HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0128.140 2010-2012 1-k—c. (P
Written Testimony Re: Hawaii County 2010-2012 session Bill 270
January 30, 2012
Bill 270, draft 7, updating County of Hawaii Building Code should be postponed or
withdrawn until the following problems have been corrected.
Failure to Amend and Adopt State Building Code—State of Hawaii Act 82 required the
State to adopt a uniform building code, and for counties to subsequently amend and adopt the
same in order to tailor these to their unique geographic and demographic characteristics.
This has not been done. Instead, the old Hawaii County Building Code has been mod din'
various ways to include some new provisions. Since the document which was produce is ?v
not numbered according to the new standard, and has not been redlined, it is very diffic}4t to
tell where changes have been made. This clearly does not constitute amendment and m
adoption of a new standard code, as requird by state law. Y?
Failure to allow for public review, vetting, and input—Through a variety of means, suc
as failure to mark up the document so that revisions and amendments could be traced an
ct
both the original State code and amended portions of existing County code could be
reviewed, the web server hosting the document for public review being unavailable for large
sections of time, the County has circumvented the normal process of allowing for public
review, input, and vetting of the proposed document. The document must be redlined, and
made continuously available for sufficient period of time during each draft for the public to be
able to obtain copies, see what changes have been made, and provide input into the process.
Errors and Omissions— Version 7 of the document has numerous errors and/or omissions
of key words that make the code vague, unclear, and most likely unenforceable. An example
is that only at a distance of exactly 8.0 feet do two sections of retaining wall get treated as
one wall for the purpose of height and engineering. This is clearly not the intent of either the
updated State building code, nor the original County code.
Maintaining of archaic language— Draft 7 still contains language pertaining to "substandard
conditions" which are not defined. The current practice in building codes no longer uses this
language, but instead refers to specific health or safety hazards. "Substandard", especially
without being specifically defined, can be used in an arbitrary and capricious way by
inspectors.
Bill as written not complete— Draft 7 does not contain the alternative rural sustainable
habitat provisions promised. The public and those enforcing the code are entitled to have ALL
the code available to them for review and vetting, and not wait around until some unspecified
time in the future for this bill and set of building codes to be completed.
Administration and enforcement of code is arbitrary—The administrative sections of the
proposed code do not specify criteria for some actions, such as inspection of the property,
and can therefore be enforced in a non-uniform, arbitrary way thereby allowing the building
code to be used for punitive or political purposes, not ensuring the health and safety of our
community. pp,.
Comm. °ZO.1t0
Ref. To:
Ref. Date FFR 0 t 2012
Overreach of authority into acceptable uses of private property—Any temporary
structures, including those used for camping, should be allowed by the owner of the property.
The government of Hawaii has no business intruding into non-permanent personal property
placed on the land.
Owner-Budder provisions too limiting -Put simply, meeting code requirements are
meeting code requirements, regardless to who does the work. So long as plumbing and
electrical work is reviewed, inspected., found to meet the standards specified in the code, and
approved, it should not matter if it is an Owner-Builder doing the work, or a lice nsed
contractor. In addition, there is absolutely no provision for work done to these systems in the
case of an emergency such as plumbing or electrical failure in a.critical portion of a building.
Bill 270, as written, represents a very sloppy attempt at updating the County's building code, it
fails to meet the criteria specified by the state, the end product falls short of reasonable
expectations, and the process has precluded meaningful input by the Citizens of Hawaii
County, who deserve nothing less than the best from their elected representatives. Therefore,
the bill should either be withdrawn for a major rewrite, or adoption postponed until appropriate
changes are made in committee and the public has had a chance to review and comment, as
required by law.
Respectfully,
Lance Duncan
Pahoa, HI