The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0128.055 2010-2012Murashige, Laura CCiMIS. t2. PIcouiicii. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: EH [electronicrmarme @hotmail.com] Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:50 AM counciltestimony @co. hawaii. hi. us • Testimony for Bill 270 - Please submit / include for next meeting - Thanks! SB270_Need_Review.pdf; PleaseVoteForContinuance.doc SB270_Need_Revie PleaseVoteForConti w.pdf (133 KB)... nuance.doc (... HAWAIIAN'S FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING www. hawaiiansforaffordablehousing .org Box 1113 Mountain View, Hi. 96771 E08- 968 -1203 Dots %!/ 3‘6.-P 20 Gov ^tr CDUTtei RE: BILL 270 DRAFT 3 Please vote NO ON THE CURRENT BILL and VOTE YES FOR CONITNUANCE to allow time to work out amendments with the DPW / Council / County. Summary: The bill is very much still in a draft form with errors, inconsistencies, and with several major flaws (as outlined later in this document). A council member has indicated a willingness to work with the public and DPW to clean up the bill and introduce amendments — which hopefully should be ready for the Council meeting in October. We are ahead of the rest of the counties in the state in adopting this bill. We feel another month to make this bill better, easier, and more accurate to administer for the DPW, and more acceptable to the public would be a wise investment in time and save us all headaches and ill will later. PLEASE VOTE NOT ON THE CURRENT 270 VERSION AND YES FOR CONTINUANCE. Dear Council Members, Bill 270 is a large change from the current building code, and it has an integral affect on the lives of everyone in the county - some very much so. We have 3 major concerns with the bill as it is and over a dozen others in addition. We have met with Warren, Jai, and Neil at the DPW and they have indicated some willingness to examine and address these issues but have not been willing or able to sufficiently address these issues to date. We strongly feel that the law especially fundamental ones such as this needs to be well thought out and written. In addition, to major concerns with some of the regulations in the bill we feel the bill itself is full of errors and overlooked / loose items. We feel the bill needs to be detailed , after all it is a technical issue we are addressing, explicitly and non - ambiguously written, and well defined. Bill 270 is nowhere near these standards at this point. You can see this for yourself if you compare it with the current Maui Building Code. We do not fault the DPW and those who have drafted it to this point. This is a huge change in code and an adoption of over 700 pages of new material and external references to very technical materials such as the American Society of Civil Engineers Minimum Design Loads of Buildings and Other Structures. To date we do not believe the DPW has had the time or inclination to review and amend the proposed code relative to public input. A council member has indicated their willingness to work with concerned groups from the public and will be reviewing proposed amendments to submit to the DPW and council. We need one more continuance to allow the time for that. We are ahead of everyone else in the state in adopting this bill. 1 court. No. t. 23. 55 Ref. To:Preseeft4 Conti Ref. DateSEP 2 1 2011 We still have over 6 months before it must be adopted per the state bill. We have time to work out a better bill that satisfies all. Let's take the time to get it right. Our three major concerns with this bill are : 1) It does not sufficiently exempt agricultural and aquacultural structures (classified as Type U [agricultural] Division 1 [low risk] ) from excessive standards and permitting. THIS PUTS OUR AGRICTURAL / AQUACULTURAL INDUSTRY AT A COMPETIVE DISADVANTAGE, nay even makes it impossible to stay in business, in some cases, in meeting these unduly burdensome standards.. 2) The bill has criminal penalties in the code that are not only overly harsh but extremely broad in application "any violation of this code." There is sufficient administrative enforcement available for virtually any situation the DPW might encounter and , we believe, DPW has not used the criminal penalty to date. We feel it appropriate that the criminal penalties are dropped. If not fully stricken, at least, we strongly feel that the criminal penalties and their exercise should be applied for extraordinary situations and defined as such. For example "criminal prosecution may be applied when gross negligence or gross contempt are found and / or where eminent danger to property and or persons is found and gross contempt exists." Right now the DPW can "deem guilty" anyone for "any" violation of the code which could even include a squeaky hinge on a gate per the undefined and broad 5- 48 -1 -L "General dilapidation or improper maintenance" and several other provisions that allow "Carte- Blanche" like powers to the DPW. 3) The bill does not readily allow for adoption of other additional or alternative codes now without amending the current bill. We want to add a simple clause such as "and any additional / alternative codes as Hawaii County may adopt." There are also a plethora of other issues some of which were simply overlooked in the referenced IBC 2006 code. For example on page 250 1204.1 this regulation could require a very expensive and non -green central air - conditioning and heating system. Do we really need this in most of Hawaii ? 