[0:06] [ GAVEL ] >> Good morning everyone and
[0:08] welcome to our Committee meeting.
[0:10] Today is September 2nd and we'll start
[0:12] about our Planning Committee, Mr.
[0:14] Bulosan. >> Thank you.
[0:15] I would like to call the Planning
[0:17] Committee to order and let the record
[0:19] reflect all members are present.
[0:20] Can I get the first item, please.
[0:22] >> Minutes of the August 19th, 2026
[0:26] Planning Committee meeting. >> Moved.
[0:27] >> Second. >> Moved and seconded.
[0:29] Any public testimony? Any discussion?
[0:31] All in favor say aye? >> Aye.
[0:33] >> Any opposed? Motion passes.
[0:36] Can I get the second item, please.
[0:38] >> Bill No. 2998, draft 1, a Bill for
[0:42] an Ordinance amending Chapters 15, 12
[0:44] and 8 Kaua'i County Code, 1987, as
[0:46] amended, relating to Wildfire and
[0:48] Wildland Urban Interface. County of Kaua'i applicant,
[0:53] ZA-2026-6. >> Move to approve.
[0:55] >> Second. >> It's been moved and
[0:57] seconded. Committee Members, I'm going to
[1:00] start with discussion and then we'll
[1:01] suspend the rules and have
[1:04] Administration respond, and if we have any
[1:05] questions for the Administration, we can
[1:07] ask then and then we'll do public
[1:10] testimony and back to discussion.
[1:12] Try to do as much work as we can in
[1:14] this Bill in Committee meetings as
[1:16] always we do the majority of our work
[1:18] in all our bills. with the intent to get it as
[1:22] best as possible. So that way, if we
[1:24] do pass today, we get the best Bill
[1:28] possible for our second reading.
[1:30] So with that, we do have presentation
[1:35] and discussion starting with Chair
[1:36] Rapozo, and I think he has a presentation, if you can get
[1:41] that set-up?
[1:43] >> Thank you. Committee Chair, I
[1:46] appreciate the opportunity to speak.
[1:48] I'm a non-Committee Member, but I did
[1:50] request the deferral at the last
[1:52] Committee meeting. Because I did have some
[1:56] questions, let me just start this Bill doesn't
[1:58] take effect until next year July
[2:00] 1st, 2027. So we have a year.
[2:03] So there's really no need to rush.
[2:08] And my concerns last week was obviously
[2:11] the cost, and we're presented with the
[2:13] cost estimates from the Administration.
[2:15] The other concern I hads was the
[2:18] impact, the financial or fiscal impact
[2:21] it would have on the Department of
[2:24] Water, because $14,000 a home, that is
[2:26] a significant amount of money that the
[2:29] Water Department would not receive,
[2:31] which would have to be made up somewhere.
[2:34] And the stuff doesn't just come out of
[2:36] thin air. So what I did was I reached
[2:38] out to the contractors Association of
[2:43] Kaua'i, which is made up of our local
[2:49] contractors and developers, and an
[2:51] engineer to go over the Bill Section by
[2:54] Section to see what the impact would
[2:55] be? What it would really cost for
[2:58] one of our local contractors that
[3:01] specializes in residential construction, as
[3:05] well as the building -- and testimonies
[3:09] are all attached in the packet that I
[3:11] asked Staff to pass out this morning.
[3:12] I only received this yesterday. But building industry
[3:16] Association had some concerns as well that I
[3:18] would like to have a discussion on, which
[3:23] really pertains to the applicability
[3:27] to all construction whether many a
[3:29] hazard area or not, you are bound by these
[3:31] requirements. And I kind of likened that to
[3:35] the special laws that we have that
[3:38] pertain to homes that are in a tsunami
[3:41] zone, or in a flood zone.
[3:44] Those requirements don't apply to all
[3:46] construction around the island, if you
[3:47] are not in that hazard area. This one does.
[3:51] That is just one of the concerns that
[3:55] the BIA had, which I tend to agree
[3:57] with, have we designed hazard zones
[4:00] with, this should apply too? If you are in a zone that has
[4:04] no threat of wildfires, why would we be
[4:07] imposing these additional costs on the
[4:08] construction? So that is one of them.
[4:10] And then the Department of Water impact
[4:13] is something that I know that the
[4:14] Department of Water is here and I'm
[4:16] expecting them to come up and share
[4:17] with us what that cost would be.
[4:20] But my biggest concern right now is we
[4:22] all try to keep our local families in
[4:24] homes, is the true cost. So I did ask that the
[4:28] contractors Association as I said earlier
[4:30] to go through the Bill one by one,
[4:32] Section by Section and come up with their
[4:34] cost estimates.
[4:35] And the reason I'm bringing this
[4:37] forward is because it's so different
[4:38] from what was presented to us that I
[4:42] believe this body needs to validate
[4:44] what the real numbers are, and we
[4:47] shouldn't be rushed to pass this out
[4:50] today, until -- and the Administration
[4:52] has a copy of this and hopefully, they
[4:55] can come up and explain why these
[4:56] numbers are so high, versus what was
[4:59] presented? With that I have a short
[5:01] presentation that I wanted to share.
[5:02] I'm not sure -- I have never done this
[5:07] before. So this is I know it's kind of
[5:11] small on the screen.
[5:12] I hope you can see it. In the first requirement of
[5:16] roofs, the contractors association's
[5:19] people said there's actually no change.
[5:21] That the roofs they wouldn't see any
[5:26] increase in costs. But on the gutters and
[5:31] downspouts, and this is based on a thousand
[5:34] square foot home, a regular simple thousand
[5:37] square foot home that to implement
[5:40] these requirements would cost an
[5:44] additional $3,000.
[5:45] The flashing, which is on the exterior
[5:51] walls, they are estimateing that the
[5:53] materials and labor to comply with that
[5:55] Section would be $5,000. The post and pier, stainless
[6:06] steel that pier materialss shall be
[6:09] non-combustible and in Section DRF they
[6:11] are saying that estimate is $5,000 in
[6:16] addition to the normal construction
[6:17] cost and flashing and decking for the
[6:19] post and pier homes what they call the
[6:22] under[TKPHRAO-R/] enclosure is $2,000.
[6:25] And then on page 5, the vents, they are
[6:31] not attributing any costs to that,
[6:32] because that is standard. And it would be no additional
[6:38] costs. The tempered glass requirement,
[6:40] they are estimateing it to be $1800.
[6:44] That is again materials and labor.
[6:49] The exterior door, $30. The address that is required
[6:54] $20. Again, they went through each
[6:57] Section that would require additional
[6:59] items to be put on that home.
[7:03] So that adds up to $16,850, which is
[7:09] $16.85 a square foot, and then they had
[7:12] two more calculations for concrete
[7:16] versus aggregate, and the concrete
[7:18] around, again around a thousand square
[7:21] foot house, their estimateing it to be
[7:24] $90,000. And if you use aggregate
[7:27] hardening instead, which is the rock, or
[7:29] the gravel is $40,000 instead.
[7:32] So as you can see, the price difference
[7:35] is significant. Now I'm not a contractor.
[7:37] I'm not an engineer. I'm not -- I don't know
[7:41] anything about construction, but the
[7:43] difference in these numbers are so
[7:44] significant that I think it warrants this body to
[7:49] at least ask the questions.
[7:51] Again, this was -- these were estimates
[7:53] that were done from a team that was put
[7:55] together by contractors association of
[7:57] Kaua'i. And I just wanted to set the
[8:00] stage with that, so we can at least get
[8:02] some information on what is that
[8:03] real number?
[8:04] That was my concern when I first saw
[8:06] it, because I think the proposed Bill,
[8:08] and the number is $6 a square foot.
[8:10] And as you can see, it's significantly
[8:15] higher on the estimates that were given
[8:17] by the contractors Association of
[8:20] Kaua'i. Significantly higher.
[8:22] So that is kind of where I'm hoping the
[8:25] discussion will go today. As I said, Water Department is
[8:29] here and I'm hoping that they are
[8:30] prepared to come up.
[8:31] It's hard to say what the impact will
[8:33] be, because you have to know obviously
[8:35] how many homes you are going to build?
[8:39] Hopefully with historical data, we can
[8:40] kind of estimate what we would be
[8:43] looking at and how much that would
[8:45] impact our Water Department? Which is already struggling
[8:50] financially, and again, when we take
[8:53] money away from the Water Department,
[8:55] it has to be made up somewhere. And their revenue source is
[8:59] simply water users.
[9:01] So that is always a concern. Again, I will just say this
[9:06] Bill, if passed, wouldn't take effect
[9:08] until July of 2027.
[9:10] It's a whole year. So there is no need
[9:12] to rush this through in two Committee
[9:16] meetings. So my suggestion would be
[9:18] unless we can clarify the numbers, and
[9:21] applicability and all of that, that I
[9:23] would be asking the Committee to once
[9:24] again defer. Thank you.
[9:28] >> Thank you. Any initial discussion before
[9:31] we go to the Administration?
[9:32] Council Member Cowden? >> Okay.
[9:34] Thank you, Chair, for that outline.
[9:37] Then I'm happy to give a little bit of
[9:40] initial discussion. One, we had a letter from
[9:47] Habitat for Humanity that suggested there
[9:49] might be some Amendments.
[9:50] I don't know if I can mention what I
[9:52] read in Habitat for Humanity, but so
[9:54] when we don't have a second road access
[9:57] in, I understand how that is very
[10:00] expensive; right? To put in another
[10:02] entrance. But I think that is one of the
[10:06] biggest Fire hazards that we have.
[10:09] I want to speak about the plant challenge.
[10:12] I don't know if in the development of
[10:14] this Bill how much conversation was put
[10:17] in with people who are specialists in
[10:22] soil management? But this is anything, but a
[10:26] regenerateive strategy of handling the
[10:28] soil. So when I look at what puts in
[10:34] here, it's not realistic relative to
[10:36] the plants, when you separate all
[10:38] of the plants out by as much as they
[10:40] do, it's pretty much grass to the fence
[10:43] line with maybe a few little trees
[10:46] in the property.
[10:48] When I bought my house, that is basically what it was.
[10:51] As I put in regenerateive agriculture
[10:54] in there, I haven't watered my yard in
[10:58] over probably ten years, because of the
[11:00] way the plants -- the way nature
[11:04] manages plants, they grow in clusters.
[11:06] This doesn't allow for that. It doesn't allow for an
[11:09] understory, which is the natural way of
[11:12] having plants.
[11:12] So I think it's really important,
[11:14] because one has to think about cooling
[11:17] the House, watering the yard, having --
[11:23] this is prioritizeing Fire Prevention
[11:28] over food sustainability. And the more you allow your
[11:31] yard to be natural, with having a healthy
[11:37] amount of leaves and stuff like that
[11:39] on the ground, that is what holds the
[11:41] water in the soil.
[11:42] That is what keeps everything really
[11:45] abundant, and before I planted my yard
[11:48] that I really had no idea how much it
[11:51] would grow into what it became naturally?
[11:53] It has like a forest floor in the yard.
[11:57] My house is a good ten degrees cooler
[11:59] than it was. The House, which is a Hick's
[12:04] home with wooden single-wall
[12:06] construction, I used to be able to put my hand on
[12:09] the wall when the sun was on the house,
[12:12] and, you know, warm almost towards hot
[12:14] to the touch.
[12:16] You wouldn't lean against it with a
[12:18] bareback and the House was hot in the
[12:22] daytime, always hot. With a natural healthy yard in
[12:26] and around it, the House is fine,
[12:28] and I would never even need an air
[12:30] conditioner. So when you think about what
[12:33] the cost is, when we're looking at
[12:37] affordable housing, the cost to maintain
[12:41] an unnatural yard with can be when
[12:44] we're looking at a 4" width of the
[12:48] tree base, and all these design things
[12:50] that you have to do. That is not how
[12:53] plants grow.
[12:54] So the amount of landscaping, constant
[12:58] elements to keep the yard in an unhealthy, unnatural way of
[13:02] being is actually pretty extensive.
[13:06] So I'll have a few questions to the
[13:10] Fire Department just about when you
[13:12] have a wet scape, versus a dry scape?
[13:18] Because even we see the burn scars that
[13:21] happened with Hanapepe Kaumakani Fire,
[13:23] you could see it went right along the
[13:27] edges of where there was a wet scape in
[13:29] the agriculture. And I think that when you look
[13:32] at having concrete around the
[13:36] House, and absolutely exhausted soil, you
[13:38] are going to have a hot scape
[13:41] around that house as opposed to a wet
[13:45] scape. Again, I really appreciated the
[13:48] Chair asking the questions about the
[13:50] Districts. I know we had a Fire in
[13:53] Wainiha, I believe it was almost 100
[13:57] acres, when the Fire come up, I will ask a
[14:00] few questions with that.
[14:01] There's an example when a wet scape did
[14:03] burn. So I'll have some questions
[14:04] about what happened with that wet scape?
[14:07] But I am in agreement with that different rules would maybe
[14:12] apply. We still want to be careful, on
[14:16] how you create a burn area, but I think
[14:22] when you have stuff like hanging wet
[14:26] suits on clothes line under an eve,
[14:29] whatever it is, there's all kinds of
[14:30] things that create burnable materials, a
[14:33] lot more than the plants.
[14:35] A nice wet compress on the land of
[14:40] naturally maintained soil is going to
[14:41] be a lot less burnable than this -- in
[14:45] asks for a hot, dry ground, and I think
[14:48] that is problematic. And Los Angeles is not Kaua'i.
[14:51] If that is where a lot of these places
[14:53] came from. Texas is not Kaua'i.
[14:57] Arizona, Colorado, are not Kaua'i.
[15:00] So the wonderful and important Fire
[15:03] convention that happened that came up
[15:05] with these ideas, conference, it might
[15:08] be reflecting a very different landscape than what we have
[15:13] here and I think we need to really
[15:16] maximize what we have, which is a wet
[15:18] community, especially in the windward side
[15:21] of the island that maybe we would have
[15:26] different requirements. So I think those are things
[15:29] that I want to be able to look at.
[15:32] And I'm also going to really want to be
[15:35] looking at the shalls and Mays. >> Any other additional
[15:42] discussion? I will just add since we're in
[15:45] a second Committee meeting and I really
[15:48] appreciate the non-Members and Committee Members providing all
[15:51] of the information, so that way we can
[15:53] look at all of the pieces and make sure
[15:56] we provide something that is
[15:58] tangible and useful, but also does what it's
[16:01] intended to do, which is protect our
[16:04] community. I will just mention that the
[16:07] group that came together on this was
[16:09] specific to Kaua'i and specific to Kaua'i
[16:12] and provided a Bill with all of the
[16:14] information necessary, so that we make
[16:16] any proposed changes that will affect
[16:19] our community with regards to our
[16:20] community. So hopefully, we can in
[16:24] discussion clarify these things and make
[16:26] sure that we're, you know, passing a Bill
[16:29] that help ours community, but
[16:31] doesn't put a burden on them.
[16:32] I will suspend the rules and ask the
[16:35] Administration to coming up, as we have
[16:40] a few questions from Members and
[16:42] non-Committee Members. Council Members, we'll, as
[16:46] standard, raise your hand and let me know
[16:48] when you are ready for questions,
[16:50] but there's already a list of
[16:51] questions. I will probably start with the
[16:53] Chair, if you are okay, with your
[16:55] presentation. We'll start with your questions
[16:57] first. But if if the administrate, if
[17:01] you have any opening thoughts, feel
[17:05] free to start first.
[17:06] >> Good morning, Chair, Members of the
[17:08] Committee, Council Members, Ka'aina
[17:10] Hull on behalf of the Planning Department, joined by Chief
[17:13] Gibson and some of the cost analyses for
[17:16] the Bill. >> Chair.
[17:17] >> I mean, I don't expect -- they just
[17:19] got the material today as I just got it
[17:23] late yesterday. afternoon.
[17:25] So I mean, I don't know if they are
[17:28] prepared to respond so what we provided.
[17:30] Like I said, I don't believe there's a
[17:32] rush. If they are prepared to answer,
[17:34] that is fine.
[17:34] If not, I can wait. >> Some of the response by the
[17:42] contractors Association I can say look
[17:44] act some of those numbers we would
[17:46] definitely be in agreement. Some of the numbers are
[17:48] calculating things that aren't required
[17:50] like the gutters and downspouts is not a
[17:54] requirement of construction. If you have gutters and
[17:57] downspouts that they be metal.
[17:59] As well as I didn't quite understand
[18:00] where they are going with the stainless
[18:02] steel on the post and pier. We don't necessarily make post
[18:07] and pier out of stainless steel, but
[18:10] generally concrete and already
[18:12] non-combustible and they are plashing flashing
[18:16] @ [SHRA-EUB/] slab and grade
[18:19] wouldn't have flashing.
[18:20] It has a concrete band already in
[18:23] place. So just on the things that they
[18:25] are analyzing.
[18:26] >> I think that was for the post and
[18:27] pier. >> No - sorry,
[18:30] >> The flashing and decking. >> Second page, flashing has
[18:38] it quoted on the base of the house, on
[18:42] the slab on grade.
[18:44] You wouldn't have flashing down there.
[18:46] You would have flashing at the intersection of a deck
[18:50] absolutely, but not on the slab on grade
[18:55] example. So there's some areas that they
[19:00] seem to appear that they are
[19:01] calculating numbers that are in the
[19:02] requirements. >> I think that is where,
[19:04] again, I don't expect you to do a
[19:07] comparison today.
[19:08] >> But I can also say that looking at
[19:12] their numbers for hard scape, and we
[19:16] specifically got five quotes from five
[19:19] different contractors, and we provided
[19:20] the names of those contractors at the
[19:22] last Committee meeting. And it was between $4.33 a
[19:27] square foot and $8, depending on the
[19:32] contractor. So that is where I am, wait,
[19:34] the $40 a square foot for hard scape, I'm
[19:39] not going to say there aren't
[19:42] contractors quoteing that, but that is not
[19:46] necessarily reflective of five quotes
[19:48] from five contractors that are willing
[19:49] to go on the record of what they are
[19:52] quoting. >> Can you remind us what
[19:55] those were? >> The quotes?
[19:57] >> The quote was unlimited had it $5 a
[20:02] square foot. >> Is that labor and -- and
[20:06] concrete? >> The materials delivery is
[20:10] also something that has to be
[20:12] factored in, and labor.
[20:14] So when we got two quotes for just
[20:16] materials if you do a self-build and
[20:18] pick the gravel up, and it was between
[20:22] $350 and $850 for the entire amount of
[20:24] gravel. It comes out to between $40-60
[20:27] a ton, the House we're analyzing
[20:29] requires about 13 tons for that 5' band.
[20:34] And so with labor, delivery and materials, unlimited was
[20:39] quoting $5 a square foot and shoiey was
[20:43] $6.60 a square foot and etherworks at
[20:45] $8 a square foot and Pacific
[20:47] concrete cutting and coreing at $5.33 a
[20:52] square foot and good fellows at -- --
[21:04] >> Council members, questions for the
[21:06] Admin? Council Member Kuali'i and
[21:09] Council Member Cowden.
[21:10] >> I don't know if you would know
[21:14] this, but you probably don't necessarily track it, but of
[21:17] all of the new builds of homes happening
[21:22] on Kaua'i, each year, do you have
[21:25] a sense of how many are slab on grade,
[21:28] and how many are post pier?
[21:30] Like 50/50? 60/40?
[21:33] >> I don't have a sense of that, quite
[21:36] honestly. >> Because like what you were
[21:38] saying clearly the flashing expense
[21:41] wouldn't apply to the slab on grade, but
[21:43] it would apply --
[21:46] >> It wouldn't apply to post on peer
[21:48] because of the combustible wall at the
[21:51] base. >> What is on the bottom of
[21:53] page 3? It says flashing for decking
[21:57] materials and labor -- $2,000, doesn't
[22:01] that purple stuff go all around the
[22:03] bottom? >> That is the mesh.
[22:06] >> Mesh. .
[22:09] >> Is mesh probably part of that?
[22:12] >> Probably. Clarifying we wouldn't object
[22:15] to. The flashing -- the bottom of
[22:18] page 3 we have no objections.
[22:20] >> Oh, that is -- >> That --
[22:25] >> Okay. The other thing is if there's
[22:30] like that stairs, it's decking or
[22:31] whatever, the more of that there is, the more
[22:34] costs would be?
[22:35] The more deck you have, the more
[22:38] flashing you have to have at the
[22:39] interface. >> Right
[22:41] >> . >> .
[22:41] Thank you. >> Council Member Cowden.
[22:43] >> I would like to start with Chief
[22:45] Gibson. So I want to talk about the
[22:47] different regions of the island.
[22:48] We have a map that we often look at
[22:52] that shows yellow and red and the more
[22:55] burnable areas. Can you just say for a moment
[22:58] which regions are the highest Fire
[23:00] risk? And which are the lower Fire
[23:04] risks? >> Thank you for that
[23:05] question. Mike Gibson, [TPAO-EURPLTS/].
[23:08] Fire Department. Yeah, I would ask us to step
[23:12] back and get away from the map and these
[23:14] borders on the maps, and concentrate on
[23:21] wind-driven fires the embers we're
[23:22] talking about that can do miles the
[23:25] size of baseballs, they don't stop at
[23:27] the line on the map. They will keep going; right?
[23:30] And although I'm not a scientist,
[23:32] like one of you on this panel, climate
[23:35] change is real.
[23:36] The patterns in the world are shifting.
[23:39] We're seeing fires now that we wouldn't
[23:41] have seen 20, 30 years ago and they are
[23:43] going to start shifting to the different areas, the wetter
[23:48] areas, if you would and it's not wildfire
[23:51] that I'm worried about it's one
[23:53] house on being in Fire in the wind and
[23:55] vehicles with the lithium ion batterys
[24:00] that we can't put out and with the
[24:03] higher winds that will start driving the
[24:05] heat, flames and embers, anywhere.
[24:08] It's going to go house-to-house at that
[24:10] point. >> I want to talk about that.
[24:12] Thank you for bringing that up. When we look at a wind-driven
[24:16] Fire in an area what other things than
[24:22] just plants?
[24:25] in that house itself are burning?
[24:27] What are the hotspots? When you go to a
[24:30] Fire, in Kilauea or Hanalei or Kapahi,
[24:35] still what are you looking out for Fire
[24:42] containment rapidly? >> In the Fires that we have
[24:44] had, we have been fortunate, held to
[24:49] one structure or adjacent structure
[24:51] and able to get in there.
