HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0176.140 2006-2008 ~®~~r~~ ~~~~®~P A~c~o~~c~, a.a.~.
IY'.C). [o`~)~ ~X~~ V~EJII9,~~I~f~c~~1rfi,. Ir1DD1~lG~JOD. • ~P~. Q~D~D.'D~~~~~? Q~D~sC 'b7i~. ^I%D1(
7/10/07
Re: Testimony opposing Bill 51 ~
Good morning Council members,
My name is Robert Nespor. I am the President of the American Institute of ArC~itects,
Hawaii Island Section.
I am testifying in opposition to Bill 51 in it's current form. The professional review the
of drafts for this bill can only reach one conclusion... this bill is flawed. I support the
recommendations of the AIA as previously testified before you this morning.
As a Hawaii architect, I am familiar with the manner and process of our Building Code.
First, the building code (Uniform Building Code) is amended every 3 years on a
national level. Issues of concern are brought to the attention of an organization
known as the International Conference of Building Officials. These issues are largely
based on catastrophic events contributing to failure . The failures are analyzed by a
multitude of professional experts in their field. Code amendments are not adopted
over a period of days, weeks or even months. They are adopted only when a
consensus of professional experts concur after extensive study and analysis that the
recommended mitigating measures are in the best interest of the public, efficient,
cost effective and consistent with the technology of the building industry. The AIA
4 point recommendation for adopting change is consistent with the National process
for building code amendments that affect the health, safety and welfare of the public.
On the other hand, Bill 51 is required to include updated FEMA requirements in order
for our community to be compliant with the National Flood Insurance Program.
The updated requirements do not materially change the intent or principals of National
Flood Insurance Program. Proposed Bill 51 appears to confuse the requirements for
Stormwater Management with Flood Plain Management and appears to be brought
forth hastily. Complex issues being proposed by this bill cannot be analyzed within
hours.
A good example how draft 4 is flawed....... Detention and containment of the 100
year/24 hour flood event would require each property owner to fully contained every ~ g
drop of flood water that enters the property. A 5 acre farm would have to construct ~
a one acre lined detention basin, 15 feet deep, at a estimated cost of $500,000. Is 1''
this practical or cost effective? Initial analysis by professional engineers agree that
this measure would not necessarily be cost effective, nor increase public safety, nor ~ o
reduce the potential for flooding. Rather, it may have the opposite results. E ~ o
v o
Draft 5 is now introducing (today) the requirement for the 25 year/1 hour event.
Again, the bill appears to confuse the requirements for Stormwater Management with
Flood Plain Management. This standard appears to be an arbitrary compromise. Is this
requirement founded on any scientific evidence that our current standard of the 10
year/1 hour event is inadequate or the cause of any of flooding? Are you aware that
our current standard of 10 year/1 hour exceeds the national average? Please do not
impose unnecessary building cost with more expensive requirements until it is
confirmed by a qualified panel of professional experts, that it is absolutely necessary
for public safety.
to summary, do what is necessary at this time to be compliant with the National Flood
Insurance Program, reach out for the professional technical assistance available to
you, and reform any deficiencies that are found in Chapter 27 by an appropriate code
review process.
Respectfully ubmitted,
Robert Nespor, AIA