The Kaua‘i County Planning Commission yesterday granted a Public Works Department’s request to have the option to remove roofs from two of six rest areas to protect ocean views on the Eastside pedestrian path project. The action came two weeks
The Kaua‘i County Planning Commission yesterday granted a Public Works Department’s request to have the option to remove roofs from two of six rest areas to protect ocean views on the Eastside pedestrian path project.
The action came two weeks after the commission approved roofs for all six rest areas within a 4.3-mile bicycle and pedestrian pathway from Kapa‘a to Kealia — the second leg of a 16-mile pathway project from Nawiliwili to Anahola.
Meeting at the Lihu‘e Civic Center, the commission granted a request from County Engineer Donald Fujimoto to reconsider a June 26 commission decision requiring roofs for all the rest areas.
Commission chairman Theodore Daligdig III said county officials had concerns a roof on one of the structures could block ocean views from the Kapa‘a Neighborhood Center. The other roofed structure under contention is located elsewhere within the 4.3-mile segment.
The commission’s action came after Kaua‘i County Council members Mel Rapozo and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho pressed the commission to reconsider its June 26 decision.
The action granted a county administration request to amend permits for the roofed structures and other improvements, including realignment of the pathway by the Kapa‘a Beach Park, relocation of some pavilions and a 1.8-mile equestrian pathway within the 4.3-mile leg.
Rapozo asked the commission to reconsider its entire June 26 decision, but the commission only approved Fujimoto’s request, which it will consider at its July 24 meeting.
Rapozo said the commission’s receipt of his and Fujimoto’s letter was inconsequential, and that his request was merely for the commission to consider, not for any action to be taken.
“All I am asking is for an opportunity for you folks to reconsider, based on the information you got,” he said.
The new information included Rapozo’s contention the county administration broke the state law by moving forward with the work without a current shoreline certification and not following many requirements of the county’s Special Management Area Use permit process.
Rapozo and Daligdig seemed to disagree over whether the commission approved a motion to reconsider its June 26 action.
Rapozo said it was his understanding the commission approved such a motion, thereby opening the door for a future hearing on the commission’s previous approval.
Daligdig said, “No, we didn’t approve any motion for reconsideration.”
Rapozo said the commission seemed ignorant of parliamentary proceedings, a claim that had some commission members shaking their heads.
When the commission takes up Fujimoto’s request at its July 24 meeting, it will only consider whether to allow the county administration the option of putting roofs on four rest pavilions or all six, Daligdig said.
Barbara Robeson, a one-time planning commission chairwoman, said the body should have paid heed to Rapozo’s request.
Maka‘ala Ka‘aumoana, executive director of the Hanalei Watershed Hui, which also concerns itself with the protection of the shoreline, agreed with Iseri-Carvalho’s statement that government should follow the same development process it requires private landowners to follow.
“I think we must be most concerned when government does or does not follow the procedure, if we expect our community or developers to follow the rules and procedures,” she said.
Both Rapozo and Iseri-Carvalho told the commission it could not discuss the merits of Fujimoto’s request because the matter had yet to be scheduled for any upcoming meeting and posted in accordance with the state Sunshine Law.
But deputy county attorney James Tagupa said the commission could, because the subject matter was part of yesterday’s agenda.
The commission’s June 26 action has very little to do with the roofs, but more so about not following the process “that is in place from the state constitution down to the Special Management Area Use shoreline rules,” Rapozo said.
Once commission members understand the mechanics of that process, they will understand the planning department’s work in processing the amended SMA permits was flawed, Rapozo said.
With regard to the placement of the unpermitted roofs and not using a current shoreline certification to align the pathway, Iseri-Carvalho said the county failed to march in step with the Hawai‘i State Constitution, which calls for all residents to protect the land.
“Because we are an island with finite resources, we have an obligation to preserve, not only for the benefit of the present generation, but for the benefit of the present and future generations,” she said.
Iseri-Carvalho said while state and county laws promote the same purpose, the county administration went afoul of them with its work on the bicycle and pedestrian pathway portion in Kapa‘a and Kealia.
During a recent council committee meeting, Iseri-Carvalho and Rapozo said planning director Ian Costa acknowledged illegal structures were allowed to go up.
Costa, who attended the meeting, didn’t address their concerns immediately, but has said previously that state and county laws and county policies were followed for the work.
Iseri-Carvalho told the commission she introduced a council resolution last year to prevent the building of unpermitted structures on the coastline.
“Realizing our island is inundated with requests for increased development and public concerns about the loss of public beaches, I introduced the resolution, which was unanimously adopted (last August),” she said.
For unpermitted structures on state conservation lands along the beach, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources has required the removal of illegal structures before giving any after-the-fact permits, she added. At least two of the rest pavilions are located in such a zone.
She also implied the state should require the county to take down unpermitted structures in coastal areas it manages.
Violators also could face fines not to exceed $100,000 or pay the cost to return the affected area to the condition that existed before the violations occurred, she said.
In addition, the county could face penalties of $10,000 a day for each day the violation persists, she said.
“In the case of the rest area roofs that were illegal before the June 26 commission decision, the law prohibits after-the-fact permits.,” Iseri-Carvalho said.
“You don’t go and build and later decide you can come in and then I will approve your illegal activity, because (the commission) doesn’t have the authority to approve an illegal activity,” she said.
Iseri-Carvalho said what bothers her the most was putting up roofs that prevented local residents from enjoying unobscurred ocean views from the shoreline.
If she had her way, she said, she would have the commission approve a condition that would put “all the pavilions” on the coastline by the luxury Kealia Kai subdivision.
• Lester Chang, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 225) or lchang@kauaipubco.com.