1204.1 Equipment and systems. Interior spaces intended for human occupancy shall be provided with active or passive space- heating systems capable of maintaining a minimum indoor temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) at a point 3feet (914 mm) above the floor on the design heating day. Can we possibly survive 70 or 72 degrees instead of 68 without having to spend thousands on a non - green, fossil -fuel using system ? How about SB 270 page 84 402.4.1.1 requires buildings to have ceiling stub fans and doors capable of being secured open. Do I really need this in Mountain View where I am lucky if it goes above 74 degrees most of the year ? Do I really need my Jalouise windows to have their air leakage rate set to a minimum standard ? Are these truly needed for the "minimum standards to safeguard life or limb." The above named regulations, many other provisions, and the actual bill itself need more thought, refinement, and clarification, as well as sufficient time for public input / bill buy in. Attached is a PRELIMINARY / partial / draft version of a list of questionable items in SB270 HawaiiansForAffordableHousing .org has compiled. We will further review it, add to it, and remove where appliable, and clean it up. We want the DPW to review this list and answer our questions as submitted PRIOR TO ACCEPTING BILL 270 AS IS. 2 PLEASE VOTE NOT ON THE CURRENT 270 VERSION AND YES FOR CONTINUANCE. Ross Armetta, Hawaiian's For Affordable Housing View Items Source j270D3 Page Submitted! Action Reg Num By Needed Num 11 270D3 1113 ! Ross Successfully connected; Not working in this version. Sort There are 64 tasks returned from this query. Regulation Description THIS LIST IS NOT COMPLETE, NOT REVIEWED,ONLY DRAFT, AND SOME ITEMS ARE INAPPLICABLE. It will be updated and complete by 9 -26. When work for a permit is required... commenced without obtaining ... fee specified shall be doubled. This seems excessive Ross 1 5 -31.3 E especially in some cases minor cases. How ` T T UpD! about something like a 25% minimum fee up to 50% increase depending upon the time and severity / what was not permitted. Inspection requests in default the electrical contractor shall be liable ... What ? Why ? What if they had nothing to do with the 1 5-41d problem. How about making (in default) the T T T T T UpD general contractor or owner / owner builder responsible after all it is their project UNLESS it is know whom the party is then of course make them responsible. General dilapidation or improper maintenance cause for substandard building declaration. THIS IS RIDICULOUSLY BROAD ? What standard to whom ? Is it not maintained because the grass is high - hinges on a gate squeak. Needs to be more defined and along 16 Ross 1 5-48L the lines of grossly unkempt and eminent T T danger to those on the property and structure exit. Otherwise a complaint may be registered and the normal appeals process along with countering experts e.g. architect or engineer or Dept. Of Health Workers may be allowed to verify / testify. Nuisance any building or portion therof that is not being occupied or used as intended or 5- 48.3.7 permitted. Needs to add unless occupied or T T used in a lesser / safer nature. Excessive Expensive Inapplicable Vague Green Other View Items UpD 270D3 270D3 17 Ross 1 T UpD T UpD 1 of 11 9/20/2011 11:43 AM View Items 270D3 19 Ross 1 Criminal prosection person, firm, etc. violating can be criminally liable 1,000 fine and jail time.. This is WAY TOO BROAD. Needs to specify knowingly as evidenced by notice and resulting 5 -61a in gross negligence or gross contempt wher T T eminent danger to occupants or the public arises. MUST BE LIMITED TO TRULY EGREGIOUS CASES and not a club to force or scare into submission. Duties of adman authority shall enforce ... 