My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-10-11 Regular Session Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2011-2018
>
2016
>
2016-10-11 Regular Session Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/10/2016 10:06:02 AM
Creation date
11/10/2016 10:05:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
two...it's a partnership really and it's really hard to expect one side <br /> or the other to carry the full burden and I think the approach that <br /> our building division employees have taken is to be reasonable and <br /> consistent in the application of the various codes and reasonable to <br /> the applicants. Working with them to find solutions that can fit the <br /> method of construction and the design that they want. Now...the <br /> drawback here is...and this the rock in the hard place for the <br /> frontline workers is if the County worker were to say I can't do <br /> that for you or I'm not going to give you a name of somebody that <br /> can do the work for you. They can face a complaint for lack of <br /> service or lack of customer service even though we have got <br /> guidelines in place not to refer specific contractors or designers <br /> because that could be perceived as favoritism...right...or referring <br /> to specific individual. So every day the County employees <br /> especially for the building division are put in this position of <br /> balancing good customer service and maintaining a level of service <br /> that does not compromise or put them in situations where they can <br /> be cast in a negative light. So for this case and looking at the plan <br /> review comment letters...the first plan review comment letter was <br /> from the planning department saying the description of what you <br /> want to do is incomplete so we can't figure out if you can build. <br /> So that goes back to the applicant right from the beginning because <br /> it's a threshold matter...May I build on the land. That's the first <br /> step. After it passes the land review use and the engineering <br /> reviews for you know like grading plans or drainage plans if it's in <br /> a special district. Then it gets into the plan review for the technical <br /> building requirements. The materials...are the members strong <br /> enough...is there adequate shielding. So if you take a look at the <br /> second comment review letter...the comments were that <br /> calculations were required. Very broad very general...but the <br /> subsequent plan review letter gave more clarity and that's actually <br /> when Mr. Daniel Lee became involved in the process rather than <br /> just a general building plan reviewer...right. This is the first time <br /> that the County...in a long time...has had someone with the <br /> credentials and the CV as Mr. Daniel Lee. He has done structural <br /> plan review across the nation and we have been...the department <br /> has been criticized in the past for not having that type of expertise <br /> on hand to go and explain to the design professionals that the <br /> calculations don't seem to be supporting what is required. If you <br /> got to think of calculations as more than just math. I like to <br /> simplify is...it's the proof that whatever you're building with and <br /> building is gonna be safe. It will withstand whatever factors and <br /> variables we have here in Hawai`i whether its wind...whether its <br /> earthquake...whether it's poor soil. So when we get to that <br /> point...the training that the structural engineer go through...they <br /> learn when they get their engineering degree...statics...how forces <br /> 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.