Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0598.036 2006-2008 Page 1 of 2 P/Pw~rRc Murashige, Laura From: David M. Ross, Jr. [services@rekona.com] t~~-.~• I'l Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:03 AM ?9~~ ~n,G,"t 3 phi 12 13 To: 'David M. Ross, Jr.'; 'Brenda Ford'; counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hf't95~ ti8a Cc: 'Angel Pilago"Bob Jacobsen"DominicYagong;'Donald Ikeda'; 'Emily I(~lafi}e''.J" LE~'~n Yoshimoto'; 'Pete Hoffmann'; 'Stacy Higa' ~UN~`~ ' IG t-1, ~'!r4]~ Subject: RE: 48207_COH_2007_FLOOD MANAGEMENT_BILL51-151; DRAFT TESTIMONY TO THE PWIRC COMMITTEE 4DEC07; Attachments: 2007_1204 PWC_ommittee_DMR_TESTIMONY_FINAL.PDF; 2007 1204_PWC_ommittee DMR_TESTIMONY DRAFT1.pdf; 2007_1115_FEMA_L111507 sh (2).pdf; DCAB-Summary_Bill_151 _6_ pdf; DCAB-BILL_151_Analysis _6_ pdf This is a resend with all supporting documents. My apologies for the earlier omission. David M. Ross, Jr., PE, Ross Engineering,Inc., 77-6219A Kaumalumalu Dr, Holualoa, Hawaii 96725 Te11:808-322-7152; Fax1:866-456-4408 toll free; Te12:866-324-3173 toll free Email: services a rekona,com Confidentiably Nole: This email, and any attachment [o i[, contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual (s) or entity named on the a-mail. If the reader of this a-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering rt to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading this a-mail is strictly prohibited- If you have received this a-mail in error, please immedalely return it to the sender and delete it from your system. From: David M. Ross, Jr. [mailto:services@rekona.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:36 AM To: 'Brenda Ford (bford@co.hawaii.hi.us)'; (counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us) Cc: 'Angel Pilago (kapilago@co.hawaii.hi.us)'; 'Bob Jacobsen (jjaco@co.hawaii.hi.us)'; 'Dominic Yagong (dyagong@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)'; 'Pete Hoffmann (phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us)'; 'Stacy Higa (shiga@co.hawaii.hi.us)' Subject: FW: 48207_COH_2007_FLOOD_MANAGEMENT_BILL51-151; DRAFT TESTIMONY TO THE PWIRC COMMITTEE 4DEC07; Attached please find Testimony and supporting documents for the 4Dec07 PWIRC meeting at 300PM David M. Ross, Jr., PE, Ross Engineering,Inc., 77-6219A Kaumalumalu Dr, Holualoa, Hawaii 96725 Te11:808-322-7152; Fax1:866-456-4408 toll free; Te12:866-324-3173 toll free Email: services@rekona.com Confidentiality Note. This email, and any attachment to il, contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual (s) or entity named on the a-mail. If the reader ofthis a-mail is not the intended recipient, or [he employee or agem responsible for delivering it to the imended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading this a-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this a-mail in error, please immediately return it to [he sender and delete it from your rystem. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 /Virus Database: 269.16.13/1164 -Release Date: 12/2/2007 11:30 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Comm. NO. '7 9 Checked by AVG Free Edition. 1 G Ref. To, Re£ Date D~,_.._._.-_ 12/3/2007 Page 2 of 2 Version: 7.5.503 /Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 -Release Date: 12/2/2007 8:34 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 /Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 -Release Date: 12/2/2007 8:34 PM 12/3/2007 , . ROSS ENGINEERING, INC. PI 1 p'VING CIAII 1 NGINEFRING PNO1 P('l ~I:ANTGI:>IL[~ I December 3, 2007 Councilwoman Brenda Ford Chair-Public Works Committee Hawaii County Council- Kona Office 75-5706 Hanama Place Suite 109 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Tel: (808) 326-5684 Fax: (808)329-4786 Subject: Bill 151 -Flood Management; Follow-on 21s` Session; PWIRC Meeting -December 4, 2007 Ad Hoc Committee Formation Issue Review and Recommendations Aloha Chairperson Ford and PWIRC Committee Members, I received notice of the next PWIRC meeting and wanted to follow-up previous testimony on the way forward for flood management regulations for our County. On 7Nov07, we gave testimony and recommended practices that will help achieve better legislation and more open, equiltble, and responsible government. I am hoping that as we fol low the processes recommended below, we can determine supportfor each proposed revision based on merit, as soon as we are able to clearly evaluate and defend that merit. SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING BASIS -EVALUATION FRAMEWORK • REQUIRE TECHNICAL SUPPORTING DATA -DOCUMENTATION o Provide thorough research and supporting data based on consultation with qualified experts. o Identify sources of data, with contact information wherever possible so follow-up can be done by others as needed. • PROVIDE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS o Provide an assessment of positive and negative impacts resulting from the proposed legislation, including social, economic, cultural and environmental impacts o Provide Cost/Benefit Ana]yses o Ensure a legal review has been performed o Avoid wasting time and resources by prematurely proposing flawed legislation before analysis has been completed. • ENGAGE AFFECTED COMMUNITY GROUPS o Inform and engage the community that may be impacted prior to submitting proposed '_00~ ru1 YNl omminee UAffi R~~plOA1' IIV 4L M~ "17~219n RAUAtAl Ill.