Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWMTC 2021/06/15 2020-2022Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit 7th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii June 15, 2021 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit ORDER: was called to order at 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 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 Ms. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather Kimball, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, 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 Chair called Shaun Roth, who registered to speak in support of Bill 44 (Comm. 281), and came forward when called. CHR. LEE LOY: With that, I'm going to be closing public testimony at this time. Mr. Clerk. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. (There were none.) ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 44: AMENDS THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE COUNTY CONSTRUCTION CODE, BY: 1) ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS 5B (RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE) AND 5C (EXISTING BUILDING CODE); 2) AMENDING CHAPTER 5 (CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE): SECTIONS 5-1-2, 5-1-3, 5-1-5, 5-2-2, 5-2-3, 5-2-4, 5-4-21, 5-8-4, AND 5-10-1; 3) AMENDING CHAPTER 5A (BUILDING CODE): SECTIONS 5A-1-3, 5A-1-6, 5A-3-21, 5A-3-22, AND 5A-3-27; 4) AMENDING CHAPTER 5D (ELECTRICAL CODE): SECTIONS 5D-1-3, AND 5D-1-6; 5) AMENDING CHAPTER 5E (ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE): SECTION 5E-1-6; AND 6) AMENDING CHAPTER 5F (PLUMBING CODE): SECTION 517-1-6 Reference: Comm. 281 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy (B/R) ; and Comm. 281.1: From Council Member Sue Lee Loy, dated June 2, 2021, transmitting public comments received by the Building Division, along with the Division's responses regarding the proposed revisions to the building codes that were released on March 30, 2021. Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend passage of Bill 44 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. LEE LOY: In Hilo, I believe Director Rodenhurst is here. And then here in our Kona Chambers, we have our Deputy Director Steve Pause and Deputy Building Division Chief Neal Tanaka. If I could call all of you forward? (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Ikaika Rodenhurst, and Deputy Building Division Chief Neal Tanaka came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. LEE LOY: I'd also like to direct our Council Members to Communication 281.2, which is a slide deck that Director Rodenhurst will be presenting for us. And as we get that ready, Deputy Director Pause, if you wouldn't mind coming forward? We got to know you just during our budget hearing, and I just wanted to give you a few minutes to introduce yourself to this body and the new role that you've just taken on as our Deputy Director. Mr. Pause. Page 2 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 (Note: At this time, Deputy Public Works Director Stephen Pause came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PAUSE: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. So, my name is Steve Pause. I've met some of you, almost all of you now. I think you remember my debut two weeks ago in the seat. I am the Deputy Director of Public Works. l come from spending seven months previously at the DEM (Department of Environmental Management). I've been on the island since September. I've been a property owner since six or seven years ago, we just finished completing a house. I grew up in Massachusetts; attended a university there as well, with a Bachelor's and Master's Degree. I've been a licensed engineer for 30 years and I've been a licensed engineer in Hawaii since 2017. I took the opportunity to design my IWS (Individual Wastewater System) for my house planning construction. My background is, again, engineer. Licensed engineer; civil and environmental. Most recently I spent some time working for a mining company, directing infrastructure projects. I previously worked for an oil company doing the same infrastructure projects. A lot of civil, environmental, and electrical, and the whole gamut. And then prior to that, I spent some time working in a consultant field. But I'm excited to be here. I am coming up to speed on all sorts of things here at the County. I am looking forward to working with each one of you. I've got a pretty good teacher there in Hilo, with Ikaika, and I'm looking forward to working with him. And it's a very diverse team, covers a lot of ground. Obviously, spent a lot of money and does a lot of really good things for the island. And I'm just happy to be part of the team. Thank you, CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you for being here. With that, Director Rodenhurst, if you wouldn't mind walking us through your slide -deck for Bill 44. MR. RODENHURST: Yes. Director Rodenhurst, Public Works. (Note: At this time, Director Rodenhurst provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the subject presentation, please see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office or by navigating to the Council's video archives online in the County's webpages at www.hawaiicounty.gov. A hard copy of the presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 281.2.) MR. RODENHURST: So that's it in a nutshell. I know it's a very brief summary of a quite large bill, you know, it's 78 pages, and that's just including the amendments, the code the IRC (International Residential Code) is and the IEBC (International Existing Building Code). You know, these building codes aren't light reading, but I'm grateful for my staff, Neal Tanaka and his crew, for putting Page 3 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 this together and working with the community to provide amendments as possible to address our unique community on this island and in this County. I stand by this. I think these are good amendments, and any comments or questions, I'm happy to take them. I'm grateful for Neal Tanaka being available for any technical questions, and grateful for Steve for being available in Kona for any other questions, as well. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director Rodenhurst. With that, I'm going to go ahead and level set our dais a little bit. And thank you to Nancy Cook Lauer, she did a fantastic job at really capturing where we are. This was a process that we took on almost two years ago to house all of our codes in one chapter, and through that process, as we were kind of moving all the different sections in, we were hit with a pandemic, and the business decision was made to hit to pause button, and just kind of keep everything status quo until we had time to adjust to market trends, just the effects the COVID (Coronavirus Disease), and how we were going to move forward. So at that time the administration at that time made the business decision to say, "Hey, we're just going to hold steady and use the current existing codes, and then pick this back up," when we had more time. And so during that one-year pause, a lot of work has been put in by the Department of Public Works. And I also need to thank Leslie Chow in our Legislative Review Branch. And that time we were rushing, almost rushing, to adopt changes to the 2012 code. But with that one year we made the decision to say, "Hey, let's put down 12 and jump forward into 2018," which is what is contained here now in Bill 44. And there will be a second bill coming forward that addresses the Energy Code, and another section. But as Director Rodenhurst said, this really just puts all of our codes together in one place. What I also wanted to highlight is during that one year we learned lot of lessons about how we moved in the last framework, and we heard a lot of requests for more time to comment. So the department took a month to put this out to all of our stakeholders, all of our design professionals, and really give them a lot of time to comb though this, so they gave them 30 days and then captured all of their comments, and that's also available to the members of the dais, in Communication 281.1. You can go ahead and read through all the comments that were offered and the disposition of those comments, whether they were right for Bill 44 at this time or for something a little later. You know, this has been a heavy lift. This has been 24, 30 -plus months, and a pandemic, and I really have to commend the department. I think some of the highlights with jumping forward to adopt the 2018 code is that it gives this particular community the longest time to utilize these codes. And as we move through EnerGov and our single permit process, we will have a framework and a family of codes that can align with EnerGov; and if there are hiccups through that Page 4 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 process, we will have the longest amount of time to work through those kinks and then smooth them out with what could be future amendments. So with that, I'm going to yield at this time and looking to other members if they have any questions. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. All this is quite complex, especially for me, when it comes to building codes, which I'm very not familiar with. But, Neal or Ikaika, when it comes to the amendments, are we just taking what's in these IEBC and IRC (International Residential Code) and bringing it down and adopting it at the County level? MR. RODENHURST: So the process goes that when the International IRC and IEBC is established, it goes to State Building Code Council (SBCC) for their review and their amendments, and then from there it comes to us in the County for our amendments. That's where we're at with this. This has been amended, not just by the State Building Code Council but by our DPW (Department of Public Works), as well. MR. INABA: Okay. And then can you just clarify what our DPW has further amended? MR. RODENHURST: Neal, do you care to go over our specific list that we've made our amendments? MR. TANAKA: Good morning, Council. Neal Tanaka, Acting Deputy Building Chief. Holeka, thank you for that question. I brought a sample of what the IRC looks like, right, and so just the Residential Code. The Residential Code is effectively prescriptive elements or provisions for residential design. The State essentially made changes specific to Hawaii and our unique environment, when it comes to seismic and wind provisions. For us at the County, we didn't necessarily make a significant amount of changes to those State amendments. We did make some smaller provisions, more so for consistency with our existing codes, to try and ease the transition, but also specific to tiny homes as was mentioned, which was in our old code, IBC Code (International Building Code). We moved it into this bill because it's specific to residential. Additionally, we did the Appendix L, which was in our old code, and moved it into this Residential Code, as an Appendix U. Other specific items, you know, they were non -substantial with regards to County specific. It was more so for clarification. We do have, like I mentioned on this island, unique areas of seismicity and wind, and so it was to provide that clarified language for the design professionals and the contractors out there. Page 5 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 MR. INABA: Okay. So on—in this slide you folks provided, the title page, Proposed changes to the adoption of the 2018 IEBC/IRC Codes, are those just for clarification, are those amendments that we are doing at the County level, or are those amendments that came from the State? MR. TANAKA: This slide, specific to the IRC, was kind of a summarization of State and County, and I can walk through with you on these lists. I don't know if want to present it on the screen, maybe? But the first one is essentially an automatic fire sprinkler exemption. The State Legislature had, per our HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) 46-19.8, does not require fire sprinklers in single-family dwellings. (See Comm. 281.2) The second one is specific to removing a State requirement for a 3,000 square foot limitation on the utilization of the IRC. We felt that was a little arbitrary. We've seen structures greater than 3,000 square feet that comply with the prescriptive provisions of the IRC. But we've also seen residences that are less than 3,000 square feet, that don't meet the prescriptive elements, and would need structural engineer design. So it is really incumbent on the design professionals to do that assessment on how that Single Family Dwelling design is, either utilizing the IRC or the IBC. MR. INABA: Okay. Sorry, and then to be clear, that's a 3,000 square foot minimum, or maximum where? MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry to interrupt. MR. INABA: No, go ahead. MR. TANAKA: The 3,000 square foot was a limit, right, and so that is no longer in the code. But ultimately, it was a 3,000 square foot max before you could no longer use the IRC. MR. INABA: Okay. MR. TANAKA: The third provision, it was a notification to the public, which is the roof diaphragm sheathing on houses. It's been in the code since 2006. The fourth one is just another— MR. INABA: I'm sorry, I have no clue what that is, so could you quickly explain that? MR. TANAKA: I apologize. Yeah, so roof sheathing, roof diaphragm is essentially plywood on the roof, and that's essentially it. Roof sheathing is to address load path, and it's technical in nature, however if you want us to explain that to you, we can. But it's to resist that lateral load. Page 6 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 The fourth one is just a notification to the public, the current IRC differs, and how braced wall calculations are made. Again, a very technical provision, but the 2018 takes into consideration the wind and seismic requirements, and provides adjustment factors when calculating those. We didn't touch that with regards to our amendments. It was just a notification. Likewise, with the carbon monoxide alarm requirements, that's always been in the code since 2012, to address that safety concern. MR. INABA: I'm sorry, that's to require these alarms now? MR. TANAKA: Required, correct. MR. INABA: Okay. Thank you. MR. TANAKA: And then the State, the last item, the State Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii (SEAOH), they put forth some concrete footing and strapping requirements to address the corrosive nature of our environment in Hawaii, so those are just specific amendments that we wanted to notify the public to be aware of. MR. INABA: Got it. Thank you. And then just my last question for now, in reading through some of the testimony we received, mostly in support for all this work you've done, Sue, with DPW—everyone is kind of referencing Appendix U and not—and deferring possible amendments there. So what's in Bill 44 right now, is that what you're—is it to read as it as in Bill 44 or are they asking for it not to be changed, and this is being changed? MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry, I apologize, I'm not sure which testimonies you are referring to. However, my understanding, and the intent of the department and the division was to just migrate over the existing language of Appendix L, Factory Built Homes, into the IRC, Appendix U. MR. INABA: Okay. Sue, can you explain a little bit on that, please? CHR. LEE LOY: Yeah, so I'll try and help and explain. Currently, the way our family of codes are structured, factory built is identified as Appendix L. But as we move in this new Residential Code, they call factory built out in Appendix U. They're exactly the same; and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Tanaka, but as you mentioned, they're just going to migrate over. So we're just changing the lettering, but all of it remains exactly the same. And in regard to some of the letters that you are referencing, and maybe Mr. Tanaka expand on this, but the State Building Code Council has engaged a permitted interaction group specifically around this issue. And so the call for action is just to keep it as is, because if the State with the permitted interaction Page 7 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 group makes adjustments to that appendices, they're the subject matter experts; they are the ones we would actually follow. So if we just keep it status quo as it is now, let State Building Code Council do their work, and then we would have a chance to amend that later. Is that correct? MR. TANAKA: Yes. Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. I do represent the County of Hawaii at the State Building Code Council, and I'm also involved in that Investigative Committee for factory built offsite construction. We just got that started, second meeting, second month. But we are exploring the provisions of Appendix U. MR. INABA: Okay, so to confirm, the Appendix U that's listed here in Bill 44 is exactly as it currently is in the code? MR. TANAKA: That is correct. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Tanaka. That's all I have for now. Chair, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Anyone else? Oh, Mr. Richards. Go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thanks, Ms. Lee Loy. And thanks for the clarification of Appendix U versus L. To follow up on that one, Mr. Tanaka, the timeline for the review, what's your thoughts? Best guesstimate, and I realize it's a guess. But when do you think that review might be coming forth? MR. TANAKA: Council Member Richards, thank you for that question. It would be a best guess, and we have just started. The basis for the study of the Investigative Committee was to address some of the provisions in the IBC as well as a couple of standards that were issued by the ICC (International Code Council). Those standards actually haven't been officially ratified yet, and so we're kind of working with definitions and making sure that the vernacular is all the same within the County, within the industry. And so to answer your question, I would say we're still six months month out, or so. Six, ten, maybe a year, depending on several actions. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. And that was, and again this was in the conversation, the question's been raised, as Mr. Inaba pointed out by several other testifiers, as really important. And this was a point in the conversation last Council, as we were working through this. The fact that this is the same verbiage, we're just migrating it over as Ms. Lee Loy pointed out, makes sense. And it sets the framework for the modifications pending what you find out in this investigative group, correct? MR. TANAKA: Correct. The IRC is intended to be a stand-alone code for residential prescriptive design. And so yes, to answer your question, migrating it Page 8 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 from IBC (International Building Code), which is more of an engineer design, non-residential code, to the Residential Code which Factory Built Housing addresses, was the intent and the strategy with regards to depending on what the Investigative Committee resolve to. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you, that makes sense to me. And this actually taps back into the conversation about affordable housing, which is what we were discussing earlier. I appreciate the clarification. Chair, thanks so much for that. And thank you, Mr. Tanaka. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Chair. Aloha, Mr. Tanaka. Thank you for being here today. I actually have some fairly specific questions that I have been asked to ask, based on concerns by different constituents in District 7. One of them is a resident owner of a unit in a two-story, 14 -unit condo complex on Alii Drive. The question that he'd like asked is, are existed permitted condos covered by Bill 44 and its new requirements? MR. TANAKA: So you said it was a two-story, 14 -unit condominium project? MS. VILLEGAS: It's already been built. It's permitted. It's done. It's been there for years. MR. TANAKA: So Bill 44 does include the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). So the International Existing Building Code is a code that provides for prescriptive elements or provisions for alterations, additions, repair to existing structures. So to answer that constituent's question, yes. MS. VILLEGAS: I think that the question is specific to, are they now going to be required to install automatic sprinkler systems in their existing buildings? MR. TANAKA: So the International the existing Building Code gives provisions specific to what the intent of the project is and how it applies to the existing structure. The code isn't to be applied to structures where no work is happening, right? MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. MR. TANAKA: And so if the structure is intended to increase in square footage or to modify structure elements, the design professional is to utilize the IEBC and figure out how the IBC or the IRC is applicableI'm sorry, it would be IBC for that structure—applies and how fire sprinklers, if needed, would be implemented. Not to say that it would be, it's just a guideline as to determine the amount of work that's being done to that existing building, and what would trigger that requirement. Page 9 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, great. So if there's no work being done to that building. Let's say for his existing condo, then there is no automatic sprinkler system requirement based on this transition in Bill 44? MR. TANAKA: That is correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you. And then just one other question that was asked was, if the County did an Economic Impact Study on the cost to residents of putting Bill 44 in place? MR. TANAKA: So the County didn't do specifically do an Economic Impact Study. The State Building Code Council largely has—is made up of several investigative committees: a structural committee, non-structural committee; several other stakeholders, contractors, and they generally have the bandwidth to assess the impacts of these codes at that State level. And so some assessment was made. The ICC provided a national study of the impacts of the code economically, but not locally to the State. