Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0176.083 2006-2008 ~~v ar W~ ~S" lam ' Bruce C. McClure Harr Kim " Y Director . e Mayor >Y oi~M~ Jiro A. Sumada .0'~~FYtuPft(t Deputy Director DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi S[reet, Suite 7 ~ Hilo, Hawai `i 96720-4224 (808)961-8321~Fax (808)961-8630 v rte"' www.co.hawaii.hi.us - , C~ it May 23, 2007 1.\ .J Y~ Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Council Chair and Members of the Hawaii County Council Hawaii County Council 333 Kilauea Avenue Ben Franklin Building, 2nd Floor Hilo, Hawaii 96720 SUBJECT: Chapter 27, Flood Code -Bill 51, Draft 3 In response to various concerns during the May 15, 2007 meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Intergovernmental Relations, the following documents are provided for your use in considering the subject bill: 1) Letter from Carol Tyau-Beam, State, NFIP Coordinator, DLNR, dated 5/18/07. 2) Deparment of Public Works Comments on Bill 51, Draft 3. 3) E-mail from Clayton Yugawa, Data Systems, dated 5/22/07. We look forward to meeting with Council Chair Hoffmann on May 24, 2007, and Council Member Ford on May 29, 2007, to review their intent of the code amendments that they and several other Council Members have proposed in the past several months. Since Chapter 27 affects other County Codes and administrative rules from other departments, we can then gather the appropriate departmental experts to see how the code can be amended to accomplish the intent of what you are trying to achieve. As part of those referrals, we have asked Corporation Counsel to write directly to all the Council Members. comm. No. l 7~0 .$3 Ref. To:_~r;~ Ref. bate MAY 3 1007 County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Ltr. to Council Chair Hoffmann Page 2 May 23, 2007 Thank you for being willing to address these issues collaboratively. We also appreciate the dialog and discussion so more issues can surface and we can together develop a comprehensive flood management program to better serve the people of our island. BRUCE C. McCLURE, P. E. Director Attachments cc: Carol Tyau Beam - DLNR Dixie Kaetsu, Managing Director Chris Yuen, Planning Director Clayton Yugawa, Data Systems Lincoln Ashida -Corporation Counsel Chuck Flaherty County of Hawari is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. ALWR A. SMITH LDiDA LII'IGLE << ~ MAK BO'Up Opt-`~H0 ^AN°"'~~'~I"~ r Cp.°.99810NON WAfFA R6lO11RCE MAN/.OE1.6M GOVRRNOR OP HAWAII 4 ~ IR,O 7 b ROBERT K. MASUDA Qmm QnvcTaR ~,~'^~NrA ~ ,y PereRr. rounc •'L pg UFNIY gRPCIpI. WATFA p. AQUATIC RFS°URRCFB BPinNf ANQOCFAN RECTPAnOM B9.P@+ RI~ BUREAU MCONVEYAN[Pf COW.YSSIW! Ox WATPR RFSWRG£ MAtUQER4.M C°N9FRVAlgH AHQCOASTAL IAND] STATE OF HAWAII °°"~V~'nONA1N RPBOURCPB PMglCEA6M DwMEFAMG voxmTRY Arrow¢q,D>: sr+kQIIwIF DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES wslauc PRP:RxYAn°" R,QwwwwP WvxQRF9RRVEmw.NSSwu urro POST OFFICE BOX 621 sTATP PARRS HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 May 18, 2007 The Honorable Chairperson Pete Hoffman & Members of the Hawaii County Council Hawaii County Council Ben Franklin Building 333 Kilauea Avenue 2nd Floor Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Chairperson Hoffman & Members of the Hawaii County Council: Bill 51 -Proposed Ameradments to Chapter 27 We applaud Hawaii County Council for your efforts to make your community more flood resistant by proposing a stricter floodplain management ordinance. Thank you for including our Department in the collaborative efforts of this very important measure. As the State coordinating agency for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) places an important responsibility on us to ensure community compliance with the NFIP rules and regulations. Since Hawaii County is a participating community in the NFIP, it is required to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum NFIP requirements as set forth in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations §59 through 79. Upon our review, the language in the current draft Bill (see attached copy) does not meet the minimum standards of the NFIP. It is our understanding that a comment by Council Member Ford made at your Public Works & Intergovernmental Relations Committee Meeting on May 15, 2007 suggested that the subject Bill is compliant with the minimum rules and regulations of the NFIP, however this is not an accurate assumption. At the March 20, 2007 committee meeting, we expressed several inconsistencies with a prior draft. However, the language presented in the attached draft does not incorporate our comments nor address the inconsistencies we identified. Hawaii County Council Members May 18, 