HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0060.000 2010-2012 JNtY.es M ?!y
o
William P. Kenoi 4 ' 1'IJ William T. Takaba
Mayor �: t • Managing Director
, �•: Wally Lau
� Deputy Managing Director
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • (808) 961 -8211 • Fax (808) 961 -6553
KONA: 75 -5722 Hanama Place, Suite 102 • Kaihia -Kona, Hawai'i 96740
(808) 327 -3602 Fax (808) 326 -5663
January 3, 2011
w,
Honorable Dominic Yagong, Chairman -'
and Members of the County Council Y '
County of Hawaii LLw
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Yagong and Members:
Initiator: County Council, Bill No. 291, Draft 2
Amendment to Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended)
Relating to Tsunami Sirens
As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6- 4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the
County Council's consideration and action are the Leeward and Windward Planning
Commissions' letters and enclosures regarding the above - referenced request.
Sincerely,
William P. Kenoi
Mayor
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department
Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Comm. No. (0
Ref. To: H -55 PS L'
Ref Dare -- Uft 19 Zat'-
-4 0!
0!!!h
�Tf OF•NF,•F1
County of Hawaii
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone(808)961 -8288 • Fax(808)961 -8742
t\ � 3
The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawai `i
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members:
Initiator: County Council, Bill No. 291, Draft 2
Amendment to Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended)
Relating to Tsunami Sirens
The Leeward Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on November 24, 2010, considered the
County Council's request for an amendment to Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition as
V,OF of
E of Nr
County of Hawaii
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone(808)961 -8288 • Fax(808)961 -8742
The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawai `i
25 Aupum Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members:
Initiator: County Council, Bill No. 291, Draft 2
Amendment to Chapter 25, Hawai `i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended)
Relating to Tsunami Sirens
The Leeward Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on November 24, 2010, considered the
County Council's request for an amendment to Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition as
amended) relating to tsunami sirens.
The Commission voted to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council on the request.
We have enclosed a copy of the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation Report, as well as
a transcript of the hearing for your information.
Sincerely,
Frederic Housel, Chairman
Leeward Planning Commission
IcouncilinitiatedtsynamisirensLWPC
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department — Kona
Amy Self, Esq.
Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
County of Hawaii
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Aupuni Center f 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 f Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone (808) 961 -8288 f Fax (808) 961 -8742
JAN
The Honorable Dominic Yagong, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Yagong and Council Members:
Initiator: County Council, Bill No. 291, Draft 2
Amendment to Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended)
Relating to Tsunami Sirens
The Windward Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on December 14, 2010, considered
the County Council's request for an amendment to Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition
as amended) relating to tsunami sirens.
The Commission voted to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council on the request.
We have enclosed a copy of the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation Report, as well as
a transcript of the hearing for your information.
Sincerely,
Rell Woodward, Chairman
Windward Planning Commission
lcouncilinitiatedtsynamisirensW WPC
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department — Kona
Amy Self, Esq.
Hawai 'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
NOVEMBER 24, 2010
A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 25, RELATING TO TSUNAMI SIRENS was called to order at 11:31 a.m. in the
King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Ballroom I, 75 -5660 Palani Road, Kailua -Kona, Hawaii,
with Chairman Frederic Housel presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frederic Housel, Brandi Beaudet, Lani Bowman, Thomas
Hickcox and Richard Nelson
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Geraldine Giffin and Wayne Iokepa
STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd
(Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and
Maija Cottle (Staff Planner)
And one person from the public in attendance.
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 4, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as
amended), by adding a new division relating to Tsunami Sirens.
HOUSEL: The next item on the agenda is the initiator is the County Council, and this is an
amendment to Chapter 25, Article 4, of the Hawaii County Code by adding a new division relating
to tsunami sirens. Daryn, could you present a little more information on this thing?
ARAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Proposed Bill 291 Draft 2 basically requires that through plan
approval the Department triggers the need to install a tsunami siren when the project is situated
within the tsunami evacuation area, and when the project is situated more than a mile from the
nearest existing tsunami siren. While we agree with the basic merits of the bill, or the concept of
the bill, to install sirens where needed and where there is an existing deficiency, we are not
supportive of this proposed bill simply because we believe the mechanism that they are using is
inappropriate and could cause more problems than it seeks to fix. The plan approval process is
really an administrative review process within the Planning Department; it is simply meant to make
sure that the project has the required number of parking, has the appropriate amount of landscaping,
that the height of a structure doesn't exceed the maximum height limit in the zone district; it is not
designed to fix a regional infrastructural deficiency. And so that is why we believe that
implementing or trying to fix deficiency in the tsunami siren system should be something that is
administered, say, through the State or County Civil Defense programs, rather than trying to
implement it through an administrative review process that was really designed to deal with onsite
requirements and not regional infrastructural deficiencies.