5 -11 -1 provided in this code - should be changed to this code and any other /s that may be adopted by Hawaii County Existing structures reengineering analyis may be required. This seems to be too broad and !; under what safety standard ? New and stringent for old ? To what end to meet current code or safety for existing / remaing structure as legaly at time of previously issued permit. As written in stand alone this could be used Ex Post Facto to buildings not even applying for a 506b3 permit. Suggest something like - when substantial changes to existing structures are made in those areas / members that may render older / existing / unaltered portions Tess safe than prior to change ( unless structure was deemed unsafe in its previous state) a structural reengineering analysis may be required. This is not be be applied broadly and routinely only when changes may effect safety. Right of entry - Need change to iuf entry is denied this regulation does not allow the right to tresspass unless a previous report is 5 -14 documented and there is eminent ( defined as immediate within a month) danger to the public or occupants or unless a court order is obtained allowing entry. Permit required for TV / Radio Communication Towers. THIS IS WAY TOO EXCESSIVE FOR wireless internet communications. Needs 5 -19b1 to exclude masts and wireless internet and truly concentrate on TV and Radio station towers exclusive of small, local internet provider access points and customer receiving 270D3 Ross 1 270D3 270D3 Ross 1 270D3 Ross 1 View Items T UpD T UpD T T T T ;UpD T T T T T UpD 2 of 11 9/20/2011 11:43 AM View Items 270D3 270D3 1270D3 stations. Permit exemptions for detached structures for animal shelters allows essentially type U / S2 structures to be unpermitted up to 6ft. in height. Suggest allowance up to 14 ft. in height Ross 1 5 -19b17 without permit on Ag. land for non - public use. T This allows for taller structures for larger animals and farm machinery. These buildings can not be used for human occupancy and do not require plumbing / and / or electricity. Permit exemption one detached single story type building ... does not exceed 120 square feet and 12 -0 in height. Change to permit Ross 1 i 5 -19b18 unlimited catagory 1 buildings on AG land of unlimited square feet ( meeting egress and fire: requirements ) that do not exceed 12 foot max! vertical members. This allows for using 12 foot; posts plus joists / purlins / foundation height. Permit Exemptions One detached single story type building for equipmoent, tools, etc. not exceeding 120 feet and not over 12 -0 feet in height. Want changed to Detached single story! 5- 19b18 building that does not exceed 600 square feet. or 14 foot maximum height or 12 foot average `. height of roof slope acceptable on agricutural ! lands for non - occupancay and non - public use. Electrical and plumbing optional. All U occupancies greater than 600 square feet: shall be designed and stamped Suggest Ross 1 ( 5 -25f change to greater than 600 sq. feet used with T public access or greater than 600 sq feet with solid walls Provisions includes "equipment" should specify Ross 2 5 -2 which equipment is too broad. Existing Structures a hazard to the general safety and welfare ... should be changed to Ross 2 5 -6a specfic and material safety and welfare ... removing general which is too vague Duties of AHJ Condem and reject all work being done or materials used or being used wich do not ... sugest change to all materials and work applicable to new or altered parts of the strutcture and allow for other indigenous !270D3 17 270D3 270D3 270D3 View Items T T UpD T T T T T ,UpD T T T ! T UpD Ross 2 5 -11 -6 T T T T T T UpD UpD T UpD T T UpD 3 of 11 9/20/2011 11:43 AM View Items 270D3 270D3 Ross 2 and alternative materials as allowed in other codes and regulations adopted by Hawaii County. Compliance with this code - other laws .. stricter shall be complied with: suggest change to stricter shall be complied with unless other 5 -12.8 provision was / is commonly accepted and T used in Hawaii County as utiized by Hawaii County DPW and will not cause an undue safety or health hazard. Adoption of rules - pursuant to chapter 91 - 5 -13 suggest add with proper public notice and Council approval on major changes. No Ex Post Facto adoption of rules. Permit required for water tank or catchments regardless of height or size. This seems excessive. A plumbing permit possibly might make sense, but an actual permit even for a 5 I 5 -19.4 gallon tank using gravity flow seems excessive.; T T Should a permit for most catchment tanks on agricultural land should not be required - especially if of low risk e.g. not too tall etc. ? Permit exemption Swimming pool under 18" -i this requires a little flexible 36" above ground pool for the kids to be permitted. All of a sudden a $100 treat for the kids now becomes 5- 19.14' a $1000 ordeal for the parents. How about stating the required fencing or conditions must be met for safety and allowing at least up to 36" be unpermitted if such conditions are met. Otherwise upon complaint or notice they are _ subject to permit etc. Expiration of permits seems fairly reasonable how about adding extensions for recongnized financial hardship (e.g. financing pulled etc.) where building has not been abandoned. 