Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUD 2023/10/17 (2022-2024)Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development 8th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii October 17, 2023 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Development was called to order at 9:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Acting Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (via videoconference in Hilo) Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, 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: (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 84: AMENDS CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 5-4-7 AND CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 5, SECTIONS 5-5-4 AND 5-5-5 OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO CANCELLATION OF CONSTRUCTION CODE PERMIT APPLICATIONS, PERMIT EXPIRATIONS, AND PERMIT EXTENSIONS Seeks to standardize and coordinate various timing elements for applications, extensions, and expirations of Construction Code permits to be in alignment with statutorily required adoption of new Construction Code standards to ensure proposed projects are planned and designed in accordance with updated and modified provisions of the Construction Code. Reference: Comm.516 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Lee Loy PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 84 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, I'm going to just give a little bit of background to start us off on this bill. This has been a project Council Member Lee Loy and I have been working on with the Department of Public Works (DPW) as well as the Building Division to really simplify the process around both applying for a permit and actually executing that permit. Over time, like much of our Code, it's kind of hit this hermit crab effect where things have been tied in and it's made it complicated, and it's been therefore difficult to enforce and there have been some inconsistencies in terms of that enforcement piece. And so, my initial discussions with Director (Stephen) Pause about the timelines related to construction and building permits, we really walked it back to the bare bones. What is the purpose of having any timeline? What is the purpose of having any expiration date tied to the permit? And the reason for that is really to ensure that people are building to the most current Code. And so, the next question you ask then is, what is the function of a building code? And the function of a building code fundamentally is public health and safety. And so, we want to make sure that when the public walks into a public space they can be assured that they're going to be safe in that space. Additionally, you know, if you're a homeowner and you're thinking about building your own home, you're part of a community, you're part of a neighborhood and ensuring that your roof is going to stay on during a windstorm and not go ahead and blow over and hurt your neighbor; or your house is not going to catch fire and go ahead and ignite the one next to it. That's why building permits exist. It's not just to create artificial bureaucracy. There is a true purpose. There was a recent study done by the NationalI'm going to get the name wrong but Building Science Council. And, you know, I've stated before that when we spend on preventative measures, we save six to one, as far as resilience. When we follow the Building Code and there are disasters, the savings are twelve to one if you invest upfront in following Building Codes. So, that's the long story. Rolling it back here to this bill, it's really pretty simple. There's two timing components. There's the time that it takes to get an application and then the time that it takes to do your building once you receive the permit. The first bit is really straightforward because it's dictated by the International Building Code (IBC). An applicant has 180 days to get through the process of applying for a permit. There are possibilities of extensions. So, you know, if it's a complicated project and there are a lot of comments, maybe there's a couple of different back and forths, that can be extended. That 180 days can be extended in 90-day intervals. Page 2 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 But again, this is to keep things moving through, preventing a backlog from being created from non -responsiveness from the client's side. The second timeline is that timeline when a permit is issued and then you're going to go and build whatever you're going to build. Right now, we have two different timelines. We have one for contractors; one for owner -builders. So, one of the questions I asked Director Pause, why? And there really isn't a good reason. Remember for walking back to we have an expiration date so that people are building to the most current Code, that's really all that matters. And so, what we've negotiated was a six -year cycle for expirations because that ties to the cycle of the adoption of the Building Codes. And you'll see that this six -year timeframe for the expiration date is retroactive back to when we adopted the most recent Building Code that we're under. And so, anybody with a permit after August 17, 2020, has six years now to complete it. And that's because there's no reason the County needs to get involved in micromanagement of projects. That's really between individuals and their design professionals, their contractors, their consultants, to make sure that those timelines are being done, are being met, and that their projects get done before that timeline. At the advice of Corporation Counsel, we did put an extension in there if the project is substantially complete. Generally speaking, that means that it is almost ready to be occupied for the purpose that it was designed for. So, you're just missing maybe a final inspection, you're missing some hardware but the building could be used for the purpose that it was designed. And then it's always been possible to use the appeals process if there was ever a disagreement about these timelines. But we've made that very clear in this legislation that if there are any objections to a permit being expired or an application being pulled, the course of action is through the Appeals Board. With that, I'll just close by saying, I think I've mentioned before that my husband is an architect, owns an architecture firm. Just going to disclose that now because, you know, the test for any sort of conflict of interest would be that it was a specific benefit provided to a relation. This is not necessarily going to provide a benefit for design professionals. We're actually putting more of the responsibility on the design professional community to make sure that permits are getting through and not micromanaging the process, nor is it a specific benefit but if anybody has concerns about that potential relationship, I just wanted to disclose that. Thank you, Chair. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy. Page 3 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Kimball, for laying a wonderful foundation and the ability to sign on to this bill. For my colleagues, it's really simple. I have two words. It creates reliability and predictability on both sides of the counter. You're going to put something in, 180 days, you're going to get something out. And then, on the converse side of that counter is you get this permit, you have six years to get it done. There's some other things I want to elevate, but I also want to bring forward our Building Division. I know Julann Sonomura's here along with Kelly. And then we have online, Stephen Pause. I really wanted them to have an opportunity to walk through the highlights and some of the lowlights that might be in here just for educational purposes for our public. Julann (Sonomura), Kelly (Wilson), or Stephen (Pause). They're pointing at you, Mr. Pause. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Stephen Pause came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PAUSE: Good morning, everyone, sorry I can't be with you. I think Council Member Kimball did a fantastic job going over the basis of the changes that we're purposing, along with kind of just providing more color around what the Building Codes do, why they're there. And I think this really comes back to trying to simplify some areas that we've determined have been somewhat problematic with respect to simple things that are in the existing Code. Words like expiration, cancellation, abandonment, withdrawal, an extension, have become somewhat of a challenge for all of us. But I think at the end of the day, Council Member Kimball pretty much summed it up. The Building Codes, the purpose are life safety, protect public health, protect safety, protect general welfare as it relates to construction and occupancy of buildings and structures. This particular portion, we highlight the fact that timeliness of construction is relevant. It impacts the community with safety. Things like double -wall construction, Class A roofs, all those sorts of things that become enhancements as the Building Code progresses are really there for safety. The up-to-date Building Codes are really in place to provide a better level of protection against hazards than the previous version did. So, the Building Codes are pretty clear. What we're trying to do here is really clean up and simplify some things. We're addressing issues around timing. As Council Member Kimball pointed out, there's a lot of dates. I'll give you an example. There's timeframes for starting construction in the current Code. There are timeframes for continuing construction. A number of these things are difficult to enforce and what we're trying to do is say, you come, you apply for a permit, per the IBC, 180 days the permit is issued, and you have six years to go forth and do that. And as Council Member Kimball pointed out, the six -year cycle time, yes, the State Building Code is updated every three years. I think our last update Page 4 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 went from 2006 to 2018. But obviously, we need to get better, and six years is double three, you know, we think that that's a good timeframe to be in for advancing or improving and updating our Building Codes. The cycle just kind of matches with the proposed six years. The other thing it allows us to do is hopefully, you'll only be working off of two code cycles. It's a little difficult, and I know Julann and Kelly can comment more on the details of some of the challenges the inspectors have. But it's a bit more difficult to have to know several versions of the Code if we can just focus on one or two. And then as Council Member Kimball pointed out, the effective date of the changes would then mean that if we go back to the last update, the adoption of I believe it was Ordinance 61-20, August 17, 2020. What it would mean is anyone issued a permit after that date would have six years. So, there's a bit of a looking back as well as looking forward with these changes. We have talked internally about being able to do some additional additions to the automation within EPIC (Electronic Processing and Information Center) to be able to start sending out reminders and tracking a little better. That's another thing that will kind of help us as we move forward with making these changes. So, that's the highlight on our end. And again, I think you've pointed out, our Building Division Chief Julann Sonomura and our Deputy Chief Kelly, I believe are in Hilo Chambers, and I believe Malia Kekai, the Deputy Director is in Hilo Chambers, and we're here to answer all of your questions and make any clarifications that you might want to find. Thank you for considering this. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alrighty. Thank you, Director Pause. Going to open it up now for discussion by Committee Members. Starting over in Hilo, Council Member Kierkiewicz, you have anything? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, please. Thank you, Chair. I'm not quite sure who to direct this question to, perhaps Deputy or Director. First, I just want to thank Council Members Kimball and Lee Loy for advancing this. I think a lot of our offices received a number of calls after cancellation of permits. And so, just want to confirm that this ordinance would in fact ensure that folks whose permits were cancelled are in fact still valid if it was issued after this 2020 date? MR. PAUSE: I'll take that, Council Member Kierkiewicz. Once again, I brought up the words cancellation, expiration, there's a whole bunch of things that are there, though. I think what you're speaking about, I think the public is probably rightfully confused about the term cancellation. Well, expiration is really the term that exists in our current Code that says you've got three years if you're a builder or five years if you're an owner -builder, and then your permit expires. So, I don't Page 5 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 think we've specifically made an effort to cancel as much as the language is really more like they expire. But to answer your question, anything that was issued after August 17, 2020, would be provided the entirety of the six -year timeframe, that's the way this is presently set up. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I think that's extremely helpful. You know, I'm going to be supporting this draft ordinance. I support every effort to streamline this process for our community especially because it's going to mean reducing unnecessary burdens. And I think by extending this permit validity period, we are providing community members with much more flexibility and much needed relief because it is so, I think, difficult to navigate the building process period. Whether you're developing from scratch or even doing a simple renovation, I think it's really hard for folks to line up the professionals on the ground to do the design work and actual construction. So, this I think will enable our property owners to proceed with their projects without additional stress of worrying about these permit expirations. I also appreciate the fact that this is going to have a potential positive impact on our property values and our real property tax revenues. That's what I'm thinking about. How is this going to impact our County coffers? Because the more that we are able to facilitate the construction and renovation of properties, we can encourage growth in property values, which means we are able to deliver on more critical infrastructure and essential services. So, thank you. I support this initial step in making our building process more efficient and accommodating to our residents. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Bringing it back here to Kona. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Director Pause, hi. So, I'm looking at what we currently have in the Code and I'm looking at the cancellation of application and the withdrawal of application, and I'm not seeing that much of a difference. So, I'm wondering what you think is the benefit of changing the language? Because it looks like we already had a lot of language in place in terms of what the rules were. MR. PAUSE: Thanks for that question, Council Member Evans. I might actually defer this one to Julann. I know you're there. I don't see you. But I think this would be a good one because we did have some discussions about this. Thank you. And Kelly. Thank you. Page 6 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 (Note: At this time, Public Works Building Chief Julann Sonomura and Deputy Building Chief Kelly Wilson came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SONOMURA: Good morning. Julann Sonomura, Building Chief. So, Councilman Evans, in the original cancellation, this would be the HCC (Hawai`i County Code 5-4-7, paragraph (a), is 30 days to pick up the permit application. So, that's when a permit's been approved, the applicant has 30-days to pick it up. The other one that is being stricken is Paragraph B. That says you have 60 days to respond to any deficiency in your application. So, that could be on the intaking process, or it could even be a plan review. And those intermediate deadlines become very confusing and difficult to implement. So, the simplified Bill 84 is proposing the overall 180 days, which is in the paragraph (c). So, it's in line with the ICC (International Code Council), the 2018 IBC that's calling for 180 days for issuance of the application and permits. So, it's actually holding everybody accountable; the applicant, to respond in a timely manner and pick up their permit as well as the Building Division, to review it in a timely manner with the goal of 180 days. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, one of the comments I got from a constituent was that, is there a way that the 180 days starts after you accept an application that is complete, which means was there any deficiency in the application, did they leave something inadvertently out? And so, the 180 days, can it not start then? Because sometimes they submit it, maybe you don't let them know it's deficient, maybe 30 days go by, and you say, "Oh, by the way, you have an omission on your, and you need to resubmit your application because you're missing something." So, when you actually accept it as complete, can that be the 180 days? MS. SONOMURA: We're clocking from the date of application. So, complete or incomplete, when it's first turned in and the revisions or corrections to that is the one that was originally timed at 60 days to get back to us. So, if you turn in your permit today then we count that as the start of the 180 days. MS. EVANS: Right. MS. SONOMURA: And everyone does their review. They'll be timed when the Building Division has it. They'll also be timed when the applicant needs to respond to our comments, and that's all inclusive of the 180 days. So, if you could think of the 180 days as a goal for both parties to complete the process. MS. EVANS: Okay. If for some reason you get a run on applications, let's say, you know, in one week you have 15 or 20, and the next week you have 15 or 20, and the next 15 or 20 for some reason. We're on a hot, you know, construction Page 7 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 thing. What flexibility do you have because you have staffing shortages potentially, so how does that impact the applicant that can't control that? MS. SONOMURA: Okay so, the review time that we have or the time in queue even, which you're mentioning that we have multiple applications that we need to look at, that's all in the 180 (days). So, you know, right now we are short-staffed. We're about 65 percent on our intake staffing so it is taking a lot longer than it should be. But having the 180-day goal is a way for us to manage our resources to say, maybe we need to work overtime, maybe we need to shift resources to meet that goal. So, that would be on the Building Division. MR. PAUSE: If I could add one more thing, Council Member Evans. Under that Article (c), the proposed language, there is information in there that provides for an extension if in fact the applicant is running behind getting their revisions, their architect is slow, etcetera. There's the opportunity to apply for an extension. There's also something in there that says, "at the discretion of the authority having jurisdiction." In other words, I think Julann's point is the 180 days is really a goal that we need to meet. But if things go slightly awry for whatever reason, the idea here is not to just cancel the application, it's to work with the applicant. If they need more time, there's language there, and if we feel like we're not necessarily getting things done fast enough, there's language that would allow us to extend it. But the intent here, especially what we're trying to call out in Article (c), is that we work together, and we get things done. But we're not trying to punish people here. MS. EVANS: Right, right. I'd like to tighten up on the language in this particular subsection. There's a lot of, you know, the authority may grant, and then it says, "the discretion of the authority", but if some things were out of the control, I'd personally like to see something a little more, I don't know how you would write it. I could come up with some suggestions, but something a little more predictable for people when things are out of their control that there will be a granting of an extension if there's things out of their control. But that's what I would like to see. Thank you. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Other questions or discussion? Council Member Galimba, go ahead. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. Sort of in mind is what Council Member was asking, I think there's a lot riding on that one sentence in (a) "an applicant shall have one hundred eighty days from the date of submission to obtain a permit." And from what I'm understanding from the comments so far is that that statement —well it seems like the applicant on the face of it, it's the applicant's responsibility to get a permit with 180 days. But I'm hearing that it also somehow Page 8 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 creates a goal for the department. I'm not exactly seeing how that is, or it's not very explicit but perhaps you could explain it to me. MS. SONOMURA: Hard to get into this subject without talking about our metrics. MS. GALIMBA: Metrics? MS. SONOMURA: Metrics. So, we publish online the estimated duration it's going to take to review a permit. We have it broken down into various types of permits. So, when we're looking at, for example, if it's going to take like 30 days to get a PV (Photovoltaic) permit and we're finding that it's taking much longer than that, that would have us revisit what we're doing. So, while it says it's written, the applicant, the overall period we both have that 180-day responsibility to do that, right. So, if the applicant looks up the metrics that's on our website, you know, they're seeing that, hey, you know, it's like 90 days where it should be 30 days. Something's wrong. And should their permit be, you know, past the 180 days and into the withdrawal category, then I would think the director would entertain a written request that would say, you know, we've based our 180 days, clocked in at this point, the metrics shows us we should be in 30 days, you took 90 days, you know, may we have an extension? Or at a certain point when our automation reaches that point, we may be able to just look at it and say, "Hey, these people are deserving of an extension." So, I have great faith in our IT (Information Technology), and our abilities. We're just not quite there yet. But with that in mind, and the goal of cleaning it up as soon as possible without delaying any kind of improvement to the system, you know, that's why we're looking at this now, and I think it can be done and we're going to work toward that. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. I mean, I do think it's a much improved on the existing and much simpler so definitely in support of it in general. I'm just wondering if there's a way to make it a little more explicit. But it's mutually a 180-day kind of a goal. But I'll think about that and thank you for giving me some of that details on the metrics and how the applicant can be a part of the process. Thanks. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thanks. I just want to thank my colleagues and the department for working on this. I think it is a big improvement and I think it's going to really help the public to have their expectations that are realistic and the department to really put some parameters. I mean, my understanding is the Page 9 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 180 days is really putting some parameters mostly around the department and the county to get that done, with the six years putting parameters around the applicant to get that work done. And I think it's a really good solution to simplify that so it's very clear. So, I will be supporting, and I thank you all so much for working on this. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here today, Public Works officials normal residential permit? What is your current processing time for a permit, MS. SONOMURA: I have it in my binder. I can grab it. I think offhand, off the top of my head, we're looking at goals for the next fiscal 2025, and the last three months for residential permits, I think we're running around 60 days. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sixty days. MS. SONOMURA: Yup. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. SONOMURA: That's from application receipt to issuance. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. SONOMURA: When everything is correct, there's no revisions going back and forth. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Yeah, I like what is in this so far. Something that's being toyed with in the past is creating a deadline for approval by the department. I've always liked that idea. We have that in other commissions, other departments; you will receive a response within so many days, so much time. That does create a deadline, which can be hard to fulfill. But it also does create a clear objective for the applicant on when they can expect to receive their documents back or a decision of some sort. So, hearing my fellow council members looking for more clarity on the language, there is an option there. Interested in seeing how we proceed. The bones of this make sense. I like what we're doing so far. This bill makes sense to me. But I'll have to think about that a little bit and see where it sits. What would you think about having a deadline to have a finished product back to the applicant? This is open-ended, 180 days may be extended, you know, by the authority having jurisdiction, the department or the applicant themselves. So, what about creating Page 10 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 a deadline that says we will respond by "X" amount of days; you will receive a permit within an "X" amount of days? MR. WILSON: Parts of that is out of our control because of DOH (Department of Health), for their reviews and for both Wastewater sanitation. So, that's mostly commercial. But for residential, I can tell you our plans examiners don't like to sit on the plans longer than they have to and so they do try to get it out as quickly as possible. But the 180 days on our side is not fully the Building Division's responsibility. It's the other departments that have to review. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, say that again. I couldn't hear you. MR. WILSON: Of that 180 days, the Building Division basically always tries to meet that deadline, if not sooner. But there are a few departments that had some revisions come through lately, where DOH, both sanitation and wastewater, have held up the process, and those are out of our control. We are trying to reach out to them always and remind them to try to get reviews done as quickly as possible, and we do send out additional emails to remind them and ask them to perform. But sometimes that's out of our control. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, the concern would be other agencies holding up the process, as far as us saying, we'll meet a deadline, but we can't speak for the other agencies involved. MR. WILSON: That is correct. Sometimes it's out of our control. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. SONOMURA: I'd just like to add that our resources that we have right now are not at 100 percent, right. So, if we're at 65 percent on our staffing, and clerks go out sick, you know, we've been still in COVID (Coronavirus Disease), they go out for, you know, seven -eight days at a time, we're working overtime, but we haven't reached steady state yet. With both our EPIC system and with our staffing, we're trying to create, you know, guides and procedures and we're refining. So, I would not want to commit until we're at a steady state where we can predict what our delivery would be. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. SONOMURA: Thank you. MR. PAUSE: But if I may add to that. So, having said that, we're still at a place that is far better than where we were say two years ago. And I think if you're charting the data, I think we're trending in a favorable way, and as Julann says, you know, we are hiring staff. We've done amazing here in the last three months Page 11 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 with bringing on Building Inspectors. But as we continue to do that, as our processes become a bit better documented, as we spend more time looking at our processes to see what we can streamline and things that we can, you know, some of the busy work —and I can't emphasize enough, we always talk about 30 days, I think Julann said 60 days for residential if it's right. The better the application, the better it is for everyone because it takes away work that the clerks are maybe doing to out -process applications that need to go back for revisions, that then have to come back in. It gives them more time to work on the permit. So, I think ultimately, we as a department and certainly as a division are confident that we are making progress. And Julann talks about steady state. I like that concept. We're not there but we've made a tremendous amount of progress and, you know, the future, the way we're trending, it's going to continue to improve. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I like that positivity, Steve. And Mitch (Roth) has been very adamant about making this one of his priorities for his time in office, and I always appreciated that about Mitch. If I do want to address this, I'll speak to you first. I know where to look. But at this point I like what's in front of us. Thank you. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Heading back to Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I just wanted to take the opportunity to respond to the questions from Council Member Evans, Council Member Galimba, and then make a comment with respect to what Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder was suggesting. Again, I think it's important to walk back to the purpose of this sort of deadline on the application process, and the purpose of it fundamentally is to ensure that applications don't become stale. And this actually has more to do with the response side from the applicants or their design professionals, their representatives. What we've seen historically is applications that have been, you know, granted but have not been picked up, or they have comments on them but we're waiting for a response from the applicant or the design professional. So, there's two sides to this. One is to just make sure that the process is moving. Again, so everybody is following the most current Building Code, and so things aren't getting stale in that process. It's not to be punitive if people are not able to meet the deadlines. We just want that communication to keep happening so that if there