04-08-2010, 12:27 AM
Aloha All,
The process for consideration to postpone the implementation date for the 2006 IECC by the Building Division was informative. With 27 testifiers from Hilo; 6 from Kona and 3 from Waimea, folks made their thoughts clear. Anecdotal accounts by folks like Bill Walters, and others who creatively wove their intent with humorous overtones, made the point that enforcing the code in its current state would be antithetical to the intended purpose of the Code: energy savings. Also present to testify were Architects, General Contractors, Draftsmen, Union Reps from Labors, Carpenters, and others. Then there were folks who were in different stages of building from the actual planning to near completion who raised concerns the implementation would have a negative economic and design impact on their plans.
On hand to testify was the State's Energy guy and DPW's Director, Warren Lee. The upshot of their consensus was introduced by the State's rep by quoting a notorious movie line from Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to communicate". What proved most interesting, the more he spoke the more apparent his failure to communicate was established. When asked by Councilman Hoffman: "What do you see as the downside in waiting until January to implement the codes?" The State dude responded with '...when the economy picks back up, and especially on the Kona side, there will be more homes built that will be air conditioned and by postponing these homes will continue to consume more energy." SAY WHAT? Notice: he did not answer the 'downside to postponing until January' but simply promoted his agenda, which had those in the audience chuckling, rolling their eyes and scratching their heads! Surely he has not heard the same news we have that they do not expect the building to start picking up again between now and January?
At any rate, the State dude contends some rather ambiguous verbiage in item 103.1 of the Code clearly indicates that if you want to build a single wall - louvered windows - no insulation home - in Hawaii County, you can. Again, those of us who looked at the code failed to see that clearly expressed. Dir. Lee was asked to expound on such a procedure. He explained the Architect would make that decision. Now, unless you work in the business you do not understand how that works, thus, those sitting close by me were utterly baffled as to that statement. But, here is how that works: Typically county's building division requires a letter from architects taking responsibility for foundation, framing and changes to the plan before the final permit is issued. What Dir. Lee is saying, if you want to build a single wall home with screened open areas, no insulation, etc, you can do that with a letter from your Architect stating that your home meets the current standards/codes for fresh air and the home will not be installing energy gobbling AC/Heating. The county is supposed to accept that letter with no enforcement of the IECC. I will not opine about the ramifications of the IECC and the implications of such a letter. Suffice to say, anyone who has a window mounted AC unit for those days when it is really hot; for holidays when it is really smoky from fireworks; or, for days when it is not only hot but very Voggie, you may be in violation of the building code at some time in the future if your architect cleared your home as amply cooled/heated with its fresh air design. Wall mounted AC units were clearly derided by the State dude.
The County Council did an outstanding job of articulating the salient point: The ambiguity of the law as understood by everyone, including industry professionals, needed clarification, which meant some time perhaps before implementation. They offered and approved the 1st hearing of the Bill with the caveat that the State's dude and DPW Dir. Lee, coordinate to hold 2 informational meetings, one on our side, one on the other side, for everyone who wishes to attend. At this meeting, they will hear a presentation by the State dude [sorry, I don't know if his last name is Weeks, Wiggs or Witts...as often as I heard it I could not determine exactly what it was.] and DPW on the implementation of this code. The Council wanted to make sure these two knew these meetings would be an opportunity for the attending public to ask questions with the anticipated outcome, through education, concerns expressed during the meeting would be mitigated and the actual implementation date would not need to be postponed. They would like to have the meetings scheduled very soon as there is less than a month before the 2nd reading of the bill and if the confusion or animus still persists the postponement may be approved. Dir. Lee was asked to arrange the logistics for the meetings. I have asked Councilwoman Naeole-Beason's office to stay on top of the meeting arrangements and make sure the press [both print and opinion/blog] is immediately informed for maximum benefit.
I know that it is posted there were 3 who voted against, but I only remember two: Ford and Hoffman. I know that Ikeda, Yagong, Enriques, Yoshimoto, Greenwell and Naeole voted for...I don't recall how Onishi voted, or, if he was even present. By that time the day was so long the council members were having to take personal breaks and he may have been absent.
“A penny saved is a government oversight.”
