changes addressed, one of our conditions, the Director has largely agreed with them and propose and recommends adopting them with those changes. In some cases, there's other caveats like please change plan review to Plan Approval or something like that. And then the other situation, I think there were 5 or maybe 4 that weren't addressed in in the memo that would still like to send up with just kind of have the Commission send up as part of their recommendation. Then there were a few more in here that were just cleaning up the bill, like putting the requirement that if they're using the aggregation privilege to have that be stated as part of their Plan Approval when they come in for Plan Approval those types of things. So, yeah, I don't think, and Heather please correct me if I'm wrong that there were too many situations where we were not in agreement to changes and I think Councilmember Kimball done a great job of being open minded and trying to kind of tweak this in such a way, where it's palatable and acceptable. KIMBALL: Yeah, I think all of the recommendations and then the proposed amendments that I put forth the Director agreed with. With the exception that I get confused whether Christian told me I needed to change everything to plan review or everything to Plan Approval and I did it backwards. So, I just need to go back the other way and even now what am I supposed to do Christian make it right. KAY: Plan Approval, yes. 28 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) KIMBALL: Okay, got it Plan Approval. So other than that syntax everything was agreed to. GALIMBA: So, in order for the memo to go up and be official do we need to add that on to our recommendation? KIMBALL: No, it's already been reported with the Clerk as an official document. GALIMBA: All right. KAY: And, as part of our action letter, depending on how this vote goes it's going up as a favorable recommendation as recommended by the Director and the reason I put in the situation's here where the changes that Councilmember Kimball made were amenable to the Director is so that you can send that all up as a package and our act action letter will correctly reflect that. AU: Commissioner Daniele, did you have a question or discussion or comment? DANIELE: Yeah, I just a quick comment. I think the Big Island, Hawaii County is very well suited for this having the most renewable energy resources out of any other island in the State. I think we're poised very well. I know more renewable energy is coming online and I think this would be a great benefit overall. That's all I wanted to say. AU: Okay, Commissioners if there's no further discussion. Christian, we can take the vote. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair AU? AU: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Galimba? GALIMBA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Balog? BALOG: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Daniele? DANIELE: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Lin? LIN: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair motion carries five (5) nothing (0). 29 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) AU: Thank you, everybody for your time. Thank you, Noel, thank you Heather, thank you for being here and explaining to us in detail and we look forward to seeing what's going to happen with this. KIMBALL: I just want to thank you all for all your time. I know this was a lot of information all at once and I just really appreciate your service to the County and your contributions to this particular conversation, so thank you. MORIN: Mahalo. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 30 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT) Mitchell D.Roth U°°°� 'e Michael Vitousek,Chair Mayor Barbara DeFranco,Vice Chair Michael Dela Cruz Lee E.Lord Clement"0"Kanuha III Managing Director r�rE N* of N Zaheva Knowles I Mahina Paishon-Duarte County Of Ha.Wa.l'l Faith"Faye"Yates C LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 3 I I S i June 21, 2022 I 3 3 Maile David, Council Chair I and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair David and Council Members: 3 SUBJECT: County Council Initiated (Bill No. 120) (PL-CCI-2022-000001) Amendment to 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 Chauin2 Stations for Electric Vehicles The Leeward Planning Commission ("Commission"), at its duly held public hearing on May 19, J 2022, considered County Council Initiated Bill No. 120, 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. 3 i The Planning Director forwarded his favorable recommendation to the Commission for Bill 120 with twelve (12) suggested revisions to clarify and strengthen the bill. After the Director's recommendation was complete, the Planning Department received a set of suggested 3 amendments to the bill from Councilmember Kimball's office. At the May 19, 2022, Commission hearing, Planning Department staff presented the Director's recommendation, which included analysis and adoption of several of Councilmember Kimball's suggested amendments, as part of his official recommendation as follows. The Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council on Bill 120 with the following proposed changes: I 1. Under Section 1. Purpose., correct the reference to the Hawaii Revised Statute (HRS) section from HRS 291-71 to HRS 291-73. Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer i Maile David, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii June 21, 2022 Page 2 2. Under Section 24-245.6. Penalties., correct the reference to the HRS section from HRS 291-71 to HRS 291-72 and delete the close quote at the end of the word "Statutes" at the end of the sentence. 3. Under Section 3. Definitions., consider changing or expanding the definition of the term "Networked Charger" which did not exist anywhere else in the bill to match other similar references in the body of the bill (e.g., "Networked" and "Network-capable"). Councilmember Kimball proposed to shorten the term to `Networked' throughout the bill. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 4. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (a), clarify the size/type of parking spaces required to be considered a dedicated electric vehicle (EV) parking space under the requirements of this section. Councilmember Kimball proposed to add the qualifier "standard size" to clarify the size/type of required parking space. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 5. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (a), clarify that the number of EV designated parking stalls shall correspond to the maximum number of plugs required under the development schedule articulated in sub-sections 1-4. Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments added language indicating that the required number EV stalls correspond to the required number of plugs. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 6. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (b), change the term "plan review" to "Plan Approval," clarify the reference to an additional two (2) years to comply with subsection (a), and add the reference to a "standard size" parking space referenced in number 4 above. { Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments clarified the refence to "...an additional two years" by including a similar EV Charger installation schedule to account for the additional two-year timeline for existing places of public accommodation that submit for Plan Approval. 7. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (c), identify a compliance trigger for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval requirements (e.g., come into compliance within a certain amount of time from the code change, based on public complaints, etc.) Maile David, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii June 21, 2022 Page 3 & Clarify the apparent conflict between the number of parking stalls required for each EV charger vs. each plug on an EV charger. The Director recommended that Section 25-4- 54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (e) be amended to match Councilmember Kimball'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. 9. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (f), consider articulating requirements for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible EV parking spaces. Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments added the requirement that at least one (1) of the designated EV parking spaces shall be an ADA accessible EV stall. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 10. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (h), define what is considered a "reasonable" fee due to the subjectivity of reasonableness. Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments deleted the "reasonable" qualifier. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 11. Under Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (a), include a ratio, formula, or equivalency table to compare the charging capacity between alternating current Level 2 charger and a direct current fast charger. Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments added a ratio allowing one (1) DC fast charger to replace six (6) Level 2 plugs, as long as there is at least one (1) other Level 2 plug to accommodate EVs that cannot charge on a DC fast charger. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 12. Under Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (b), consider adding an exemption for locations that do not have established internet access. In addition to the Planning Director's recommendations (as amended) outlined above, Councilmember Kimball recommended the following additional amendments to the bill: 1. Delete Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (g), which states: "Every parking facility that meets the size criteria must comply with the requirements of this section regardless of ownership, except as otherwise provided in section 25-4-54.2." The deletion was recommended because the "regardless of ownership" qualifier contradicts the aggregation privilege allowed in HRS 291-71. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. Maile David, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii June 21, 2022 Page 4 2. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems, add the following language with the appropriate subsection item lettering: "(x) 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." The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 3. Amend Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (b)(1) to read as follows: "(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." The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 4. Under Section 3. Definitions., amend the definition for "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 it is already covered by Chapter 5D of the Hawaii County Code. The Director agreed with this proposed change and recommended that the Commission adopt the change. 