COM 0176.101 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Chair and Members of the Hawaii County Council My name is George Atta and I represent the owners of a 49-acre project site in Kona. I am here to state our position that we aze opposed to Bill 51 draft #C~and Ordinance Amending Chapter 27, Flood Control, Hawaii County Code 1983, as amended, relating to storm water management. We think the bill is fundamentally flawed and should not be approved. Section 27-3 Purpose: In this section the new purpose (O) to require re-channelization to meet or exceed the base 100-yeaz flood is not an achievable goal. Channels vary in size naturally and most will overflow during a hundred yeaz storm. To re-channel all channels is impossible as there is a hierazchy of channels in a drainage system. Under Section 27-12. Definitions (22) the entire island of Hawaii is listed as a floodplain or flood-prone azea. This is patently not true and excessive. To put this excessive reach in the meaning of the term "flood-prone" azea makes the definition meaningless. Section 27-16 (d) requiring map revisions within 6 months of the flood study information is not a practical thing. It places an unrealistic deadline for a County staff that is already stretched thin. These map revisions take time and usually the Federal agencies take more time. Under Section 27-18: Standards for construction ©Filling (6) which places a 10% slope threshold for restricting site development to within 20% of the site including pazking, roadways and other surface features is too restrictive. This section also requires the owner to retain on site storm-water from a 100-yeaz storm. We think both the slope/site restriction and the lot coverage restriction are excessive. 10 percent slope is the vast majority of the lands on the Big Island since the island is made up of the major shield volcanoes Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea, Kilauea, Hualalai and the Kohala Mountains. These areas generally have slopes over 10%. This threshold is excessive and there is no scientific basis provided for the threshold. The condition requiring onsite storage of flows from a 100-year storm is excessive. Even nature does not have a standazd that retains site requirements to keep a 100-yeaz storm on site. In a hundred yeaz storm, nature herself does not follow the rule for retention of runoff from a 100-year storm. When such a storm occurs nearly all channels will overtop their banks and almost no site will retain the water onsite. It is not physically possible. To impose a requirement on landowners that even nature does not meet is impractical. Section 12, Chapter 24, article 4; section 27-20(a)(4) says all building construction will be at least a foot above the base flood elevation. This is not possible since the foundations have to be on the ground and the BFE is usually several feet above ground. The only way this could be achieved would be if all construction occurs on fill that is raised above the BFE. This is both expensive and excessive. y Comm. No. Ref. Tdr Ref. Date, 1 2007