Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0176.066 2006-2008 :'a;, i David M. Ross, Jr. From: David M. Ross, Jr. [services@rekona.comJ Serrt: Wetlnesday, October 31, 2007 1208 PM To; Pete Hoffmann (phoffmann@co.hawaii.hl.us) Cc: Angel Pilago (kapilago@co.hawa'si.hi.us); Bob Jawbsen (jjacoQco.hawaii.fii.us}; Brenda t` n d (bford@co.hawaii.hi.us); DominicYagon9 itlyagong@co.hawaii.hi.us); Donald Ikeda (dikeda@co.hawaii.hi.us); Emily I. Naeole (enaeole@co.hawaii.hi.us); J Yoshimoto (jyoshimoto@co.hawaii.hi.us); Stacy Higa (shiga@co.hawaii.hi.us) Subject: 48207_COH_2007_BILLS Bill_51_Flood Management; Request For Latest Draft Clf B I" ' ~ utt' 151 Attachments: 2007_1031_Hoffman_Flood_management_rev2.pdf; DCAB-Summary_Biil_151 _6_ pJf Re-send with two attachments Aloha Mr Hof!man, Attached please find mY letter requesting a wpy of Bi0 51 and Bill 151 Mahalo, David Ross r~ David M. Ross, Jr., PE, - Ross Engineeting,Tnc., 77-6219A 1Caumalumalu Dr, Holualoa, Hawaii 96725 Te11;808-322-7152;Fax1:866-456-4408 toll free; Te12:866-324.3173 iollfree Email: services rekgna.coxn ~ Can&dendWity Not: "Chis snail, end arty sRafimanl ra it ~rrtar>s privileged and cOnfld~ndel Wormation uM1er,ded only ror the use of chc ittiiv+d„ei o. ;r ~ n n in~~e i + I. matt. Sf the reader of N;S ema11 is na the irnen&d !ecipient, or the emplpyw or ayentmponsibk for deSkating is W the intrndm recipient, you att her'er~; > 1~ i 9 q r ~-:mi this a-matt i5 strictly psohLitA tf you tuna seceive2. th(se-mail m eror, please immediately serum it tp the sendtt asd daltte it $am your sysmn t No virus found in this outgoing message ~ l~ ~,ry. t Checked by AVG Free Edition. ~ e y Version: 7.5,503 /Virus Database: 269.15.16/1102 -Release Date: 10131/2007 A:38 PM No virug found in this outgoing message Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 /Virus Database: 269.15.16/1102 -Release Daze: ]0/3112007 4;38 PM ~ f ~ ~ i z.~- ~r~- ~ ~iL~ ~ ~2~ - ~ ~ Fo- o° _ - ~ Ica ~ a m t n1z 7 »nn7 ~ C1S ~l lri2es't~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ' ~~u,- ROSS ENGINEERING, INC. PL/, J: )iSNG CIV 3L FNGII:EFA7vG PAGIEGT MAN gGEMfi NT October 31, 2007 Chairran Pete HotTman Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 209 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Td L• (806) 889-2069 Waimea Tell; (808) 961-8225 Hilo Fax' (808) 961-8912 Hilo Subject: Bi1151/151 Flood Management Request Far Latest Draft Of Bi11 51 And Bill 151 Preparation For County Council Meeting On November 7th Final. Comparison Of Merits Of Both Bills Aloha Chairman Hoffman. My Warne is David Ross, and I am a member of the Hawaii Society of Professional Enr i r~l-,; Kona-Kohala Chapter (HSPE). I am writing to request a cagy of the final drafts of Bills 51 and 151 which will be conaidr.> er:. I t e County Council Meeting on Wednesday, Noverzlber 7`s. As you know, work on Flood Maztat;t r t1~ 1 legislation has been progressing over the last 8-10 months. An overview of key actions durir g th e last 3 months follows: August 22, 2007 Bill S 1- DRAFT4 Passed 1 reading 6-3 (Stacy Riga - Sponsar i Bil] 151 DRAFT2 Passed la` reading 5-4 (Brenda Ford - Sponsc r) i During the August 22°a meeting, I believe Bruce McClure announced he would attem;?t to ; a :u~. i extension from FEMA from September 30a' to November 30th, so an attempt to reconci`1 thy. remaining differences in the two versions of the Plood Management $ill could be male :l c obtain a time extension from FEMA, and in the mcantiune further work has been dune o::. ]3~1 51(Higa) and Bill 15] (Ford). I During the September 19th County Council meeting at Uae Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and 3;r 1; ; Bruce McClure announced that all work on both bills needed to be completed by Fnday Oct Ibar ~ 26°i, so the Bills could be agcndized for the November 7a' meeting. Tlns Would all: t3 3b r S weeks to complete any fiuther revisions. i a0er_iw »hM'imw [:,RrJ ~.