5. Under Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., add subsection (c) as follows: "(c) 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 application for plan review." The Director agreed with the proposed addition and recommended that the Commission adopt the change with a suggested change to the term "plan review" to "Plan Approval." Finally, in addition to the preceding, the Commission requested the following revisions to Bill 120: 1. Amend Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (a), with the following language (additional language underlined and deleted language bracketed and struck through): "All newly constructed places of public accommodation shall have the following electric vehicle chargers, installed in dedicated parking spaces, and actively maintained in working order [at a'�1times], for each increment of 50 parking stalls." 2. Under Section 3.Definitions., considered adding a definition for"Plug." Maile David, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawai'i June 21, 2022 Page 5 3. Consider adding language in the bill to ensure that the plug types on EV chargers will be compatible with multiple EVs. 4. Under Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems., subsection (b)(1), consider adding language requiring applicants seeking an exemption from the requirements to install EV chargers and parking spaces, to provide evidence of review from the electrical utility determining whether adequate electrical service exists to the property. We are enclosing copies of the Planning Department Background and Recommendation report, Councilmember Heather Kimball's memorandum dated April 29, 2022, regarding suggested amendments, the Planning Department's PowerPoint presentation, and draft transcripts of the public hearing. Sincerely, Nfil"chaeI Vito Sek(Ain 21,2022 15:49 HST) Michael Vitousek, Chairman Leeward Planning Commission \\COHO 1\planning\public\wp60\PC\PCC2022-2\LCouncilBill 120PL-CCI-2022-000001]pc Enclosures: • Planning Department Background and Recommendation Report • Memorandum dated April 29, 2022, from Councilmember Heather L. Kimball to Planning Director Zendo Kern and Members of the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions • PowerPoint Presentation • Draft Testimony Transcript • Draft Hearing Transcript . . � . .. �. . � . p ,. . � . � � 2© - «�««\���y �}d��»��:��<���y»����§ � - , ., : w. . >«;�° : �»2»� < ..���$«±���+ :« � .w: . yy.��< . © . ©?�y : :<�� \ . . w � � y =, � \\\��/ .�\y ��/���\ � � � ) � � } � ) r r } � � \ � � } � � � �. } � \ ► ® � * } i to ! r m z 07u m > r. > rn = -n m D C m 71 < c - �- A -v U' Z > o m o n'o> y m � rn z Q Cn Z iQ > 0 < z � m --i m 0 0 0 0 0 -n Z 'v __ C� _Zn r rn _. i rn -v cn m m Z = -, go 0 m -o n K ; 0 < m rn n 0 m i > > 0 Nooo `O z = w n C ` rn -n > --i to N rn m �° z '- n 0 c� z C7 to G) ?> O z > Z + n z n > n 60 z , n n z n o m rn Z cn m Z > 0 m Z z _ D = 0 '� n N rn - -� �,. z m 0 m O n z z -n D - s 0 D < z Z m z n z rn p C )p z co 0 -n -a -v > 0 > 0 m > m z < n r n 0 n z 0 mmak -0 < ----i 0 F/i n z m A 0> 0 M �4 Z r1i CO -zn m o m --A m -a 0 (Z) 0 0 > 70 z m 0 > Z z n rn m m Z 6) ;v > n m n m 0 m Z Z m 0 m > n I > I m 0 n Z > M n (A NQ Fn M m < m 70 c^ n z M > n0 n n M 0 0 0 0 0 m z m > Z n n ---q z M -T, mC/) < -0 0 70 rn > --q m > o n m0 QO n o m rn -%o-r m > C) n m :�6 n C/) 0 M O > 0 0 Z >m > > m 0 , ;u ---i > K n z ---, I > r- zon oo m > Z0 Z Z ---I m m (/) D � Z � D N C > m c/) Or ---- 0 z > z < 44 z C: 0 r- ---q M> C/) 0 > > ---4 0 C/) — m --u n 0 Z m > 0 0 0 > m I > a r- 70 -7 0 z - C7 z 0 m m > m 'M m C/) < z Z z z G C/)M > m > m ---q n 0 -0 < r- m Z M 't, m 0 1 m > 7 Z -In 70 z m 0 .a 0 0 > > o m > z r- ;u > n m -j 71 ' ---j C) 0 > 0 c, n m = G� G)o m ;u Z M --I M Z > C/) > r- C/) 0 ;u --a 0 > -i 70 > > d n > ;u m 0 NJ z 0 0 0 n n i= n o 1-0 m m m C: 70 m z ;;a C/) C/) z m C/) m 00 C/)Fn > I 0 Z- m m 70 loommism OD R OD r) - O rn-� rn n `n n -n n C r r- rn _ O 0 � Z n D O D = 0 �+ '- n -►' 17 _ _ _ rn 1p � z '" 0 C7 ® 0 0 0 = 70 Q z O oma p Q p p Q m 7 T O r C ---i � o0z Drnorn � Oa Z z x Q `' D -Q ,rn - M '— � O � �' G� rnO —i ,-�c, z0 Zrn0 C �' -n 0 S D -° C? 0 � m -� 0rn0rnO o � � � � � O O rn rn m - 1 p ri c z -n M -,-, %v Z c„ 0 n D m O O rn p rn 0 Z rn m �c) O N y 0 ZZ O O Q Z ' D m c„ -n '� C/-) n ;oG� Z = cr n > D 0 rn D D O �'rri O n rn rn � -a Z _n Z ren D a m cle) `" ,rn 'rn rn m Z D O m ;C7 %t7 z c� 0 rn O D D m (Zj O m -i rn D nom- F C/)rrl rn C O ern.. C/) ~ O rn O n N rn n cn C/) z, �, z � � z m GC) m C p � �} rn p °' rn � �O w m � Z Gy rn D m O c., r (7 '-'' 1 �' D I m D Z 0 rn z rn Z 0 m r- o rn 0 O rn n r- A D -� T (A -n ZrTl C= 0 m 0 m cn ,- z c„ n r mommommi 7v r— -� O z rn � r rn M c) n m � Z rn z N LA C? m z Q � 5 < c„ C7 -, M —{ cn 0 v? rn — m M D S, o C > D y p Z y --� _,-, n �-} Z � _ - to n � Q n m m = < 0 y o m Z z t? D ,.-,-, _ . . n Q < O z s > m --< z D O z z n D _ C/) _ z � D > � -< y zoo D � m o r z 0 o �N o z Coll) --q---� 3: C/) — z -n n m -0 Z C N Q A >70 m m rn m � m > C/) n 7 i�ia > Q z rn D -i z _p �_ r m Z F > D -o C/, _ C7 rn > z > o < y � 5 m 0 © -< � u 2 -- n I O zz < O m Z SEMEN== )1 i I • M r --11 0 In m Q Z 0 Z C"} O rn 0 � � rn � � D z D :v > > 77 3" O O O O vs Z Z m Z = D r --i m N N N N > Z m > Z 7c % 00 0 0 n n n < Z n z m o cn w > m -v Z rn G rn > rn rn m> D > 0 Z --0 0 O7� 0 Z rn mU z z z z 0 0 0 (MD z m o In Z mN -n z rn { O O O Oa Z > -n n o Q Q m ca) 0 rn N rn 7 - In m z In > A D D D Z Q o w Z m 0 In n n n = cn > O m 2 (DD rn > Jj rn 0 m -n ;19 CD CD CD CD (� (� 70 C Z N N N N r • M 7C 00 o M t/! io n 0 In o rn r D n y e N V) V) L/) Ln 0tA D m rn m y z z rn Z -nN rn y, ,a m M 0 0 0to D D D R R cn Dn-i { Z C - - - m m N n p - rn to Q Q, Q Q rn < rn z rn 0 p O o z z t„ J p x4 C rn z O � � �► o z fl z � z .� r Q -n -T1 Q m 00 0 -� D 0 -v 70 0 O m � 0 rn � � 0 � x 0 C? Qz Ali 70 0 ;ur r ra rn rn rn rn vj C= -z z _, D m Orn 70 70 m Z m � _ � o 0 0 0 C/) M z m > M > p o 0 0 0 = ZC/) mv> V`' cNn D rn Z .j 0 z D rn O Z 70 r-- D m 0 > (D (D tU m � -nz rn M � 0 _ C cw O O O O � r -� C7v - r- z 7� 77 77 7 7 fi D rn n N tD CD (D rn n 0 Z > Q Q _ m n rn z > m D > Y D Z 0 m � m m rn �' -�v G _ n -v D > n O m`- m m m_ � m rn z n N N N N Q r > -n n 3 n 3 r ' Q rn Q Q Q Q r ;7 ;Ur- CQ t4 CQ CQ n -� tv G ;Ur- n z tp CD CD {D rn rn } rn r 3: Z rn ._. ._ cn 0 D0 r- 0 z 0 0 z z n m D n O 07r O C7 (7 � z Q 4 Q Q rnm N rn m rn z cn = n a 0 0 -n Z z -n n o --i --►, z d _ C) (-- z O m0 rn -i C) C/) m 70 `< O I D> rn O rn trr �7 7Cl m O (� p cn rn > D N �' rn Z Z m rn 71� D Q _ _ a rn X 7 m rn z z rn rn 70n 76 D D O rn D n < Z p n 0 y z rn rn r- Z C rn r rn -0 MC7 m > > m -u 0 > r- i �6 M <0 M5 m FA m 0 > 0 -n 0 > z n < o m ---i m > 0 ---4 m r-I -n m z 0 ;;a 0 0 M r- m (/) m r- > ;;u m 0 C7 C: m > < r- 0 m M > o > , r- m > m m rnm n > o 0 rn n c= C= m z m > (A 0 m > > > C= m n ---j (D rr:: 0 z 70 0 n n 3: m M M :m t") > - c > m C/) m m z z r- z 0 0 01 n ---i (/) ---I -n m z r M M n Z <m 0 z> m > 0 -0 ou > n --n n ----i > M C7 < Pk. m ----j m 0 C/) m m . " 0 m m n o n 0 m m > n o > 0 r- > -n ----i Z m r- n z n > m 0 m — o = m t, o n ---, = Z 0 n = m ---j 0 ►> Un m n = > > > > R r < m 0 m m > M (= 'M E (7) n < 0 w m 7qm > m > M m m n Hz 0 n c/) o 0 z M ---I = Z > --4 m m M 0 -n 70 m > m3: n z C > M n z > > C") 44X 0 ---4 Z -7 m > m m n > mm <0 z o 70 7 > 0 x n n C) o FD I (/) m ----1 0 m m y0 O n -:�: 0 0 > z m > --a i z z C/1) m -7 n ---q 1 3: n m 0 m m ---q 0 0 < zcri -7 -U Z -n p 0 ---, r- 0 -n m m z 76 -i�- > r- C/) > M ---, In cr, o nz 0 o oo 0 z > z > n z z z M < 0 m M Z MEMO 2 0 > r 0 < = D � '0 � 0 rn :�EQy � z rn zrn � z � �i 0 rn Z (� Z - C� c� nC) rn o z 0 n n K o w 0 n 3: 7u O Q � rn rnnn -, o o 70 0 z rn rn � = 0oz Q O = � Do Z . Z D J -� to .Q O . • tp 3 10 R141 0 C 3 Q I n CD O CD C Z3 � 3 CD cn cn cn -+ tU O �} � O o o -a- o I O (D n Q (D 3 Q- ° `° 3 `D s 0 ° O c7 po {J 3 n Ln Cc c fl 1 CQ :� n Q -0 CD o Ln 3 3 �' Q Lo �. U ° �- o 3 L � 0 rn (DQ `° Lm 0 � Q n QuoZr ' =Lo 3 t �- �, Mo n S' 3 C=UL=L Ln 3, CA � QQ0Q -� Q `< Q 0- 0- Q 3 Q. . o m Z -- C(D ' -s Q n (J -�- -�- Q a C) � �D Q -I U) Q p - (Dc �D 7 �D( D :73- O -I --I C- -Ti 0 (D ;a n 0 -0 JQ :3 ID . 0- n C) 0 (D (D(D 0 E3 6 m (D cn 3 3 m o 0 (D n (D 3 0 n C :3�D t 0 a (D - 0 (D o n (D (0 0 (D Q o Ln (D n Ln a n 0 n n (D 70 m (D fD 0 0 n (D c: Z) o -0 o o n Q (D --I. co b 0- Q - (D Ll 0- 0 0 C: 3 0 Ln (D (D N (D 0 (D 4- Q 70 n E3 , a C: ::3 (D < n 77 . iQ. o 0 Z3- 3 70 V) (D m 3 Ln 0 (D C) o -0 --N (D n 0 n 0 Z;� 0 0 -Q 0 Q n C :3c: Ln QL :3 70 Q. - 3Q Ln Ln cr -0 9 C) m C: 0 cn (D cr -N •�, CD -+- O a3 cn tD -+- rn CD Q : C. (D Q Q to Q O � Q � =� 0 CD Q. C n O 2 1 oQ 3• a . �r 1 c ow -�� � � (DLo 14 3 30 3 ---E- .Q CD. -0 �D Q Q �. � O • Q x CD Ln (D -�. -� -- cD rn n �- Q _, O -+- CD to Z/-3- tQ Q (Q QQ. �' Ln Cp Ccn O 7C3 � C: t�- Q Q ' (D fD z' ' —` Q n o CQ tD n- (D O Q- -,� to n > n (D (D 0 n n --*, 0 --+- (D C) 3 -0 D- o (� -4-1 0 as _Q 0 (D 70 (D ,o c/.) (D 0 zr -11 C C)- Ln < 3 Z3 Z3 CL (D n Z/.I- (D :3 -1"1% 0- n > < 0- C) 0 fB . < M —. (D 3 !a :0 C� . 0 0 0 l< o PO C: Ln Q C: :3- (D t, n C)0 0--I m m n m (D a Q (Q `" Ln (D o 0 3- c) (D 0 0 Q CD 3 3 7o (D C) (D 0 n 0- 3 0- -0 0 FD C) --I (D ::i- o (D C: 3 (a < 0 0 0 (D Ln f- Z3- :37 --+- -. -. I,< 0 CD CD - 0 n n :D --- Q - Ln Z3- 0 oho CL I { o CD• o :D7 . X. n- c c" Q oo = - Ln (D - ° c) 7() m Q o F Win - 3 3 LO n Z3 D o ncr "S o3 � 3 3 - . (D o n c, tD Ln �- y- o 3 a 3 o� p �. :3 Q So Q mV � ' i C 3 3 �J C 0 , cr a CL 70Q- fD ® (DD -0 � � �ANW•n -1 n (D 9 < =: `' p' O Q co 3' Q rn CT (D (D ' ' CD 3D (D "'`i CA L -� Q .., Z3 CD -� �- O p CD C) CQ CD O Cp 7o Q C pikCr -zD 3 o C - Q. ..... cD c (D Co Q � o � < r D 3 0 o . - o Q n- cD Cn (D CL o 0 Q _ ® 0 • CA a Z3 {.Q —t® m ,e- (DE3 PD 0 Lf) CD .Q m -s �- cp Cp (D 0Ln ('3 o i �D cn Cr C --f- Ln 3 — CD Q ' Ln { CU Q 3 rrI 7-R) Lo :D ::;, 0. _ _ _ _ cr (D C O 0 (D CQ O ..,, O "' Ln Ln 0 Ln --+- 3 ""'. '' --t- - -r 3 tD cr %"jC�lD Q (D (D 0 C1} --+- n n Q t1} Q Q � -5 cn o = m 'S 6" Q Ln Ln Q Cn —�• � Ln tQ Q Q- M (D 'o} ' 0 (D y © m CL C) -- o a MONA m Q . m cr -0 O CSD L Q Q 0LOU Q Q 6n Q Q 3 (D OLn —h Cp Q O 7 n Q O L �` CT c' Q- c(D `G . Q Ca iL7 p O C cU 3 (D CD 3 o c cQ n 3 CY� Sj n i t) fl .CoC,) n (D0 `° �, ' cn CCQ Q , (3 -+ cn Q00-% QQcDo Z3 0 -0 ;-® 3 E33 (D0 (Dcr Q (D 3 - _ 0 nO -4- (/) , a � D- Q X0opo cQc Q (0n 3 -.. �. � Q . c zr n co n C7 �..