The background report and recommendation that we've distributed to you goes through various
scenarios or areas of concern that explains why we have a problem with the proposed bill. So with
that being said, the Director is recommending an unfavorable recommendation of the proposed Bill
291 Draft 2.
1
BOWMAN: And just to clarify — I'm sorry I missed — so unfavorable with the bill, and the bill was
initiated by the State? I'm sorry.
ARAI: I'm sorry, the bill was initiated by the County Council and was transmitted to the Planning
Commission for its consideration.
HOUSEL: Daryn, does the Planning Department have specific recommendations on how to correct
this problem?
ARAI: We did make one recommendation is that we think that they should explore opportunities to
support the efforts of the State and the County Civil Defense agencies to implement measures to
provide tsunami sirens where there are none or where there is a deficiency. So we'd rather they
pursue that avenue rather than trying to implement it through an existing administrative review
process that was never designed in the first place to deal with these type of more regional problems.
NELSON: So this recommendation by the Planning Director is not in favor of it, and we are talking
about Chapter 25 adding a new division relating tsunami sirens.
ARAI: Yes. We are not in favor of this proposed bill.
BOWMAN: May I ask? So if we are not in favor of it, then what's the next step? If we forward it
down, I mean -.
LEITHEAD TODD: If you do an unfavorable recommendation, it goes back to the County
Council, and at that point it's up to them. Our concerns are that we just think that it's, partially it is
in the inappropriate place, and the way it triggers -. You can have a situation where, the way it's set
up, an application comes in and it gets triggered, and yet the particular parcel of land that it may
trigger is not the appropriate place to put a siren and they may not have control over the place that
you want to put the siren. Also, because it's, at a rezoning, you know, you can put conditions in; we
think that trying to put the condition in at plan approval is the wrong place to do it, because plan
approval is where you are supposed to look for whether they've complied with the conditions of
typically with a rezoning ordinance or typically with the Subdivision Code. This is adding a new
condition and trying to put it in through the plan approval. And it also may unfairly place the entire
burden of the siren on an applicant that may have difficulty bearing that burden, because one siren
alone can be $100,000, and so it doesn't have that kind of evaluation. So we think that the place to
determine whether someone has to put a siren up should be at rezoning, and it should be a condition
that goes up as a recommendation from the Planning Commission and is then subsequently
approved by the County Council, as opposed to being triggered through at an administrative process
within the Department.
BOWMAN: And the applicant would be responsible for the cost of the siren?
LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, and putting it in the right place. And the problem is is that, you know,
you could, like this was really geared towards Waikoloa, and you've got quite a bit of development
there and none of those developments would be required to contribute to the cost of this; but if you
had somebody coming in with a new application to build something, you know, relatively small, but
it met the aggregate of 50 people, they would end up bearing the whole burden. And yet, they
might not be at the location where you want to put the siren up, and they may not have control over
where you want to put the siren; because if the siren is going to be maintained and serviced by,
2
typically it's the County through the Police Department, or because it's actually a State siren
system, in theory it's supposed be the State of Hawaii, but typically we end up helping out, and it's
got to be in a place where we can have access to it. And so we have a preference on where it's
supposed to be. And so we just think that it shouldn't be triggered through plan approval, that there
needs to be a different process, and that we should also be looking at whether if you're going to
shift the burden of putting this on to the private sector, that this isn't the right place to do it, and that
perhaps if you are going to do this, it should be through some type of an assessment that is spread
out over the other property owners as opposed to just being the guy that happens to walk in the door
and he ends up bearing the entire burden. And there are other, you know, rezoning applications that
are coming through and, you know, although this was drafted I think to address Waikoloa, this is an
island -wide issue, and the placement of the sirens really needs to be pursuant to some type of a plan,
because what you want is a system where we are picking where is the most optimal place in terms
of the population, in terms of the radius of the, you know, in terms of how far you can hear that
siren. And so we need to really have a plan in terms of where they are going to be in relationship to
each other, otherwise you are going to have some that are too close or some that are just a little bit
too far apart. And so we just think there needs to be a better plan. And the State is planning to
come in and do some; they are developing a master plan.
HOUSEL: Commissioner Hickcox.
HICKCOX: I think the owners, or the burden of responsibility in this area rests with the State as far
as coming up with a master plan. It would not directly affect the County in any way which they
perform other than in maintenance. I think the issue is that if we deny this, we should deny it with
some kind of justification in stating to them that we feel that this responsibility, as far as coming up
with a plan, master plan, placement, etc. be with the State, and that legislatively they address this as
oppose to trying to address it at our level.
