Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-15 KCDP Minutes Final KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE COUNTY OF HAWAII MINUTES MARCH 15, 2017 Call to order: 2:01 pm Place: West Hawaii Civic Center Planning Conference Room 74-5044 Ane Hwy., Building E, Kailua Kona, HI 96740 Attendance: a. Members present: Barbara DeFranco (Chair), Charles Young (Vice-Chair), Kari Kimura, Gregory Ogin, Douglas Payne, Curtis J. Tyler III, Shane Palacat-Nelsen and Hiram Rivera b. Members absent/excused: c. Planning Department: Michael Yee, Planning Director, Bennett Mark, and Keola Childs d. Other persons: Frank J. De Marco, Director, Dept. of Public Works; Nancy Pisicchio, Executive Assistant to the Mayor; Councilmembers Dru Kanuha, Karen Eoff and (briefly) Maile David; and Wendy Baez, Council Legislative Assistant e. Public: Shirley David, Erin Ishizaki, Jason King, Michael Shibata, Dru Kanuha, Lele Kimball, James Melrose, Ken Melrose, and Jeff Zimpfer (National Park Service). STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING ITEMS ON AGENDA None ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1. Minutes of the Meeting of January 18, 2017. It was moved/seconded by Committee members Palacat-Nelsen/Tyler to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was carried unanimously by voice vote. 2. Request from then-absent Committee Member Tyler for the Committee to reconsider its approval of the draft Minutes of the Meeting of November 30, 2016, in order to address suggested corrections and revisions for clarification purposes. It was moved/seconded by Committee members Payne/Ogin to reconsider the said draft Minutes. With no discussion offered, the motion carried unanimously by voice vote. It was then moved/seconded by Committee members Tyler/Rivera to amend said Minutes to incorporate his suggested amendments as set forth in the printed copy of his email sent to the Committee during the course of the January 18, 2017 meeting, as provided by staff to the Committee members in meeting. After cursory discussion of the proposed amendments, there being no further discussion, the motion to accordingly amend the Minutes carried unanimously. Page 1 of 9 Additionally, Committee member Payne noted that the subject Minutes omitted maps and exhibits stated in the Minutes as being attachments thereto, and requested that they be included. NEW BUSINESS Director De Marco distributed copies of a two-page information bulletin from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding its Flood Map Revision program, process and current status as of August, 2015 for Hawaii County. He began the discussion noting he was the Flood Plain Manager for the County during the last mayoral administration period and was very much involved in preparing the Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) for Hawaii County. He explained the following: His task \[as Flood Plain Manager\] was to improve the existing flood maps of the County. He and his staff reviewed the many FEMA-approved flood studies throughout the island done since the existing Federal FIRMs were established, and found that most of the FEMA-approved map changes had not been incorporated into those existing FIRMs (floodway maps). They systematically reviewed every known watercourse island-wide, including Kona, incorporating digital data, digitizing and then incorporating additional printed data, to try to make the FIRMs better than they were. This compilation, analysis and corroboration or reconciliation of flood studies, LOMRs) and existing FIRMs took several years. He explained the FEMA Flood Map revision process, and that the o (correct or revise) the published Preliminary FIRMs had been during: (1) the now completed two public hearings in August, 2015, (2) a 30-day comment period following those hearings, and (3) a 90-day appeal period after the then-following publication of the Preliminary FIRMs, which may or may not have been revised as a result of public comments. He said that after public comments had been taken into consideration, the Preliminary FIRMs were publicized in the Federal Register, public notices were published in a local newspaper. He said that according to the federal process, there are no more opportunities to revise the new Preliminary FIRMs; these Preliminary FIRMs will become Final in September, 2017, following thth two public informational meetings in July, 2017: July 12 in Hilo, and July 13 in Kona, from 5pm 8pm. The purpose of the meeting is to introduce these maps. He advised that citizens can and looking at the County of Hawaii Preliminary DFIRMs. Thus, he explained that in order to make any changes at this point, one must do a howing that these maps are incorrect, and submit a request to FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). Mr. De Marco stressed the detail and effort his group made to improve the flood maps was done with maximum accuracy possible with current technology, including sophisticated aerial imaging techniques such as LIDAR for accurate ground terrain determinations. Page 2 of 9 Member Ogin questioned the delineation of a floodway crossing property in Kailua Village that had not been previously designated as such, where there was no known flooding in modern times, and where there was no flooding on that site while nearby areas to the north were severely flooded in 2015. Mr. De Marco explained that the s a 1% chance of a flooding event at that inundation level, and thus means that \[as merely a measure of probability\] there could be several flood events of that extent in a particular 100 year period or there could be none in that same 100 year period. He website provides day by day rainfall reports if a particular heavy rainfall date is being sought. Member Tyler expressed concerns regarding the omission of a floodway known to him in the urban area along the Mamalahoa Hwy. between Honalo and Kealakekua, particularly because it is a floodway well-known to three recent, successive Councilmembers for that political district. Mr. De Marco said that no known or recent County-sanctioned flood study has