� Q (DD - - 0 n p (D n � Q -+. � � n _ Q cD e rn e O � C n O ® ®• CL C 3 tQ 3 p D 003 Ln. < -z Q Ln (} Q C CD 0 .Q Q CD -44 Cp Ln a �. n CT3 t„• O � �: r- -�: � CD CD � d �` Q � CD C C�D Cr Q n — c �. —h �} y- (D CD O CD 0 �' <� -�+ nn > CL 0 mto Q s cD - m Q n _ ® LO O cn p fD d O -• cntJ7CL -Q O n O - O Q '-•, 0 Q C � tp = . 3 :� o • - CL :3. 000Q . Q Ln cn c„ Ln C Q 0. rn - - ° Qnno . Q � ( = < cn CD �- cn v, S 1 f �✓J t QQ n C x - I m0 1 m 0• I o Q 9 c" CD 3 t� OP- 0 -h ,= (D C) O CD � ter o z3 � cr n CL o O CD O {D --° -o Q Q a 0 Z)C -�- n 3 m cy LO O N -y- v 0• n CL w O CL -z �.. CD CD (D O CD , . ZZ Q- CL 3 t3 3 ; CL n . . c —. _ ca 3 m o Q m y �3 CL -* Q % 'u CA _. t/) Lovw -fi CD n _ p - Q n CD tD -►- Q O DO Q Q O . n- Q n tD n -+ o -+ Q -+ CL CD 3 Cf? 0 0 � Q � Qtt3 S2 3 C� _�, o n. 3 � a' --7 0 c a - m o -� Qc7C) QL t (D n ..n� CD -��- o -�- Cl n Q o 0 3 -• -�- D 3 . o CD Q Q Q CD c 0 n o o < a =�• n CTO n n . C rnnin� o o�, 3 o � V -1 cr Q.. C: Q- v, m D C Q p 0 (D (D p O (D O 0• cn cam, Q (D Q a Q -1 � " --+- C: a ( � :7- (D 'h #A C) (D � - Ln - cDrn � = 0. ' 0 (D �? ( =. o n . Qa C) (D Z". �. c � = c� (D (° . (Doa : `D - -•° ,- c� �rn . o Ln � 00 0 . FD -� C)- Q c 3 n Q 0 p `"zr Q Z p � 3 � ca 0 0- —� � 0 ® (D o CD CD o -� < O <® - cn - ®. C7o C, CD C 0 0 ---1- x. 0 0" (D --� �} CD Q 0 o " •cv o Cp }, 3 (D •Q %o - Q- --+ QQ (Q Q c _CT (D Ln' n ® -� Q ('D (Q --+ CD Q -'- =` 0 C) 3 n C _, -+- n �'' c�a ((Q -0 Q � tQ -� O n C Q M o L, 0 O D to Q 0 O Q' 3 On 00• -- :3 Q _ CI} CD --• Q n ZD -+ � O ---h (D n"} 0- 3 O 0 C 0 . o � o o 3 Q --+- Q � 0 (D C/) 0 tD a ? o CD p` o CI) tD - O�ncD CD n . ( [ O -+ IL n -M m0 , n 0 Q O C (D �` to "' @ r• ,c 0 -0 CL n 3 3 Q,- D ° ca ci>• � 3 c Q LO o cD rD -co cD c Z3 Q co 0 O ncp _ cD Q (D 3 -0 =x• 33 �. (D CD Ln n CD cn Om C --+. Q --+- 0 cn v) C Z �D tD p' CD O O tD 3 ZT 3 CD 0 c'D Q 0 - ■ M m m rn > rn z M z Z D o z D U v, z O 0 � cn rn G) Z z -° Q z M z "' O O > 0 rn3: aim a C C7 a 6 0 v' � Y C/) z m n m G) O Q n a rn m z O <C/) C/)O rn 0 0 rn Z C `4 �' CO C rn z z Z 0 = G) Q n rn � z rn © m r m O Z z 0 D m F q_ 0 0 Sm C/) m _ > n rn� ,= a r � m s i i i 's z i LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII DRAFT TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT MAY 19, 2022 Public testimony regarding 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 9:36 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 I 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: Moving onto statements from the public on the agenda items. The Commission has received a fair amount of written testimony on Item 2, the County initiated bill. We only have one member of the public signed up to testify via Zoom. So we'll go right ahead with Mr. Noel Morin—or is it Jennifer Zelko? Is that, okay, yeah, Jennifer Zelko. ZELDO: Yes. VITOUSEK: Aloha. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter before the Leeward Planning Commission? ZELCO: Yes. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Please proceed with your testimony. 1 EXHIBIT A(DRAFT) i ZELCO: Can you folks hear me okay? VITOUSEK: We can. ZELCO: Okay, good, I'm in a high traffic area. Aloha and good morning, I'm Jennifer Zelko, Hawaiian Electric's Director of Government and Community Affairs, and we are testifying in support of the County of Hawaii Bill 120, with comments. I did want to acknowledge Councilmember Kimball and Planning Director Kern's leadership and work on this effort. The company respectfully suggests the following amendments to the measure: For Section 25-4-54.1(a), "All newly constructed places of public accommodation shall have the following electric vehicle chargers, installed in dedicated parking spaces, and actively maintained in working order, for each increment of 50 parking stalls." So basically, we are recommending the addition of the word"actively"before the word"maintained" and then after the words "working order,"removing"at all times." Since 2013 Hawaiian Electric has operated electric vehicle fast charging stations across our service territory as part of our pilot program. There are six dedicated sites on Hawaii Island currently, and during this pilot we've actively worked to ensure that all of our what we call direct current fast charging or DC fast charger stations are in working order; however, with a vast array of issues that can impair these systems, repair times do vary depending on the service required. For example, at Puna Kai Town Center our DC fast charger recently experienced a beetle infestation inside of the actual station, which required the unit to be cleaned before it could operate effectively. And then another example was in Hilo at our Hilo main office, we had ordered replacement parts, when the wrong parts came in, it created an 18-week lag in time of repair. And as the largest provider of EV fast charging in the State, we are working to improve certainly our reliability. We understand the importance of reliable charging solutions, as more drivers are looking to EVs for mobility. Looking forward, Hawaiian Electric did a critical backbone study really looking at the need for public and private EV charging infrastructure over the next 10 years, so really until 2030. There is a need of about seven times more charging, including private, commercial, and residential charging in this State. Specifically for Hawaii Island, it depicted both high and low scenarios of public charging; on the high end we were looking at a need of about 756 Level 2 charging ports and 132 DC fast chargers, and on the low end, the lower scenario, we would need at least 285 Level 2 charging ports and 52 DC fast charger. And this insight has really helped us focus on programs, including the recently Public Utilities- approved jinaudible] commercial pilot, and that pilot will provide make-ready infrastructure for a publicly available EV charging systems available to commercial properties or fleet owners, multi-unit dwellings, and we are looking at basically providing financial support and resources to commercial customers looking to install these chargers. This new pilot program will help at least the places of accommodation that's partially defined in this bill in meeting the State and County EV charging system requirements. I think these programs are going to help the growing need, but it's really only just a small fraction of the forecasted need, as I mentioned those numbers earlier. Additional resources, investment, support, and collaboration, both private and public, will need to happen in order to ensure there is adequate EV charging infrastructure installed. 2 EXHIBIT A(DRAFT) 3 iI I I And with that, that's it, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Would you mind restating the suggested revision in the section? ZELKO: Sure, no problem. I really am apologizing for this noise. VITOUSEK: No problem. ZELKO: For Section 25-4-54.1, it currently reads, "All newly constructed places of[public] accommodation shall have the following electric vehicle chargers, installed in dedicated parking spaces, and actively"—we are suggesting putting in the word"actively"—"maintained in working order"—and then removing the phrase "at all times" "for each increment of 50 parking stalls." And again,part of that is if a commercial customer, or anyone for that matter, is at least actively trying to fix it, diligently working on it—parts have been ordered but because of supply chain issues they can't receive it—they shouldn't be penalized for that. VIOTUSEK: Thank you, thank you. As a major stakeholder in the whole electricity and electric vehicle process, I would like to invite you to stay on the meeting as, and continue to be part of it, in case there are questions that come up for HELCO, if you are okay with that, if you don't mind staying on. ZELKO: Sure. I will be on by my phone; I'll be in transit, but I'll be listening, and I can respond when needed. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you very much, appreciate it. ZELKO: Thanks. VITOUSEK: Okay. That would conclude the officially registered public testimony. Is there a motion to close public testimony? PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, so moved. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. DEFRANCO: I'll second. VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner DeFranco. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VITOUSEK: Any opposed? [None.] No, okay, unanimous. 3 EXHIBIT A(DRAFT) Public testimony was closed at 9:43 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 4 EXHIBIT A(DRAFT) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII DRAFT 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 toif I may? 1 EXHIBIT B (DRAFT) 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 &, and Chapter 25, Zoning,Article 1 and Article 4, Division S, 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 (DRAFT) 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 party 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 (DRAFT) 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 (DRAFT) 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 II.B. 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 II.C. 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 1.8, which would be as follows. So again,this is the Director's fifth recommendation. Under Section 25-4-54.l(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 (DRAFT) 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 (DRAFT) I 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 III.C. 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 (DRAFT) 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 29t'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 (DRAFT) f i 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 (DRAFT) 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 (DRAFT) 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 inErastructure 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't—Commission, 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 I I EXHIBIT B (DRAFT) 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 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 (DRAFT) I S 3 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. 3 I 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 therejust 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 RECO. 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 (DRAFT) i i i i i 's 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. k 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. 3 [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 (DRAFT) VITOUSEK: Not,not you— KANUHA: Heather. VITOUSEK: Councilmember Kimball. 