Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWMTC 2022/08/02 2020-2022 Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit 23`'d Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii August 2, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit ORDER: was called to order at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Hilo by Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather Kimball, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Absent& Excused: Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to provide comment, and came forward when called by the Chair: Tanya Power: Comm. 877. (representing the West Hawaii Association of Realtors Government Affairs Committee.) Noel Morin: Bill 120 (Comm. 608). (representing Hawaii Electric Vehicle Association and Big Island EV) Bill McCowatt: Comm. 877. (representing Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce) PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 877: REQUESTS AN UPDATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REGARDING THE ELECTRONIC PROCESSING AND INFORMATION CENTER (EPIC)PERMITTING SYSTEM From Council Member Holeka Goro Inaba, dated July 12, 2022. Motion to Close File: Mr. Inaba moved to close file on Comm. 877. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. Good morning. I wanted to bring back our last discussion. I think it's been a while since the former director was here and presented to our body regarding where we are in terms of the EPIC (Electronic Processing and Information Center), and I would say that may be because we're still working out the kinks. So I've invited Acting Director Steve Pause as well as Managing Lee Lord to kind of start us off with the discussion. Gentlemen, if you would come up please,just to let us know where things are in terms of applications, how we're doing in comparison to the previous update that the department provided; and then giving the opportunity for the committee to kind of ask them additional questions as to some of the kinks that were brought up during the testimony provided this morning. (Note: At this time, Managing Director Lee Lord and Acting Public Works Director Steve Pause came forward to address the members of the Committee. MR. LORD: Good morning, and thank you all, Council Members. Lee Lord, Managing Director. Thank you, Council Member Holeka for inviting us to give an update—(technical difficulties). CHR. LEE LOY: Managing Director, we'll take a quick recess and have them work that out. This meeting is in recess. MR. LORD: Okay. CHR. LEE LOY: This meeting is in recess. Recess: At 9:13 a.m., the Chair called for a short recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9:14 a.m. Page 2 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, everyone. I'm going to take this meeting out of recess. Mr. Lee, please proceed. MR. LORD: Good morning again, Lee Lord, Managing Director. Thank you, Holeka, for inviting us. I did send a communication in the middle of July,just to update you all. Because we hadn't had a chance here at Council to inform you all, we are working on an assessment and an evaluation of the permitting process. With the departure of the previous director, it became apparent that it would be a great time to do that, and so we went and looked for the perfect person to do that. We found a consultant who has worked with permitting and processing in Seattle, Oregon, and other states on the west, and is a well-known consultant for permitting and processing information. So his job was to look at the process that happens for permitting, the interactions that the staff have with the people that they interact with as well as the machines that we use and the tools that we use, including EPIC. So basically we're asking him to look at our whole system and the whole process and compare it to what he knows as the national local standard that works the best, and give us suggestions, or how to improve the process. He has stated he has a goal of getting permitting down to, you know, the two-weeks initial, also. We will need to see what we are suggested to change, and figure out the timeline for those changes. As stated by other people, it's not going to be one thing, it's going to be many things, and it might be big changes. But we also have to work with the staff. At this point and time, there has been a questionnaire that went out, or several questionnaires that went out, from the consultant to different staff in the County, including people in Planning. And we also had a Survey Monkey go out. When I asked staff in the County, you know, key people that use our system a lot—we've also included people who had big concerns in the past. I guess we wanted their opinions, too. And we asked them for their top three recommendations, concerns, and issues. We basically know most of all of those already. We have a great slice of the pie of all aspects of the permitting process when we're asking those questions. James Tinner is our consultant that we're using. He's right now planning a working on getting a plane ticket to come because he does need to be onsite for approximately a week to meet with the staff and have individual conversations and group conversations. He's also letting us know that he's going to make some suggestions for small changes as he's moving along, what we could possibly do without big effort, that could just help as we go along. So right now, we're meetingI'm meeting with him at least a minimum of once a week on the phone. We also have Zoom calls with the key people, including Steven (Pause). And then he's also contacting and speaking directly with staff at Public Works at this point and time. So that's the update for us now. I'm happy Page 3 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 to answer any question. But I think Steven, being boots on the ground, could probably answer more than I could at this point. MR. INABA: Mr. Pause, is there anything you have to add from the department's perspective? MR. PAUSE: Just in general, yeah. In general, I have a number of things that I can MR. INABA: Yeah,please go ahead. MR. PAUSE: Okay, thanks. Thanks, Lee. Steve Pause, Acting Director DPW (Department of Public Works). So this is an update on the workings and the implementation of the EPIC System, and I think it's a pretty good segue. I've had some involvement to this date, mostly on a periphery with rolling out EPIC. I think it's worth noting that the consultant we hired pretty much spoke verbatim of the thoughts that I had that I wanted to share with you today, where we're talking about rolling out a new tool, a new process if you will. But you're talking about people, process, and technology, right? So anytime you want to successfully roll out a project, an organizational change, which this is what this is. I mean, those are the three things that you consider. So the question is, how is the permitting process really going? I guess it's timely, right? July 26, 2021, is when we rolled out EPIC, so we've been at it for about a year. The overall concept of taking what we did and adapting it into an electronic system, I think—I don't think anybody has disagreed with that approach, going the electronic route. But we've also took on a rather big bite, by transitioning a lot of the legacy applications and getting that into the system. That was a challenge. And the person from the realtor group—and I will address her comments directly, I'm working on a response to her letter. She brought up some good points. We actually have one final data migration that's scheduled for the weekend of August 19'', and I am told that will be the final amount of information that kind of fell through the cracks or didn't quite make it in the first time. But it should hopefully answer all her questions about, you know, where are things from Magnet, from Lotus? There was a bunch of information that just didn't come across. So that was a challenge, as well. Training our staff has been a challenge; training the public. Just getting the public acceptance. And there are times—and I've discussed this with Lee as well, where you kind of look at this overall approach that we've gone on. This journey, if you will. Ad I think about the change curve, right? So you start off with something and you're changing the way people do things. The way public applies for permits, the way our permit clerks intake permits, the way our reviewers' reviews permits, right? So there's that, I think, the initial shock and the denial, and then Page 4 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 there's the frustration with the community. There is depression that kind of sits around there. And then people start experimenting. And I think you've turned a corner, and you get to that place where there's acceptance, and ultimately you have commitment, you have enthusiasm. I think we're getting close toI feel comfortable saying that we're getting to acceptance. I have actually heard some feedback from folks saying, "Hey, this is a really good idea," okay. But at the end of the day, it still comes back down to the whole issue with people,process, and