Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permits Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate on Bill 19 pits permit‑timing fixes against DPP safety concerns
Summary
Bill 19 would tighten the city’s standard for when construction‑document changes require resubmission; DPP warned it could shift safety review from plan examiners to inspectors and recommended capacity and training fixes instead, while industry groups urged legal clarity to avoid prolonged amended‑permit delays.
The Zoning Committee on Thursday heard lengthy testimony on Bill 19, which would amend local building‑code rules to define the criteria for "substantial changes" during construction that require resubmission of construction documents. The measure prompted a split between developers and industry groups seeking faster, clearer pathways for minor field changes and the Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP), which warned the proposal could put public safety at risk if inspectors are asked to evaluate off‑plan changes beyond their current role.
Bill 19 context: Under current practice DPP inspectors generally verify construction against approved plans; DPP staff told the committee that inspectors are not currently trained to "inspect to code" in all circumstances and that allowing broader field changes without plan‑examiner review risks inaccurate official building records and potentially dangerous surprises for first responders.
DPP’s position: The department’s testimony argued that the bill wrongly assumes inspectors have the knowledge and authority to decide whether in‑field changes meet the code, and that shifting review to inspections could encourage incomplete plan submittals and undermine the permit review process. The DPP presentation cited examples where small seeming changes — such as moving a non‑loadbearing partition — can affect other systems including sprinkler coverage, fire safety and egress. "This bill would allow structures to be something different than what the city knows them to be," a DPP witness said, arguing the city needs accurate approved plans for life‑safety reasons.
Industry and builder testimony: Builders and industry representatives told the committee that current practice sometimes forces projects to pause while amended permits are reviewed, delaying occupancy. Gina Thielen, a long‑time local builder, described a project in which a series of minor, interpreted‑code changes led to a three‑month delay obtaining a certificate of occupancy after the inspector had deemed the building safe. She urged clearer definitions so genuinely minor field adjustments do not trigger the full re‑submission cycle. D.R. Horton Hawaii (testimony by Lee Tokuhara), the Building Industry Association of Hawaii and other construction stakeholders echoed the call for clearer, narrowly drawn criteria to avoid long delays and rising costs.
Questions and next steps: Council members pushed DPP to identify near‑term operational fixes — including hiring and training more inspectors, restoring targeted temporary‑certificate‑of‑occupancy (TCO) options for completed work pending administrative amendments, and prioritizing re‑review of amendments — rather than a wholesale code change that DPP says could sacrifice safety for speed. DPP said it is working to reduce review times and increase capacity and expects continued improvements over the coming year; the department also said it will provide the committee with written testimony submitted at the hearing.
No vote was taken on Bill 19 at the committee meeting; the committee proceeded to public testimony and will take further action at a later date.