3 KIMBALL: Hi, sorry, I heard you mention rental cars, and that's about it, I didn't hear the exact 3 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. 3 DEFRANCO: Right now how many, can you rent an electric vehicle now? i KIMBALL: You can, but there are certainly not very many, and the charging capacity issue is largely part of that problem. I J i 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 j 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. 3 VITOUSEK: Thank you. Director Kern. 15 EXHIBIT B (DRAFT) i 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 to—oh,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 (DRAFT) KIMBALL: Mm-hmm. VITOUSEK: Any other questions? DELA CRUZ: Mahina,just to follow up with your question. Are you referring to, when you M say"lessee,"is that for landlords? Is that what you were going to [Co missioner Paishon Ditarte 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 (DRAFT) 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 there—I mean this is all plugging into HELCO, right, all into the grid? 18 EXHIBIT B (DRAFT) VITOUSEK: Yes— 3 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 3 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 justI'm sorry, am I interrupting? Go ahead, Director or KAY: Oh, no, I was—this is Christian-1 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 (DRAFT) 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: 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 (DRAFT) 3 VITOUSEK: In Recommendation 12, 1 guess, the question is in the process of plan review, where does HELLO review to establish grid capability come into the review of a retrofit for an existing structure? KERN: HELLO 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 HELCO, 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: —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 (DRAFT) i i =I MORIN: I'd like to comment on that— VITOUSEK: Sure. MORIN: 1 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 (DRAFT) 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 on—Councilmember 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 Approval—sorry, I always mix it up—then, then it would be possibly considered a taking if we went beyond what was established 23 EXHIBIT B {DRAFT} E i i 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 data—I'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 f24 EXHIBIT B (DRAFT) DELA CRUZ: Correct, yeah, so i 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 RECO 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 (DRAFT) i 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 (DRAFT) 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: 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 (DRAFT) i i t i i t 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 r 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. Wejust 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. s VITOUSEK: Yeah, awesome. Well, you know, that's it for me, I just want to thank you for a 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— ........ 4 VITOUSEK: We should probably make a motion before— DEFRANCO: —revisions plus— VITOUSEK: —sharing our perspective on '4 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: A motion. DEFRANCO: Pardon me? VITOUSEK: Make a motion? DEFRANCO: A motion. 28 EXHIBIT B (DRAFT) I 3 i 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: HELCO, 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 HELLO 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 (DRAFT) 3 3 I KAY: Compatibility, yeah. 3 KERN: You got Jennifer's? 25-4-54.1? 3 KAY: And then, yeah, correct, the adding— 's 3 DEFRANCO: "Actively." I KAY: "Actively"—thank you—and then remove "at all times" from that language, yeah. i 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 (DRAFT) 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 (DRAFT) 3 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 (DRAFT) BR-CClnitiated-BiIl120-EV Parking Bill xrkA 25.2022 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED BILL NO. 120 AMENDMENT TO 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 THE REGULATION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS AND PARKING SPACES The County Council referred a bill for 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 stations 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 (HRS). PURPOSE OF BILL 120 1. The Hawaii County Council has introduced Bill No. 120, (Planning Department Exhibit 1), 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 1983 (2016 edition, as amended) (HCC),relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and provision of and enforcement for EV parking spaces. 2. 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 Section 291-71, HRS (Planning Department Exhibit 2) and Section 291-72, HRS (Planning Department Exhibit 3). AUTHORITY 3. According to Bill 120, Section 291-71, HRS requires all places of public accommodation with at least one Hundred parking spaces for use by the general -1- public to have at least one parking space equipped with an EV charging system. Additionally, the bill references this section as the authority to authorize each county to adopt an ordinance to enforce the requirements of section 291-71, HRS. However,this reference was made in error as it is 291-73, HRS that grants this authority(Planning Department Exhibit 4). 4. Furthermore, section 291-72, HRS,provides that it shall be a traffic infraction subject to fines to park non-EVs in spaces reserved for EVs or to park in a parking space equipped with an EV charging system while not actively charging an EV. DEFINITIONS 5. Bill 120 proposes to amend HCC Chapter 24 (Vehicles and Traffic) to include definitions for `Electric vehicle,' `Neighborhood electric vehicle,' `Fuel cell electric vehicle,' and `Electric vehicle charging system.' 6. Bill 120 proposes to amend HCC Chapter 25 (Zoning) with the definitions outlined above and add 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 from sections of HRS. 7. `Place of public accommodation' is 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 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 the bill is to be broadly inclusive of any places that meet the preceding criteria,regardless of ownership. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO HCC CHAPTER 24 (VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC) 8. In addition to the definitions articulated above, Bill 120 seeks to amend HCC Chapter 24 with Section 24-245.5. Parking privileges,by requiring that only EVs may be parked in a parking space designated and marked as reserved for -2- EVs. Furthermore, it requires that only EVs that are actively charging may be parked in a parking space equipped with an EV charging station. 9. Bill 120 also indicates that any person who uses a parking space in violation of the parking privileges section above, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction and fined according to provisions in HRS. According to HRS those fines shall be not less than$50 nor more than$100. The fined party must also pay any costs incurred by the court related to assessing the fine. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO HCC CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) 10. In addition to the definitions articulated above, Bill 120 seeks to amend Article 4. Division 5. Off-Street Parking and Loading of Chapter 25 to add requirements for providing,maintaining, and dedicating parking spaces and charging stations for EVs. 11. Proposed Section 25-4-54.1.Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems articulates EV charging station and parking space requirements for new and existing parking areas in places of public accommodation. Specifically, this section requires all newly constructed parking areas to install EV chargers, installed in dedicated parking space, and maintained in working order at all times,for each increment of fifty(50)parking stalls based on a schedule between the time the code is changed to 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. 12. Should an existing parking area in a place of public accommodation with fifty (50) or more parking spaces submit plans for Plan Approval (indicated as plan review in the draft bill), they shall have an additional two (2)years to comply with the requirements outlined for newly constructed parking areas. 13. Should an existing parking area in a place of public accommodation with fifty (50) or more parking spaces not need to submit plans for Plan Approval, they will be required to comply with section 291-71, HRS. This will largely be triggered by either proactive compliance with the new code by a landowner or in response to public complaints to the Planning Department via our code enforcement apparatus. -3- 14. This section further requires EV chargers to be maintained in good working order and that a dedicated parking space, with appropriate marking and signage that indicates that, `parking is only for EVs that are actively charging' must be provided for all EV chargers. 15. Furthermore, this section clarifies that designated EV parking spaces shall not displace or reduce ADA accessible stalls. 16. Finally, this section requires every parking facility meeting the size criteria to comply with requirements of this section,regardless of ownership except as allowed for in the alternatives and exemptions section of the proposed bill. This section also allows site owners to charge a reasonable fee for the use of the charging station. 17. Proposed Section 25-4-54.2.Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems provides the Planning Director the authority to determine that EV charging requirements can be satisfied by a smaller number of direct current fast chargers, so long as the overall charging capacity at the place of public accommodation is equal to or greater than the capacity required under Section 25-4-54.1. 