Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWMTC 2019/12/03 2018-2020Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit 16th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii December 3, 2019 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit ORDER: was called to order at 1:34 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member (came in later) Ms. Karen Eoff, Member, Member (came in later) Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member (came in later) Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (came in later) STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Deb Smith: (representing Vacationland Hawaii Community Association) Susan Kim: Nancy Seifers: Andy Andrews: (representing Leilani Estates Community Association) Nicolette Douvris: (representing Malama Homesteads) Comm. 639, in support. Comm. 639, comment. Comm. 639, comment. Comm. 639, comment. Comm. 639, in support. PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 CHR. LEE LOY: With that, managing the agenda, what I'd like to is take a few items out of order, starting with Resolution 409 then moving on to Resolution 424, then back to the top of the agenda with Communication 638 and then Communication 639. So with that Mr. Clerk, please Resolution 409-19. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, Business: the following items were taken out of order: Res. 409-19: ACCEPTS THE DEDICATION OF PARCEL IST (ROAD "A", KALUNA STREET) AND PARCEL 2ND (ROAD "B", KEALII STREET), IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEY: 7-8-010:084 (POR.), SITUATED AT KAHALU`U, KEAUHOU 1 ST, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, ISLAND AND COUNTY OF HAWAII, STATE OF HAWAII FROM KAMEHAMEHA INVESTMENT CORPORATION, A HAWAII CORPORATION The landholder seeks to dedicate the roadway and all improvements for public roadway purposes. Reference: Comm. 615 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy (B/R) (Note: Comm. 615. 1, from Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, transmitting a letter from Thomas Yeh, on behalf of Kamehameha Investment Corporation, which provides additional information regarding Res. 409-19.) Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to recommend adoption of Res. 409-19. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. LEE LOY: We also have Tom Yeh here, representing Kamehameha Investment Corp. Mr. Yeh, if you don't mind coming forward. (Note: At this time, Kamehameha Investment Corporation representative Thomas Yeh came forward to address the members of the Committee.) What I'd also like to share for the rest of my colleagues is in your pink folder you have Communication 615. 1, which is a supplemental letter from Mr. Yeh, kind of sharing some the unique features with this particular road dedication. So Mr. Yeh, maybe you should just start there. Thank you. MR. YEH: Thank you. Yeah, we did submit a letter yesterday, a little bit untimely. This road was built in conjunction with some subdivisions that occurred in the 1980s. And then around 2013, we began communicating with the Department of Public Works and various agencies to dedicate which we feel was a very important part of road system, which ties Kamehameha III Road with Alii Drive. It's a 60 -foot wide paved roadway. Page 2 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 At that time, we had basically landscaped sidewalk areas with grassing, and the makai side, what we did in order to comply with ADA (American Disabilities Act) requirements, we also widened the sidewalks, took out the grass landscaping on that side, and the benefit of that is it allows for it eliminates the need to irrigate grass landscaping. On the mauka side, two the of associations, Bay View and Hale Kehau, wanted to keep their landscaping in front, so we entered irrigation and landscape maintenance agreements that Corporation Counsel has approved. And then also, added zero scaping in median strips in the long other sections, the mauka side of the road, which will benefit, I think the County, from the standpoint of lack of need for irrigation as well as herbicide application. So for those reasons, we think that this is probably a pretty good win-win situation for the County. It's consistent with the County's policies. Kamehameha Investment Corporation spent almost $5 million doing these upgrades to make it something that we feel that the County will benefit from, both from a tie-in from a traffic circulation and also from a minimal maintenance perspective. So for that reason, we're asking for the Council's support of this resolution. Thank you. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Yeh. MR. YEH: Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Also included in your packet is a letter from DPW (Department of Public Works), Department of Environmental Management, Water, and Planning, basically providing no comment and support for this particular resolution. But with that, I'd open it up to any questions. I believe, Ms. Villegas, this one is in your district, so if you don't mind starting. Do you have any questions? MS. VILLEGAS: Thanks so much for having the foresight and the intuition to incorporate some newer options in road maintenance and street maintenance. I myself live on Olua Road, kind of the top of Kamehameha III area, so I'm familiar with this road the access that it provides. So I'm grateful and excited for the County to have the opportunity and also grateful for the investments that you made to make sure that it met all of the necessary standards. I myself am you know, I'm grateful for the incorporation of using our lava in the centers and the medians, and eliminating some of our needs for as much water consumption, and just kind of creating areas and landscapes that are in alignment with the rest of the landscape. They don't necessarily have to be completely different. So thanks for all your hard work on this. Really appreciate it. MR. YEH: Thank you. Appreciate it. MS. VILLEGAS: Aloha. Page 3 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Any other Council Members? Alright, not seeing any other, all those in favor of Resolution 409-19 please say Ic aye. Vote on Res. 409-19: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 409-19 was (Approved): carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. MR. YEH: Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Moving on Resolution 424-19. Res. 424-19: GRANTS A VARIANCE FROM CHAPTER 3, SECTIONS 3-5(a), 3-6(b)(3), 3-58(a)(2)(B), 3-58(a)(5)(B), 3-58(c), 3-59(a)(4), and 3-60(a), HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF GROUND AND WALL SIGNS AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 75-971 HENRY STREET, KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII, 96740, TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-004:007 Grants a sign variance to Kona Owner, LLC for construction of certain ground and wall signs at the Niumalu Marketplace. Reference: Comm. 642 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy (B/R) Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend adoption of Res. 424-19. Seconded by Ms. Eoff. (Note: At this time, Linda Schatz, representing Kona Owner, LLC; and Richard Vierra, from Clarence Lee Design & Associates, LLC, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. LEE LOY: With that, we have the applicant's representatives here, Linda Schatz, and she does have somewhat of a presentation. This is actually a very comprehensive sign ordinance package that not only went to the Department of Public Works but our Kailua Village Design Committee (KVDC). So with that, Ms. Schatz, if you don't mind introducing yourself, others that are with you, and go ahead and take us through this application. Page 4 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 MS. SCHATZ: Thank you again. Thank you for having us today. I just want to just briefly introduce ourselves. Linda Schatz, I'm the—Kona Owner, LLC, is the developer, and I represent the developer; and Richard Vierra is our signage designer and consultant, here today to give you guys a quick and thorough look at what we're presenting before you. I do want to just give a big thank you to the Public Works team. We've been working on this project since 2017; and Neil Ericson, Kelly Wilson, Neal Tanaka, had been a fantastic bunch of people to work with on this project, as well as in Planning with the Planning staff, and especially with Deanne Bugado, helping us get though KVDC (Kailua Village Design Commission) process, as well. So with that, I'll just kind of give you a very brief overview of the project itself and the location, and then Richard will go into some specifics. (Note: At this time, Ms. Schatz and Mr. Vierra displayed a portion of the materials attached to Comm. 642 for the Committee members convenience, and referred to the projector screen.) MS. SCHATZ: This project is about a 19 -acre parcel located on Queen Ka`ahumanu and down Henry Street. And it was at one time the Phase 11 of Lanihau Center. Again, we purchased this in 2017. We have about 183,000 square foot of retail. There is anticipated to be a Safeway, a 63,000 square foot Safeway here, that's currently in construction. And the Safeway from the Crossroads will be relocating to this facility. Their current facilities are a little small and cramped, and so they're very looking forward to expanding their offerings here for the community itself. We are also working and leasing additional community serving benefits and uses for the community itself, as well. And so we've gone through the process, I want to say at least six times now. Back