is a problem, we can make sure that there's that negotiation between the department. I would caution about putting any sort of specific timeline on the department, especially one that would ultimately result in an automatic permit and that is because there's just such a wide breadth of projects that come through the Building Department. You're talking about 1,000 square foot home or a tens of thousand square foot gymnasium that's also going to be a hurricane shelter. You know, you couldn't put a one size fits all, even just for residential, like you Page 12 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 couldn't put a one size fits all timeline just because there's such a broad array of proj ects. And again, walking back; health and safety, health and safety. Building codes are there for health and safety. We don't want to rush anything through or rubber stamp anything. It's not like a ministerial decision and implanting where if they don't decide in 90 days it can just go through. This is much more critical because it ties into health and safety. So, I would caution against any sort of automatic permitting if timelines aren't met. The 180 days at the beginning is aspirational. I think it's accomplishable based on what the Building Division has been doing, but it also puts a little bit of onus on the public side to make sure that their professionals are keeping the ball rolling. Again, going through all of this we're micromanaging projects for the public. We shouldn't be doing that. That is their kuleana, their design professionals' kuleana. We just set the expectations clearly, concisely, and then they can follow through with them. Thank you for the leeway on that. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. And building off of my colleague, Ms. Kimball's point, you know, this is a recipe book of options. And one thing this bill does, clearly do, is keep it in alignment with all of our other codes that build our Construction cookbook. We also provide, not only in this area, some predictability and accountability but at the front-end collecting permit fees, providing resubmission fees. Everything the Code is doing is trying to hold everybody accountable on both sides of the counter. There are carrots and there are sticks, and we're learning to use them at the appropriate time. And the best time is when it first comes in to say, "Six months, you guys are going to get something." The other part that's not addressed but also contained in our construction codes is a pre -approved plan or model. And that we have seen and maybe Kelly or Julann, a pre -approved model, how quickly does that get through our process as far as time from submission to issuance of permit, of a pre -approved model? MS. SONOMURA: I don't have that metric in front of me, but the plan review time with a pre -approval is six days. MS. LEE LOY: Six days. MS. SONOMURA: Six days. Page 13 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 MS. LEE LOY: Six days. So, if you pull a pre -approved model, put it in, more than likely by the end of the month you would have — MS. SONOMURA: I would say if intake is running efficiently, it could be. But right now, our intake is almost 20-30 days. So, it's running tight. So, that's the plan review time, in six days. After that then it goes to out -processing. MS. LEE LOY: Perfect. MS. SONOMURA: Okay. MS. LEE LOY: And we'll get better at that. And then for my colleagues, again not contained in this section but other pieces of our Construction Code, this actually amplifies all the other pieces that are in our Construction Code itself. And so, I'm listening very carefully to my colleague about the application or the application coming in, maybe there are ways to be more specific that it's both the applicant and the county. I'll take a deeper dive into that then maybe lean in with our division. I did want to ask the department, specifically around the six years, around public projects because oftentimes we know our public projects like a judiciary building, like a gym, they require the permit before the release of funding. Is that an example on when the director could issue like an extension. Is that primarily what that's for? Could you explain that, Julann? MS. SONOMURA: So, what the county does with its projects is very often we go out simultaneously with a building permit request and when we're going out to bid. And that building permit sometimes preceeds the bid, especially if there's a bid protest or there's a funding, you know, maybe bids came in higher and so we need to request additional funding. So, that's beyond the applicant's control, and so that's a situation where we would not be able to pick up our application in the original 60 days or the 180 days even. But that would be a situation beyond control that the authority having jurisdiction, that would be our director, would consider that, you know, it's beyond your means. You did everything the best you could, and we just need some help here. So, that would be considered. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. Thank you, Julann. Because our public projects, our bigger, public projects, you know, that are funded by the state or in partnership with the state, we would need more time, and the release. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you so much. For my colleagues, would love the support to move this up to Council. I am attending a Hawaii Island Contractor's Association meeting. I'm sure that we'll get some more feedback and we'll be leaning into that meeting also, to hear from Page 14 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 our construction industry and the users of the Code itself. But willing to do whatever this body would like to see. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. We're coming up on our next committee meeting so either specific questions or suggestions for amendments please. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you, Chair. This question's for Corporation Counsel. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good morning. Elizabeth Strance. Corporation Counsel. MS. EVANS: This is legalese. MS. STRANCE: Thank you. I'm good at that. MS. EVANS: There's, in subsection (a), we're looking at the withdrawal of application section. It says, "An applicant shall have one hundred eighty days from the date of submission to obtain a permit." My question is, what does "to obtain" mean to you? Because this is a two -way —and the reason I'm saying this is I'm thinking there's a two-way relationship going on here, right, so they can't control the department so, they can't obtain the permit. They have to actually be issued a permit within 180 days. So, does "obtain", that language kind of cloud, kind of be kind of cloudy language that creates confusion? MS. STRANCE: I don't think so. I mean, it highlights that reciprocal relationship that Julann and Steve were describing. So, you know, I think the challenge of saying, "Okay, things are going to be done in a certain amount of time or else," kind of ignores the amount of back and forth that might need to take place in the middle. And so, it simply puts that deadline out there. But if you drop down to paragraph (c), there the extension provisions, and one of the criticisms of the current Code is that it doesn't give the department discretion to extend permits. And so, when you're talking about cancellation of permits and things like that, those happen as a matter of law. Same thing with the withdrawal of permits, trying to put in a period of time that sort of sweeps it out. And one of the things, and this is just context, that happened as part of the EPIC conversion and the passage of the last Code was there were a lot of these permits in the application Netherlands that people either