BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR MEETING
Held at Kalana O Maui Building, 200 South High Street,
Council Committee Room, 7th floor, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii,
commencing at 9:00 a.m. on January 27, 2006.
REPORTED BY: LYNANN NICELY, RPR/RMR/CSR #354
A T T E N D A N C E
CHAIRPERSON: MICHAEL P. VICTORINO
VICE CHAIR: KENNETH M. OKAMURA
MEMBERS: STACY HELM CRIVELLO
KENT M. HIRANAGA
CARL M. HOLMBERG
RALPH JOHANSEN
GINNY PARSONS
DIRECTOR: GEORGE TENGAN
CORPORATION COUNSEL: EDWARD KUSHI, JR.
BOARD SECRETARY: MICHELE SAKUMA
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Call this meeting to
order. Members present, starting from my left, new
member Carl Holmberg, member Vice Chair Kenneth
Okumura, to my right member Ginnie Parsons and
member Ralph Johansson, and myself, Michael
Victorino, Chair.
Also present, Water Director George Tengan,
Corp Counsel Edward Kushi. Do we have guests today?
Our chief of the fire department, Carl Kaupalolo,
and Assistant Chief Neal Bal. Deputy.
And we have staff out there, Mr. Nakamura and
Holly Perdido. I forget your name every time, young
lady. Helene. Okay.
Announcements. A couple of things. Number
one, I talked to Sally and she is definitely going
to step aside from the board. This was to be her
last meeting, but unfortunately her son is in town
and today is his last day. So she asked me if her
attendance was necessary, and I thought we had seven
members showing up so I said no, I didn't think so.
So it with great regret that we lose what I call a
very quality member. She's contributed an awful lot
and I wish her nothing but success in the future.
And I know Sally will be a part of this community
and water issues for a long time to come. On behalf
of the board and myself, I would like to say thank
you very much for all the time she's given over the
last two or three years and what she's done and
contributed to this board and to the County of Maui.
Also, we all know Greg Smith has resigned, and
so we are hopefully in the process with the mayor's
office in replacements of these two people. Also,
next month -- yeah, March is the last meeting for
Kent Hiranaga and Stacy Helm Crivello, will be their
last meeting because their terms expire. So in the
very near future we will be going into what I call a
tremendous change amongst our members. And Carl,
you're still fairly new, so we'll actually have five
what I call brand new members on this board. So
that's a lot of change all of a sudden.
Let the record reflect that Mr. Kent Hiranaga
is here.
The other thing we want to announce, I thought
the joint workshop that we held on Tuesday was very
enlightening. I think both sides got a lot of out
of it. I think the planning side got more than we
did, but I think both sides shared a lot of
commonalities. And I want to thank George and the
staff that were there to assist us in information,
especially Ellen. Also want to thank the planning
department for their people because they gave us a
lot of insight on what process and where they're
heading for. So I think it was a good all around
workshop, you know.
And at this point I'll open up the floor if
anybody has any other comments or announcements as
far as the workshop or anything, for that matter.
MR. HOLMBERG: I would like to make one comment
that I was a bit shocked at the delta between what
our theoretical capacity is and the additional
demand that the planning commission is in the midst
of putting through. I'll just be interested in
seeing how we meet that shortfall.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Thank you. Yes,
Ms. Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: I was also impressed with
Michelle Anderson's presentation and I'm kind of
excited about Dr. Thomas, the research that he may
be doing and if we can get more information on that
and how feasible that might be, especially for
Upcountry. Very supportive.
MR. TENGAN: I've already met with Dr. Thomas
last -- I already met with Dr. Thomas more than a
year ago and we went over his project and we had
discussed the possibilities of doing a project here
on Maui. But right now, you know, we have other
financial obligations that we got to meet. As a
matter of fact, our '07 CIP budget will be very
short funded. In order for us to accomplish what
the Stakeholders Committee is looking for as far as
doing $25 million in projects, we probably would
need to float over $15 million in bonds or SRF
loans.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Thank you.
MS. PARSONS: Can I ask Rich a question on
that? Can we have this on the agenda --
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: This is not a question
and answer period. I was just opening up for
comments. Mr. Okamura.
