Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-24 TCC-TSUNAMI SIRENS LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 24, 2010 COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO A regularly advertised hearing on the 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, Hawai‘i, 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 Hawai‘i 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 Hawai‘i 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 1 EXHIBIT F that being said, the Director is recommending an unfavorable recommendation of the proposed Bill 291 Draft 2. 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 2 EXHIBIT F 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, 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 Hawai‘i, 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. 3 EXHIBIT F 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 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? 4 EXHIBIT F 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 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? 5 EXHIBIT F BOWMAN: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. 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 EXHIBIT F