~re;c+nn,i rzn., i7-6319A KgUMALUM.gLU DRIVE . HOLUALOA, IIA W.? Il 46725 TOLL rREE~ 865.31431?? TEL: AU%-322-7152 FAX' 866.656~ao% E•MAIb spviee; aS ekn~l:f.can .,m . Lettct to Council Chairman Pete Hoffman Request for Copies af$i1151l151 Flood Management October 31, 2007 Over the last months, DPW staff has been in discussion with representatives of Bi)1 5111-1 r well as Sill 151(Ford). On Friday October 12e', representatives of the AIA and F1SP:P. e et ~ r t DPW engineering staff in Kona to work on revisionslimprovements to Bi1151(Higa}. Du7inl i ; f hour working session, a number of improvements to the flood management ordinance w,ec r ; ; out, including a buffer zone solution to the proposed 1-ft rise problem. The :~~isabi.l r~, uaj Comntunicafions Access Board (DCAB) has written a letter in opposition to Bill 151. base ctl l.i issue (attached). On Saturday, DPW staff reported progress made during the meeting the day before, and the c o 1 r. £ was also incorporated into Bill 151 (Ford). On Friday, Oetobcr 19i4, $ruce McClure had a teleeonferrnce meeting from Kilo, ~+.:~,ae he reviewed further modifications to Bill 151 (Ford) that had been made by DPW staff Duri~ .1:, ~.a meeting, $ruce made clear that Brenda Ford had received the recommendations of the I'tF sag may revise Bill 1S 1 further as she deemed necessary- He let us know, that he expecte it all r. t ~ be complete by Friday October 26s'. Members of the HSPE have checked with the County last Fzday and learned that the 7inal ; k tl has not been made available by Brenda Ford. I understand that on Monday, OctoE er- 2!~, 20) 7. Stacy Higa submitted the latest draft of $il] 51, Tn order to make preparations for public rst: ru,:-~.~ next Wednesday, November 7s', we need any revisions to Bill 151 made to the DPW draft sti:n ;::1 1 ~ Bruce iv4cClure on October 19". Otherwise, we can not prepaze properly for this meeting. Good government is done in the open, with clear access to all information by all parties. After t1u s e long months of discussion, we hope to avoid last minute considerations by the Couric 1 dr.r 1 tF. e November 7`s Meeting. Bill 51 has been submitted to DPW for review and is rEa3 ~ 2r consideration. Please ask Brenda Ford to publish her last draft of Bill 151 immediatel;r sa ai:l fi v ° ~ an opportunity to review the particulars. i Thank you for your assistance in this matter. ~ lob@s~ avid M, Ross Jr. PE ~d'6 i Civi] Engineer ~ I i Attachments: DCAB 7retter to Mayor ICim, dated October 11, 2007 in opposition to Ei 1 151, Dratt4 CC: County Couttcil Members I $ruce McClure Galen lCuba Marc Botticelli, HSPE 1 Terry Dutilap, AIA 1 I 77fi219A lUUMALUMALli LSRIVE ~ HOLUALOq, NAWAa 96725 TOL& FRF,$- 8&i•?244;71 TGL~ BU6322-7152 Fnx- k66~t5b~t408 E-M,ULr swrioos(ih~okona.oorn Os 4i yr ,33~. 1 DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ACCES:~ 6i1~?I~ iD ~ 919 Ala Moans Boulevard, Boom !01 • Honolulu, Hawaii 964.1:; .,q ~x Ph. (808) 586 8121 (V/TDb) • Pax (808) 586 S 129 STAFF SI7MMARY FOR THE DISABILITY AND COMMCJN1CATlON ACCESS E C? ]'7 ) STANDING COMMITTEE ON FACILITY ACCESS MEETING OCTO$ER 11, 2007 T PIC County of Hawaii Sill 151; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27, I'':. 7C~ll CONTROL, HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS An!(ETI~.:I:'Ia_, RELATING TO FLOODPLAiN5 AND OTHER FLOOD [ lA7.ARD AREAS BACKGROUND: Bill 151 establishes Zone X as a "flood hazard or flood prone" arcs and requires nevv construction within Zone X to be built either two feet or one foot above the adjacent grade; depending upon the location, unless it can be shown that the property is not within a II oc~ci ; r n n area. DCAB received a request to review the County of Hawaii Bill 151, as there is co ncern t lin; the bill will reduce accessibility for persons with disabilities to new homes built within Ha~~ a i County. Bill 151 goes beyond the requirements in Bill S Z that establishes a Zone for "flood r ;:r or plain" to conform to the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Proponents of $ill 151 seethe bill as a way to help prevent flooding in new developmf nts. Disability advocates feel the bill will be a detriment to disabled residerrts. Their conce.-n is tit an ADA matter, per se, but rather concerns the topic of "visitability." The concept of "visitability" promotes the construction of single family homes to offer specific features the', il.:l make ii possible for a person with a mobility impairment to live in or to visit ahome- "the specific features of a "visitable" home are: wide passage doors, a half bath or powder r:wm o. the ground floor sad at least one zero step entrance to the home on an accessible route -n•itl, a Eton stuface not exceeding a 1:12 slope from a driveway or public sidewalk. Other features which are recommended include: reinforced walls for the installation of grab bars, electrical controls and outlets located within accessible reach ranges, one full bath and one bedroom ,ti i!i . maneuvering space on the main accessible level. ANAL?SIS: ~ I The attached analysis discusses specific sections of the bill with regazds to the definition of Zu, _ ~ X, the construction requirements for that Zone and variances. II Although there is an'exemption', the exemption requires a properly assessment