MR. OKAMURA: I think I was sort of surprised
that there is a communication with the water
department wasn't really good in terms of, you know,
what -- not wasn't good, but, you know, they talked
about trying to improve the communication as far as
what the requirements would be for new developments
and what the remaining resources are. And I guess
they proposed some changes for the reporting
requirements from the water department and I think
we need to discuss that maybe in the future a little
bit more.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Okay. Thank you. And
let the record show that member Stacy Helm Crivello
is here.
Any other comments about the joint meeting or
any other announcements?
MR. JOHANSEN: Yeah, one other thing. I hope
when we do it again, we get a recorded memo of the
meeting.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Wasn't minutes --
wasn't a record taken of the meeting itself? It
was? Planning.
MS. SAKUMA: We have the tapes in the office
and they are going to transcribe it and send us a
copy of the transcribed tapes.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: They are being
transcribed and we will get copies, Ralph. All
right. Any other announcements?
Also, let the record show that the deputy water
director has just come in the room. Good morning.
We have no minutes to approve. We will now
move into public testimony. Is there anyone -- I
know Mr. Dantes you're here to testify and I have
you on the communication. But is there anyone who
would like to give public testimony? Do we have any
-- no requests for public testimony. Okay. Then at
this time I'll close public testimony.
Moving on to item number VI, Communications,
Communication 06-01, letter dated November 18, 2005
from Mr. David Dantes, M.D., requesting the board
recommend the Department of Water Supply accept
automatic sprinkler system installation as adequate
for fire flow requirements imposed by DWS for
conditional and special use permit for vacation
rental use of two existing dwelling units on
property TMK 2-8-2158, Haiku, Maui, and those would
be on pages 1 through 46.
Mr. Dantes, would you like to come up at this
point?
DR. DANTES: Yes. Can I bring reinforcements?
My wife.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: She's more than
welcome, please. And maybe introduce both yourself
for the record, please.
DR. DANTES: Okay. Dr. David Dantes.
MS. LIVINGSTON: And Beverly Livingston.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Should we start with
questions? I think all the members have all the
communication and some of this we've seen before.
Do you want to make a statement before we start
asking questions?
DR. DANTES: That may be helpful.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Why don't we go ahead.
DR. DANTES: We live on a two-acre parcel in an
ag subdivision off of Ulumalu Road and there are a
number of ag subdivisions that front Ulumalu. One
thing that they all have in common is that the
standpipes are serviced by an eight-inch delivery
pipe, but at Five Corners -- which is at Ulumalu
Road and Kaupakalua -- there is around a 400 foot
length of outdated six-inch cast iron pipe that
creates a bottleneck for the entire delivery of
water to the whole neighborhood, all the
subdivisions fronting Ulumalu Road.
I believe, according to Alva, if I'm not
mistaken, that there is something in the county
budget now to upgrade that 400 feet to an eight-inch
ductile iron, which would improve the flow capacity
of those standpipes from -- I'm making an educated
guess -- from 750 gallons a minute now to upwards of
1200 gallons a minute.
But in the meantime and for the past few
decades, there has been a problem with the water
flow delivery because of that bottleneck. And so
virtually everybody -- it's kind of a standing joke
among old timers in this area, anybody wants
anything from the county, look out because the water
department going to try to make you fix their broke
down 400 feet of cast iron pipe.
Now, for some reason the developers who put in
these subdivisions never had to fix that 400 feet,
but they have asked numerous individuals --
including myself -- to fix it and I believe that
that is unreasonable because it really is something
that would benefit a huge area of the population.
And we as individuals are not asking to develop
anything or to construct anything.
But how can we meet fire flow requirements? We
had an engineer during our permit process calculate
what the fire flow would be for our two structures
and it came out to 1500 gallons a minute. Since we
can't afford to do the infrastructure upgrade, we
had a meeting with the previous water director and
engineers and it was attended by our engineer and
also an attorney. And two options were discussed.
This was in June of 2002. Two alternatives were
discussed instead of performing the infrastructure
upgrade. One was an insurance policy. The other
was fire sprinklers.