2007 Page 2 On April 27, 2007, Ms. Debbie Hecht, Legislative Aide to Council Member Ford, forwarded an electronic copy of a revised Bill 51 (file named: Bill 51 proposed amend to draft 2 BF 4 27 07 include Pete's.doc). Subsequently, we responded with comments and questions to Ms. Hecht on May 7 and 8, 2007. We did not receive any response to our questions from Council Member Ford's office. It is important to understand that if a community's floodplain management ordinance fails to meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP they are subject to suspension from the program, in accordance with Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (§59.24). A community that is suspended from the NFIP would jeopardize future Federal Disaster Assistance. In addition, flood insurance through the NFIP would not be available, the over 4000 Hawaii County flood insurance policies would not be renewed, and no Federal grants or loans for the acquisition or construction of buildings within a Special Flood Hazard Area can be made. Please note that we need to report on the County's NFIP compliance status with FEMA by September 30, 2007. If the County's flood ordinance is reported to be non-compliant, suspension is imminent unless immediate corrective action is taken. With so many revisions and discrepancies between drafts, we recommend postponing adoption of the proposed Bill, so that we may thoroughly review the newly inserted language for consistency with the NFIP reg•ilations. Rest assured that we want to continue to work closely with the Hawaii County Council to ensure that your community maintains eligibility in the NFIP and continues to benefit from this very important program. For future review, please send a hardcopy draft from the Hawaii County Council to our office at, P.O. Box 373, Honolulu, Hawaii 96809. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (808) 587-0267. Sincerely, ~ CAROL L. TYACI-BEAM, P.E., CFM State NFIP Coordinator Attachments CTB:ek c: Allan A. Smith, Interim DLNR Chairperson Bruce McClure, DPW Galen Kuba, DPW Cynthia McKenzie, FEMA Region IX BILL 51 DRAFT 3 DPW COMMENTS - 5/23/07 Sec. 27-1(b): Because you cannot "control" floodwaters, use of phrases such as flood control, flood prevention and flood protection has resulted in a general misunderstanding on the part of the public and a false sensed of security. Congress recognized, in the early 1950s, that flood control was not effective in reducing flood damages. As a result, Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. These Acts aze the basis for, and reason why Chapter 27 exists. We would like to revise this section to read: (b) To minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood [ee~eb] damage reduction projects; Sec. 27-1(i): Stormwater management regulations are part of Chapter 23 and 25. All references to stormwater management should be deleted to avoid inconsistencies. If inconsistencies in laws do exist, such laws may be deemed to be unenforceable. This issue should be further discussed with Corporation Counsel. Sec. 27-1(j): Chapter 27 has no statutory authority to improve water quality, erosion, endangered species and habitat conservation and enhancement, is not the purposes of the NFIP and should be deleted to avoid contradictions and inconsistencies with Chapter 10, 23 and 25. If inconsistencies in laws do exist, such laws may be deemed to be unenforceable. This issue should be further discussed with Corporation Counsel. Sec. 27-1(k): The term "minimum standard" is vague and uncleaz. We assume this was in reference to the minimum design storm. We are unaware of any testimony, evidence or examples to substantiate the need to increase the current minimum 10-year design storm standard found in Chapter 23 and 25 of the Hawaii County Code. The testimonies and examples that have been cited in South Kona aze in reference to developments and subdivisions that pre-date the use of the current 10-year standard or to fazming/agricultural operations that are currently not subject to any drainage improvement requirements found in the Hawaii County Code. Sec. 27-1(1): As indicated previously by the State NFIP coordinator, Section 5.3(a) of the General Plan is not in compliance with the NFIP. If this language is to be retained, the General Plan needs to be changed to comply with the NFIP. In accordance with section 2-31(a) of the Hawaii County Code, General Plan revisions are initiated by the Planning Director. Sec. 27-1(n): Watershed management is a land use principle that is inappropriate in Chapter 27. This item should be discussed with our Planning Department Page 1 of 8 BILL 51 DRAFT 3 DPW COMMENTS - 5/23/07 regarding integration into