[24:52] In the best of conditions our Firefighters are going to put
[24:56] the Fire out, but those things that can
[24:58] spread the Fire are debris around the
[25:00] home, clutter around the home, just
[25:06] debris, build up of debris; right?
[25:08] >> Debris, that is what I would
[25:09] think. When I look at this where it's
[25:13] very prescriptive on the vegetation,
[25:17] not all vegetation is the same, by
[25:21] the way, I would think.
[25:23] A wind-driven hot Fire is like a
[25:25] blowdryer and dry out even the wettest
[25:30] of the plants and look at debris, there
[25:33] is nothing prescriptive on the debris,
[25:38] but about the plants. Can you compare the difference
[25:41] of water dense vegetation versus big
[25:45] pile of books?
[25:46] I'm picking on myself, boxes of books
[25:50] in the garage, propane tanks, kayaks,
[25:53] you know? Wet suits.
[25:57] All kinds of things that might be in
[26:05] the garage, how would you be able to
[26:07] compare to wet scape? >> I wouldn't be able to do as
[26:11] good as job as Derek or Elizabeth, but
[26:17] the well-intends Greenland scape
[26:18] today may not look like that 10-15 years.
[26:22] We might have drought and areas of the
[26:25] County with deteriorateing water
[26:27] infrastructure, sorry, Joe. That we have neighborhoods go
[26:30] out for weeks or months at a time
[26:33] without water and the plants that rely on the
[26:36] water, if we're not getting it from
[26:38] the weather, if the patterns change
[26:40] and the those well-intended wet scapes
[26:44] could be a source of Fire.
[26:45] >> When they are not dryed out and
[26:47] what is the difference between that and
[26:49] the box of books or whoa is what is
[26:52] the different between that and piles of
[26:58] fishing nets, all different things that
[26:59] pile around and propane tanks? Probably
[27:01] when you fight a Fire, you have to be
[27:04] careful around the propane tanks, would
[27:10] that be accurate? >> Yes.
[27:12] >> Would say wet scape is more?
[27:15] Because we're talking about climate
[27:16] change. Climate change happens in part
[27:18] because of how we treat the soil.
[27:21] Deeply, and it doesn't get addressed.
[27:23] Wet scape plants versus a box of books
[27:26] or piles of papers, what is more
[27:28] flammable? >> We had the UL scientist
[27:30] here one or two weeks ago that could have
[27:33] answered that brilliantly.
[27:44] It's surface area. It will burn quicker and faster
[27:49] than a book.
[27:50] There is two sides toe look at it in
[27:52] the best of conditions, wetter is
[27:55] better; right? >> When you look at road
[28:00] design, when we possibly have an amendment
[28:04] that says okay, we don't have to worry
[28:08] about a second route out, for the
[28:11] safety of the community, and the safety of
[28:15] the Firefighters, when I look at
[28:19] these closed neighborhoods, like
[28:21] Wailua Houselots, who I really feel
[28:23] extra concerned for is our
[28:25] Firefighters, because they are going to be
[28:27] the last out; right? They are going to
[28:29] be the ones that are locked in.
[28:32] Doesn't make sense that we say no
[28:37] needed alternative route out. How is that impact?
[28:41] >> If I could just say, there's a
[28:44] proposed Amendment that doesn't say not
[28:47] required, but says with approval of the
[28:49] Fire Department it can be waived.
[28:51] You may have a proposal that has only
[28:53] 20 units that immediately is serviceed
[28:56] by an adjacent highway. Would warrant necessarily two
[29:04] full roads into it.
[29:05] On those that want to exempt out, they
[29:08] need to first get the Fire Chief's
[29:10] approval. >> Including a large
[29:16] development a large development could ask
[29:18] for it, but it would require the Fire
[29:22] Department's approval. >> Council Member Kaneshiro.
[29:25] >> I have a question going back to the
[29:27] wet scape. The Lahaina Fire did the wet
[29:34] scape survive, or --
[29:36] >> I personally don't have that
[29:37] answer. I don't know.
[29:40] >> If I remember correctly, that
[29:42] happened during an extreme drought.
[29:44] So I think the wet scape was dry.
[29:48] >> And Lahaina isn't wet. >> Used to be.
[29:50] >> It's on the Leeward side of the
[29:53] island. It's the dry side of the island.
[29:55] >> The wet scapes were all removed.
[29:57] >> The wet scapes were removed, just
[29:59] like they have been here. The wet scapes have been
[30:05] removed at the large-scale level, but
[30:08] Lahaina is on the dryer side of the island.
[30:12] >> Further follow-up. During a Fire, live wet tree is
[30:19] just as susceptible to burn as anywhere
[30:24] else; right?
[30:25] >> So I have a follow-up. When you have a canopy of very
[30:34] wet trees, versus no large wet
[30:39] trees, embers flying in the wind, are
[30:41] they likely to hit that large wet
[30:43] tree or likely to hit the House if
[30:45] there's no large wet tree?
[30:47] What are they going to hit? >> They are going to shower
[30:51] and force their way through every nook
[30:54] and cranny they can.
[30:56] Nothing is for certain. >> Nothing is for certain, but
[30:59] you have a defenseible space with
[31:02] large wet trees from blowing embers.
[31:06] It just depends a strong 80 miles an
[31:10] hour that happened in Lahaina, or maybe
[31:12] it wasn't quite that strong, but with
[31:15] embers going they are going to get
[31:19] anything. I mean, it's commonsense that a
[31:30] damp blanket will put out some
[31:32] embers. >> More questions for the
[31:34] Administration? I have Chair Rapozo and
[31:37] follow-up questions.
[31:38] >> I have a question. >> Your mic.
[31:41] >> You said the gutters and downspouts are not required?
[31:48] >> You don't have to have gutters on a
[31:52] house, but if you do -- >> Statute or the code, or the
[31:55] Bill says construction requirements
[31:57] for any newly proposed residentially
[31:59] structures or additions to existing
[32:00] structures the following construction
[32:02] requirements shall be met and that is No. 1.
[32:05] 1B is gutters and downspouts shall be
[32:11] constructed of metal material. It doesn't say it's optional.
[32:17] >> The material has to be metal.
[32:19] >> If I am reading this it's doing me
[32:21] I have to have gutters, but you are say
[32:24] [TA-EGZ/] optional. >> The guter themselves is
[32:26] optional, but if they put a gutter, that
[32:29] has to be metal.
[32:29] >> That has to be fixed, right right
[32:33] now I'm reading that I have to put it
[32:34] on. Did your estimate consider the
[32:37] $6 a square foot consider guters and
[32:41] downspouts or not? >> When I did the cost
[32:43] comparison. >> Please state your name.
[32:45] >> Sorry, this is Lance with unlimited
[32:47] construction. When I did the original cost
[32:50] study, I assumed guters on the original
[32:54] build and the build.
[32:56] >> Was the gutters included in that?
[32:58] >> Yes. >> Meaning this was no cost
[33:00] change because both models assumed
[33:05] gutters. >> It's an additional cost to
[33:07] do your gutter made of metal.
[33:09] >> Which is standard on Kaua'i.
[33:13] Aluminum gutters. >> Thank you. Are there any
[33:15] other requirements in here that are
[33:17] optional? >> Well, like so the flashing
[33:23] on the decking; right? If you don't
[33:25] have a deck, if you don't have
[33:26] flashing. >> Obviously.
[33:28] >> And for the flashing where you
[33:31] have roof intersections, if you don't
[33:33] have roof intersections you don't have
[33:35] a flashing requirement there. >> Follow-up.
[33:38] Council Member Kaneshiro. >> On the costs I had a
[33:41] question on the glazed windows.
[33:50] Trying to find the page. Tempered glass materials and
[33:56] labor was $1800 CK.
[34:00] Thelake labor for a tempered glass is
[34:04] harder to install or the same? So it's just the difference for
[34:07] -- >> The material.
[34:09] When I did my study I got actually
[34:12] quotes from HB M and asked for WUI
[34:20] requirements with one pane being
[34:22] tempered. That is pretty much in line
[34:24] with what I did my study with the increase
[34:30] around $1200.
[34:31] >> I have a new question, following up
[34:33] with the discussion and community
[34:36] input, requirements on yards. So I think a lot of people are
[34:40] putting what is required in this Bill
[34:43] for 5' and then translating that to
[34:45] the entire yard.
[34:46] Can you reiterate what this Bill does
[34:49] for the yard? >> The yard defensible space
[34:54] requirements concerning tree maintenance are only for larger
[34:56] subdivision projects. It's not for an individual home
[35:02] proposal. Larker subdivisions that often
[35:04] come with landscaping conditions in
[35:07] their subdivision application.
[35:08] It just is those landscaping proposals
[35:12] that you are pre-standard need to take
[35:16] into account wildfire resiliency.
[35:19] >> Just following-up on that to be
[35:21] really clear, if it's not in at subdivision and it's an
[35:25] individual home and outside of the 5', there's
[35:27] no mandate.
[35:27] >> There's no mandate. >> So there's no control over
[35:30] what vegetation or how you plant
[35:33] your vegetation, but the five'
[35:36] surrounding the home.
[35:36] >> Surrounding the proposed new home.
[35:38] >> Follow-up on that. >> Clarification on that.
[35:42] If it's an addition, like an additional
[35:47] uniting on abexisting home. >> Just that portion that is
[35:49] being added onto the home would have
[35:52] the home-hardening requirements and
[35:53] the 5' hard scape.
[35:55] But the existing part of the home that
[35:56] is already there would not have to be
[35:58] updated. >> Council Member Cowden.
[36:00] >> So just to be clear, because that
[36:04] makes me feel a little better, is this
[36:08] 30' from the House, if you just have a
[36:09] house, and it's not a new subdivision,
[36:11] they are not going to say you can't
[36:14] have an avocado tree? >> Absolutely not.
[36:17] >> Because this would be prohibiting
[36:22] avocado, mangos, Ulu, most food bearing
[36:24] trees would not fit the definition of
[36:27] what is in here. So planned subdivision is this
[36:32] for the common area, or even any house
[36:36] can't have avocado, Ulu?
[36:37] >> You can have trees in a planned
[36:42] subdivision. It would just have to be
[36:43] maintained in a manner that doesn't have
[36:45] ladder fuels. >> Doesn't have what?
[36:49] >> Ladder fuels, the way fires climb
[36:54] up trees Council Member Holland and
[36:57] Council Member Rapozo.
[36:58] >> Can we just go back to the map of
[37:01] the hazard areas. If I remember correctly on
[37:04] those maps it showed most of Kaua'i as
[37:06] being hazard.
[37:08] Can you -- what was the -- --
[37:17] >> The maps. >> Like, I thought when we
[37:20] looked at those, it really identified
[37:22] most of Kaua'i as a potential risk for
[37:26] Fire. It was certain areas that were
[37:28] a little lower that we saw a Fire in
[37:31] Wainiha last week, which I used to
[37:34] consider pretty wet scape.
[37:36] I'm wondering can you clarify a little
[37:37] bit more about the delineation of those
[37:40] and why it's Islandwide I know it's
[37:43] date of birth >> I don't have that
[37:45] scientific answer like Elizabeth would.
[37:46] I would say it's Islandwide because of
[37:51] the wind-driven aspect of it. >> Further to that, talking
[37:55] about the wet, like to Council Member
[37:57] Cowden's point if there's a wet tree,
[38:01] you probably experienced, would you
[38:02] say it's true that if a Fire is
[38:04] approaching that it quickly dries out wet
[38:07] trees prior to the Fire hitting it?
[38:10] >> Yes. >> I have to follow-up on
[38:11] that. I asked about embers.
[38:13] >> I have a follow-up. >> I asked about embers
[38:17] blowing. >> What I'm saying, Council
[38:19] Member, if there's a massive Fire.
[38:20] >> I understand the difference.
[38:22] That wasn't my question. >> The heat of that drives
[38:24] things out in advance a quarter mile, so
[38:27] you are dealing with a wet scape that
[38:28] is dry before the embers get to the
[38:30] House. That is the science of how
[38:34] [WAO-EUFRLDZ/] works wildfire works.
[38:38] >> Chair Rapozo. >> If you build a new
[38:40] structure, ADU, because it says any new
[38:43] construction or additions.
[38:43] So if I wanted to add a bedroom to my
[38:47] existing house, how would that calculation be made?
[38:52] >> Just the addition part if you are
[38:53] doing a bedroom within and not expanding walls.
[38:56] >> I'm going to expand. >> If you are going to expand
[38:58] the walls that portion of the
[39:00] structure expanded would be subject to
[39:03] home-hardening requirements, not the
[39:04] entire structure. >> How would I do my 5'?
[39:07] >> It would be on that portion?
[39:09] Just like a little outie? >> Yes.
[39:17] >> Does that help that house being
[39:19] Fire safer? >> It helps that portion.
[39:22] >> Again, we're trying to be practical
[39:24] here. If we're making them doing
[39:26] things that is not going to help, it makes
[39:29] no sense. >> If I may?
[39:31] >> I'm not talking about the stuff you
[39:33] have to do on the House itself, but I'm
[39:35] talking about the 5'? >> The bigger goal is that we
[39:39] get our Firewise communities every
[39:42] neighbor, every person wants to implement
[39:44] these codes voluntarily.
[39:45] Just getting the idea that zero to 5'
[39:50] clean-up clutter shows one piece of the
[39:51] house, but we're trying to get everybody to do that anyway.
[39:53] >> I understanding. But now we're mandateing and
[39:56] we're not asking them to voluntarily
[39:58] doing it and we're adding costs.
[39:59] I will say that Maui, Council, I called
[40:03] Maui and asked how come you didn't do
[40:04] this? You got [TPHA-EULD/] with the
[40:06] Fire and it was the costs and what they
[40:08] have done, they created vegetation
[40:10] requirements. >> So I will say that the Maui
[40:14] Administration absolutely is pursueing
[40:18] the wildfire Ordinance. >> The Council has to fas.
[40:21] I'm just telling you what the
[40:24] legislative branch is telling me and Council
[40:27] Member Holland talked to another
[40:28] Council Member who shared the concerns.
[40:30] We want to put people in home and we're
[40:33] adding costs just to put that out,
[40:36] voluntarily, education is key. >> Council Member Cowden.
[40:38] >> I think he was first. >> Council Member Carvalho
[40:42] follow-up on the clarification on the
[40:45] ADU part, explain that again? >> If it's a brand-new ADU,
[40:48] it's subject to the home-hardening,
[40:54] and five foot hard scape requirement.
[40:56] If the ADU is attached to another
[41:00] structure, that portion of the ADU is
[41:03] subject to home-hardening and 5' hard
[41:06] scape. It's subject to the 0-30'
[41:10] standards. >> It's not subject?
[41:14] Clarification -- >> Council Member Kaneshiro.
[41:16] >> Just going back to hardening around
[41:22] the House, how do we get a better
[41:25] footing on the difference of these two?
[41:27] I have to go back to CK and see where
[41:31] they got their numbers from. >> I'm not saying that
[41:34] contractors are quoteing that.
[41:35] I was mentioning to Lance that a couple
[41:38] months ago my wife and I were putting
[41:42] in a backflow preventer, which is
[41:43] required. My first quote was $27,000.
[41:47] So somebody said we're not going to get
[41:51] a backflow preventer. I got another quote.
[41:55] It was $3,000. We put the backflow in.
[41:58] I'm not saying that contractors are out
[42:00] there quoting $40 a square foot, but
[42:02] there are a number of contractors that
[42:05] -- the ones that I contacted not a
[42:08] single one came close to that number.
[42:11] So I'm not saying there might be
[42:15] contractors out there quoting. >> How much is concrete a
[42:18] square foot -- I know they go by yards, but
[42:21] what is the per square foot cost for
[42:23] concrete? >> $300 a Cubic yard.
[42:29] It depends on the thickness of the
[42:32] sidewalk and looking at the numbers
[42:34] that flashed up on the screen I did a
[42:37] slab on grade price for what I did and
[42:39] came in at $45 a square foot for the
[42:42] entire house. >> For concrete?
[42:44] >> Concrete, labor, material, and I'm
[42:47] using union rates. Often times we use off-island
[42:51] contractors because we have labor
[42:52] shortages and those guys come in around
[42:55] $50 a square foot and I was surprised
[42:58] to see $90 for concrete. Maybe there's certain
[43:01] assumptions being made that I am not making and
[43:06] that we have different base lines on
[43:09] how we're pricing that.
[43:11] >> It would be just the thickness of
[43:14] the concrete. I'm wondering if it's $40 a
[43:18] square foot, that is not what I said
[43:19] earlier. It's $5, $6, $8.
[43:25] >> Concrete versus gravel. I think CK had 90 a square foot
[43:29] for gravel in this testimony and
[43:31] $40 a square foot for gravel.
[43:33] So I thereby thinking limited is
[43:38] saying that they are at $5 a square
[43:40] foot for gravel. >> For material and labor.
[43:44] >> Yes. >> Council Member Cowden.
[43:47] >> Mine, if you don't mind, do you
[43:48] have that copy of the Bill in front of
[43:50] you? >> Yeah.
[43:52] >> So I just have some specific
[43:58] questions. Page 1 in the first paragraph,
[44:03] in the section 1 with the purpose is
[44:06] this purpose is in order to enhance
[44:09] public safety, reduce property loss
[44:11] and protect lives from wildfire
[44:13] hazards. So enhanceed public safety.
[44:18] That would read to me that 201H does
[44:21] not apply; right? Because we don't
[44:24] care whether people are wealthy or
[44:26] working. I'll just separate it that way.
[44:33] 201H would that -- would any of this
[44:36] Bill 201H would not and for people that
[44:40] don't know, why don't you say what 201H
[44:43] is? >> A state process that is a
[44:45] vehicle for affordable housing to
[44:50] exempt out of County requirements, regulatory
[44:53] requirements. >> So because this is public
[44:56] safety, it wouldn't exempt out of that,
[44:58] correct? This would apply to affordable
[45:01] housing as well as any housing, because
[45:02] it's a safety issue.
[45:06] >> Yes. >> It would.
[45:07] So I just wanted -- >> I'm sorry, yes what?
[45:11] >> It would apply to a 201h project.
[45:14] >> So 201H does not exempt that.
[45:16] So just wanting to be very clear, which
[45:20] means affordable housing has to be held
[45:21] to the same standard, because we need
[45:23] to keep those people equally safe.
[45:25] That is the mindset on that. >> The mindset being some of
[45:31] our most vulnerability communities need
[45:32] to be protected from wildfire.
[45:34] >> Correct. On page 2, I wouldn't go
[45:38] through all of it, though I did go through all
[45:40] of it. On page 2, Section A, general
[45:44] provisions, item 1. You know, all lands on which a
[45:48] residential structure is proposed to be
[45:54] constructed, and it breaks down these
[45:56] pieces, but all improvements to this
[45:59] Article shall comply; right? So shall
[46:01] means it has to. And the interpretation is --
[46:06] the interpretation of this article
[46:08] all provisions shall be considered
[46:11] as a minimum requirement and anybody
[46:15] building a house, shall, meaning they
[46:17] have to, it's mandatory and I went how
[46:19] to the different "shalls and "Mays."
[46:21] And there's a lot of [SHA-LG/]s.
[46:24] shalls. I didn't count them all, but
[46:27] they apply to the land itself.
[46:30] The House builder. And there's a lot of "Mays."
[46:39] Which means it's up to the Admin.
[46:45] So when I see these "Mays" I'm just
[46:51] wondering if it's at the discretion of
[46:54] Administration whether you have to
[46:55] comply or you don't have to comply?
[46:58] If you had a different Fire Chief, or
[47:03] Planning Director, does that mean
[47:05] things would change? >> I don't think so.
[47:09] I guess I would ask which "Mays" are
[47:12] you referring to? >> All right, because there's
[47:14] a lot of "Mays" in here.
[47:17] I will find one. Here is one.
[47:23] In consultation with the Fire Chief and
[47:25] all respective property owners provide
[47:27] written consent Planning Director "may"
[47:31] reduce minimum distances between
[47:33] structures proposed on a property for
[47:35] shared-wall construction, if the
[47:36] baguette walls or shared walls respective structures are
[47:43] construeed with non-combustible materials,
[47:44] which makes sense.
[47:45] You have a cinder block house and maybe
[47:47] you don't have to stuck with all of
[47:49] this. So it's "may." It's up to you
[47:51] whether they do have to or don't have
[47:52] to. If they have non-combustible
[47:57] walls there's less of this that
[48:01] applies. >> I mean, I wouldn't have any
[48:03] objection to -- as long as all property
[48:07] owners consent, as the sitting Planning
[48:13] Director would not have objection.
[48:17] >> I'm not trying to put it into a
[48:21] "shall "but to point out the difference.
[48:24] One person builds their house I would say, and some of the
[48:28] architects that we spoke to were excited
[48:30] about that option, because right now
[48:31] you cannot build to the property
[48:33] line. That is a new liberty, and so
[48:37] it actually provides more freedom
[48:38] and options to the property owner.
[48:40] >> Right. I talked to property developers
[48:43] who felt like if they were forced
[48:48] into a having to build duplexes for
[48:53] their affordable homes that they
[48:54] probably wouldn't be able to sell them.
[48:56] I had that conversation also, because
[48:58] of the lot size this was definitely
[49:02] some friction on it. So I'm just looking at that.
[49:06] And then I will look at the bottom of
[49:08] page 11. This is about the periodic
[49:12] review. It says at least once a year
[49:15] following the effective date of this
[49:16] Article or more frequently as deemed
[49:22] necessary for the Administration shall review
[49:24] the requirements of this Article in
[49:27] consultation with wildfire subject-matter experts.
[49:31] So it has a one-year piece in there.
[49:40] I look at all these reports that we
[49:42] need to have and it's curious to me
[49:46] that even when it's every ten years or
[49:49] even every 20 years, we rarely get
[49:51] those reviews done in that time period.
[49:53] How likely do you think it is that
[49:56] we'll keep reviewing this every year?
[49:58] >> Well, it's required for the Building Code Section is
[50:02] required that report is required for the
[50:04] Mayor and other sections Chapter 8 is
[50:08] required to be given to the Planning
[50:10] Commission. >> I see it's required.
