Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWPRC 2017/07/06 2016-2018 COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS AND RECREATION 6th Session Hawai`i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai`i July 6, 2017 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Parks and Recreation ORDER: was called to order at 1:43 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Chair Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Vice Chair Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim"Richards, III, Member Absent: Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member order of business, The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak, and came forward when called by the Chair: Jon Olson: Bill 47 (Comm. 325); and Bill 50 (Comm. 334), comment. Marc Lau: Bill 48 (Comm. 332), in support. Deb Scrivens: Bill 47 (Comm. 325), in support. (Representing Hakalau Farmers Market& Food Share) COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. (There were none.) PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. As directed bythe Chair and with no objection from the Committee Members, Change Order � of Business: the following items were taken out of order: Bill 48: AMENDS CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 1, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Prohibits the consumption of intoxicating liquors at James Kealoha Beach Park. Reference: Comm. 332 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 48 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. RUGGLES: Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I'm going to ask for a little bit of latitude because this is the first opportunity for people to take a look at this piece of legislation. First of all,what I want to do is direct my colleagues to Communication 332.1. You'll find them in your—so what you have before you is a communication that I put forward, and it was just in an effort to provide a little bit of context of this particular beach park. What you will find on page one is a real property tax map of the park itself that's outlined in red. That's the general boundary lines for Kealoha Beach Park. The second graphic that you have before you, and sorry it's a little blurry, but that's a Google Earth image from the ocean of that park. The photo you have is basically a copy of the roadway that runs through that particular park, which we call Keaukaha Road. As our testifier mentioned earlier, there are no parking stalls. People just park and take a place,but you'll also see that one, the roadway is bad. But the other thing is there's a rocky shoreline there so it really isn't conducive for swimming, unless you're an experienced swimmer. I see more fisherman or other more experienced water users in the area. On the left hand side, you'll see a gated—the yellow pylons,that's just basically blocking off a grassy area that exists there. There are no pavilions, so people will just randomly park and put a tent and just hang out. Page 2 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 The final image, which is a little bit better image, is just an overview of the entire park. What you'll see there is a residence adjacent to the park. This concern was actually initiated by the community. I've had a number of community meetings with Keaukaha Association, Leleiwi Association, and other beach users down at Richardson's Beach Park and Carlsmith Beach Park, and like our testifier mentioned, it's just getting out of hand. I believe over the years,there was a large level of tolerance, but that tolerance is really beginning to erode at this point. If I could ask Captain Greg Esteban and Community Policing Officer Matt Lewis to come forward please. (Note: At this time, Police Captain Greg Esteban and Police Officer Mathew Lewis came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, gentlemen. If we could start with Captain Esteban, just go ahead and identify yourself for the record, and Officer Lewis,please. MR. ESTEBAN: Good afternoon, my name is Greg Esteban,Police Captain for South Hilo patrol district. I've been doing this job for 32 years. During my years as a patrol officer, we've had to respond to a number of calls for police assistance at Kealoha Park. And now, as District Commander, it's quite evident that the increase in calls for service is taking a toll on our manpower. ,We have to allocate resources in this particular area to address crime and accidents, both in and out of the ocean, so our department fully supports the ban on alcohol in this park. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Captain Esteban. Now if I could move over to Community Policing Officer Matt Lewis. Matt is actually assigned to that community, so I wanted Matt to share a little bit more detail just because he's more boots on the ground and intimate with some of the concerns that are happening in that area. MR. LEWIS: Good afternoon, I'm Officer Lewis. I've been with the department just shy of ten years now. Most of my career has been spent in Hilo in the patrol level. Been in the community down there at the beach area for the past year and assigned to that section. Since that year, even prior to that,the complaints and calls for service at that particular beach park continues to grow. Alcohol is one of the main factors that drive a lot of the complaints, or a lot of the calls for service we get there. We get from traffic accidents to fights, major assaults with weapons including bats and knives. People have been stabbed there, it's not a one-time event. And when we do respond to those calls, you look at the responsible parties, most times they're intoxicated, being in the sun with no covering,no pavilion all day. And if you go down there,you'll see the street looks more like a drag strip from the rubber that's left behind like what Mr. Lau said. And hearing the complaints from the community this past year and going to the community meetings, it's not Page 3 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 just residents, even the lifeguards at the nearby beaches have gone out of their way to make it a point to say we need to make a change here. And it's not that I'm against drinking,but this park has a problem that I think we as responsible people in the community need to address, not only on behalf of the Police Department, but for myself as a community member in this district. What I see there is really dangerous, I wouldn't take a child to that beach. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. We also have Charmaine Kamaka who's our Parks Director, she's here also. I'm going to leave it here for right now for the rest of my colleagues to ask any questions. I am really asking for your support. Now, this is probably just one of many more steps that have to happen,not only at this particular beach park,but other beach parks across the entire island. As a community with our Police Department and our Department of Parks and Recreation,we've also engaged the Department of Public Works because some of them maintain the roads and facilities there. The Fire Department has also been engaged. I also have to thank Prosecuting Attorney Mitch Roth who really spearheaded this initiative. One,to identify a lot of the public safety concerns that are coming from the community, and Lisa Faulkner-Inouye is also here from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for you to ask any questions. But, our police officers and our Prosecuting Attorney's office has a lot of data of the type of complaints that are coming in that really does support this initiative. Going forward, we will continue to be at the table working with our community partners and our public sector partners, because it is our hope that this can become a model on how we address parks in an overall sense. Every park has a different amenity, some have pavilions and some don't. Some are conducive for our keiki and some are great for surfers. These are just our beach parks. We still have other parks that are great for sports, and as we begin to make adjustments to our Code, there's going to be a need for some very heavy lifting from our Parks department to take on administrative rules and guidelines for these parks One concern that our police officers have is when they get complaints at these parks, there's no consistent rule whether you can or cannot drink. The hours that you can or cannot be in the park are all very inconsistent. Part of the larger goal is really getting to a place where there is a clear level of understanding of what is permitted at our parks, and how they should be used in a manner that they're built for. So, I'm going to yield at this time and