Laserfiche WebLink
PWMTC-23 - _Page 4 July -7,2020 <br />changes can always be revisited; the main thing is to accomplish something that meets our -big goals. <br />She wanted to address some of the concerns raised by the- carpenters union on factory built homes and <br />the affordable homes issue. She trusted the process to create the bill was solid and appreciated future - <br />opportunities to discuss the bill. _ <br />Committee Member Maile David thanked Mr. Tanaka and Ms. Matsumoto for their outreach on the bill. <br />She understood the bill to be a consolidation to address the many concerns about how long the building <br />permit and approval process takes, and streamlining it. On the other hand, Ms. David could understand <br />the concerns from the carpenters' union regarding factory -built homes. However, her question was <br />whether this section would apply to only a certain segment of the low-income community, and would <br />allow them an opportunity to find something that's affordable. Owner -builder types of homes would still <br />be available, and this section allows more choice for those who live here. She said we need to have a lot <br />of options for housing. Maybe it won't fit for everybody's use, Ms. David said. People who could afford <br />to do larger homes would still go through the usual process, and prefabricated homes can address the <br />affordable housing issue. Ms. David said she supported the overall idea to improve the permitting <br />process. <br />Vice Chair Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder appreciated the effort put into the bill. He asked what solar <br />photovoltaic system modification permits are required pursuant to proposed Chapter 5, Section 5-3- <br />1(b)(4). Mr. Tanaka said that current practice requires a building permit and an electrical permit for a <br />photovoltaic system. Should that design change, it would need to get a revision to the building permit as <br />well as the electrical permit. Under Bill No. 179, it would be covered under a single permit, and changes <br />would require a revision to that permit. <br />Supervising Electrical Inspector Gary Kaho`ohanohano said that when you remove and replace a system <br />you have to do bonding and grounding to make sure it's put back correctly for the safety of the <br />customer, and also that the installation is done correctly by the contractor. That is why a permit is <br />required. That's not a new requirement, he said. <br />Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder also had a question about proposed Chapter 5E, Section 5E -2-1(b)(43), where <br />International Energy Conservation Code Subsection R404.3 provides that "an electrical rough -in of a 30 <br />amp circuit for future electrical vehicle charger may be installed in garage/carport area." He noted that <br />some of the chargers he has installed for Tesla electric cars have exceeded the apparent 30 -amp limit. <br />Mr. Tanaka said this was an option introduced by the state, and he would defer to his electrical team for <br />further comment. <br />Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder suggested increasing the circuit allowance to be above 30 amperes to be <br />consistent with new and emerging technology. <br />Mr. Tanaka also clarified that Chapter 5A, Appendix L, is not new, and -has been in the code since its <br />adoption in 2012. <br />On the initial public comment period, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said seven days to provide written <br />comments seemed "a bit light," but the industry will, roll with it. What's important is the public still has <br />more than seven days. There remains time before the next two Council meeting for the public to provide <br />input. <br />PWMTC Report No. 23 <br />