18. Finally,places of public accommodation can be exempted from applicable requirements of 25-4-54.1 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 Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). AGENCIES—NO COMMENTS/CONCERNS 19. Department of Public Works- Engineering Division. AGENCIES-NO RESPONSE PROVIDED 20. Department of Public Works-Building Division, Department of Parks and Recreation, Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Research and Development, and the Hawaii Electric Light Company(HELCO). PUBLIC COMMENTS PROVIDED 21. Nome as of the date of this writing. -4- i PLANNING ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF BILL 120 3 Legislation creating HRS 291-71 and 291-72 was passed in 2012 to require the 3 provision of EV charging stations and associated EV parking spaces in places of public accommodation and to provide for a penalty structure for illegal parking in those spaces. HRS 291-71 and 291-72 were updated in 2021 to amend language around EV i 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 j charging systems, requiring that EV chargers shall be maintained in good working order, and allowing law enforcement or parking enforcement officer 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 within HRS 291-71 and 291-72. Bill 120 is the culmination of the County Council's initial effort to adopt such an ordinance. According to the State Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism(DBEDT) research and economic development division, in March 2022 the number of passenger electric vehicles in the state was 18,923, which was an increase of 4,892 vehicles (34.9%) over the same month in 2021. This is a significant growth rate when compared with the 0.1% increase in passenger gasoline vehicles during the same time period.1 Furthermore, according to the U.S. Department of Energy(USDOE), there are currently 360 public charging stations available statewide 2,however only 47 of those (13%) are located on Hawaii island. Given the growth in the use of EVs and the relatively small number of charging stations on the island, the Planning Director concurs with the County Council that there is a need to address the provision of new EV charging facilities in places of public accommodation to accommodate the increased need. Bill 120 as written incorporates the intent of FIRS sections 291-71 but goes even further to require more dedicated EV charging systems and spaces than required in the state statute. According to the bill, all new parking facilities in places of public accommodation with at least 50 parking stalls will be required to provide at least one (1) EV charging system with at least two (2)plugs for each increment of 50 parking spaces https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/filesl2022104/Energy Trend.pdf '-https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/analyze?.region=US-HI&fuel=ELEC -5- between the adoption of the ordinance and the end of 2023. This requirement increases over time to include more chargers and plugs, with up to at least eight(8)plugs and associated parking spaces by the end of 2029. Existing parking facilities with over 50 parking stalls that apply for Plan Approval after the adoption of the ordinance will have an additional two (2) years to come into compliance with the requirements outlined above. Finally, existing parking facilities with over 50 parking stalls that do not need to apply for Plan Approval, will be required to comply with the requirements of HRS 291- 71, likely enforced by either proactive compliance on the part of the lot owner, or based on a public complaint for violations of the Zoning Code requirements. The bill, as written may have an economic impact on lot owners, however, the bill does allow a site owner to charge a reasonable fee for the use of an EV charger, and the State has a rebate program in place for landowners who install the required EV charging systems, so this may alleviate some of the up-front installation costs and maintenance costs moving forward. Furthermore, the bill gives the Planning Director the authority to require fewer direct current fast chargers, so long as the overall charging capacity is equal to or greater than what would otherwise be required with the required alternating current Level 2 chargers. Finally, there are exceptions and exemptions for parking facilities that have certain site constraints, for example, lack of necessary electrical infrastructure to the site to support the EV charging systems and location of the site in the highest flood risk zone as established by FEMA. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION The Planning Director is generally supportive of the intent of Bill 120 and appreciates the time and effort the County Council has taken to draft legislation to address the need for EV chargers and parking spaces in areas of public accommodation in Hawaii County. The Director is recommending various revisions to Bill 120 to address housekeeping changes that are needed to implement the intent of Bill 120, and more substantive changes so to help better enforce the requirements found therein. The Planning Commissions may approve all, some, or none of the Director's suggested recommendations. The ConimiSsions may also offer their own revisions to the -6- i E bill. The Windward and Leeward Planning Commission's recommendations will be forwarded separately, but at the same time, to the County Council for their consideration and decision. Recommendation#1 Under Section 1. Purpose, correct the reference to the HRS section from 291-71 to 291-73. Reason: HRS 291-73 allows Counties to adopt ordinances to enforce the requirements of 291-71. Recommendation#2 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. Reason: The bill incorrectly references HRS section 291-71,however, this section does not make references to any fines. The correct reference should be 291-72. The close quote after the word `Statutes' at the end of the sentence is likely a typo. Recommendation#3 Under section 3 of the draft bill, consider changing the term"Networked charger"to match what is in the body of the bill. Reason: The term, specifically as presented("networked charger") is not used anywhere in the body of the bill. "Networked"is used four(4) times in Section 25-4-54.1(a) and the term,"Network-capable" is used in the definition of"Direct current fast charger." Consider expanding the term"Networked charger"to include those alternative references. Recommendation #4 Under Section 25-4-54.1 (a) Clarify the size/type of parking spaces required to be considered a `dedicated EV parking space under the requirements of this section.' Reason: The zoning code allows for different types of parking stalls for compliance with parking requirements (e.g., compact parking stalls). Consider adding the qualifier, `full- size' or provide specific, minimum dimensions required for a dedicated EV stall. Recommendation#5 Under Section 25-4-54.1 (a), clarify that the number of EV designated parking stalls shall correspond to the maxin-lum slumber of plugs required udder the development -7- i schedule. Reason: This section is 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 (8) EV designated parking stalls. Recommendation#6 Under Section 25-4-54.1 (b), change the term "plan review"to "Plan Approval" and clarify the reference to an additional two (2)years to comply with subsection(a). Reason: There is no such reference to `plan review' found in the Zoning Code, however, Plan Approval is the process through which parking requirements are reviewed by the Planning Department. The reference to "...an additional two years..." is confusing. The intent of this provision should be clarified. Recommendation #7 Section 25-4-54.1 (c) should identify a trigger for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval requirements (e.g., within a certain amount of time from the code change,based on public complaints, etc.). Reason: The requirement for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval to comply with HRS Section 291-71 has no timed compliance trigger or other enforcement mechanism, so it is unclear how existing places of public accommodation meeting the size criteria will come into compliance. Recommendation#S Clarify the apparent conflict between the number of parking stalls required for each EV charger vs. each plug on an EV charger. Reason: Under Section 25-4-54.1 (a), it appears that the number of dedicated parking stalls corresponds to the number of plugs available, however under Section 25-4-54.1 (e), the bill requires a dedicated EV parking stall for all EV chargers (which can include several plugs). Recommendation #9 Section 25-4-54.1 (f), does not allow EV designated spaces to displace or reduce ADA accessible stalls,but does not address requirements for ADA accessible EV Stalls. Consider adding section referencing ADA requirements for EV stalls. -8- Reason: The State Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB) issued an interpretive opinion (Planning Department Exhibit 5—DCAB 2012-01)relating 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, ""ere EVeharging stations are provided, 5%, but not less than one of each type ofEVstation shall be accessible."In addition, the opinion articulates design requirements for an ADA accessible EV parking stall. Recommendation #10 Under Section 25-4-54.1 (h), consider defming what is considered a 'reasonable' fee. Reason: The qualifier 'reasonable' is subjective and difficult to enforce. Consider adding a fee cap or a fee schedule based on KWh charged. Recommendation#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 charger and a direct current fast charger. Reason: This tool will help the Planning Director determine charging capacity between the different charger types. Recommendation#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 vehicle charger implementation, there is no similar exemption if internet access is unavailable. Reason: The bill requires both the alternating current Level 2 charger and a direct current fast charger to be 'networked' or 'network-cap able' respectively, but there is no requirement in the bill for an internet connection to track charger use or be remotely accessible. Consider clarifying whether an internet connection is a requirement for implementation of this proposed bill. For the reasons detailed above, the Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commissions send a favorable recommendation of Bill No. 120, to the County Council with the suggested revisions recommended by the Director. -9- Susan L.K. Lee Lo,, . i !fkF'ri K,4s„ Hilo, ltau:.[. t C); /endo Kern, Director flail€lire{7 Dep irtt-llcnt FROM:M: 'Susall l..K, Lee Lot ', C'haii Committee on Public �Vor1 and MasT s SU _lL(-;'C; R erral ot'Bill 120, x711 ()rdt'nance ai`tlelclHig, C:.ha)pter 2-4, Article , and CIiiapter Article 1 and Article 4, 1)IvIsioll 5, tf(he Ilzawal,I Counly C`odc QS:) (201(; 1.clition, ds Aillenclecl). rc lalirl{t to Pfok'Idini,!. rll u-it€iining, Lind deck rit ng parkiill, 71 spaces and ellti;L>1Tld' `Mations for electric. ?chicles. i Pursuant to Section 25-2-43)(h) ot'the IIawal'i County Code, I ant st€blllittin`: Bill 120, CIICIcasecl forvt3ul`Comment andiec( 1T1t11ei1Cltitiiln. 