The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0018.004 1998-2000 • ~ ~ i • , , ' P.O. Box 2262 - Kealakekua, HI 96750 - (808) 322-2484 /FAX (608) 322-3735 ' REGHYED Ttme../,'D'7p~,, By L•f}c~la,l Apri128, 1999 ao rR~ County Council , ~ ~ rvpwpnpn rsLpnos t~ 6LRN0 8 Council Member Dominic Yagong, Chair COIIXTY DF NAWpII-. XUnx Diahia~ County Public Works and Parks Committee 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 R.E: Propesed Hawaii County Code Chapter i0 Revision, Identified as Bill 6 Dear Chairperson Yagong and Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify comments made on behalf of the Kona Soil and Water Conservation District Board on Proposed Bill 6 seeking to amend Chapter 10 of the Hawaii County Code 1983, Relating to Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Interested members of the Board; Mr. Tom Pack, County Department of Public Works; and Mr. Steve Skipper, Natural Resources Conservation Service, met with Council persons Nancy Pisicchio and Curtis Tyler III on April 19, 1999 at Yano hall. The Board appreciates the constructive dialog between the represented individuals, agencies, and the Council at this meeting. We are making comment to this Bill to address Kona community concerns that have been recently stated to us. We commend the Department of Public Works in their efforts to improve enforcement of the existing Chapter 10. It is the intent of this testimony to assist in that goal. We ask that our suggestions be shared with other District Boards, compared with other County's legislation on soil erosion and sedimentation control, and checked with Corporation Counci] for its legal content. The following are concerns and language suggestions stated at the above mentioned meeting: The County permitting process is designed to assure protection to the public. In this case, the permitting process causes property owners to follow established minimum standards in order to reduce erosion and sedimentation for the public good. Permits also serve to indemnify the County (i.e. the public) and all governmental agencies against potential later liability due to a property owner's improvements that might affect other property owners downstream. Comm. N0. / ~ ' ~O FSIe No. NC G ~~RO Ref. To:,~, PW~, P_. R2t. Date .~Y R nn Concern: Present language in Chapter 10 regarding the definition of "Conservation Plans" does not address grubbing, grading, or stockpiling occurring within the area of conservation plans without a County permit. This includes areas determined to be within the 100 year flood zone on FEMA and FIRM maps and other areas deemed high risk by the Board. Chapter 180C defines a conservation plan as "a plan for the control of soil erosion and sediment resulting from a land disturbing activity." §10-27 makes reference to the fact that grubbing, grading, and stockpiling permits must conform to the erosion and sedimentation control standards and guidelines established by the Department of Public Works in conformity with Chapter 180C of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, but Chapter 10 does not require conservation plans to be made consistent with these standards. We feel that the current language creates unreasonable liability risk to the approving agencies involved, unreasonable workload for the staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and provides enforcement loopholes of grading requirements in areas of high flood risk. Suggested solution: We feel language should be included in the definition of Conservation Plan which states: "provided that conservation plans that involve land disturbance shall not have exclusion from appropriate permits required b~pter 10 prior to application or renewal." We feel this language is consistent with the intent of Chapter 180C HRS. Concern: §10-3 (b), (5), (C) -The existing language (not underlined) in this section states that the directors are required to review an existing updated conservation plan with appropriate modifications not less that every five years. This section does not currently require the holder of the conservation plan to prepare or submit the updated modifications to the plan, nor does it hold the revised plan to the scrutiny of a licensed civil engineer prior to review. it only requires the Board's (and NRCS's) involvement to approve it. This creates extra work for the NRCS staff and the District Board, creates loopholes in grading requirements in areas of high flood risk, and undermines soil and erosion standards intended in Chapter 180C. The new (underlined) language seeks to enforce compliance on the applicant for something that is apparently required of the District Directors. Language should clearly require the applicant to be responsible for updating, engineering, and submitting the conservation plan renewal for approval. Suggested Solution: Remove the existing language (not underlined) in § 10-3 (b), (5), (C). Retain the language that is proposed (underlined). Precede it with: Holders of Conservation Plans are required to update these plans not less than every fiveyears and show modifications that have been made since the last approval. Re-application shall be reviewed for approval by the District Directors within a time frame set b~he District Board in its rules. Concern: § 10-3 (b) -Drainage improvements made by the County in areas of known drainage concern, particularly roadways, should reasonable have a proper drainage study and mitigation plan done in order to mitigate potential problems created to landowners downstream. While it is understood that the County issuing permits to itself is time consuming and inefficient, all soil and erosion control standards that are required of private landowners in the permitting process should apply to the County if they are to be excluded from obtaining permits. Suggested Solution: § 10-3 (a) state: "All work in this section must conform to soil and erosion standards consistent with Chapter 10. Soil Erosion. and Chapter 27. Flood Control, of the Hawaii County Code. in order to be considered for exclusion from appropriate permits." Concern: § 10-10 (b), (2) currently states: "For grading of areas of more than fifteen thousand square feet or land areas sloped greater than fifteen percent, a contour map prepared by an engineer or land surveyor and approved by the chief engineer..." Phis section allows a contour map to be prepared by a surveyor, when this is civil engineering design work. Requiring the chief engineer to sign this document as the only civil engineer approving it makes the County liable. Suggested Solution: Remove "...[or land surveyor]..." from § 10-10 (b), (2). Concern: Changes to language in § 10-25 (c) allowing notification to be verbal could potentially cause problems later on if the land owner were to dispute that proper notification had actually been given. Suggested Solution: We recommend that current proposed language be modified by adding: "twenty-four hours after [written] verbal notification to be followed by letter from the DPW,...>, Concern: § 10-26 (a) Drainage currently gives the chief engineer the ability to direct water into existing culverts, roadways, historic drainage ways, or other areas, based on the engineer's opinion rather that the specifics of drainage studies, engineering and mitigation plans. This does not appear consistent with Chapter 180C (b), (2), Chapter 10 as applied to other individuals. Actions based on opinion may not address the fact that existing storm drains, spill ways, unimproved ditches or other structures may not be adequately designed to accept increased water or may not be stabilized for erosion. The County has a condemnation process which should be used in determining the taking of land for protection of the public and community. Suggested Solution: We feel the last sentence of § 10-26 (a) Drainage should be amended to say: "The chief engineer may require such drainaee structures and pipes to be constructed or installed, which [in his opinion] based on surve,~ ing Bering, and/or miti ation plans are necessary to prevent erosion damage and to satisfactorily carry and disperse surface waters." We feel this language is consistent with the intent of Chapter 27. Concern: § 10-26 (c) excludes impeding the flow of natural surface drainage. Suggested Solution: Broaden this requirement by removing the term "...[underground]..." We again thank the County Council for the ability to provide input on this needed legislation. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 328-9175. Sincerely, William E. Cowell Chairperson Kona SWCD cc: Steve Skipper, NRCS Tom Pack, DPW Jiro Sumada, DPW Nancy Pisicchio, County Council Curtis Tyler III, County Council Thomas Crabb, Hamakua SWCD Charles Young, Ka'u SWCD Dan Kaniho, Mauna Kea SWCD Aileen Yeh, Puna SWCD Jennifer Botelho, Waiakea SWCD tl / ch