[50:13] So is updating our General Plan.
[50:16] So is updating our water and development plan and they don't
[50:25] lap. >> The Planning Department is
[50:27] updating all of their plan and updated
[50:30] the General Plan.
[50:30] >> How many years in between? We have done it twice since we
[50:34] started and it was supposed to be done
[50:36] every ten years.
[50:37] You Did one of them and thank you
[50:41] so much for doing an excellent job.
[50:43] >> Point well-taken. >> My point is when we can't
[50:46] get a every ten year or every five
[50:51] year and I'm just looking at these
[50:55] pieces. I will stop asking questions at
[50:57] the moment, because I went through
[50:59] this whole thing and I had a number
[51:02] of things that I looked at.
[51:04] >> Thank you. >> Any additional questions,
[51:10] Council Members?
[51:11] Council Member Kaneshiro. >> I don't have any questions.
[51:14] I know there are a few Amendments.
[51:18] >> Well before that, I have questions
[51:20] for water and housing. >> Council Member Holland?
[51:23] >> I was just going to mention I think
[51:25] some of my suggested Amendments will
[51:28] address what is being talked about now.
[51:30] >> I have one question. Council Member Cowden, actually
[51:36] I just blanked out.
[51:38] Council Member Cowden. >> That would take a change.
[51:40] I want water and housing. >> So it looks like we have
[51:44] questions for our Water Department and
[51:48] Housing Department.
[52:01] >> Adam, are you able to come up?
[52:18] >> Council Member Cowden, questions.
[52:20] >> The first question I would like to
[52:23] do for housing first and water is the
[52:24] same question. Can you please help us
[52:28] understand if this impacts any of your
[52:33] existing plans for how we're going to be doing
[52:35] our affordable housing on the
[52:35] properties that we have purchased and done
[52:40] -- we have done a lot -- you have
[52:41] done a lot of work, you know, on having
[52:44] this housing.
[52:46] Will it create a redesign issue, or
[52:48] will it be fine? >> Adam Roversi, Housing
[52:56] Director. So I think it depends on the
[52:58] stage of the project.
[53:01] So Lima Ola has received its permits
[53:05] already. So I think phase 1 is done,
[53:08] phase 2 permits are pending and I think
[53:12] once the permits are issued is
[53:14] approved as-is and wouldn't need to
[53:16] necessarily comply.
[53:17] Our future projects Kilauea, Waimea, we
[53:20] have concept plans developed that they
[53:23] are not approved in any way yet, but we
[53:26] have represented to the community --
[53:29] those projects have generally sought to
[53:32] do small lot sizes to have lots of
[53:34] homes to keep them more affordable, to
[53:36] do more houses on smaller lots, smaller
[53:40] homes. We haven't gotten to point in
[53:42] those projects of designing exactly
[53:44] what the House is going to look like,
[53:47] the foot print and how far away it is
[53:51] from other bills potentially with
[54:03] materials, however, I think the "may"
[54:06] sections of the Bill, I think to my level
[54:10] of understanding, and I'm not an
[54:12] expert on the language as much as you
[54:14] folks are, or Ka'aina, and his
[54:17] consultants. But I think there's enough
[54:19] wiggle room that we can modify our designs
[54:24] of the homes, still keep them
[54:26] affordable and meet the distancesing
[54:29] requirements, or through the "may" portions of
[54:32] the Bill, seek reasonable accommodations
[54:37] to achieve our goals of small
[54:39] loting and high-density and still meet the
[54:42] general parameters of the wildfire
[54:44] Bill. You haven't seen the cost
[54:52] estimates that the Chair shared earlier.
[54:55] As far as the potential cost increases
[54:58] associated with the Bill to affordacle
[55:03] homes my preliminary understanding was
[55:06] that the increased costs in the current
[55:09] Bill would be more than offset by the
[55:12] savings coming from no longer having to
[55:17] pay FRC charges that the costs are less
[55:20] than the savings that with result was
[55:22] my preliminary understanding based on
[55:24] the information and projection that I
[55:26] had seen so far. >> So then when you talked
[55:32] about well you already have your Lima Ola
[55:34] 1 permitted.
[55:35] If it wasn't permitted, would you have
[55:37] had to change those plans? >> I think the single-family
[55:43] homes at Lima Ola I think are too close
[55:48] together to meet the current
[55:49] requirements. So we would have had to made
[55:52] some changes.
[55:53] I think, if I understanding the Bill
[55:56] correctly, we could have chosen different siding material, for
[55:58] example. Had a metal roof ined stead of
[56:02] an asphalt shingle roof and used
[56:04] -- we could have gotten exceptions
[56:06] for the 30' requirements, and would
[56:13] have required different materials
[56:13] and the process of consultation with
[56:15] the Fire Chief to come to an agreement,
[56:18] because we have used these Fireproof
[56:25] non-combustible materials to have vary
[56:31] from the setback requirements. >> I will ask water a few
[56:35] questions and I want to open up for
[56:37] others to ask questions.
[56:45] Director Roversi, you support this
[56:47] Bill, correct? >> Yes.
[56:50] Yes. I do.
[56:51] I think it's important to protect from
[56:56] fires. I am not an expert on the Bill.
[56:59] I have read through it. I think it's workable for our
[57:06] projects. I will leave it at that.
[57:08] >> One more on that, related to
[57:14] density in areas, like tsunami zones,
[57:16] and all of our Fire zones we talk about
[57:20] in this case without the exits and the
[57:23] concerns around density in areas
[57:27] associated with higher Fire risk.
[57:28] Do you feel like this makes it anymore
[57:33] problematic for us in regards to public
[57:36] safety or do you feel this Bill addresses the safety needs of
[57:40] higher density -- like increasing
[57:42] densities in areas to address the affordable
[57:44] housing? >> Well, I will have to admit
[57:48] I'm not clear on the access
[57:51] requirements. So I'm not prepared to talk
[57:52] about that. >> Thank you.
[57:55] >> Council Member Cowden. >> Water Department.
[58:01] Director Tait. I would like to hear your
[58:05] perspective on -- I want to allow you to
[58:07] say what your thoughts are before I
[58:10] drill-down on different questions.
[58:13] >> Thank you, Council Member Cowden.
[58:16] Chair Bulosan I would like to make a
[58:18] statement before I address any specific
[58:20] questions. >> Go ahead.
[58:22] Thank you. >> Thank you.
[58:24] First of all, there is no perfect
[58:25] solution to this issue. We can talk six months in this
[58:30] room nonstop and we're not going to
[58:32] have a perfect solution to this issue.
[58:35] The reason I state is not the issue
[58:38] itself, but whether it's housing
[58:41] development, business, schools, hospitals, play grounds,
[58:45] whatever K everything in life starts with
[58:47] water. Unfortunately we have not
[58:51] followed that model on the Island of Kaua'i.
[58:53] So I state that regretfully. I also state that because of
[58:58] what I have learned in last
[59:02] four-and-a-half years of what we're making up.
[59:04] So please let me continue. When I arrived on Kaua'i, I had
[59:09] my eyes opened to the little water
[59:13] infrastructure that exists here.
[59:15] What we have is a cent century-old
[59:20] system that was develop by Plantation
[59:24] owners, private landowners and some by
[59:25] the Department of Water, some by people
[59:27] we don't even know, but the island was
[59:31] developed with various systems and
[59:33] forms of systems over the decades.
[59:36] And because of what I just said, it
[59:39] directly and daily impacts the ability
[59:45] of Chief Gibson. It's an emotional issue for me,
[59:52] to do his job.
[59:53] So because of that, we started our own
[1:00:01] Planning process after 35 years, we now
[1:00:07] have a Water Use and Development Plan,
[1:00:08] thank you to Michael and the engineering Staff.
[1:00:15] We didn't have that before. We didn't have any guaranty of
[1:00:21] life before that.
[1:00:22] We still have shortages. We will have shortages for
[1:00:26] another 40-50 years until our new water
[1:00:29] system investment plan is actually put
[1:00:31] in the ground.
[1:00:33] So that is just the facts of life here.
[1:00:37] I have to compliment Fire Chief's
[1:00:41] success in doing the best he can with
[1:00:43] what he was dealt. I also thank the many Councils
[1:00:48] over the decades that have gone through
[1:00:50] the struggle of everything you have
[1:00:52] brought up.
[1:00:53] Nothing here is easy. It's our location.
[1:00:56] It's our lack of funding. The Water Department has not
[1:01:00] been sufficiently funded since its
[1:01:03] inception. Those are all facts.
[1:01:05] They are not my opinion. Those are facts.
[1:01:11] Having been in the water business for
[1:01:15] 45 years, it's always emotional to me.
[1:01:19] The scenario modeling by the group here
[1:01:24] Planning, housing, Fire, water, Council, elected, non-elected
[1:01:30] officials is admirable to be
[1:01:34] complimented, to be commended.
[1:01:37] And it results in what do we do moving
[1:01:40] forward to best prepare? Unfortunately that is where we
[1:01:45] get to bills like this one, because
[1:01:46] it's really a matter of opinion.
[1:01:49] ; right? It's not an agreeable
[1:01:52] subject that we can all say yep, we're
[1:01:55] 100% in favor of it. If you put Fire, the Fire issue
[1:02:00] into context, you got flee subjects.
[1:02:04] three subjects, vulneribility. You have got that verse lost
[1:02:08] revenue of others whether it's housing,
[1:02:09] water, or others.
[1:02:14] And then you have the worst of all, the
[1:02:16] loss of life. To get to back to the
[1:02:22] [TPAO-EUFRPLT/]. Fire Department.
[1:02:24] I commend Chief Gibson for the application of best practices
[1:02:28] to minimize the loss of life.
[1:02:34] The Fire Department's partnering with
[1:02:37] the Department of Water to locate and
[1:02:42] Mark hydrants where new Staff can
[1:02:46] address rather than searching when the
[1:02:48] Fire flames are going on. We have worked hand in glove
[1:02:53] with Fire to help them learn the system,
[1:02:56] the water system, the available
[1:02:58] areas and non-available areas, Chief has
[1:02:59] been on the [#50-EU8D/] island long
[1:03:05] enough to know where they are exist.
[1:03:07] Fire and water responders do their best
[1:03:11] job when resources are in place and
[1:03:12] unfortunately they are not. How much of a loss to the Water
[1:03:20] Department of FRC is a relevant issue
[1:03:22] because of our financial situation.
[1:03:25] It's also an irrelevant issue compared
[1:03:26] to the loss of life. What that value of life is? On
[1:03:35] an annual basis, the Department of
[1:03:38] Water receives anywhere between
[1:03:43] $800,000 and $2 million in FRC.
[1:03:46] That is not all single-family housing.
[1:03:50] Single-family housing last year was
[1:03:55] $1.1 million. Some would lead with the
[1:04:00] underlying question is the loss of FRC
[1:04:02] greater than the loss of life?
[1:04:04] Of course not. There is no value cap on the
[1:04:09] loss of life.
[1:04:10] There is a value cap on everything the
[1:04:14] Water Department does based on what our
[1:04:16] costs are. Unfortunately for us, we have
[1:04:19] no power to eliminate legislation.
[1:04:22] We simply do what Fire does, what
[1:04:24] Police does, what water does. We adapt, we react, we
[1:04:28] overcome, and we continue to provide the service
[1:04:31] the best we can with what we're
[1:04:34] given. The same question you asked
[1:04:37] Adam, do we support the Bill?
[1:04:39] We support any Bill that helps minimize
[1:04:42] the loss of life. Unfortunately, we can only
[1:04:48] support that as far as our resources allow
[1:04:51] us. >> So when we look at FRC and
[1:04:56] I was in the Water Department meeting.
[1:05:00] I'm kind of shocked and stunned when
[1:05:03] what I believeed subsidization of this
[1:05:06] effort is put on water by removing some
[1:05:11] of your income, is that something that
[1:05:13] the Board could choose to undo? Like when we pass this Bill, is
[1:05:19] it already passed?
[1:05:21] I was sitting there and listening?
[1:05:24] >> Our Board has passed it in the
[1:05:27] current form that it's in. That is all they to go off at
[1:05:32] the time. Staff was not -- we didn't have
[1:05:36] the ability to research or do any
[1:05:38] kind of preparation.
[1:05:39] We were -- that was put on the agenda,
[1:05:42] and the Board voted on it. We would react a different way
[1:05:47] if we said we were flush with money.
[1:05:50] But unfortunately we are just the
[1:05:52] opposite; right? We have never been
[1:05:53] in a financial situation as far as I
[1:05:56] can go back in records the Water
[1:05:58] Department has never been adequately
[1:06:00] funded. And that means the Fire
[1:06:02] Department has never been adequately
[1:06:05] protected. So I will keep reiterateing
[1:06:08] that is the bottom-line for us.
[1:06:09] >> When I look into that, when we look
[1:06:13] at Fire flow protection, I would say
[1:06:15] it's inadequate by probably 30% of the
[1:06:17] island. Is that a close guess?
[1:06:20] >> It's a Chief Gibson question.
[1:06:24] The Water Department under -- it's been
[1:06:27] -- when I got here it was 35 years
[1:06:29] since we did a water use plan that are
[1:06:32] required by the State every five years,
[1:06:33] Michael? We had been 35 years.
[1:06:36] Okay? It has been documented and
[1:06:41] proven through that Water Use and
[1:06:43] Development Plan the Island of Kaua'i will
[1:06:45] never be without water.
[1:06:49] Doesn't matter what you want to measure
[1:06:51] that with, we're one of the top two or
[1:06:55] three wettest spots on the planet and
[1:06:58] well always have an abundance of water.
[1:07:00] What we don't is a distribution system
[1:07:02] and that is the funding issue and that
[1:07:06] directly impacts Fire's ability to put
[1:07:10] fires out -- >> Does the Water Department
[1:07:12] or is it the Fire Department's question?
[1:07:15] Like there's many places, like power
[1:07:19] house road in Wainiha and five or six
[1:07:25] roads in Kilauea. There is roads in Hanalei that
[1:07:30] don't even have a standpipe.
[1:07:32] They have a standpipe at the highway
[1:07:34] and certainly I think Waimea Canyon has
[1:07:39] that problem and Hanapepe has some
[1:07:45] features up there. Who is responsible for putting
[1:07:48] those in?
[1:07:49] You must be somewhat responsible
[1:07:54] because you have to provide the water.
[1:07:55] Who determines when those pipes go in?
[1:07:57] >> Funding. >> Funding, who makes the
[1:08:01] zinc? decision?
[1:08:01] Is it Fire or water? >> Just to clarify, it's for
[1:08:06] the relateed Bill.
[1:08:07] >> It is related. >> You are asking based on
[1:08:10] new development in this area that
[1:08:11] would be affected by this Bill?
[1:08:12] >> I would say, if I were to clarify
[1:08:17] your clarifying is that we have a
[1:08:28] deliverable water shortage and say in
[1:08:30] Kilauea, because that is a where I
[1:08:31] live. We have a shortage of water,
[1:08:34] correct? So he is [TKPHO-D/]ing his head
[1:08:36] yes for the record.
[1:08:37] When we have a water shortage and
[1:08:41] building new places, in any of these
[1:08:44] places they wouldn't get -- I don't
[1:08:45] know if we can get their Fire flow
[1:08:48] protection? Can you put a new hydrant in
[1:08:51] areas that have Fire -- that have water
[1:08:53] shortage? >> We have not practiced that.
[1:08:58] We have not been putting Fire hydrants
[1:09:01] anywhere where we're not allowing
[1:09:03] residential. The man to my left would be
[1:09:07] really happy -- the man to my left
[1:09:09] would be very happy, if we had
[1:09:12] tremendous amount of funding because he would
[1:09:14] have a tremendous amount of housing.
[1:09:17] We just don't have it. The guy sitting behind me would
[1:09:21] be fantastically happy if we had
[1:09:24] 200 more hydrants.
[1:09:25] We don't have it because the system
[1:09:27] will not provide it, because the
[1:09:29] funding for the system has never been
[1:09:31] there. When we came up with the Water
[1:09:33] Use and Development Plan, we followed
[1:09:35] that with a water system investment plan
[1:09:37] as I call the ones that I did on the
[1:09:39] mainland and we have a water system
[1:09:43] investment plan and many of you have
[1:09:44] seen it, about $1.3 billion in today's
[1:09:48] numbers. By the time that system goes it
[1:09:52] will be 3-4 billion total; right?
[1:09:56] We're now just finishing our first in 13
[1:10:03] years rate approval process.
[1:10:06] Yesterday's we had a Public Hearing and
[1:10:07] we had one person show up. Virtually no one showed up
[1:10:12] in-person. We have been out in the public
[1:10:18] for 20-23 meetings.
[1:10:18] We have one step left to go to the
[1:10:21] State small business regional Review
[1:10:26] Board, they unanimously gave us approval a month ago and we'll
[1:10:29] go back because the Public Hearing is
[1:10:33] over, but that is 13 years old.
[1:10:35] When you combine all of those things,
[1:10:37] the questions you are asking, Council
[1:10:39] Member Cowden, all relate to that.
[1:10:41] >> Bottom-line, we don't have the
[1:10:42] money to have the water to be doing any
[1:10:45] of it, that is the bottom-line? >> Yes.
[1:10:51] Which then affections affects Adam and
[1:11:04] Chief Gibson. >> Talking about the water
[1:11:06] flow problem in Los Angeles and also
[1:11:08] in Lahaina, though maybe that Fire
[1:11:10] happened so fast that nobody got to
[1:11:13] notice, there wasn't any water in the
[1:11:15] hydrants anyway, because it was combine
[1:11:19] pipes. Is that correct?
[1:11:20] >> I didn't comment on what pipes had
[1:11:23] water and what didn't. I just know my colleague on
[1:11:26] Maui, who is also from the mainland
[1:11:30] inherited a lot of same things I inherited.
[1:11:35] >> Not putting blame what our pipes
[1:11:38] made of and both water systems Fire
[1:11:42] flow and housing they are integrated;
[1:11:44] right? ? So if the House burns down, the
[1:11:47] [PAO-EUPZ/] melt? pipes melt.
[1:11:51] >> I have this Michael address that,
[1:11:53] and what the int gration look like,
[1:11:56] because we have different pipes. >> Just to clarify, this is
[1:12:00] in regards to the Bill, so meaning
[1:12:05] for any new development.
[1:12:07] Is that correct? >> No, it's all --
[1:12:09] >> I just want to make sure it's
[1:12:12] relatable. >> It's relatable to the Bill,
[1:12:14] because this Bill is about how do we
[1:12:16] set a template for Fire protection,
[1:12:20] and Fire defensible spaces.
[1:12:39] Conflagration is what this Bill is
[1:12:41] about stopping conflagration of neighborhoods.
[1:12:45] >> Do you want us to address the
[1:12:47] pipes? I want to know if the pipes
[1:12:51] would melt if the Houses burn?
[1:12:53] >> That all depends on the depth of
[1:12:55] the pipe and the type of pipe. >> Okay.
[1:13:00] >> Have we ever had and I don't know
[1:13:03] if it's a Michael question, have we had
[1:13:06] houses burn, because we had a lot of
[1:13:08] houses burn lately. Does it melt the pipes that
[1:13:12] it's having housing leak Yang, just a
[1:13:14] number of houses like in Kapa'a, the
[1:13:17] leakage as a result of the house burning
[1:13:19] down and how big a problem it.in terms o
[1:13:23] the costs would be.
[1:13:24] >> Council Member Kaneshiro. >> I guess this is just
[1:13:28] clarification to Council Member Cowden on the
[1:13:30] questioning. I guess as far as fighting a
[1:13:37] Fire, there's multiple option and
[1:13:38] ideally with all the water in the world
[1:13:41] we would dump water on the Fire
[1:13:43] and solve it.
[1:13:43] This Bill is going to protect the House
[1:13:45] on the front Abe. Anne.
[1:13:51] So I'm trying to put together the two
[1:13:53] with the pipes burning and there's no
[1:13:55] water. That brings us back to the Bill
[1:13:57] we're saying that we want to
[1:13:59] protection the House in the first place
[1:14:12] >> Thank you for that question. I think both Council Member
[1:14:19] Kagawa and Chair Furfaro who used to say
[1:14:24] ready, Fire, aim.
[1:14:25] I think that what Director Tait is
[1:14:29] stating is how critical the problem is
[1:14:31] with water in general. We have to look at everything.
[1:14:43] So I think this is a really good
[1:14:47] building block, but it needs the
[1:14:51] support of access roads to get out of
[1:14:55] that neighborhood, and water Fire
[1:14:58] hydrants to be able to put the Fire
[1:14:59] out. You know, wet scape?
[1:15:03] So it doesn't he burn as easily and
[1:15:07] doesn't start as easily. There is multiple pieces and
[1:15:11] this Bill has done a really good job at
[1:15:13] looking at this house, or this little
[1:15:18] neighborhood. I think it's working with one
[1:15:25] objective and misses some key points so I
[1:15:27] don't think it's ready yet. So I
[1:15:29] appreciate how everybody has said this is
[1:15:31] a great effort and great program, and
[1:15:35] just to cement it in when we have all
[1:15:37] of this change of Administration and
[1:15:39] it's not really ready yet, I think it's
[1:15:41] a problem.
[1:15:42] I think it will create problems.
[1:15:44] It might help some. It will create others.
[1:15:46] >> Any additional questions for Adam
[1:15:49] or Joe? >> Do you want me to respond
[1:15:56] to Arryl's question?
[1:15:56] >> Yes. >> It triggered in my mind a
[1:16:00] group that is not here, but just as
[1:16:02] critical as Fire and water is the power
[1:16:04] side. So the Department has spots on
[1:16:07] the item that we're the only customer in
[1:16:11] a certain area for KIUC.
[1:16:12] So we may have plenty of water in the
[1:16:16] pipes, but we don't have power. So it's not always just
[1:16:19] confineed to a water restriction in a certain
[1:16:22] geographically area. When we have plenty of water in
[1:16:25] the pipe and in the well, and the
[1:16:27] power is out and we're the only
[1:16:29] customer, we're the only customer for KIUC, and
[1:16:31] the only provider to the public in
[1:16:34] that area, everything loses.
[1:16:36] everybody loses. So it's not just water and
[1:16:39] Fire, but you have to include power in
[1:16:42] the Islandwide, because any time
[1:16:44] they are down and we're down.