current land use regulations and/or crafting of new legislation. We believe this section would be appropriately placed in County General Plan. Section 2-31(b)(1) of the Hawaii County Code states that County General Plan shall contain a statement of development objectives, standazds and principles with respect to the most desirable use of land within the County. Our Planning Department is already investigating use of watershed management practices for the City of Hilo. Sec. 27-1(0): The word "elevation" is being misused and needs to be deleted. Base flood is a design parameter used to determine the amount of water a drainage facility can carry. Base flood elevation is a term use to describe the depth of flow at a particular location so base flood elevation has no meaning in the design of a drainage facility. There is no definition of flood channel or re-channelization, consequently its intent and application is unclear. It is unclear whether the 100-yeaz standard be applied to roadside swales, temporazy ditches and trenches, flows from roof drains, parking lot drainage systems as they all re-channelize existing drainage flows to varying degrees. We need to know the intent and purpose of this section before we are able to make a definitive analysis or suggest appropriate language. Sec. 27-1(p): Chapter 27 has no statutory authority to regulate erosion, clearing of forests, grubbing, grading or re-channelization of water courses. This section should be deleted to avoid contradictions and inconsistencies with Chapter 10, 23 and 25. If inconsistencies in laws do exist, such laws may be deemed to be unenforceable. This issue should be further discussed with Corporation Counsel. Sec. 27-1(q): Maintenance and re-establishment of forests is a land use measure that is inappropriate in Chapter 27. This item should be discussed with our Planning Department regarding integration into current land use regulations and/or crafting of new legislation. Sec. 27-1(r): Preservation of open space is a land use measure that is inappropriate in Chapter 27. This item should be discussed with our Planning Department regarding integration into current land use regulations and/or crafting of new legislation. Sec. 27-4(g): This section should be deleted as similaz regulations already exist to varying degrees in Chapter 25. This matter should be discussed with our Planning Department regarding integration into current land use regulations and/or crafting of new legislation. Page 2 of 8 BILL 51 DRAFT 3 DPW COMMENTS - 5/23/07 Sec. 27-4(h): Maintenance and re-establishment of forests is a land use measure that is inappropriate in Chapter 27. This item should be discussed with our Planning Department regarding integration into current land use regulations and/or crafting of new legislation. Sec. 27-4(i): Use of floodplains as open space, parks, etc. is a land use measure that is inappropriate in Chapter 27. This item should be discussed with our Planning Department regarding integration into current land use regulations and/or crafting of new legislation. Sec. 27-4(j): Section 5.3(a) of the General Plan is not in compliance with the NFIP. If this language is to be retained, the General Plan needs to be changed to comply with the NF]P. In accordance with section 2-31(a) of the Hawaii County Code, General Plan revisions are initiated by the Planning Director. Sec.27-12: Definition of "Lowest floor" -For your information and to avoid any misunderstanding, the change indicated for this definition was ramseyered incorrectly. The underscore "non-elevation" should be "non-elevation". Definition of "Watershed" -Because our island is still volcanically active and/or geologically immature, there are large areas on this island that will not fall within this definition. Definition of "Historic structure" - As indicated previously by the State NFIP coordinator, item (ii), needs to be change from "with approved programs" to "without approved programs" to comply with the NFIP. Sec. 27-16(a)(5): The Department should not be the repository of all government permits. Under the Freedom of Information Act we will now be responsible to provide copies of these permits to the public. It is out goal to have DPW permits filed electronically. However, we should not be liable for nor bear the cost of keeping permit files and making copies requested by the public for permits issued by the State and Federal governments. Further, should this condition be retained the Department of Public Works does not have the hardware, software or expertise to address the storage of electronic copies. The implementation of this requirement needs to be discussed with the Data System Department. Sec. 27-16(b)(7): The