been done for that particular section of Kona. He noted that the South Kona Flood Study, covering a sub-region of Kona running south from the Konawaena school complex, was done in recent years due to a public demand for such covering the South Kona area, but excluded high elevations due to the expense of detail image mapping of those remote areas. Mr. Tyler asked if the County Council was involved, for comment or for their endorsement, in the federal review of the Preliminary FIRMs; Mr. De Marco said no, but that the Executive Branch, through the Dept. of Public Works, does have to approve the draft maps before they are forwarded to FEMA for incorporation into the proposed map revisions (Preliminary FIRMs). He also explained that in addition to the publication of the map revisions in the newspaper, when a flood study is done by the County, this County also mails out notice to all owners of property directly affected by the proposed map changes, even though property owner notification is an optional requirement of FEMA when a LOMR is being requested. FEMA flood maps, as being a flood area (or not being in a flood area)? De Marco said any owner, or the government for government properties, can file a request for a map revision via online instructions and forms. He explained that both the recent North and South Kona flood studies were done at community request. He also explained that the current FIRM update is the result of a nationwide effort, at the direction of Congress, and is directly related to national flood insurance rates and their application to particular floodplain types. Member Kimura asked if FIRMs will be made available as a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer. Mr. De Marco intimated that this will be provided to the Planning Dept. once the DFIRMs becomes Final. She then asked whether the Preliminary maps are being used for regulatory purposes already; Mr. De Marco said yes, because FEMA requires the County whether officially sanctioned or not. In response to a question later allowed from a member of the public, Ken Melrose, in the course of discussions of Agenda Item No. 2 (below), that question being in regard to the or relocation of a previously approved (by LOMR) floodway designation in South Kona (Flood Study-Watercourses 1 and 2), Mr. DeMarco explained that that particular floodway was restudied as part of the South Kona Flood Study by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and the ACE study results were incorporated into the Preliminary DFIRM; as a result, the previous privately- initiated LOMR was superseded by the information provided from the current ACE study. Mr. Melrose replied stating his belief that it was unjust of the County to modify previously designated floodways without consulting with affected landowners and physically inspecting the designated floodways. Chair DeFranco said that one of the purposes of Page 3 of 9 the Action Committee is to bridge the information and awareness gap between County agency actions and public knowledge. Rd. to Walua Road) which he said was taken off the STIP, and whether the Director was advised about the Ali`i Parkway importance to the Action Committee. Member Payne recommendations dated 12/5/16. Mr. De Marco explained that his expertise and knowledge base to date has been primarily flood plain related matters and has not yet gained a c projects. Ali`i Parkway to avoid floodway concerns in the Kahului Ahupua`a and the Sea Village condominium sites), and asked if it is correct that the Mayor has no plans to put this Ali`i Parkway project in his CIP because of the archaeological concerns. Mr. De Marco confirmed that as being his understanding. Member Rivera said that social conditions are different today, and some cultural-historic sites may be avoided if the north end re-routing proposal of the AC for the Ali`i Parkway was implemented in design, and thus the Ali`i Parkway re-design proposal would make sense for the County to pursue, particular given the severe traffic congestion suffered Traffic Improvement Program (STIP). Finally, Mr. De Marco asked the AC Members their opinions on an increasing number of private property owners seeking County permission to construct or retain various structures within the Ali`i Drive right-of-way, albeit outside of the existing paved vehicular travelway. Member Palacat-Nelsen cautioned 1 the Director, on behalf of the County Land Act \[before denying a property owner the privilege of placing or retaining those structures\], as there are many kuleana properties which extend into purported public right-of-ways. Mr. De Marco expressed his view that the right-of-way is public property and should be fully retained as such. Member Palacat-Nelsen opined that he would face opposition from other State agencies if the County applied that approach to such landowner requests. Member Tyler opined that in the interest of public health and safety, the public right-of-way should be preserved for the public. Page 4 of 9 3. Presentation by and discussion with Planning Director Michael Yee regarding CDP implementation. The presentation may address some or all of the following topics: implementation methods, strategies, issues and priorities, relationship to the Department. Mr. Yee explained his professional background, starting with a university degree in \[urban\] planning, and his work to date primarily being in the fields of affordable housing, community development and revitalization, historic preservation and related cultural issues. He noted having . He expressed several early impressions gained in his first few months as Director: He has spent a lot of time visiting all the CDP Action Committees; ing Nancy Pissichio to help in realigning CDPs with General Plan (GP) implementation; and stated he currently concurs with former Director Kanuha position with regard to CDPs being advisory documents \[regardless of CDP text declarations otherwise\]. He noted the GP is scheduled for being formally updated next year, and the CDPs are scheduled to all begin an updating process sometime after that. He said he may be later