The insurance policy question actually came
before this board in June and July of 2002. And
after a very thorough evaluation, the board decided
that it was not appropriate to allow ourselves or
anyone else to substitute insurance for fire flow.
The question of fire sprinklers, although the
staff report says it was also discussed and
declined, that's not accurate. The fire sprinkler
question was never brought before the board until
now.
But as you see from the correspondence in the
file, both our engineer and our attorney recorded in
their notes that the previous water director said if
we put in sprinklers and if revised engineering fire
flow could be met by the existing infrastructure,
that would be satisfactory.
Well, the engineer calculated that it would
reduce our fire flow to 750 or 760 gallons a minute
if we put in the sprinklers. The standpipe that
fronts our property is capable of delivering that.
I tried to get something in writing from the
previous director, verifying that he would accept
it, but I never could. However, there is a
gentleman in the room here today who did give me
something in writing and that's the present deputy
director of the fire department.
Mr. Bal was kind enough to evaluate the
situation and to inform me that he had an
understanding with the water department that fire
sprinklers installed to National Fire Protection
Association code would allow a person to take
advantage of the benefit that the engineering
calculations show. And relying on that and on
Mr. Craddick's verbal approval, we did go ahead and
install the fire sprinkler system that was inspected
by Mr. Bal and found to be up to code.
Now we're approaching the point where the
council is going to evaluate our permit application
for final approval. And all our T's are crossed and
our I's are dotted except for the water department.
And I really would like to have kind of a perfect
score going into that hearing if possible. So I'm
asking this board to give some guidance to the water
department as to whether or not we are now in
compliance with fire flow requirements.
Thank you for the leeway in giving a lengthy
statement.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Okay. Thank you. At
this time before I ask for questions to Mr. Dantes,
because I think many of us in this room have covered
this, except for maybe you, Carl, but have covered
this in the past. I'm going to turn to the
department and Mr. Tengan, who will respond to where
we're at as far as Mr. Dantes' situation as of today
or as of the present time. Who is going to respond?
MR. TENGAN: I would hope that Alva could --
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Alva, would you like to
come up and give us the department standpoint at
this point. Could you introduce yourself for the
record?
MS. NAKAMURA: Alva Nakamura, engineering
program manager for the department.
As far as the department is concerned, I think
the staff report had indicated issues that we're
dealing with here. As a matter of policy, we have
not substitute or allowed fire sprinkler systems to
be installed in lieu of upgrading the
infrastructure. It's just a policy that we've been
following. And the issue here in order for us to
approve it basically is having to upgrade the
infrastructure as he indicated from a six-inch to
eight-inch main. And this is just a consistent
policy that we applied to everybody that has come to
us.
So unless we get overturned in terms of our
interpretation of how we are dealing with the
permits, you know, we're taking our standard that
says that the infrastructure has to be upgraded in
order for us to sign off on the permit. And that's
kind of where it stands right now.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: One question I have is
Mr. Dantes mentioned a moment ago that the
possibility that the county will upgrade that
400 feet.
MR. NAKAMURA: There is something in the
budget, but I believe that we have a problem with
financing right now and it's kind of like in a
holding pattern right now, depending if they would
get the financing for that portion of the project.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: But it is a
possibility --
MR. NAKAMURA: It is a possibility, yes.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Which would then make
all the rest of this situation move on, right?
MR. NAKAMURA: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Questions from the
board for either party, for Mr. Dantes or for our
engineer, Nakamura.
Ms. Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: I need to go through
Dr. Duranceau's report again, but do we have any
issues with the cast iron pipes and with regard to
the lead corrosion study? Is that --
MR. NAKAMURA: You mean up in Upcountry?
MS. PARSONS: Uh-huh.
MR. NAKAMURA: I'm not aware of any right now.
It's just a matter of just replacement.
MS. PARSONS: What, the replacement cuts are
just old.
MR. NAKAMURA: Well, in this particular case
it's to meet the fire flow requirements, to upgrade
from a six-inch to an eight-inch line.