5 -22a However if this does cause the dept. more work / cost a reasonable penalty / fee can be added. Part B is good but should be written to waive the new standards ( if any) and new plans. Alterations or repairs exceeding 25% .. "may 5 -6b2 be made with the same maerials" should be View Items T UpD UpD T UpD 4 of 11 9/20/2011 11:43 AM View Items 270D3 :2 ) Ross 1 Ross L 19 | Ross -- |----- |27UO3Ammm 1 3 Ross Ross Genera l Ross General 5 of 11 Ross changed to with the same quality / strength or better. Existing structures alterations, repairs, additions EXCEPTIONS installation of glass in hazardous locations referencing IBC p498 sec 2406 are these new standards much stricter 3 5-6b3 than existing ? If so, especially in cases where older, non currently sized materials are used should this be excepted in cases where the AHJ feels it acceptable? 1 thnk this option for _� the AHJuhou|dbea||mwad for �heoaoaaeo. _---___- --__- Purpose of code to provide minimum standards 4 5-1b should add as cfetermined based upon local | conditions as APPLICABLE TO HAWAII COUNTY and its various areas. Criminal 1 i 5-G1 ' r--Y_— of this code -peemeu Hm/y._________� Add definitions regulations. ^ . - ^ ._- ----- to clearly define �~�� / / �-* . copied Maui Permbarequiredondaxem[dk/no. Enlarged ~ . , ^" proposed exemption --_ and added / / n-/� .'-_-..-�,.----^""-' exen�poonsanaoo~�poy�u/�'umwm Building Code. _ Reasonable MI NI MAL STANDARDS, loads, and assumptions need to be incorporated. 1 Especially on owner-builder on Ag-lands. Hawaii County can be released from liability and OB makes positive recognition of usage of alt code . .~_... ---_^-- �eaoonaow*ano*�/u��aaoxpon�nc�upn this island should allow for larger spacing of members e.g. 2x4 at 24" instead of mandating 1G^ for non critical applciations. Gary Chock has demonstrated even in projectile situations with 24" spacing the structure is sound, and 2 seismic with lesser spacing of fasteners will likely also be sufficient. Fema in the pas and decades of construction prove that structures can be made sound and durable with Iess wood than currently specified. This should be incorporated and allowed in the alternative code / ag lands and !ow risk structures. View Items T T UpD T T T ! T | T . / ! T UpD T !UpD'� Up� ' | � ! -`--1 � | � | T UpD ` } +---i ! | � | ' T UpD 9/20/2011 11:43 AM View Items IBC2006 1 Ross ,IBC2006 Ross IBC2006 16 Ross Need most type U non - public buildings 1 105.2 specified as exempt from permit requirements T T not just small ones and shade houses. International Building Code adopted ADD adoption of this regulation does not limit or 1 5 -3a prevent adoption of other additional and or alternative codes and regulations as adopted by Hawaii County. Presence of a nuisance pools, wells etc. 1 5 -48.3 Needs to be modified to add unless not readily accessible to the public or minors residing on T T T T T UpD the property.__ Wind Borne (safe room) is likely not applicable 1 1609.2 on Hawaii Island - Certainly most of it.lf not T T T dropped completly at least eliminate fron rural f ag lands in low density areas e.g. => 1 acre. Opens the door to retrocactive changes NO EX POST FACTO unless very pertinent new 102.6 information with imminient safety ramifications T UpD e.g. defective switch found that creates fire p hazard etc. Needs to be rewritten to limit ex post facto. Requires glazing e.g. glass for buildings intended for human occupancy. Many people prefer screen and do not want glass. Also, I 1205.1 ; believe Hawaii Coundy does not allow less expensive but sufficient (for most) aluminum framed glass. Exceptions / exemptions need to be allowed at leat for AG lands. View Items T UpD T UpD IBC2006 !175 ! Ross IBC2006 !2 Ross UpD IBC2006 1 I BC2006 250 Ross 1 Permit required too broad this would require a permit if someone added more batteries to an Ross 1 105.1 Off -grid solar sysem, a larger propane tank T T T etc. Need to exempt maitenance and minor changes that do not materially affect safety. Defines a catchment tank or portable hot tub above 24" as a pool. Need to allow up to 36" Ross 1 3109.2 1 for bathing purposes and exempt catchment T T T tanks / ponds / agricultual ponds on agricultural; lands. Requires existing buildings having "substantial work" INCLUDING REPAIRS to comply to new 541 Ross 1 3403.1.1! NEW flood areas - This could be a huge hardship for some and should be largely T T T IBC2006 532 IBC2006 T T T T UpD `UpD UpD UpD 6 of 11 9/20/2011 11:43 AM View Items View Items exempted UNLESS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION makes the situation more dangerous than currently existing e.g. adding more occupancy lowers the structures offset from ther ground plane etc. In many cases these flood zones are too broad and may not be applicable especially to people on