technology. So let me talk real quick about people. And I do have some statistics that I'll share with the group after. Let's talk about people a little bit. The building department has absolutely been hammered by not being able to fill spots, by COVID, several ways; and despite that, I think that we're doing a pretty good job. I counted it up. Between both sides of the island,we should have ten clerks, presently we have nine. We have another one out on maternity leave, and then again, throw in COVID and some of the other challenges that we've had. On the inspector side, we have a total position opening of 36 inspectors, counting supervisors, and right now we only have 28. And we're actually using a couple of the supervising inspectors to help us do plan reviews. On the plan review side, we have openings for eleven people who should be doing plan review, and we only have six. We're working people extra hours during the course of the week. We're working weekends. We're doing the best we can. But again, we get hit with COVID,just like every other industry, right? Anybody try and take a flight lately and have it get canceled because there are not enough pilots? It's the same thing. But that's the challenge, okay? So the people side of it, the training of our people, that's been a challenge. But it's coming around. We have new leadership. We have a new Building Chief, Juliann Sonomura. We have a new Deputy Building Chief, Kelly Wilson, who has been with the County for ten years. Juliann is a licensed engineer; Kelly is a licensed architect. It's a transition, right? They've been at the job I think a couple of weeks now. So people, process side. We're constantly looking at process improvement, and I think Bill McCowatt brought that up, as well. What can we tweak? What can we do better? Our consultant is going to help us I think a lot in this area because he's got a wealth of experience looking at other municipalities, especially in the Pacific northwest,places that have experienced similar sorts of rollouts of new technology. And, what sorts of things can we do to improve our process? How can we improve the intake process? How can we make the clerks not have to touch the applications as much? How can we out-process faster? There are little things that we're looking at, and James Tinner is helping us to this point, of little things that we can do to maybe streamline and cut days off of reviews. So, that's Page 5 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 process. And again, there are a lot of ideas, there are a lot of things that have been kind of floating about. As far as the technology goes, I mentioned we're updating the database, right? We have one last data dump to go in, that a number of things were missed. But all in all, the feedback from the community is that the tool is okay. I mean, can we improve it? Yes. But generally speaking, the technology the ability to review plans in parallel, right? Instead of serial, right? Instead of like, you take the plans, give it to the next person, and the next person, now everybody can open one viewing session, and review it at the same time. So, that's another really positive thing that the tool allows us to do, and we can take further input from the community. We've had some hiccups, but again, I think the short of it is we've got a tool that we can work with. Let me talk about statistics. I know previously—and currently, you can see online. There's a rolling average of dates and review time, and those sorts of things. Presently, there are over 450,000 permit cases in EnerGov that we've migrated, and obviously we have new cases, as well. But we switched over, from Magnet, from Lotus, and I was told even from the Abicus, right? So there were some pretty old things there. In the last year, we've created a little over 7,100 applications in EnerGov, okay? So 7,100 new applications in EnerGov. Since last year, again we've issued approximately 5,900 permits. Presently we have about 700 permits that are waiting to be intake. That means the applications had been received in EPIC, but the clerk still has to review the projectoh, I'm sorry the owner declaration form, and make sure that all drawings and things are where they're supposed to be. So, a little over 700. We have a little over 2,100 permit applications that are awaiting resubmittal. That means they've been reviewed; we've sent them back, did the owners and the architects, and they need to make revisions and resubmit. And then lastly, we have approximately 1,200 permits that are in some stage of review presently. So I threw numbers at you, but let me try to do the balance of the math for you, right? So 7,100 permits have been—applications had been created in EnerGov. We've issued 5,900. There are a little over 700 waiting to be in-took, little over 2,100 that had been returned for resubmittal, and about 1,200 that are presently being reviewed. And then one last number, there are about 13,000 permits with inspections that have been completed in EnerGov and EPIC. So I can redo those notes. I can even write them, and get them to you. But the short of it is that there's a lot of stuff going on in there. Now, here's where the rubber hits the road, right? How are we doing with review times? I tried to get the latest and greatest from last week, and I wanted to focus on where are we today versus where are we compared to the past, versus what you Page 6 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 see online where you see a rolling average of about six months, okay? So in the last month, the average time for an application once it's received in EPIC until it's intaken. I don't know if it's intaken or intook, but it's one of those words. Until the intake process is completed, is about 30 days. So you submit it; you press the button you get all your attachments, your forms; it takes the clerks about 30 days to get to it so that they can then make sure that everything is right, and they can pass it along for the review process. Once that's done, the average time right now—it goes to land use, right? First guys in the process. The average time for land use to turn around an application right now is about three days. They're quick. Okay, 30-day intake, about three days to do the land use. And then once the intake process is complete and it goes to land use for review, it's now ready to be reviewed by the plans examiners. And the average time, if there are no resubmittals, no corrections, the average time right now is about 60 days. I'm averaging residential and non-residential. It's about 60 days to get the review done. And then one of the issues that I know, and it's probably near and dear to Matt(Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder), PV applications. In the beginning, it was just stuck with all the rest of them, and what we've done is we've pulled them out. We've got electrical supervisors helping expedite that. And right now our average PV alteration or new construction is around two weeks, which is what it's taking to turn around the permit. I don't know if you've seen something different, but that's a real improvement. So from the statistic standpoint, you know, it's all good information. I'm not trying to sugarcoat anything. There's still room for improvement, but I believe there is some progress. I think the community—somebody brought up, more community outreach. I don't know if you folks know Tom Leonard from the west side. I actually just met with him yesterday. He's been instrumental in the EPIC Steering Committee, but he's got some really good ideas on how to better to engage the community. So those things that we can do looking forward, or as we look forward. I guess I'll take questions. I'm sure there are going to be questions. But that's the brief summary. Okay, thank you. MR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Pause. So are we still on track for the September 15'', the first-round report from the consultant? MR. LORD: It will depend on travel schedules and the ability for flights, and costs. We're trying to make sure we're responsible with the funds. So it's the summer schedule getting him here from the mainland, but we're still shooting for that, if possible. Yes. Page 7 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 MR. PAUSE: And just to add to that, Holeka, I've had some direct conversations. Lee mentioned that we've been in communication. There are a number of ideas. There are a number of processes, changes, tweaks. There are even some minor things that they can do with the software application itself. And we've had discussions, so we're not sitting around waiting for one final report. He's been very helpful. I had a conversation with him. I think it was about a one-time review, you know, being able to just put in a permit application and make marks on it and let the inspectors, you know we've talked about those sort of things. And he seems to have a lot of experience in various communities, where that has worked or not worked. But those are the kind of conversations. I don't think what we see at the end of—the middle of September or a little bit later is really going to be a surprise. We're going to be working interactively along the way. MR. INABA: Okay. And then in terms of the funds, how much have we paid for this consultant? MR. LORD: Our contract is for $10,000, and that doesn't mean he'll use it all, and then there's also a travel budget up to $6,000, depending on if he had to return or not, that doesn't mean he will use that all. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. And the contract is specifically just for the assessment and recommendations, right? Not necessarily assisting with the implementation of those recommendations? MR. LORD: Correct. MR. INABA: Okay. MR. LORD: If we—depending on his recommendations, if needed assistance and help on carrying those out, we have an option to make a second contract for that, should we decide to go forward with him. MR. INABA: Okay. And then in terms of the data migration, is that happening in-house or is somebody outside the County helping to move all of that last bits of data? MR. PAUSE: Yes, both. Both. MR. INABA: Both. MR. PAUSE: It's been done with Tyler. We picked that weekend because the 19'h is a holiday, so to have as little impact on the public as possible. Page 8 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 MR. INABA: And then who is doing the training? Is that leadership within the department who is training our staff, or do we have people from EnerGov training our staff? MR. PAUSE: No, most of the training that I speak of now is user-training, is both working with the community and members of the public and within our internal you know, we've developed training videos that are available online. And again, I mentioned, in my conversation with Tom Leonard, is what we need to do is get a better idea of who's using what tool, right? It's one thing to develop training information, YouTube videos, Facebook blurbs, and all sorts of things, we really need to find out what's the best way to reach the users and the community that needs to be able to use the tool. And then internally, yes we've—one of the other things we're working on is developing checklists. You think to yourself that was pretty, like, simple. Why didn't we do that right off the bat? But I think if you put yourself back about a year, it was a little hectic at the time that things rolled out. So being able to provide a clerk with a checklist that will help; or share with the public, so when they do a submittal, we can maybe save some time by making sure everything is right the first time. MR. INABA: Okay. And going back to the people part of the equation, I know you said we have eight out of nine positions in the intake clerk's field, is that right? MR. PAUSE: We have nine of out ten. MR. INABA: Nine out of ten, okay. It's taken 30 days though, right now, for us to even look at an applieda submitted application, yeah? So even if MR. PAUSE: Yes, which is an improvement on what it was in the past. MR. INABA: And we're 90 percent staffed; I know we have the COVID problems. But in your opinion, looking at our personnel and the process, even if we're fully staffed for these positions, is that enough to get our turn-around and our processing of these applications and the permits faster than it currently is? MR. PAUSE: In my opinion, getting fully staffed is going to be a really, really big help to being able to decrease those turnaround times. Again, weI will make this statement, I came on as Deputy in May 2021, and we have not interviewed for a plans examiner position or an inspector position since I've been here. Now, we have some scheduled for August,which is a good thing. And I've engaged main HR (Human Resources), and we obviously need to get better at that. But yeah, having more people in seats will significantly improve our ability to improve on turnaround times. Page 9 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 MR. INABA: Are ten positions enough, though? Because that's a 30-day waiting period just to—for intake. I know later, when we're getting to the inspection—or the plan review, we're at half-staff right now, six out of eleven. So I mean that one obviously, it's a 60-day wait period, and it didn't make sense that we're so short-staffed. MR. PAUSE: Well, it's 60 days because we're also working them overtime. We're fortunate that people are stepping up and willing to work Saturdays to help in that department. As far as the clerks go, I'd have to get back to you on that becauseI mean, if we can do a couple of small modifications to our overall process, we might be able to reduce the workload on the clerks. You know, they do so much. They also are on the frontline. They deal with people who come. The answer phones. They try to help people and assist online. So it's hard for me to say that ten is enough, but I don't know what the right number would be. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. Last question, Managing Director Lord. Steve's carrying two positions right now essentially, do we know when we'll have a new director onboard? It's great that we have the Division Chief and Deputy, but when will we have a new Director? MR. LORD: Mayor Roth is returning today to the State. So we've had no interests or applications other than Stephen Pause, so I'm going to ask him if we can go through with the interviews in the month of August. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. Chair, thank you. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. I see Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Pause, and thank you, Mr. Lord, for being here this morning. Mr. Pause, I just want to say mahalo, and you're doing a tremendous job as filling in for Mr. Rodenhurst who is no longer with us. And I appreciate the summary today. It was good. It's helpful. I just wanted to check on a few things. So 30 days was the intake process before we even touch it, is that right? MR. PAUSE: Yes, that's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And at 30 days, then you see the planning review, you all these other pieces start to kick in? MR. PAUSE: That's correct. Page 10 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then, yeah, following up on your comment regarding solar PV permits. What I was hearing from the industry is about four to six weeks, and that's very acceptable for them given that it used to be—and was getting like three to six months. So you've made tremendous strides in speeding up the process. We're talking about sustainability, that's key, so thank you. I want to touch on something that's come up before. I was in the field, that I was an electrical worker. I would call inspections. The inspectors were always very prompt and timely. My gut tells me, and some of the people that I've talked to within the department, that inspectors are not what we need. So I just wanted to check though, I mean, to kind of fact-check that. How long does an inspection take right now? I mean, if someone calls in for an inspection, what kind of timeline are we looking at? MR. PAUSE: I think required to respond within two days. And that's done. I mean I'm not aware of any missed inspections. I'm not even aware of complaints on that side. I mean, inspectors are out there for new construction and alterations, those sorts of things; but they also have another role where they're answering complaints. And I will tell you that we do get a lot of complaints with people reporting unpermitted structures and things like that. We get a lot of those. So I would tell you that going out to do an inspection on a permit will take precedent over complaint calls. Again, we've been challenged, right? There were two weeks when all three of my plumbing inspectors in Kona were out with COVID. You know, how do you manage that, other than you take somebody from Hilo for the ones that come in and you have to do and, you know, we manage. But it's challenging. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It is. I mean, I'm a small business owner too, so COVID has been a pain in everyone's butt, and it's hard to deal with. So, I appreciate that. So you're saying two days. Is that about average for inspections? MR. PAUSE: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Electrical, building, same-same? MR. PAUSE: Um-hum. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And you have inspector positions that are open right now? Page 11 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 MR. PAUSE: Yes, I have presently four open positions for building inspectors, Kona side; plumbing inspector, one in Hilo, one in Kona; plumbing inspector, one in Hilo, one in Kona; and electrical inspectors, two in Kona. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Given the timeframe it takes to get an inspection and the expediency that I've seen from the department, I'm not prioritizing that in my head because they're doing a good job right now. And unless they're feeling some kind of stress, not being able to do their job on time, which I don't see from the numbers. MR. PAUSE: Well, these are funded positions, and in the end, it would be nice to be able to get some bodies in the seats. I also mentioned that we've been fortunate. Our plumbing and our electrical supervisor inspectors are doing plan reviews for us, and that helps out as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That kind of brings me to my next point. The plan reviewer seems to be the sticking point for us. Has there been any move towards having the clerks, and adjusting some of the PD (Position Description) so that they can help do reviews or more of the intake process? MR. PAUSE: There's been discussions about that, and I actually would tell you that I think there are one or two clerks that are may be doing a little bit more than their clerk role to help with the plan review process. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. PAUSE: So, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I like that. Please commend for that. MR. PAUSE: I will. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It's very much appreciated. MR. PAUSE: We've got awesome clerks. They are the glue. They do a great job. Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Yeah, so plan reviewers, I think just across the board right now, from everyone that I talked to in the community, it's hard to find staff. They're just not coming out to apply for the positions, and jumping in and wanting to be there, or it's COVID or waiting for the kids to go back to school, I don't really know. But there's just not a lot of staffing out there. MR. PAUSE: I had a brief discussion with James Tinner, and I'm like, "What's been your experience?" It's interesting because people start off in a trade and they work their way up in the trade, and they get more responsibility and make Page 12 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 more money, and then eventually the wear and tear on the body says, "Gee whiz, it might be a good time to do that transition into a government role and being an inspector, and not be climbing doing those sorts of things. For whatever reason, maybe people are living better so that they're not falling apart so early in life. And they're just not coming to come help us as inspectors. It's interesting. But he says it's pretty much standard that he seen in many locales, that they're just not getting people that make that life transition if you will, from working the field to being an inspector. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I agree. I agree. I'm seeing it in our sector too, so it's affecting everybody. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Yeah, you're doing a good job, so mahalo. Thank you, Mr. Lord. Thank you, Mr. Pause. MR. PAUSE: Thank you for that. I appreciate it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I yield, Chair. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair; and thank you, Acting Director. Yes, you are doing a great job. I'll just say that I've heard from some of the folks that I know in the department that there's some improvement in the mood, and I think that's due to your leadership. So I don't know what you're thinking. And I also want to mahalo your wife, who I'm sure is missing some time with you these days. I had a couple of quick questions. Is it possible, and this is either for you or Managing Director Lord, could we get a copy of the scope of work for the consultant,just to get a better sense of what the services are going to be that they're providing? MR. LORD: Yes, it's fairly broad but specific to what we're doing. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. And then there was mention of 30 days for the intake, is that length of time primarily just due to backlog? Like that's they're still kind of catching up to a certain extent. Have we seen any improvement in the weekly rate; for example, of intakes per reviewer with the EPIC System? MR. PAUSE: I think again it comes back to the clerks. They have a lot on their plate. They have multiple duties. I don't want to say that processing a brand new submittal and getting it into the intake process is a low priority, but I think it's just kind of the way it works out. You know, I threw the number of, like on average, 30 days. I was not trying to be overly optimistic because the real numbers I have here are 29 days for residential and 20 for a nonresident. If you average that, it's 25 days. But it's clearly an area Page 13 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 where we can improve. And I think some of the thoughts that we have around process, maybe streamlining the process, where they can get through intake a little faster. The other thing is interesting. Lee mentioned that we did some questionnaires for our consultant. I thought it was interesting; we surveyed the clerks directly in the kind of like a little blast out of David Lettermen, right, give us your top ten things that go wrong when somebody submits an application. So it was interesting, we got that,just like we got the top ten that we constantly see when we're doing review process, as well. I mean, one of the simple ones, as a clerk that comes in, is people have their houses, or their land and property, in trusts. And you have to submit a document that says you have the signature authority from that trust to sign for your permit application. Sometimes that whole thing can go round and round, and that's just one small item. It could be something as simple as you know, you're supposed to have a list of drawings, and they don't submit that list of drawings, or they missed drawings and things like that. So those are all part, I think, of the process that we're looking at to try to streamline it so that it makes it faster for the clerks to go so that they could do more and go faster. MS. KIMBALL: So it sounds like there's still a little bit of user education that needs to happen in terms of what is required at the time of submittal. MR. PAUSE: I would think so, and I think a checklist. I don't know how broadly we are using checklists now, but certainly that's another one where you put that out and say if you're going to submit, make sure you have—we may have that. People may choose to ignore it; it goes back to the communication. What's the best way to work with the public? Is it telling them that there's YouTube video to watch, or is it maybe being a bit more aggressive and putting things under them, and say, "Here's the checklist that you want to follow." I'm not sure. MS. KIMBALL: Is there any opportunity to control it within the technology? To say, "Okay, you can't go to step two unless you've submitted document-x, and actually have that part of the EPIC System intake system itself. MR. PAUSE: I'm not sure. It's something we can look at. I just know now that they can't go to step two unless the Clerk gets all the necessary forms, the owner declaration, and all of the submittals that need to go the initial permit fee. If you will, the clerk is the gatekeeper, right? It doesn't go to step two until the clerk presses the button, as we received all the things that we need to receive. MS. KIMBALL: It seems like within step one, you know, if they could be guided, Step 1 A, Step 1 B, Step 1 C, and have to go through it incrementally, but Page 14 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 make sure they're providing those documents. But I let the consultant figure that out. For the 60-day plan review, you mentioned that that's on average for plans without comments and resubmittals. What percentage is that of the total reviews that you do, that don't require that—or don't have that component? MR. PAUSE: I'll do rough math. Seven hundred permits and intake, 2,100 were returned. I'd say—and I've been told that better than 70 percent of first submissions get returned for one reason or another. So I just did the rough math, and it comes out to be 75, so I think that's a decent number. MS. KIMBALL: Does the 60-day review include any review that's happening outside of the department; so for example, Fire review? MR. PAUSE: Yes. So it's a multi-agency review. So it's Fire, it's DOH (Department of Health), you know, IWSs' (Individual Wastewater Systems). It could be DEM (Department of Environmental Management) if there's a sewer hookup as well as MS. KIMBALL: And the review of the timing through those processes, is that included in the scope of work for the contractor? Is he going to be looking at that, their reviews as well as your own? MR. PAUSE: Yes. Yeah, so it was actually—it was coincidental that the contractor's work-scope says he was going to look at people,process, and technology. I felt kind of intelligent that day when I read it. I think my mind is, even a blind squirrel finds a nut. So yeah, I got lucky. MS. KIMBALL: All right. That's all the questions I had. Again thank you, Acting Director for being here today. I appreciate the well-organized and data-driven presentation. I yield, Chair. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Not so much questions, a quick comment. I'm really glad that we have made the shift, and I know it's been difficult, and I know the public has been critical, and I know this Council has been interested. I won't say critical but pointed to a point. However, I do want to say I was with an architect and a realtor yesterday, and they both commented that they have, from their perspective, seen a substantial improvement, and that was unsolicited. They were just talking about it because we were working on something else. And so, credit where credit is due because things are improving. And when the end-user is saying, you know, it is getting better; we're starting to see a little bit of light. So I needed to pass that along Page 15 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 because it's not all bad. There's actually good stuff coming forward. So I want to thank you, Steve, for your efforts and initiative. And thanks, Lee, for being here. This is for the public to hear, but the end-users are seeing improvement, and so I think we are starting to see what we wanted to. And I'm that we're going the consultant, I'm glad we're doing all that. But we are definitely in a good direction, so I just wanted to pass that along. Thanks, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thanks, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? I see your light on again, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I want to touch on that 70 percent. So give me some numbers real fast here, 2,100 coming in, 70 percent are being kicked back out. MR. PAUSE: I said presently we have 2,100 permit applications that are awaiting resubmittal. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Those are then reviewed already and caught for mistakes? MR. PAUSE: That's correct, yeah. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. PAUSE: And the mistakes could be simple things. They could be big things. I mean, I haven't broken it down to that level. But once again, that's all part of looking at the process. Can we do something different that would then allow us to maybe pass something along instead of kicking it back? I don't know the answer, but something that we're looking for. One of the nuances of the system is when you have multi-agency review, you've got four or five people looking at the same set of plans. If one person finds like an issue, then it doesn't go back to the applicant until all five have completed their review. What would be the possibility of somehow being able to, you know, a guy forgot to put something, of kicking it back and getting it back in there before everybody finishes their review? That would just speed up the process and maybe prevent us from having to send the whole set of plans back. So, those are the sorts of things I don't have any answers yet, but I know there are a lot of people looking at that and those are some of the conversations I've had with the consultant. How do we use the tool to be more efficient? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you for that answer. You know, I think there are two parts to that. One is those reviews slow down the process, but they also really, really they create more work for our department. Not the reviews themselvesI'm sorry the—stop and the "There is a problem," send back Page 16 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 to the beginning, and redo to the applicant. I've heard both ways. I just want state here MR. PAUSE: No, once again you're stating an accurate issue here, right? It goes back to my awesome clerks who have to grab it, and send it back, and then it has to come back into the clerks, and then it has to be sent back out to the reviewer. So yeah, if we can figure out a way to parcel out the ones that are like, you know, can be handled maybe during inspections, or get things fixed before it has to go back all the way through the process and come back in. You know, those are real time-savings, and that will bring our numbers down. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Some of the guys who have been in the industry for a long time, they're saying, "Why can't the County just make it i instead of an 1, and just cross it out, red line it,put it in, and fix it?"Interesting, because that's the way it used to be, you know, 30 years ago. So I'm just putting that on the table for today. But I keep coming back to it, and I've seen this and I've heard this, if we could just I mean, we have engineers and architects who stamp all the projects. These are licensed professionals. They're putting their name on the document and saying that they approve of it, it comes into the County, and what I'm getting is we go back and recheck all of their data and all of their number. And that takes a lot of time on our end. We have inspections on the backends from our inspectors. I think we could speed that process up. MR. PAUSE: I asked that question already directly to Mr. Tinner. I cannot necessarily be as articulate as what he told me, but he thought that was a bad idea, and there is rationale behind that, and I'm really not intelligent enough today to explain that to you. But it is something that we looked at, that we continue to look at, and there may be some opportunity to do that going forward. But again, it gets a little complicated when we talk about certifying codes and some of those other things. But it's definitely still on the table. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, good. Yeah, that's a big number, 70 percent of plans getting kicked back for fixes big or small. That's a lot of work for the department and for the community. We need a good, finished product, but whatever we can do to lessen that number would be incredibly beneficial. MR. PAUSE: And we also complicated things. I'm not throwing out blame, and I'm not accepting responsibility, but we did change the Codes right before we did this. So another thing to deal with, right, another constraint, and a great big picture of organizational change. And I think we've managed to come through that, and ultimately the design community has kind of come along with that. You know, we're notI would be confident in saying we're seeing less and less issues around some of the things we saw initially with the Codes, you know, with wind, Page 17 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 and seismic, and a lot of the debates that still rage on in the backdoors—in the backrooms. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: There's been a lot of growth on both sides. MR. PAUSE: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So I think we're making improvements, but just trying to find ways to really, really streamline and smooth out the process, so it's clean for both sides of the parry. Okay, thank you, Mr. Pause. Thank you, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Kierkiewicz, please. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. Gentlemen, appreciate you being here, thank you. Managing Director Lord, I'm taking a look at the project scope for the consultant that you've engaged. Number four talks about looking at interactions and interfaces with customers. Does that mean the consultant is just observing or will he and his team be talking directly with members of the community that are using the permitting process? MR. LORD: I don't believe the consultant is going to be talking directly with MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Your mics not on. I want to make sure we're capturing that for the record. MR. LORD: Sorry. Managing Director Lee Lord. I don't believe the consultant is going to be talking directly to the community or to groups. He's been around the block numerous times and seen the issues. We, as I said, are using the questionnaire to the community and looking at people who are using our system and have had problems with our system, and asking them if they know anyone else who wants to share concerns that they haven't brought up. So he's not really a consultant that goes out and sits down with those community meetings kind of thing. So he's not going to be directly meeting unless there's somebody specifically that he has to talk to. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, so but key stakeholders that are using the system consistently? MR. LORD: Yes. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, I just want to make sure. MR. PAUSE: I also spoke with him. Take your consultant to school day, right? We do want to bring him in and let him observe and watch what happens at our offices when our clerks and some of our plans examiners do direct interaction Page 18 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 with the public. So that's another thing that he and I have discussed. Just trying part of the reason, you know, it's a good idea to get him out here. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Agreed, I think that's how we're going to get the most assessment for the situation. And so I'm going to assume that in October the Council and the community will be provided a copy of his findings, and also maybe an update from the Administration on what priorities you folks are going to pursue and implement. MR. LORD: Absolutely. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. Director Pause, so I'm looking at a permit workflow from one of my constituents. Applied February 25h, intake review was completed on April 25h, so a couple of months, a little more than the 30 days you had mentioned. Shout out, Planning Department. I see you back there. Land use, planner checkers on track for three days, good job. But now it says Building plan review started scheduled for May 31`." It is August 2nd, and they've my constituent's been reaching out to Building to understand where they are in this, in process, and are just being told, "It's in review. We're short-staffed." Any other insight? I mean, what can tell members of the community at this point? I know you folks are working hard to increase capacity, but— MR. utMR. PAUSE: Well, I'll tell you right now that there are some that slip through the cracks. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MR. PAUSE: It just happens. In this particular case, send me either the application number or the TMK (Tax Map Key), and I'll take a look at it. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And I will do that, and I appreciate that, but I don't think anybody deserves special treatment. You know what I mean? I want the process to work fair and equitably for everyone. It should. MR. PAUSE: It's not special treatment. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MR. PAUSE: We get people that maybe for whatever reasons they're not comfortable working on a computer, or they there are still challenges for some people working in the application. And on the other side of that, we don't have a dedicated helpdesk, right? We've got clerks. We've got our IES II(Information Education Specialist 11), you know doing lots of work with public outreach, training, and helping people. So, they do slip through the cracks. It's not special favor,just send me the stuff. Page 19 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I think we all just really want to make sure this process is working; I mean, getting these building permits out the door as quickly as possible. It really is the foundation of our economy. So we're all looking to help you help our community make that happen. Thank you, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. You know, I want to start moving on to our next item. So, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah,just real quick before you wrap things up, Chair. I wanted to mahalo you both for coming, and Mr. Pause for having the information ready. And hopefully you can also take into account that letter from the West Hawaii Association of Realtors, as we work to improve the process. And mahalo, Lee, for being here, as well. Appreciate it. MR. LORD: And thank you, all; and thank you for having us. And thank you, all, for all you do for our constituents. CHR. LEE LOY: All right. You know,just taking it home. Mr. Lord, if you could please, when your consultant is done with that report and any actionable items that us, as policymakers, may need to address within the Code, we look forward to that. That would be incredibly helpful. MR. LORD: Right. I think there will be other things we're coming to talk about also, once we get to that point. CHR. LEE LOY: Great. MR. LORD: And I will also supply the scope of service, and share the project charter that I drew up and the consultant edited it, and we agreed upon. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. MR. LORD: Okay CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Pause, thanks for being here. If you could actually provide a memo with all of the data that you provided today,just so we can round out this communication and put it into the file with this particular communication? I think going forward, as we look and learn the lessons of what we've learned over the last year to the information you provided today, and then measure that going forward I think would be rather helpful. But I do want to provide a big shoutout to your clerks, they have been working incredibly hard, and the overtime that's coming out of that department to kind of keep this process going has been phenomenal. I just see it, right? The 30 days, you know, and then we get to the critical point of where we're only half-staffed, Page 20 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 kind of stretches that timeline out to another 60 days. You know, when you just take that global look, you can see how it's flowing in and then reaches a place where we just are understaffed. Mr. Pause, I saw you hit your light. Sounds like you wanted to say something. MR. PAUSE: No I thank you for that. We have incredible people. It's the clerks. It's the plans examiners. It's the inspectors. Everybody is just really pitching in. They don't read a whole lot of good news about DPW Building Department these days, so just being able to state that, and I'll make sure that they hear it. They work very hard. We're doing the best we can with what we have. And we're also trying to be forward-thinking enough to look at how we can do things better. Work smarter. So, thank you for your support. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Pause. And I think the other side of this is work we're working really hard on our side of the counter, but the other part of this equation is the users, right, educating them, ensuring them that the checklist and all the information that they put into the system is actually helping them help themselves with the clerk. So I look forward to that outreach, too. Mr. Pause, if you don't mind expanding on that, on the other side of the counter, and the work that we're doing not only with the McCowatt and Tom Leonard and all of our stakeholders there but also just our draftsman and our architect. MR. PAUSE: Yes, that's an important critical part of what we do, and I think you've heard me before you in the past, talking specifically about projects and engaging stakeholders and how important that is. So it's been brought to my attention, and we're looking for new and better, and improved ways to reach out and engage the design community. I've actually reached out to a couple of designers directly. But yes, we need to do a better job at that; and listen and hear what they have to say, because ultimately as you are aware, the success of what we're doing here is based on acceptance and getting past that. And what's the last one on the change curve? I think it's thriving, right? So that's where we want to get. So, thank you for your support. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. And just food for thought for my colleagues, you know, Maui just launched their maps. It's Maui's Automatic Planning and Permitting System, which I think they're a lot of lessons from us. So even for design professionals who do work across the State, I think this is one area that they learn from and then learn at other municipals. So with that, my Council Members, we have a motion to close file on Communication 877. All those in favor,please say "aye." Page 21 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 Vote on Comm. 877: The motion to close file on Comm. 877 was carried by Filed the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Richards, and Chair Lee Loy —6. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung, David, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: I think we have to take a recess. This meeting is in recess. Recess: At 10:09 a.m., the Chair called for a short recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:16 a.m. CHR. LEE LOY: Alrighty, taking this meeting out of recess. The time now is 10:16 (a.m.). The next item on our agenda, Bill 120. Bill 120: AMENDS 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 Requires all newly constructed "places of public accommodation"with at least 50 parking spaces to install electric vehicle chargers under a tiered schedule that increases the required amount of electric vehicle chargers every two years through 2029. Reference: Comm. 608 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball Referred to Planning Director and Planning Commissions: February 22, 2022 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Mr. Inaba, to recommend passage of Bill 120 on first reading.) and Page 22 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 Comm. 608.47: From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated June 22, 2022, transmitting for Council's consideration and action the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions' letters and enclosures. ; and Comm. 608.48: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated July 25, 2022, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 120. CHR. LEE LOY: If you would like to lead our discussion, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, thank you. Yes, I'd like to just go ahead, right in, and lead with a motion to amend Bill 120 with the contents of Communication 608.48. CHR. LEE LOY: Looking for a second? Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 120 with the contents of Comm. 608.48. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Kimball, go ahead, on the amendment. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you, Chair. If you can give me a little leeway, I will walk through all of the changes that we made with the recommendation of the Director and Planning Commission. But I did want to start out with a huge mahalo to Christian Kay who helped us communicate the bill to the Planning Commissions. He did an excellent job of providing the background, the history, what was State law, and then what the bill does as well as describing the amendments that the department recommended to the bill. So thank you very much for that. I also wanted to just mahalo both of the Planning Commissions. You know, I don't know if they've ever had the experience ofI told them, "Welcome to how the sausage is made," so I don't think they've ever had the experience of actually working on draft legislation, but they had great comments, great participation from all their members. So just wanted to mahalo all the folks that stepped up to serve on our Planning Commissions, as well. So I'll just start with walking through this. Section 1, you see the one amendment there,just the incorrect reference to the wrong statute, so that has been amended. Going to Section 2, you'll see we've removed this reference to Article 625 of the National Electric Code because that is actually already contained in Chapter 5D of the Hawaii Code, so that seemed a more logical reference. Under Section 2, you'll see that we've changed—we've removed "actively charging" and have replaced it with the wording "plugged in with the intent to charge." This is because we felt the idea of enforcing active charging, it would be Page 23 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 very difficult to actually do And so what you'll see later is that we've made an amendment that allows the vendors to actually charge a lingering fee, and so we feel like that would be a better control for people parking in these spaces and occupying it beyond the state where they're actually charging their vehicle. And then the County has no responsibility for having to do any enforcement on that. Section 2, item number 4, is just a correction to the reference. Number 5, under Section (3), there was a discussion about the change—and the standard, which is actually six kilowatts per plug rather than just three. And you'll see why the reference to per plug becomes important later. Switching again to the Chapter 5 of the County Code rather than the National Electric Code, because that is referred to and within our Code. And you'll see that again in direct fast charger and electric vehicle charger. Network charger definition. We didn't actually refer to network charger, so we took "charger" off, and we do refer to "network." And then finally, you'll see a recommendation of the Leeward Planning Commission to actually define what a plug is, which seems inconsequential. But when you get to this next section in item six, what we originally specified is that they needed to have these chargers per each number of spaces, but what we really actually want is the parking spaces with the ability to plug in. So you might have one charger with four plugs, and so that's why we switched the reference to plugs instead of chargers. Under Section 6 here, the schedule, we've just kind of modified that a little bit to make it more clear; that we're talking about a standard size parking place. We did remove the language about—that they be maintained in working order at all times. Speaking with HELCO (Hawaiian Electric Light Company), they were having problems; for example, getting the equipment to repair their chargers, and so we didn't—we've added some additional wording later on. But that's not substantive changes, it's really just organizational. Similarly, for item (b), the original wording was to add two years for existing places of public accommodations that come in for plan approval. Rather than just saying that additional two years, we spelled out the increments, as well. Recommendation of the Planning Commission, we also added a deadline date for a public place of accommodation to comply with the revised statutes. So they would not be covered by (a) and(b), this is just covered by the revised statutes. I think this is something that is a point of discussion. December 31, 2025, is a long way off. It's maybe a little too generous even. We could have a discussion I think about making that a shorter time period. D is where you see that"actively maintained in good working order." Page 24 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 Again referring to plugs instead of chargers, item (f), we actually, in compliance with the recommendation of DCAB (Disability and Communication Access Board), we've added that one of the stalls should be ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible. We've also, per the recommendation of the Parks Department, added a clause in there that they only needed to be available for use when the facility was actually open for use. And then you'll see in item (h), that's where we've added the clause that additional fees could be charged if a vehicle is in the charging space beyond the charging period. Let's see, at the recommendation of the Director, under item 7, we had put in there that under Director's discretion, they could swap out the Level 2 chargers for the DC (direct current) fast chargers. The Director actually wanted us to provide guidance of what that should be, so it's roughly eight plugs. It's seven plugs per one DC level charger, but to keep it in even numbers. So you'll see what we have there in terms of the accommodation between Level 2s and the DC fast chargers. And then one of the other recommendations, I believe it came from the Leeward Planning was that there had to be some sort of documentation by a qualified professional about the ability to—if they were claiming an exemption because they didn't have the electrical infrastructure at the site, that there needed to be some sort of documentation of that from a qualified professional. And similarly, if an owner is taking advantage of the aggregation allowance from the Hawaii Revised Statutes, we actually require them also to demonstrate that with documentation that they've satisfied that requirement, under HRS 291-71. So a lot of changes, I know. It is I think a better bill, thanks to the help of the department and the Planning Commissions. And I look forward to discussing the concept as a whole after we get through this amendment. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. I'm going to poll my colleagues,just keeping in mind we have a 10:30 (a.m.), and then we also have members on the nomination on our next Planning agenda, and so I'm going to allow discussion, you know, right to 10:30. But just for my colleagues, I'm going to be placing this meeting in recess and we can have a discussion on when to pick this back up, only because I know this bill is very meaty, and we would need a lot of conversation around that. So with that, anyone else have some questions that could be real quick? I want to invite up also Planning Department. I see Jeff Darrow and Christian Kay in the back. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, you know, hold you to it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I don't know if it's going to be quick. I just have one question, though. For aI'm thinking about Page 25 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 my own business that I had before COVID, and it was a shared parking lot that had more than 50 spots, and it's owned by someone or an entity, but you have multiple lessees who utilize the space. In that case, being more than 50 stalls, who is responsible for the installation of the charging station or charging spots? MS. KIMBALL: May I respond? CHR. LEE LOY: Go ahead, Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Under this legislation of the owner, and whether or not that is passed off to the lessees in some way, shape, or form, you know, that's up to the relationship between the owner and the lessees, but it would not actually be triggered unless the owner went in for plan approval at the site. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so existing—even though it's existing and it has 50 parking spaces, unless they go back in for plan review or plan approval, then nothing happens? MS. KIMBALL: That's correct. There has to be some sort of trigger. Unless they're 100 or above, which is the State statute, and that's law that has to be complied with. That's where I was referring to the data of December 31, 2025, maybe we want to make the compliance with. It's been State law for a little bit now, so maybe we need to make that a little less generous. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, okay. Okay, thank you. Good job. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, quick question. I like the fact that you, under (h), whichever number it was, talks about it allows site owners to charge a reasonable fee, which is great because we're beyond proof of concept. Who defines reasonable? How do we do that? Did I miss that somewhere? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, that was actually one of the things that came up, and I believe we took the word "reasonable" out. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. MS. KIMBALL: Under (h), yeah. So yeah, I think we decided that the market would return reasonableness of the fee MR. RICHARDS: Okay. MS. KIMBALL: Rather than us trying to Page 26 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 MR. RICHARDS: Define it. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, it's an arbitrary term, so yeah. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, that's good. I wasn't sure if we're getting into a PUC (Public Utilities Commission) thing or things like that. But yeah, I like it. I like the way it's put together. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Looking at the time you know, Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead, ask your question. And I'm going to poll my colleagues, if we put a pin in this till later on today to continue the discussion, or if we're actually comfortable about moving this forward. Go ahead, Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I'll make it quick. Great work. You know, I really appreciate the very precise, surgical sort of amendments that were made here to really strengthen the overall bill. One thing about the 2025 date, I'm good keeping it there. I know you want to accelerate, but I'm also very cognizant of what's happening on the global level, some supply chain issues, and just the cost of everything being really exorbitant this moment. And so understand that fiscal pressure that folks are under, and so I'm comfortable with leaving this date in. I'm really curious about(d), where we talk about actively maintaining these EV chargers. So is that the responsibility of the property owner; and if so, how are we making sure that this is actually happening? Because there are a number of situations where I know constituents are trying to plug in, but they're plugging in but they're not being able to charge because the chargers are not in good working order. MS. KIMBALL: So who's (inaudible) the four outside the building here? Director Pause? Yeah, no excellent question. You know, one of the reasons that this is where it is and went through the Planning Commission is because all the enforcement of any of the clauses falls under the enforcement provisions of Chapter 25. And so what you're looking at here, it's going to be a complaint- driven process, where someone will file a complaint with the Planning Department, and then it will be up to them to contact the owner, who in this case would be responsible for actively maintaining it. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Since we have the Planning Department here, Deputy Director or Christian,just wondering if you could kind of elaborate a little bit about any complaints you've received to date about EV chargers not being in good working order, and how you've kind of resolved for that? I mean I know this is a new addition to the Code, but I'm assuming folks launch all kinds of complaints at you folks Page 27 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow and Planner Christian Kay came forward to address the members of the Committee. MR. DARROW: Good morning, Chair Lee Loy and Vice Chair Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder, and Council Members. Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. MR. KAY: Christian Kay, with the Planning Department. MR. DARROW: You know, this is one area of the bill that we've kind of been speaking to, enforcement, and it's an area we're just going to have to, when we receive complaints go out, and follow up. As of now, I don't think we've ever received a complaint. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MR. DARROW: So everything has been going well. I know people will call just to confirm that they have the correct amount of EV chargers, at Home Depot, or Target, or Walmart, but other than not in good working order—I mean, we all know of one that people joke about all the time, but we won't mention that one. You know, we'll just take them as they come. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. And Deputy, do you feel you have sufficient capacity within the department? MR. DARROW: Yes. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Great,just want to make sure. Christian, do you have anything else to add? MR. KAY: I was just going to follow up. Because this is not currently in our Code, we have no authority to enforce this under our enforcement mechanism. So that's kind of the idea, I suspect. Since in State's law, if there is any violation of that, then they could better deal with it that way. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay great. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I'll be supporting the amendments as written. Thank you, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. With that, noticing the hour, I'm going to place this meeting in recess. Mr. Clerk, I guess I would have to determine MR. BROWN: I think because of the subject matter—and it would be good to put an estimated time on it. I'd like to allow that notice for the public if possible, Chair. Page 28 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 CHR. LEE LOY: Okay, thank you. You know, I'm going to poll my colleagues. We have an amendment, and what everybody feels about at least accepting the amendments, and then having a Draft 2 in which we can have more discussion if anybody wants other discussions. Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I'm comfortable to vote on the amendments. CHR. LEE LOY: Okay. All right. So with that,we have a motion on the floor to amend Bill 120 with the contents of Communication 608.48. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 120, with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 608.48, was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved: Ayes: Committee Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Richards, and Chair Lee Loy –6. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member, Chung, David, and Villegas –3. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: Back to the main motion. Is there any more discussion? Okay if there's going to be more discussion, then I'm going to have to—Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah, noI'm in support of the bill. I just want to, for the record, state with regards to the transmittal letter from the Windward Planning Commission, I think there's some confusion and mixture with the Leeward Planning Commission. But to state on the record that both commissions did forward favorable recommendations, and that can be seen in the minutes that were attached with the transmittal letter. It doesn't explicitly say that Windward forwarded the positive recommendation. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Alrighty. Well with that then—Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, I have one more question, but I know we're at a time crunch, but I'd be more comfortable before I vote. Okay, okay. CHR. LEE LOY: Okay. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: If I can ask then, and then to either the writer or for the department, but I was under the assumption that this statute speaks to all parking lots and not just new construction or plan approval. MS. KIMBALL: No, it's there has to be a trigger for these County level prescriptions to take place. So it's either they're coming in for a brand new plan Page 29 PWMTC-23 August 2,2022 approval or they're coming in for a new lot; or it's an existing lot, and they're coming in for a plan approval. But if it's an existing lot, the County level provisions do not apply; however, the State revised statute still does. The one exception to that is the State statute does allow for aggregation, which is to say if you have an owner that owns multiple properties, they can satisfy the requirement in one property. I will say just quickly that that's something we're hoping to have the State actually modify, and at least have it be in one county. So you can have multiple properties, but it's got to be within the County, because right now they can satisfy in Honolulu and do nothing here if it's a business that owns properties in multiple jurisdictions. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. And Planning Department, do you agree with that statement? MR. DARROW: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: All right, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. I'm fencing, everybody is really comfortable. So we have a motion to forward Bill 120, as amended with the contents of Communication 608.48, to the Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 120: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 120, Draft 2 as amended to Draft 2, was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Richards, and Chair Lee Loy —6. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member, Chung, David, and Villegas —3. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: This brings us to the end of our agenda. Page 30