HOUSEL: Commissioner -.
NELSON: So the motion would be to deny the recommendation with the additional comment?
HOUSEL: Well, we don't have a motion yet. We are still -.
NELSON: No, no, I'm just asking a question on how to frame it.
HOUSEL: Okay. I guess I'd like to ask you a question for information. How is the location of
tsunami sirens currently determined?
HICKCOX: Population.
HOUSEL: Who does that? Is that the State, the County?
HICKCOX: State. Civil Defense does with the State.
HOUSEL: Civil Defense? Okay.
ARAI: We believe it's through Civil Defense. They,are doing a study right now. In fact, I'm
aware that Civil Defense is sending out their staff to confirm the location of all sirens and even the
type of sirens, so they can determine like the range, or the coverage and all of that. From there
they're to determine what areas are not being covered by the existing system and where additional
3
sirens are needed. But I should also note that, you know, this bill really focuses only in those areas
that are within the tsunami evacuation areas. The sirens are — that's why I like to call them Civil
Defense sirens, not a tsunami siren — because these sirens are used for more than just tsunamis; they
are used for acts of war, terrorism, hurricanes. So anyway -.
And just to follow up Commissioner Nelson's question, the Director's recommendation is
unfavorable, so if you do make a motion in agreement with her recommendation, in essence you
should — see now I'm confusing myself — you should vote to send an unfavorable recommendation
for the reasons as stated by the Planning Director. And if you differ from her, then you should
come up with, you know, offer your own reasons.
BOWMAN: So, just a clarification, so it will be State Civil Defense, not County Civil Defense,
that -.
ARAI: It could be a combination of both, you know, I mean we try, in developing our
recommendation, we did try to get more and more information. Unfortunately, you know, in the
time frame we were allotted, we didn't have an opportunity to connect with the County Civil
Defense agency to fully understand the processes and all that. But it was quite clear that the State is
already proceeding with master - planning for these type of warning systems. So our belief is if they
are already initiating the process, then we should let that process continue and not sort of interfere
with the process, but simply support the process.
HOUSEL: Daryn, I agree with that. Is there language in here to that effect that the State is
proceeding with this?
ARAI: Yes, I made reference in the — let's see — on Page 1, it says, "A recent media report
referenced a 2006 State Civil Defense study that identified 63 sites on the Big Island where no
warning sirens exist." The report goes on, says it needs another 100 more sirens to be installed.
And in addition, Pages 4 and 5 of the, starting at the ending of Page 4 and continue on through Page
5 also discusses the initiatives.
HOUSEL: Okay, good, good, thank you.
ARAI: And at the end of Page 5, we even go as far as to encourage the County Council to explore
opportunities to support these continuing efforts, so that's a direct statement.
HOUSEL: Right. Well, obviously we need, you know, tsunami sirens are important, so rather than
just saying just no, I mean, give them some direction where you think they should proceed then.
That would be good.
ARAI: And we believe we've done that. Thank you.
HOUSEL: Okay, good, thank you, thank you. Any other questions? Or did you want to make a
comment?
LEITHEAD TODD: I was just going to say that, you know, the biggest concern we had was that it
was in plan approval, and that what we've noticed is there is kind of a trend, dump everything into
plan approval, and that's not what plan approval is intended for; it's just the wrong place to address
this. And also that, you know, anything you do in this area, because it's not just tsunami sirens, it's
Civil Defense sirens, has to be coordinated with both the County Civil Defense and the State. We
4
are looking, I think, and the Land Use Commission is looking at too, as projects are created,
especially the larger projects, this is becoming a condition. Like on Forest City, you know, there is
going to be a condition that they look at placement of all the siren. And you're going to see that, as
we look at any future developments that are particularly in coastal areas. But they have to be
integrated within a system where we figure out where all of these have to go. And I think it begs
another question down the road in terms of with the placement of some of them. I think a
government needs to step up to the plate and pay for some of these, because these are really health
and safety issues as oppose to infrastructure. And typically, when you are dealing with other
applications, we are dealing with road infrastructure, park infrastructure, the kinds of services that
we supply as a county, and this is really more about the emergency operations. And so we think we
need to work in a more integrated fashion with the State on their plans.
HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Nelson. Go ahead.
NELSON: I'm waiting for you to ask for a motion.
HOUSEL: Okay. Are we ready to make a motion?
NELSON: So let me suggest this: Motion to support the Planning Director's recommendation that
the Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions send a negative recommendation to the Council
regarding Bill No. 291 Draft 2. Is that -? (Microphone trouble.) Say over again?
HOUSEL: Yeah, could you, please, so Noriko has it on the record there.