Department should not be the repository of all government permits. Under the Freedom of Information Act we will now be responsible to provide copies of these permits to the public. It is our goal to have DPW permits filed electronically. However, we should not be liable for nor bear the cost of keeping permit files and making copies requested by the public for permits issued by the State and Federal governments. Page 3 of 8 BILL 51 DRAFT 3 DPW COMMENTS - 5/23/07 Further, should this condition be retained the Department of Public Works does not have the hardware, software or expertise to address the storage of electronic copies. The implementation of this requirement needs to be discussed with the Data System Department. Sec. 27-16(c): The change is not in compliance with the NF]P; and needs to be discuss with State NFIP Coordinator. For FEMA map revisions, the process is described in the following section 27-16(d) through the Letter of Map Revision process. The intent of this section is to interpret boundaries of approved FEMA maps. Sec. 27-16(f)(1): Because many natural watercourses are not able to carry the volume of water generated by a 100-year storm, bank overflows are not uncommon. As a result, the proposed language, if applied indiscriminately, will result in the redirection of downstream flows in unstable areas such as South Kona where watercourses are still very immature. The County will then be liable for any resulting flood damages. Further, would a property owner have to improve a channel if he just wants line a channel to protect his property from erosion? We see little benefits and a lot of risks and costs to a property owner to have this provision. Alteration or relocation of watercourses must be done prudently and analyzed on a case by case basis by a licensed engineer to ensure that there is minima] disturbance of natural flow pattern onto adjacent properties. Sec. 27-16(f): We would like [o add a new section labeled 27-16(f)(3) be added that would read as follows: f~ Whenever a nronosed alteration or relocation occurs within a snecial f[nnd nroa that inap chance the base Rood elevation, technical and scientific data through the Conditional Letter of Man Revision yroceess shall be submitted to and by annroved by FEMA. Within six months of the completion of the alteration or relocation, the Federal Insurance Administration shall be notified through the Letter of Man Revision process in accordance with section 27-16(d) of this chanter. Sec. 27-17: We would like to revise the first paragraph of this section to read: Pre-construction and post-construction certification of elevation and floodproofing of new construction, improvements to repetitive loss structures, development, and substantial improvements within areas of special flood hazards and Zone X (shaded) shall be submitted to the director of public works and shall be maintained as a matter of public record. Page 4 of 8 BILL 51 DRAFT 3 DPW COMMENTS - 5/23/07 Sec. 27-18(c)(6): We do not believe that controlling the amount grading to be the best approach to address flooding and erosion. Chapter 10, 23 & 25 already addresses these issues in the urban environment. There are many other stormwatet management techniques that should be first considered, such as limiting the amount of impermeable surface and/or infiltration treatments to retain a given volume of water rather than just limiting the amount of grading which will have many serious unintended consequences. We suggest discussing this matter further with Planning Department and DPW. Should this issue be pursued in it's present form, we will need to discuss impacts with our Planning Department, Real Property Division and Finance Department as the 10 and 20 percentage requirements seems to have no economic or technical justification that we can see. Sec. 27-18(d): We would like to add a new section labeled 27-18(d)(5) be added that would read as follows: (51 Within Zone X (shaded): f~ For new construction. the lowest floor shall be elevated at least one foot above the hi¢hest adjacent ¢rade. f~ New construction shall be required to provide adequate drainaee paths around structures on slopes to ruide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures. Sec. 27-18(d): There is no economic or technical justification that we are aware of that warrants raising elevations by a minimum of 1-foot. FEMA's repetitive loss data shows that damages are reoccurring in coastal high hazard areas (V & VE), yet these zones do not have the additional 1-foot requirement that have been applied to the other zones. Sec. 27-18(e): We would like to revise this section to read: All new construction, improvements to repetitive loss structures