[1:16:49] We just had that with the storms, and
[1:16:53] we had water, but we don't deliver it.
[1:16:56] >> Thank you. I have one follow-up.
[1:16:58] Thank you, Joe, for your statement.
[1:16:59] Appreciate it. Just to clarify regarding this
[1:17:04] WUI Bill and what the Water Department
[1:17:10] Board passed so the public can
[1:17:12] understand, if this WUI Bill passes, what will
[1:17:16] happen when people apply for their
[1:17:20] FRC? >> As I understand it, and
[1:17:22] Ka'aina can come up and join us, because I
[1:17:23] think that is the process side of
[1:17:26] where all this starts.
[1:17:29] Remember, in the process train we're
[1:17:31] the tail of the dog. And they are the head of the
[1:17:33] dog. So we get it last.
[1:17:39] which we have had some good discussions
[1:17:41] with Planning, and our Board on should
[1:17:44] we be last or be first? That is here, nor there.
[1:17:48] At the same time, my assumption and
[1:17:52] Ka'aina can come up and hit me on the
[1:17:54] back of the head, since he is one of my
[1:17:57] bosses on the Board, it would start
[1:18:01] with Planning. They with make a determination.
[1:18:04] If the proposed residence meets the
[1:18:06] requirements of the Bill, and it would
[1:18:08] be at their direction discretion
[1:18:12] whether they apply a waiver and the
[1:18:14] Water Department would not receive that
[1:18:17] FRC funding is the way I understand it
[1:18:20] and maybe I oversimpfied, but that is
[1:18:23] the way I understand it. >> Any additional questions
[1:18:25] for Adam or Joe?
[1:18:27] Any additional questions for the
[1:18:29] administrateion? I know we're going to --
[1:18:32] >> I have another question for Ka'aina.
[1:18:33] >> I have one, too. >> Let's swap out the 1998
[1:18:38] dream-team here.
[1:18:56] Just to note we're about half an hour
[1:19:00] away from the caption break to put a
[1:19:04] time stamp there. Chair.
[1:19:06] >> Thank you, and thank you for being
[1:19:07] here. I know Ms. Cowden alluded to
[1:19:10] the amount of the "Mays" in here and I
[1:19:13] think Adam called it the wiggle room.
[1:19:18] Do you know offhand how many variances
[1:19:23] or exemptions can be granted with this
[1:19:25] Bill as it's written and for what?
[1:19:28] I was trying to skim through it. >> There was exceptions in the
[1:19:34] building Section, which is using
[1:19:38] combustible materials, and how that is
[1:19:40] done, and that is just where the
[1:19:43] flashing comes, the exemptions in the
[1:19:48] zoning code and the most important is
[1:19:51] the setback exemption, for new subdivisions being able to
[1:19:54] reduce those larger setbacks.
[1:19:56] We do have a draft Amendment to introduce to further clarify
[1:20:01] that. So that through the 201H
[1:20:05] process or PDU process, those setbacks could
[1:20:08] also be reduced?
[1:20:09] >> Would be what? >> Also reduced.
[1:20:11] >> Okay. I think because what Joe said
[1:20:16] about the loss to the Water Department is
[1:20:19] irrelevant, compareing that to the loss
[1:20:21] of life. Wouldn't you agree if this Bill
[1:20:25] is for safety, then there should be no
[1:20:28] exemptions? >> It's not an exemption Carte
[1:20:33] Blanche you are exempting out from the
[1:20:36] setbacks. It's an exception to say
[1:20:40] further designs can accommodate
[1:20:43] wildfire resill cency.
[1:20:44] So as we presented two weeks ago with a
[1:20:49] 10,000 square feet lot, 4500 square
[1:20:52] foot, making the analysis to show all
[1:20:54] of these lots can accommodate the
[1:20:57] setbacks. There's not really necessarily
[1:21:00] a need to exempt or veer out or reduce
[1:21:03] them. In places that you apply for
[1:21:10] 3,000 that is not under County
[1:21:13] coincide. Code.
[1:21:32] >> Thank you. >> I have a follow-up on that.
[1:21:36] >> Council Member Cowden. >> Can't we take that money
[1:21:39] from somewhere else rather than
[1:21:43] take away from the Water Department?
[1:21:45] To me it's like slapping the victim.
[1:21:49] When we have $39 million of state --
[1:21:54] our housing revolving Knuds, Revolving
[1:21:56] Fund and we have the money that we got
[1:21:59] from Taxing the visitors?
[1:22:07] You know we have other monies that we
[1:22:09] could do so we don't have to take it
[1:22:12] from the Water Department. To me, it seems like a real
[1:22:15] problem to take the money from the water
[1:22:18] Department, when that is really critical element.
[1:22:20] It seems like we should be, in fact,
[1:22:22] putting more money into that, so that
[1:22:24] we can have more housing. >> I understand the concern.
[1:22:28] >> Okay. >> I have a follow-up on that.
[1:22:31] I'm sorry? >> Chair --
[1:22:33] >> It's a policy decision >> It's a policy decision.
[1:22:36] I'm just curious as to the rationale,
[1:22:40] assuming that -- and I said this at the
[1:22:41] last meeting that assuming the add
[1:22:43] costs to the House is $ 6000, why are
[1:22:48] we taking away $14,000 from water to
[1:22:51] accommodate that additional cost?
[1:22:54] That is the question. Where did that come from?
[1:22:58] Who said let's waive FRCs so we can
[1:23:02] basically soften the blow to the
[1:23:06] homeowner of $6,000, but at same time,
[1:23:14] we're diverting $14,000 from the Water
[1:23:15] Department. Did you think about like an
[1:23:19] exemption of the amount that they spend
[1:23:22] or a percentage of the FRC?
[1:23:24] But we just said give up the FRC
[1:23:27] $14,000 for someone paying $6,000, what
[1:23:29] was the rationale for that? >> It was $6,000ing, and it
[1:23:33] depends on the size of the house,.
[1:23:38] >> Let's use $ 6,000, because that
[1:23:42] makes it sellible to this Council,
[1:23:44] because it's only $6,000, but we're
[1:23:48] taking $14,000 there water, what is the
[1:23:49] ration ale for that? >> The nexus between water and
[1:23:55] the ability to exempt it too.
[1:23:57] As a Water Board Member, I have been
[1:24:00] increasingly frustrated in the application of $14,000 FRC
[1:24:05] across the Board for all homes; right?
[1:24:08] Like -- and that frustration was shared
[1:24:11] a number of times and that it
[1:24:14] pays the same FRC as a mansion with
[1:24:17] swimming pools.
[1:24:19] So when the Water Department gets into
[1:24:21] its portion of what it does with FRCs,
[1:24:25] my position is that we need to have
[1:24:26] further studys to get into the legal
[1:24:29] analyses of how certain uses can be
[1:24:33] charged higher FRCs. I.e., resort uses or vacation
[1:24:38] rental uses.
[1:24:39] >> I am not going to degree with
[1:24:41] that, but it's kind of irrelevant
[1:24:49] because there is a nexus to the Water
[1:24:51] Department, but I don't see the can be
[1:24:55] it doesn't balance out. I mean, even if it was $10,000
[1:24:59] in additional costs for a little
[1:25:00] larger house, you are still taking
[1:25:03] $14,000 away.
[1:25:06] And last discussion before PL Mr.
[1:25:09] Tait, thank you for that amazing
[1:25:11] statement and you opened up a lot of
[1:25:13] people's eyes we're taking from the
[1:25:14] agency that needs our help that is the
[1:25:19] critical component of the Fire Department's operations. I
[1:25:22] think it made it very clear.
[1:25:25] Why would we take from that agency and
[1:25:28] not like Felicia said, I'm not sure
[1:25:30] where you get that money? It's a subsidy and some people
[1:25:33] disagree, but it is a subsidy and what
[1:25:43] was the rationale? >> I agree it's a subsidy and
[1:25:47] within the current water structure,
[1:25:48] there's another group that gets
[1:25:50] subsidized already and that is
[1:25:52] agricultural water rates.
[1:25:53] That is the policy that the Water Board
[1:25:56] made saying we neat ed to help farmers
[1:26:01] in a houseing crisis where the FRC.
[1:26:11] Increasing FRCs is also on the books;
[1:26:14] right? On the books right now draft
[1:26:17] proposal $28,000 FRC across the Board.
[1:26:20] My position is that -- like, $14 is
[1:26:23] hard enough and know $28? And I made
[1:26:27] it very public that I want the consultant to do the study to
[1:26:30] assess the legal capabilities to look
[1:26:33] at uses as opposed to across the Board
[1:26:41] 5/8th meter.
[1:26:42] >> I understand Kaina. That is a different discussion.
[1:26:45] It has nothing to do with this Bill.
[1:26:47] Because I agree with you. I agree.
[1:26:49] But I'm just curious where that came
[1:26:51] from? Let's go take FRC?
[1:26:53] Is that the next slush fund for the
[1:26:56] County, we'll waive your FRC if you
[1:26:58] hurricane proof your house, you don't
[1:27:01] have to do FRC? That is not a pool of funds we
[1:27:05] should be using to incentize behavior.
[1:27:10] I'm going to have a rough time supporting this Bill going on
[1:27:19] the figures, that won't impact in
[1:27:21] my opinion someone's ability to
[1:27:23] get a mortgage.
[1:27:24] So they don't in my opinion warrant
[1:27:29] that $14,000 discount. That is just my one Council
[1:27:32] Member opinion.
[1:27:34] >> I understand. >> I have another question.
[1:27:35] >> Council Member Cowden. >> I want to talk about
[1:27:38] enforcement. So first of all I want to let
[1:27:43] you speak on how you think this would end
[1:27:47] up being enforced and then I have
[1:27:49] specific questions?
[1:27:51] >> Construction aspect is basically
[1:27:56] enforced during construction. Outside of that, there's no
[1:28:00] real enforcement, because built in
[1:28:03] Certificate of Occupancy that determines all permits are in
[1:28:05] place. >> Does that mean you aren't
[1:28:08] enforcing on all these other "shalls"
[1:28:12] without how people might build their plans?
[1:28:16] Do their landscaping with their leaves
[1:28:21] in the gutters? Are we going to go around and
[1:28:26] look at everybody's office and give
[1:28:27] them a Northern Virginia notice of
[1:28:31] violation in they don't cut their avocado
[1:28:33] tree down?
[1:28:34] >> No, the requirements for the
[1:28:36] landscaping are only for the larger
[1:28:38] subdivisions and not for the individual
[1:28:40] lots. Those larger subdivisions is
[1:28:42] fairly standard to have subdivision
[1:28:45] conditions of approval around landscaping.
[1:28:48] It's just not standard right now to
[1:28:51] have wildfire resiliency built into it.
[1:28:52] >> Just being really clear on that,
[1:28:57] because I know enforcement is complaint-driven and when I
[1:29:00] bring up these really painful stories is
[1:29:05] it somebody has a beef with
[1:29:06] somebody else so they file complaints about
[1:29:09] them and then they go through something
[1:29:12] that could potentially cost their
[1:29:13] house? So when there is this -- all
[1:29:19] these "shalls" on gutters, these
[1:29:23] things, leaves under the trees, this
[1:29:27] would only be enforceable when you drive
[1:29:29] through a big subdivision and it's the
[1:29:32] common area?
[1:29:33] It wouldn't be people -- somebody could
[1:29:35] file a complaint on somebody's yard,
[1:29:38] and then they say yes, there is some
[1:29:40] leaves under the trees? >> The way the Bill is set up,
[1:29:43] the enforcement isn't with the
[1:29:46] individual homeowner for the larger
[1:29:48] subdivision, but with the Homeowners
[1:29:50] Association. >> The Homeowners Association
[1:29:52] is the one looking at that?
[1:29:53] >> Yes. >> Okay.
[1:29:54] >> Council Member Kuali'i? >> So Ka'aina, we do FRC
[1:30:03] waivers or exemptions for certain
[1:30:06] affordable housing projects and other
[1:30:08] projects; right?
[1:30:09] >> A reduction. >> A reduction then.
[1:30:12] So in essence, to address Chair's
[1:30:16] concern, if the amounts you were trying
[1:30:19] to offset was $6,000, instead of doing
[1:30:24] a full exemption of the $14,000, you
[1:30:26] could do half? >> The Water Board could
[1:30:28] entertain that.
[1:30:29] >> The Water Board. so I mean, I think what you
[1:30:36] were saying is relevant, because if there
[1:30:41] was already a tiered structure,
[1:30:43] then you could differentiate between the
[1:30:48] lowest small affordable home you are
[1:30:51] trying to build in a subdivision versus
[1:30:55] the McMansions or whatever, and so
[1:30:57] the fact that they all pay the same rate
[1:31:01] currently, I hope that changes in the
[1:31:03] future, too. But if it does change, then
[1:31:06] having that lower amount could be more
[1:31:16] palateacle? >> Yes.
[1:31:17] >> Thank you. >> Council Member Holland.
[1:31:21] >> Just following up on that. Wouldn't that -- would that be
[1:31:24] feasible to be able to calculate the
[1:31:29] costs of each home based upon the
[1:31:31] difference of the WUI codes and only exempt
[1:31:33] that amount or would that just be --
[1:31:35] >> We can look into it. >> It seems like -- -- I
[1:31:43] don't understand enough about your
[1:31:47] internal processes work, but to
[1:31:49] calculate that every cost additional due to
[1:31:52] WUI. >> So the building permit
[1:31:54] process has a calculation based off of
[1:31:56] square footage and that doesn't
[1:31:58] necessarily reflect the accurate amount of
[1:32:00] what is being put into it.
[1:32:01] If you build a house with cedar versus
[1:32:08] teak, the calculation is specifically
[1:32:10] set up for square footage. That would be a potential
[1:32:15] scenario, I think.
[1:32:15] Yeah. >> Thank you.
[1:32:18] >> Question. >> Go ahead.
[1:32:20] >> I just want to go back to the
[1:32:22] conversation from last meeting regarding garage conversion ADU
[1:32:29] and it's only for the area that is
[1:32:31] being affected?
[1:32:32] Can you share if this passes, say,
[1:32:38] somebody in Moloa'a renovating a
[1:32:40] garage, what is required? >> As long as they are not
[1:32:45] expanding footprint, no requirements.
[1:32:48] >> So only extending footprint.
[1:32:50] Thank you. Council Member Cowden.
[1:32:51] >> This question is not really from
[1:32:53] me, but from the letters that we have
[1:32:55] received. So I just want to hear your
[1:32:59] framework on it, and I will caveate by
[1:33:03] saying Joe Tait's piece that lives are
[1:33:06] worth more than money.
[1:33:08] Something that has been asked of us,
[1:33:11] comments have come to us that they feel
[1:33:15] this concrete around the House, and a
[1:33:20] little bit more of a hard scape than
[1:33:24] the green scape will reduce the assessed value of the houses.
[1:33:28] Can you comment on that? Like people
[1:33:31] don't water them as much. They are in the business --
[1:33:35] they are not worth, as much as what is
[1:33:40] being suggested, sellable?
[1:33:40] How do you feel about that, lowering
[1:33:42] the value of the houses? >> I don't --
[1:33:46] -- I don't have the appraisals to say
[1:33:51] my grandmother's Japanese rock garden
[1:33:53] at her house, I don't know if it's
[1:33:55] particularly high value? Sorry, I can't really comment
[1:33:58] on that. >> You can't respond on that.
[1:34:02] All right. Council Member Kuali'i.
[1:34:08] >> When we talked about the numbers
[1:34:14] with concrete versus aggregate, there
[1:34:16] are other machinations, if you will,
[1:34:19] some concrete and some gravel that you
[1:34:21] could do in combination that would
[1:34:24] perhaps cost more than one, but less
[1:34:27] than the other; right? >> Yes.
[1:34:30] >> And, in fact, while this is only
[1:34:34] regarding new construction, if somebody
[1:34:36] with an existing home wanted to do
[1:34:38] something themselves, they could do it
[1:34:41] relatively inexpensively and go to Home
[1:34:42] Depot and get those concrete stepping
[1:34:45] stones. They could fill them all in and
[1:34:48] cover it with gravel, I mean, it
[1:34:50] would meet your requirements for Fire
[1:34:52] Safety; right?
[1:34:55] >> Home Depot gravel -- try to get
[1:35:00] 13,000 from Home Depot is going to be
[1:35:03] expensive, try other vendors. >> They go on sale.
[1:35:06] [Laughter ]I mean, I have gone pretty
[1:35:09] inexpensively. I'm thinking of doing it.
[1:35:15] >> I will put a small plug for existing homeowners -- -- .
[1:35:23] >> Chief wants us to do it. >> Doing home assessments,
[1:35:29] voluntarily to give strategic tips on
[1:35:31] how to harden your home voluntarily.
[1:35:34] >> Committee Members we're about 5
[1:35:36] minutes away from our caption break and
[1:35:37] I would like to take the caption break
[1:35:40] now, if you don't have any more additional questions for Admin
[1:35:44] and that way when we come back from the
[1:35:46] caption break, if there's any
[1:35:48] Amendments, and after the Amendments go to
[1:35:50] public testimony.
[1:35:51] So that at least the public can comment
[1:35:53] on the Amendments and the actual Bill.
[1:35:56] Any additional questions before the
[1:35:58] caption break? So we'll take a caption break
[1:36:01] for ten minutes.
[1:36:01] Thank you [ GAVEL ]
[1:52:08] I would like to call the Planning
[1:52:10] Committee back to order. We're going to start with
[1:52:15] Amendments and we'll do public testimony
[1:52:19] after the Amendments.
[1:52:20] >> I move to amend as circulated.
[1:52:24] >> Second. >> Thank you
[1:52:40] >> Thank you. so we have a Floor
[1:52:42] Amendment and it was moved and seconded
[1:52:45] by Council Member Carvalho and Council
[1:52:50] Member Cowden. It looks like it's just more
[1:52:55] housekeeping. >> Yes.
[1:52:58] >> I would like to suspend the rules.
[1:53:01] Director Hull, would you like to speak
[1:53:03] on this and if there's questions from
[1:53:06] Council Members on the Amendment?
[1:53:08] >> I apologize, Chair. Is this the Fire request
[1:53:12] Amendment. >> Through Council Member
[1:53:13] Cowden -- I mean Council Member Carvalho.
[1:53:32] >> Most of it is just is housekeeping.
[1:53:36] The first one and this was clarification on the
[1:53:40] floorboards and deck, clarification that the
[1:53:42] wall intersection and post
[1:53:44] intersection don't have to be the same.
[1:53:48] And then the last one, there already
[1:53:52] was the setback reduction in there.
[1:53:57] Proposing adjusting it so that it's
[1:54:03] explicitly in the Ordinance concerning
[1:54:06] beyond just the structure, the structure setback and the
[1:54:09] property line setback can be reduced.
[1:54:19] >> Questions? Council Member Cowden.
[1:54:22] >> So this is just omissions that your
[1:54:25] team found? ?
[1:54:27] } Yeah and the last one for the
[1:54:30] setbacks, had discussions with some
[1:54:34] developers, Housing Director Roversi,
[1:54:37] and while acknowledging this were
[1:54:40] setback reduction provisions in this,
[1:54:42] it might be better to tighten up to
[1:54:45] expoliticianly call out the setback
[1:54:46] lines to the property lines could be
[1:54:48] reduced what Section is that?
[1:54:53] >> Page 3, subsection E at the bottom.
[1:54:56] >> In consultation with the Fire
[1:54:58] Chief, these setback distances may --
[1:55:00] that is one of the "may" be reduced if
[1:55:04] the exterior walls of the proposed
[1:55:08] structure are constructed with non-combustible materials and
[1:55:15] incorporate adequate wildfire design.
[1:55:18] So that means it's a cinder block or
[1:55:23] those hardened wood -- so how much is
[1:55:28] that likely to be? How much distance?
[1:55:33] >> Not saying we would consult on the
[1:55:35] design. It would be reducing the
[1:55:38] setbacks through various design
[1:55:39] standards and it could go, as much as 10' back
[1:55:42] to the standard.
[1:55:43] >> Back to 5? >> 10 to the building, 5 to
[1:55:48] the property.
[1:55:49] >> 10 to the building, 5 to the
[1:55:52] property line. >> That means if there's an
[1:55:54] eve or something like that, that is
[1:55:56] between the building and the property
[1:56:00] line. When you say 10 to the building.
[1:56:07] >> Standard setbacks for rear and side
[1:56:09] and 5-10 on the front. >> As opposed to 15?
[1:56:13] >> Yes. >> And it doesn't give those
[1:56:17] numbers here, but that is what it would
[1:56:19] be without giving the numbers.
[1:56:21] >> Wouldn't be able to veer beyond
[1:56:24] the minimum already set. >> Any additional questions on
[1:56:28] the Amendment?
[1:56:28] Council Member Kaneshiro? >> For the stairs, got rid of
[1:56:33] the screen mesh and I was reading
[1:56:35] you can only get rid of the screen mesh
[1:56:38] if it's big with ignition resistant
[1:56:41] material? >> There's other material,
[1:56:44] like part of that hardwoods as well.
[1:56:49] >> So even if it's hardwoods, if it's
[1:56:53] just hardwoods, which most stairs are,
[1:56:56] it doesn't need anything underneath.
[1:56:57] >> It could be open air. >> Why is that?
[1:57:00] >> So if it's post and pier, less than
[1:57:04] 4' the screen would still be around the
[1:57:07] House, and so between the stair, and
[1:57:10] the post and pier mesh that is around
[1:57:13] the House, there should be no problem
[1:57:14] as far as ember instructions intrusion
[1:57:24] under the House. >> So it's not as --
[1:57:27] >> It's not as severe. When we had -- Fire Chief --
[1:57:31] when we had our wildfire folks at U.S.
[1:57:37] Fire alliance solutions and
[1:57:46] underwriters laboratory assess that it
[1:57:49] wasn't a vulnerable point.
[1:57:50] >> The ember could still get under the
[1:57:53] stairs; right? >> Yes as far as a wind-driven
[1:57:59] event it has less exposure area,
[1:58:01] Chief, if you want to?
[1:58:02] >> I'm just trying to visualize the
[1:58:05] difference between house and stair as
[1:58:07] it relates to embers? >> When you have a whole
[1:58:11] house, apsame thing with the post and post
[1:58:14] removed, is that it's the constant
[1:58:17] accumulation of embers in a particular
[1:58:19] pocket; right? Particularly those
[1:58:29] perpendicular areas 12" at that intersection.