NELSON: Motion to support the Planning Director's recommendation that the Leeward and
Windward Planning Commissions send a negative recommendation to the Council regarding Bill
No. 291 Draft 2.
HOUSEL: Thank you. Do we have a second?
BEAUDET: Second.
HOUSEL: Seconded by Commissioner Beaudet. Any discussion? Okay. Daryn?
ARAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Nelson?
NELSON: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Beaudet?
BEAUDET: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Bowman?
BOWMAN: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox?
HICKCOX: Aye.
5
ARAI: And Mr. Chairman?
HOUSEL: Aye.
ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carries with five aye votes.
The discussion ended at 11:48 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
Leeward Planning Commission
6
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
December 14, 2010
A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL'S AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
CODE RELATING TO TSUNAMI SIRENS was called to order at 9:17 a.m. in the County of
Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rell
Woodward presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Wallace Ishibashi, and Zendo Kern.
STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Daryn Arai (Planning
Program Manager), and Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner).
And one person from the public in attendance.
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo and Stephen Ono.
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 4, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as
amended), by adding a new division relating to Tsunami Sirens.
WOODWARD: The next item on the agenda, and the final business item on the agenda, is County
Council initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code, Article 4, adding a new division
relating to Tsunami Sirens. Mr. Arai.
ARAI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The Hawaii County Council forwarded to
the Planning Commission a draft, Bill No. 291, Draft 2. What this bill attempts to do to amend a
section of the Zoning Code by requiring that certain residential or commercial projects situated
within the tsunami evacuation zone require the installation of a tsunami siren, if such a siren does
not exist within a one mile radius of the affected building site. They plan to accomplish that
through our plan approval review process, which is an administrative review process within the
Planning Department. The Plan Approval process really is to check to make sure that when
someone builds something it meets the basic requirements of the Zoning Code -- things that are site
specific like the height of a structure, whether there's enough parking, whether your setbacks are
okay, whether you have enough landscaping, whether you have enough accessible stalls -- very site
specific and project specific improvements.
What this bill is attempting to do, and it's something that we do not support, is to address what is
considered a regional infrastructural deficiency and using our administrative review process to
accomplish that; and we think that that is improper. As articulated at length within the background
and recommendation report, we attempted to cite the various reasons and circumstances by which it
could lead to more complications if you try to implement, address an infrastructural deficiency
through an administrative review process, like the plan approval. So, you know, I won't go and
elaborate all of the points that are clearly written in your report. But for those reasons as
articulated, we ask that the Planning Commission forward an unfavorable recommendation of this
bill to the Hawaii County Council. With that I stand ready to answer any questions that you may
have.
I
WOODWARD: Any questions for Mr. Arai? Anybody from the public?
NOMURA: No, none.
WOODWARD: No, nobody from the public. All right, I think the thing to do would be to entertain
a motion; and then get into some discussion. Would somebody like to make a motion?
Commissioner Kern.
KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code)
change, Bill No. 291, Draft 2, I move that a unfavorable recommendation be sent to Council.
WOODWARD: Do we have a second?
ISHIBASHI: Second.
WOODWARD: Okay, very good. Discussion? Commissioner Kern.
KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a well- written report from the Planning staff; and
I appreciate reading it. I definitely think this causes undue burden on the Planning Department, for
one, and a significant burden on small businesses actually trying to do something where they had to
spend close to $85,000 if they wanted to add ten more seats to the restaurant, potentially. To me
this is absurd and should be squashed now, and ASAP. Thank you.
WOODWARD: Thank you. I'll put in my two cents worth. I would agree entirely. This is, first of
all, it's a method of raising money, which is unfair. There is, everybody is going to benefit from
Civil Defense sirens, not just the guy who has the last building in a development and has to foot the
bill for the siren. It's going to end up with a hodgepodge, that is you're not going to be able to
complete your Civil Defense system until you have enough people that have bought property in that
area that is going to fit this requirement that they're going to pony up their bucks. And it creates
this incredible paperwork and nightmare that is going to cost the County probably more than it's
going to save them. It's going to definitely snarl up the planning process. I mean it was, I don't
know who thought this up, but it is as poorly conceived a bill as I think I have ever seen. And
there's no question that this thing ought to be shot down in flames. So strong letter to follow -.
ARAI: Mr. Chairman?
WOODWARD: Yes.
ARAI: I just wanted to clarify a statement that you made. The way we interpret the bill, it's not
like it's proposing an in -lieu fee or contribution toward the installation of a siren. It's basically
saying if you meet certain criteria that triggers the need for a siren, that applicant or developer has
to provide that siren at a full cost of roughly $85,000. So the burden would be on that one
applicant. So it's not a contribution. They have to put the siren in.