the edge of them. Connection of service utilities this may be ! / construed as too broad and preventing | � temporary connections and usage e.g. portable � | generators and mobile inverters / battery BC2006 8 Ross / 1 111.1 systems etc. Needs to clearly state non � T attached exempt including ao only secured by . | the building e.g. generator secured by a chain to a building or temporary non-attached inverters / batteries not feeding service panels -ef]� using extension ---' --- ---- -T--- --- i i | Referenced codes should altow other including the HIBC / Alternative Rural Code as IBC2006 1 Ross 1.5 101.4 being developed by Graham and others. Adoption of the IBC and other referenced codes does not exclude alternatives as adopted and submitted on plans / permits. Requires temperature control systems e.g. heat and AC with very unclear and limited 1 5 12��1 | exception. ~'~~^~' ~~~~^~~~~~'~^'~~~ T � this �be�mo�d system. Needs or specifically set for some conditions that may ! | require it. � | � Time —-n—permit application should allow_p--~.p..~~,.~..~~~~ be automatically granted extensions `-_long �nepr�e� mx�u� nooneo�x�na |BC2OUG /4 Ruom , 1.5 105.3.2 ~~ ~ ~�~ T period stated) within the period of maximum permit length 3 years. Building home is large, and time consuming process. Adding this process is not necessary. � ' ! Expiration of permit needs to be Iiberalized to accomodate curren financing / financial |BC2006 4 Ross 1.5 ' 105.5 situations especially for ag owner builders | T however should there be a legitimate cos in clerical or other activity to the building dept. it |BC2006 /250 Ross T T T r T UpD i | T T ' T | | ! / T UpD 7 ofll 9C0/2011 11:43 AM View Items IBC2006 43 Ross 1.5 should be passed on as a minor fee / penalty to the permittee. Right of entry this seems to vague and excessive. This allows for inspection for viloation of the code THIS COULD INCLUDE EXISTING STRUCTURES that were permittted and legal. Should be ammended to read something like in cases non cooperation of 104.6 gross - negligence or gross contempt or where T an eminent danger that is pre- documented by complaint or observation to the public or those on the property in question exists the building dept. or their representatives may seek entry. If locked and non - acessible a warrant may be " requested for entry onto the property. Need to allow 406.1.2 area increase for all type U buildings not just housing private motor T cars - while still egress and fire safety. Need to rewrite to allow drainage away from the main door in applicable situation. Aw 406.1.3 written now forces addition of drain or drainage; towards possibly undesired side. Is this required for R -3 and type U - Need to review and make sure it is clear ( language included )this is not required for type R3 and U buildings. Existing structure compliance alternatives. This needs to be carefully reviewed and appropriate 3410 exemptions esepcially for low density areas , type U, and S -2 non public buildings need to be allowed. This includes fire alarms, smoke detectors, sprinklers etc. Temporary structures and uses these needs to be ammended to the duration of building and not limited to 180 days. In this economy as 107.1 many project take longer to finish due to T financing problems etc. it is punitive to limit and potentially demolish temp structures for those working in good faith to finish the pect. Unsafe structures and Equipment. THIS IS TOO BROAD need clearer definition of 115.1 "inadeguate maintenance ". Does this include T being unpainted ? Also includes "vacant IBC2006 143 Ross IBC2006 43 Ross 'IBC2006 1543 Ross 1.5 1 406.1.1 T View Items T UpD • BC2006 T UpD UpD S of 11 9/20/2011 11:43 AM View Items IBC2006 Ross BC2006 (421 Ross structure that is not secured againsta entry shall be deemed unsafe. What if the building is intact and only vacant for a day, a week etc. ? This scope seems to be excessive and should be clarified to only apply to eminent danger IF BEING USED. There are many structures on Hawaii Island that would be condemed or subject to this regulation. Research Adopts International Propery 2 101.4.5 Maintenance Code need to read this code and see if excessive / applicable to AG lands. Preservative treated wood. Need to study AWPA U1 and M4 can Ohia and other woods be painted (e.g oil based) and / or self- treated 2 12303.1.8 with commercially available preservatives where equivelant durability and resistance can 4 be achieved for agricultural and non - critical members. 