-ll U DRIVG • ] IOLC ALUA. I IAU~'AII y6~.~ TOLL. FRLiC H6G-3?~-171 'I'Ii1. ftOR-323-71 i3 ]'A3. 866-1i6-4Jpe C-MAIL services~c rclmnn corn legislation. o Work cooperatively with interested parties to provide responses to their concerns. • REQUIRE TIMELY SUBMISSION FOR THOROUGH REVIEW o Make documentation supporting proposed regulations available for review by interested parties well in advance of the council meetings so proper public comment can be given. o Defer action on consideration of regulations when documentation is not made available to the public at least two (2) weeks in advance of consideration by committee/council. o Evaluate and provide appropriate time for • Review of proposals by the public • Response to proposals by the public • EVALUATE PRIORITIES FOR LIMITED RESOURCES o Consider strategic use of valuable public and private resources (staff and consultant time). o Avoid wasting resources due to poor processes and procedures as experienced in the recent Bill 51/151 discussions over the last 6-9 months • LIMIT FLOOR AMENDMENTS TO MINOR EDITS As you know, the Hawaii State FEMA coordinator in Honolulu, Carol Tyau-Beam, has stated that Hawaii County has the most stringent Flood management standards in the State of Hawaii. Therefore, as we consider raising the standards further, we need ensure proper review is carefully done before moving forward. In particular, I am re-submitting for the record, a copy the letter from the Hawaii State Disabilities and Communication Access Board (DCAB) written October 11, 2007 opposing provisions of Bill 15] that would require a 12" rise in elevation on all properties constructed in the "X-Zone". The handicapped community is one of the "Affected Community Groups" that needs to be considered in any revisions to our code. Please forward a copy of this document to the Ad Hoc committee that is under consideration at this time. I hope to make my presentation personally via teleconference on Tuesday afternoon. If not, please accept this written testimony on my behalf Aloha, David M. Ross Jr. P.E. Civil Engineer Member, Hawaii Society of Professional Engineers, Kona-Kohala Chapter Cc: County Council Members Bruce McClure Galen Kuba Mayor Harry Kim Attachments: DCAB Staff Summary (2 pages) & Analysis (3 pages). Committee on Facility Access, Meeting of October 11, 2007, Opposition to Bill 151 1 _W YN f' o uun:e 11,AIR "II CI IAIU]1 FlV AL Jni 77fi2IYA KAl iA1AI 1 ~~I1LU DILIVI~. • I IUIL ALUA. I IAW_4II 46T_5 "POLL PRlii 865-321-3173 ll.l. riUA-323-71.13 I~AX. Shy-Jib-JJOS F -M 411 scrv iccr¢~dmmn <om LAUM H. THIELEN LINDA LINGLE 5~.+~r°^•:~1 N, bOAxp Ci I.WD~ANp~N"TURAL Pk90U0.CFs fAVERNOR OFHAWNI A~ ~\858 LWVAlS510H ON WATC0. Pl30GR[E MANAGP.ALLNT N ''3. KUSSELL V.ISUJI FWSf OEViY O\~~NdR/ gI ? ~ KEN C. KAWAHAM O 9E wPOIY OIPFCM0.. WRTFA j~ ~ A%1AlICySGMCL4 bd'ff CIg1.,,-•Tr.,.• 0' GOATO%i ANOOCF.UI gECRFATION '88~®.,yp. WE~ "ImFwuwcouvfrANCPs COM~SION ON WATEp RkSOURCE MANAOEAff.Nf ]FJIVATpN q"p COASTAL IANDb STATE OF HAWAII CON9FRVATpN ANG 0.tSONLCE9 ENEORCFMENT CNGdEFRIM ruusTRr,wo wnGl.rcR DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ""'O0.K PR~Fa°A"°" rtaie of HaHRa I(AIIO]IA WE LSLAIN RF9FAVE Cp.IMLtSRNJ InNO ENGMEERMG DI V 1510N \T"~ """N" POST OFFICE 60X 373 HONOLULU. HAWAII 96809 November 15, 2007 Honorable Stacy K. Higa Hawaii County Council Member, District 4 Ben Franklin Building 333 Kilauea Avenue 2ntl Floor Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Council Member Higa: Bill 51 Draft 6- Proposed Amendments to Chapter 27 On November 9, 2007, we received from your office via electronic transmission, Draft 6 of Bilf 51 -Proposed Amendments to Chapter 27 (attached). Thank you for providing our Department with the opportunity to review and comment on the subject Bi11. Although Hawaii County's current effective floodplain management ordinance includes provisions that exceed the minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards, some basic required language was missing thus prompting your Community to update your Chapter 27. We are pleased to report that the current Bill 51, Draft 6 (attached) addresses all of our concerns and recommendations. In addition, it appears that your Community has elected to generate additional language that further raises the standards for floodplain development in your Community. The following Community added language that exceeds the minimum floodplain development requirements, are consistent with the intent of the NFIP regulations and has been found to be acceptable. Section Descri lion Definition "Substantial Improvement" -Cummulative Substantial Improvement (CSI) increased from 3 ears to 10 ears. Definition "Buffer Zones" -new definition added to include an area 50 feet beyond the S ecial Flood Hazard Area SFHA , effeciivet increasin the SFHA. Definition "Repetitive Loss StructureN -new definition and development requirements added. §27-18(d) Elevation and Floodproofing -One foot freeboard has been added to the re uirements for deveio ment within a SFHA and Buffer Zones. §27-23(e) Standards for Coastal High Hazard Areas -Prohibition of any fill in V and VE zones. Council Member Higa November 15, 2007 Page 2 We commend Hawaii County Council for your efforts to make your Community more flood resistant by proposing a stricter flood ordinance. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (808) 587-0267. Sincerely, CAROL L. TY BEAM, P.E., CFM State NFIP C dinator CTB:ek Attachments c: Eric T. Hirano, DLNR Engineering Division Bruce McClure, DPW, Hawaii County Galen Kuba, DPW, Hawaii County Cynthia McKenzie, FEMA Region IX BILL 151 ANALYSIS/CONCERN Section 27-8. Other laws and regulations: Staff would assume this also includes the Fair Housing "Al] construction and improvements subject to this Act Accessibility Guidelines chapter shall comply with other applicable laws and regulations" Section 27-8. Other laws and regulations: New construction is required to comply with the Fair "This chapter ...shall take precedence over any less Housing Act. Is this section claiming it will take restrictive, conflicting laws, ordinances, and precedence over FHAAG or does new construction still regulations." have to comply with both? This chapter's requirements for Zone X (unshaded), does not allow new construction required to comply with the Fair Housing Act the site impracticability exception in the FHAAG #l, Section 2(b). (To be discussed in more detail below). Section 27-12. Definitions: The phrases "temporary condition" and "any source" "Flood, flooding, or floodwater" means: used in the definition are so general and vague that it 1. A general and temporary condition of partial or applies to almost any circumstance and cause. complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: B. The unusual and rapid accumulation of run off or surface waters from any source Section 27-12. Definitions: The wording, "any land" and "any source", is too broad "Floodplain or flood-prone area" means any land area and vague. Almost every piece of property at one time susceptible to being inundated by water from any or another can be said to be "flood-prone" since the source (see definition of "flooding"). definition of flooding is "a temporary condition of partial inundation from any source of water". Section 27-12. Definitions: This definition includes "physical handicap" within a [n the definition of "hardship" this section states: category which describes "opinions and outlooks" such "Inconvenience, aesthetic considerations, physical as aesthetic consideration or personal preference. The handicaps, personal preferences, or the disapproval of Bill must allow disability as a variance to comply with one's neighbors likewise cannot, as a rule, qualify as the Americans with Disabilities Act Title II. exceptional hardships. All of these problems can be (See analysis of article 5, variance) solved through other means, without granting a variance. This is so even if the alternative means are more expensive or complicated than building with a variance, or if hey require the property owner to put the parcel to a different use than originally intended, or to build elsewhere." Section 27-12. Definitions: This appears to include alterations built between May "New construction" for floodplain management 5, 1982 and the present. Would alterations now require purposes, means structures for which the "start of the entire structure to be brought into compliance or construction" commenced on or after May 5, 1982 and only that portion which is being altered? includes an subse uent im rovements to such structures. Section 27-[2. Definitions: FEMA defines the `base flood' as the "flood having a "Zone X (shaded)" is an area of: one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in 1. Moderate flood hazard corresponding to azeas of the any given year. This is the regulatory standard also five-hundred-year floodplain; referred to as the 100-year flood". The 'base flood 2. Areas of on-hundred-year flooding where average level' or 'base flood elevation' is the "computed depths are less than one-foot; elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise 3. Areas ofone-hundred-yeaz flooding where the during the base flood". contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; and Based on these definitions it appears the chance of any 4. Areas protected from the one-hundred-year flood by flooding is extremely rare, less than one-percent over a levees span offive-hundred years. The amount of flooding in Zone X (shaded) azeas is less than one foot every one- hundred years and less than one squaze mile in azea. Standazds for construction outlined for Zone X shaded and unshaded are above and beyond the standards set by the National Flood insurance program. Bill 51 (also under review