WOODWARD: Right. It's a tax, essentially, even though if they have to put it toward a physical
implement, yeah. Okay, Commissioner Au.
AU: I have a question for Daryn. What is the next step whether it gets, whether we pass it or not?
What would be the next step? Would it go back to Council?
2
ARAI: Yes. Your recommendation will be forwarded to the County Council for its consideration.
At that point they will conduct their own hearings on the bill itself.
WOODWARD: I would make several other points that are not necessarily completely germane to
this issue. But the whole issue of tsunami sirens and the Civil Defense here in the County and the
State is really a joke. A tsunami siren, my understanding is -- and these things are set up so that you
have to have theirs a mile apart; well, they don't have a radius of a mile -- my understanding is that
they're lucky if they get a quarter of a mile from these sirens. They are nonspecific. It's like trying
to communicate an emergency by Morse Code. You know, they go off and people they test them
periodically, and nobody pays any attention. It's like a burglar alarm in a car. When they go off in
a parking lot, nobody pays any attention to it. And if they do go off you don't know if it's because
there's a tsunami that's coming in three days or you've got lava flowing down the back of your hill.
The other potential problem is that these things cannot be set off. You can't just say, okay, there's a
lava flow in Puna and Kau we need to set off the sirens down there, can't do that. It's the whole
island. It's all connected. So they cannot say, okay, just turn on the sirens in Puna and Kau, and
not Kohala and, you know, Hamakua, and North Hilo, and so on and so forth. So there are so many
things that they've worked out so poorly.
And now to try and get people to pay for this as part of the construction of a facility, when this is
really a State function, not a County function — I mean we're talking State Civil Defense. They
have some money but they don't quite have enough. So now the County wants to go get it from
people in the County. It's amazing what they come up with sometimes. So, anyway, that's another
piece of information and my feelings about this tsunami warning system in general. So anybody
else have any other comments? Okay, Daryn, I guess we're ready for a vote.
ARAI: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's see, Commissioner Kern?
KERN: Aye. Aye for an unfavorable recommendation.
ARAI: Right. The motion is an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council.
KERN: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Ishibashi?
ISHIBASHI: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Au?
AU: Aye.
ARAI: Chairman Woodward?
WOODWARD: Aye.
ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carries with four aye votes.
WOODWARD: Very good, thank you.
3
The discussion ended at 9:20 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
Windward Planning Commission
4
BRCCInitiatedTsunamiSirenBi1 1291.doc -11 /10 /10
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE)
The County Council has initiated an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code),
Article 4 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended) by adding a new
division relating to tsunami sirens.
BACKGROUND
The County Council'is proposing a new division within the Zoning Code under
Article 4 regarding General Development Regulations as described within Bill No. 291,
Draft 2 (Planning Department Exhibit A).
In summary, Bill No. 291, Draft 2 attempts to amend the Zoning Code in order to
require the installation of a tsunami siren within certain residential or commercial
projects situated within a tsunami evacuation area when such uses require the issuance of
Plan Approval by the Planning Department and when an existing tsunami siren is not
situated within a one -mile radius of the affected building site.
ANALYSIS
A recent media report referenced a 2006 State Civil Defense study that identified
63 sites on the Big Island where no warning sirens exist. These reports also noted that
since 2007, the State Legislature had appropriated $14.2 million statewide for the
installation of warning sirens statewide. But at a cost of $85,000 per siren, that is enough
for the installation of only 167 sirens. According to the report, the State Civil Defense
says it still needs another $8.5 million to install 100 more sirens. The February 2010
Chilean tsunami scare underscored the need for a comprehensive civil defense warning
system.
Also mentioned was a plan by State Civil Defense to install 51 new sirens on the Big
Island early next year to compliment the 54 sirens already in operation. The bill
identifies a total of 71 sirens existing on this island.
According to the media report, the State Civil Defense plans to build according to
the following priority order:
zll
-1- y
1) Existing sirens in tsunami zones that have fallen or are falling off the pole;
2) New sirens in tsunami zones;
3) Upgrades in non - tsunami zones; and
4) New sirens in non - tsunami zones.
Bill No. 291, Draft 2 proposes to utilize the Planning Department's plan approval
review process to trigger the review and installation of tsunami siren for certain
residential and commercial activities in areas within the tsunami evacuation zone that is
not adequately serviced by such a warning system.
Plan Approval Process
The process of plan approval review and approval is not limited to new residential
or commercial projects. Plan approval is also required for the change of certain uses
within existing buildings or an addition to existing structures. The following is an
excerpt from the Zoning Code that details the various circumstances that requires Plan
Approval:
"Section 25 -2 -71. Applicability; plan approval required.