1 tilsci request tl,=xi yaitl tcxt V licl til s4liil� t0 the W iiidvvard and I.eeN arcl Planning C oinuilssions for their c:onlnieilt and tee::}171tlletld'Ition. %tell 120 k,"x£ati t'elc T`rcal tol' CC}a11n1eTt and r C1111tllentl itTC3n til tile: Plannino tire{for altt�l til"- A ll`1CimiarCl ai]tl Leewl-Ird Pl'catllling Colt—llllissions by the. I law ai'l t ounit'*yCouncil's t on-iT1lttree Coil Public Work and Nla< s Transit can February , , vt), After VOUr titin the i Ol111111SSIOT1`.; plu'a se Iorw trcl V=11th coll7iTltllB al'ltl to Council Cllali-pel-soll Mille t)n idr Think V'OLI t6' \01-11' tittelltiMI tcl this tllilttel-, so 0 i r i Dr5 r fltr i a `. C'tiny,"tan f'yyual O ppor of-vil,provider And bnpfii ,w FlEAVIER L KIMBALL7� x7 1=iE.a. ri;iti Fi (six 1 061-801 K l teff`; x._L'121' E i,`hl/Aut llM;l 1 it .<'!1),�uWh rx o 'w!°` �1r..[iltir ht,etk;a inh;tt�a � ;ntt€: `, I MV'A 1 l COUNTY C > .' `II a r� F� WV O `Wa r lWtt,t�'�'U" } lr7dthhl ,, Y Q KIM %ledeAs David. Council Chair mid Mci7Ters tit tlic lluw�ti,i (lou Ztv COU Cil l'lti()l1[: Ilitither lKiirt}gall, Cotirtcil Mcrti}7cr Council Dttiir ct I };l W,IMP AN' O,Rl)IN.\NC E , NIL"NDIl' G C''I lAI*I Id? 24, R } IC 1 l: S. ;' ND t I LAP I A 25. AR l-ICM I ANDARTICLE E -1, DIVISION 5, t.011 ll-:'. II.\'A'Al`1 O Y ENI I V C(OV 983 (2016 l;C}I`l ON, rl`-1' AIX'I FNDED), PSL-,[,'~JIN(l It) PILO 1})IN , 13:-\1NT;AI' IN(.;, AND Dl-;l>I(V YING PARKING, `SP:'\t_E \'CJI) t<`I1,4s1'0lNG S")'-\ i JOIKS FOR ELECTRIC ECTRIC, \I:IH('I,l S. Att'aclwrl is an UrClltimwe amending qw Qum, of II lw"±,i Code by adding Ce", secAn s islilting hi providing. inaintaii]ing, :.md diedicating p irkinu spaces for t-de 'tris fi t`hiis I'lease place this on 0- 'ciI}l7?"t1i7f" aw c(3nunitw 5 agenda. Comr-i N W WTI �v - hOu4 d 1(.r721nq f5'an £SquA%w xu/7.°tl%Provider L7:7G1 bn h7yei' COUNTY OF HA AVI � _� STATE OF HAWAIJ tJ�.W Ott of i+A'1I BILL NO. 120 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24,ARTICLE 8,AND CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE I 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. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Purpose. Section 291-71, Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires all places of public accommodation with at least one hundred parking spaces for use by the general public to have at least one parking space equipped with an electric vehicle charging system. This section authorizes each county to adopt an ordinance to enforce the requirements of section 291-71. Further, section 291-72, Hawaii Revised Statutes,provides that it shall be a traffic infraction subject to fines to park non-electric vehicles in spaces reserved for electric vehicles or to park in a parking space equipped with an electric vehicle charging system while not actively charging an electric vehicle. The purpose of this ordinance is to enforce the requirements of sections 291-71 and 291-72, Hawaii Revised Statutes. SECTION 2. Chapter 24, article 8, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended)is amended by adding a new division 7 to read as follows: "Division 7. ParkinL,for electric vehicles. Section 24-245.4. Definitions. As used in this division: ""Electric vehicle"means: (1) A neighborhood electric vehicle as defined in this section; (2) A vehicle with four or more wheels that draws propulsion energy from a battery with at least four kilowatt hours of energystorage capacity that can be recharged from an externa] source of electricity-, or (3) A fael cell electric vehicle." ""Electric vehicle charging system"means a system that: (1) Is capable of providing electricity from a non-vehicle source to charge the batteries of one or more electric vehicles; (2) Meets recognized standards, including standard SAE J1772 of SAE International• and (3) Is designed and installed in compliance with article 625 of the National Electrical Code;provided that the term shall not include facilities or systems for refueling the hydrogen storage tank of a fael cell electric vehicle," ""Fuel cell electric vehicle"means a zero-emission electric vehicle that uses a fuel cell to convert hydrogen gas and oxygen into electricity that is used in a vehicle powertrain for propulsion." ""Neighborhood electric vehicle"means a self-propelled electrically powered motor vehicle to which all of the following apply: (1) The vehicle is emission free; (2) The vehicle is designed -be and is operated at speeds of twenty-five miles per hour or less; (3) The vehicle has four wheels in contact with the ground; (4) The vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than three thousand pounds,• and (5) The vehicle conforms to the minimum safetyequipment requirements as adopted in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low Speed Vehicles (49 C.F.R. 571.500)." Section 24-245.5. Parking privileges. (a) Only electric vehicles may be parked in a parking space designated and marked as reserved for electric vehicles. (b) Only electric vehicles that are activelyging may be parked in a parkin; space equipped with an electric vehicle charging system that is designated and marked as reserved for this purpose. Section 24-245.6. Penalties. Any person who uses a parking space in violation of section 24-245.5 shall be guilty of a traffic infraction and fined accordingto o chapter 291D and section 291-71, Hawaii Revised Statutes." SECTION 3. Chapter 25, article 1, section 25-1-5 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended) is amended by adding the following definitions to be appropriately inserted and to read as follows: ""Alternating current Level 2 charging station," commonly referred to as "Level 2 charging station," means an electric vehicle charging system that utilizes alternating current electricity providing at least three kilowatts and means a system that: (1) Is capable of providing electricity from a non-vehicle source to charge the batteries of one or more electric vehicles; (2) Meets recognized standards and protocols including,but not limited to Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 71772TM of SAE International and Tesla protocol, and (3) Is designed and installed in compliance with article 625 of the National Electrical Code to appropriate Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories' standards." 2 i i I ""Direct current fast charger"means an electric vehicle charger that: (1) Utilizes direct current electricity providing at least fifty kilowatts orgreater; (2) Is network-capable; Q) Meets recognized standards and protocols including but not limited to SAE Combined Charging System, Tesla protocol and CHAdeMO protocol; (4) Is safety certified by a nationally recognized testing laboratoiT (5) Is designed and installed in compliance with article 625 of the National Electrical Code; and i (6) Contains ports to support at least two industry standard charging protocols for more equitable distribution and access to charging." ""Electric vehicle"means: (1) A neighborhood electric vehicle as defined in this section; (2) A vehicle, with four or more wheels that draws propulsion energy from a battery with at least four kilowatt hours of energy storage capacity that can be recharged from an external source of electricity, or (3) A fuel cell electric vehicle." ""Electric vehicle charging system"means a system that: (1) Is capable of providing electricity from a non-vehicle source to charge the batteries of one or more electric vehicles; (2) Meets recognized standards including standard SAE J1772 of SAE International; and (3) Is designed and installed in compliance with article 625 of the National Electrical Code; provided that the terni shall not include facilities or systems for refueling the hydrogen storage tank of a fuel cell electric vehicle ""Fuel cell electric vehicle"means a zero-emission electric vehicle that uses a fuel cell to convert hydrogen gas and oxygen into electricity that is used in a vehicle powertrain for propulsion." ""Neighborhood electric vehicle"means a self-propelled electrically powered motor vehicle to which all of the following ag_ppl_y: (1) The vehicle is emission free, (2) The vehicle is designed to be and is operated at speeds of twenty-five miles per hour or less: (3) The vehicle has four wheels in contact with the ground; (4) The vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than three thousand pounds,• and (5) The vehicle conforms to the minimum safety equipment requirements as adopted in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safetv Standard No. 500, Low Speed Vehicles (49 C.F.R, 571.500)." ""Networked charger"refers to electric vehicle charging systems that are able to connect to the internet." ""Place of public accommodation" means a business, accommodation refreshment entertainnient,recreation, or transportation facility of any kind whose moods services facilities 3 i a 1 privileges advantages or accommodations are extended offered sold or otherwise made available to theeg_neral public as customers clients or visitors By way of example but not of limitation, place of public accommodation includes facilities of the following_types: (1) A facility providing services relating to travel or transportation• (2) An inn,hotel, motel or other establishment that provides lodging to transient guests,• (3) A restaurant cafeteria lunchroom lunch counter, soda fountain or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises of a retail establishment; (d) A shopping center or any establishment that sells goods or services at retail• (5) An establishment licensed under chapter 281 Hawaii Revised Statutes doing ' business under a class 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 or 12 license as defined in section 281-31 Hawaii Revised Statutes, (6) A motion picture theater, other theater, auditorium convention center, lecture hall concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or other dace of exhibition or entertainment. (7) A barber shop beauty shop bathhouse swimming Pool gymnasium reducing or massage salon, or other establishment conducted to serve the health appearance or physical condition of persons: (8) A park, a campsite or trailer facility, or other recreation facility, (9) A comfort station; or a dispensary clinic hospital convalescent home or other institution for the infirm' (10)Aprofessional office of a health care provider, as defined in section 323D-2 Hawaii Revised Statutes. or other similar service establishment; (11) A mortuary or undertaking-establishment-, and (12) An establishment that is physically located within the premises of an establishment otherwise covered by this definition, or within the premises of which is physical located a covered establishment and which holds itself out as serving patrons of the covered establishment." SECTION 4. Chapter 25, article 4, division 5, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended) is amended by adding two new sections to read as follows: "Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems. (a) All newly constructed places of public accommodation shall have the following electric vehicle chargers, installed in dedicated parking spaces and maintained in working order at all times, for each increment of fifty parkin stalls: talls: (1) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s) with a total of at least two plugs by the end of 2023 (2) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s) with a total of at least four plugs by the end of 2025: (3) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s) with a total of at least six plus by the end of 2027, and (4) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s)with a total of at least eight pis by the end of 2029. 