by staff), does not include any special construction requirements for the Zone X shaded and unshaded. Section 27-12. Definitions: FEMA defines the `base flood' as the "flood having a "Zone X (unshaded)" is an azea of minimal flood one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in hazard corresponding to areas outside of the five- any given year. This is the regulatory standard also hundred-year floodplain. Base flood elevations or referred to as the 100-year flood". The `base flood depths have not been determined for Zone X level' or 'base flood elevation' is the "computed (unshaded). elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base flood". The definition of "minimal" in the dictionary is "the least possible"; thus, it is fair to say "minimal flood hazard" can be said to mean the least possible flooding hazard or little likelihood of a flood hazard. Since no base flood elevations or depths have been determined this zone does not have any special construction requirements in Bill 51. Section 27-18. Standards for construction. Bill 151 differentiates between the three areas as listed a. Special flood hazard areas as it appeazs that the Standazds for construction to be b. Other areas: Zone X (shaded) consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program c. Within Zone X (unshaded) only recognizes "special flood hazard areas" (which is why Bill 51 does not include any special construction requirements for the Zone X shaded and unshaded.) Standards for construction outlined for Zone X shaded and unshaded are above and beyond the standards set by the National Flood insurance program. Section 27-18. Standards for construction. It is not clear how the re uirement to raise the lower b. Other areas: Zone X (shaded) floor two feet was determined. If there is no flood base For new construction, the lowest floor shall be level determined, what if the flood base level is 3 feet elevated at least two feet above the adjacent above grade for a property? Requiring the building to grade. be 2 feet above grade will still have the lower floor 2. For concrete basements with habitable room(s), within a flood zone. Similazly, if the base flood level is the sill plate shall be at least one foot above the at the grade level of a property, chances that the flood adjacent grade. level will be that high is "minimal" as the definition of 3. New construction shall be required to provide Zone X (shaded) is "where average depths are less than drainage around and away from proposed one-foot" within one-hundred-years. structures. 4. The director or designated representative may Item 4 appears to put the burden on the owner or wave this requirement when topographical data developer [o prove that the property is not within a or evidence, submitted by a civil engineer or flood area and to take on the cost of having a survey land surveyor currently licensed in the State of done on the property. Hawaii, indicates that there are no apparent flood hazards to the proposed structure. This provision, i.e. subsection 27-18(b), upon approval of this ordinance, shall take effect on March 31, 2008. Section 27-18. Standards for construction. Since Zone X (unshaded) does not have an established c. Within Zone X (unshaded) base flood elevation, new construction required to I. For new construction, the lowest floor shall be comply with the Fair Housing Act will not be able to elevated at least one foot above the adjacent apply the site impracticability exception of FHAAG #1, grade. Section 2(b) which states: 2. For concrete basements with habitable room(s), "Site impracticability due to unusual characteristics. the sill plate shall be at least one foot above the Unusual characteristics include sites located in a adjacent Bade. federally-designated floodplain or coastal high-hazard 3. New construction shall be required to provide area and sites subject to other similar requirements of drainage around and away from proposed law or code that the lowest floor or the lowest structures. structural member of the lowest floor must be raised to 4. The director or designated representative may a specified level at or above the base flood elevation. " wave this requirement when topographical data or evidence, submitted by a civil engineer or It is not clear how the requirement to raise the lower land surveyor currently licensed in the State of floor one foot was determined. If there is no flood base Hawaii, indicates that there aze no apparent level determined, what if the flood base level is 3 feet flood hazazds to the proposed structure. This above grade for a property? Requiring the building to provision, i.e. subsection 27-18(b), upon be one foot above grade will still have [he lower floor approval of this ordinance, shall take effect on within a flood zone. Similarly, if the base flood level is March 31, 2008. at the grade level of a property, chances that the flood level will be that high is "minimal" as the definition of Zone X (unshaded) "is an area of minimal flood hazard corresponding to areas outside of the five-hundred-year