[1:58:32] Discussions with dokeey solutions and
[1:58:35] U.S. Fire alliance many high wind
[1:58:38] situations will push the embers off the
[1:58:42] stair and hitting the wall side and
[1:58:43] dropping down to the base, where it's
[1:58:45] going to have that flashing, or concrete for slab on grade
[1:58:50] houses or it's going to be prevented from
[1:58:52] going under the mesh.
[1:58:55] Chief, I'm looking at you. >> Any additional questions
[1:59:05] for the Amendment?
[1:59:06] While the rules are suspend I will take
[1:59:08] public testimony for the Amendment.
[1:59:16] Any public testimony, come on up.
[1:59:23] >> Good morning everyone. Tommy Paserelle, Lihu'e.
[1:59:32] I will read something real quick.
[1:59:38] Excuse me. Does anyone know the oath of
[1:59:47] office that you took when you became
[1:59:49] County Council people?
[1:59:51] Can anyone pull that up? >> We have to wear to uphold
[1:59:56] The Constitution of the United
[1:59:59] States, The Constitution of the State of
[2:00:00] Hawai'i the Charter of the County of
[2:00:02] Kaua'i and all the laws there within.
[2:00:04] >> Ask anyone else know that by heart?
[2:00:13] You took an oath of office for what she
[2:00:15] said and does the Director of That
[2:00:18] Department take an oath of office to do
[2:00:20] that? Well, I will tell you right now
[2:00:24] this is a violation of life, liberty
[2:00:27] and property. Is that the 14th Amendment, I
[2:00:29] believe? Who is the government to tell
[2:00:31] you how to build something?
[2:00:34] If you guys want safe zones put safe
[2:00:36] zones that can protect somebody from
[2:00:40] fires in every strategic location of
[2:00:42] this island. We don't have enough water.
[2:00:45] We have plenty of water, obviously, but
[2:00:48] we don't have the infrastructure.
[2:00:59] Water goes downhill. I didn't mean to say that as a
[2:01:06] derogatory. You take your job very
[2:01:10] seriously and I don't know how many hours you
[2:01:12] average a week, but I highly recommend
[2:01:15] four-year term limits, and Mel told me he
[2:01:18] agrees to that when I attacked to him
[2:01:21] at Hale Lihu'e at the end of the
[2:01:22] meeting. That question didn't even make
[2:01:25] it through KKCR to radio Annie at
[2:01:27] the front of the room.
[2:01:29] You guys take that oath of office very
[2:01:32] seriously. This 35 pages, I don't know who
[2:01:36] if AI wrote this?
[2:01:37] I don't know who wrote it, but we don't
[2:01:40] need a 35-page recommendation when we
[2:01:42] don't even have Fire extinguishers in
[2:01:45] most of our properties. Most people don't even have
[2:01:49] alarm system for burglary, for Fire,
[2:01:51] that could be go right to the Police
[2:01:53] Department and Fire Department. So part of an issue with Fire
[2:01:58] is the proper notification that
[2:02:02] something bad has happened.
[2:02:03] Maui dropped the ball in a huge way and
[2:02:05] all of these fires on the mainland,
[2:02:08] please do your research. These are not natural
[2:02:10] occurrences. There's arsons involved.
[2:02:13] There's land grabs involved, and -- --
[2:02:17] I don't know who did the investigation
[2:02:20] for the Maui wildfires? Why do we call
[2:02:27] them wildfires, Maui wildfires is one
[2:02:32] of them and I highly recommend this
[2:02:35] thing gets thrown in the trash and
[2:02:40] shredded. I see Fern says she kind of
[2:02:44] agrees with me to shred this Bill and start
[2:02:49] from scratch.
[2:02:50] We need a new bus Director. I don't need to keep bringing
[2:02:56] that up, but she laughed at me on the
[2:03:00] phone twice.
[2:03:00] Thank you. >> Thank you.
[2:03:02] Anyone else wishing to testify on the
[2:03:05] Amendment? >> Good morning, Council
[2:03:10] Members. I'm Melanie Pimental and to
[2:03:25] underscore our support of the Bill as
[2:03:28] currently amended.
[2:03:30] We wanted to commend the Council and
[2:03:33] especially the Administration for
[2:03:34] coming to us to work out solutions in
[2:03:40] considering these changes for our
[2:03:41] community, and what really might make
[2:03:44] things afford able especially for a
[2:03:50] program like ours working with the very
[2:03:54] low-income 80% AMI and below. You know, we put in a number of
[2:04:01] hours, and work to achieve what you
[2:04:03] see in front of you in the attachment
[2:04:06] to our letter testimony and we're
[2:04:08] satisfied with the Bill as it is.
[2:04:10] One of the things that made this
[2:04:14] definitely acceptable and the numbers
[2:04:15] work out in our favor was the ability
[2:04:20] to waive the FRC charges. Now of course, as an affordable
[2:04:26] developer with able to have exemptions
[2:04:27] along the way in certain County requirements like the FRC
[2:04:30] already. So that's always been a help
[2:04:33] for us, and again, in hook looking at
[2:04:43] these considerations for our
[2:04:45] population to meet the costs of construction
[2:04:47] and development.
[2:04:54] Donega? >> Again, Donna Rice,
[2:04:58] President of habitat.
[2:05:00] Just to emphasize the ability to build
[2:05:06] safe homes for this lower end group is
[2:05:10] very important. Many of the homes as you know,
[2:05:13] we have been building on the West side,
[2:05:15] which has a higher Fire hazard, even
[2:05:17] though we're going to be building all
[2:05:19] over the island, going into the future.
[2:05:21] But to be able to have a home that we
[2:05:24] know thoo tha is going to last a long
[2:05:29] time with construction and the environment and Fire protection
[2:05:37] be a lower cost to homeowners,
[2:05:39] because if we can build homes with Fire
[2:05:42] preventing materials is going to lower the
[2:05:44] cost of their insurance.
[2:05:46] The slight increase in the built
[2:05:50] materials we're able to absorb, and be
[2:05:52] able to still pass on a low-income home
[2:05:58] for them. One that they can afford, one
[2:06:00] that they can be able to attain a
[2:06:06] mortgage. And so we feel good with the
[2:06:09] Bill, and the Amendments that are being
[2:06:12] presented to you today.
[2:06:15] >> Before we end our time here I did
[2:06:18] want to share that my colleague in Maui
[2:06:21] at the Maui Habitat for Humanity has
[2:06:23] been through this, obviously. And for me, the value in this
[2:06:29] Bill kind of sits heavy on my shoulders
[2:06:33] as a nonprofit leader as a nonprofit
[2:06:36] builder and developer.
[2:06:38] Maui habitat lost in 2023 during the
[2:06:42] fires homes out of their subdivision
[2:06:45] that completely burned to the ground
[2:06:47] and fortunate their homeowners were
[2:06:49] well-insured with some gaps. But this is, I think, we're all
[2:06:54] concerned with safety in our communitys
[2:06:55] with the ever changing environment, and
[2:07:00] other pressing needs that kind of weigh
[2:07:02] on our costs and other considerations.
[2:07:04] So I urge you folks to consider passing
[2:07:08] this Bill as amended, and really
[2:07:10] commend you for your deep thoughts and
[2:07:12] consideration on this. Thank you.
[2:07:17] >> Any additional testimony on the
[2:07:19] Amendment? >> On just the Amendment.
[2:07:24] >> The Amendment. Yes.
[2:07:26] >> Just the Amendment. Seeing none, just the
[2:07:32] Amendment? >> For the whole Bill?
[2:07:37] >> Just the Amendment. >> Can I give suggestions for
[2:07:41] Amendments? >> You can make suggestions to
[2:07:43] the Amendment.
[2:07:44] The existing Amendment, yes. >> Start with your name and
[2:07:52] push the button.
[2:07:55] >> Brian Bowers the President of
[2:07:58] Artistic builders corporation. A little background, grew up in
[2:08:01] Maui and very sensitive to the Maui
[2:08:04] Fires in Kihei, we spent a lot of time
[2:08:07] in Lahaina, built all over Maui
[2:08:12] and Big Island.
[2:08:13] So have done a lot of building. Very sensitive to the Fire
[2:08:17] situation. We were building in Lahaina
[2:08:20] when the Fire hit and we ended up being
[2:08:22] part of the couple of the temporary
[2:08:24] housing project.
[2:08:25] I don't know if you heard about that
[2:08:27] one, doing 50 homes in less than six
[2:08:32] months and the majority done before the
[2:08:37] first-year anniversary, flying folks
[2:08:38] from Kaua'i for the workforce. So make the best of a bad
[2:08:41] situation; right? A couple of concerns
[2:08:43] that I had, I think in principle, I
[2:08:46] like what we're trying to do, keep people
[2:08:48] safe; right? That is the lives is
[2:08:52] most important and Ka'aina and
[2:08:55] Alicia were great.
[2:08:56] I had concerns and I talked to them and
[2:08:58] very helpful in talking through it. So
[2:09:02] I appreciate the time. From a building standpoint, the
[2:09:04] setbacks if you have a 45' house, 15'
[2:09:08] on each side, that house gets really,
[2:09:11] really narrow and then it's a 15'
[2:09:13] house, you know? This is 15'; right? So just a
[2:09:19] concern. We talked through the zero lot
[2:09:22] line provision.
[2:09:23] I think that is really interesting,
[2:09:25] because we built a project in Pahia
[2:09:30] with a shared garage line in Pahia
[2:09:36] town. I think that can help with
[2:09:38] that, but you have to have the whole
[2:09:41] subdivision basically designed with that
[2:09:43] idea in mind, if you don't do that,
[2:09:45] then you know, we talked about if one
[2:09:49] neighbor says you have to get the two to
[2:09:52] agree, if you are one neighbor, why
[2:09:54] would you agree?
[2:09:55] You both have to agree that is going to
[2:09:57] be your house, if I build on a zero lot
[2:10:01] line, you have to be 30' away and that
[2:10:05] is not useable, you have to go 15-30'
[2:10:09] so it makes sense for the master land
[2:10:11] communitys if you are habitat and
[2:10:13] planning a subdivision and build the
[2:10:15] Houses, but the subdivisions that you
[2:10:16] sell the lot those homeowners that want
[2:10:18] to build the House, I think that makes
[2:10:21] it pretty tough. The only Amendment suggestion I
[2:10:24] have is maybe a little clear on the
[2:10:30] wording for like the variations, because I
[2:10:32] think the variations, if you leave at
[2:10:34] discretion of the Fire marshal, I think
[2:10:38] us as developers and builders like
[2:10:40] clear direction. It would be nice to know if you
[2:10:43] do this, this, and this, you can
[2:10:45] be X amount of feet.
[2:10:46] I think that is one thing. the big thing I don't think
[2:10:54] we're addressing the Lahaina, the big
[2:10:56] fires coming from the vacant land.
[2:11:00] >> If there's no additional people
[2:11:01] looking to testify, you can have an
[2:11:03] additional three minutes. Anyone else wishing to testify
[2:11:05] for the first time?
[2:11:07] I will bring you back for another three
[2:11:10] minutes. Go ahead.
[2:11:17] >> Good morning, Chair Bulosan.
[2:11:19] Good morning, Council Members. Eliana Oakman and I'm grateful
[2:11:27] we're having this discussion today,
[2:11:28] because there has been so many
[2:11:30] questions that have felt unanswered and
[2:11:33] unclarified and what we have been
[2:11:34] discussing here with the building costs that
[2:11:38] increase of building costs and we don't
[2:11:43] have enough housing on Kaua'i.
[2:11:45] It will definitely affect low-income
[2:11:47] people who will be building homes.
[2:11:52] For the clarification of the 5' around
[2:11:54] the House in open zones, would it
[2:11:57] affect the square footage of how much
[2:12:01] usable space? Because it's 10% in open zones.
[2:12:06] Would it be an effect on the five feet
[2:12:10] around the House how could it affect
[2:12:12] this situation? I want to mention in
[2:12:15] the discussion, I think we could have
[2:12:18] KIUC and we had the Departments, but we
[2:12:20] didn't have KIUC here to discuss how
[2:12:24] like much hazard could be con by the
[2:12:28] Fire, and I will add on more. when we talk about the Bill.
[2:12:37] Thank you. >> Any more testimony on the
[2:12:39] current Amendment that we have with the
[2:12:45] House keeping proposals?
[2:12:48] Come on up. >> Okay.
[2:12:55] A couple of quick things the biggest
[2:12:57] thing from the Lahaina Fire is why
[2:13:01] Kamehameha is paying that is vacant
[2:13:03] lands and not having the proper breaks.
[2:13:06] I think sucdivisions do a good job of
[2:13:09] mowing the subdivisions afire hydrants
[2:13:12] and subdivisions between houses, I
[2:13:13] think there's definitely are problems,
[2:13:15] but I don't know if they are big as
[2:13:18] problems -- once the Fire is huge and
[2:13:21] hits the subdivision. The part that
[2:13:23] burned in Lahaina is lot of older
[2:13:29] single-wall construction, all wood.
[2:13:31] Today we have a lot of better products
[2:13:34] out there. So a couple of things.
[2:13:37] The 5', I see a lot of 3' separations.
[2:13:42] No plants around the Houses. I think it does preserve the
[2:13:45] Houses not to have plants built up against
[2:13:48] the House and seeing dry rot.
[2:13:50] I don't know if 5 is the right number,
[2:13:53] because you start taking away the
[2:13:56] beauty from the lot. Just a couple of suggestions
[2:13:59] thank you. Any more testimony on the
[2:14:03] Amendment? Go ahead.
[2:14:10] This is your follow-up for this Amendment.
[2:14:12] >> Yes. So I did a little research
[2:14:20] Knorr way, Denmark and the United Kingdom
[2:14:27] due to string building kind resilient
[2:14:30] construction, countries in practices
[2:14:35] Norway, Nordic countries consistently
[2:14:36] rank the top of global Fire Safety
[2:14:39] resilience. They enforce mandatory smoke
[2:14:42] alarm and laws in all residential housing
[2:14:44] and maintain rigorous public
[2:14:46] awareness campaigns like the Nordic smoke
[2:14:48] alarm. Somebody is making money of off
[2:14:52] of that.
[2:14:59] UK has stringent Fire retardency
[2:15:03] standards for furniture and electrical
[2:15:05] system and Germania mandates smoke
[2:15:09] alarms and relive heavily on primary
[2:15:11] building materials like stone, brick,
[2:15:16] rather than light timber and key
[2:15:19] preventing factors mandatory ketectors
[2:15:22] enforcing laws requiring interconnected
[2:15:26] smoke alarms in bedrooms and every
[2:15:30] level. masonry and concrete
[2:15:34] construction, which naturally limits the
[2:15:36] spread to wood framed housing.
[2:15:40] Electrical furniture standards, strict
[2:15:42] regional regulations regarding groundsed electrical plugs and
[2:15:47] Fire retardant furnishings reduce
[2:15:49] ignition sources.
[2:15:50] If you want more details I will senit
[2:15:53] to the County Council. This is what I found yesterday
[2:15:56] at the house Department, we're still
[2:15:59] poisoning our keiki.
[2:16:00] >> Thank you, Tommy. You can send that over.
[2:16:08] >> I have more time? >> On the Amendment.
[2:16:11] >> Are we looking to prevent property
[2:16:15] damage, or prevent lives being damaged?
[2:16:18] So one of the things that causes a lot
[2:16:21] of property damage is water damage.
[2:16:24] So there's got to be healthier ways of
[2:16:27] dealing with fires, such as vacuums.
[2:16:29] So we should look into technology that
[2:16:33] doesn't result in the damaging of that
[2:16:38] property, like Wb had a Fire and been
[2:16:40] shut down for a while. I don't know what type of Fire
[2:16:43] suppression system they have at their
[2:16:45] place, but we should look at the
[2:16:46] different Fires that occurred on Kaua'i
[2:16:48] the last ten years and say what could
[2:16:51] have saved this versus that and we need
[2:16:53] to do our research before we pass a
[2:16:56] 35-page Bill. Thank you.
[2:16:58] >> Thank you. Any more additional testimony
[2:17:00] on the Amendment?
[2:17:05] Since the rules are still suspended I
[2:17:07] want to Director Hull >> Thank you, Director can you
[2:17:24] talk about the testimony received
[2:17:26] about setback and addressing the
[2:17:27] concerns specifically brought up by the
[2:17:29] testifier? >> So the setbacks are only
[2:17:33] for vacant lots and larger subdivisions.
[2:17:36] Ten or more units. Those are generally subject to
[2:17:41] requirements in the subdivision for
[2:17:44] landscapeing already, and going through
[2:17:46] the master planning process. The provision that was
[2:17:50] specifically referenced saying that the lot
[2:17:53] line can be reduced in scenario has it
[2:17:58] all property owners agree.
[2:18:01] Candiedly that will rarely happen.
[2:18:04] You won't get both property owners in
[2:18:07] an existing situation that are going to
[2:18:09] say yes, you can build to the property
[2:18:11] line and we'll build next to you.
[2:18:13] That will rarely happen, but different
[2:18:15] the opportunity for future subdivisions
[2:18:17] saying if this scenario happens and all
[2:18:20] the property owners agree, we want to
[2:18:23] provide that stub-out as well. >> When you are talking about
[2:18:26] 15' on either side and 40' house was
[2:18:29] the number.
[2:18:30] >> 40' lot. >> Okay.
[2:18:32] So can you address that? >> So to go -- x Director just
[2:18:39] to make sure we're tieing this in with
[2:18:41] the Amendment.
[2:18:44] >> It's in the Amendment for the
[2:18:47] reduction. rarely would you have a lot 45'
[2:19:12] wide. We did an analysis for 4500
[2:19:16] square foot lots currently existing, and
[2:19:20] those were 55' by about 79-00'.
[2:19:26] 80', 15' setback would provide for 30'
[2:19:30] width wide home. Again there's provisions to
[2:19:35] reduce that setback as well.
[2:19:37] >> So there's provisions that would
[2:19:40] allow for a houseing on a smaller
[2:19:41] parcel such as that to potentially
[2:19:50] accommodate for that? >> To be clear, with the 55'
[2:19:53] width was on the smallest lot permissible
[2:19:56] in the County Code right now.
[2:19:59] That is 6,000 to 10,000 standard lot.
[2:20:03] And those can -- as we demonstrated in
[2:20:05] the handout, those can clearly accommodate the setbacks.
[2:20:09] But again, there is that Amendment is
[2:20:12] to allow for reduction with consultation with the Fire
[2:20:18] Chief on design.
[2:20:19] >> Thank you very much. >> Any additional questions
[2:20:21] for the Amendment for Admin?
[2:20:24] Council Member Cowden. >> The same testifier Brian
[2:20:27] raised a good point about making the
[2:20:33] "Mays" and discretionary elements have a
[2:20:41] predictable element to consider?
[2:20:42] What tends to make this "may" happen?
[2:20:45] On E, it's the really non-combustible
[2:20:48] material; right? That is pretty
[2:20:51] clear, but probably what isn't clear is
[2:20:52] how much that distance would be adapted?
[2:20:57] How to in our small community typically
[2:20:59] they go and have a conversation, and
[2:21:02] it's negotiated. Is that what happens?
[2:21:04] Like, when we say how much it -- that
[2:21:08] setback distance may be reduced, I
[2:21:10] think his trouble was with that vagary
[2:21:15] of what may be reduced, 5', 10'? >> It is not going to be a
[2:21:20] discussion with the community.
[2:21:22] Again, this is not existing built
[2:21:24] environment, but with a single developer.
[2:21:26] So that single developer, who is
[2:21:29] proposeing a 4500 square foot lot or
[2:21:32] smaller is going to be a really rare
[2:21:35] occasion. We do anticipate it, and that
[2:21:37] stub-out is made explicitly for those
[2:21:42] applications. On the rare application it's
[2:21:44] necessary, that is when that conversation
[2:21:45] happens and it happens either during
[2:21:47] the project development use phase
[2:21:49] at Planning Commission, or at the
[2:21:52] 201H state affordable housing
[2:21:54] process. >> Okay.
[2:21:57] >> Having said that, additional
[2:22:02] administrative rules certainly can be
[2:22:03] set up alongs had lines as well. >> Could be set up and
[2:22:07] developers would be able to residence
[2:22:12] them. >> Absolutely.
[2:22:14] >> Sometimes we hear cries out it can
[2:22:17] be discretionary that works for this
[2:22:18] group, but not for that group. not suggesting any not fair
[2:22:32] about you or you are Department, but
[2:22:34] thinking what is ten years from now.
[2:22:35] >> Understand. >> Council Member Kaneshiro.
[2:22:37] >> Clarifying question. The previous testifier
[2:22:40] mentioned 15' setback.
[2:22:42] Can you clarify what the setbacks are?
[2:22:43] I thought it was five feet? >> So that is the existing
[2:22:49] setbacks is 5', half the height and that
[2:22:51] will be in play for all of Kaua'i.
[2:22:55] The only time these 15' property line
[2:22:59] setbacks come into play is for brand-new subdivisions that are
[2:23:04] fully vacant and have no development
[2:23:06] on them and the 15' setback is in play
[2:23:10] for those lots. It's 15' side is
[2:23:12] the bac, but can be reduced with flag
[2:23:16] lots with driveways in that, so the 15'
[2:23:19] could be reduced because the driveway
[2:23:22] functions as the buffer and reduced to
[2:23:29] the front 5-10', because the road also
[2:23:31] serves as did buffer for the property.
[2:23:35] >> Any additional questions? Seeing none, I will call the
[2:23:39] meeting back to order.
[2:23:41] Any further discussion on the Amendment?
[2:23:51] Roll-call vote for the Amendment.
[2:23:52] >> Council Member Kollar. >> Aye.
[2:23:54] >> C quoden? >> Aye.
[2:23:54] >> Council Member Kaneshiro? >> Aye.
[2:23:56] >> Council Member Kuali'i? >> Aye.
[2:23:58] >> Committee Chair Bulosan? >> Aye.
[2:24:01] >> Passes. >> Go ahead.
[2:24:04] >> I have two Amendments coming from
[2:24:07] Council Member Holland, who is not on
[2:24:09] the Planning Committee. So I would like to amend as
[2:24:12] circulated. >> Second.