'Exterior wall envelope construction documents. Is this excessive in documentation or truly needed ? Can a minimum specification simply by used e.g. 5/8 siding or 3/4 plywood etc. Does every detail need to be specified ? Is this 2 106.1.3! excessive especially for catagory 1 and some R -3 ? Material availabilty on the island varies not to mention draft / engineering / arhitectural adds to the cost significantly. It looks like too much detail which limits flexibility ( especially on non structural issues) is being applied. Requires plumbing / toliets on type S -2 buildings. I may be unclear on S -2 definitionhowever it seems like S -2 buildings may be used on some residences and agricultural operations. This required fixtures 2 2902.1 are likely not needed in these applications especially if other buildings having the toliets. Exemptions need to be written in for these situations e.g. not standalone commercial operations without other access nearby and applicable. Existing structures require replacement of glass to standards of new installations. Need to clarify that does not require wind -borne debris quality windows on non safe rooms of View Items T UpD BC2006 1523 Ross I BC2006 543 Ross 2 3405.1 T T T UpD T T T UpD T T T T UpD 9 of 11 9/20/2011 11:43 AM View Items 1 BC2006 582 Ross j 1 BC2006 E 18 Ross existing CAN USE glass equivelant or better than what was existing. RESEARCH Fire district exceptions - Need to review and see if this is exempted in 279 or is 2 D105 this should be adopted and allowed - or what is the plan for fire disctrict. Determine if applicable for Ag lands etc. Plans, specifications, engineeering calculations, diagrams, soil investigation reports, code search, special inestigation, and structural observation program, and other documents etc... shall be submitted is this excessive for some structures e.g. R -3 and some type U ? 2 5 -25b Can this be streamlined and clearly listed for each group or at least R -3 with the minimum required. Plans are becoming more expensive and it creates more review time for he dept if excessive amounts of data are required. Can we simplify ? References other codes - did we adopt the 3 101.4 ICC Electrical Code or the NFPA ? May need adjustment Applicability statement requires most restrictive method and materials. Should be adapted to i allow local materials and methods at least in 3 102.1 ! some cases per County Material ammendments and practices - at a minimum for low risk Catagory 1 buildings and possibly catagory 2 where safe. E.g indigenous woods and construction methods. Flood resistant materials and treatment. Need to research verify if AWPA - U1 is excessive and / or necessary. Temporary structures should the 180 day limit be lifted and the referenced internation fire code be used to set a minimum workaround for unpermitted structures and that problem ? Should this standard be applied for type U low risk no public structures ? Reserach Patio covers - need to see if exempted from bill 270 if not design loads etc. 3 1101 may be excessive especially for Ag lands. This, as is, is too broad and many on this island use ;IBC2006 1 Ross IBC2006 1 Ross T T View Items T T UpD T 11BC2006 '256 Ross 1 BC2006 .530 Ross 3 1403.5 IBC2006 603 Ross 3 3103.1 T T T T T UpD T UpD T T UpD T UpD T UpD T UpD l0 of 11 9/20/2011 11:43 AM View Items View Items these for storage and carports etc. Should be liberalized to allow more application on agricultural lands. Reserach Design loads on Ag lands required IBC2006 603. Ross 3 1104.1 ! for patio covers. If this provision is adopted ag T T T UpD lands should be exempted. If you want to add another item click here Add an item 11 of 11 9/20/2011 11:43 AM HAWAIIAN'S FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING www.hawaiiansforaffordablehousing.org Box 1113 Mountain View, Hi. 96771 808 - 968 -1203 RE: BILL 270 DRAFT 3 Please vote NO ON THE CURRENT BILL and VOTE YES FOR CONITNUANCE to allow time to work out amendments with the DPW / Council / County. Summary: The bill is very much still in a draft form with errors, inconsistencies, and with several major flaws (as outlined later in this document). A council member has indicated a willingness to work with the public and DPW to clean up the bill and introduce amendments — which hopefully should be ready for the Council meeting in October. We are ahead of the rest of the counties in the state in adopting this bill. We feel another month to make this bill better, easier, and more accurate to administer for the DPW, and more acceptable to the public would be a wise investment in time and save us all headaches and ill will later. PLEASE VOTE NOT ON THE CURRENT 270 VERSION AND YES FOR CONTINUANCE. Dear Council Members, Bill 270 is a large change from the current building code, and it has an integral affect on the lives of everyone in the county - some very much so. We have 3 major concerns with the bill as it is and over a dozen others in addition. We have met with Warren, Jai, and Neil at the DPW and they have indicated some willingness to examine and address these issues but have not been willing or able to sufficiently address these issues to date. We strongly feel that the law especially