and forth getting—they are really the voice of the community, and we really wanted to make sure that we listened to their input. So we went back many, many times to perfect this project. It is on a sloping site from the highway. And preserving the views to the ocean were critical. So what we ended up doing was sloping the project down towards the ocean so that our buildings, which are rather large because they're large retail, actually tier down and remain hidden from view along the highway, for the most part. So we worked really closely with them. Also on water conservation with the County as well too, on the landscaping, to ensure to that we preserve the public trust on that, as well, and do our part. And then this is the final piece now, which is the signage variance that we are presenting before you. So this gives you just a little quick overview. I am going to Page 5 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 toss it on to Richard right now, who will give you a quick but thorough review of the actual project variances that we're looking—that we're seeking. MR. VIERRA: Good afternoon. Thank you, Council Members, for allowing us to provide this presentation. So just to go into some specifics, you know, after Linda's general overview. We are proposing two ground signs. The first, which would be the major ground sign, would be here at the corner of Queen Ka`ahumanu and Henry Street, and basically to notify the public that, you know, here we are, and turning down Henry Street. The two entries to the property, one is the upper entry off of Henry Street, and the lower entry is here, and again, it also leads back to the existing Lanihau Center. So besides the main ground sign here, it's a two-sided sign, and again, positioned perpendicular to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. So as the variance request, we're exceeding the code allowance for size and also the two-sided type sign exceeds the width of the thickness of the sign. So those are the basic requests there. In addition, the letter height exceeds the code allowances. We'll be down—we also have a—there is a Safeway fuel center. It's kind of right at the middle of the property, but again, along Henry Street. We would like to propose a second ground sign, which is basically a Safeway fuel center gas price sign. Again, two-sided, perpendicular to Henry Street. And again, the code allowances that we are exceeding are similar to the ground sign up at the corner, again in size, logo, height, and the overall thickness of the sign. So those are the two major project signs. The rest are mounted on the buildings. As you notice the property, it has a central parking core, and all of the buildings face inward, so the majority of the tenant signs will be very limited as far as visibility from Henry Street. As far along Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, because you know, it said approximately 32 feet below the property—Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, really the only building you see isthere's a tower for Safeway, and we have a small little Safeway ID (Identification) there, which would be visible on Queen Ka`ahumanu. But basically, that would be the only signage that you will see. Besides the Safeway sign, again as far as variance, we request the actual size of the Safeway logo exceeds what the allowances provide for in the code. And then, moving further down, again some variance requests are for buildings that are directly adjacent to Henry Street and for the signage that faces Henry Street. So we have a couple of buildings here. Building six and an inline tenant building here, in which we are requesting variances, mostly to exceed the size of the lettering and the symbol. Page 6 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 So here's a detail of ground sign one, the sign at the corner of Queen Ka`ahumanu and Henry Street. And again, it's the same graphic on both sides. So you have the ID portion, the Amalu Market Place, and then a listing of the major tenants. And then just a couple of renderings of the view at the corner. Again, the second ground sign is the gas price sign, along Henry Street. Again, the graphics are typical on both sides. You have some ID and then you have the gas price display. So besides the fuel canopy and the dispensers, there's also a small convenient store, and we have proposed two signs which are facing Henry Street. So again, the variance request would be to exceed the overall size of the sign area allowed, and the height of the logo. And then again a few renderings showing the view along Henry Street. MS. SCHATZ: And may I add, these actual analyses were provided for and also for Public Works. The main premise of trying to show analyses, which was to show the scale of the buildings in relationship to the size of the sign so that—you know, you could actually have some wayfinding cues, and understanding what's where, where entries are, and so it was important to make sure that proportion was just right. And that was quite a bit of our conversations with the KVDC Committee, to make sure it was sized appropriately. MR. VIERRA: And again, another view from the lower part of Henry Street, at the secondary entrance. This is the tower for Safeway. It's, again, facing Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. So again, this is the only sign that would be facing Queen Ka`ahumanu, I mean, besides the proposed ground sign at the corner. So it's just the Safeway logo. MS. SCHTAZ: And then I'll add to that little note, is that the current sign on that tower, there was a lot of analyses to see what was actually approved prior, at the Crossroads. And that size, the Commission wanted to keep similar for this particular sign, as well, not exceed that. So we took that particular precedent that was granted earlier before and just applied it to this particular tower. MR. VIERRA: This is a section of a view from Ka`ahumanu Street, here. And then just to give you an idea of what would actually be visible for vehicles and pedestrians traveling along Queen Ka`ahumanu, so it's fairly limited. Again, you'll see the tower but really not much else of the buildings. This is the front of the Safeway store. Again, a typical Safeway store has different subtenants and departments. So this is a typical -type signage. Again, it's the front of the store, facing into the property, which is the parking right here. So it's fairly limited, but you would probably see it at a severe angle along Henry Street, at the upper-mauka entrance from Henry Street. So we've included this just o make sure that we're covered. Again, some details of these particular signs on the frontage of the Safeway building. Page 7 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 At KVDC's request, they really wanted to see what it would look like, so these aren't, you know, of our property, because it's still under construction. But these are typical Safeway signs as far as what it would look like during the day. This is basically black lettering and then the two-colored logo. At night, it's lit up to be white. They were concerned that the white may be too bright, but when showed them these photos, it satisfied them. Lastly, this is a typical -type tenant sign. Again, part of the variance request is to exceed the height of the lettering and the logo. Again, the County code allows well, County code within the Kailua Special Design District allows for a maximum of nine inches on the letter height, so we're proposing to exceed that; but again, sticking with the code allowance of 22 square feet. So what will—proposing to exceed the height, the overall size would be within code allowances. Again to just create some unified elements, we created this standard backing, which all tenants would be required to provide and mount their signs to, just to give it the unifying element for the overall project. And again just very briefly, just showing where the majority of the proposed signs would be. Again, majority are facing into the parking, limiting the view from Henry Street and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. And then these are just some typical buildings, as far as mounting of typical tenant signs. With that, I'll open it up to any questions you may have. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Yeah, with thatI know we have a very comprehensive packet, Council Members. One thing I do want to mention, there is a letter from Kailua Village Design Commission dated March 6, in which at their March 5th meeting they voted to recommend approval to the Director of Public Works. But with that I think, again Ms. Villegas, this one is in your district. You have any questions? MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Thanks for being here today and for this very comprehensive information. Also very grateful that we got to meet a few months ago. You included us in this process, or myself especially. Today is the one-year anniversary of our inauguration, so just still getting started. But I just wanted to thank you for meeting with me beforehand and walking me through what you were doing, how you were doing it, and who you are working with, to get the proper authorizations. We've had some other challenges with some other tenants in Kona, putting up some signage without the proper approvals. And so, I'm really grateful for all the time and energy you put into this. I just one quick question, because there's this nice big thick packet. But I started to get a little it looks like a is it a double? I haven't quite—there's two, like it Page 8 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 kind of goes in the next one. And I'm just wondering if somehow I got two of the same thing. CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Villegas, if you look at the bottom of the renderings, there should be like a letter with a number. MS. VILLEGAS: It's the same. CHR. LEE LOY: Then it would be the same. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, I just wanted to check on that because I didn't want to duplicate my efforts in that capacity. So I have a lot of trust in the Kailua Village Improvement District and the organization that operates that. I'm sorry—the sign—commission that works with Kailua Village Improvement District—and so with their authorization and also with the sign -off from those from the administration, I'm grateful for this addition to our community and excited for the different features that you've included to support our families with some play areas and whatnot. And I'm hopeful that it will be a successful location for everyone. So, thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Anyone else? Go ahead, Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: Thank you. Yes, and I'd also like to say thank you for walking through this earlier in the year. But a special thanks to you folks for your patience working with the Kailua Village Design Commission and for them to be sensitive to our community, because this is very large and modern development and the signage needed to be somewhere in between what maybe what you would have proposed at first and what we can end up with that will kind of retain the feeling of our town and our village. So I really appreciate the scrutiny, the time that they paid and your willingness to work out something that worked for everybody. And I think that you guys feel comfortable with what you came out with. MR. VIERRA: Yes, we're very pleased with their recommendations and the final product. MS. EOFF: Yeah. I'm watching it be built, of course, every day we see the work. I can assure everybody that they did a lot of preliminary groundwork to sink everything low enough in elevation that it does not or hopefully will not conflict too much with the beautiful view -plains from the roadway. Yeah, I appreciate the fastidious work that you folks have done. Thank you very much. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And I, too, thanks for the early briefings, we've kind of had a heads -up on what's going on. I just wanted to clarify. You Page 9 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 made a comment concerning sizing of the sign versus the building. Was that a perspective? Could you just clarify that for me, please? MS. SCHATZ: Yeah. The buildings in some cases, actually in the KVDC review—they're really phenomenal. I think sometimes maybe designers are afraid to go before them. But with that body, there's so many different perspectives, that they bring a lot of good feedback, if you can bring them early in the process, and so we knew that they could be valuable in that way. In one of the conversations that we had was, you know, the balance between making sure that people could see the signage so that, you know, wayfinding. I mean, traffic is obviously something that is building over time in the community on all our islands, and then make sure that people when they're traveling can see where they're going and actually see stuff. And so the conversation was always bouncing between making sure that you knew where things were based on the signage, but not making them too big that they became the dominating visual force in the landscape. The landscaping was also really critical and softening a lot of the building and some of the wayfinding pieces, as well. So it was that delicate balance that we went back and forth on, over and over again in different meetings. And so I think with a lot of that back and forth that we did, we were able to arrive on sort of the perfect happy medium that, you know, the nine -body commission was happy with. We actually loved it at the end of the day, and we weren't sure what was going to happen, but it ended up being really great. I wanted to make sure I expressed that because we worked so hard on it and it can get lost, some people just looking at the packet. But that was a really critical piece to making sure that this worked for everybody. So again, we're going to be in the community. The owners are going to be in the community. We're going to be part of it. We're not just coming in, doing a project and leaving. So that was really important, to make sure that on the long-term, the longevity of this thing, we were part and parcel of everything that was going on. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. It's unreasonable to expect a company to come in and develop something and then not allow it to have signage so people can find it, and so I'm glad a balance was struck. It's probably a good a good message going forward that it can be done, and it can be done reasonably. And you're paying attentionI think what you were saying was, the sizing of the sign was based upon the size of the building as well as the regulations or the rules of how big they were, to put them in perspective so it didn't look like an over dominant sign or a too tiny sign relative to the building. MS. SCHATZ: Correct. Page 10 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 MR. RICHARDS: And so all that was considered? MS. SCHATZ: Correct. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, alright. I'm good. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Any other Council Members? With that, I too, I want to thank the applicant for doing a wonderful job. It is a comprehensive packet. But the renderings really does lend itself to a level of expectation, meeting that expectation as to what the buildings will look like, what the signage will look like. And even the renderings from the road, you know, Henry Street, Queen Ka`ahumanu, preserving the view plains to the ocean, all just a wonderful packet. Even with the Department of Public Works and then KVDC, you know, listening to them and working collaboratively with them. So thank you for being such wonderful community partners. With that, we have in front of us Resolution 424-19, all those in favor please say Ic aye. Vote on Res. 424-19: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 424-19 was (Approved): carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Clerk, top of the agenda, we're taking Communication 638, please. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 638: REQUESTS AN UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGOV PERMITTING SOFTWARE SYSTEM From Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated November 6, 2019. Motion to Close File: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to close file on Comm. 638. Seconded by Mr. Richards. Page 11 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 CHR. LEE LOY: With that, Roy (Takemoto), if you don't mind coming forward. I know there's a number of departments here too: Public Works, Planning, IT (Information Technology) is also here. EnerGov is really a comprehensive permitting process. But with that—you know what, I'm going to take a five- minute recess so we can get the PowerPoint presentation up. Recess: At 2:20 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:25 p.m. CHR. LEE LOY: With that, I'm going take the Committee on Public Works out of recess. (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Roy Takemoto and Acting Building Division Chief Robyn Matsumoto came forward and addressed the members of the Committee. CHR. LEE LOY: And I think we're ready, so Mr. Takemoto. MR. TAKEMOTO: Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Roy Takemoto, with the Mayor's Office. We're here today to give you an update on the EnerGov System. The EnerGov system is an improvement, we hope, to the Building Permit and Land Use Permit System. (Note: At this time, Mr. Takemoto and Ms. Matsumoto provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. Planning Director Michael Yee and Information Technology Director Jules Ung were also present, and came forward to provide their department's role regarding the implementation of the EnerGov System. For viewing of subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 638.1.) MR. TAKEMOTO: EnerGov, we will explain, is just one piece of an overall mission. This mission is to develop a permit system that is efficient, accountable, adapted to local conditions as we experience with the Energy Code, supports affordable housing and economic development, and that it's up to date with Best Practices. That is a broad and very ambitious mission but very worthwhile. Our building and permit systems impact not just public health and safety, but they also can get in the way of affordable housing, so we know we need to do a very good job about streamlining and adopting codes that make sense for this County. Now the permit system is just one piece of an overall delivery system, so EnerGov is the technology piece. Other pieces that help deliver a permitting system is the Page 12 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 capacity in terms of positions and the training of our staff, the types of code improvements that we make; and administrative initiatives that we embark on without necessarily having to do any kind of code amendments. And we'll be getting into some of these other pieces in this presentation besides the EnerGov System. I brought with me today the heads of the teams because this has been a tremendous effort that started two years ago. Initially it's involving Public Works, Department of Information