4 3 i (b) Existing places of public accommodation that submit for plan review and will have fifty j parking spaces or more have an additional two years to comply with subsection(aand are otherwise subject to the other provisions of this section. (c) Existing places of public accommodation not subject to subsection(b) shall comply with section 291-71,Hawaii Revised Statutes and are otherwise subject to the other provisions of this section. (d) All existing electric vehicle chargers must be maintained in good working order. (e) A dedicated parkinor space must be provided for all electric vehicle chargers Dedicated parking spaces for electric vehicle charging must be clearly marked and include signage that states that parking is only for electric vehicles that are actively charging_ (f1 Parking spaces designated for electric vehicles shall not displace or reduce accessible stalls required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. (g) Every parking facility that meets the size criteria must comply with the requirements of this section regardless of ownership except as otherwise provided in section 25-4-54.2. (h) Site owners are nat precluded from charging a reasonable fee for the use of the charging station. Section 25-4-54.2. Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charainu systems. (a) At the discretion of the director or the director's designee,the electric vehicle charging requirements may be met by a fewer number of direct current fast chargers provided that the charging capacity at the place of public accommodation is equal to or greater than the capacity established under the applicable subsection of section 25-4-54.1. (b) Places of public accommodation shall be exempted from the applicable requirements of section-?5-4-54.1 if: (1) The location does not have established electrical service or lacks adequate electrical infrastructure to provide sufficient electrical current for electric vehicle charger implementation. (2) The location is identified as being in the highest flood risk zone as established by the Federal Emerjaency Management Agency's Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map " SECTION 5. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the underscoring need not be included. 5 I i I i 1 i I SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to � any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or { application; and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. I SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. ; INTRODUCED BY: a I COUNCIL MEMAER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1 st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: REFFRU4CE Comm. 608 6 4/13/22, 10:09 AM HRS PART IV. PARKING FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES i Note { Part heading amended by L 2021, c 75, §6. Revision Note Part heading added by revisor pursuant to §23G-15 . §291-71 Designation of parking spaces for electric vehicle charging systems. (a) Places of public accommodation with at least one hundred parking spaces available for use by the general public shall have at least one parking space equipped with an electric vehicle charging system located anywhere in the parking structure or lot; provided that no parking space designated for electric vehicles shall displace or reduce accessible stalls required by the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines; provided further that no vehicle shall be permitted to park in a parking space equipped with an electric vehicle charging system while not actively charging. Spaces shall be designated, clearly marked, and the exclusive designation enforced. Owners of multiple parking facilities within the State may 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 of their owned properties . Nothing in this section shall prohibit the owners of parking structures or lots from charging a fee for the use of an electric vehicle charging system. (b) Effective January 1, 2022, each new electric vehicle charging system installed or placed in service pursuant to this section shall be at least a level 2 charging station that is network-capable. (c) Electric vehicle charging systems shall be maintained in working order. (d) As used in this section: "Electric vehicle" means : (1) A neighborhood electric vehicle as defined in section 286-2; (2) A vehicle, with four or more wheels, that draws propulsion energy from a battery with at least four kilowatt hours of energy storage capacity that can be recharged from an external source of electricity; or (3) A fuel cell electric vehicle. "Electric vehicle charging system" means a system that : (1) Is capable of providing electricity from a non-vehicle source to charge the batteries of one or more electric vehicles; (2) Meets recognized standards, including standard SAE J1772 of SAE International; and (3) Is designed and installed in compliance with article 625 of the National Electrical Code; provided that the term shall not include facilities or systems for refueling the hydrogen storage tank of a fuel cell electric vehicle . "Fuel cell electric vehicle" means a zero-emission electric vehicle that uses a fuel cell to convert hydrogen gas and oxygen into electricity that is used in a vehicle powertrain for propulsion. 1 y4` . . https://w\A,w.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vo105—ChO261-0319/H E diI- t _._ 112 4/13122, 10:09 AM HRS "Level 2 charging station" shall have the same meaning as "alternating current Level 2 charging station" in section 269-72 . "Place of public accommodation" has the same meaning as that provided in section 489-2 . [L 2009, c 156, pt of §4; am L 2012, c 89, §2; am L 2019, c 143, §2; am L 2021, c 75, §8] https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrenWo105_Ch0261-0319/HRS0291/HRS_0291-0071.htm 2/2 4/13/22, 10:09 AM HRS §291-72 Parking spaces reserved for electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging systems; penalties. (a) Any person who parks a non- electric vehicle in a space designated and marked as reserved for electric vehicles or parks any vehicle in a parking space equipped with an electric vehicle charging system while not actively charging shall be guilty of a traffic infraction under chapter 291D and shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $100, and shall pay any costs incurred by the court related to assessing the fine. (b) Any citation issued under this section may be mailed to the violator pursuant to section 291C-165 (b) . (c) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, and in addition to any other authority provided by law that is not inconsistent with this section: (1) A law enforcement officer may access the property of a private entity to enforce the provisions of this part; and (2) A commissioned volunteer enforcement officer may access the property of a private entity to enforce the provisions of this section; provided that the private entity' s parking lot contains a parking space required by section 291-71 . [L 2009, c 156, pt of §4; am L 2012, c 89, §3; am L 2021, c 75, §9] a fit tOu .. x it https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vo105_ChO261-0319/HRS0291/HRS-0291-0072.htm 1/1 4/27122,9:51 AM HRS [§291-73] Ordinances to enforce authorized. Each county may adopt ordinances to enforce the requirements of section 291-71, including the establishment of penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of that section or maintain electric vehicle charging systems in working order. [L 2021, c 75, §7] S a https:Jtwww.capitol.hawaii.govthrscurrentN0105_Ch0261-0319JHRS0291/HRS_0291-0073.htm 1 J1 i r DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ACCESS BOARD 1010 Richards Street,Room 118,Honolulu,HI 96813 V:(808)586-8121 Fax:(808)586-8129 INTERPRETIVE OPINION Pursuant to §103-50, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), all public buildings, facilities and sites constructed by, or on behalf of the State or any county, shall conform to the 2004 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (2004 ADAAG) and amendments. In accordance to HRS §103-50 and Chapter 11-216, Hawaii Administrative Rules, the Disability and Communication Access Board has authority to issue interpretive opinions to HRS §103-50 design standards. Docket: DCAB 2012-01 Are electric vehicle (EV) charging stations required to be accessible? If they are required to be accessible,what are the scoping and technical requirements for `Accessible EV Charging Stations'? Amend: The width of the EV Charging stall is required to be 16 feet. The width of the stall can accommodate two vehicles, in order to deter more than one car parked in the EV stall, can an access aisle be striped within the extents of the 16 foot wide stall?If so,what configurations are allowed? Summary: While the ADAAG does not contain any specific reference to EV charging stations, the overall premise of the ADAAG is that new and altered buildings, facilities and sites must be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. In addition, under Title II of the ADA, state and local governments have a `'program access" obligation to not discriminate on the basis of a disability. When state and county entities provide EV charging stations,they are offering a program, service or activity and therefore,the program, service or activity is required under the ADA to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Based on the broad nondiscrimination requirement of the ADA, EV charging stations must be accessible to and usable by a person with a disability. These EV charging stations however, must not displace or replace any accessible parking stalls required be ADAAG 208.1. Where there is not a specific scoping for an element,the Department of Justice requires a reasonable number, 5%, not less than one of each