Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-14 exhibit_a WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT December 14, 2010 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL’SAMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE RELATING TO TSUNAMI SIRENS was called to order at 9:17 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Wallace Ishibashi, and Zendo Kern. STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), and Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner). And one person from the public in attendance. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo and Stephen Ono. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 4, of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), by adding a new division relating to Tsunami Sirens. WOODWARD: The next item on the agenda, and the final business item on the agenda, is County Council initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code, Article 4, adding a new division relating to Tsunami Sirens. Mr. Arai. ARAI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The Hawaii County Council forwarded to the Planning Commission a draft, Bill No. 291, Draft 2. What this bill attempts to do is to amend a section of the Zoning Code by requiring that certain residential or commercial projects situated within the tsunami evacuation zone require the installation of a tsunami siren, if such a siren does not exist within a one mile radius of the affected building site. They plan to accomplish that through our plan approval review process, which is an administrative review process within the Planning Department. The Plan Approval process really is to check to make sure that when someone builds something it meets the basic requirements of the Zoning Code --things that are site specific like the height of a structure, whether there’s enough parking, whether your setbacks are okay, whether you have enough landscaping, whether you have enough accessible stalls--very site specific and project specific improvements. What this bill is attempting to do, and it’s something that we do not support, is to address what is considered a regional infrastructural deficiency and using our administrative review process to accomplish that; and we think that that is improper. As articulated at length within the background and recommendation report, we attempted to cite the various reasons and circumstances by which it could lead to more complications if you try to implement, address an infrastructural deficiency through an administrative review process, like the plan approval. So, you know, I won’t go and elaborate all of the points that are clearly written in your report. But for those reasons as articulated,we ask that the Planning Commission forward an unfavorable recommendation of this bill to the Hawai‘i County Council. With that I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. 1 WOODWARD: Any questions for Mr. Arai? Anybody from the public? NOMURA: No, none. WOODWARD: No, nobody from the public. All right, I think the thing to do would be to entertain a motion; and then get into some discussion. Would somebody like to make a motion? Commissioner Kern. KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) change, Bill No. 291, Draft 2, I move that a unfavorable recommendation be sent to Council. WOODWARD: Do we have a second? ISHIBASHI: Second. WOODWARD: Okay, very good. Discussion? Commissioner Kern. KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a well-written report from the Planning staff; and I appreciate reading it. I definitely think this causes undue burden on the Planning Department, for one, and a significant burden on small businesses actually trying to do something where they had to spend close to $85,000 if they wanted to add ten more seats to the restaurant, potentially. To me this is absurd and should be squashed now, and ASAP. Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you. I’ll put in my two cents worth. I would agree entirely. This is, first of all, it’s a method of raising money, which is unfair. There is, everybody is going to benefit from Civil Defense sirens, not just the guy who has the last building in a development and has to foot the bill for the siren. It’s going to end up with a hodgepodge, that is you’re not going to be able to complete your Civil Defense system until you have enough people that have bought property in that area that is going to fit this requirement that they’re going to pony up their bucks. And it creates this incredible paperwork and nightmare that is going to cost the County probably more than it’s going to save them. It’s going to definitely snarl up the planning process. I mean it was, I don’t know who thought this up, but it is as poorly conceived a bill as I think I have ever seen. And there’s no question that this thing ought to be shot down in flames. So strong letter to follow -. ARAI: Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Yes. ARAI: I just wanted to clarify a statement that you made. The way we interpret the bill, it’s not like it’s proposing an in-lieu fee or contribution toward the installation of a siren. It’s basically saying if you meet certain criteria that triggers the need for a siren, that applicant or developer has to provide that siren at a full cost of roughly $85,000. So the burden would be on that one applicant. So it’s not a contribution. They have to put the siren in. WOODWARD: Right. It’s a tax, essentially, even though if they have to put it toward a physical implement, yeah. Okay, Commissioner Au. AU: I have a question for Daryn. What is the next step whether it gets, whether we pass it or not? What would be the next step? Would it go back to Council? 2 ARAI: Yes. Your recommendation will be forwarded to the County Council for its consideration. At that point they will conduct their own hearings on the bill itself. WOODWARD: I would make several other points that are not necessarily completely germane to this issue. But the whole issue of tsunami sirens and the Civil Defense here in the County and the State is really a joke. A tsunami siren, my understanding is -- and these things are set up so that you have to have them a mile apart; well, they don’t have a radius of a mile --my understanding is that they’re lucky if they get a quarter of a mile from these sirens. They are nonspecific. It’s like trying to communicate an emergency by Morse Code. You know, they go off and people they test them periodically, and nobody pays any attention. It’s like a burglar alarm in a car. When they go off in a parking lot, nobody pays any attention to it. And if they do go off you don’t know if it’s because there’s a tsunami that’s coming in three days or you’ve got lava flowing down the back of your hill. The other potential problem is that these things cannot be set off. You can’t just say, okay, there’s a lava flow in Puna and Kau we need to set off the sirens down there, can’t do that. It’s the whole island. It’s all connected. So they cannot say, okay, just turn on the sirens in Puna and Kau, and not Kohala and, you know, Hamakua, and North Hilo, and so on and so forth. So there are so many things that they’ve worked out so poorly. And now to try and get people to pay for this as part of the construction of a facility, when this is really a State function, not a County function – I mean we’re talking State Civil Defense. They have some money but they don’t quite have enough. So now the County wants to go get it from people in the County. It’s amazing what they come up with sometimes. So, anyway, that’s another piece of information and my feelings about this tsunami warning system in general. So anybody else have any other comments? Okay, Daryn, I guess we’re ready for a vote. ARAI: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s see, Commissioner Kern? KERN: Aye. Aye for an unfavorable recommendation. ARAI: Right. The motion is an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. KERN: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. ARAI: Chairman Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carries with four aye votes. WOODWARD: Very good, thank you. 3 The discussion ended at 9:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 4