proposing that the CDP updates be deferred for a while longer, until a better, standardized fit of CDPs with the GP can be first designed by the Planning Department. He noted that every AC is different, and that some Committees are more robust in their CDP-oriented undertakings than others; but in all cases, he wants the ACs to focus on what the CDPs call out as priorities, and it is his intent to work with the ACs and staff ues that are not identified in their respective CDPs as priorities, and felt that such was not productive; he made it clear that he was not referring to the Kona AC as to those concerns. As to the County Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Mr. Yee said that he intends to exercise his responsibility under the Charter to recommend CIP priorities for the various CDPs as one of his major areas of focus during his tenure. He noted that this may not have been as high a priority for prior Planning Directors as it will be for him. Member Payne expressed concern and frustration that the package of recommendations presented by the Kona AC seem to have not been applied by the Administration, and hopes that this can be improved. Mr. Yee re-affirmed his intent to push community preferences forward as a top priority during his tenure. Regarding cultural and historical preservation, Mr. Yee said we collectively have to be thinking of what kinds of change are necessary, and how He believes that planning for change and growth necessary for working families that have been here for generations and will be here for generations more; and to do that, we must put more focus on cultural and historic preservation; that we have to be constantly talking about those things, and by doing so, we will have a better guide to what we should be doing on the island and for whom we king positive change or improvements). He said he will be constantly looking for solutions to accomplish that and to change the way things are. Mr. Yee added that he wants to create a cultural-historic preservation team within the Planning Dept., and to create an agreement with State DLNR (SHPD) to take some of the workload off their department so that we can expedite some projects. He said that although his staff has asserted that additional resources are needed to take on such additional workload, his position is that we have to find a way to Page 5 of 9 meaningful change to happen. He noted the County has a strong Cultural Resources Commission with a highly capable staff planner, Lucas Mead, who he believes together are capable and well-suited to take on this work. He closed his remarks with a capsule summary of his personal family history and multi- generational roots in Hawaii, including his upbringing, education, and current family make-up, particularly as to the importance of having his infant son Kekoa grow up ina community within which he would want to remain and live. Member Rivera asked the Director to review all the previous Kona AC recommendations regarding the CDP implementation, because of the hard work of the AC members in preparing those recommendation. Mr. Yee offered to meet with AC members to discuss those recommendations after he has reviewed them. Member Payne asked the Director for help in generating affordable housing for teachers, who he believes are not paid enough to afford housing here. quest, then presented an illustration understood and applied by the Director in his approach to community work. Mr. Yee drew an illustration on the presentation board of resolving the problem of three people of short, medium and tall body height trying to look over a 6-foot high fence by giving those three people three different sized boxes to stand upon so that all three obtained an equal viewing height over the fence ; not just have one size box to hand out re. In seeking to Planning to find a way to go out to the other voice issues. He then acknowledged the probl accomplishing these \[outreach and participation\] goals, and pointed out that even subcommittees work could be simplified to better reach these objectives without Sunshine Law complications. 4. Discussion regarding the omission of any specific provision for industrial uses within Keauhou resort area to the Daniel K. Inouye Kona International Airport and the djoining the new West Hawaii University Center campus above the airport. Discussion to address Member concerns that the Kona CDP should address, accommodate and provide guidance for properly defined, necessary and controlled industrial activity within the Kona-Kohala regions. Discussion may include recommendations for future amendment of the Kona CDP to specifically accommodate such uses. Member Ogin noted the CDP omits any reference to or consideration of industrial- purposed lands, and wondered where the AC or County should start to remedy this omission. Member Tyler echoed the importance of having industrially-designated lands as a necessary community function, and that this problem needs to be fixed; he opined that the proper place to address this is first in the General Plan, as part of the pending GP update. Director Yee, still present in the audience, interjected that he has requested his Deputy Director to consider and undertake some large-scale, County-initiated rezonings of lands in areas identified in adopted plans as appropriate for certain uses, such as industrial among others, so at to reduce the burdens of landowners to comport with the General Plan and CDPs. Page 6 of 9 Member Rivera pointed out the direct conflict between the GP designation of industrial lands versus the general urbanization boundaries on the Kona CDP. Member Payne asked the Director what the future role of the updated GP will be versus the provisions of the role and function of CDPs in the future. Director Yee explained his desire to have future and revised CDPs all follow a standard template of format and content to allow a better understanding of each and every CDP with regard to the GP as we go forward. Director) that the AC be updated every 3 4 months of the ongoing progress in updating the GP, so that they \[the AC members\] maintained