type,to be accessible. The stall size should be consistent with the ADAAG requirement for accessible parking stalls since the size of EV vehicles are the same as non-EV vehicles. ADAAG requires an accessible parking stall to be 96 inches wide minimum and each stall is required to be served by an access aisle that is 60 inches wide minimum. The size of an EV stall must also be wide enough to provide an accessible route around the vehicle. The minimum width of an accessible route is 36 inches. Given the size of the vehicle stall, access aisle and accessible route, the minimum size of an EV parking stall would be 192 inches (16 feet), similar to the space required for an accessible van. It is recommended that an access aisle not be marked given that the charging inlet location varies from vehicle to vehicle. These inlet locations can be located on either side or in some cases on the front or rear of a vehicle. By not striping the access aisle and providing a "large stall"that consists of the stall and access aisle combined, allows a vehicle to pull up and park to either side of theparking space to best accommodate the location of the charging inlet on the vehicle. ryry #x The EV charging equipment is an operable device that is required to comply with ADAAG 309 Operable Parts. Turning space is necessary at the EV charging equipment to allow someone in a wheelchair to turn around and return to the car with the charging equipment. Similarly, when charging is completed, someone will need to take the charging device back to the charging station, turn around and go back to their vehicle. Rulin : For buildings or facilities subject to HRS §103-50, ADAAG Section 309 Operable Parts and 502 Parking Spaces Where EV charging stations are provided, 5%, but not less than one of each type of EV station shall be accessible. An accessible stall at an EV charging station shall be 192 inches wide minimum. The stalls at accessible EV charging stations shall comply with ADAAG Section 302; changes in level are not permitted. Slopes within the accessible charging stalls shall not exceed 1:48 in any direction. It is not recommended that access aisles be marked given that the charging inlet locations vary from vehicle to vehicle, however if marked access aisles are provided, it is recommended to follow the configurations shown below. Accessible charging stalls shall be designed so that cars, when positioned in the stall, cannot obstruct the required clear width of adjacent accessible routes. The EV charging equipment shall comply with ADAAG Section 309 operable parts. Turning space complying with ADAAG 304.3 shall be provided at the EV charging equipment. An accessible route shall be provided from an accessible EV charging stall to the accessible EV charging equipment. An accessible EV charging station shall connect to an accessible route and shall comply with ADAAG 206.2.2. Accessible routes shall comply with ADAAG Chapter 4. Use of the State of Hawaii accessible parking signage, §11-219-14 Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, is prohibited. u G'a t L_ _7�_.._ - Recommended signage for accessible EV charging stall with figures. RESERVED P R K I N STALL romMEIN 'Mk L J C E, ELECTRIC VEHICLES ONLY THIS CHARGING STATION IS ACCESSIBLE AISLE 12 FIGURE 2a FIGURE 2b RESERVED STALL SIGNAGE ACCESS AISLE SIGNAGE AT OPTIONAL STRIPED ACCESS AISLE [Rul: 01/21/2016] (Auth and Imp: HRS §103-50} [Rev: 03/11/2021] If you have any questions or comments regarding this ruling,please call us at 586-8121, DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ACCESS BOARD HEATHER L. KIMBALLn ' „� �`` s� Contact Information Council Member (808)961-8828 Chair, Committee on Governmental Operations (808)961-8018 (staff) Relations and Economic Development '��of�th�+ heather.kimball tthaw aiicounty.gov Council District 1 HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL County afHawai`i Hawai`i County Building 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 1402 Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 MEMORANDUM Date: April 29, 2022 TO: Zendo Kern, Planning Director Members of the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions FROM: Heather Kimball, Council Member SUBJECT: Suggested Amendments and discussion points for the planning commissions regarding Bill 120-22. Aloha Director Kern and Members of the Planning Commissions, Thank you in advance for your time and consideration with respect to Bill 120-22. After reviewing some of the commentary by the departments prior to your hearing of these bills,I have compiled same recommended amendments and discussion points to provide greater clarity to the bill's intentions and to address some of the department level concerns_ The first section covers changes that are substantive in nature and may affect the interpretation of some parts of the bill. The second section includes amendments that are just editorial and do not significantly alter the intent or purpose of the bill. Finally, the third section includes discussion points that remain unresolved. These areas of the bill were left vague with the intent that the commissions could provide guidance as to how they should best be worded. I request that when you consider the bill language you also consider these proposed amendments as part of your recommendation. Thank you again for your time and I look forward to your recommendations, }7 P } Heather Kimball CC: Christian Kay, Hawai'i County Planner Jon Henricks, Hawaii County Clerk Suggested amendments and discussion points for Bill 120-22 I. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS FOR SUBSTANATIVE CHANGES AND CLARITY A. Amend Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems (a)to read as follows: (a) All applications for plan review for new places of public accommodation shall be subject the following electric vehicle charger installation and dedicated standard size parking space requirements, for each increment of fifty parking stalls: (1) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s)with a total of at least two plugs and two dedicated parking stalls for applications received before the end of 2023, (2) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s)with a total of at least four plugs and four dedicated parking stalls for applications received before by the end of 2025 (3) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s) with a total of at least six plugs and six dedicated parking stalls for applications received before by the end of 2027, and (4) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s)with a total of at least eight plugs and eight dedicated parking stalls for applications received before by the end of 2029. B. Amend Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems (b)to read as follows: (b) All applications for plan review for existing places of public accommodation shall be subject the following electric vehicle charger installation and dedicated parking space requirements, for each increment of fifty parkinstalls: talls: (1) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s)with a total of at least two plugs and two dedicated parking stalls for applications received before the end of 2025 (2) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s) with a total of at least four plus and four dedicated parking stalls for applications received before by the end of 2027,- (3) 027;(3) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s)with a total of at least six plugs and six dedicated parking stalls for applications received before by the end of 2029,- and 029 and (4) Networked alternating current Level 2 charger(s)with a total of at least eight plugs and eight dedicated parking stalls for applications received before by the end of 2031. C. Amend Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems (f)to read as follows: 2 (f} At least one of the parking spaces designated for electric vehicles shall be an accessible stall as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)_ This space shall not displace or reduce other accessible stalls required by the ADA. D_ Delete Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems (g) as this contradicts the aggregation privilege provided in the HRS. E. Under Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems, add with the appropriate item lettering: (x)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 oven for public use. F. Amend Section 25-4-54.2.Alternatives and exemptions; parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charging systems (b)(1) to read as follows: (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. II. EDITORIAL AMENDMENTS A. In the definitions for electric vehicle charging system, alternating current Level 2 charging station and direct current fast charger delete references to installation compliance with article 625 of the National Electrical Code as it is already covered by Chapter 5D of the Hawaii County Code. B. In Section 24-245.6. Penalties. Amend reference to section 291- 71 to instead reference section 291- 72 and remove close quotes at the end of the sentence. C. In Chapter 25 definitions, amend Networked charger to just Networked as only Networked is used in the body of the code. D. In Section 25-4-54.1. Parking for electric vehicles; electric vehicle charting systems (h)remove the word reasonable as this is undefined and subjective. III. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED DISCUSSION POINTS A. 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? B. For existing lots, if the EV charging parking stall requirements put them in violation of any other parking stall requirements due to needing an ADA accessible stall and perhaps converting stalls from compact to standard size,what should happen? Can 3 the director approve a variance? Should they be exempted from putting them in or allowed to modify the requirements? C. Section 25-4-54.2(a)allows the director to modify the number of required DC fast chargers that would be installed in place of the level two chargers as long as the same capacity was met. One of the P and R comments was that it would be good to have a ratio here. A 50kW DC fast charger basically runs 7 times faster than a level 2 charger. So,the basic formula would be that every DC charger could replace 7 Level 2 plugs (1 DC =7 Level 2 plugs). However, it is important to remember that not every car can plug in to a DC Fast charger. The formula could be better addressed by allowing one DC charger to replace 6 Level 2 plugs,with a companion requirement to have at least one Level 2 plug alongside the DC fast charger or a Level 2 plug included on the DC fast charger which is how many are designed. 4