MS. PARSONS: Because I need to check into
that. Because in the back of my mind, whether it's
Dr. Edwards or Dr. Duranso, it seems to be some
correlation with certain piping. And I'm not sure
-- I know ductile was okay, but I'm not sure about
cast iron. So I need to look at that, too. That
may be an issue from a health standpoint that it
needs to be on the CIP. I just thought maybe you
might know.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Any other questions or
comments? Yes, member.
MR. HOLMBERG: Mr. Nakamura, so there have been
no exceptions to this policy in the past?
MS. PARSONS: As far as I'm aware, no, there
have been no exceptions. We have to be consistent.
We can't -- unless we're directed otherwise, that's
basically been the policy.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Member Okamura.
MR. OKAMURA: I think for this case how it's
presented, background material with the minutes on
the previous meetings and a couple years' meetings a
couple years ago, and also you guys wrote down what
section of the rules that you guys applied to the
situation, so that's good and give me a better
understanding of the situation.
I guess the previous board was concerned about
setting a precedent that if we approve this, then
other commercial or other residential or other
different types of projects would come in and ask
for the same type of variance. And so they declined
to make an exception. So I appreciate all the
information that was presented to us. Sometimes we
don't get enough information, so it's hard to
determine how to --
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: There is a lot of history
on this, too.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Member Johansen.
MR. JOHANSEN: How much would it cost you --
you said you have to put in a fire hydrant and three
quarters -- at this time. It was something like
$73,000 to replace, right? How much would it be
now, three or four years later?
DR. DANTES: I haven't gotten an updated
estimate on it.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: It's probably going to
be higher, based upon a lot of the bids that we have
been getting back on some of our projects.
MR. JOHANSEN: What concerns me is having rules
that you can't enforce. The last time you were
here, you and Mr. Levin presented a report from some
independent firm that estimated the number of B&Bs
and TVRs on this island. And after that meeting, I
thought if I were faced with this kind of
expenditure, the first thing I'd want to know is
what are the penalties for not registering as a B&B
or TVR. And then I'd want to know what the cost is
if I'm found out. Because otherwise if you're faced
with what may be ninety, a hundred thousand dollars
now to upgrade in agricultural areas, I'm going to
bypass the whole thing.
So to me, in view of the fact that the fire
department has signed off on sprinklers and that
calling this commercial is kind of to me a
technicality since if you are renting for over
180 days, you're home free. So I just don't -- I
don't understand why they're imposing this on B&Bs
and TVRs and I wonder if we are in a position to
recommend that an exception be made for B&Bs which
doesn't apply to anybody else. That's my question.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Well, that's a question
--
MR. JOHANSEN: It's a long question.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: It's a long question
and I guess you've come to a point where maybe this
is what we're here today to decide is are we going
to recommend that exception. Is that our function?
And if it is, do we recommend it to the director and
go from there?
MR. JOHANSEN: There is two considerations.
The fire department has signed off, and you want to
have laws in place that can be enforced and that are
practical.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Anybody else have
anything before I go back to Member Parsons?
MS. CRIVELLO: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Yes.
MS. CRIVELLO: You know, just glancing over
these notes, but at our September meeting, we were
requested to adopt a resolution that residential
codes and standards be applied for single dwellings
for short term rental.
I don't know who makes that -- accepts that
resolution and who defines if it's commercial. I
don't believe it's our role to define if it's
residential or commercial. It's got to come from
some policy makers, we're just an advisory.
I also have concerns about, and I think we've
talked about this before, that the fire department
at one hand may approve something and our water
department we were not in sync as to if we have the
proper flow. If this is defined -- I think, first
of all, and I don't know if corp counsel can
identify for us, is this a commercial or is this
residential? If it is commercial, then the rules
and regulations states as such. And is it for us to
make exceptions? And I just need that
clarification.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Corp Counsel Kushi,
would you be able to respond to Member Helm's
request?
MR. KUSHI: Let me try. My understanding is
that Mr. Dantes, whoever is similarly situated,
they're applying to the council to get a conditional
use permit and a special use permit. Just the fact
that they're doing that is that they're
nonconforming. It's in an ag zone. And ag zones
usually allow residential uses as well as
agricultural. But this is a TVR, vacation rental.