[2:24:17] >> So the Amendment regarding the
[2:24:19] wall. I think it changes the
[2:24:30] start-date. >> Moved and seconded.
[2:24:30] If you could explain the Amendment,
[2:24:33] please. I know it's being circulated.
[2:24:38] >> Okay. So last meeting, you probably
[2:24:42] recall that I was trying to search for
[2:24:45] alternatives to the 5' hard scape and I
[2:24:47] understand that is a limiting factor
[2:24:49] for some people, even if not financially, if the cost is
[2:24:54] more, I would still love there to be
[2:24:56] options provided.
[2:24:57] So that people have choices. So what I did was I did some
[2:25:02] brief research about different places
[2:25:03] in Australia, why Black Saturday
[2:25:06] happened in Victoria and some of the
[2:25:07] places that deal with Fire a lot.
[2:25:10] And it does look like there are some
[2:25:13] codes that exist. So the science team went back
[2:25:18] and looked at the what those things
[2:25:21] were and did say under this
[2:25:25] situation with non-combustible walls, which is
[2:25:27] an increased cost to just gravel
[2:25:29] your home.
[2:25:30] If you had non-combustible walls with
[2:25:38] specific metal shutters included this
[2:25:40] could serve as an additional option to
[2:25:46] avoid the 5' hard scape. If we want to call Planning
[2:25:50] back up. They have been helping me with
[2:25:52] the science side of what they are
[2:25:55] comfortable with. >> I have a clarifying
[2:25:56] question. >> Go ahead.
[2:25:58] >> So it removes any of that? So it could have soil and grass
[2:26:02] or ground cover, whatever?
[2:26:03] >> Yes, it would remove the hard scape
[2:26:06] requirement of 5' surrounding the home,
[2:26:08] under the conditions that the waltz
[2:26:09] were specific grade and Ka'aina, expand
[2:26:13] on what those specifics are, if you
[2:26:14] could, because I know you have done a
[2:26:16] lot of research on it. >> I will suspend the rules .
[2:26:19] Ka'aina Hull with Fire Chief Gibson.
[2:26:21] So Council Member Holland brought the
[2:26:23] idea up that Australia did have codes
[2:26:27] without ground scape. We did look into it there are
[2:26:34] several options reviewed.
[2:26:35] This was the final option that was
[2:26:40] reviewed by U.S. Fire alliance, dokei
[2:26:43] solutions, as well as underwriters
[2:26:46] laboratory and all three came back
[2:26:48] saying this would be ang adequate
[2:26:50] response to exempting out the hard
[2:26:54] scape. So it's been provided as an
[2:26:58] option. It's not a cheaper option buc
[2:26:59] it is an option.
[2:27:07] >> Thank you, Director. >> Any questions for Planning
[2:27:09] regarding this Amendment? No questions.
[2:27:14] While the rules are suspended I will do
[2:27:17] public testimony on this specific
[2:27:22] Amendment. Is there any testimony on this
[2:27:25] specific Amendment?
[2:27:40] >> Chair Bulosan, Members of Council.
[2:27:42] I'm going to use my testimony for this
[2:27:45] Amendment, because it is regarding my
[2:27:50] name is Anna modez and use my allotted
[2:27:58] time back-to-back, because I'm very
[2:27:59] late for work. So I would appreciate that.
[2:28:01] >> We can do that. >> Thank you.
[2:28:07] This is very enlightening to listen to
[2:28:09] the testimony this morning. So I do appreciate being here
[2:28:12] to listen to it.
[2:28:15] And my suspicion on when I first read
[2:28:17] this Bill that whoever designed it
[2:28:20] isn't from Kaua'i, and it's confirmed
[2:28:22] with what I have heard today. the Topography here is very
[2:28:31] diverse. So although it does with the
[2:28:34] language that I'm hearing it doesn't
[2:28:38] require for any existing.
[2:28:41] I want to direct your attention to page
[2:28:44] 24, Section 15 reads Chapter 8 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
[2:28:49] Kaua'i County Code, 1987, as amended
[2:28:52] is amended by amending Section 8
[2:28:56] through 4.5 standards of development
[2:29:00] applicable to all residential development
[2:29:02] by adding new subsections 8-4.35e
[2:29:06] and 8 .5f to be appropriately
[2:29:11] encertificated to read as follows.
[2:29:17] Non-combustible zone 5' with ground
[2:29:19] cover comprised of hard scape such as
[2:29:22] concrete, brick or gravel with a depth
[2:29:24] of at least 4" shall be constructed,
[2:29:28] and maintained for any residential
[2:29:30] structure. For pervious material, a
[2:29:35] protected barrier shall be utilized with
[2:29:39] previous hard scape that [PRAO-EFRTZ/]
[2:29:41] organic material growth.
[2:29:44] This 5' requirement is not required for
[2:29:49] accessory structures. So it doesn't say it should
[2:29:54] only -- any new construction built from
[2:29:58] 2027 on. So Council Chair's question, if
[2:30:03] there's any additions, while that wall
[2:30:05] would require this 5', so what does
[2:30:11] present the Planning Director, whoever
[2:30:12] will be at that time to implement this
[2:30:15] law that you are all considering to pass
[2:30:18] just across the Board?
[2:30:20] I don't see language that prevents
[2:30:21] that. So maybe that can be a
[2:30:24] considered Amendment.
[2:30:25] Let's just in a thoughtful way go
[2:30:28] through it. You are talking about 5'
[2:30:31] exterior wall. this is 5' and say you have a
[2:30:47] neighbor that also needs 5'.
[2:30:50] Sorry. Director of Water.
[2:30:54] Thank you. I appreciate you.
[2:31:01] 10'. Do you recall any neighborhoods
[2:31:06] on Kaua'i that have an exterior
[2:31:11] wall that goes from basically to the door
[2:31:13] to where I am?
[2:31:15] Because I have seen a lot of neighborhoods like that.
[2:31:18] It's pretty tight. So that would
[2:31:20] require basically everything concrete
[2:31:22] from wall-to-wall. And I come from a place that
[2:31:26] has that. And there's maybe a little bit
[2:31:28] of lawn before the sidewalk, and
[2:31:31] there's maybe trees and then the road.
[2:31:34] The trees become a nuisance and those
[2:31:38] roots breakthrough the concrete, let's
[2:31:39] get rid of the trees, because they are
[2:31:42] becoming a problem for the concrete.
[2:31:45] So this concrete solution is very
[2:31:47] convenient, you know, for the Fire.
[2:31:50] Prevention. So practically speaking it's a
[2:31:55] great idea.
[2:31:56] I don't believe that our Firefighters
[2:32:00] are the kind of people, you know, they
[2:32:03] train really hard. They are not like you and me.
[2:32:07] They can persevere through the most
[2:32:10] egregious circumstances. So I'm not sure why we're
[2:32:12] trying to make things easy.
[2:32:14] They are not the kind of men I see that
[2:32:18] want things made easy for them. This is a very convenient
[2:32:23] solution, let's expand it.
[2:32:24] There's a lot of issues on this island
[2:32:27] that could use this solution. For instance, the river.
[2:32:31] Dam the river, concrete the bottom, we
[2:32:33] get rid of those slippery Boulders that
[2:32:37] mud between the toes and then on heavy
[2:32:39] rains we no longer have Brown water
[2:32:42] flowing through. The 'Ele'ele river does that
[2:32:48] and it's beautiful.
[2:32:49] That is a convenient issue for that.
[2:32:52] Let's not stop there, with the beachs
[2:32:53] and sand. What a nuisance.
[2:32:57] It gets everywhere. I can't vacuum it out of my
[2:32:59] car. It's really hard to dam the ocean,
[2:33:03] I'm not suggesting that, but we can
[2:33:05] concrete from the shore break to the
[2:33:07] parking lot and get rid of that problem and
[2:33:10] maybe, yeah, it's not that comfortable
[2:33:12] to lay on concrete when we're trying
[2:33:14] to experience the beach.
[2:33:16] So let's just bring in the chasse
[2:33:21] lounges and umbrellas and charge that
[2:33:24] money to go to the County that can be
[2:33:26] alloted to the Water Department that
[2:33:28] really needs this funding. So that is
[2:33:30] a solution there. Now if we have taken care of
[2:33:34] that area, why stop?
[2:33:35] Let's go to the forest. Those pesky trees that cause
[2:33:42] those forest Fires and eliminate that
[2:33:45] and concrete everything.
[2:33:47] Now you don't even get a landslide
[2:33:51] because you solved it with the convenient concrete method.
[2:33:54] Does that sound like a good idea?
[2:33:58] What could go wrong? Hmmm, I guess we would lose the
[2:34:05] beauty of nature, for one.
[2:34:07] Another issue, I believe Council Member
[2:34:09] Cowden touchedn was the heat factor on
[2:34:12] the sun just burning on concrete.
[2:34:16] so making everything really, really
[2:34:19] hot. But I mean, that is okay,
[2:34:21] because I work for an air conditioning
[2:34:24] company. >> Thank you, Anna.
[2:34:27] >> All right, I know -- >> Can I ask a clarifying
[2:34:30] question, please, go ahead.
[2:34:31] >> Sure, that was the whole six
[2:34:34] minutes. >> That was.
[2:34:34] >> It was two back-to-backs. >> It was six minutes, sorry.
[2:34:38] Clarifying question. >> Do you support my Amendment
[2:34:41] to provide an alternative to the
[2:34:44] 5' scape. It sounds like you do, but I
[2:34:46] want to hear.
[2:34:47] >> I support the Council rethinking
[2:34:50] the strategy on this. So if we're really looking at
[2:34:52] trying to make things better for our
[2:34:55] Firefighters, let's provide what the
[2:34:57] Firefighters need to fight fires like
[2:34:59] ensureing there's water in the Fire
[2:35:00] hydrants. >> I agree.
[2:35:02] >> And funding infrastructure. Because the County has this
[2:35:07] uncanny ability to create way more
[2:35:09] problems from the solutions to a
[2:35:11] problem. So thinking ahead, what impact
[2:35:15] could this have on everybody on
[2:35:17] Kaua'i? Because there's not just one
[2:35:19] new neighborhood that is more
[2:35:21] valuable in lives than anybody else on this
[2:35:24] island. >> Did you watch last week's
[2:35:26] meeting? >> I just read the Bill.
[2:35:28] >> I think you just watch the meeting
[2:35:32] with the presentation? >> I will believe my eyes on
[2:35:36] what this Bill is, because a lot of
[2:35:37] people can say and interpret things, but
[2:35:39] it's not what I see written. So I would
[2:35:41] like to ask the Council to really be
[2:35:44] thoughtful on what they are implementing
[2:35:45] is a law and dictateing people yards
[2:35:50] because yardens are a thing. We all
[2:35:52] like to grow and we don't want to be
[2:35:55] told we need 5' of a certain amount.
[2:35:59] So in that instance I do agree with
[2:36:01] you. If you don't pass this Bill
[2:36:03] that doesn't mean that Humane
[2:36:06] Society can't -- sorry, Habitat for Humanity
[2:36:09] can't create with these parameters or
[2:36:12] have developers come in that want to
[2:36:16] create with these parameters.
[2:36:17] Why this law to dictate forever that
[2:36:19] this is how buildings, when developers
[2:36:23] can actually do that themselves, and
[2:36:26] promote that themselves, and then maybe
[2:36:28] even have that be an inspiration for
[2:36:30] others [SKPWHR*-PLTS/] thank you, Anna.
[2:36:33] >> Thank you. >> There is one last thing
[2:36:35] though. This is about Lahaina.
[2:36:38] What happened in Lahaina -- >> Sorry, to be fair to
[2:36:41] everyone. >> I want to say --
[2:36:42] >> Can you email that to us in Council
[2:36:45] testimony? >> This is my last sentence
[2:36:46] and I will be out of here.
[2:36:49] >> Sorry, go ahead. One last sentence.
[2:36:52] >> Vengeance belongs to [TKPWO-DZ/],
[2:36:55] [TKPWO-DZ/], God, but in John Chapter
[2:37:00] 13, I can bring his name and plead the
[2:37:04] blood of Jesus over Kaua'i and Ni'ihau, and anything not of
[2:37:10] God's well to be vanquished in Jesus's
[2:37:14] mighty name, Amen.
[2:37:14] >> Thank you. Any testimony on this current
[2:37:20] Amendment? Come on up.
[2:37:28] Ch thank you Council for you hoing us
[2:37:30] to speak. The 5' -- state your name.
[2:37:37] >> Sandra O'SHAUGHNESSY and the
[2:37:44] argument to be concrete, gravel, all of
[2:37:47] those things obviously all need to be
[2:37:51] considered. In Kapahi, very close to
[2:37:54] people's houses is wild Guinea grass
[2:37:58] growing everywhere, which are a massive
[2:38:00] Fire hazard.
[2:38:01] It's a problem all over Kaua'i, a lot
[2:38:04] of these wildfires start and blow
[2:38:08] through the fields where non-native
[2:38:14] grass, Albizia trees, et cetera. I feel
[2:38:15] we're not really looking at the mitigation problem with those
[2:38:18] things that a lot of these fires start
[2:38:21] from. So I'm wondering and I know
[2:38:24] it's not the Bill itself, but if we're
[2:38:26] looking at Fire mitigation, we should
[2:38:29] definitely be considering how we're
[2:38:32] going to address these wild grasses and
[2:38:35] trees. >> Thank you.
[2:38:37] >> Any additional testimony for this
[2:38:39] Amendment? This is the same Bill, same
[2:38:49] Amendment. Thank you.
[2:38:51] >> Thank you. >> Any additional testimony
[2:38:55] for the current Amendment?
[2:38:58] Seeing none, I will call this meeting
[2:38:59] back to order. Any additional discussion on
[2:39:02] the Amendment?
[2:39:05] Council Member Cowden. >> I will just say thank you,
[2:39:08] Council Member Holland for looking at
[2:39:12] Australia policy.
[2:39:13] And if people have the costs, they can
[2:39:17] afford to have non-combustible house,
[2:39:21] it seems like they shouldn't be penalizeed for that hard scape
[2:39:25] around the edge.
[2:39:25] So I appreciate the creativity, and
[2:39:29] effort of looking at it. >> Thank you.
[2:39:30] >> Council Member Kaneshiro. >> Quick question to note the
[2:39:33] Amendment does change the Ordinance
[2:39:36] date to take effect on October 1st,
[2:39:39] versus July 1st. >> It's just pushing out a
[2:39:41] little bit to address those already under
[2:39:45] construction, I forgot to mention that.
[2:39:52] >> Let's just do it for the whole
[2:39:54] thing. I didn't hear your reason that
[2:39:57] much. What is already -- there is
[2:40:00] already projects being designed?
[2:40:02] >> My understanding and just correct
[2:40:03] me, Director, if I'm wrong to allow for
[2:40:06] the extra time for the concern brought
[2:40:08] up about houses already in the works?
[2:40:11] >> Any permit that is already in would
[2:40:13] not have the standards applied to them.
[2:40:17] You do have some that maybe in the
[2:40:21] process of getting draftsmen work done,
[2:40:25] and so midway through the process, but
[2:40:26] don't have their permits yet. So it allows that kind of
[2:40:30] buffer essentially, if you will.
[2:40:31] >> Just adding a little bit of extra
[2:40:34] time, so people caught out in the start
[2:40:37] of it -- have a little bit more prepared time.
[2:40:42] >> So where does it say that? >> The date change on the
[2:40:45] bottom, October 1st, from July 1st.
[2:40:50] >> Okay. >> Any additional questions
[2:40:52] for Admin, while the rules are
[2:40:53] suspended? >> So you supported this?
[2:40:56] This was your idea? >> We support it.
[2:40:58] >> It was part of our discussion and
[2:41:00] he had brought up if I supported also
[2:41:02] pushing the date out to address that
[2:41:06] concern at same time and I said yes.
[2:41:07] >> Okay. >> Any additional questions
[2:41:09] for Admin? Call the meeting back to order.
[2:41:15] Any oath other discussion on the
[2:41:23] Amendment. >> Yes, it gives leeway and
[2:41:27] don't want the concrete or hardened area,
[2:41:29] if it's going to cost a little more,
[2:41:31] they can purchase that type of sideing
[2:41:33] that is more fire-resistant and that is
[2:41:36] their own decision what they do.
[2:41:37] As far as the date, I'm in agreement,
[2:41:39] too. We have been working on this,
[2:41:41] and it's been in Planning from like
[2:41:44] prior to July.
[2:41:45] So I think at the time they were
[2:41:47] thinking a year out and we're already
[2:41:49] in October. So it makes sense to push
[2:41:51] it out a year. >> We're in September.
[2:41:56] >> Oh, see, we're in September already.
[2:41:58] September/October. October is around the corner
[2:42:01] anyway. It gives people a little more
[2:42:07] time to adjust.
[2:42:08] >> Any additional discussion on the
[2:42:10] Amendment? Council Member Holland.
[2:42:11] >> Just want to thank you for entertaining it.
[2:42:13] I know I'm not on the Committee, but I
[2:42:16] did look into some of this stuff
[2:42:18] initially looking at irrigated landscape and there is
[2:42:26] additional discussion in my next
[2:42:27] Amendment. I just appreciate you
[2:42:28] considering this. >> Any additional -- with that
[2:42:33] roll-call vote on the Amendment. >> On the second Amendment?
[2:42:36] >> Yes. >> Council Member Carvalho?
[2:42:38] >> Aye. >> Council Member Cowden?
[2:42:39] >> Aye. >> Council Member Kaneshiro?
[2:42:41] >> Aye. >> Council Member Kuali'i?
[2:42:43] >> Aye. >> Committee Chair Bulosan ?
[2:42:45] >> Aye. >> Motion passes.
[2:42:47] >> Thank you. >> Council Member Cowden,
[2:42:49] again, she is not on the Committee.
[2:42:52] Sorry, Council Member Holland. Council Member Holland again
[2:42:57] she is not on the Committee.
[2:42:59] But she does have an Amendment that I
[2:43:03] will be circulateing for her, regarding
[2:43:07] the periodic review. >> Second.
[2:43:08] >> Thank you. This measure is really needed
[2:43:11] as you said related to the periodic
[2:43:12] review. Again, looking at the irrigated
[2:43:15] landscape and potential for waterlogged
[2:43:18] plants to be included in the 5'
[2:43:21] buffer. The problem is and Director
[2:43:23] please correct me if I misstate any of
[2:43:26] this, but my understanding after the
[2:43:33] scientists reviewed my asks, on the
[2:43:36] previous Amendment that we voted on
[2:43:41] they couldn't scientifically support
[2:43:46] waterlogged vegetation and this amendment requires those are
[2:43:48] considered in the periodic review and that
[2:43:50] studys are done it allow for that to
[2:43:52] be an option in the future.
[2:43:54] Because the studies weren't done and
[2:43:56] the scientists weren't confident in
[2:43:57] making that assessment and allowing
[2:43:58] that Amendment go forward. So in this case, they would
[2:44:01] have the opportunity to complete the
[2:44:03] studies, and prove without a doubt if
[2:44:06] plants like say aloe Vera or the water
[2:44:09] heavy plants might be exemptions that
[2:44:12] allow 5' surrounding of the home?
[2:44:13] So that is what this Amendment is.
[2:44:16] >> Any discussion? >> I have a little bit of
[2:44:22] discussion. And just for the public, we
[2:44:25] don't get to hear before edge, -- I
[2:44:30] would have added to this?
[2:44:32] >> Go ahead, discussion. Tch I appreciate that can go
[2:44:41] into review the and I think whether
[2:44:43] we do another thing or do a
[2:44:45] [TKPR-EPBD/]ly Amendment, I think soil
[2:44:58] analyses and percolation should be on the
[2:45:00] review. That falls to what Anna said.
[2:45:04] When we look at the Fire impact on
[2:45:06] plants with an 80 miles an hour wind
[2:45:08] with hot, hot, hot, fires that is
[2:45:12] really the anomaly. So when we have -- what we
[2:45:16] learned at NACo, in our fieldtrips this,
[2:45:21] after you have a Fire, you have all of
[2:45:25] this flooding potential and flooding
[2:45:26] is more common than Fire here. So when
[2:45:29] we're looking at extra concrete,
[2:45:31] especially in a narrow neighborhood as
[2:45:39] Anna said, with 10' hardened out of
[2:45:44] 20, and what we scorch the soil in the
[2:45:48] ways that this Bill asks to do in a
[2:45:51] lot of places you don't have the
[2:45:54] percolation rates and will have severe
[2:45:58] flooding and percolation increases when you
[2:46:00] have natural plant scapes when the
[2:46:02] plants can liver the live the way
[2:46:06] they are meant to live.
[2:46:13] [*-PLTS/] I'm not clear. >> Percolation I believe
[2:46:16] should be in the wildfire resilient
[2:46:18] landscaping because when we have
[2:46:21] hard-packed ground, which is what happens
[2:46:23] when you have the sun shining always on
[2:46:26] the ground, you don't have good
[2:46:29] percolation rate.
[2:46:31] Percolation rate happens when you have
[2:46:33] active landscaping. I know that is true.
[2:46:38] >> Any additional -- I do have to go
[2:46:40] to public testimony. So I don't know if you want to
[2:46:43] keep with discussion?
[2:46:44] >> I was just wondering what the
[2:46:46] Director thought about that? >> I will suspend the rules.
[2:46:50] Director. >> Just because the Bill
[2:46:53] doesn't require concrete, it can use
[2:46:55] hard scape as well.
[2:46:57] If a homeowner opted to use concrete in
[2:47:01] their 5' non-combustible zone would not
[2:47:03] be allowed go beyond the existing
[2:47:05] threshold of 60% for residential lot.
[2:47:07] So it does not allow for extra concrete
[2:47:09] beyond what the code currently requires.
[2:47:15] So the percolation rate should stay the
[2:47:16] same. But understand --
[2:47:19] >> Percolation rate doesn't stay the
[2:47:21] same without plants. >> I just want to clarify
[2:47:24] extra concrete beyond the 60%
[2:47:31] doesn't change and to clarify the concrete
[2:47:33] doesn't change.