fundamental ones such as this needs to be well thought out and written. In addition, to major concerns with some of the regulations in the bill we feel the bill itself is full of errors and overlooked / loose items. We feel the bill needs to be detailed , after all it is a technical issue we are addressing, explicitly and non - ambiguously written, and well defined. Bill 270 is nowhere near these standards at this point. You can see this for yourself if you compare it with the current Maui Building Code. We do not fault the DPW and those who have drafted it to this point. This is a huge change in code and an adoption of over 700 pages of new material and external references to very technical materials such as the American Society of Civil Engineers Minimum Design Loads of Buildings and Other Structures. To date we do not believe the DPW has had the time or inclination to review and amend the proposed code relative to public input. A council member has indicated their willingness to work with concerned groups from the public and will be reviewing proposed amendments to submit to the DPW and council. We need one more continuance to allow the time for that. We are ahead of everyone else in the state in adopting this bill. We still have over 6 months before it must be adopted per the state bill. We have time to work out a better bill that satisfies all. Let's take the time to get it right. 2 Our three major concerns with this bill are : 1) It does not sufficiently exempt agricultural and aquacultural structures (classified as Type U [agricultural] Division 1 [low risk] ) from excessive standards and permitting. THIS PUTS OUR AGRICTURAL / AQUACULTURAL INDUSTRY AT A COMPETIVE DISADVANTAGE, nay even makes it impossible to stay in business, in some cases, in meeting these unduly burdensome standards.. 2) The bill has criminal penalties in the code that are not only overly harsh but extremely broad in application "any violation of this code." There is sufficient administrative enforcement available for virtually any situation the DPW might encounter and , we believe, DPW has not used the criminal penalty to date. We feel it appropriate that the criminal penalties are dropped. If not fully stricken, at least, we strongly feel that the criminal penalties and their exercise should be applied for extraordinary situations and defined as such. For example "criminal prosecution may be applied when gross negligence or gross contempt are found and / or where eminent danger to property and or persons is found and gross contempt exists." Right now the DPW can "deem guilty" anyone for "any" violation of the code which could even include a squeaky hinge on a gate per the undefined and broad 5- 48 -1 -L "General dilapidation or improper maintenance" and several other provisions that allow "Carte- Blanche" like powers to the DPW. 3) The bill does not readily allow for adoption of other additional or alternative codes now without amending the current bill. We want to add a simple clause such as "and any additional / alternative codes as Hawaii County may adopt." There are also a plethora of other issues some of which were simply overlooked in the referenced IBC 2006 code. For example on page 250 1204.1 this regulation could require a very expensive and non -green central air - conditioning and heating system. Do we really need this in most of Hawaii ? 1204.1 Equipment and systems. Interior spaces intended for human occupancy shall be provided with active or passive space - heating systems capable of maintaining a minimum indoor temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) at a point 3feet (914 mm) above the floor on the design heating day. Can we possibly survive 70 or 72 degrees instead of 68 without having to spend thousands on a non - green, fossil -fuel using system ? How about SB 270 page 84 402.4.1.1 requires buildings to have ceiling stub fans and doors capable of being secured open. Do I really need this in Mountain View where I am lucky if it goes above 74 degrees most of the year ? Do I really need my Jalouise windows to have their air leakage rate set to a minimum standard ? Are these truly needed for the "minimum standards to safeguard life or limb." The above named regulations, many other provisions, and the actual bill itself need more thought, refinement, and clarification, as well as sufficient time for public input / bill buy in. Attached is a PRELIMINARY / partial / draft version of a list of questionable items in SB270 HawaiiansForAffordableHousing .org has compiled. We will further review it, add to it, and remove where appliable, and clean it up. We want the DPW to review this list and answer our questions as submitted PRIOR TO ACCEPTING BILL 270 AS IS. PLEASE VOTE NOT ON THE CURRENT 270 VERSION AND YES FOR CONTINUANCE. Ross Armetta, Hawaiian's For Affordable Housing 2