listen to the rest of my colleagues, thank you. CHR. RUGGLES: Mr. Kanuha. Page 4 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chair, and mahalo (Ms. Lee Loy) for introducing this. I fully support it and I will definitely be voting in favor of it. I just had a question, in general, when we put these parks, or these parks are in these no drinking, no alcohol allowed zones, what is the process that the department goes through or the officers in enforcing these provisions? Because in other parks, we have allowable between this time and this time with a permit, and even that is so difficult to enforce around the island at all our different parks. We'll just start with this park being that there is no alcohol allowed, if this bill goes through, what's the—how are you guys going to manage that? How are you guys going to enforce this law? Are you guys going to just wait for people to call in? Or is there going to be like a check every once in a while to see that nobody is drinking? How do you guys go through with that process? MR. ESTEBAN: Excellent question. During the course of our enforcement, may it be drinking or smoking, we'll deploy teams to address particular calls and being proactive in addressing the problems. Not necessarily responding to complaints, but if we identify a certain park that has issues that we know historically happens, we want to proactively address it before we have impaired drivers on the road. What we would do, as we have done before, is we'll deploy teams within our South Hilo patrol district as well as the community policing officers, and we'll have them conduct enforcement in the particular area that would entail issuing citations or arresting offenders. But it has to be clearly defined locations that we can enforce. At this point, we have rules that doesn't have any teeth to it. MR. KANUHA: And this one would obviously have some teeth to it, and you'll clearly define what you can and cannot do at this park. So that's definitely appreciated, not only from your side,but I'm sure from the public side as well, of what can or cannot happen at that park. I can talk to you guys later and the Parks Department about other areas around the island where we could definitely use some teeth into some enforcement. Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy, I definitely support this. CHR. RUGGLES: Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this forward, this is something that is needed, and for the testimony, and taking care of the keiki,and making sure we lead by example and we grow healthy kids and healthy families. So,thank you so much for that. CHR. RUGGLES: Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Mahalo, Chair. Aloha and mahalo for your testimony this afternoon. I totally agree with what Ms. Lee Loy has introduced because I think what Mr. Kanuha says is true, especially the rural areas where monitoring is very limited. I can understand that if the law is not in place or the Code requirements Page 5 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 are not in place, your hands are tied. So I really support this because it gives the opportunity to follow through with many complaints. In my district in South Kona,Ka`u, we have some really serious problems out there,too. So, I look at this as a beginning and did one for Kahuku Park because it's not an all-out restriction, but one that requires a permit. And unfortunately, still with those regulations in place right now,there are still issues that we need to address. So I really appreciate everything that the police force is doing, but I think we have a lot more work to do as a Council in trying to address this really important issue. Mahalo again for everybody, and Ms. Lee Loy, mahalo. CHR. RUGGLES: Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. I too, appreciate the fact that you brought this forward. We have a park in our community that is problematic and people are in it all night long drinking. One of the neighbors hasn't had a full night's sleep in five years, I don't think. So I might be asking Ms. Lee Loy for an amendment and that would be the Hawaiian Beaches Park. It's interesting we have on this list parks that are no longer in existence, Harry K. Brown Park and Kaimu Beach Park. So, I'm hoping that our Parks and Recreation Department can work to get us updated. I tried to do some research online but there's a lot of conflicting information about what is a County park and where they are. And I see this list in the Code and it considers parks that are no more. So, I do support it and I think it's something that we need to take a careful look at across the island at different parks. Thank you. CHR. RUGGLES: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Anyone else? With that, I just want to say thank you, Mr. Esteban and Mr. Lewis for being here and answering our questions. And thank you, Ms. Lee Loy for bringing this forward. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. And thank you to the rest of my colleagues. I do pride myself in listening very carefully to everybody, and I appreciate what Ms. O'Hara just said because this really does become a vehicle for everybody right now,that if there is something that you want to do, we can start slowly and begin to edit this at this time. And so I'll be more than happy to, between this meeting and our next meeting, to go ahead and maybe take out Harry K. Brown Park and Kaimu Park, and add the one in Hawaiian Beaches. I can go ahead and propose that amendment and assure the rest of my colleagues that if we move this forward out of committee, that I'll go ahead and prepare an amendment to that effect. But I also welcome more input between now and our next committee meeting, if there's other areas we want to adjust,keeping in mind this would be a prohibition of drinking in those parks. The next piece to all of this is, what do we do with some of our other parks with pavilions that have other permitting rules where people have parties or whatever it is? And so ideally, what we want to do, and working with the Parks department, Page 6 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 is develop a matrix of parks that if there are beach parks with no pavilion,they are going to fall into a particular category. If they're a beach park with a pavilion geared to youth,they'll fall into a category with specific user times and specific user rules. If it's more of a surfing park or area where people are fishing, more shoreline activities, coming up with a specific set of guidelines for those parks. And then our baseball parks or soccer fields, all of these fall into categories of parks,but they just have a different recreational need. I do want to use this opportunity—for some reason, I don't know why they burn out at Kealoha Beach Park like they're showing off or racing. Ms. Kamaka, if we could get that drag strip open,maybe they could get it out of their system at the drag strip so they wouldn't be racing down our streets. I'll leave it there,but thank you everyone for your support. CHR. RUGGLES: Thank you. Does anyone else want to comment? Thank you for being willing to amend. A couple parks came to my mind when we were talking. In my district there is Glenwood Park. There's a lot of incidences of people wandering off onto the highway and crossing the street. A lot of people have died actually, car accidents, people getting harassed at the bus stop. I've been in contact with the Police Department about this multiple times. And the other park would be the Kurtistown Park where people get water, it's been an issue there. So,thank you for being willing to take this project on and make our parks safer. All those in favor of Bill 48,please say"aye." Vote on Bill 48: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 48 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair Ruggles–8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung– 1. Excused: None. CHR. RUGGLES: Bill 47, Mr. Clerk. Page 7 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 Bill 47: AMENDS CHAPTER 15, ARTICLE 9, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO FARMERS MARKETS Creates a facility schedule for farmers markets to be established at County parks and facilities, and adds the following parks to the schedule: Hakalau Veterans Park, Kukuihaele Park, Pana`ewa Park,Na`alehu Park, Kamehameha Park, and Volcano Park. Reference: Comm. 325 Intr. by: Ms. Poindexter Postponed: June 22, 2017 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Poindexter, seconded by Ms. Eoff,to recommend passage of Bill 47 on first reading.) Atthis time, Chair Ruggles relinquished the chair to Vice Chair David. Relinquish Chair: q qgg ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: At the last Committee meeting, we had a lot of discussion, so I'm not going to go into that again and repeat what was already discussed. We know what amendments we talked about, so at this time, I'd like to amend Bill 47 with the contents of Communication 325.22. Motion to Amend: Ms. Poindexter moved to amend Bill 47 with the contents of Comm. 25.22. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. MS. POINDEXTER: Again, from the last discussion, I was able to get an appointment with our Parks and Recreation Director and Deputy Director, and also with our Hakalau Food Share group. The things that we discussed at that meeting was, what is the demand? Or what is the need for that community? Who are the consumers? Who are the farmers or vendors that would be at this farmers market? What non-profit organization would be able to host this and take responsibility with an MOU(Memorandum of Understanding) like Cooper Center has? What kind of financial support does this organization have? Would Parks and Recreation now be comfortable enough and look if the facility or park that we were looking at was able to accommodate a farmers market? Did it have other activities that would not allow for a farmers market? So they determined that this was a place, at this point in time,that could be done and used as a farmers market, with the understanding that they have an MOU and the organization is there to take the responsibilities of whatever is going to be laid out in the MOU. Now—that's why if you look at the amendment, it has taken out some other parks because at this point in time—for instance, Honoka`a Park that complex, it's the busiest park. There's no way you could do a farmers market Page 8 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 there, so we took it off because at this point in time, it's not an appropriate park. So what I have put on into the amendment is—and of course we took into consideration Council Member Lee Loy's district and not a need for that also. And I didn't know how Puna stood out and so what Parks and Recreation decided is, or suggested, is that working with each Council Member when a community is ready to be added onto a schedule. So the way I set up the amendment is in a schedule form. I shouldn't say I set it up, because beautiful Leslie Chow and LRB (Legislative Research Branch) is the ones who recommended the schedule, which is excellent. I checked with our Corporation Counsel about how it's setup as a schedule which was agreed that this is a better way to set this Code up. So anyway, for now, we have the Hakalau Veterans Park on here who is right now working on an MOU. Volcano Park, we put it on in Puna because they already have an MOU. They just were not on the Code,which they should be on the Code. So those are the two that Parks and Recreation felt that were ready to be addressed and to be amended on the Code. So that's what I'm putting forward and I ask for your support. So if you have any questions, Charmaine is here and our Deputy is here also. So thank you, I'll yield at this time. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Ms. Ruggles on the amendment. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I have a Point of Order. Point of Order: MS. RUGGLES: I would like to put forth an amendment. Would I amend Ms. Poindexter's amendment with mine, or would I be amending the original bill? ACTING CHR. DAVID: We have to address Ms. Poindexter's one,right, Mr. Clerk? MR. MAEDA: That's correct. I don't know if the two amendments can work together. It could be amended after Ms. Poindexter's. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Right, because once we amend Bill 47 with her amendment, then Bill 47 is set as amended with just this communication, right? So, if Ms. Ruggles wanted to entertain a further amendment, she would bring forth another piece of legislation that would take effect after we act on Ms. Poindexter's. So at this point, because Ms. Poindexter's amendment was taken up first, we could not actually entertain Ms. Ruggles. Not at this time, right? MR. MAEDA: We have to do something with the amendment first, before we can move on. So you have to act upon this amendment at this time. Page 9 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 ACTING CHR. DAVID: Right, and so maybe—could I ask for further clarification? Could I ask Director Kamaka to come up please? I have one question on the Point of Order,that's why I'm calling you. (Note: At this time, Director of Parks and Recreation Charmaine Kamaka and Deputy Director Ryan Chong, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. KAMAKA: Good afternoon and I brought Deputy Chong with me here too. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Good afternoon, thank you Director and Deputy. And we're on the Point of Order on the sequence of events here. So what I'm hearing is, Ms. Ruggles, we need to act on this proposed amendment and later on any member can bring forth another proposal. She can amend it after we deal— MS. KAMAKA: That's not a question for me. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay,because I think—but we can't read it in today, right? No, we can't act on that today. MR. MAEDA: I'm not sure if Ms. Poindexter's amendment and Ms. Ruggles' amendment can work together, because I didn't look at Ms. Ruggles' amendment. So if they're not able to work together,then you cannot do it together. MS. RUGGLES: The amendment that I have is the same as Ms. Poindexter's, it just adds two parks. MS. POINDEXTER: Point of Order, real quick. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Poindexter. Point of Order: MS. POINDEXTER: We have the Communication 325.22 before us, we have to act on this. After that, I would say take a short recess and talk with LRB, who is here,that can let us know how we proceed, or if Council Member Ruggles can proceed with her communication to amend. So I would suggest dealing with this first, and then taking a recess and checking how we proceed from that point on. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Ruggles, is that okay? I mean,that explains—what we're doing here is kind of confusing. MS. RUGGLES: Yeah, so after we address the current amendment,then we can proceed with my amendment. ACTING CHR. DAVID: I'm sorry, Mr. Clerk. Page 10 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 MR. MAEDA: That sounds fine. It would be good to take a recess after Ms. Poindexter's amendment,just to see if Ms. Ruggles can still amend it. It could all work together because we just saw Ms. Ruggles amendment now, so ' it's work with Ms. Poindexter's amendment we're not sure if its goingto be able to and the bill. And so I think after, it's a good idea to take a recess after we vote on this amendment to figure out how to move forward and if both can work together. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Okay,thank you very much. I'm sorry, we'll hana hou you later. MS. KAMAKA: That'suite alright. q g ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Poindexter for listening to the community and striking the park that didn't want a farmers market. But I do have a question for Director Kamaka or Deputy Director Chong. So if I understand Ms. Poindexter's narrative on how this came to be,this actually was done in collaboration with your office or department, correct? MS. KAMAKA: Yes,that's correct. MS. LEE LOY: The rationale behind that, you guys already took a look at the uses of the park, and the ones that are listed here would be conducive to having a farmers market? MS. KAMAKA: Those two particular parks at this point in time,that is correct. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, and then she also struck the designated areas. We had Waimea, Kona, and Honoka`a County Park Complex. Last time we met,the understanding, or the definition was that they could happen in these general areas, but now we're getting down to specifically identifying particular parks that would meet your folks' criteria and not have competing uses with what your folks' primary purpose is, which is recreation. MS. KAMAKA: That's correct. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you so much for all of that. Thank you so much, Ms. Poindexter, I will be supporting this. I know Ms. Ruggles might have more conversation on another part of hers,but yes, I will be supporting this amendment, thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Thank you, Director. Anyone else, comments? No? Okay, I guess we will move forward with voting Page 11 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 on the communication—motion to amend with Communication 325.22, all in favor,please say"aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 47 with the contents of Amend: Comm. 325.22 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair Ruggles–8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung– 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Back to the main motion, Bill 47 as amended with Communication 325.22. I have a request for a recess at this time, so we will take a short recess, mahalo. Recess: At 2:24 p.m.,the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:31 p.m. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Council Members, I think we got it all straightened out now, so I'm taking this meeting out of recess. Thank you very much. Ms. Ruggles, please. CHR. RUGGLES: Mahalo. I'd like to move to further amend Bill 47, Draft 2 with Communication 325.23. Motion to Further Ms. Ruggles moved to further amend Bill 47 with the Amend: contents of Comm. 325.23. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Ms. Ruggles. CHR. RUGGLES: Thank you. So this would add Pahoa Neighborhood Facility or Pahoa Regional Park. I would like to strike one of them after our discussion here. After meeting with the community and listening to testimony and concerns, I found that the Pahoa Regional Park would be much more appropriate for a farmers market than the Pahoa Neighborhood Facility. The people in Pahoa, since we've lost access to the Akebono parking lot, want to have the option to have a farmers market there. The parks are there for public use, it's within our Puna Community Development Plan Objective 3.2.2, which says, "Provides sites and infrastructure for farmers markets at County parks and proposed village town centers. This is in perfect alignment with that, so I just wanted to bring this forth and I look forward to hearing my colleagues' thoughts. Thank you. Page 12 6, 2017 PWPRC-6 July ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Can we call Director Kamaka and Deputy Chong? I just had a question on the Regional Park. I don't know if that is officially on our inventory yet on the books because I know it's a new park, right? Correct? (Note: At this time, Director of Parks and Recreation Charmaine Kamaka and Deputy Director Ryan Chong, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. KAMAKA: I believe it is on the inventory. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay,because when we looked first time we did this, it wasn't on the— MS. KAMAKA: I'm not sure actually. ' on the inventoryand couldn't be placed on MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, it wasn't the Code because it wasn't— MS. asn'tMS. KAMAKA: Okay, I'm not sure. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, if we could check on that because I think that would be— MS. KAMAKA: I'm checking right now. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, and if it isn't, I would say that maybe if you could withdraw your amendment if it isn't on there, because I don't think we can officially put something on the Code that is not officially existing on another Code. Then you could bring it up at a time when we can get that on the books that it is in our inventory. We didn't see it, so I'm just— MS. KAMAKA: You're probably correct because it's a relatively new facility. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, so that needs to come before the Council yet to put onto our inventory list. So until that comes then—this is my understanding and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, or Corporation Counsel can correct me if I'm wrong, that we cannot add anything to a Code somewhere else if it doesn't exist as part of our inventory yet. I don't know how we proceed with that and getting the answer to that, because that will determine whether or not we can go through with this amendment or not. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Director Chong, would you like a few minutes? Page 13 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 MS. KAMAKA: He's scrolling through the list. MS. POINDEXTER: It's not on, because we didn't accept it. I didn't see it come before the Council yet, so if it's not in the Code then we would have to wait. Mr. Kamelamela, can you come up? Thank you. Just a procedural question to make sure that what we do is correct. The question is, on the inventory of the parks, we had Deputy Chong look and he said it doesn't look like it's listed yet, and that has to come before the Council to get accepted as inventory as a park before we can start amending any other Codes that mention the park that's not in inventory. How does that—is that correct? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KAMELAMELA: Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel. I read the applicable ordinance and noticed it wasn't listed, so someone, and I don't know who is going to do it, should put forth a bill to put it on as part of the scheduled parks in the Code. MS. POINDEXTER: So at this time, it wouldn't be appropriate to amend something mentioning that park since it has not been accepted—inventoried in. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yes. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay,thank you,that's all I had for you. So with that said, I would think that the best way to deal with it is withdrawing it, and then helping to get that bill forward to bring it to Council since it's on your Committee, to accept Pahoa Regional Park into our inventory first, and then the next thing would be to amend the code. That would be the process, so thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Before we address that, Council Member Richards, did you want to speak on this? MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, and I think we were talking about the—we're on the proposed amendment? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Yes. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah,thank you,Vice Chair. Just a few comments, I think the exercise Ms. Poindexter went through with Parks and Recreation to have this detailed, worked out, and we agreed that this is—or they have agreed that this is a good facility to use because of minimal use, no conflict, etc. I think that makes all the sense in the world. I'm a little concerned if we start assigning other parks without going through the same vetting process. And though I don't disagree that using an underutilized facility is a good use of that facility if we can identify that, Page 14 6, 2017 PWPRC-6 July my concern is if we just do this because we think it makes sense. And I'm saying this not directly for Councilwoman Ruggles, but I'm saying kind of generically speaking because I'm mindful of the parks in my district as well. I'm also concerned from Parks and Recreation stand point that if we are asking them to set up another, for lack of a better term, bureaucracy, where we're going to increase staffing needs, we better be mindful of that as well. So on this amendment, I'm going to speak against it for some of the reasons that have been articulated. But also I'm very mindful of the fact—I appreciate what Ms. Poindexter did by vetting through this and sorting it out, but we better pay attention if we are assigning costs to Parks and Recreation. We have some concerns from my district already and I don't want to put them in a position where we stretch their thin resources even thinner. So I get what you're trying to say, Councilwoman,but I'm mindful that we better pay attention and walk a little slower. So I'm going to be speaking against the amendment because of those reasons. It's not that I disagree with the intent but the specifics, so I'll yield. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. I understand that we have now taken off the Pahoa Neighborhood Facility. Is that correct Ms. Ruggles? Okay, so the one under consideration is the Pahoa Regional Park, which we have learned that it's not on the inventory, and I think the history is that it's not really complete. We've done phase one, which is primarily a sports complex, and then we had that discussion in our last meeting about use conflicts with sports complex kind of type parks and farmers markets. When it gets expanded and phase two is completed, which calls for a lot more attributes added to this park,which will expand the types of uses that it's going to support,that would be time to consider it then. As it is now, it did get opened under the last administration late in the 2016 year, but to my knowledge, it hasn't even been properly named yet. We're just referring to it as the Pahoa Regional Park,but it doesn't have a proper name yet as well. I do agree, it's somewhat onerous for Parks and Recreation to set up an MOU or an MOA(Memorandum of Agreement) with a non-profit organization in the community to do that, and there is one that's willing. Apparently, Main Street Pahoa has said they would be willing to take it on, which is great when the time is—when it's ready. But the vendors who had been meeting or having a farmers market at the parking lot of Luquin's that burned down in January, have relocated to another location in Nanawale at the Longhouse. I had one of the board members there, Maddie Green, survey them, and they were real happy with that new location. They weren't anxious to move back to downtown Pahoa. Not that there aren't other vendors,but I would note that we already have ten farmers Page 15 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 markets in Puna operating. One is daily, we have six that are weekly, and we have three that meet once a month. So we have a lot of farmers markets. Farmers markets are supposed to be competitive, they're kind of a model of pure competition so that's all good. But, we do have quite a few serving the community right now. I love the fact that Ms. Poindexter put this together because it allows any Councilperson to amend when needed for an appropriate park, and I agree with what Mr. Richards just said. It's good to vet it,not just with the community, because they may not view all of the process that is involved in creating such a venue, but they are the driver. Once it's vetted with all the other agencies and what not, it would be a great time to add a park and it's going to be a lot simpler with this new format that Ms. Poindexter has put together for the Code. So I really commend that and I'm not sure that it's needed right now to add the Pahoa Regional Park. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Ms. Lee Loy, did you wish to speak? MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, and I'll keep it brief. I appreciated the vetting process that Ms. Poindexter did with the Parks Department, and running it through the criteria or check list and vetting it. I appreciate what Ms. Ruggles is doing because it becomes a great vehicle to add it in, but I think we have to slow down and do the vetting process appropriately. I think what sticks out and is most concerning to me is even if we struck out Pahoa Neighborhood Facility,the Pahoa Regional Park hasn't been appropriately identified and codified, so then we actually don't have a piece of legislation that actually is legal, I think is where I would stand. I'm not going to support it at this time, and if Ms. Ruggles is willing to either pull it back or add in the Regional Park after vetting it appropriately with the department, I'll be more than happy to support it at that time. But, I am going to be speaking against this one. I think there's just a little bit more work that has to happen. Thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you, I appreciate everyone's thoughts and also bringing to my attention that it needs to be on the inventory list. Can I ask Mr. Kamelamela a question? What steps need to be taken in order to get a park on the inventory list? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KAMELAMELA: The thing that has to be done, and I think from what I understand what Parks is doing,they may have other parks that's not on the list and so I think they were going to do that. So once that happens,then they can Page 16 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 move forward, like a similar bill that Ms. Poindexter had done, so that something similar but it involves a different section. So the section that's involved here is Section 15-68. The bill will amend Section 15-68 to include as one of the parks, the Pahoa Regional Park. So the process itself is not complicated. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, so I would need to put forth a bill amending Section 15-68 to include Pahoa Regional Park? MR. KAMELAMELA: Yes. It would put it on the schedule, Section 15-68.1. So that's something that you can work with Parks and Recreations with and LRB too, so you can get it right. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, great. Thank you. MR. KAMELAMELA: You're welcome. MS. RUGGLES: With that, I'm willing to withdraw this and move forward with getting it on the inventory list, if that is so necessary in order for the community to have the option of having a memorandum of agreement with Parks and Recreation to have a farmers market. And I'm optimistic that we can do it and that the Regional Park provides the infrastructure that we need and that we can have a memorandum of understanding that can meet the needs of the community and meet the concerns of Parks and Recreation. So with that, I'll withdraw the amendment. Withdraw Motion Ms. Ruggles withdrew her motion to further amend Bill 47 to Further Amend: with the contents of Comm. 325.23. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much for that. Mr. Kanuha, did you want to speak on Bill 47 as amended? MR. KANUHA: Yeah,just briefly in terms of parks in general. Ms. Ruggles is the Chair of that Committee, right? I think it's good that you work with Parks, and it might not only be your park that's not on the schedule, but just to clean up the Code, I think there's stuff to remove and add. So, don't only think about that Pahoa Regional Park,but work with them to do all of them in general, if there is stuff to be added as well. I think you can handle that one, but I don't have anything else to say about this. I think I'm good. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Mahalo, Mr. Kanuha for that excellent suggestion, and thank you Ms. Ruggles for withdrawing your motion. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Thank you, Chair. The one thing that I'd like to also say is, part of the reason why Parks was willing to work, was there wouldn't be the extra expense. We look at like how Cooper Center, how that is being managed in the Page 17 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 MOU. The MOU is going to be real clear that it doesn't take Parks maintenance or activities directors or anything to come and give time to that. That will be handled by the organization itself, even clean up and they've been for the past eight years they've had a farmers market there and never once asked for any assistance from Parks and Recreation Department, whether it be maintenance or activities. They did all the clean-up, so kind of acted like friends of the park as well, so it doesn't cost the department any money. In this case, sometimes it'll help because they may be able to do some of the maintenance and taking the trash that the County department doesn't have to do, or come and pick up, or whatever. But the ability to do other things as well on behalf of Parks and Recreation, so I think that was a great partnership. I want to thank the Parks and Recreation, and I also want to thank the Hakalau community for being very organized and putting your plans together with Parks and Recreation, so thank you so much. I yield at this time, thank you. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Mahalo, Ms. Poindexter. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Since everybody is gathered here today, I'd hope to ask for some clarification on what we talked about parks that are in the Code that don't exist anymore, and new parks that need to be added to the Code. But we also have this difference between facilities and parks. So, I'm kind of curious, we in Pahoa have a place called the Senior Center,which is under Parks and Recreation,but would that be an eligible facility for a farmers market because it has a great big tent in front, it's already covered and so on? So I'm just kind of curious,what is the limit when we're talking about parks and recreation in general, and the facilities that they command? ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you for coming forward. MS. KAMAKA: Thank you for that question. Each facility has to be vetted individually, and I can't come up here and tell you that's a good spot or a bad spot. I'd have to go back and check on the usage with the staff, how often it's rented, and what the parking issues are. So each selection suggestion is vetted on its own. MS. O'HARA: So it could be something that we would refer to as a facility rather than a park if it met all the criteria? MS. KAMAKA: Yeah. The other thing to consider though, as Ryan points out quickly, is that the Senior Center receives federal funds, so there's other issues that may come into play as well. Through the Office of Aging, we receive federal Page 18 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 funds for our Senior Center, so it's not that simple. I'd have to look at that, it might not be solely our decision, we have to vet every suggested facility. MS. O'HARA: Okay, good enough,thank you. MS. KAMAKA: You're welcome. ACTING CHR. DAVID: Thank you,Ms. O'Hara and thank you, Director and Deputy Director. Okay, I think we're done and before we take the vote, I just would like to say thank you also to Ms. Poindexter for cleaning up the issue with Cooper Center and the Volcano market, because she offered to do that because this is pretty much what this document is doing. It brings us all in line and we now have a fresh start, and I thank you for that because I didn't have to do it. Thank you for including that and Ms. Ruggles,thank you for your proposal, and I look forward to you working with the department in getting our list up-to-date. So with that, Council Members, all those in favor of approving Bill 47 as amended with the contents of Communication 325.22,please say"aye." Vote on Bill 47: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 47 as amended (Draft 2) to Draft 2, on first reading was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair Ruggles—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. Relinquish Chair: At this time, Acting Chair David relinquished the chair to Chair Ruggles. CHR. RUGGLES: Thank you, Ms. David. We can move to Bill 50. Mr. Clerk. Page 19 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 AMENDS CHAPTER 5, "BUILDING,"AND CHAPTER 27 Bill 50: 27, "FLOOD CONTROL," OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), TO COMPLY WITH NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP)REGULATIONS Pursuant to a Letter of Final Determination, dated March 29, 2017, received by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hawai`i County is required to adopt or amend its floodplain management regulations to reflect changes in the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)prior to September 29, 2017, the FIRM's effective date. Non-compliance may'subject the County to suspension from the NFIP, which would make flood insurance and certain types of Federal disaster assistance unavailable. Reference: Comm. 334 Intr. by: Ms. Ruggles (B/R) CHR. RUGGLES: May I have a motion? Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 50 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Eoff. CHR. RUGGLES: It basically brings our chapters up-to-date with the requirements of the new federal flood regulations, and we needed to change this before September 27, otherwise, we couldn't participate in the federal programs that we need. So this is sort of a housekeeping measure, and we have the department here if anyone needs clarification. (Note: At this time, Allan Simeon Deputy Director of Department of Public Works came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. SIMEON: Hello. Good afternoon, Council Members. This is Allan Simeon, Deputy Director of DPW(Department of Public Works). Thank you. CHR. RUGGLES: Thank you, Mr. Simeon. Would you please give us a brief description of why we're updating our chapter here? MR. SIMEON: Yes. I'm hoping that you guys had a chance to read the overview proposed NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program)bill. So technically, we are required to amend the Floodplain Management ordinance, and it has to be finished before September 29th of this year, otherwise, we're going to be unable to take advantage of the help that we get for disaster relief funds, similar to what we were able to get for the lava flow and also Hurricane Iselle. In addition to that, one of the major consequences will be our community will suffer for the fact that they may either get a higher rate for insurance, or some of them may not be able to maintain their mortgage because of the bank possibly Page 20 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 recalling their mortgage because of non-compliance with the flood insurance requirements. So basically,what was amended in Chapter five and Chapter 27 are minor. Some are semantics, but the big thing about Chapter five is requiring those building auxiliary structures, like agriculture, that right now is exempt from coming to get a building permit. After this is adopted,we are going to be requiring them to come and check with us to make sure their structure that they planned, although exempt, have to be checked by our department to make sure that they do have to comply with the flood management program if they are required. But basically, the two main ones are,we are going to be able to avail again for the disaster relief funds and also the access to insurance, not only for the County but the whole community once we have finalized the adoption of the ordinance before September 29. CHR. RUGGLES: Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Allan for being here. I noticed a number under Chapter five—amending Chapter five and Chapter 27, and forgive me because I'm a little confused because I know them to be two different chapters. So I'm looking under Bill 50,page 3, Section 5-19.1, Permit not required. Is this coming directly out of the IBC (International Building Code,) or straightly from FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency) and the federal program? MR. SIMEON: We have our Floodplain Management personnel here. (Note: At this time, Bryce Harada Civil Engineer came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. LEE LOY: On Bill 50,page three, Section 5-19.1, there's a number of permits not required. Is this coming right out of the IBC, or is this coming from the federal flood insurance and compliance with that particular national guideline? MR. HARADA: Yeah, it's with the federal guideline. MS. LEE LOY: Is there any—are we going to need to provide amendments to our County IBC Code and the IRC (International Residential Code) Code that have a number of—or are there not exemptions? And I ask that question because I have a number of clients that go through the building permit process, and I know this applies to flood areas and AE and AH zoned areas, but I'm just wondering if we're going to have to make another adjustment with our IRC and IBC? Have we looked at that? Page 21 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 MR. HARADA: I'm not too sure. We would have to look into that, but this bill was brought to us by our State coordinator, and she told us that these are the changes that we need to make. MS. LEE LOY: I'm willing to support this right now because I recognize the timing element that goes with it, and we don't want to lose any type of funding that may happen because we don't adopt this. But again,the type of work that I've done in the past,there's all these other codes that come into play, and we just want to make sure that there is either no conflict, or there is an actual bright line of a process when they're trying to develop buildings that may be impacted by the flood zone areas or just other things. That's all I'm asking. MR. HARADA: Basically, any kind of structures, Chapter 5 right now gets you exempt if you have the agricultural buildings or other smaller buildings. But we're just trying to say that any kind of building needs to check with Chapter 27 for flood. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, so even like if you're on the shoreline, right? Because we would have flooding related to the shoreline. So, if we're building on the shoreline, you would check with Chapter 27 first before putting together your building construction plans under Chapter 5? MR. HARADA: Yes. MS. LEE LOY: Was tough yeah that question? Very good, and that's all I'm looking out for. I think again, a lot of the architects, drawers, and civil engineers just really want to understand the process clearly, because what they hate to do is submit something and think they're complying, and then later those plans get kicked back. So I'm just trying to look out for that,thank you. MR. SIMEON: On page four of this amendment,there is a new paragraph under B, Section 5-19.1, Permit not required. And all the way down to page four, we have that B, so basically that's an addition. So right now, with this amendment, we will be able to build a database because some of the exempted structures now, they don't even come and talk to us. So with this, while complying with Chapter 27, we will also have a database of who has this because when somebody sells a property and doesn't have a permit,then that can be a question. But if they can show that they did check with Public Works, and they can show that it's legal under the exemption,that would solve that problem. Thank you. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. I understand that this is a requirement and it seems that we haven't added much,but we have, in terms of Section 5-19.1, which used to be just 5-19(b), Exceptions a permit is not required for. There's no change in that list of 24 items is there? Page 22 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 MR. SIMEON: No. MS. O'HARA: It's just the same, its just moved around. Okay, I'm just trying to follow. So can you, in just a few words, tell us what substantive changes were actually made? I see the addition of(b), under those 24 items is a new section that you just pointed out. And then further on, on page five, "this Chapter shall not apply to: . . .,"that's all been crossed out. And then further, it appears we've added mudflows that we didn't have in there before, is that right? MR. HARADA: Yes that's correct. MS. O'HARA: And then on page six,the addition of the"Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision." MR. SIMEON: Yeah, that's a new section. MS. O'HARA: That's new language that wasn't in here at all before, or was just moved around? MR. SIMEON: I believe that's new. MR. HARADA: Yes that's new. MS. O'HARA: That's a new one, that's what I thought. Okay, I'm just trying to get a feel for what real changes we made here and what we just moved around. MR. HARADA: I'm not sure if you have this handout. On the second page on the back it says changes made by the proposed NFIP bill. It summarizes real briefly what changes we're making, so most of them are just like definitions that need to be updated, or things that need to be deleted. CHR. RUGGLES: It's Communication 334.1. MR. HARADA: So none of the changes are substantial,they're all just keeping it updated and that's about it. MS. O'HARA: Okay,thank you. I just wanted a little clarification because it looks complicated on first glance, but it's not really. Okay, thank you. MR. HARADA: It looks long,but it's not really much changes. CHR. RUGGLES: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. This is more of an informational question. Is this in response to because I know they've changed the floodplain maps, is Page 23 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 this part of all of that? This was something that came up when we were at the Western Region Meeting of the National Association of Counties. They've talked about this,that it's more inclusive maps. They had—help me out, Council Member Kanuha, it had to do, as I recall,with how they deemed what could be flooded now whereas before—so the change in maps, is that what is triggering the change in this? Then I agree,this is a bit of a housekeeping. But that being said, I know one of my constituents just told me yesterday that their house is now on a floodplain, where it wasn't previously. So is this part of that process? MR. HARADA: This is part of the digital flood insurance rate maps that are going to be effective September 29, 2017. So this is part of that,but as far as— what was your question again? MR. RICHARDS: Well, if this was part of that. So then, do we know how much more of our land mass is going to be included in floodplains that wasn't previously? MR. SIMEON: So basically,the new FIRM maps is probably upgraded so it may change as far as the land mass. MR. RICHARD S: Have we seen that number yet? The reason I'm asking is because this is something that we ran into while we were at this meeting, and it had to do with the dike systems around rivers. If the core of engineers deemed that these dikes were not high enough, deemed on a hundred year flood,then the dikes didn't count, and so the inundation area was substantially increased And then I was just told by a constituent yesterday that her house is now in a floodplain where it's never been before. So that's my question. I think we have to do this because it's housekeeping. If we don't, we're not going to comply. But I do know there's efforts right now to address this nationally, and I'm not sure where we are with all that. A real big question for you guys is, are you familiar with what's going on with all this stuff? MR. HARADA: I believe that's separate. MR. SIMEON: We do have—don't want to mention it because it's for another day discussion. We have the Puna flood study, for example, and also for the Kona side. So those are being mapped now, or had been mapped,but may need to be revisited as far as what communities or properties will be affected and how much. We are working with our consultant to have those reviewed and also revised if we have to. So those are going to be done on another day per se. MR. RICHARDS: I get what you're saying, but this is all tied back to that same thing, which is a problem nationally because it's affecting everybody, and substantial increase in cost for a lot of people. Page 24 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 MR. SIMEON: Yes,that's correct. And some properties that were not in a flood zone before, because of the added studies and now it's being mapped, they may be in a flood zone. MR. RICHARDS: The validity of those studies were being brought to question and that's the big thing. So okay, I yield. Thank you. CHR. RUGGLES: Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: I may be off base or trying to understand this—wrap my head around this. I know in `O`okala, we should be in a floodplain which would definitely decrease the value of all our homes in that community. We know that because whenever you develop on mauka lands anywhere on this island, if you don't do it right, you're going to end up being in a floodplain. You are going to have to continuously start assessing if we have the correct floodplain maps and areas that are in floodplains. I'm concerned about that. I'm working on that with some groups, looking at the entire island, and storm water runoff, so we're getting together. I was concerned about some of the things that were exempt like work performed under the jurisdiction of federal government and are located on federal property. So the County wouldn't check, or they wouldn't check with the County. If this is in `O`okala's case, 12-19% slopes is on highly erodible soil. So, you're talking about building one of the exemptions, is detached structures for animal shelters, storage sheds,towers, and similar uses not more than six feet in height. Even if it's that, if you do something like that on that property above our community, you're going to cause a lot of damage down below if they don't get the correct permits. When I'm reading this, it's kind of bringing up red flags for me and our communities that live on the Hamakua Coast. Most of the mauka lands are highly erodible soil, some of it is planted with eucalyptus trees, and those were kind of taken care of. I'm talking about some of the more open land areas that we're just bringing in more either industrial use, or larger farming areas. So I'm a little concerned with this, and I don't know if I should be, and if I'm reading it correctly. My caution is the small rural communities that we're not looking at when developing the exemptions, so I don't know if my concerns are real. Bryce,maybe you can answer that because you've been dealing with the exemption that the County gave this big operation that has flooded our community out, and they exempted the permits. So based on NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service) saying, "By the way, we have these plans but they weren't following it," so the County gave them the exemption, and then now to me we're in a floodplain. That caused the floodplain. Page 25 July PWPRC-6 Ju y 6, 2017 MR. HARADA: That's separate,but as far as this proposed bill, nothing for that changed. MS. POINDEXTER: So the exemptions of them—so this meaning that they couldn't go build other animal shelters up on that property,they still would have to come for grub and grading permits, or does this exempt them? Because it says no need permit. MR. SIMEON: I think in this case, I know what you're talking about as far as the dairy. I believe as far as the other requirements, like the grading and grubbing, it still would be in effect. But the fact that they are under the Hamakua water conservation, if they have a plan, we're supposed to review and approve as well. MS. POINDEXTER: And monitor? MR. SIMEON: That's where the enforcement comes in, yes. As far as trying to get the exemption, we still need to get something from them for us to give them the exemption. MS. POINDEXTER: So my question was, does all of this have—does that kind of blend into what that is? Or this is like a totally separate thing and you're still going to hold people accountable and—? MR. SIMEON: Under the added chapters, yes. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay,because they cannot use this as an excuse and go, "Oh by the way, we got this exemption right over here, we can use this." MR. SIMEON: Yes. MR. HARADA: This is separate. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. CHR. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just wanted to let the record show that Mr. Richards has left us at this point. He had to attend to matters in his district having to do with school safety. Okay, go ahead Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Mahalo Deputy Director for the explanation. I just had a question. This is to get the County in compliance with the requirements. Is the State also being required to revise its statutes to also conform? And so it's the State and the County-level revisions that we're looking at also? Or is it just the County? MR. HARADA: This is just the County one. Page 26 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 MS. DAVID: It's the County one? So nothing on the State level is being done? I understood that they had to come into compliance also in some respects. MR. HARADA: Yes,that was separate. MS. DAVID: That's a separate thing, but is it being done under the same timeline as we are as a County? MR. HARADA: No. I think that's the ag bill. I'm actually not too sure but as far as this, it's just the County. MS. DAVID: That was my question, whether we were the only ones being required to come into compliance. And my second comment is basically on what Council Member Richards had stated in the mapping process. Because I think there has been in the past, a lot of situations where the mapping process itself had resulted in the things that Mr. Richards was noting in his concerns, about where areas that had not been in a flood zone before are now appearing in flood zones. And I think it also connects to what Ms. Poindexter is saying, because land alteration basically can create things that was non-existent before. So, I don't have any particular question, I just wanted to note that Mr. Richards' concern is also a very important concern that I have, especially in my district. I will talk story with you folks later on about that. But I appreciate you folks bringing this forward. Thank you. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. Mr. Richards isn't here but I'll try to elaborate on what they were talking about at the Western Interstate Region. Counties are having issues with FEMA and the floodplain maps. Just to give an example, in Tillamook County, Oregon, an entire area designated in a floodplain zone where they have cows and produce cheese were going to be taken out of these areas because now it's designated as a floodplain. And they would have to have insurance for it and do all this kind of stuff, and it is a huge problem for this County, and they're having issues. Just seeing how other counties are trying to deal with it and waiting for the feds and the Congress to update these maps and going through all the regulations all the time,they're having a lot of issues in figuring out how to do that. It always comes back to them putting all these mandates on States and local governments on how to manage this juggernaut of a flood insurance thing. But, I don't want to go into too many details about this, I know we're just trying to get into the compliance mode of being part of this from the federal regulations. But, this is kind of in conjunction with the maps that did come out. I'm not going to try to—I know our current Director was in charge of mapping those floodplains or the County's flood ways. I know there were a few issues that we've had, especially in Kona, of certain individuals and property owners being part of the flood. Now they're part of it, which they weren't in the past, and trying to deal Page 27 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 with how to comply if they are going to be part of this, and how to not be part of it. If there's a conflict,how does a person contest that they're now going to be in that, and what is the process of doing that? Do they need to hire an expert that'11 cost them thousands and thousands of dollars to contest why they're now in that floodplain? Just some issues that I'm sure that the normal, everyday person has no idea how to deal with this kind of stuff, so it's hard. It's even hard for me to understand a lot of what's going on here, so—and I know we're going to be dealing with the maps that came out. When is the deadline for community input that we just got the notification about? It's coming up soon,right? MR. HARADA: The public input is finished already,that was a year or two ago. This is just basically telling everyone it's going to be finalized in September and just notifying everyone. We just have to get a compliant code. MR. KANUHA: Okay, yeah it's already pau. Thank you, I'll yield at this time. CHR. RUGGLES: Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Just for clarification, back to what I was talking about. So basically, you took out all of this and all you did is rearrange it differently and nicely, right? So you guys didn't delete anything or say, "Hey,this shouldn't be in that" or anything? So I have a question, if somebody's going to do a reservoir up there, it says they don't need a permit,but they would still need to come in for a grub and grading permit, correct or no? MR. SIMEON: I believe that's correct. MS. POINDEXTER: You believe that's correct? I would like to make sure that is correct because that's happening. Like I said, most of our communities live on the makai, right? The mauka is where a lot of activities and developments are going on. So I want to make sure that any grub and grading that happens mauka has to go through you, and these exemptions doesn't include it if it says, "Oh by the way,we're putting in a reservoir and we don't need the permit for that, but, oh, by the way, we still have to get the grub and grading because, you know, highly erodible soil." We're going to come down into the `O`okala community, we better have insurance to protect them, when FEMA can come in and help, you know we're in that floodplain. I want to make sure all of that is in place and we don't just give them a loophole to get out of this. MR. SIMEON: Yes, so basically,the beauty of this is for them to come and check with us. Bryce and his team, with the regulatory section, will also be the ones responsible for grading and grubbing. Page 28 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 MS. POINDEXTER: So if we can make sure because like I said, we have so much mauka development going on, and our maps are not in good shape right now because we're allowing people on ag land to do whatever, and then it's flooding out. And it's not just in `O`okala, it's happening throughout my coastline. I've even gotten calls from Kona concerned about the developments in mauka and that flood waters that are coming down, and they just heard because that was happening in `O`okala--how I felt about that and what am I doing. So, just be—we know DPW(Department of Public Works) had to go up there and go look, and we know what's happening even in Honomu, and Hakalau and all that area. I've been working with DPW on the flooding that's going on in those communities, so I just want to make sure everything fits together so people don't have loopholes and get away with stuff. So,thank you. MR. SIMEON: And also,the community has a way because of the enforcement capacity we have, we may not be able to go and check all the time. That's where the community is very instrumental in letting us know. MS. POINDEXTER: And we've been calling from 2012, and now it's 2017. The County just went out last month to go look at it, so that's why I'm concerned. Okay,thank you. MR. SIMEON: Yes, understandable,thank you. CHR. RUGGLES: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? With that,thank you for being here. Thank you for answering our questions and for moving this forward, and making sure we're up to date and protected. All those in favor of Bill 50,please say"aye." Vote on Bill 50: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 50 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, and Chair Ruggles–7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards–2. Excused: None. Page 29 PWPRC-6 July 6, 2017 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:20 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, and Chair Ruggles—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung, and Richards—2. Excused: None. CHR. RUGGLES: We are adjourned. Approved: I1 - 2 - ( ? Ms. J ' er Ruggles, Chair Date Publi• Works and Parks and Recreation Committee JR/jm/hs Page 30