hadn't picked up or they hadn't completed, and they needed to sweep them out. And so, shortly after the bill was passed in 2020, the then director issued extensions of time to kind of sweep out all of these permits that were in no man's land. And so, it's Page 15 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 important in this application provision, so you separate out before the permit is issued, which is this section, and then the other is after the permit is issued. What the law is trying to do is insert some guardrails and these guardrails, you know, have bumpers on them because the department has some discretion to grant extensions whether it's because the applicant hasn't submitted all the information, or it gets hung up for other reasons. But it does kind of hold a space and if you look at this section as the space it's being held and look at the provisions within that context, I think it makes more sense. I hope that's helpful. MS. EVANS: So, having the term "to obtain a permit" does not create any confusion? MS. STRANCE: I don't think so because that's the provision that says, applicant, you need to keep your feet moving. And then there are other provisions that, you know, are being looked at on the part of the department. And candidly, I don't think we would be here on this bill if people were not unhappy with the kind of processes as it is. You know, and so, this bill in itself is an attempt to kind of tweak that process in part to tweak it for the department to move through its fork more easily. So, I think the quick answer is, no, because that's the provision that says applicant, you need to do things. There are other provisions that talk about the in between. MS. EVANS: Okay. So then when we jump to the other side of the equation so now, we're telling the applicant you need to be vigilant, you need to stay with it, you need to work really hard with the department, you need to try to achieve 180 days. But what about the same for the department? Because when I look and see, when it talks about the jurisdiction, granting extensions, they're not talking about the department not being able to get something from the Department of Health, or not being able to get answers from other people. So they may delay their response to the applicant that says, "Gee, we need more things from you. We need a submission of something else that we feel your design team forgot. You know, we looked at the drawings and, oh my gosh, you forgot something. You need to circle back around to them." But the thing is that applicant wouldn't know that because that information comes as they have that working relationship over 180 days, right. But I'm just not seeing where the department is being obligated to notify and say, "Oh, by the way, it took us two -three months to find out that this department can't except it." Now, you have to circle back around, which is really hard for them because maybe their design person or whatever is not available for a month or two because they're backed up with clients. So, I'm kind of seeing just, you know, my experience is, you know, sometimes we've done automatic approvals and we've done that in law only because it keeps both sides working towards a goal. I'm just kind of feeling like we're not quite there yet with some language that's saying where's the department's role and Page 16 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 making sure the applicant feels like they're on the same team trying to meet the 180 days. MS. STRANCE: Yeah. That's not a legalese question. That's really a policy question and I will leave it to the department to describe what information is available electronically in EPIC for them to track the status of their applications. MR. PAUSE: So, I'd like to address that. So, at a high level, we're trying to design something that speaks to, and call it the 80-20 rule, the 90-10 rule, whatever you want to. I think the circumstances that you're describing, Council Member Evans, fall into that 20 of that 10 percent. I think that what we've tracked in terms of improvement with turnaround would suggest that we're doing a pretty good j ob. But we did want to allow for circumstances where you have that one off. I can't put my fingers on any specific example, but there will be occasions, and I think that that's why we wanted to have some language in there that allows for an extension either requested by the applicant or provided by us if we did, for example, trip on ourselves. But I think Judge Strance and others will know that in the beginning, I didn't want any extensions at all. It becomes too confusing and too difficult to manage, and if we're all doing our j obs, then there shouldn't be a need for extensions. However, this is an area where we felt, again, if something falls as an outlier outside of that 90-10, there's an opportunity here to do that. I think the other part of it, and I mentioned this in my opening statement, that we are looking at automation. We have some ability now and our team, we've got, I think you guys recall, you approved and got us another IT person. We have more resources now who are managing the EPIC system and as a result, I think there are opportunities that we've identified, maybe not quite enacted, that will allow us to provide those alerts so that we're all kind of working towards the same direction. I think the concept of automation or like automatically issuing a permit if the 180 daysI don't think that's a good idea at all. But again, I think this language especially provides that level of cooperation, which said, every once in a while, something's going to happen and there's an opportunity for the applicant if they need more time or there's an opportunity for the Building Division if they need more time and I think that that's what this is designed to do. MS. EVANS: I'm not sure it's completely there. I just know that what I hear, one of the biggest complaints I hear is that applications go in and then they get contacted saying, you know, you're missing something, there's errors in it; we need you to resubmit it, and it kind of goes — Page 17 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 MR. PAUSE: We've gotten a lot better at that, Council Member. We've gotten a lot better at that. I don't I would argue that the number of complaints that exists on that level have reduced substantially. That's just what we're seeing. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Director. Council Member Evans, any further questions right now? MS. EVANS: I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair Inaba? ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I know we're getting towards the end of the meeting, so I just wanted to request this of the introducers and also for the director to consider. This is in relation to the section on extensions. Wondering ifI know that the department has talked about folks within Building being pretty responsive to community requests, but I think it would go a long way if we are able to articulate some timeframe in which we expect the department to respond to these requests for extensions. That way, folks aren't feeling as if their request is in limbo. Thank you for the consideration. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I have one request or question. Does the applicant receive any kind of notice as they approach the 180-day benchmark that we're creating? I don't see it in here but I'm wondering if there's an internal process. MS. SONOMURA: Email notifications is an automation that we're trying to work at, and hopefully, we can get that calculated and, you know, generated. But right now, we don't have it. It's on our to do list. We've flagged it out but haven't gotten there yet. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That's a good answer. I would like to see that built in. If not available via electronic mail, then an actual written mail, "Hey, you're going to exceed your 180 days at which point you will be booted, and you've got to restart." It'll be something on our end that says you're approaching. MS. SONOMURA: Yes. We're working on that. Page 18 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No different from like registration or anything else that we do in the county. At least some kind of, like when we do our vehicle registrations, you have a notice saying you have 30 days until you expire." Same thing. It's just a convenience for the people doing the application. MS. SONOMURA: We would work that from the 180-day deadline back. So, if someone was losing their time, and this is where, I think, Chair Kimball was talking about not micromanaging the application process also. That if they know they're taking two months to get their ownership declaration so they can even get past intake and go into plan review, that's on them. We will be able to provide that 180-day notice at the time, maybe 60 days back from issuance and automate that. But, you know, we cannot be adding too many in there. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No. Yeah. Just something to say you're approaching your deadline and you're going to expire, please respond or let it go. One or the other. Okay. Good. I'm glad you're working on it. MS. SONOMURA: Yup. It's on the to do list. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Beautiful. Thank you, Julann. Appreciate it. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: So, yeah, just a quick comment. And this is, I guess this (a) is very intriguing as a sentence because on one hand you can read it as the applicant needs to get their act together and obtain a permit within 180 days, but you could also potentially read it as an automatic approval within 180 days because it says the applicant shall have 180 days to obtain. So, you know, that could be read as they have to have it and we potentially could get, or liable to get them that permit within 180 days, just reading it different ways. I see in a way, I see how you guys are looking at it, as putting an onus on you but it actually may be putting a big onus on you to actually, they have to obtain it within 180 days, however that happens. So, yeah. MS. SONOMURA: If I could just elaborate a little bit more on that. So, part of our metric, when we're recording the duration it takes to issue a permit, and this is for predictability, reliability, so they can plan for themselves. We also track the percentage of applications that come in that get returned for corrections. So, this is probably, when we talk about the 180 (days) and putting some of the responsibility back on the applicant, just some rough numbers on non-residential, commercial type project. If it's a new project, right now we're running a correction rate of 40 percent. Sixty percent of them are returned to the various agencies or the owners or whomever. So, it's a large percentage that have to go back for corrections, and that's where the time is being lost and that's where we Page 19 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 are working to create checklists, common error lists, you know, to improve the process and educate them because the impression is that the Building Division is slow on the permits. I think some of the concerns are coming in that we're taking too long or we're not committing. But we need the applicants to understand that they have a responsibility with their design professionals who prepare their plans and applications, that they have a responsibility to try to do it correctly. And if we can, right now we're at like 40 percent on intake for nonresidential new and 19 percent correct for plan reviews. So, that's telling you that they're cycling in our system for resubmittals and corrections. So, we need to work with them for their success so that the 180 days is realizable. That goal can be met. And when we're saying that, you know, sometimes they're at their drafters for six months before they come up in the queue. But that's where, hopefully, you know, just economic supply and demand, you know, will reach its level and that as a government agency we're doing what we can to assist. But there should be some responsibility on the applicant's part as well. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. And maybe Corporation Counsel, you can review what Council Member Galimba said, just on how that reads. Last comments? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. I just wanted to draw your folks attention to one significant change here and it's kind of subtle, which is that under the previous Section 5-4-7, there had to be a demonstration of something being on beyond the applicant's control. We've taken all of that qualitative stuff out. So, as long as you request from the department an extension before the 180 days are over, you're granted one. It is automatic. One of the things that has happened recently with EPIC is that the owner, in addition to their consultant, their representative, are people of contact during the EPIC process. And so, those of you who have gotten complaints about how long things have sat in DPW, you might be surprised to discover that they've often sat in other offices, and your design professional may not fess up to the fact that it's been sitting on their desk and not DPW's. So just a point to make about this is we took all of the qualitative decision making out about whether or not to extend that 90 days on 180 days. It's just if you ask for it, you'll get it. But everybody is supposed to be trying, including your design professionals, are trying to keep things moving so they don't get stale or build into the most current Building Code. Thank you. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Thank you. Regarding that section then, I don't see it and I'm reading it the same because it's a request for an extension that the Page 20 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 authority having jurisdiction may grant. So, I'm not, just to clarify there, it's not a guaranteed 90-day extension, is that correct? MS. KIMBALL: It is meant to be that way though. You wouldn't say the authority having jurisdiction shall grant because you don't always grant one. You only grant one when there's one requested. But there's no qualitative decision making about when one is requested. It just has to be requested prior to the 180 days, and that is again, because we just need the people to communicate with us that they need more time. ACTING CHR. INABA: In that case, then I think that subsection (c) should be flipped. That request by the applicant for extensions may be filed in writing and following that that the extension shall be granted because it's flipped right now that we can grant but they have to submit in writing. MS. KIMBALL: We can do that. ACTING CHR. INABA: Going to Section 5-5-4. Just wanting clarification. So, for permits issued before August 17, 2020, are those already expired, Chief Sonomura or Director Pause? MR. PAUSE: I would say they would go with the three-year for contractor -build or five-year for an owner -build. So, if say you're an owner -builder and you're issued a permit on August 16, (2020), in other words a day before, you would still have had five years until August 16, 2025. Likewise, I would venture to say that the contractor -build permits would likely have been expired unless they were completed, or an extension was granted. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alright. And for those permits that were granted on August 16'', would they be able to come in for an extension? MR. PAUSE: Well, they should've already filed for that extension request. So, we have been managing those requests on a case -by -case basis. ACTING CHR. INABA: For the August 2025 ones that you were just talking about, would they be able to come in for an extension, or no? Is that what we're trying to do here, is not allow that? MR. PAUSE: Yeah. I would say there'd be no extension. But they would've had five years to complete their work, if I'm understanding your question. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. And then going back to extensions. I do support what Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder shared, and I think, well it's extensions and the original application that for sure, if we were able to notify folks and considering also, to the makers, whether we specify a certain window. Page 21 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 Right now, we're saying prior to 30 days, but I don't know if we want to prevent them from applying for some type of extension too early, and how that would happen. So, if it's going to be within 30 days, you know, for the application if it's within the 30-day window or specifying because I don't know, I mean, I'm sure we will get requests in certain cases for extensions far in advance, and it would be difficult to determine whether or not the work is on track, especially when there's more time to be had on the permit or the application. MS. SONOMURA: Yeah. When the date or the duration, you know, the notification is, you know, we're still having to decide, but for example, like 90 days might be a good midpoint with regards on track and capabilities, if when we write the automation for that, we may be able to do more than one notice. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. And then for the extensions, right now we're saying that they're going to be filed in writing. Is there an opportunity, moving forward, for the request to be applied for via EPIC? I mean, to be notified that a permit is expiring, or the application window is closing on your 180 days is one thing, but I mean, I don't know how much we're paying for this EPIC and when it's fully developed and moved in if they could also request the extension so it's not a letter from outside being submitted to the department. Everything happens in EPIC. MS. SONOMURA: I understand what you're asking. I would have to put that on the to do list. So, for the immediate, all the requests are coming in via email to cohbuild (cohbuild@hawaii county.gov), and those request letters as well as a decision is uploaded to the permit. What we're trying to avoid is inserting additional steps in the workflow that will delay the overall process for everyone. So, I mean, it's something we can look at but it's pretty far out in the future when you look at the to do list, the priorities. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. And then last portion, to the makers, for Section 5-4-7, the reason for changing it from cancellation to withdrawal? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. It's really a matter of semantics. As Director Pause was talking about earlier, the word "cancellation" implies a negative action by the Department of Public Works. What this section of the Code is really trying to address is the timeliness and responses from the applicants. Like I said, that's where the challenge has been, is not getting a reply back when the department has gone out and said, "Oh, you need to make a correction," and then just crickets. In order to keep things moving and to keep things from becoming stale, the onus is on the applicant. And so, the wording has been changed to imply, "Oh, if we don't hear from you, we're going to consider it's abandoned." We're not taking this axe to your application. We're saying you've seemed to have given up and are not pursuing it. Page 22 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 MR. PAUSE: And I guess just to add on to that, and I tried to say this a little bit earlier. We don't expire permits; the Code expires the permit. So, if you've been issued a permit, then the Code tells you how long that permit is issued for. Our department does not consciously go out and expire people's permits. MS. LEE LOY: Can I build upon that? There's also a fee ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Hang on, Council Member Lee Loy. I just want to say, semantics, semantics, I think cancelled is straightforward especially when in subsection (b), we're saying what would cause the cancellation and that's on them, either they failed to submit their corrections, or they failed to pickup their approved permit. When we're having to read abandoned and therefore withdrawn throughout this section I just, personally, I think it's easier for everybody to understand "cancelled". And with that, I guess that's kind of the only comments I have. And I would just ask Corporation Counsel again for some thoughts on the 180-day language, that first subsection (a) in the bill just to make sure it's as clear as possible for what's intended there, which I am in support of. I do have one last question, actually. For these extensions, is there an opportunity for application extensions for the department to grant an extension after the 180 days has closed up? Because right now the authority, you may either submit a request — MS. KIMBALL: May I respond to that? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yeah. MS. KIMBALL: So, the way that it is drafted and the way that it is intended is that after 180 days, if the request was not made before that, then that application has been abandoned, and they need to resubmit. And as long as there's no changes, there's another section of the Code, I want to say 5-3-7, that says it's a half price in terms of the submission fee. So, there is another option but if nothing happens before that 180 days, then that is done. And I will also say that the abandoned and withdrawn language actually also comes from the International Building Code. That's where we're pulling it from. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okie dokies. I have no further questions at this time. And I do want to take a poll after on what we want to do here from the makers. So, Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. One manini thing. The requirement for in -writing, I don't think that that's something that will ever become fully electronic. Just so folks are aware, there's tightly controlled contracts around these. Whether it's between the individual and their design professional, this is a legal process of obtaining a permit. And so, probably for any design professionals out there is Page 23 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 going to want to have this request and response from DPW in writing. Now, that may be attached as a PDF (Portable Document Format), but it would have some sort of signature on it. So, just be aware that in -writing is actually critical to this process for those couple of items. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okie dokes. For the makers, is it your desire to move this forward? MS. KIMBALL: Yes, I'd like to move it to Council, please. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Any further discussion? Motion on the floor is to forward Bill 84 to Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor? Vote on Bill 84: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 84 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 24 PCPLUD-8 October 17, 2023 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 10:43 a.m., Ms. Kimball moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Galimba, and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: This meeting is adjourned at 10:43 a.m. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development AK/tk PA -2,02,1 (Date) Page 25