(a) Plan approval shall be required prior to the construction or installation of any new structure
or development or any addition to an existing structure or development in all districts
except in the RS, RA, FA, A and IA districts, and except for the construction of one single -
family dwelling and any accessory buildings per lot.
(b) Plan approval shall be required in all districts prior to the change of the following uses in
existing buildings:
(1) Residential to commercial use;
(2) Warehouse and manufacturing to retail use.
(c) Plan approval shall be required in all applicable districts prior to the construction or
establishment of the following improvements and uses:
(1) Bed and breakfast establishments as permitted under section 25 -4 -7.
(2) Public uses, structures and buildings and community buildings, as permitted under
section 25 -4 -11.
(3) Telecommunication antennas and towers, as permitted under section 25 -4 -12.
(4) Temporary real estate offices and model homes, as permitted under section 25 -4 -8.
(5) Utility substations, as authorized under section 25 -4 -11.
(d) Plan approval shall be required in the RA and FA district prior to the construction or
installation of any new structure or development, or of any addition to an existing structure
or development which is to be used for minor agricultural products processing.
(e) Plan approval shall be required in the A district prior to the development of any trailer park
or major agricultural products processing facility. The director shall determine whether an
agricultural products processing facility shall be considered major or minor at the time of
building permit review, or earlier at the applicant's request.
(f) Plan approval may be required as a condition of approval of any use permit, variance, or
other action relating to a specific use, in which case the use or development so conditioned
may not be established until plan approval has been secured.
-2-
(g) Plan approval shall be required for the establishment of any agricultural tourism activity, as
permitted under section 25- 4- 15(b).
To put it in proper prospective, Plan Approval is not required only for new
shopping centers, restaurants or townhome developments. Plan Approval may also be
required for any new structure or change in use associated with certain residential,
commercial or industrial uses. For example, KTA in Downtown Hilo recently
demolished a large section of its existing retail complex and renovated the remaining
section, making for a smaller commercial complex overall. This demolition and
renovation action required the issuance of Plan Approval. Before and after the
demolition and renovation project, the occupancy of the store remained above 50 persons.
Similarly, Plan Approval may be required if an existing 20 -seat restaurant in a small
shopping center wishes to provide outdoor seating for 10 additional patrons. Plan
Approval may also be required for temporary uses and special events that occur very
infrequently. Under all of these circumstances, the bill would trigger the need to install a
tsunami siren within these projects if situated within a tsunami evacuation area and if
such a siren is not already in operation within a one mile radius.
The bill does not clearly articulate the circumstances in which the proposed
tsunami siren installation will be required for a proposed residential or commercial
activity. For example, a tsunami siren will be required under two specific circumstances:
1. Where the building site will be located within the tsunami evacuation zone
and will be outside of a one -mile radius of a tsunami siren; and
2. That will either create the capacity to host residential or commercial activities
to include more than fifty persons at any one time or expand the existing
capacity so that the aggregate residential or commercial activities within the
area described in (1) above will exceed more than fifty persons at any one
time.
The bill does not define how the Planning Department is able to calculate the
occupancy of any particular use or activity or its duration. For multiple family residential
units, we need to apply a consistent occupancy standard to each residential unit for the
purposes of determining when the aggregate occupancy within the building site exceeds
50 people. For commercial uses, what standard is be used in determining occupancy?
-3-
Could it be the Fire Code? These issues would have to be made explicit if the bill were
enacted.
RECOMMENDATION
While the need for comprehensive and effective civil defense siren (including
tsunami siren) coverage throughout this island is desperately needed as demonstrated by
past natural events and confirmed by recent studies conducted by the State Civil Defense
Agency, it is the proposal of implementing this program through the Plan Approval
process that should be reassessed.
The Planning Director recommends that the Leeward and Windward Planning
Commissions send a negative recommendation to the Council regarding Bill No. 291,
Draft 2. While our analysis points out some of the technical issues that may arise during
implementation should the bill be enacted by the County Council, our strongest
objections fall upon the fact that the bill will place an unreasonable burden upon that
particular applicant for Plan Approval that happens to create an aggregate occupancy of
more than 50 people within the affected property or building site. This burden falls upon
an applicant within a residential or commercial complex that is already in existence or at
the tail end of the development process where these types of exactions should not be
imposed, especially when it involves a warning siren that covers a swath of land at least
2 miles in diameter that will benefit many other landowners and existing developments.
Why is the burden of fixing an existing deficiency in the County's civil defense siren
warning system being place on a single applicant who is simply attempting to utilize their
property in a manner to which they are already entitled to? At an estimated cost of
$85,000 per siren, the financial burden upon a single applicant will likely be too severe
for them to pursue their individual project. In today's difficult business climate, where it
is a struggle to maintain profitability when the cost of commodities and operating
obligations continue to rise, this bill unfairly burdens business owners, both small and
large, with the cost of providing a public safety device that benefits the surrounding
community just as much as it would benefit the burdened business owner.