So that in itself is the determination. Otherwise
they will be cited for zoning violation.
How that applies to our rules is that, again,
Section 3-1(e) about fire hydrants and pipelines,
there is this thing about you get the first two
exceptions. And it says shall not be applicable to
the construction but first and second dwelling units
of any -- of a premises in any district. Doesn't
matter if it's residential or business. But yet,
and let me clarify what Alva said. The department
is not a policy. Stay away from policies. The
department just -- they don't have rules on fire
sprinkler systems. It's not in their rules. So if
it's not in their rules, they enforce the regular
rules, just extend the pipeline and put a fire
hydrant there. It's not a policy.
Anyway, getting back to this, that's the
dilemma we're in. The department has rules
requiring extend the pipeline, put a hydrant. The
fire department says hey, fire sprinkler system is
fine with them. Now, when it hits the fan, somebody
dies or, you know, we get sued, you know, who is
going to defend us? We went through that with
Mr. Dantes' insurance policy. That didn't fly. But
the fact is, you know, what would a judge say?
Fire department said okay; the Department of
Water Supply said no. Who do you think they are
going to listen to? It's the same deep pocket.
That's where we're at right now.
Now, my further understanding is that no matter
what you do to recommend to the department or what
the department recommends, the council can still
pick and choose. So they can say well, I don't care
what the department says, I don't care what the
board says, we're going to put these conditions.
And they may very well waive this requirement.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: But that would be on a
legislative body.
MR. KUSHI: That's their call.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: That's their call.
Exactly.
MR. KUSHI: But they need comments from all the
departments. That's where we are.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Does that answer your
question?
MS. CRIVELLO: Yeah, I guess it goes back to
where Member Johansen says. And we're not the
enforcers; we're to support that the policies are
implemented, the rules and regulations are
implemented. Whether or not we fail to be able to
enforce it, I don't think that's our role. And,
yeah, basically.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Member Hiranaga, do you
have something you would like to say?
MR. HIRANAGA: I was thinking about it. I
guess so. So does the current fire protection meet
residential standards? Because I think we made a
resolution that B&Bs in ag districts comply with
residential standards versus commercial standards.
DR. DANTES: No, because the residential
standards would require 1000 gallons per minute.
And with that bottleneck with the six-inch area, I
think the most that standpoint pipe could be
expected to deliver is 750 gallons a minute.
But the water department doesn't require
applicants to meet the exact insurance standard of
1000 gallons per minute, they say have an engineer
calculate what the fire flow is and they accept the
calculation even if it's less than 1000.
Well, the calculation without sprinklers was
1500, and with sprinklers was 763.
MR. HIRANAGA: I think the board made a
decision which was basically a concession allowing
residential standards to apply versus commercial
standards. Now, if the applicant in an agricultural
district is unable to meet those residential
standards and there is no rules for water
sprinklers, the applicant is applying for a special
use permit to operate a moneymaking operation in an
agricultural district. So he's asking for an
exception and to receive council approval. And the
reason it requires council approval is because these
special use permits are not issued very often,
they're difficult to obtain.
So I believe that if he wants to engage in a
money making operation in an agricultural district,
he should comply with all the rules that are in
place with no exceptions to it. I think the
concession that he meet residential standards was to
me fair enough, versus applying commercial
standards. But it's not like he's in a commercial
area and there is substandard infrastructure which
is preventing him from applying or utilizing his
property for commercial purposes because he's in a
commercially zoned area. He's in an agricultural
district and he's trying to receive approval to do
an activity that is not common in an agricultural
district.
So I don't see us -- personally, I don't see
myself wanting to provide exceptions to this. If
you don't like the rules, then we need to change the
rules or come up with new rules. But to make
exception, I just don't agree with it. Because then
why have rules.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Ms. Parsons?
MS. PARSONS: Let me go back to Mr. Kushi. We
don't have rules and policies on this; is this
correct?
MR. KUSHI: Regarding fire sprinkler systems
that would then substitute for the enlargement or
extension of infrastructure.