floodplain." Item 4 appears to put the burden on the owner or developer to prove that the property is not within a flood area and to take on the cost of having a survey done on the property. Section 27-20. Standards for subdivisions and other The bill does not establish or define what constitutes developments "an indication of flood hazard". Appeazs to leave the b. Other areas; Zone X (shaded and unshaded). sole discretion to the administrator if there are no All new subdivisions and other developments parameters defined especially if the definition of a within areas designated as Zone X (shaded) or flood-prone azea is "any land susceptible to being Zone X (unshaded) shall comply with the inundated by water from any source". (Also see following: definition of flooding.) 2. if the floodplain administrator determines that there are indications of flood hazard present, the floodplain administrator shall require the applicant to determine the base flood elevations. Section 27-27. Criteria for variances. This definition includes "physical handicap" within a 3. Variances shall only be issued upon: category which describes "opinions and outlooks" such B. A determination that failure to grant the as aesthetic consideration or personal preference which variance would result in exceptional "hardship" can be changed readily, unlike one's physical to theapplicant. Under this criteria, the condition. This section assumes the cost of a ramp or hazdship that would result from failure to grant elevator is within the means of a home owner. It is a requested variance must be exceptional, additional cost to someone who is disabled versus unusual, and peculiar to the property involved. someone who is not. A ramp that must take someone Economic or financial hardship alone is not one foot is twelve to sixteen feet as the ADAAG exceptional. Inconvenience, aesthetic minimum is a slope of 1:12, however a slope of 1:16 is consideration, physical handicaps, personal recommended. The cost of an elevator in a single preferences, or the disapproval of one's family home can cost almost as much as the home neighbors cannot, generally, qualify as itself. exceptional hardship. Under this criteria, for example, a member of a household is The definition of new construction also appears to physically handicapped and wants a variance to include alterations. If you are adding a room or build a dwelling at grade or at a lower level for addition, the cost to add an elevator will in all access purposes. A variance should not be likelihood cost more than the alteration. Even the issued because the owner can construct a ramp ADAAG allows an exception to alterations to areas of or elevator to meet flood requirements. primary function in which a person or entity is not Elevation will allow the infirm or handicapped required to spend more than 20% of the cost of the person to be evacuated in the early stage of alteration to that primary function area. A ramp could flooding, and, if there is insufficient warning or cost more than 20% depending on the cost of the help in evacuating that person, then, in all construction. This would appear to be more stringent likelihood, he can survive the flood by simply than the ADA and ABA. remaining in the home safely above the levels of floodwaters. The reason given that the higher elevation will allow a disabled person to be evacuated in the eazly stage of flooding does not make sense. What does the elevation have to do with evacuation? The rationale that the elevation would allow the person to survive a flood, if a person cannot be evacuated and is left in the home, does not make sense. If flood levels are life threatening they will be high enough to submerge someone who is in a wheelchair for instance. How does a height of one foot make enough of a difference to affect life safety? The base flood level has not been determined for Zone X (unshaded). What if it is more than one foot above rode? The re uirement in Zone X unshaded to raise the level one foot above grade could still leave the lower floor of a building or home within the flood level. 4~ o F h1 M1r •1060 1 DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ACCESS BOARD ~ 919 Ala Moana Boulevazd, Room 101 • Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 ya Ph. (808) 586-8121 (V/TDD) • Fax (808) 586-8129 hN~'M STAFF SUMMARY FOR THE DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ACCESS BOARD STANDING COMMITTEE ON FACILITY ACCESS MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2007 TOPIC: County of Hawaii Bill 151; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27, FLOOD CONTROL, HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO FLOODPLAINS AND OTHER FLOOD HAZARD AREAS. BACKGROUND: Bill 151 establishes Zone X as a "flood hazard or flood prone" area and requires new 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 aflood-prone area. DCAB received a request to review the County of Hawaii Bill 151, as there is concern that the bill will reduce accessibility for persons with disabilities to new homes built within Hawaii