a better understanding of their intended role and scope of work. Director Yee replied that the GP-CDP interrelationship and CDP structural template concepts remains undetermined and are still evolving concepts No action was moved by the Committee with regard to this agenda item. 5. -Year Capital Improvement Program FY 2017- recommendations of the Kona CDP Action Committee. Staff distributed copies of page 9 of the referenced budget submittal of March 1, 2017, Childs identified thereon a culvert-bridge replacement project in Kahului, North Kona, along Ali`i Drive, approximately 1 mile south of Kailua Village, and together with the Puna emergency access-connectivity project, as the only two roadway projects in the current CIP budget proposal. Member Kimura noted the large budgeted amount for the expansion of the Kealakehe Wastewater treatment plant, and that this was a very necessary project for the healthy growth of North Kona and implementation of the Kona CDP. Councilmember Eoff interjected her concurrence with the necessity of that wastewater project, and noted that this particular budget sheet does not reflect existing appropriations and funded projects. Member Palacat-Nelsen asked if staff could compile a list of the existing appropriations and funded projects; staff Childs said he would do so for reporting at the next meeting. 6. Improvement Program (CIP) and fiscal year Capital Improvement Budget (Budget) from the perspective of a agency recommendations, referral of Countywide recommendations to the Mayor, and Budget and submittal to the County Staff Childs passed out copies of a flowchart he composed, as an unofficial document only, to illustrate what happens when the AC makes CIP recommendations, from a general process standpoint both graphically and with text explanations below. He flowchart, although different directors over time have exercised their prioritization roles to greater or lesser degrees. He discussed the various steps in the annual budgetary process flow, including referral of AC recommendations to particular departments, opportunities for discussions between the Planning Director and other department Page 7 of 9 heads, and then the submittals of department budget requests to the Planning Director, the Managing Director and ultimately further on to the Mayor for review, st vetting and revision and delivery to the County Council on or before March 1. Staff Childs explained that there i in the annual process, developed by departments and processed in the same manner, with this second version of the annual CIP budget submitted by the Mayor to the Council on or th before May 5 of each year. These inter-agency steps were depicted on the distributed flowchart in a different color from that assigned to those pertaining to AC recommendations. He also noted the sequencing of public hearings following the second submittal and capital budgets. Staff Childs then encouraged the AC, via AC-authorized representative members, to consider providing testimony regarding the capital budget directly to the Council, whether at a public hearing or otherwise, or to the Mayor, suggesting that Director Yee interjected that although he did not have the experience yet to provide the level of pro-active engagement in CIP project advocacy and prioritization that he would like to provide, he intended to be operating fully prepared to do so himself, not merely s that next year we will see more CIP projects that come from Action Committees moving forward, or at least talked about more \[among the Directors and with the Mayor\] and that he expects to be totally knowledgeable about all the projects that the various ACs want to have undertaken. Member Tyler asked staff if there might be a benefit for AC members to participate in the operating and capital budget submittals. Staff Childs said he was not qualified to address that question, but suggested the AC communicate specific objectives or questions to the Planning Director for his possible pursuit of those interests during those departmental reviews by the Council. -------------------------- Following discussion of Agenda item no. 6, Chair DeFranco noted it was now 4:30p p.m. asked members if they wished to defer the remaining agenda item to the next meeting. Members Young and Tyler moved/seconded: (1) to defer all remaining business (Agenda item no. 7 and both Unfinished Business items to the next meeting of the Action Committee, (2) to add to the next meeting agenda the further review of the CIP budget with a consolidated listing of all CIP projects currently listed and proposed for North and South Kona, which listing is to be prepared by Planning Dept. staff, including possible further recommendations and (3) that the next meeting of the Kona CDP Action Committee be scheduled for Wednesday April 19, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. In discussion on the motion, Member Ogin asked whether the Department was able to support returning to monthly scheduled meetings. Staff Childs replied that while the Director was not ready to make a decision on returning all ACs to a monthly meeting schedule at this point, he was certain that the Director would support this additional Kona CDP AC meeting on April 19. Director Yee interjected that he did support this extra meeting, due to the important unfinished work standing before the AC. Upon call of the Chair, the motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS Staff announced that Commissioner Kekaulike Tomich of Public Access, Open (PONC) has advised that he Page 8 of 9 would be available to attend either an April or May meeting of the Kona CDP Action Committee to explain and discuss purpose and program, as it may pertain to the Kona CDP and its Action Committee. Chair DeFranco asked staff to place the PONC Committee. ADJOURNMENT With no objections from the members, Chair DeFranco adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Keola Childs, Planner A T T E S T: Barbara DeFranco, Chair DISTRIBUTED MEETING MATERIALS ARE KEPT ON FILE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW UPON REQUEST. Page 9 of 9