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you for that. I appreciate that, Mr. Tanaka. Because one of the examples that this constituent used was, needing to get a new water heater because it was ten years old. The water heater was $250, and it was the exact replacement, but after having have two visits by the building inspector, which added about $600 to the initial $300 install bill by a licensed plumber, it added such an increase. So I just wanted to give context to the constituent's concern, which I think is echoed in many people's concerns about bureaucratic, what's perceived as bureaucratic reforms and how they become expensive to the little guy. Which, I really appreciate clarification, because unless they are pursuing—it sounds like, and I'm not sure why there was such a high expense for the changing of a water heater, but overall it seems that the intentionality of these updates is to create broader standards that are applicable across the board, but that really just take into consideration new development, new structures being built, or large renovations. I had another constituent recently reached out about the large shopping center on Alii Drive, and with questions about sprinkler systems being needed in that facility. Because historically has not had, potentially the level of upkeep. That some people have concerns about some safety issues. So overall what you're stating is Bill 44 then becomes applicable if you're endeavoring to engage or begin a large renovation project or building something new? MR. TANAKA: Generally, yes. Yeah, I don't know what happened on that water heater situation. But Bill 44, I don't think necessarily it would have Page 10 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 addressed that. That would have probably have fallen under the Plumbing Code, which we took care of last year. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. MR. TANAKA: Specific to that Shopping Center on Alii Drive, it's possible. It's possible that an alteration to some degree would require an upgrade. But again, it's really dependent on what the intent of the work is. And so it is the design professional's responsibility to assess that scope of work to the existing Building Code and see if that actually applies as a requirement, as opposed to historically, as Director Rodenhurst mentioned, if the scope of work was just 50 percent of the cost to replace that building, the whole building needed to come up to code. So it provides more tools for the design professionals to assess their project and apply these codes. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. I just have a couple of other questions that have come through to me, and also will help me get a better understanding. Is, what model International Building Codes and/or International Residential Codes are contractors and builders currently required to comply with? MR. TANAKA: So currently we are officially adoptingoh, excuse me, we are officially enforcing the 2006 IBC, and by reference the 2006. MS. VILLEGAS: 2006, I'm sorry? MR. TANAKA: 2006 IRC, I referenced. As Council Member Lee Loy had mentioned and Director Rodenhurst had mentioned, in November of last year there was a State requirement to adopt the 2012 codes, and the business decision by the administration at that time was to put a hold on that, however, to allow design professionals the option to use 2012 should they want to. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So they weren't required to comply with the 2012 IBC since the County did not amend the Hawaii State Building Code within the two-year period as required by the State law? MR. TANAKA: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. And I just wondered, if DPW is allowing contractors and builders to comply with multiple codes, such as the 2006 IBC and 2012 IBC, how does the department justify providing contractors and builders with these options? What state or county laws allow for this? And doesn't this cause confusion for the building industry? I've had a number of emails from concerned—some of them that you know quite well. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, ultimately we're trying to not confuse the public, right? The way, as Director Rodenhurst mentioned, with regards to the adoption process Page 11 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 of when a model code is published, the State Building Code Council effectively has two years to amend and adopt it, by then. Per HRS 107-28, the counties have two years upon adoption to amend and adopt. The way we were tracking, with regards to the 2018 code and the State law of the IBC, IRC 2012, if we had adopted that in November of last year, then we would have been essentially enforcing the code for nine months before being required to adopt these family codes, right? And so to address the confusion issue and learning curve on several codes within a short amount of time, that business decision was made. MS. VILLEGAS: And that was approved by Governor Ige, correct? MR. TANAKA: It was proposed to Governor Ige. Officially, I don't think that we received a response to that effect. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, so it was never approved of but we just kind of went on as we have been, okay. Thank you for doing your best to explain what is often clear as mud. And with that, I'll yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. And maybe, Dalilah, you can help clarify that, related to HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) and the adoption timeline. That was afforded to us because of COVID, and the emergency proclamations, and the relaxation of some of, you know, what even we experienced here, by allowing people to testify. So we used kind of that emergency shield as a way to hit the pause button. Dalilah, if you don't mind coming forward? Thank you. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Council Dalilah Schlueter came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SCHLUETER: Good morning, Council Members. That's correct. So there was a proposal sent to Governor Ige regarding—asking for him to suspend HRS 107-28 to allow the counties, not just the County of Hawaii, additional time for adoption such as these, reason being as it—as you can all understand, the amount of manpower and things like that, required of the departments, in order to put these bills and put these code changes in place as well as, you know, the rest of our professionals and community additional time before they have to deal and come into compliance with that additional code section. So the request to suspend HRS 107-28 was made, however Ige did not suspend those provisions as we understand, or as we all know. So what the decision ended up being, is to essentially make these decisions as a County, under Emergency Proclamation, and that's what this County decided to do. So this County would be also responsible for enforcement of those codes. So as a County, as a business decision, they decided, under Emergency Proclamation, to allow an administrative grace period until the end of August, so that would be August 31, 2021, here that we're coming up to. Page 12 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Dalilah. Does that help bridge why we're? Great, thank you. Thank you, Dalilah. Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the well-done presentation today. Good job. Nice you're here, Mr. Tanaka. I haven't seen you in a long time. Looking over it I mean we had a lot of discussion regarding the factory built housing, on the last presentation of this bill. Is everything the same in this? I know it's been said "yes," but I just want to get that on the record. Yes, stayed the exactly the same, no changes? MR. TANAKA: Yes, it's exactly the same, aside from the appendix number. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. TANAKA: Letter, excuse me. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: I did notice that factory built housing will refer to—looks like Residential Code versus Building Code, is that right? MR. TANAKA: Correct. The intent is to keep the residential provisions of factory built housing in the Residential Code. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Okay, what's the difference between residential and building codes? MR. TANAKA: So the Residential Code, the IRC, just like I mentioned, a prescriptive provision specific to residential construction; single-family, two-story. And so factory built housing, as applicable to residential housing, should intend to—is intended to be in the IRC as a stand-alone. The IBC, the International Building Code, is an engineered design code book, that is primarily used for non-residential structures; however, if a residential structure does not comply with the residential prescriptive elements, it would be subject to the IBC. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Interesting. Okay. And what—you know, given some of Ms. Villegas's comments and questions, I mean, what—has everyone been complying with 2012, 2006? Is factory built housing complying with both? What's going on right now, currently? MR. TANAKA: So to answer your first part of your question, the 2006 code is the adopted code that we're enforcing, currently. And so the 2012 code is afforded as an option to the design professionals should they want to take to use that code for their projects. Page 13 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 And to answer the second part with regards to factory built homes, factory built homes are designed to the 2006 code. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Okay, not the 2012? MR. TANAKA: No. However, they do have the option to do so if they wanted to. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Are they? MR. TANAKA: Not that I'm aware of. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then, the sheathing, that was my other question. That came up in a prior conversation. The sheathing right now, what are we—what is required now, sorry, if this bill were to pass? Because typically for me, on a roof, there's no sheathing on a roof. It's open 2x4 purlin, 2x6 truss. But now going forward, we are requiring sheathing on all roof types? MR. TANAKA: So if you were to follow the prescriptive provisions in the IRC, yes you would require sheathing on all roof types. We haven't adopted officially an IRC 2006. It's always been by reference, and so that's something that hasn't been enforced. Being that we are now adopting officially an IRC and providing the provisions as written specific to our design category for a seismicity, that requirement is in the code. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: So it is now or is coming if this bill is passed? MR. TANAKA: Is coming. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: It is coming if Bill 44 is passed? MR. TANAKA: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: And then sheathing would be required for all structures? Just walk me through it so that, you know, people watching, and they can understand this, too. Sheathing on the roofs would be required for all structures? MR. TANAKA: As a prescriptive design per the IRC, sheathing would be required. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: What size? MR. TANAKA: It depends. It depends on the numbers of trusses that you have on your roof. It depends on the size of your spans. Page 14 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: What's the minimum? MR. TANAKA: So there are two types of—you can do five -eights sheathing for trusses two -foot on center. You can do structural sheathing, I believe it's up to three-quarters for trusses based four -foot on center. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Given the prices of plywood right now, that's going to hurt. MR. TANAKA: So commodity price is something that we as a county or even as a division, don't have anything—we can't control, right? However, being mindful of that and being sensitive to fluctuations. Ultimately, the IRC is the minimum requirement for specifically our island, right, that provision. So lumber prices fluctuate up and down. In fact, I believeI read an article this morning saying that lumber is coming down; but again, that's neither here nor there, there's nothing that I can control. But we do enforce the minimum requirement of the code. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Okay, so open roofs, truss and purlin construction, is kind of would be a thing of the past once this were to go into effect? MR. TANAKA: Not necessarily. You can design the home to that if you wanted that, however it wouldn't be a prescriptive method. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Prescriptive method, what is that? MR. TANAKA: Prescriptive method, is as written in the IRC, right. So prescriptive method means a cookbook on how to build a home. However, if you wanted to go with a way as you proposed, whether it's 2x4 purlins, or whatever the case may be, you know, it's up to the design professional should they do the design assessment via the IBC. Because it's not prescriptive, it's possible. But it really has to be deigned out. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: So designed engineered, by an outside third -party engineer, then brought back before the County for plan approval? MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry, you MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: If design—like most things, like everyone is going to get their plans designed and engineered MR. TANAKA: Correct. Page 15 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Their engineer is going to stamp up on a project, and they're going to submit it to the County? MR. TANAKA: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Correct. And then the County is going to approve or deny the plans based on the engineering? MR. TANAKA: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: And so if they choose to go prescriptive method— MR. TANAKA: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Then it's still up to the County to approve or disapprove of the plans? MR. TANAKA: Generally, yes. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: And so are we going to be passingI mean, is it going to be a case-by-case basis, or are we just open to continuing construction as it used to be, because this is a big change? Or are we going to beI guess what I'm asking, are we going to approve open -style, you know, roofs like that, without sheathing, or are we going to deny them? MR. TANAKA: Again, it really depends on how the engineer, or the design professional proposes to construct their home, right? The IRC is intended to be a stand-alone prescriptive code; and if they want to use all the provisions of the IRC for their home, then they would be required to use sheathing However, if they wanted to use the IBC as that provision to design their home, they can do that, right. But it's not intended to be inter -changeably pick specific sections on the code that works for your home, right? It's—when it comes to structural load path and the design that comes into resisting those loads, the IRC body that provided these provisions has assessed that, right? And to answer your question, if the design professional says, "Hey, I am using the IRC 2018 to design my home," then no, we would not allow for that space sheathing, I guess, it's what it's called currently. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Interesting. I just—I've got to state itout, we went through a hurricane, or a tropical storm, if you will, for Iselle. So it didn't really classify as a hurricane. MR. TANAKA: Right. Page 16 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: And we went through a pretty substantial earthquake. I am proud to say that I don't know that we lost a single home during both of those events, as our current Building Codes apply to all the buildings that were built. So, that's good. That's a good thing. That means what we're doing works. But I'm also going to that next step, which is, you know, are we going? MR. TANAKA: Well, I'm not—to be honest, Council Member Kleinfelder, I don't know what source you're using for that, other than—we've received comment that we've lost roofs, or we've had structural damage. I mean, our team in '06 went out on the assessments on structural impacts on homes. But not to say that it happens in every single home was demolished or damaged. But it happens, right? MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Point taken. Maybe we did lose some roofs here and there, you know, get some wind. But for the most part, I mean, as a solar installer I was worried, because our solar and systems are up on roofs. I was out ofI did have my concerns after that storm. But they're all still there and I was MR. RODENHURST: If I may comment? Yes, we've been through some storms, we've been through some earthquakes, been through some seismic activity. I mean, we go through regular levels of small seismic activity on a daily, weekly basis. The purpose around these codes is to provide safety for the community, and we've been blessed that we haven't had as much damage to the structures, and thankfully no significant loss of livelihood due to weather or seismic activity. These requirements are there to ensure these structures stand. Like Neal Tanaka mentioned, these are here as the minimum requirements for safety. If you want to go with the State's sheathing method, that avenue is available, although it requires some structural elements to that to prove the structural integrity is being met, and that's still available. It's not that it's not allowed; it's just not a prescriptive method. I'd also like to point out that if we don't approve this bill, we are, you know, commenting back on that grace period process. We run the risk of approving the 2012 IRC unamended from the State amended IRC. So we would be part of that, as well. So whether this bill gets approved or not, that's part of it. We've had many conversations, me and Neal Tanaka specifically, but with the Building Division, with the community, in looking into and taking into account the issues of affordability. You know, I've even asked this question, you know, how many times have we seen roofs fly off, or how many times have we seen structures that are off -center, or cracked foundation, or any kind of structural integrity failure due to seismic activity over the last few years? It's something that we are currently and ongoing taking a look at it as we address these codes, and it's something that we are concerned with. So, if that provides a little bit of Page 17 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 clarity, I hope. If not, you know, me and Neal are happy to take more questions to clarify that. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: No, you guys doing good job. Thank you. I'm just doing my job and speaking on behalf of the community. And Puna, Puna is a home to many custom-built houses, and I think we did quite well during all these seismic and hurricane events. I'm very proud of my district for that. Switching gears a little bit. Are there any—for the permits that currently are in place or have been submitted, you know, how what happens to them? MR. TANAKA: So administratively, if there's a permit application in now, that would continue to go through, under the code as prescribed, or designed to. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: That existing code right now? MR. TANAKA: To the existing code that we're enforcing, yeah. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Okay. Okay, Chair, that were my questions for right now. Thank you. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Custom-built home, that's politically correct. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Just another quick question. Because regardless of whether or not the potential of us having continued on with our own timeline of when we needed to comply by these different building codes, it leaves us there's just another question for you, Neal, is when were the State codes adopted? MR. TANAKA: So the IRC was officially adopted in December, I believe. MS. VILLEGAS: 2020? MR. TANAKA: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: By the State? MR. TANAKA: By the State. However, as the IRC was published in 2017, per State law, they had been in effect since 2019. There was a requirement to adopt in August 2019, however the State Building Code Council did not act upon that. And so as a County, we were preparing per our State requirement HRS 107-28 to adopt by August. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Because it was my understanding that the actual deadline is two years from that adoption. So if the State adopted it in December 2020, doesn't that give us until December 2022? Page 18 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 MR. TANAKA: So technically, because the State Building Code Council had not done any action to adopt or amend, that code, 2018 code, was automatically the State code at that time. There has been discussion with the State AG (Attorney General) on the applicability of adoption of December 2022. For the counties to be required to be by December 2022, to answer your question, yes. However, as Director Rodenhurst mentioned, we're trying to afford the public with the longest amount of time to utilize these codes. MS. VILLEGAS: Wouldn't that mean the adoption of December of 2022 versus August of 2021 ? MR. RODENHURST: So if I may answer that one? So if we were to adopt these codes as put forth here this year, we would be ahead of the curve as far as the adoption process. When the next codes come along, we would have not just from here to December 2022, but also to the next two years on top of that. Whereas on the flipside, if we were to wait until December 2022, we would have this code in; get this in and immediately begin the process of adopting the next code, so we would have approximately two years with the next code, and with this we have two years with this code. Under this current process, with this bill, we have two—almost three years with it, so we have a little bit of extra time with it. And correct me if I'm wrong on that, Tanaka. MR. TANAKA: That is correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. I guess I find that counter -intuitive in some way, but perhaps I'm not there seems to be perhaps it's a difference between what is more conducive for county and government. And I commend you guys for navigating this process because obviously it's not an easy one if the State and of itself was already years behind, and these dates continue to dance. But just hearing from a number of different architects and planners, and the confusion it creates for them, I want to make sure that we are making the best decisions possible based on that timing. Soto me it just seems counter -intuitive to say that we're giving it the longest period of time, and yet we're pushing it to August. And I guess my other questions comes, and excuse my ignorance, on this but—so this is updated every two years, so that's why—or every four years? MR. TANAKA: The model codes are updated by the ICC on a three-year cycle. MS. VILLEGAS: On how many? Page 19 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 MR. TANAKA: Three-year cycle. MS. VILLEGAS: A thee -year cycle, okay. MR. TANAKA: And then—so as they are published, generally the year before the actual code date, so the next code cycle would be the IBC, IRC 2021. It was published last year. The State Building Code Council as of right now are investigating that code, right? The State law says the State needs to adopt the 2021 code two years after it's published. In this case 2018, two years after it's published, right? MS. VILLEGAS: Not two years after it's adopted. MR. TANAKA: The State, is two years after it's published. And then once it's two years after the State adopts it, then the County have two years to adopt it. So the State Building Code Council is doing everything that they can to address, amend, and adopt these codes on a timely basis, so we as a County can react accordingly, right? This code cycle for the 2018 was unique, where the State did not adopt the codes in the two-year timeframe as required by State law. We as a County were then left to either just wait and hope the State Building Code Council adopted something. Or prepare, and that's what we decided to do. MS. VILLEGAS: Were we given validation or confirmation that was legal? MR. TANAKA: We were going under the State law with regards to 107-28, which said we needed to adopt the code two years after the State adopted the code. And by right 2019, the State code was the 2018 code in 2019, because it was two years after the publication, which was in 2017. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. For me, I think the confusion probably there's a publication and then adoption. MR. TANAKA: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: And those are different dates. MR. TANAKA: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: So that—perhaps that's part of what's creating some of the confusion. But I'll yield at this time. But thank you for your patience MR. TANAKA: Sure. MS. VILLEGAS: And continued diligence in navigating all these landmines, so I appreciate that. I yield. Page 20 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. It really is complex. The adoption, the timelines, Hawaii Revised Statutes, guidance we're getting from Attorney Generals compared to what we're getting from Corporation Counsel, and basically what we're trying to do is take these codes and augment them for our unique environment. And so as we keep hearing these are the minimum, but then we also want to try and adjust to our unique environment here. You know, sea level is different from you know, Kona is different from Waimea, and so this really is—what we're trying to do is to get it to fit. Go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm just hearing push back from the community is that they feel that they're suffering by the push for this to be passed by August, under a belief system, that there's actually more time, until December 2022. So for your department to understand that that's the belief system within the public, and that's what they're asking for essentially, is more time on this. So that to me is the counter -intuitive statement of giving as much time as possible, and yet. CHR. LEE LOY: So the most time to utilize this but maybe, Mr. Tanaka or Mr. Rodenhurst, design professionals have had this from 2017. Director or Mr. Tanaka? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, and if I may jump in on this one? Yeah, this, like Neal Tanaka mentioned, this has been a code that was developed in 2017, that has taken some time for the State to adopt, and we are accelerating our path to get this onboard, and not for a rush. I want to put that forward, it's an accelerated path so we can provide consistency across our codes. With COVID last year, with the grace period involved with the IBC and some of these code adoptions, we want to make sure that there's a clear cut, "this is where we are moving forward." And like I said, this does provide us an additional time in the use of this code, because without this installation we're going to be subject to a different code for about a year, different than what we're experiencing currently, and then we're going to have to adopt this next code under that timeline that you are presenting, Council Member Villegas. So in my eyes that goes from where we are, point a. We go the next code, point b. And then we go this adopted code, point c. With this accelerated timeline, we skip the confusion of having a temporary stop at point b and go right to point c, where we are on the same page moving forward. And because we've—because the department and the division the Building Division has taken their due diligence and their time and effort to accelerate this schedule and put forth these amendments. It provides the community a longer time for consistency. That's the viewpoint of the department. I understand that may not be the viewpoint of your constituents, but that's our viewpoint here. I'm happy to have that conversation with your constituents; I'm happy to have that conversation with you. Page 21 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 MS. VILLEGAS: Fantastic. Thank you so much. I will look forward to reaching out and creating some opportunities for constituents to present their concerns and questions directly to you, and not here if necessarily in Council. But thank you for allowing the time and latitude to explore and to represent those that I am essentially hired to represent. So, thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I just want to touch on the post and pier. There's a note there's a mention here of preapproved or pre-engineered post and pier, or foundation work, Can you discuss that for me a little bit? MR. TANAKA: Are you referring to the existing Building Code? Correct? MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Yes. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, so the existing Building Code, as I mentioned, is how the codes are applied to existing structures. Through the years, codes migrate and change, and the existing structures likely fall out of compliance after a while. So in 2009, after the earthquake here on the Big Island, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) had contracted out some seismic retrofits for existing post and pier structures, and provided some prescriptive drawings for those toeffectively, it would be hazard mitigation tools for the existing buildings to be in compliant. And so if someone wanted to retrofit their foundation which is noncompliant or under -designed, these drawings are provided for those existing structures. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. And then this came up a while ago, but I want to get a clear answer, are ag structures that aren't habitable, or mainly housing equipment, that kind of thing, on ag land? Is that still exempt from the building permit process as it used to be, under State law? MR. TANAKA: So, this bill doesn't address that. But to answer your question, ag structures per HRS 46-88, are exempt on two -acre lots. We have had conversations with the public on trying to find solutions for ag structures under two acres, and our administration is working toward finding those goals. However, this bill, Bill 44, does not address that. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: It was in one of these sections of the code. That's why I brought it up. It may not be addressing it, but it may be touching this section that's in it. I don't know the number for it; I was just looking at it. So apparently, ag land over two acres, permit exempt for ag structures. Is that correct? MR. TANAKA: Pursuant to the HRS, correct. Page 22 PWMTC-7 June 15, 2021 MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Okay. That is good. I think that's very useful for ag landowners to be able to put up a structure on the property to house their equipment. And that does carried forward. There's no changes in that aspect for this, correct? MR. TANAKA: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Thank you. MR. TANAKA: HRS 46-88 does mention that although you may be exempt from the permitting provisions of the code, you did to declare it with the County. We do want to ensure that thing is not in a flood zone, or violating any other provisions of County Code, not specific to the Building Department. However, although exempt from the building permit process, State law does require those ag structures to be constructed to code. MR. KANEALI`I- KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Neal. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Go ahead, Dalilah Schlueter. MS. SCHLUETER: Council Members, I just wanted to bring your attention to part of the—one of the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statutes. It may answer some questions regarding the timeline. HRS 107-28(b) states that if—this is the provision that requires the counties to adopt the State code within two years. If a County fails to do that, then it defaults to whatever that State code is. So one of the issues right now is that grace period, that administrative grace period that I spoke about earlier, ends August 31, 2021; however, that grace period was regarding the adoption of the 2012 code. So if the bill today—if the 2018 codes are not adopted by the end of that grace period, then the County of Hawaii will default to the 2012 code. And far as I understand, the 2012 code was not amended by the SBCC, so it would be unamended 2012 code that the County of Hawaii would default to. And then that timeframe regarding the amended 2018 code, as we were talking about, if that were to go—excuse me, the deadline for that being the end of 2022. Then we'd still have to take steps adopt that 2018 code at the of 2022. So you'd have an adoption in the middle of this year and then a change of the code the end of 2022, if we default to the 2012 code. MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry, the 2012 code was adopted and amended by the State Building Code Council. Page 23 PWMTC-7 Vote on Bill 44 (Approved) June 15, 2021 MS. SCHLUETER: I apologize for that mess-up. But we would still—we're still subject to that 2012 timeframe if we do not move ahead with the 2018 code. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Schlueter and Mr. Tanaka. And when you mentioned, "amended by the State," but if we were to default to the 2012, we wouldn't have amended it for our County, is that correct? MS. SCHLUETER: That's correct. I apologize for that. There's a lot of technicalities here, yeah. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. I know it's so complex. Any other comments? Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I just want to mahalo you and the department for working so diligently over these last few years to make this happen. So often government works in its own silos, so it's really nice that there is an intentional effort to engage those that must implement this code. I appreciate the space they were provided to just provide feedback and ensure that we have something that is implementable and doesn't provide undue burdens or extra cost on building, especially for housing industry. So thank you, I appreciate the hard work. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Anyone else? Well, I just want to thank everyone. It really is complex. State statutes, our own statutes, our own codes. But with that we do have a motion to send Bill 44 with a favorable recommendation to Council. All those in favor, please say "aye." The motion to recommend passage of Bill 44 on first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: I believe, Mr. Clerk, is that the end of our agenda? Page 24 PWMTC-7 ADJOURN- MENT: M June 15, 2021 There being no further business, at 12:15 p.m., Mr. Inaba moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kdneali `i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: This meeting is adjourned at 12:15.m. Thank you everyone. Ms. Susa L. K. Lee Ly, Ch� 4c -Works and Mas Transit SL/na (Date) Page 25