County. Bill 151 goes beyond the requirements in Bill 51 that establishes a Zone for "flood zone or plain" to conform to the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Proponents of Bill 151 see the bill as a way to help prevent flooding in new developments. Disability advocates feel the bill will be a detriment to disabled residents. Their concem is not 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 that will make it possible for a person with a mobility impairment to live in or to visit a home. The specific features of a "visitable" home are: wide passage doors, ahalf--bath or powder room on the ground floor and at least one zero-step entrance to the home on an accessible route with a firm surface 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 with maneuvering space on the main accessible level. ANALYSIS: The attached analysis discusses specific sections of the bill with regards to the definition of Zone X, the construction requirements for that Zone and variances. Although there is an `exemption', the exemption requires a property assessment at the cost of the developer. In the case of a single family home, the owner is usually the developer and will have to pay for the cost of the survey and analysis to show it is not required to raise the floor level of their new home, thereby adding more cost to the construction of new homes for individual 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 precluding the option to age in place when disability does occur later in life. In the case of amulti-family dwelling unit such as an apartment or condominium, the cost of the developer will be passed on to the buyer. Developers may not pay to have their property surveyed so they will raise the floor 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. Developers of new subdivisions are also worried about the added cost to construction that this bill may cause. A development within Zone X will not be able to apply for an exemption under the Fair Housing Act due to site impracticability. New construction required to comply with the Fair Housing Act, which requires an accessible route to the ground floor unit entrances and units accessed by elevator, will have added costs to provide additional grading or ramps to create those accessible routes since the bill requires the homes to be raised 12 to 24 inches above grade depending on the zoning of the property. There will be additional cost to developers to either get a survey done to ensure the property is not within a flood prone area or to provide ramps to new construction required to comply with the Fair Housing Act. Development in designated "flood plains or zones" in Bill 51 can apply the site impracticability exemption because they are in a zone with an established base flood level. However, in Bill 151 almost any parcel of land not in a special "flood plain" appears to be designated as Zone X. The burden of proof to show that a parcel of land is not prone to flooding will be placed on the property owner or developer. However, no base flood level has been determined for these zones, so it will be difficult to impossible to show that the property is not within a flood zone without a base flood level. The standards for construction being imposed on Zone X appear to be extreme given the fact that the chance of flooding is one-percent in one hundred years and less than one- percent in a five hundred year span. FEMA defines the `base flood' as the "flood having aone- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This is the regulatory standard also referred to as the 100-year 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 fact, it should allow a variance based upon disability status. An elimination of the option of a variance due to disability may run afoul of Title II of the ADA that requires state and local government entities to make "reasonable modifications to policies, practices and procedures (which would include an 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 be paying a higher cost than the general public to add ramps and or elevators to their homes as a variance will not be granted for reasons relating to a disability. For example, if a person requests a variance to build his or her home at grade to provide an accessible entry or zero-step entry, the variance would not be granted as the bill states "the owner can construct a ramp or elevator to meet flood requirements". The bill also has many ambiguities with respect to definition of flood hazard as well as land use categories, and the applicability to alterations. There is also no clear rationale for the one foot or two foot requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board submit testimony in opposition to Bill I51, as written, with the above comments as well as a detailed analysis. This Bill moves in the opposite direction as Maui County, which is looking to create more visitable standards for new housing developments. Staff further recommends that if amendments are made to the bill that DCAB re-visit the Bill to ensure that all the concerns are met.