Media reports have indicated that the State Civil Defense Agency is planning to
install 51 new warning sirens on this island, the locations of which this department has
not yet confirmed. It makes absolutely no sense to implement a new law that will force
-4-
individual landowners and applicants at the tail -end of the development process to install
sirens when a county -wide and state -wide initiative is already underway by State Civil
Defense to fund and install these sirens. When coordinated and implemented through the
State and County Civil Defense agencies, the design and siting of these warning sirens
can be more effectively optimized along with the coordination of the necessary access,
utility and maintenance easements that will be necessary to support these warning
systems. Bill No. 291, Draft 2, if enacted, has the potential to force a fragmented and
uncoordinated approach to the implementation of a County -wide siren warning system.
One must remember that the Civil Defense warning sirens are more than just tsunami
sirens. These warning sirens are used to prepare for a myriad of natural and
technological hazards as well as for terrorist incidents or acts of war. A comprehensive
approach to the design and location of these warning sirens to best address all of these
potential hazards is the most prudent approach. When required by the bill, an applicant
for Plan Approval must incorporate a tsunami siren within their project design meeting
with the approval of the Civil Defense Agency. However, what happens if the Civil
Defense Agency determines that the applicant's project does not provide a favorable
location for the installation of a warning siren or there are simply structural or other
limitations that prevent its installation within the applicant's project? The bill does not
provide an option for the Civil Defense Agency to forego the integration of a siren within
this project due to less than favorable conditions, thereby relieving the applicant.from this
obligation.
Bill No. 291, Draft 2 attempts to compensate for an existing deficiency in the
County's civil defense siren warning system, specifically those warning sirens in the
tsunami evacuation areas. While we agree with the concept of this bill, we see too many
implementation issues that will arise should this bill be enacted. This bill would create
more problems than it would attempt to solve. We encourage the County Council to
explore opportunities to support the continuing efforts of the State and County Civil
Defense agencies to design, fund and install the necessary warning sirens around this
island and the State. This direct approach through these agencies is the most prudent
course of action.
-5-
r J�SY ^OFt}, >
DC9.ii'i;\']CY1GONG mo o. . -. �, I hone: (808) 961 -8538
Councilmember -`� ��6i;, Fax: (808) 961 -8912
District of HC1170kua Lmail: dyagQj� &4,co.hawaii.11i.us
,rt OFH F'�
HA WAI `I COUNTY COUNCIL
County ofHuwai`i
25 ,4upimi .Street
Hilo, Hawaii 961
September 22, 2010
Memo To: Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead -Todd, Planning Direction
Leeward Planning Commission
Windward Planning Commission
From: Dominic Yagong, Chair 4�
Committee on Public Safety & Parks & Recreation
V
Re: Bill No. 291, Draft 2 Relating to Tsunami Sirens
Pursuant to Hawaii County Code, Chapter 25, Section 25 -2 -43 (b), and Hawaii County Charter
Sections 6 -7.2 and 6 -7.5, please find attached for your review and recommendations Bill
No. 291, Draft 2.
According to the County Code, your respective recommendations shall be provided to the
Council within one hundred and twenty days (120) from the date of this transmittal.
The Committee on Public Safety and Parks & Recreation appreciates your input, and looks
forward to your response.
Warmest Aloha!
DY /la
Att.
EXHIBIT Il!1f
6_�`
Pete Hoff mann M% V OF Phone No. Hilo: (808) 96 I -8027
Councilman
�' Phone No. Waimea: (808) 887 - 2043
District 9 - North and South Kohala ��'£� Fax No.: (808) 887 - 2072
t E -Mail: phoffimnn @co.hawaii.hi.us
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
County of Hawai `i
flawai'i County Building
Holomua Enter ' C.1
Hi loo, . H Haw :.,
64 -1067 Ra— alahmgMighway, Suite C -S
Haw Street aii 96720 Waimea,Wa"i'i 5 43
TO: J Yoshimoto, Chair
and Members of the Hawaii County Council
FROM: Pete Ho ounce Member %e� �./ --
Date: September 8, 2010
�^
Subject: Transmitting Bill 291, Draft 2
Please find attached Bill 291, Draft 2. Bill 291 was amended with the contents of
Communication No. 925. 1, as duly approved by the Public Safety and Parks and Recreation
Committee during its meeting on September 8, 2010.
Bill 291, Draft 2, was subsequently postponed to the September 20, 2010, meeting of the Public
Safety and Parks and Recreation Committee.