[2:47:34] For the overall proposal, Council
[2:47:38] Member Holland approached us and the
[2:47:40] team to say what about using certain
[2:47:43] types of landscaping there? And the team did go back and
[2:47:46] look through when looking at how
[2:47:52] wildfire science can provide guidance
[2:47:55] for regulatory regimes, either the
[2:47:57] science group is going to look at
[2:48:01] forensic analysis of a wildfire event
[2:48:02] that happened or use laboratory
[2:48:03] tests in which they are recreating a
[2:48:06] wildfire event on the built environment
[2:48:07] and both of those scenarios and the data
[2:48:10] that they have, they didn't have
[2:48:11] anything that they could indicate that
[2:48:13] landscaping would be an adequate
[2:48:16] mitigation measure for the hard scape,
[2:48:18] having said that, you know, with the
[2:48:21] draft proposal, we would be going back
[2:48:24] to underwriters laboratory, as well as
[2:48:26] Hawai'i wildfires to say looking at
[2:48:28] certain documents and studies produced
[2:48:32] by wildfire landscapes is in interface
[2:48:35] between those and the 5' non-combustible zone and
[2:48:39] candidly I had that discussion with the Kaua'i
[2:48:44] wildfire management yesterday. >>
[2:48:48] while the rules are suspended we'll do
[2:48:49] testimony. >> I have one more question.
[2:48:51] >> Okay. Go ahead.
[2:48:53] >> So this would be a question can be
[2:48:54] >> On the Amendment? >> For both Fire and
[2:49:04] Planning. What we saw in Lahaina is
[2:49:08] after the Fire everything was really
[2:49:11] toxic; right? Really toxic. Probably when you have a Hick's
[2:49:15] home that is just wood, it won't be
[2:49:17] so toxic.
[2:49:18] All of these hardened, kind of newcombo
[2:49:27] products create that toxicity, is that
[2:49:28] correct? >> That is absolutely correct.
[2:49:30] It's what we're putting inside the
[2:49:33] Houses, couches, mattresses and what is
[2:49:34] outside of the houses, tires, cars,
[2:49:38] batteries, all those things. >> And even the hardened
[2:49:41] walls wouldn't be for concrete.
[2:49:42] We just have to -- we just have to look
[2:49:47] at how all these things balance. >> Any additional questions
[2:49:50] for Admin for the Amendment currently?
[2:49:52] No. Seeing none, we'll do public
[2:49:55] testimony on the Amendment as proposed.
[2:49:59] Anyone wishing to testify on the
[2:50:00] Amendment? Seeing none, Weigel call the
[2:50:07] meeting back to [O-RDZ/].
[2:50:08] Any final discussion on the Amendment?
[2:50:09] >> I have a final comment. >> Go ahead?
[2:50:11] >> INSTRUCTOR: Will be supporting this
[2:50:13] Amendment. I think it's valuable to review
[2:50:20] as manys as we can review and
[2:50:22] especially when I brought up how much do
[2:50:24] most our reviews or reports happen?
[2:50:26] I would hope in the first five years
[2:50:31] that after these places are built, it
[2:50:36] can be looking at what is out there in
[2:50:38] the nation, it had really matter that
[2:50:40] we look and check that what we have
[2:50:42] done is right. So certainly I support more
[2:50:49] flexibility and breadth in the review.
[2:50:51] >> Any other discussion? Council Member Kaneshiro?
[2:50:54] >> I'm supportive of the Amendment.
[2:50:56] And I know heard concerns how often
[2:51:00] the reviews are. I'm a little more, I guess,
[2:51:02] positive on the reviews, because I know
[2:51:04] that the County already meets yearly for
[2:51:07] wildfires. And so like it's not as big as
[2:51:10] say a GP type of meeting, and result.
[2:51:13] But I do know that yearly Fire is
[2:51:17] meeting with the community, and everybody, and so I see those
[2:51:21] meetings continuing, and then these
[2:51:23] types of things being incorporated into
[2:51:24] it. So I definitely think yeah,
[2:51:28] more information is better.
[2:51:29] You know, if we're looking at other
[2:51:31] ways to protect the House and also look
[2:51:33] at what types of landscape may be
[2:51:34] available at the same time? So I'm in
[2:51:36] favor of this Amendment. >> Any additional discussion?
[2:51:40] Final discussion for the Amendment?
[2:51:43] Seeing none, roll-call vote for the
[2:51:45] Amendment. >> Council Member Carvalho?
[2:51:46] >> Aye. >> Council Member Cowden?
[2:51:48] >> Aye. >> Council Member Kaneshiro?
[2:51:50] >> Aye. >> Council Member Kuali'i?
[2:51:51] >> Aye. >> Committee Chair Bulosan?
[2:51:53] >> Aye. >> Meigs passes.
[2:51:56] motion passes. >> Any other Amendments for
[2:51:58] this Bill now it's amended three times.
[2:52:08] One more Amendment. Okay.
[2:52:10] >> I'm not on the Committee. >> I move to amend as
[2:52:17] circulated on behalf of Chair Rapozo, who is
[2:52:19] not on the Committee.
[2:52:21] >> Thank you, Mr. Kuali'i. >> Second.
[2:52:25] >> Moved and seconded mine is housekeeping pertaining
[2:52:29] to the Section on gutters and just
[2:52:31] adding if installed, just to make it
[2:52:33] clear, it's an optional component and not
[2:52:38] mandatory. >> Any other discussion?
[2:52:43] With the rules suspended - suspending
[2:52:47] the rules anyone wishing to testify on
[2:52:48] the Amendment? It is adding the "if installed
[2:52:53] gutters." In the previous discussion.
[2:52:56] Seeing no testimony call the meeting
[2:52:58] back to order. Any further discussion?
[2:53:01] Seeing none roll-call vote on the
[2:53:05] fourth amendment. >> Council Member Carvalho?
[2:53:06] >> Aye. >> Council Member Cowden?
[2:53:07] >> Aye. >> Council Member Kaneshiro?
[2:53:08] >> Aye. >> Council Member Kuali'i?
[2:53:10] >> Aye. >> Committee Chair Bulosan?
[2:53:12] >> Aye. >> Motion passes.
[2:53:15] >> With that, we're still in discussion, and I wanted to
[2:53:21] give the public, if there's any more
[2:53:23] Amendments, I will just double-check.
[2:53:25] Seeing no more Amendments, I did want
[2:53:27] to give the public one opportunity, one
[2:53:29] last opportunity for public testimony
[2:53:32] of the entire Bill as amended four
[2:53:36] times. Anyone wishing to testify on
[2:53:38] the entire Bill as amended?
[2:53:46] Seeing none, >> I have another question for
[2:53:48] Ka'aina. >> So we'll suspend the rules.
[2:53:52] Director Hull. C
[2:54:20] >> I did read this and it's a long
[2:54:22] Bill and has a lot of details. So I had a few things I just
[2:54:27] confused about.
[2:54:29] Probably simple answers, but it would
[2:54:31] help me. On page 12, Section 5, in the
[2:54:36] middle of the page, what was removed was
[2:54:47] dwelling single-family attached.
[2:54:48] These are definitions and I wonder why
[2:54:51] we deleteed that definition, because I
[2:54:52] didn't see it replaced? >> The single family attached
[2:54:56] is a structural element where it's
[2:54:59] just literally you will find some
[2:55:03] proposals avoiding setbacks currently,
[2:55:05] the 10' building setback by literally
[2:55:09] putting a non-structural element attached
[2:55:10] to it, a couple 2x4s and then it's
[2:55:20] separateed by 3-4 feet, which is a clear
[2:55:22] hazard. >> Someone put a lean-to
[2:55:28] against the wall.
[2:55:29] >> That is where it's structurally
[2:55:31] dependent, that is fine. It's where it's structurally
[2:55:36] independent. >> So you have 3" in between.
[2:55:39] So we took that out. So that means we
[2:55:40] don't have that in here? >> No.
[2:55:42] >> So when we saw where you can build
[2:55:45] on the zero lot line between different
[2:55:48] parcels and we had that in our presentation, I would assume
[2:55:51] that is the developer builds is that
[2:55:53] way. >> Those are structurally
[2:55:55] dependent. >> Those are structurally
[2:55:56] dependent and those are duplexs that are
[2:56:04] straddlely a line. >> Or carport scenario.
[2:56:07] >> We saw two weeks ago we saw design
[2:56:11] drawings of this. >> Duplexes straddling the
[2:56:15] line, but carports straddling the line
[2:56:18] where the dwellings weren't actually
[2:56:20] adjacent. So single-family paradigm with
[2:56:23] the connected carport.
[2:56:24] >> Right. So potential for crumbleing,
[2:56:26] but if the developer decides to do that, I
[2:56:29] would presume a developer would be
[2:56:30] the one to do that.
[2:56:31] You are not usually going to see two
[2:56:34] people buy separate lots and go okay
[2:56:39] neighbor. >> We would not anticipate
[2:56:42] that happening.
[2:56:43] >> So you can't have something that
[2:56:44] looks like it's attached. So we're just saying that
[2:56:47] doesn't happen.
[2:56:49] All right. My other very simple question
[2:56:52] is I noticed that we have
[2:56:54] definitions, and the same definitions in the
[2:57:02] different places.
[2:57:04] So I read through every one of them.
[2:57:06] I didn't understand why we have them
[2:57:07] there. Is because it's a distinct
[2:57:10] Section? >> Correct.
[2:57:12] >> And we have to have -- we don't
[2:57:15] reference back to the old Section.
[2:57:16] So a new Section. So we're just saying
[2:57:18] we just have to repeat ourselves?
[2:57:21] >> One definition being provideed in
[2:57:23] Chapter 12, which is a different
[2:57:25] Chapter from Kaua'i County Code from
[2:57:27] Chapter 8 and both codes need the
[2:57:29] definitions >> Okay.
[2:57:32] Thank you any additional questions for
[2:57:33] Admin? >> I have one more question.
[2:57:36] >> Chair Rapozo. >> On page 21.
[2:57:40] This is on maximum lot coverage.
[2:57:42] So this Bill will increase the maximum
[2:57:45] lot coverage for R-1 to R-6 to 60%.
[2:57:49] That wasn't discussed. Is that for everyone now.
[2:57:52] >> That was more of a clean-up in that
[2:57:54] one Section of the code already has the
[2:57:56] 60% and this is just reiterateing it's
[2:57:58] 60%. >> So I wasn't aware, how
[2:58:02] long have we been at 60%
[2:58:04] around the time that the ARU was passed.
[2:58:07] >> Thank you. >> Any additional questions
[2:58:10] for the administration?
[2:58:14] Thank you. Call this meeting back to
[2:58:17] order. Final discussion?
[2:58:19] Committee Members? And non-Committee Members, if
[2:58:22] you want to have any final discussion as
[2:58:24] well. Chair Rapozo
[2:58:25] thank you. As a non-Committee Member, you
[2:58:29] know, one thing I learned in all
[2:58:32] these years on this Council, you learn to
[2:58:35] Council real quick and I see this is
[2:58:37] probably going to pass today.
[2:58:38] We got the information -- I got the
[2:58:41] information last night from contractors
[2:58:45] and BIA, and passed it onto you today.
[2:58:48] So I'm still a little uncomfortable
[2:58:50] about the cost and not that I'm disputeing awhat is said, but
[2:58:54] pause it's so significantly
[2:58:55] different, I have to Drac down why it's different
[2:58:57] and it has to be how they figure out
[2:58:59] the numbers.
[2:59:00] I don't think it's malicious any way,
[2:59:04] but the reason why those numbers are
[2:59:06] different? This is going to pass out of
[2:59:08] Committee today I will spend the next few
[2:59:11] days tracking that information down.
[2:59:12] I think one of the testifiers today
[2:59:15] talked about clarifying some of the
[2:59:18] language in this Bill. That is why I'm more open to
[2:59:22] taking our time, because all these
[2:59:23] Amendments that dropped today, we see it for
[2:59:26] the first time today.
[2:59:27] We don't have the luxury, because the
[2:59:29] sunshine law. We don't get to see these
[2:59:32] things and explore it.
[2:59:33] So we hear it today and I'm not sure
[2:59:35] what the pressure is to get it passed
[2:59:37] out of Committee today, I just don't,
[2:59:39] because we're looking athe a Bill that
[2:59:41] will take effect in October now of
[2:59:43] 2027. We went through this exercise
[2:59:46] with residential investor with Real
[2:59:48] Property Tax, and it looked very good
[2:59:50] and went through it, because we wanted
[2:59:53] to help so many people and find out
[2:59:55] oops, we didn't see everything. So we
[2:59:57] have to go back and refund money and
[3:00:00] repeal the Bill.
[3:00:01] This is a big Bill. A major impacts on
[3:00:03] a lot of people going forward. So I just for me, myself, as it
[3:00:09] comes before the full Council, I will
[3:00:12] need to have all my questions answered.
[3:00:14] The other thing that we don't have
[3:00:16] especially when we amend bills at this
[3:00:21] level, the public input, because again,
[3:00:23] everybody is finding out today what the
[3:00:26] new Amendments are. I don't know how many of you
[3:00:28] noticed that the testimonies for this
[3:00:30] Bill really just came in the last
[3:00:33] few days before.
[3:00:33] Because people don't know -- we don't
[3:00:35] have the Garden Island newspaper in
[3:00:37] here now sharing with the world what
[3:00:39] we're doing. So it's word-of-mouth,
[3:00:41] and then everybody gets freaked out
[3:00:43] because they didn't watch the meeting
[3:00:45] and don't know what the technical parts
[3:00:46] of this Bill. So now they start
[3:00:49] finding out with testimonies. Again, this will happen four
[3:00:54] Amendments today.
[3:00:54] Four Amendments. So four Amendments that is
[3:00:56] going to generate input.
[3:00:59] Now I always believe that we should do
[3:01:01] all the work in the Committee, and not
[3:01:02] at the full Council Meeting and what
[3:01:08] the Committee process is to work out
[3:01:09] the kinks and clarifications, because
[3:01:11] the last thing we to do is pass a Bill
[3:01:14] that has language that is vague, that
[3:01:17] can result in false interpretations of
[3:01:19] what we're trying to do. Then you cause confusion in the
[3:01:22] community and that is what we try to
[3:01:24] prevent. So I believe it's our job here
[3:01:26] to flush out all of the concerns and
[3:01:28] questions. You can't do that if we don't
[3:01:31] have the community's input, which we're
[3:01:34] start getting probably right before
[3:01:36] the Council Meeting and then we'll
[3:01:38] have to either send it back to
[3:01:41] Committee or amend it in the full Council,
[3:01:44] which is not the preferred way to go.
[3:01:46] So I made the comments up front, that I
[3:01:49] would suggest that we take another
[3:01:52] couple of weeks to flush out all of the
[3:01:55] questions and concerns, and some -- we
[3:01:57] got testimonies up until today.
[3:01:59] I just got testimonies for this Bill
[3:02:01] today while we're in this meeting.
[3:02:04] And we're not going to give them the
[3:02:06] opportunity the proper time to process,
[3:02:09] and vet out with the Planning Department, and everybody else.
[3:02:12] So if I was voting today, I would not
[3:02:15] be voteing in support of it. I would be asking for a
[3:02:18] deferral. But if we get it to full
[3:02:23] Council next week, hopefully I'm prepared to
[3:02:26] make a vote at that time.
[3:02:27] >> Council Member Cowden. >> I'm also one who wants to
[3:02:31] have it delayed another two weeks,
[3:02:33] because something I think is really
[3:02:34] important on this is that were the first
[3:02:38] County in the nation, as least that is
[3:02:40] what we have been told that they are
[3:02:43] aware of to create a Wildland Urban
[3:02:48] Interface Bill is very important and
[3:02:49] setting a standard that will probably be
[3:02:51] looked at in many different places.
[3:02:53] So I think possibly looked at
[3:02:56] nationally, and so I honestly feel like it
[3:02:58] needs to have a cluster of policy bills.
[3:03:01] But we need to have a very holistic
[3:03:08] piece and how it is now or the worst
[3:03:10] possible scenario, what I was bringing
[3:03:12] up in one of the Amendments is after
[3:03:15] the Lahaina Fire, it almost turned the
[3:03:18] soil to glass. It was so hard it wouldn't have
[3:03:24] mattered the percolation rate in that
[3:03:25] case and especially when we have so
[3:03:27] much sand. But I think when it's either
[3:03:30] zero or the absolute worst scenario, I
[3:03:34] feel like we really have to have a
[3:03:37] strong understanding of soils, and how
[3:03:40] soils manage.
[3:03:41] Because when we look at we have people
[3:03:45] bringing up climate change, yes.
[3:03:47] Climate change is happening, but it's
[3:03:49] probably happening, as much as the
[3:03:51] abuse of the soil as it is for what
[3:03:55] happens in the air and the sky, and the
[3:03:58] carbon offset, and all of that. And I think that we -- I would
[3:04:02] really like to have KIUC.
[3:04:04] I'm sure that they have spoken with
[3:04:06] Planning. I think that is a big part of
[3:04:08] it, too. When I think about when you're
[3:04:11] saying well how do we make it -- we're
[3:04:14] really looking at Fire Safety.
[3:04:15] Do we say you have to have underground
[3:04:20] power line lines is what started
[3:04:21] Lahaina had a big part of many of the
[3:04:24] California fires in the wildfire area.
[3:04:28] So we're putting all of this burden
[3:04:32] right on houses, and so I feel like we
[3:04:35] need to have a much broader element of
[3:04:39] how we're looking at it. So then I want to say just as a
[3:04:46] comment about the yearly reviews.
[3:04:49] When we first passed something, yearly
[3:04:52] review, but we're going to have four
[3:04:55] brand-new Council Members next time,
[3:04:56] our Mayor will have been sitting in
[3:04:58] this room, because either one of the
[3:05:01] candidates are here. But there will be quite a bit
[3:05:05] of time that comes on and this doesn't
[3:05:09] say when that yearly review start?
[3:05:12] When does it start? Does it start as soon as we
[3:05:18] build it or every year we look?
[3:05:20] I appreciate Council Member Kaneshiro
[3:05:22] complimented the amazing work that our
[3:05:24] Fire Department has done with Hawai'i
[3:05:30] Wildfire Management Organization and
[3:05:31] happy to be part of that stakeholder
[3:05:33] grown. I have been paying attention
[3:05:36] since I started almost eight years ago
[3:05:38] and really that Fire interest has
[3:05:40] been hot on the heels of the Lahaina
[3:05:42] Fire. But ten years from now, it may
[3:05:45] no longer be; right? So we might
[3:05:47] not be looking at that as much then.
[3:05:52] So I think we need to be very, very
[3:05:55] careful. We aren't crushed for time, and
[3:05:59] it is work to sit and look at it, but
[3:06:02] I think the landscaping elements are
[3:06:05] parts that really do make me
[3:06:07] uncomfortable, because I think if you have a
[3:06:10] whole big subdivision that has
[3:06:12] landscaping that is going to starve the soil of
[3:06:16] its micros and mi psyllium and
[3:06:21] worms and all of that, we'll create a hot
[3:06:25] scape and increase the problem.
[3:06:30] So I really want to see a lot looked at
[3:06:32] with the plant and not just how fast
[3:06:35] they burn, but takeing them away
[3:06:38] creates burnable space? So where I do appreciate what
[3:06:41] some of Anna did say, if you just -- if
[3:06:45] you are only looking for Fire
[3:06:49] suppression, and you are not looking at flood,
[3:06:53] because when you ruin the soil, you
[3:06:55] increase the flooding.
[3:06:56] Because it won't percolate as well.
[3:06:58] And so I think all of that is really
[3:07:02] important. >> Council Member Holland.
[3:07:04] >> Thank you all very much. I want to start by thanking
[3:07:08] Council Member Kaneshiro for
[3:07:10] introducing my Amendments and for your
[3:07:11] support. I want to say overall with this
[3:07:14] Bill, I obviously have concerns there's
[3:07:18] an increase in costs.
[3:07:19] I love the fact it's offset by the FRC
[3:07:22] charge being reduced, but I definitely
[3:07:24] have concerns about the funding of the
[3:07:27] Water Department as well. I think there's a deeper
[3:07:29] conversation there, because I think we
[3:07:31] should not be paying the FRC for most
[3:07:34] housing, especially affordable housing
[3:07:36] anyway. You know, when it comes to
[3:07:38] deferral, two of you have mentioned to
[3:07:41] have more time.
[3:07:42] I don't have really any opposition to
[3:07:45] that. I guess I just want to speak a
[3:07:47] little to some of the testimony we
[3:07:50] heard today, and we heard very
[3:07:53] clearly, and I hear very clearly that life and
[3:07:56] the cost of life is always going to
[3:07:58] be of more value than a little bit of
[3:08:01] investment that costs a home a little
[3:08:04] bit more persquare foot. I think to me that is always a
[3:08:07] clear decision.
[3:08:10] Looking at the overall management of
[3:08:12] Fire risk, like wildlands and flamable
[3:08:18] invasives is an important part of the
[3:08:22] ongoing conversation and I don't think
[3:08:24] this measure has anything to do with
[3:08:25] that, but we passed additional Fire
[3:08:28] measures to limit flammable species
[3:08:31] around homes and structures. And I think that these continue
[3:08:33] to be important things that we also
[3:08:35] have to work on.
[3:08:36] I don't think they necessarily negate
[3:08:39] the prevention mechanism this is.
[3:08:41] You know, I do think that these are
[3:08:43] also critical things that we need to
[3:08:45] look at. I think it's not an ideal Bill
[3:08:48] and I appreciate that was said also
[3:08:51] by I believe water.
[3:08:53] This is not an ideal situation, but
[3:08:56] it's needed so that we can do everything that we can.
[3:08:59] Because the cost of life is so valuable
[3:09:03] and not losing life is Virginia Tech.
[3:09:06] valuable and I appreciate the comments
[3:09:08] of Habitat for Humanity and there's a
[3:09:09] lot of different things to look at, as
[3:09:12] I said, water addressing ability,
[3:09:16] electric all the thicks to put fires
[3:09:18] out is Councilly important. The bottom-line, we're still
[3:09:21] going to be talking about this in ten
[3:09:23] years because we have a radically
[3:09:25] changing environment and no going back
[3:09:27] to the invasive species that we're
[3:09:31] dealing with.
[3:09:32] With another hurricane and having
[3:09:34] Albizia as we do today will be a
[3:09:37] massive difference from 1992. that goes for Fire, there's no
[3:09:45] sign that is getting better. So the
[3:09:47] more to be prepared and think ahead and
[3:09:49] be proactive is the right thing to
[3:09:50] do. So overall I support the
[3:09:52] fundamentals of this.
