Delay to New Building Codes

[mdd7000]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kjlpahoa

Critterlover, Thank you so very much in stating the truth so very well. Hopefully corrective amendments will be made and the code will go into effect in January for the betterment of all.

---

With all of the homes and condos in Kona that have AC, this new code with specific to Hawaii amendments is long overdue.

[grsjax]

Make it specific to buildings with central AC and it might make some sense. Using this one size fits all approach is just plain stupid.

No matter how thin you slice it, its still balony.

[critterlover]

A reminder to all who are interested, today is the next hearing of the Resolution to postpone the implementation of the 2006 IECC. It commences at 1PM today. I cannot imagine it will not be passed with the increased evidence that has been accumulated that would argue it should be.

Thanks to Daniel, the 3 glaring mistakes in the existing law, in and of themselves, provides pause to amend. But, if that is not sufficient, the recommendation by the Mayor's own Energy Commission to support the resolution to delay implementation -- of ordinance 09-48 in its currently adopted form -- is immutable.

“A penny saved is a government oversight.”

[critterlover]

The County Council heard testimony for the 2nd hearing of bill 234, a bill to delay implementation of the code. It appears everyone understood the need for at least a partial delay having attended the two public meetings. However, out of concern for the possible loss of Government monies for county projects, bill 234 was postponed for a vote in two weeks. In the interim, Councilman Hoffman has asked to meet with Director of Public Works, Warren Lee and Architect Cari Kimura, from Kona, to try and 'hurriedly' get together essential amendments that could be processed through in a shorter period of time with a date of implementation sooner than January 2011. The motion to postpone was made by Pete Hoffman, seconded by Emily and received a majority yay vote. The victory in today's meeting was the two who voted no last time acknowledged their mind was changed by having attended the public meetings. The over arching issue is not merely the 'changed' amendments but also the building division policies that clearly lay out the way plans will be designed and submitted for permit. The suggestion was made to phase in the various corrections with the more important ones sooner than later. Problem with that is how the public and the staff of the Building Division will have to deal with that. For instance, today you can submit plans so long as they meet ABC on the checklist; rules changed...tomorrow different criteria so ABC have changed and your plans have to be redesigned and resubmitted.

It was the expectation and fervent hope of those who have voiced their concerns that a task force or committee would be comprised of industry professionals who would put together the amendments working closely with all agencies and then submit them for approval and adoption into law. The January deadline would have provided a reasonable period of time to work at not only developing the amendments but also Building Division policies.

The ARRA Funds Councilman Hoffman and Councilwoman Ford were concerned about are allegedly contingent on the county having a 2006 IECC in place. It was not articulated whether the existence of the law [09-48] would suffice or that the law has to actually be implemented. They seemed to feel there would be some loss of funding by pushing the implementation date off to January.

“A penny saved is a government oversight.”

[critterlover]

Aloha All,

Just a reminder the next, and hopefully last, hearing on Bill 234 - the Delay to the effective date for the 2006 IECC building code ordinance 09-48 - is scheduled for 330P on Wednesday, May 5. Councilman Hoffman has worked up some amendments and has introduced Bill 250 whose language has already raised concerns among the architects, specifically, section 9, calling for the effective date 'on approval'. Anyone in the industry who can be present to impress upon the Council the approval of Bill 234 is the only rational course of action should plan to be there to testify. If you cannot be present please take a moment to email the council with your concerns/thoughts: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us


“A penny saved is a government oversight.”

[ChicEco]

When politicians pray instead of addressing issues, it's sadly comical.
The truth should NOT be pulled!

Delia Montgomery
d/b/a Chic Eco
Environmental Fashion & Design ~ Consultant & Broker
www.ChicEco.com
Become a yurt blog follower! See http://chiceco-yurtliving.blogspot.com/

[YurtGirl]

SO wlsh l'd found thls Llnk sooner (sorry, my "eye" button ls broke). To follow up, they voted to postpone, correct? Are there any more meetlngs to dlscuss the lssues? Do we all need to come together to flght thls crazlness or what? l'm all for energy conservatlon, obvlously, but these codes are the antl-thesls to that ln most cases here ln Hawall. Thls looks to me Llke a CaLlfornla hltchhlker. Makes sense ln CaLl, where everyone has a/c and spends energy Llke lt's renewable or somethlng, but here ln Hawall, that aln't us. Well, most of us anyway. We shouldn't be forced to take the same preventlve actlons when we aren't wastlng energy ln that area to begln wlth. Hello?!? lf people have A/C, certalnly. Force people to lnsulate or do w/out. But otherwlse, GEEEEEZ! They've already made lt mandatory to add a $6500 solar water heatlng method to every new resldentlaL bulLd, otherwlse you have to flLe for a varlance ($$) even to go w/ an energy efflclent on demand heater. Solar's more efflclent than a tank water heater, sure, but that adds $6500 to your bulLdlng cost and lsn't effectlve or reLlable ln many places. People should be able to choose what makes the most sense for them and thelr area. Serlous symptoms of major lnternal problems, rlght along wlth the lnsulatlon rldlculousness. ln our haste to LOOK Llke we're dolng our part to be "green" we're taklng shortcuts lnstead of dolng the real work, and we're maklng more of a mess of thlngs.

[Rob Tucker]

A big energy sink here is the use of ceiling fans. They are an expensive and inefficient way to deal with heat gain from metal roofing. They do little except push heat around. A metal roof can reach temperatures of 160 degrees on a 90 degree day. This heat quickly enters via an uninsulated or badly designed roof. People seem to think it is natural to own a ceiling fan in most rooms. Bad energy planning. A/C has nothing to do with it.

Wall and floor insulation are separate topics and indeed seem unnecessary in this climate. But roof insulation saves energy on you electric bill and at the power plant.

[Nalu]

Another bonus beyond energy measures to insulation is that when it rains, we can barely hear it, when our windows are closed we can not hear the coquis AT ALL, where our nieighbors are driven nuts by them. We live in Mountain View and chose to insulate and am glad we did. When we heat the house it stays warm through the night, our neighbors next door lose all their heat through the night and wake up to the same temperature outside as in. Now the tinted windows I would take bother with. We need the sunlight to warm our houses up here. Plus sunlight is a natural mold killer, now in a place like Kona this would work, but I do think curtains can have the same effect. Angela

[YurtGirl]

Wouldn't you agree though, Rob, that lnsuLatlon ls not the only way to handle heat from metal roofs? And of the ways to handle lt, would you agree that lt's one of the more expenslve solutlons? Slnce hot alr rlses, surely adequate ventlLatlon could take the brunt of the collected heat?