The process for consideration to postpone the implementation date for the 2006 IECC by the Building Division was informative. With 27 testifiers from Hilo; 6 from Kona and 3 from Waimea, folks made their thoughts clear. Anecdotal accounts by folks like Bill Walters, and others who creatively wove their intent with humorous overtones, made the point that enforcing the code in its current state would be antithetical to the intended purpose of the Code: energy savings. Also present to testify were Architects, General Contractors, Draftsmen, Union Reps from Labors, Carpenters, and others. Then there were folks who were in different stages of building from the actual planning to near completion who raised concerns the implementation would have a negative economic and design impact on their plans.
On hand to testify was the State's Energy guy and DPW's Director, Warren Lee. The upshot of their consensus was introduced by the State's rep by quoting a notorious movie line from Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to communicate". What proved most interesting, the more he spoke the more apparent his failure to communicate was established. When asked by Councilman Hoffman: "What do you see as the downside in waiting until January to implement the codes?" The State dude responded with '...when the economy picks back up, and especially on the Kona side, there will be more homes built that will be air conditioned and by postponing these homes will continue to consume more energy." SAY WHAT? Notice: he did not answer the 'downside to postponing until January' but simply promoted his agenda, which had those in the audience chuckling, rolling their eyes and scratching their heads! Surely he has not heard the same news we have that they do not expect the building to start picking up again between now and January?
At any rate, the State dude contends some rather ambiguous verbiage in item 103.1 of the Code clearly indicates that if you want to build a single wall - louvered windows - no insulation home - in Hawaii County, you can. Again, those of us who looked at the code failed to see that clearly expressed. Dir. Lee was asked to expound on such a procedure. He explained the Architect would make that decision. Now, unless you work in the business you do not understand how that works, thus, those sitting close by me were utterly baffled as to that statement. But, here is how that works: Typically county's building division requires a letter from architects taking responsibility for foundation, framing and changes to the plan before the final permit is issued. What Dir. Lee is saying, if you want to build a single wall home with screened open areas, no insulation, etc, you can do that with a letter from your Architect stating that your home meets the current standards/codes for fresh air and the home will not be installing energy gobbling AC/Heating. The county is supposed to accept that letter with no enforcement of the IECC. I will not opine about the ramifications of the IECC and the implications of such a letter. Suffice to say, anyone who has a window mounted AC unit for those days when it is really hot; for holidays when it is really smoky from fireworks; or, for days when it is not only hot but very Voggie, you may be in violation of the building code at some time in the future if your architect cleared your home as amply cooled/heated with its fresh air design. Wall mounted AC units were clearly derided by the State dude.
The County Council did an outstanding job of articulating the salient point: The ambiguity of the law as understood by everyone, including industry professionals, needed clarification, which meant some time perhaps before implementation. They offered and approved the 1st hearing of the Bill with the caveat that the State's dude and DPW Dir. Lee, coordinate to hold 2 informational meetings, one on our side, one on the other side, for everyone who wishes to attend. At this meeting, they will hear a presentation by the State dude [sorry, I don't know if his last name is Weeks, Wiggs or Witts...as often as I heard it I could not determine exactly what it was.] and DPW on the implementation of this code. The Council wanted to make sure these two knew these meetings would be an opportunity for the attending public to ask questions with the anticipated outcome, through education, concerns expressed during the meeting would be mitigated and the actual implementation date would not need to be postponed. They would like to have the meetings scheduled very soon as there is less than a month before the 2nd reading of the bill and if the confusion or animus still persists the postponement may be approved. Dir. Lee was asked to arrange the logistics for the meetings. I have asked Councilwoman Naeole-Beason's office to stay on top of the meeting arrangements and make sure the press [both print and opinion/blog] is immediately informed for maximum benefit.
I know that it is posted there were 3 who voted against, but I only remember two: Ford and Hoffman. I know that Ikeda, Yagong, Enriques, Yoshimoto, Greenwell and Naeole voted for...I don't recall how Onishi voted, or, if he was even present. By that time the day was so long the council members were having to take personal breaks and he may have been absent.
“A penny saved is a government oversight.”
"Q might have done the right thing for the wrong reason, perhaps we need a good kick in our complacency to get us ready for what's ahead" -- Captain Picard, to Guinan (Q Who?)