Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0598.022 2006-2008 a•.M LAND USE RESEARCH ' FOUNDATION OF HAWAII 70o Bishop Street, Ste. t928 Honolulu, Hawaii g68t3 Phone 52t-4717 Fax ~bor32 September 9, 2007 The Honorable Pete Hoffman Council Chair 8 Presiding Officer and Members of the Hawaii County Council 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2"" Flaor Council Room Hilo, Hawaii 96720 counciitestimonv(a~co.hawaii.hi.us RE: Bill 151, Draft 2, Amendment to Chapter 27, Flood Control, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edfion, as Amended) Dear Chair Hoffman and Council Members, My name is David Arakawa, 6cecutive Director of the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii ("LURE°), a private, Wort-profd research and trade association whose members include major Hawaii landowners, devebpers and a utility company. One of LURF's missions is to advocate for reasonable and rational land use planning, legislation and regulation affecting common problems in Hawaii, such as housing, development, and transportation. LURE supports flood control legislation which is based on federal and state requirements, and would also support additional requirements which are based on scientific or engineering principles, practices and considerations. However, in the case, we must express our strong opposition to Bill 151, which is based on the following: • Bill 151 includes addiRional arbitrary requirements which are not based on scientfcc or engineering principles, practices and considerations; • The additional arbitrary requirements far exceed the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP")and other federel and state requirements; • The additional arbitrary requirements will result in additional costs and will be passed on and could result in price increases too high for Hawaii County residents who are first-time home buyers. • The additional arbitrary requirements restrict the use of private property; and • The additional arbitrary requirements thus constitute an unconstitutional taking of land." Comm: S g 22 Ref. To: Prat Ref. Dote SEP R 9RfF7 1 r BACKGROUND Problems with Council revisions to Bill 51. We understand that Bill 151 is an attempt by a Coundl member to address the problems and complications caused by Coundl revisions to Bill 51. We have been informed that Bill 51 was originally intended by the Hawaii County Department of Public Works Department ("DPIN~ to be a "housekeeping° measure, proposing revisions to the Hawaii County Code to ensure compliance with various Federal and State regulations induding those of the Federal Emergency Management Administration and that the original DPW draft bill satisfied the federal and state requirements. However, due to certain additional amendments made by Coundl members ("additional arbitrary requirements', professional engineers, developers and others have described Bill 51 as "extremety problematic,° and have raised, among other things, the following concerns regarding Bill 51: • Additional arbitrary requirements which are not based on scientrfic or engineering prindples, practices and considerations; • conflicts with existing law and rules; • Additional arbitrary design standards more restrictive than federal and state requirements; • Additional arbitrary tedmigl requirements based on ambiguous and undefined terms; • Additional arbitrary requiremerrts which restrict use of private property and increase costs of building affordable and market homes; • Procedural inaccuracies; • Potentially detrimental impacts. As a result of the overwhelming critidsm, several public informational meetings were held, which induded Coundl members, DPW representatives, professional engineers, the members of the community. The County did the right thing by allowing professional and public comments. New Bill 151. While the County allowed the professionals and public to attend informational meetings, it appears that the professional engineers and community did not take part in the drafting of this new Bill 151. As explained in the August 3, 2007 transmittal to the Coundl Chair, this new Coundl bill was created based on private discussions between one Council member, the administration and staff from two Hawaii County departments and the Office of the County Clerk. It is daimed that Bill 151 reflects the effort of this small group to satisfy the minimum NFIP requirements and includes "additional changes to Chapter 27 as well.° Many of these "additional changes,° however, are arbitrary and are not based on scientrfic or engineering principles, practices and considerations. As a result, Bill 151 is still plagued with the same critical flaws described above RECOMMENDATION LURF fully supports the original intent of the bill - to ensure oompliance with various federal and state regulations, and respectfully recommends that the Coundl pass an ordinance that exdusively addresses the requirements necessary for compliance with the NFIP. 2 CONCLUSION We have reviewed the most recent provisions of Bill 151, Draft 2, and have communicated with members of the professional engineers, the Hawaii community and developers. Based on this review, LURF is strongly opposed to this bill in its present form, for reasons including, but not limited to, the folbwing: • Bill 151 inGudes additional arbitrary requirements which are not based on scientific or engineering principles, practices and considerations; • The additional arbitrary requirements far exceed the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP") and other federal and state requirements; • The additional arbitrary requirements will resuR in additional costs will be passed on and could result in price increases too high for Hawaii County residents who are first-time home buyers. • The additional arbitrary requirements restrict the use of private property; and • The additional arbitrary requirements thus constitute an unconstitutional taking of land." Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on this matter. Cc: Corporation Counsel, County of Hawaii J:\CountieslCounty of HawailBill 511070906 Bill 157 Food Control.doc 3