MS. PARSONS: So that would be something that
would be like an addendum to what we've been
discussing.
Does the fire department have pumps -- I mean,
you apparently think it's sufficient because they
signed off on it, but this is one of the things I
think we need to discuss in our fire discussion
here. But the trucks come with pumps. Is
750 gallons per minute enough for you in a fire --
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Hang on. No, they're
not on the floor at this time, so you're asking a
question of someone who has not been presented.
Okay. So with that in mind, would Chief Kapalolo,
would you like to come up and that way I do have you
as part of the discussion. I just want to make sure
everybody -- okay. Now you may address the question
to -- for the record, introduce yourself, please.
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: Thank you, Chair. Good
morning. My name is Fire Chief Carl Kapalolo.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Now go ahead.
MS. PARSONS: Chief, can you kind of give us an
overview of the truck systems -- my understanding is
the trucks have pumps -- and what it takes to put
out a fire when you get there, what do you need.
And take Mr. Dantes' case, for example, where he's
on -- what is it -- Ulumalu Road.
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: Well, I can give you a
general overview of our fire operations and the
kinds of vehicles that we have. I certainly don't
want to dwell into Mr. Dantes's case at this point.
But just give you a general overview of how the
department operates.
Each of our stations here have a fire truck and
it normally is capable of providing the pump system
that's on there, it has also a water tank system on
there, it also has equipment that we would need such
as for laddering purposes, for hooking up hoses to
man the fire lines that we have there, and we have
some other specialized equipment that we use for
medical emergencies and for our rescue purposes. So
that would give you have a general idea of the kind
of equipment we carry there.
The operation is mainly simple. We just take
water from the tank that we have and we can apply
that through an incipient or small kinds of fire.
The truck varies in the size or the capacity of the
water that they carry. We normally carry about a
thousand. That's the bigger, what we call the city
trucks. They carry a little bit more because we're
in an area where a little bit more fire flow or fire
protection is needed on the -- probably on the
lesser trucks, the smaller trucks, we have like
750 gallons. So we have the capability to address
incipient or small type fires when we first get
there.
Longer duration type fires would require our
normal kinds of infrastructure system which is that
we all know the fire hydrants with the proper fire
lines. So that kind of is the general picture of
how we would utilize our equipment and the system
that we would hook up to should it be necessary for
us to use that.
MS. PARSONS: My question is, all right, we've
got 750 gallons per minute coming out of a fire
stand and you've got a moderate fire coming on.
Would that be sufficient for you to be able to use
--
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: The way we look at it, we
have our rules also and we apply that and we try to
make sure that that -- so if it's required for us to
have a thousand to sustain fire protection for that,
then that would be what we would be capable of
delivering -- the pumps on the truck would be
capable of delivering that fire flow there.
So if you had 750, an existing main, that's the
most we could take out of that main because that's
the delivery service area. Does that make sense?
MS. PARSONS: I just want to get some
clarification. Does the main fill up the truck, the
pump?
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: The main supports the
truck.
MS. PARSONS: Okay. So if it's filling up the
truck and you're pumping it out, are you pumping it
out at a thousand?
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: Depending on the fire
flow -- the capability or the demand that we need.
The truck is capable of pumping more. I believe our
pumps are up to 1250 GPM a minute. But if your
existing system is limited to that, then the
capacity flow would be limited to that system.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: So if it's 750, that's
the max you're going to bel able to make, no matter
what the truck can do.
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Member Johansen.
MR. JOHANSEN: Mr. Chair, I would just like to
-- we were just given a letter with the letterhead
of Dr. Dantes', addressed to Captain Neal Bal,
August 23, '02. And in the second enumerated
paragraph, it says, The Fire Prevention and Water
Supply agencies on Maui have mutually agree that
installation of a sprinkler system conforming to
standards is an acceptable method of compliance with
fire flow requirements." And then it says in paren,
The applicable standard is probably NFPA 13D --
Standard for the Installation to Sprinkler Systems
in One- and Two-Family Dwellings." Is that a
correct representation of your understanding?