Please place the attached bill on the Public Safety and Parks and Recreation Committee agenda
for September 20, 2010.
Thank you.
PH /dh
att.
<BiIt all :0 Z
J �av of
COUNTY OF HAWAII +_ STATE OF HAWAII
o1N'
BILL NO. 291
(DRAFT 2 )
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 (ZONING), ARTICLE 4, OF THE
HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY ADDING A NEW
DIVISION RELATING TO TSUNAMI SIRENS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Findings and purpose. The Council recognizes that tsunamis are a real threat
to lives and property in coastal areas. The County of Hawaii is particularly sensitive to this type
of threat, with an unfortunate legacy in terms of tsunami disasters in 1946 and 1960.
The December 26, 2004, Indian Ocean earthquake generated one of the deadliest tsunamis
in modern history and erased communities along the coastlines of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and
Indonesia, killing over 230,000 people. Had a tsunami warning system been in place, many lives
would likely have been saved.
A recent tsunami threat in the early morning of February 27, 2010, reminded residents that
tsunamis are indeed a reality.
It is critical not only to prepare for evacuation in a safe and orderly manner, but also to
receive adequate and timely warning of this potential disaster.
At this time, there are 71 tsunami sirens in Hawaii County:
- Six (6) along the Hamakua Coast;
- Sixteen (16) along the Hilo coast and within Hilo, from Hakalau to Leleiwi;
- Fifteen (15) in* the Puna area, from Kea`au to Kaimu;
- Eight (8) along the southern coast, from Pdhala to Miloli`i;
- Sixteen (16) along the Kona coast, from Pu`uhonua o H6naunau to the Natural Energy
Lab of Hawaii Authority; and
- Ten (10) in Kohala, of which eight are coastal sirens from Puak6 to Niuli`i.
However, residential and tourist - populated areas such as Hualalai /Kuki`o, Waikoloa Beach,
and Mauna Lani Beach do not have tsunami sirens.
The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that any coastal development meeting the
parameters of this ordinance that has not received plan approval prior to the enactment of this
ordinance will include a tsunami siren in its design and construction.
SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 4, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as
amended), is amended by adding a new division to be appropriately designated and to read as
follows:
" Division . Tsunami Sirens.
Section 25 -4- . Definitions.
"Tsunami siren" means a noisemakina mechanical or electronic device generating
sound to provide warning of approaching danger. The tsunami siren is one type of
tsunami warning system and is linked to the civil defense system, activated by the
County's civil defense system or by neighboring tsunami warning centers, in case of a
potential life - threatening tsunami.
Section 25 -4- . Applicability.
This division shall apply only to applications for plan 'approval:
LD Where the building site will be located within the tsunami. evacuation zone and
will be outside of a one -mile radius of a tsunami siren; and
(2) That will either create the capacity to host residential or commercial activities to
include more than fifty persons at any one time or expand the existing capacity
so that the aggregate residential or commercial activities within the area
described in (1 ) -above will exceed more than fifty persons at any one time
Section 25 -4- . Tsunami siren required; exemption.
(al Prior to plan approval the director shall require that any proposed development
meeting the criteria under section 25 -4- shall include a tsunami siren within its
design.
Applications for plan approval shall be exempt from this division if there is a
tsunami siren within a one -mile radius of the building site. The applicant shall bear
the burden of proof that there is a tsunami siren within a one -mile radius of the
building site.
Section 25 -4- . Tsunami siren compatibility; approval by civil defense agency.
(O1 The director shall submit the applicant's plans to the civil defense agency, which
shall:
(1) Approve the compliance of the tsunami siren in terms of location, support
construction and any detail related to the safe and efficient ability of the siren
to be fully integrated into the Hawaii State Outdoor Siren Warning System;
(2) Approve the compliance of the tsunami siren utilizing standards and
specifications as provided by the Hawaii State Civil Defense; and
(3) Submit an official approval document to the planning department stating that
the applicant's plans include a tsunami siren that will meet the requirements of
this section.
(b) The director shall not issue plan approval until receipt of the approval document
from the civil defense agency.
(c) After the tsunami siren has been installed and its operability is confirmed, it shall be
dedicated to the County pursuant to chapter 2, article 30, section 2 -162.1 of this
Code.
(d) The applicant shall provide to the County and State of Hawaii easement or access,
or both, to the siren for the purpose of repair and maintenance.
SECTION 3. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the underscoring
need not be included.
2
SECTION 4. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person
or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of
the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this
end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL M B R, CO YO HAWAII
Hilo, Hawaii
Date of Introduction:
Date of 1 st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
kLft;hE C& Comm. 925.2
3