and substantial improvement within areas of special flood hazard and Zone X shaded shall be certified as required by the standards of section 27-17. Sec. 27-20(a): We would like to revise this section to read: (a) All subdivisions and other developments within areas of special flood hazards, Zone X (shaded). and flood-prone areas shall: Sec. 27-20(a)(4): This section may be in violation with the NFIP; and needs to be discussed with State NFIP Coordinator. Sec. 27-20(d): The changes may be in violation with the NFIP; and needs to be discussed with State NFIP Coordinator. Page 5 of 8 BILL 51 DRAFT 3 DPW COMMENTS - 5/23/07 Sec. 27-20(a)(1): The Department should not be the repository of all government permits. Under the Freedom of Information Act we will now be responsible to provide copies of these permits to the public. It is our goal to have DPW permits filed electronically. However, we should not be liable for nor bear the cost of keeping permit files and making copies requested by the public for permits issued by the State and Federal governments. Further, should this condition be retained the Department of Public Works does not have the hardware, software or expertise to address the storage of electronic copies. The implementation of this requirement needs to be discussed with the Data System Department. Sec. 27-20(a)(2): Subdivisions greater than 2 lots or 1 acre will now include many "mom & pop" subdivisions that are dividing their property for estate purposes. This requirement will require them to pay for atechnical/scientific flood study meeting with the approval of FEMA that may extend fat beyond [he limits of their property. The current minimum size was thought to be large enough to absorb the cost for a flood study. However, because we have parcels of very large size, the five acre limit is already causing difficulties for some family subdivisions. We can see no economic, technical or scientific justification that warrants this change. Sec. 27-20(e): This section will be inconsistent with identical sections found in Chapter 23 and 25. This inconsistency may render both laws to be unenforceable. This issue should be further discussed with Corporation Counsel. It must also be noted that this requirement will be required and enforced by the Planning Director. Sec. 27-20(g): The rational for the requirement fails to recognize that there aze many azeas in Puna, Hamakua, Kau as well as other locations that do not have or have very few downhill urban azeas yet there are no exceptions. The proposed drainage improvement standazd for agricultural subdivisions will be more stringent than urban subdivisions as proposed by Section 27- 20(e). This is counter-intuitive and has no technical or scientific justification. Consequently, the design requirements established by this section for agriculture seems to be arbitrary and capricious. Further, the requirement to address existing rainfall contradicts a fundamental engineering/legal principle that a property owner cannot be held responsible for what is naturally occurring. If drainage design standazds for agricultural subdivision are to be considered, this matter should be discussed with the Planning Department, Department of Reseazch and Development, SWCDs, NRCS, State Dept. of Agriculture, State Dept. of Land & Natural Resources and other stakeholders. Page 6 of 8 BILL 51 DRAFT 3 DPW COMMENTS - 5/23/07 Sec. 27-23(b): The changes may be in violation with the NFIP; and needs to be discussed with State NFIP Coordinator. Sec. 27-24(d) We would like to revise this section to read: (d) New construction, improvements to repetitive loss structures, and substantial improvements within the general floodplain shall satisfy the requirements set forth for Zones AE, AH, AO, X (shaded). or VE as is determined to be applicable by the director of public works based on base flood information and floodway data obtained through subsections 27-24(a) and 27-24(b). Sec. 27-24(e): There is no economic, scientific or technical justification that we are aware of that warrants raising elevations by a minimum of 1-foot. Further, the proposed language will result in a contradiction with section 27-23(b) as structures within V and VE zones do not have this 1-foot elevation requirement. If this section is to be retained, we suggest revising the section to read: (e) The director of public works may waive informational requirements if the director of public works has sufficient information to make an evaluation and determination regarding flood elevation or may request further information, including a detailed flood elevation study and a drainage report, to evaluate flood risks and determine the applicability of flood construction