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: Chair, can I call -- at
that time he was captain. Today he's Deputy Fire
Chief Neal Bal. Chief Bal is in the audience. If I
can have him come up and --
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Sure. Just pull up
another chair. If you'd introduce yourself, please.
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF BAL: Deputy Fire Chief Neal
Bal, Fire Department. Thank you. And may I have
that question again, please?
MR. JOHANSEN: My question is do you have a
copy of this letter in front of you? It's dated
August 23, '02, addressed to you from David Dantes,
having to do with sprinkler system requirements.
And my question was if you look at paragraph 2,
without repeating the wording, is that a correct
representation of the department's policy with
respect to sprinklers in a one- and two-family
dwelling?
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF BAL: If I understand your
question correctly, this is a standard of
installation, yes.
MR. JOHANSEN: For a one- and two-family
dwelling.
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF BAL: Yes.
MR. JOHANSEN: When you say a standard, does
that mean that it's acceptable to the fire
department in lieu of whatever other standards there
are for meeting department requirements?
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF BAL: Basically, yes.
MR. JOHANSEN: Here we come up again against
the fact that the standards for fire departments are
in conflict with the standards which the water
department applies for the same function.
And I'm just wondering, first of all, how that
can be reconciled so that people aren't always
standing between stools when they make these
applications. And second of all, if this standard
is adequate to protect the fire department from
liability, why is it not adequate to protect the
county from liability, rather than going through the
onerous procedure that they're requiring of this
applicant in upgrading three-quarters of a mile of
pipe and installing a fire hydrant in place of a
standpipe. A long question, again, but it really
has --
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: One moment, please. I
will address the questions one at a time. Thank
you.
Mr. Kushi, in response to Member Johansen's
question, the difference in the conflict that we
have between the two departments. As you explained
earlier, maybe you can clarify that again.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, I'm not really sure if I
can clarify. The fire department has this fire
code. That's their fire code. And they are going
through updates. So it may be stricter.
We have our own rules. So sometimes they don't
meet at the past, totally lined up. But from what I
understand Captain Bal or Chief Bal's letter said at
that time was that the sprinkler system is adequate
from their side.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Right.
MR. KUSHI: Now, the pipes and the
infrastructure to supply that sprinkler system I
still think it's left unanswered. You need some
source for that sprinkler system.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Okay. Ms. Parsons?
MR. JOHANSEN: Let me follow up if I can. Our
function is advisory only. I think that it would be
appropriate for this board to recommend that there
be an attempt to reconcile the standards of these
two county departments so that we don't have this
kind of confusion forever.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Ms. Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: With a sprinkler system, does it
change the amount of gallons per minute needed in
the whole scheme of things? Does it -- is there a
formula?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Who are you directing
it to?
MS. PARSONS: The captain. I'm sorry. Chief.
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: The code that we use is
the Uniform Fire Code. And it's a standard of the
National Fire Protection Association. The code does
allow us to make those kinds of exceptions,
exceptions within our code. And I think that's
where we look at it from our standpoint that we need
to follow our fire code. We don't go outside of the
code because that would not be part of our policies.
So we try to apply our code as the code allows us to
identify each case appropriately. Besides the
standard protection, sprinkler systems are used
throughout the nation, are used within the different
fire jurisdictions within the fire code. So there
is that flexibility in our code to allow us to do
that. And that allows us to make these kinds of
applications or respond back to them.
MS. PARSONS: But my question is with a
sprinkler system, do you need the same gallons per
minute?
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: Okay. Part B to that
would be yes, it would, it allows us to. If you
need a thousand gallons for residential, with the
proper calculations, with the proper supply there,
it meets the standards, then we would allow that and
we would release it. I believe almost to whatever
it may be -- 25 percent or 50 percent what the fire
flow formula calls for.
MS. PARSONS: Oh, that's good, that's what I
was asking for.
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: So it would be based on
our code. And that's -- the point I'm stressing is
that basically what Mr. Kushi has said, we both have
our codes and it's the application of the code that
we simply are following. That's how we review
permits.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Member Okamura.