at the cost of :V e developer. In the cast of a single family home, the owner is usually the developer and w ill ha to pay for the cost of the survey and analysis to show it is not required to raise the floor level : i ~ their new home, thereby adding more cost to the construction of new homes for individual i property owners. If a homeowner elevates his or her own home because he or she does not currently have a disability, the homeowner is not only eliminating visitors but is also pre~.,iud,:~g the option to age in place when disability does occur later in life. In the case of a multi farnil dwelling unit such as an apartment or condominium, the cost of the developer tx'ill be pea sed o to the buyer. Developers may not pay to have their property surveyed so they will raise the fl~~c levels in new construction automatically- The long term result will be more homes that are, inaccessible or, if accessible, made so with increased unnecessary costs. Developer; of'r r ~ i subdivisions are also worried about the added cost to construction that this bill may c:a~ts ~ . development within Zone X will not be able to apply for an exemption under the Fair Hou ;i ~.r!? Act due to site impracticability. New construction required to comply with the Fair Housin;'.:h c t, which requires an accessible route to the ground floor unit entrances and units accessed h}~ elevator, will have added costs to provide additional grading or ramps to create those acre<_s l;l s routes since the bill requires the homes to be raised 12 to 24 inches above grade dependin;=_ r r i t e zonirtg of the property. There will be additional cost to developers to either get a sun ey do ~ : • ensure the property is not within a flood prone area or to provide ramps to new consvuction required to comply with the Fair Housing Act. Development in designated "flood plains or zones" in Bi11 51 can apply the site imprctica'r:~. i exemption because they are in a zone with an established base flood level. However, tt Ei.il I almost any parcel of land not in a special "flood plain" appears to be designated as icae ' '!.c burden of proof to show that a parcel of land is not prone to flooding will be placed c, ~ thz property owner or developer. However, no base flood level has been determined for these z~:. ce;:, so it will be difficult to impossible to show that the property is not within a flood zone ~c-ith: n base flood level. The standards for construction being imposed on Zone X appear to b~ extr ct ne given the fact that the chance of flooding is one percent in one hundred years and less dean cn percent in a five hundred yeaz span. F)rMA defines the `base flood' as the "flood having., a car e percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This is the regulatory erurdan', also referred to as the 100 yeaz flood". The `base flood level' or `base flood elevation' is the "computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base flood°'. The bill specifically precludes a variance based upon disability status when, in fad, it should allow a variance based upon disability status. An elimination of the option of a variance due disability may run afoul of Title Il of the ADA that requires state and local governmen. cncir e s n r make `reasonable mod cations to policies, practices and procedures (which would inchtde cu . ordinance) when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability " (CFR §35.130(b)(7). Persons with disabilities who purchase or build a home will I e paying a higher cost than the general public to add ramps and or elevators to their homes as variance will not be granted for reasons relating to a disability. For example, if a perso 7 regr,c s s a variance to build his oz her home at grade to provide an accessible entry or zero step entn: d e I variance would not be granted as the bill states "the owner can construct a ramp or eleveto~ to meet flood requirements". The bill also has many ambiguities with respect to definition of flood hazard as well as Lrnc:l c II categories, and the applicability to alterafions. There is also no clear rationale for the one fso; , two foot requirement. j I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ~ Staff recommends the Board submit testimony in opposition to Bill 151, as written, will the' above cotnments as well as a detailed analysis. This Bill moves in the opposite direction as'.4f~i u County, which is looking to create more visitable standards for new housing developrre~;CS.:~ c a `.f further recommends that if amendments are made to the bill that DCAB re visit the Bill to ensu -e that all the concerns aze met.