and development standards except that all structures within Zones AE AH. AO, or X (shaded) shall be at least one foot above the approved base flood elevation. Sec. 27-24(h): The intent of this requirement is vague, uncleaz and seems to make no sense. The word "elevation" is being misused and needs to be deleted. Base flood is a design parameter used to determine the amount of water a drainage facility can carry. Base flood elevation is a term use to describe the depth of flow at a particulaz location so base flood elevation has no meaning in the design of a drainage facility. It is unclear why or for what purpose the phrase "for disposal of stormwater" is included. We need to know the intent and purpose of this section before we are able to make a definitive analysis or suggest appropriate language. Sec. 27-25(a): This section addresses improvements adjacent to drainage facilities outside Special Flood Hazard. In many cases the drainage facility will be a minor structure such as a drywell or a Swale or ditch. The proposed change will mandate a property owner to pay for an engineered flood study regardless of whether it is needed or not. It should be within the Director's discretion and professional expertise to determine when such a study is needed. Page 7 of 8 BILL 51 DRAFT 3 DPW COMMENTS - 5/23/07 Sec. 27-25(d): The intent of this requirement is vague, unclear and seems to make no sense. The word "elevation" is being misused and needs to be deleted. Base flood is a design parameter used to determine the amount of water a drainage facility can carry. Base flood elevation is a term use to describe the depth of flow at a particular location so base flood elevation has no meaning in the design of a drainage facility. It is unclear why or for what purpose the phrase "for disposal of stormwater" is included. We need to know the intent and purpose of this section before we are able to make a definitive analysis or suggest appropriate language. Page 8 of 8 Page 1 of 1 McClure, Bruce From: Yugawa, Clayton Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:37 PM To: McClure, Bruce; Kuba, Galen; Torigoe, Ivan; Whittington, Noelani Cc: Rad, Karl Subject: FW: Data Systems: Chapter 27 -County Database Repository Bruce et al, To be included in your submission, regarding Chapter 27. The changes to Chapter 27 relative to the Data Systems' area of responsibility would be difficult to have implemented by the passing of the ordinance. Additionally, having the County as the responsible repository of all documents and permits would tx; an enormous liability. County Systems and documents as listed in "m° -Page 2.of the Amendment: Real Property System -Standalone application with the complete TMK billing information. Created and supported by a Private Vendor. Accessible via the Intemet. County GIS System -Data Systems and Planning GIS repository. Some information on the Intemet. Building Permits System -Standalone application customized and written by a Private Vendor. Accessible via the Real Property website. Grading and Grubbing Permits are paper copies stored and filed in Public Works. Not accessible by the public. Planning Permits System -Integrated module with the FRESH system. Accessed and updated by Planning Dept. Not accessible by the public. Watershed maps, Floodplains, FEMA floodplain elevations and Floodplain Certificates -Paper maps, no GIS Layers at Public Works. Not accessible by the public. Document Management System - RFP stages (estimated cost anywhere from $150K - $500K). To be implemented by Fall of 2007. Getting the Federal and State offices to buy into this process would be challenging, as well as insuring that we get the proper documents in a timely manner. We could make the customer responsible for this task, but again, the liability for NOT having the proper and timely information would Ue the County's responsibility. At present the systems are not integrated as they were created and written by separate vendors at different times with no plans for interagency data sharing. The objective would be to create an application that would encompass all systems, as well as integrate the separate pieces of documentation. One search, one database, one place to look, would be ideal. Unfortunately, a system such as this would take years to plan and develop, even with adequate fiscal and personnel support. Additionally, most of these applications were just recently developed (i.e. -Building Permits activated in 2004, Planning Permits activated in 2005, etc) for the County departments. I would recommend that we continue with the existing procedures, until we can work towards a more unified, comprehensive database in the future. Clayton 5/22/2007