Technology, and Planning. Finance is in there keeping us on this all the way. And under each of these departments, they're champions. Nothing gets done in government without champions. We cannot name them all, but just know that it took a lot of effort of people working beyond their position descriptions to customize this complex system to make it workable. MR. TAKEMOTO: Now I'm going to turn it over to Public Works, Robyn, who has been a super hero, trying to corral her cats in her department to do what they need to do. MS. MATSUMOTO: Good afternoon. My name is Robyn Matsumoto, Acting Building Chief. So just to recap some of the key features of EnerGov that supports the Department of Public Works. (Note: At this time, Ms. Matsumoto proceeded with the Department of Public Works portion of the presentation.) CHR. LEE LOY: Roy, before you continue on with Planning, I just want to check with the rest of my colleagues before we move into Planning Department and how they intend to be part of this EnerGov framework. I was just going to check if the rest of you have questions for Public Works, just to kind of keep the conversation and context. Okay, Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Well, thank you, Chair. So when you are going to go live, and the question was going to ask, when? Because we've been asking, "When, when, when," and you said, "End of first quarter." MS. MATSUMOTO: End of March, which is the very last day of the first quarter. Well, we need the long weekend to transition over. I think there's a holiday in the second to the last week of the month. MR. RICHARDS: Are you planning on running like something parallel, through the old style and new style, so they go side-by-side and you can see where problems occur? Is that one of the new techniques? MS. MATSUMOTO: Not currently, but we can discuss that with the staff. I mean, we've been doing ongoing testing, so we're hoping we're not going to run Page 13 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 into the bugs, at least from the back-office side. We will go through another round of public testing before the go live as well as public training. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Alright. Keep it going. Thanks, I yield. MS. LEE LOY: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and then Ms. Kierkiewicz. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What is the—do you have an idea of the plan review fee? MS. MATSUMOTO: I currently don't, as of the administrative code changes can look it up for you and get back to you on that one. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Estimate, under $100 or more than $100? MS. MATSUMOTO: Let me see if another staff member might know. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. MATSUMOTO: Percentage of the permitting, I believe it's 10 percent of the permit fee. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And currently there is no fee for MS. MATSUMOTO: No fee for plan review. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then what is the—the contractors have helped you set up the idea of talking to the contractors before we do all this? MS. MATSUMOTO: Oh, yeah. This is just to give you an idea of what we're going to propose, and I'm sure we're going to have some public interaction regarding whether or not it's going to be approved. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you, Robyn. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Great job guys. I mean, huge lift. A lot of challenges that you're running into, but I see that you're really optimistic about the eventual Go Live moment. I kind of perked up when I saw GIS (Geographic Information System) based. I've been having a lot of conversations with Planning and Public Works and our ongoing dialogue with State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), and they have a GIS layer that identifies natural, cultural, historical resources and assets, and I just wondered if we would access to that and if that would be integrated into this Page 14 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 system. Because what we're often finding is that plans are being reviewed and it triggers a review by SHPD, and it can take years to hear from them. So I wonder if we have this information upfront for the public to see ahead of time. Maybe we can consider developing a certain area or moving forward on a project, because they'll see, "You know what, this is a really culturaly significant area and I shouldn't go there." MS. MATSUMOTO: Well, based on what the GIS layers will be for the Building Division, we don't have the SHPD one available. The Planning Department I think has it, but I don't know if they're willing to share it with the public because that's the product of the State Historic Division. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I'm wondering if we can talk to them about a Memorandum of Agreement, to have access to that at least internally, because I know they have some reservations to put that information out publicly. Anyway, just I think worth looking into. Thank you. MR. TAKEMOTO: Just quickly, Planning is working with SHPD to do a Memorandum of Agreement, but that data layer will not be available to the public due to the sensitivity but it would be available to the staff reviewers. So they'll be able to inform the applicant. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Inform the applicant, okay, perfect. So long as someone on our side is aware of the situation I think that will be really helpful. Thanks, Roy. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Any other Council Members? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, you have your light on. Okay. I did have a couple of questions, and Ms. Kierkiewicz talked about it, which is the SHPD for our grading and grubbing permits. But I was also wondering where DCAB (Disability Communication Access Board) for our disability would fold into, under this DPW (Department of Public Works) permits. MS. MATSUMOTO: So under the DPW permits, it's one of the forms that the applicant can submit online with their application, which currently they have to bring in the hard copy. So just attach it to the record when the submit it. CHR. LEE LOY: Okay, and so they can run that DCAB approval concurrently with the building permit process. MS. MATSUMOTO: Well, currently we expect them to give us the DCAB review completed, and we can look at potentially running it concurrently. It involves additional steps for the staff to review that at the end, as well. So, we can look into it. CHR. LEE LOY: Okay. And then I have one other question, on the roll-out process incorporating Fire. Looks like third, fourth quarter of 2020, I was Page 15 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 wondering where we were going to fold in the factory -built housing procedures, the tiny home appendices, but also the affordable housing, if that would also be included as an ongoing refinement. You know, if someone's kind of tackling an affordable housing project, we would provide expedited permitting for those affordable housing, and where that would plug in. MS. MATSUMOTO: We can look at it and include it in the Administrative Code. CHR. LEE LOY: Robyn, thank you so much, really. Roy was right, super hero, MVP (Most Value Player), Rockstar. You've been on the job six months? Really huge— MS. MATSUMOTO: I'd like to say I've got good staff members and a lot of support from the administration. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thanks. Alright, Roy, if you don't mind continuing. MR. TAKEMOTO: Okay next up, Planning. Hit a homerun. Planning has been Public Works has gotten a lot of the attention because of the building permit and the complexity and the steps involved in building permit. Planning has taken on the ambitious commitment to have almost all their permits coming to EnerGov at this one time. So they've been working really, really hard, configuring the system to develop the workflows for each of these permits; and doing the application forms, which means that they have to identify all of these variables and the fields. It's quite a process. On top of that, they've got short term vacation rental. So I don't know how Michael does it, but he's got his staff going seven days a week. They're beyond the call of duty. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Michael Yee came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YEE: Thank you, Roy. And it's not me, it's the entire Planning Department. Yes, I love following an engineer. She has such precision in delivering a lot of the challenges; I don't have to cover it. So many of the challenges DPW has seen, we've also seen. I think today I just want to cover then, I'm going to take this plane a little higher, to talk about the permits that we have going, the chosen, our assistance from planning consultants, and our challenges with going live. (Note: At this time, Mr. Yee proceeded with the Planning Department's portion of the presentation. MR. YEE: I think that's it. I want to keep it high-level for our presentation today. Any questions? Page 16 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 CHR. LEE LOY: Any questions? I just had one, short-term vacation rentals. How does this EnerGov System kind of address those type of anomalies? As policymakers, we're going to be moving in different types of legislation, and I just want to know if we're going to have a system that kind of bend and flex similar to what we saw with the short-term vacation rental. MR. YEE: Okay, you've moved me from go live to stop dead. I don't even sorry, Sue, I really can't answer that right here, right now. CHR. LEE LOY: And that's fine. That's honesty, I can really appreciate because that kind of elevates the conversation as we build the framework for EnerGov to start thinking about what happens with those types of anomalies. Not that we're going to see them all the time, but at least it gives us food for thought as we kind of develop it going forward. How's the hot seat? MR. YEE: Getting warm. CHR. LEE LOY: Getting warm. Thanks, Mr. Yee. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Michael, the three planning consultants that you're using, are they helping ferret it out, some glaring problems? Is it appearing to make a lot of progress rapidly now? MR. YEE: I would have to really ask Norren Kato to come up, if you really wanted an answer right now on that. He's really been the one interfacing with them, in their assistance. Let him answer that question because it is a good question. (Note: At this time, Administrative Permits Manager Norren Kato came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. RICHARDS: Identify yourself. MR. KATO: I'm Norren Kato, Administrative Permits Manager. My division is handling EnerGov STVR (Short Term Vacation Rental). Thank God for Douglas Le who's handling Lava Recovery; I think I would go crazy. But to answer your question, the planning consultants are familiar with a lot of the things that we do in our department. So they're pointing out errors, or something doesn't quite right, or "I didn't expect this to happen." So those kinds of comments come back to us, and then we're able to make adjustments inside of the system. Now, I'm very lucky to have Douglas again and also a staff person that's trained in order to make those adjustments within the system. So in the presentation we mentioned that we got STVR put up there within two months, and it's only because that particular staff person, we were able to find a way to give him capacity in order to do so. As you make changes to the law, we Page 17 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 are going to have to make changes to our permitting process. It will necessarily affect us, and how we go about processing those applications as they come into the system. Yeah, they're a huge help. I feel very grateful for them for saying, "Yes." They're very busy individuals. And yeah, I'm just very thankful. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. And part of the question is, it sounds like the answer is yes. That they're identifying an issue, and you have the capacity within Planning to adjust whatever it is so it gets fixed rather than just bombai. MR. KATO: Yes. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Alright. Okay, I yield. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: I basically don't have a question but just an observation. We haven't had such an uplifting presentation for a while. That's why I wanted to thank all the departments and all the staff, because on top of your regular work and normal way we operate, you're now getting us prepared to go into the future in a much more efficient way. It's exciting. So I feel very hopeful that we will be able to streamline some, you know, get over some of our problems. The general public and even Council Members, we don't always know all the backstory of what has to happen to get things processed. I think this looks like a step in the future. Mahalo for the work you're putting in upfront so we can get to this good place that you've presented. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Anyone else? Alright. Roy, next. MR. TAKEMOTO: Okay, last but not least, Department of Information Technology. They're the behind the scenes and very essential to the success of this whole system. So I'm going to turn it over to Jules. (Note: At this time, Information Technology Director Jules Ung came forward and proceeded with that department's portion of the presentation.) MS. UNG: Did you have any questions? CHR. LEE LOY: Thanks, Jules. Any questions? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Lots of questions. Thanks, Jules, for catching that up. Probably the reason I have so many questions is because this has been promised to us, and I use that term loosely, for the last year and change. I know people in my district are very anxious to get this up and running. It looks like we have four departments, and Roy maybe you can help me out on this, Planning, Public Works, IT, and Finance are all trying to all tie together. Sounds like Planning has the capacity within their department to fix their portion of EnerGov to address some of Page 18 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 the needs that they have. Function for IT, who's—I mean, someone's going to have to have to steward this as we go through. And Tyler, that's a supplier, is that who Tyler is? MS. UNG: Tyler is the vendor. The software developer. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. I'm a little unclear. It sounds like a very massive program, and it has a whole bunch of layers and a whole bunch of moving parts, literally. So is IT going to be the final overseer to make sure it is functioning between departments? Or the departments talking to the departments, how is this going to work? MS. UNG: So that's the role of the program manager, and much in line with other enterprise software systems, it definitely takes someone in that role to coordinate all of the departmental needs. Each department has a superuser, they communicate the department's wishes and needs, and then a program manager would prioritize those needs and make sure that as the primary liaison with the vendor, that those needs are communicated in priority and addressed in priority. MR. RICHARDS: So they'll go direct and not through IT, is that correct? MS. UNG: IT is definitely on the backend. We can definitely work with the vendor for software configuration; but as far as setting priorities, that is the role of a program manager. MR. RICHARDS: And that's to be identified, as yet? MS. UNG: Yes. MR. TAKEMOTO: So the motto is, our existing Eden Fresh System, the accounting system, where you have a software and you have different departments using that same software. So in this case, in the EnerGov System, each department has a superuser who not only knows the workflows of the particular department but will have the capability to configure the EnerGov System. So Planning has their person; Public Works has their superuser, who can configure the software to meet Public Work's needs. So you have the superuser within the department, you have a program manager, where we're not sure where that person will be. Whether it be IT, Public Works, Planning, Finance, we're not sure exactly, but we're talking among ourselves to figure out where that person would be. That person will have a committee of users who would be coordinating all the needs of the different users. So you have a program manager; you have superusers; and you have a System Administrator, who's the person in the back office, that's the IT for sure. Page 19 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 MR. RICHARDS: Okay, to keep equipment talking to each other and all that. MS. UNG: The beauty of this is it's cloud -based. It's up in the cloud, and everyone uses it through their browser. The only on -prem component that we have is the data itself within GIS. MR. RICHARDS: You're smiling. Because I don't quite the confidence in all the cloud, but that's okay. The real question of all of this is, do we have the resources, do we have the ability to get this all done? Because we're coming into budget season, and we'll begin talking about this. I want to be sure that we don't get 90 percent there, which means we're not there at all. That's why I'm asking the question. I'm unclear how this structure is going to be and IT's function in this. But, I'm getting a clearer picture of that. MR. TAKEMOTO: Yeah, you have to keep in mind that there's like two distinct phases: the development, and then the operation. The maintenance, yeah. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, and I got that. MR. TAKEMOTO: So the development portion, we're all having to ramp up resources to get there. But once we've got the system running, we need somebody to oversee and keep it going. So that's what we're talking in terms of this System Administrator, Program Manager, and all that. To get to go live, we have the resources, which is led by Sheila Cadaos in the Mayor's office. She's the Program Manager who will get us to go live. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Because theoretically this is going to save us a lot of time to get through the building permit process and save us money on the other end, which is going to help the County overall because we'll be moving our economy faster. I want to make sure that we have the resources available to be able to get that done so we don't—not quite get there. Okay, I'll yield at this point. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I just really enjoyed watching all of you come up here. You seem very happy to present this. I see two things: I see transparency and I see efficiency. And if you can get this moving by the time that you've put out there, then that would be absolutely wonderful, both for the people who use and for the County who needs to use it. It's just nice to actually watch you guys light up when you're telling us something and not be saying that we're going implementing later than normal or we have another roadblock. You actually found solutions. Jules, are you building this as you go? Page 20 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 MS. UNG: I would describe as AdRoll development. So it's a constantly changing landscape, which is a thing. We are lucky to have some very flexible staff, I must say, in every department. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I was listening to you about this thing. I think maybe two or three months ago I was in Planning. I was watching them and he said they were working on EnerGov. You could see the people at their computer, and I was realizing that you were the doing the back and forths and seeing how it was working, and then there would be an IT section of that. And to hear you working through the process and getting there, it's just nice so watch. So I appreciate all your work. You also did a wonderful job putting this presentation together. This has been very cohesive of four or five different departments as a whole, so I appreciate that. Thank you. MS. UNG: Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: I saw Ms. David, and then Ms. Villegas. MS. DAVID: Thank you Chair, and Roy and everyone. Director, I have to ditto what has been said as far as the work that you folks have been doing and continue to do. And my question would be, those five positions, the positions that were talked about earlier, is that what will be necessary to make this whole process succeed? Or are we actuallyI know we have fiveI forgot what she said plan reviewers and five building (Note: At this time, Acting Building Division Chief Robyn Matsumoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. MATSUMOTO: My name is Robyn Matsumoto, Acting Building Chief. So that's correct, we acquired five new positions for plan reviewers. Actually, two plan reviewers in Hilo, two plan reviewers in Kona, and an Architect II, to oversee that, as well. Then we have three in Hilo, building inspector, and one in Kona. We unfortunately have vacancies as staff from inspection to plan review, so we'll have additional vacancies to fill, as well. MS. DAVID: So I think in all this joy in everyone's faces that you folks have enough personnel to make this work. MS. MATSUMOTO: Our only current issue is with the program manager position. MS. DAVID: I see, okay. So when we get moving or when we get onboard, then everything's going to be submitted electronically, right? Page 21 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 MR. TAKEMOTO: Correct. MS. DAVID: So these same people or planners will be able to assist the public if they need additional items to submit. These personnel would be able to look up the e -filing. And if an applicant is missing something, how does that get? MS. MATSUMOTO: So currently when the information comes in, a clerk reviews to ensure that all the paperwork is submitted. MS. DAVID: The e -filing? MS. MATSUMOTO: Correct. MS. DAVID: Okay. Because at this point, you know, I think that was part of the concern, was if someone comes in and submits their application and then later on down the line they find out that needed something else, and that takes time. MS. MATSUMOTO: Correct. And that's hopefully where the checklists gets involved. MS. DAVID: Right. MS. MATSUMOTO: The architects as we well our plan reviewers uses those checklists to be consistent. MS. DAVID: Yeah. MS. MATSUMOTO: And they'll know ahead of time what paperwork they need. MS. DAVID: Right. Well, I'm excited too, myself. So I'm excited for you guys. And thank you so much for actually tackling thisI don't know what it is, collaboration of departments and making one thing happen that will benefit everybody. Mahalo for all your hard work everyone. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. David. Ms. Villegas and then Mr. Richards. MS. VILLEGAS: I just wanted to concur, as well. So many times I think government and the administration gets pegged as working in silos. On top of all the other benefits that this this is bringing to not only our government and the administration but to the constituents and the people of our island, but it's also breaking down those silos and providing this collaborative means and a system that connects everybody. So thank you for all your hard work. I know it's not over yet. I know you've got months more of back and forth. I know we've got a meeting coming up at the end of this week with our Planning Task Force in Kona. The Chamber of Commerce is very interested in this. But I Page 22 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 just want to express my personal thanks for your handholding through this process, and your patience, and graciousness with those that can sometimes be a negative or speculative about whether or not something can work. Because with all of you guys contributing and really You know, I also appreciate Mr. Yee's authentic and completely forward, and saying, "This is a lot for us right now." It's nearly too much, because that also provides insight and opportunity for us to have a more realistic look at what things are going to take and provide more support. So I just want to thank all of the departments for sharing and caring enough. I mean, all the overtime and I'm sure hairpulling, and maybe some screaming in late nights and adult beverages after work to console one another. So I just want to thank you. And thanks, Roy, for really leading this up, as well. So, thank you guys so much. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: I yield. Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And Roy, this is probably going to be directed at you. But when all the departments—we're delayed with employing this or deploying this about a year or so right now. It comes back to the financial side; I can't get away from asking questions about numbers. How much does this cost? Do we pay a monthly fee or annual fee, and do we pay it when we go live or are we paying it now? What costs are we incurring? MR. TAKEMOTO: We are already paying. There was a schedule in the contract, where we have to pay towards the license. With the delays, we did not incur additional cost to the contract. We have been negotiating with Tyler, the vendor, and they acknowledged that some of the fault was theirs, so they've been very accommodating. As far as the specific numbers on cost, I'm going to defer to the former Public Works person. Do you remember, Deputy Clerk Aaron Brown, how much this contract was for? (Note: At this time, Deputy County Clerk Aaron Brown came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. BROWN: So you're exactly right. Roy, this is Aaron Brown, Deputy County Clerk, former Business Manager at Public Works. We bought the software program itself. And then in the contract, where we purchased that, there was a breakdown for cost on different years and different capabilities based on some of the systematic developments that IT—like what Director from IT said and what Public Works was talking about. The total cost was about $2.3 million for the entire package that is to be paid, and we financed that over five years. However, because there were some issues that we've seen from the vendor themselves in part of the delays, like Mr. Takemoto mentioned, a lot of those fees were delayed. Not fees, excuse me, but on the times of payments, we did not have to pay the vendor Page 23 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 for those payments because some of the delays were the cause of the work that was or was not being done by the vendor. So, the cost has not increased at all. As the project has sort of changed—as we had gone through and tried to implement the program, it was a little it was a living project, kind of like what Director IT mentioned. So as it's being developed and implemented, there's new things that come along which takes different resources and different assets around the County which were unforeseen, so the vendor has been very good working with us so that the cost has not increased. Long story short, the total cost was $2.3 million. We financed it over five years. Even though the project has been delayed, there's no additional cost. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, we're not accruing interest cost? MR. BROWN: Not at all. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Alright. Which is good, and I'm glad to hear that. understand the tweaking in that. $2.3 million is the cost of the software, but I assume there's like an annual maintenance fee or whatever you want to call it. MR. BROWN: Yes, correct. It's called a SAAS (Software as a Service) fee. That's the acronym. I'm not exactly sure what it stands for. Maybe our IT Director could tell us. MS. UNG: Software As A Service, so for the cloud base. It's basically a license to use their program, and that's where the standard and marketplace for any system, kind of like that. And there is annual fee for that, but because our go live date has been pushed back, we haven't been paying any additional annual fees. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, that's where I was going with the questioning. Alright, thank you very much. I'll yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Council Members. Anyone else? Thank you very much, Roy. Really, as the rest of my colleagues mentioned, this was actually perfect timing as we move into the budget system. And it's really is nice to see all the different departments working together. So with that, we have Communication 638 to close file, all those in favor please say "aye." Page 24 PWMTC-16 Vote on Comm. 638 Filed The motion to close file on Comm. 638 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung — 1 . Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: Communication 639. December 3, 2019 Comm. 639: REQUESTS AN UPDATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REGARDING PROJECTS RELATED TO DAMAGE CAUSED BY HURRICANE LANE AND THE 2018 KILAUEA ERUPTION From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated November 14, 2019. Motion to Close File: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to close file on Comm. 639. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. LEE LOY: Let's see, this is Ms. Kierkiewicz's communication. So I'll go ahead and let you lead the discussion, Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. If I could invite up Director Yamamoto, from Public Works. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director David Yamamoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Hi, Director. Happy Holidays. MR. YAMAMOTO: Happy Holidays. David Yamamoto, Director of Public Works. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: First, I want to say thank you. Thank you, personally. I know that we've been meeting with the community since a year ago to talk about the restoration of Highway 132. We as a community were able to get together last week and do a blessing ceremony, so thank you. Thank you to your staff, all of the contracted vendors who did a really impressive job. I mean, the end -product is really incredible. And despite the many challenges that you faced, including very high temperatures and the loss of certain equipment, which we didn't anticipate and we probably won't get reimbursed for, I hope at some point you explain the Council and the community just the totality of the challenges that you did face so that we know how much it took for your department and the contractors to really overcome an unprecedented situation. Page 25 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 Anyway, the point of today is to hold space and have a conversation around the 428, Alternative Projects Program that FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) I believe started in 2013. I know that your department along with Water Supply, Parks and Recreation, other departments, state agencies, are taking advantage this program which would allow for flexible spending of recovery dollars. So I'm wondering if you could provide us and the community with an overview of how that works as it relates to lava eruption. And I know that there's a lot of infrastructure that was damaged by Hurricane Lane. I also know that there was the drop -dead deadline of November 12, where all of the cost estimates needed to be provided to FEMA. Just wanted to get a clear understanding of what the process entails, what our application looks like, what the cost estimates that we've submitted to the Federal Government are, and basically what the next steps are, and a timeline. MR. YAMAMOTO: Okay, initially we had submitted our FEMA 428 application back in December or January of last year. Our estimate wasn't accepted by FEMA. They expected us to do a more detailed estimate, which we required us to perform a survey, an actual survey of the roads that were inundated. At least the lava surface now, that we have, and from there, design the road to be put in, over these inundated roads. That was in February, they notified us that they were not going to accept our initial estimate, so went through the process of acquiring the surveyor to do a drone survey, being that a physical survey would be pretty treacherous to accomplish. Then after, we had designed—well, we actually designed Highway 132, initially, being that Federal Highways is a different federal agency had indicated that they would participate in restoring that road. After we had finished that design, we had finished the rest of the County roads that were inundated, which included Honuaula, Hinano, Lauone, Leilani, Pohoiki, Highway 137, and Lighthouse Road. So we just recently got our survey—well, we got our survey completed in May or June of last yearoh, this year, and finished the design and submitted the redesign—the construction estimate in early November, before our deadline. At the same moment, I requested an extension to the deadline for obligation of these 428 funds. So right now as it stands, FEMA is reviewing our design as well as our cost estimate and considering the extension that we requested. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And all of that is communicated through HI-EMA (Hawai`i Emergency Management Agency), correct? MR. YAMAMOTO: Yes. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: We're not directly in touch with our federalI mean, we are in touch with them, but the process is to work through HI-EMA? Page 26 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah, correct. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And so they've requested the extension, but we haven't really heard back. MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: But it seems that the fells are kind of delayed in their review. So I'm sensing that we may be getting an extension, just based on where we are. MR. YAMAMOTO: I would say so. And more so, being that they had initially rejected our application or our initial estimate, and that required us extensive time to do the survey and design as well as the cost estimating of the actual road that would get installed, which we just—like I said, recently completed in end of October and submitted it in early November. So we are hoping, and hopeful that FEMA will provide us the extension. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So can you talk to me a little about the strategy that was developed in submitting the application? Because here's where I'm headed, right. We know that there are kipuka residents off of Lighthouse Road, off of Pohoiki Road, and so in my mind it made sense to submit two applications. One, where we just list Pohoiki and Lighthouse, and we can find other recovery monies to just put in a temporary road while FEMA is looking at that application; and then, there are other projects that you mentioned: Leilani, Lauone, Hinalo, Highway 137. So I'm just wondering, why one application rather than two? And if you could provide us with the figure that you sent to our federal partners in terms of cost estimate for damages we're seeking for. MR. YAMAMOTO: Okay. We've decided to only break out the roadway funded by Federal Highway, Highway 132 out of the whole package being that at the time we were uncertain of what the recovery will look like. So we grouped all these roads, all the County roads other than Highway 132 into this 428 project, and basically relying on the results of the recovery study, to determine how that 428 projects will be identified, you know, as far as the recovery effort. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: What is the figure that was submitted to FEMA, the cost estimate? MR. YAMAMOTO: Okay, initially our estimate back of last year, where we basically made assumptions of what kind of terrain that we would be encountering, our estimate was about $170 million. After we did the detailed design, we ended up just slightly under $100 million, $99.7 million. That's what we currently had submitted to FEMA, and they're reviewing it at this time. Page 27 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So my understanding is that the CRC (Combined Resource Center) is reviewing the application now. And because it's over the $25 million threshold, after that review, there's going to be a second review by Army Corps of Engineers. Is that correct? MR. YAMAMOTO: Correct. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And so the timeframe for all of that? If it's in the hands of the fells now and they started reviewing this after the drop -dead deadline of November 12, I mean, conservatively speaking, maybe they'll get back to us January. And then Army Corps of Engineers will take about three months to review, so that puts us at about April. MR. YAMAMOTO: I cannot speak to their timeline. We had a brief meeting yesterday with FEMA, and they were going over some of the questions on how—and what was considered in our design and the cost in our design. You know, there's probably be a back and forth for a while, where they're questioning how we came up with the quantities that we did. One of the questions was, why do we need to pay for acquisition of lease of land being that—and so we have to explain when we cut some these larger cuts or a bigger fills, the toll or the top of bank ends up in private property, because we cannot cut it straight up and down. We could but, you know, fall down. You know, so we have to explain stuff like that. Why we have to acquire or at least pay for the encroachment into private property. That, I assume, will go back and forth for awhile; but at least FEMA, for now. And I'm not certain when FEMA is going to decide to forward it to Army Corps. So I cannot speak to any timeline that FEMA and Army Corps is going to take on reviewing this process. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So in that time are you going to be moving forward with environmental reviews, design work of Lighthouse Road, Pohoiki Road? MR. YAMAMOTO: We already did. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Because that's going to take some time. It's completed already? MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah, we did the design. It's just a matter of they approving and obligating the funds, where we could go forward with construction. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Do we have to be concerned about environmental stuff, SHPD? That's all taken care of, as well? MR. YAMAMOTO: No, we're taking care of the environmental permits. SHPD is fairly straight forward, being that we're not disturbing any land. We're on top of it. SHPD is kind of straightforward. You know, and clean water is as well, as long you have your BMPs (Best Management Practice) in place. And your BMP Page 28 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 program, they have no problem with the NPDS (National Pollutant Discharge System) permit that is required to move forward on any project. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Alright. So I guess dig deep into you na`au, right? You're having these conversations with our federal partners. When do you think we're going to hear back from them? Because once you guys agree on a cost estimate, right, you've set the ceiling and then you're going identify projects. So are we getting a commitment from you now that the design work is done for Pohoiki and Lighthouse, that those roads are in fact going to be restored, and it's just a matter of lining up the federal funding? Or do you have other alternative projects in mind because $99.7 million is a lot of money? MR. YAMAMOTO: I think we're relying on the recovery planning that is going on right now. They're going to identify what is going to be going forward, you know, as far as recovery and new development going forward to assist in the recovery. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And so by planning, you mean the long-term plan and the multi -hazard mitigation plan that Tetra Tech are working on? MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah. For example, we might not restore parts of Highway 137. And that money might go toward—I have no idea what the recovery plan might try and earmark that plan for, but I would imagine it would be earmarked for some kind of highway or roadway infrastructure type stuff that might be required to provide housing or whatever. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. And then can you just confirm for me? Because one of the questions that I asked back in October, when I sent a very lengthy email with a lot of these questions was, if and when we get confirmation from the fells, that they are going to provide us with monies for 428; that if we identify projects and there's an obstacle or a hang-up with a project, that it won't jeopardize other projects we've identified as part of that application. MR. YAMAMOTO: I'm not quite sure I understand the question. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So my concern with submitting one application was that with that big lump sum, you were going to identify a few projects to work on. And because it's one application, any work that's done on a particular project, if there's a challenge or an obstacle, none of the other projects could move forward because there's a hang-up with that particular one. MR. YAMAMOTO: I don't think it works that way. I mean, they MS. KIERKIEWICZ: It's what I heard from a federal partner, so I wondered if that has been kind of worked through and resolved, and in fact that that's not going to happen. Page 29 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 MR. YAMAMOTO: I haven't researched that yet, in as far as how the you know, the back -end of this, where we're in construction, how the intricacies of that works and what might be some roadblocks that we might encounter. We'll be looking at that while we wait for our federal partners to approve the 428. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I'm just hoping for a little more information on the recovery website about 428. When I sent that email back in October, I was looking for a fact sheet, just a little bit more information. I mean, I went with Deb Smith to hike over the lava to see what she's having to go through. I mean, Nicolette Douvris was hiking in hours through jungle to get home. We've got to walk in the shoes of our constituents so that we can really feel what they're going through, and I think that will help to inform some of work. Thank you for trying. Please let me know if there's anything that I can do in terms of advocacy at any level. And if there's information that we can get out into the community, please let me know so I can share it. Thank you, Director. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Yamamoto and Ms. Kierkiewicz. Anyone else? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: David, how you doing? MR. YAMAMOTO: Okay. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: About Hurricane Lane, we have a Hurricane Lane? MR. YAMAMOTO: Correct. Yeah, Hurricane Lane. We have a total of 34 projects that were identified and submitted to FEMA for damage participation in the recovery of the damages. Of the 34, 11 of those projects were obligated and some have already been completed. The remaining 23 projects are in various status. Some are just waiting still for FEMA to review, and others are—they've reviewed and have further questions. So we are either gathering the information that they are requesting and/or have resubmitted it to them, and they're now reviewing it again. Most of the FEMA Hurricane Lane projects are associated with our drainage ways and bridges that got damages. One bridge in particular, we are moving forward regardless of FEMA not obligating any funds for it right now being that it's on the verge of collapse, so we're working on a bypass road and getting that done. And we're going to close the bridge in a few months or sooner. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Do you have a list? I mean, have you already provided us with a list? Page 30 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 MR. YAMAMOTO: I can provide you a list, if we haven't, of all the projects, and the current estimated dollar value and/or the resolved dollar value that we coordinated with FEMA with. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, if you can. That allows us to provide that to constituents who are asking. MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Alright. Easy translation of information. Thank you, David. I appreciate it. MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mr. Richards, you have your light. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Follow-up on Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder's question, David. You said 35 projects. What's the approximate value you've put on all of those projects? Round numbers. MR. YAMAMOTO: I forget already. I think it was like $20 (million) something or $30 million. MR. RICHARDS: So somewhere between $25 and $30 (million)? MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. And the bridge, the one you talked about the really bad one right now, how soon are you going to be able to attend to that? Is that like imminent to get that thing attended to? MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah, actually it takes awhile to actually design the replacement bridge, and a lot of the time consumed is through the permitting process. So what we're gathering to do, is to build a temporary bridge over the existing bridge because we didn't want to burden the private subdivision, that we're using their road as a bypass. We didn't want to burden them for the next three or four years while we wait for our design and permits to get in place before we can actually do the work. So what we're going to do, is we're going to put in a quick temporary bridge and then reopen the road, and relieve the bypass road. And when we get ready to do the actual replacement of the bridge, which we anticipate will take a year to construct, at least, then we'll close the road again and use the bypass road for that time. Page 31 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Alright. Yeah, I'll look forward to the list with the numbers that's assigned to it, as well. Chair, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: David, just a follow-up question. When we have a "want" for information like this, do we need to do this on the Council floor or do we need to do this just via meeting with you? MR. YAMAMOTO: Again? What was that? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: When we need information like this, do we need to have this meeting in this? MR. YAMAMOTO: No, no, you can just send me an email or memo, and we'll get you the information you want. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Anyone else? Alright. Thank you, Mr. Yamamoto. You know, I have to agree with Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Ms. Kierkiewicz. If you could provide that information, it would be excellent for us to provide, like on a dashboard, so that everybody can keep track. Our constituency tends to hold us accountable, and then we press upon the administration. So, all of that is helpful. With that, I think we have a motion to close file on Communication 639. All those in favor please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 639: The motion to close file on Comm. 639 was carried by the Filed following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Eoff and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 2. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: We have Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Ms. Eoff out of the room. Page 32 PWMTC-16 December 3, 2019 ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (Items in this category were taken up previously, out of order.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. A T-% Tl1T T D'XT MhNl Approved: (There were none.) CHR. LEE LOY: With that, a motion to adjourn? There being no further business, at 3:44 p.m., Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Meeting is adjourned at 3:44 p.m. SL/na (Date) Page 33