[3:09:53] I do get concerned when I see the
[3:09:56] massive differences in some of the cost
[3:09:59] assessments because I know nothing
[3:10:01] about building at all. so I have no idea and no
[3:10:05] understanding what that looks like or the
[3:10:07] reasonable costs that they would be.
[3:10:09] I think it's important is to understand
[3:10:14] some of the understandings that we have
[3:10:16] about trees holding water, or irrigated
[3:10:20] grass land, like I had suggested, is
[3:10:23] still something had a we have to go
[3:10:24] back to the scientists to test these
[3:10:26] things and actually know, like, this is
[3:10:28] -- they test these things in the field
[3:10:32] and in the lab to get that clarity.
[3:10:35] That is why I appreciate that in
[3:10:37] considering the future of some of that
[3:10:39] vegetation and also respect the fact
[3:10:40] that they don't feel that they have the
[3:10:42] data to do that today. I do think that just from my
[3:10:46] experience, growing up partially in
[3:10:47] Australia, back and forth, I have
[3:10:49] liveed in a place where every single
[3:10:51] Bush home has concrete surrounded
[3:10:54] patio, covered about a metal awning
[3:10:56] with a very Australian look. It's
[3:10:59] something that we learned to utilize as
[3:11:01] a patio space and pretty common throughout most all of rural
[3:11:06] Australia. So I don't think it's
[3:11:12] unnecessarily arbitrary.
[3:11:13] I think we're just not used to that in
[3:11:17] Hawai'i,, because we shouldn't have an
[3:11:22] Australian landscape here and we do.
[3:11:24] There's no perfect solutions Burke it's
[3:11:26] of the day, the investment in safety
[3:11:28] and saving of lives will remain my
[3:11:31] priority as a Council Member. Thank you very much.
[3:11:38] Council Member Cattlemen's Association.
[3:11:41] Council Member Kaneshiro. >> I have no reason not to
[3:11:43] have a deferral on it.
[3:11:44] I don't think it needs to be passed
[3:11:47] today, right away, getting a little
[3:11:50] more information is good, but I know we
[3:11:52] should end up getting to a point that
[3:11:55] we make a decision. I'm open to a
[3:11:58] deferral if people with not comfortable
[3:12:01] yes. I don't think the Amendments
[3:12:02] passed were that controversial and
[3:12:04] probably helped with us being the
[3:12:06] sideing that is fire-resistant, so you don't
[3:12:09] need to did the fife foot.
[3:12:12] As far as the whole Bill, I think the
[3:12:16] added costs to could that is something
[3:12:18] that sits in everyone's stomach that we
[3:12:21] don't want to add costs to homeowners.
[3:12:23] Again, when you look at it after
[3:12:25] hearing from the Water Department, I
[3:12:26] think I'm more compelled to think we
[3:12:28] actually need it, because the Water
[3:12:31] Department said we may not be able to
[3:12:33] provide water to everybody. So what do we do?
[3:12:35] We have to protect ourselves first and
[3:12:37] these measures are for us to protect
[3:12:39] ourselves and our houses first, so we
[3:12:41] don't have to sit and say I hope my
[3:12:44] water turns on and I hope the utilities
[3:12:47] don't go off because of the Fire and
[3:12:50] this protects to help protect your
[3:12:53] house now. So I see the need for it and
[3:12:55] I'm in favor of that.
[3:12:57] Resilience starts with us. This is what this does.
[3:13:02] Creating resilience. So I'm hope to the deferral.
[3:13:08] I am open to voting on this. I'm in favor of voting on it
[3:13:16] and I'm willing to entertain a
[3:13:18] deferral. I know we have a big
[3:13:23] discrepancy in costs and at the end of the day
[3:13:24] to get together and say this is the
[3:13:26] exact spec of what we're specing and let's
[3:13:29] compare them.
[3:13:30] You know, special people have brought
[3:13:33] up in the public the fear if we pass
[3:13:35] this all the costs on these type of
[3:13:37] materials will go up. But it's kind of similar to how
[3:13:42] septic systems.
[3:13:44] Septic systems the costs started
[3:13:46] growing, but I don't necessarily see it
[3:13:48] the same as a septic system. A septic system you need to
[3:13:51] install in your yard and there's only a
[3:13:53] few people that do it.
[3:13:54] When we're talking about new construction, these guys are
[3:13:59] bidding on a entire house and this small
[3:14:01] cost won't affect if they go with
[3:14:03] that contractor or not? That
[3:14:04] contractor will have to find ways to make
[3:14:07] it affordable to actually build
[3:14:09] the House and spec with different
[3:14:11] developers. This is not a big portion of
[3:14:13] the house costs.
[3:14:14] So I see it as Apples and Oranges in
[3:14:18] that aspect which makes me a little
[3:14:23] more comfortable. I don't see people going craze
[3:14:26] and saying this new construction
[3:14:28] are cost way more because of this extra
[3:14:31] stuff along the way.
[3:14:31] That is just my comments. Again, I am in favor of this
[3:14:35] Bill. I do see the need for it.
[3:14:38] More so with Department of Water and
[3:14:41] their comments today. But I'm willing to entertain a
[3:14:45] deferral and hear more from the public.
[3:14:49] >> Any additional comments? Council Member Carvalho.
[3:14:51] >> I just want to say mahalo for the
[3:14:55] discussion, and a lot of going back and
[3:14:56] forth. I appreciate the team effort,
[3:14:59] because even with the Water Department,
[3:15:01] like Council Member was just
[3:15:04] mentioning, and the need to push forward, even
[3:15:07] with our Planning Department.
[3:15:09] I had numerous conversations on this
[3:15:12] issue, and to me, you know, we need to
[3:15:14] move forward. That is what I am thinking.
[3:15:16] At the same time, I know there's
[3:15:19] challenges, and there's issues, but
[3:15:21] what is the decision to make today?
[3:15:23] You know? And again, for me, I have had
[3:15:29] numerous discussions.
[3:15:31] I think addressing this sooner than
[3:15:33] later, because heaven's knows what is
[3:15:35] going to happen tomorrow? I truly
[3:15:37] appreciate the discussion, and efforts
[3:15:40] going back and forth. So I'm still at that point, but
[3:15:44] believe me, I really appreciate the
[3:15:46] effort and the talking, especially with
[3:15:48] the water guys coming forward.
[3:15:50] Of course, our Planning team and the
[3:15:57] Fire Department having discussions with
[3:15:58] them, saying this is something that is
[3:16:00] needed sooner than later. At the same time, as
[3:16:02] decision-makers we need to look at the overall
[3:16:05] picture; right? And at the same time,
[3:16:06] I'm at that point right now.
[3:16:08] I just wanted to share that. >> Thank you.
[3:16:11] Council Member Kuali'i. >> This is a really big Bill,
[3:16:16] critically important, lifesaving
[3:16:18] impacts I'm ready to support it today,
[3:16:21] but of course, I easily support a
[3:16:24] deferral as well.
[3:16:25] I appreciate all of the work that has
[3:16:27] been put into it so far. It's been a long time coming
[3:16:32] and a long time -- a lot of work put into
[3:16:35] it. I appreciate the four
[3:16:37] Amendments today. It makes it a better Bill and I
[3:16:40] just hope that people will use the
[3:16:43] next two weeks with the deferral to get
[3:16:46] more input from the public, to get
[3:16:49] more information from contractors or
[3:16:51] whoever. Looking at the numbers more
[3:16:56] closely and work on additional Amendments
[3:17:00] that will make the Bill even better.
[3:17:03] So no rush I support a deferral I do my comments.
[3:17:07] >> I just want to make it clear I
[3:17:09] definitely support the Bill in concept.
[3:17:12] We won't lose or save one life by
[3:17:15] taking two-week deferral, it's not like
[3:17:17] that critical, regardless of what we do
[3:17:19] today or two weeks from now is not
[3:17:21] going to change how many lives we save.
[3:17:23] So I appreciate the understanding.
[3:17:27] You know, I will figure it out why
[3:17:29] there's the disparity. The disparity is starting with
[3:17:34] different numbers or whatever the case
[3:17:35] may be? I just want to feel
[3:17:38] comfortable. There's a bigger reason, too
[3:17:39] and this was discussed by the guy from
[3:17:49] underwriters. >> Derek Alkonis.
[3:17:52] >> He mentioned the importance of
[3:17:54] making sure our insurance companies
[3:17:56] stay in our market for Fire insurance.
[3:17:59] That wasn't talked about today. That is my concern.
[3:18:02] We want a Bill that is so tight and
[3:18:04] clear that the Insurance Companys can
[3:18:07] appreciate and say okay, we'll stay in
[3:18:10] this [PHA-URGT/]. market.
[3:18:14] The reality is if we don't Firewise our
[3:18:20] communities, the Insurance Companys may
[3:18:21] pull out. It's not about getting cheaper
[3:18:24] rates and I heard somebody say today
[3:18:27] it will lower your insurance rates.
[3:18:30] This isn't about lowering your insurance rates, but keeping
[3:18:33] Insurance Companys in the [PHA-RGTS/].
[3:18:35] market. Because if you are not having
[3:18:39] insurance, you don't have a mortgage
[3:18:40] and without a mortgage, you not getting
[3:18:42] a house. So beyond what this Bill
[3:18:45] entails, what this Bill allows this community
[3:18:47] to benefit from.
[3:18:49] It's an Insurance Company that stays in
[3:18:51] the market. Thank you.
[3:18:52] >> I will just share my comments and
[3:18:55] I'm sure there might be more. I will state first I'm in
[3:18:58] support. I do think we should pass it
[3:19:03] out today. I will start with the date.
[3:19:11] August 8, to 2023 was Lahaina fires and
[3:19:20] sunrise ince then we had seven wildfires on Kaua'i.
[3:19:33] Luckily we're not counting [TKA-EPBLGZ/] and deaths and
[3:19:36] when I think about the Bill and the
[3:19:39] intro of the Bill, the Administration
[3:19:43] administrate made the description that
[3:19:44] the team that worked on this was the
[3:19:48] 1998 Olympic dream-team that came
[3:19:53] together to propose some changes in our
[3:19:56] Bill, in our laws to protect our
[3:19:59] community. The 1998 Olympic dream-team and
[3:20:07] if you are fans of basketball, that is
[3:20:11] best team arguably of all basketball
[3:20:13] teams. I think the Fire Chief was
[3:20:15] completely wrong on that.
[3:20:16] This is not the NBA basketball team
[3:20:18] that came to build this, I would use
[3:20:22] the anology that we assembled, they
[3:20:26] assembled the avengeers. When I say the avengeers, who
[3:20:31] were avenging something and the
[3:20:33] avenging was the death of 101 people.
[3:20:36] So when we think about this Bill and
[3:20:39] how big it is, and the efforts that
[3:20:42] have beenpult put together, we're
[3:20:45] talking about the avengeers in the U.S.
[3:20:48] Fire alliance, the Underwriters Laboratories Research
[3:20:50] Institutes, the headwater [KPH-EBGZ/] and HM
[3:20:54] Hawai'i Wildfire Management
[3:20:56] Organization and many different contractors that
[3:20:58] came together, the input from the
[3:21:00] entire community that lives here and
[3:21:02] input that experienced the challenges
[3:21:04] of what was -- what was occurred and
[3:21:07] then us, our community, the council
[3:21:10] members that have to deliberate these
[3:21:13] questions, and talk with our experts, talk
[3:21:15] with our community, reach out, make sure
[3:21:17] that we're considering every as peg
[3:21:18] of it. Aspect of it.
[3:21:36] we don't want to put another number in
[3:21:39] that category of lost lives. So I truly appreciate this
[3:21:45] body, and the Committee for the work that
[3:21:47] you have done, and the avengeers
[3:21:50] that was assembles in the last two
[3:21:53] years to work on this and all the input
[3:21:55] from our community.
[3:21:57] My push to pass this is not a rush in
[3:22:02] my perspective. It is a call to action to
[3:22:08] prevent these things.
[3:22:09] I don't want to wait. And I give that examplele I
[3:22:14] don't want to wait because I'm a serial
[3:22:16] prepper, like I have a go-bag in every
[3:22:21] car in every place.
[3:22:22] I am ready for everything. And I still don't feel ready
[3:22:26] with this Bill that is going to do
[3:22:29] enough, because it needs more.
[3:22:32] But doesn't mean I don't prep. And I don't do the necessary
[3:22:36] things from if now until then to be
[3:22:40] ready and I feel this is one step forward
[3:22:42] and allows us to address some -- if
[3:22:44] not a lot of concerns that we
[3:22:47] experienced, that experts have shared with
[3:22:50] us. I would love to be the first to
[3:22:53] protect, and it's something that I want
[3:22:56] us as a body to continue to work
[3:22:59] towards. And the argument about cost of
[3:23:04] living versus cost of life is such a
[3:23:06] hard one to sit in this seat as your
[3:23:12] community decision-makers regarding these
[3:23:14] bills. Because I don't have a home.
[3:23:17] We have been looking to buy a houses,
[3:23:21] build a house, add an extension, build
[3:23:24] a garage for the last seven years and
[3:23:27] I'm telling myself I'm going to pay
[3:23:29] more to protect my community and
[3:23:32] protect myself. I can say that yes, to me, and,
[3:23:35] in fact before this Bill was put on, I
[3:23:39] did do this home-hardening stuff
[3:23:42] before this was even discussed.
[3:23:44] I just personally looked at the things
[3:23:46] that I could do to protect myself and
[3:23:49] my family. And for 3,000 square foot
[3:23:54] commercial building, spending half of my
[3:23:55] time aside from this, it costs me
[3:24:00] $1200 and back-breaking 12 hours to pick
[3:24:03] up gravel and put five feet worth
[3:24:06] of gravel around the building with
[3:24:15] missing two-and-a-halfs in my spine and
[3:24:17] 40 Advils, I feel safer.
[3:24:20] Was it worth it? Totally.
[3:24:22] Was it before this Bill was passed or
[3:24:24] considered? Yeah.
[3:24:26] So I'm glad that we're looking at
[3:24:29] home-hardening because now the next
[3:24:29] step is to convince my parents even
[3:24:33] though I'm going to pay it that we
[3:24:35] still have to do it, because they are
[3:24:37] going to lose their plants and they
[3:24:40] love their plants. They absolutely love their
[3:24:43] plants, maybe more than me.
[3:24:46] But if that saves them, if that saves
[3:24:52] me, and some possible future inheritance that may go to us,
[3:24:58] probably not.
[3:25:00] Let's do it. So when we think about the time
[3:25:06] variance, I trust this avengeers team
[3:25:08] we put together and I trust this body
[3:25:10] to work on it, and make sure that we do
[3:25:13] the necessary pieces to address all of
[3:25:16] the needs. And hence why I think the four
[3:25:24] Amendments adequately addressed the
[3:25:25] needs, but other parts that need to be
[3:25:27] addressed that will happy actual our
[3:25:29] community. So if in all of the discussion,
[3:25:34] probably the one thing that I haven't
[3:25:37] heard mentioned that I want to point
[3:25:39] out is what this Bill has done, and
[3:25:42] that this body has done, it has allowed
[3:25:44] the community to engage and start doing
[3:25:46] the things now. You don't have to wait
[3:25:48] to do any of these things to protect
[3:25:51] yourself, if you are worried you can do
[3:25:53] it right now, regardless of the Bill.
[3:25:54] And I hope that voluntary practice is
[3:25:57] done by our community, because we're
[3:25:59] the first ones to respond for your
[3:26:01] house, for yourself and your family and
[3:26:03] our job is to support that movement and
[3:26:07] allow us to have better and safer
[3:26:09] communities and support each other.
[3:26:10] I feel like if there's more to be done
[3:26:15] in this Bill, I can see it happening in
[3:26:17] other bills, but I feel very confident
[3:26:21] in this Bill currently as-is as amended
[3:26:23] and I hope that we can move forward on
[3:26:26] this. Any additional comments?
[3:26:29] Council Member Cowden. >> I have additional comments.
[3:26:31] I appreciate all that has been said and
[3:26:34] I want to tell the team, why areay.
[3:26:39] yay, I'm very much behind it and I'm
[3:26:41] planning to do a lot of it to my own
[3:26:44] house and have started to. What I want to say had we not
[3:26:48] moved this two weeks last time, it
[3:26:52] probably would have passed on our last
[3:26:56] Council Meeting.
[3:26:57] He I was really uncomfortable that I
[3:27:03] hadn't heard from the large land owners
[3:27:05] and developers and I texted them
[3:27:07] Friday, do you know this is coming and
[3:27:10] explained where we were at and, in
[3:27:11] fact, they didn't know. They didn't know it had even
[3:27:14] come before Council. So I had
[3:27:18] rather vigorous discussion two
[3:27:19] different long phone calls with one of the
[3:27:22] landowners, and with another developer.
[3:27:34] We would have passed it before they
[3:27:36] heard it. So I have texts and emails back
[3:27:40] and forth with the Admin, so I can
[3:27:47] tell that the amendment that Council
[3:27:50] Member Carvalho put in is a reflection
[3:27:52] of what happened with that.
[3:27:54] So I was happy about that. I was texting with the Planning
[3:27:59] Director, what I really wanted was a
[3:28:01] meeting. I did not get that meeting and
[3:28:06] I looked at my text and I said I was
[3:28:10] really uncomfortable which is my way
[3:28:12] of saving saying I want a meeting.
[3:28:19] So I came in here blind, but I will say
[3:28:26] those large landing owners didn't know
[3:28:27] last Friday it was coming here. So I thank one of the large
[3:28:33] landowners who came in and I really feel
[3:28:35] it needs more conversation and I
[3:28:37] actually would like to have my own meeting.
[3:28:39] I'm glad a couple of my Council Member
[3:28:41] colleagues got that. I would like to meet with the
[3:28:45] Planning Department to look at
[3:28:46] Amendments that I would like.
[3:28:47] But I'm glad that it worked in the main
[3:28:50] one, the big one that made it in there.
[3:28:54] So I really would like to move to
[3:28:57] defer, if these people who are the most
[3:29:00] likely to be developments did not even
[3:29:03] know it was on in front of the Council
[3:29:07] until last Friday, when I communicated
[3:29:09] with them, I would say they haven't had
[3:29:11] enough time. I'm thankful to the one that
[3:29:14] really did work with Planning that got the
[3:29:19] Amendment that Council Member Carvalho
[3:29:21] put in, that I think is very important.
[3:29:24] I'm not ready. So I would like to move to
[3:29:28] defer. >> Second.
[3:29:36] >> Roll-call vote on deferment. >> On the deferment to the
[3:29:44] next Committee meeting.
[3:29:44] >> Council Member Carvalho? >> No.
[3:29:45] >> Council Member Cowden? >> Yes.
[3:29:47] >> Council Member Kaneshiro? >> Aye.
[3:29:50] >> Council Member Kuali'i? >> Aye.
[3:29:53] >> Committee Chair Bulosan? >> No.
[3:29:58] >> 3 ayes. Motion is deferred.
[3:30:03] Sorry, motion to defer is passed.
[3:30:06] So we'll have a Committee meeting in
[3:30:09] two weeks. >> That concludes the Planning
[3:30:15] Committee meeting. >> I would like to call to
[3:30:17] order The Finance and Economic
[3:30:18] Development Committee, let the record
[3:30:20] reflect that all Members are present.
[3:30:22] Clerk, can you please read the first
[3:30:24] item. >> Minutes of the August 19,
[3:30:30] to 26 Finance and Economic
[3:30:30] Development Committee meet
[3:30:31] move to approve. >> Second.
[3:30:32] >> Anyone in the audience wishing to
[3:30:35] testify on moats? Any discussion from the
[3:30:37] Members? If not, all those in favor signify
[3:30:40] by saying aye
[3:30:40] aye. >> Those opposed?
[3:30:43] Motion carried Clerk, cans you please
[3:30:44] read the next item. >> Bill No. 3000, a Bill for
[3:30:48] an Ordinance approving a
[3:30:49] Collective Bargaining Agreement for
[3:30:51] Bargaining Unit 15 between July 1,2025 and
[3:30:54] June 30, 2029.
[3:30:56] >> Move to approve. >> Second.
[3:30:59] >> Any questions from the members?
[3:31:02] Anyone in the audience wishing to
[3:31:03] testify? Seeing none, any discussion
[3:31:07] from the members?
[3:31:09] If not, roll-call vote. >> Council Member Bulosan?
[3:31:12] >> Aye. >> Council Member Carvalho?
[3:31:13] >> A. >> Council Member Cowden?
[3:31:14] >> Aye. >> Council Member Holland?
[3:31:16] >> Aye. >> Council Member Kuali'i?
[3:31:17] >> Aye. >> Council Chair Rapozo?
[3:31:19] >> Aye. >> Committee Chair Kaneshiro?
[3:31:21] >> Aye. >> Motion passes.
[3:31:24] >> And our final item. >> Bill No. 3001, a Bill for
[3:31:29] an Ordinance amending Ordinance
[3:31:32] No. B-2026-917 relating to the
[3:31:33] Operating Budget of the County of Kaua'i
[3:31:36] , State of Hawai'i for the Fiscal Year
[3:31:39] July 1st, 2026, through June 30 2027
[3:31:44] by revising the amounts estimateed
[3:31:48] in the [TKPW-FRBLGSD/] temporary voter
[3:31:50] service center workers $350,000.
[3:31:51] >> Move toe approve second.
[3:31:52] >> Any questions from the Members?
[3:31:54] Anyone in the audience wishing to
[3:31:55] testify some seeing none, any final
[3:31:57] discussion from the members? If not, roll-call vote.
[3:31:59] >> Council Member Bulosan? >> Aye.
[3:32:01] >> Council Member Carvalho? >> Aye.
[3:32:02] >> Council Member Cowden? >> Aye.
[3:32:04] >> Council Member Holland? >> Aye.
[3:32:06] >> Council Member Kuali'i? >> Aye.
[3:32:07] >> Council Chair Rapozo . aye.
[3:32:09] >> Committee Chair Kaneshiro? >> Aye.
[3:32:10] >> Motion passes. >> Seeing no further business
[3:32:12] and hearing no objections The
[3:32:13] Finance and Economic Development Committee
[3:32:16] is now adjourned
[3:32:22] [ GAVEL ]