MR. OKAMURA: I would like to ask, is there a
way to resolve this issue of consistent fire flow
standards through the water department and the fire
department at some level in our county? Mr. Kushi.
MR. KUSHI: Well, I think you have something on
the agenda later on. That's why you called us.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: On the fire flow
discussion. Member Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Just clarification, is it the
planning department that approves SUPs and CUPs or
is it the council?
DR. DANTES: SUPs are approved by the county
commission and CUPs are approved by the council.
MR. HIRANAGA: Now, in the staff report it
says, on page nine, the planning department has the
sole authority to determine if the permit applicant
needs to satisfy the Department of Water Supply's
requirements.
Is it the planning department or the planning
commission or the council? Under discussion on page
nine, the last sentence. It says the planning
department has sole authority to determine.
MR. JOHANSEN: Clarification, Mr. Chair. What
are SUPs and PUPs?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: We'll have to do this
one at a time because she has a difficult time
following. So if you have a question, please raise
your hand so I can address you. Ralph, what was
your question again?
MR. JOHANSEN: What are SUPs and PUPs?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: And Mr. Hiranaga, you
had the answer to that.
MR. HIRANAGA: An SUP is a special use permit
and a CUP is a conditional use permit. That's what
he's applying for.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Okay.
MR. HIRANAGA: So I just wanted clarification
who approves what. I'm asking corp counsel.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Dantes, please help me.
DR. DANTES: The planning department prepares a
detailed report that is presented to the body that
is the decision-maker on the permit, be it the
planning commission or the council.
The planning department doesn't have the
authority that's stated in the staff report, if
you'll excuse me for differing. What they can do is
say we recommend that the applicant be required to
adhere to recommendations of the water department
because. And then it's up to the permit issuing
authority to accept or reject or consider the
planning department's recommendation.
MR. HIRANAGA: Special use permits are approved
by the council?
DR. DANTES: The commission.
MR. HIRANAGA: Conditional use permits are
approved by the council.
DR. DANTES: Yes.
MR. HIRANAGA: So the planning department
gathers comments from various agencies, prepares its
department report and recommendation.
DR. DANTES: Yeah.
MR. HIRANAGA: But it is the sole determination
of the either the council or the planning commission
to agree to that recommendation or not.
DR. DANTES: Correct.
MR. HIRANAGA: So they gather the comments and
the fire department says sprinkler systems are
acceptable. The Department of Water Supply says
inadequate fire flow, recommend denial. It's up to
the planning department to determine what they are
going to recommend. And it's up to the planning
commission or the council to determine what they are
going to decide, yes or no.
So just because the Department of Water says
recommend denial does not stop the permit from being
approved. It goes to two more levels. So I think
until we can accept and adopt rules for water
sprinklers, to me the current -- unfortunately, the
current response is the current response. The
Department of Water Supply recommends denial. But
that doesn't mean that his permit application will
be denied. It's up to the planning department and
the planning commission or the council to determine
whether to grant the permit or not.
So I would recommend that the Department of
Water Supply start formulating rules regarding water
sprinklers because I believe we should have rules
regarding water sprinklers because I believe it's
being applied in other states within the nation and
we're behind. But until that time, I don't see us
making exceptions.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Okay. Mr. Dantes.
DR. DANTES: Just a general comment on the
issue of departure from rules. From my perspective,
I'm not asking this board to make an exception to a
rule. I would like to be clear that there is only
one rule and that is that the first two dwellings
are exempt. That's the only written rule. If you
want to stick to the rules, don't recommend
anything, don't require anything because I only have
two dwellings and they're both exempt.
Now, we're not sticking to the rules; we're
making interpretations here. That's important.
We're making an interpretation that because I'm
applying for a permit, those two first and second
dwelling exemptions should not apply. That's not a
rule; that's an interpretation. All right, I'll go
along with that.
Then we're making an interpretation that I
should have to meet fire flow requirements. That's
not a rule. I'll go along with that.
What I'm saying is I have met fire flow
requirements. I'm asking for you to make that
interpretation also.
So when it comes time for you to wrap this up
and make your decision, please don't look at it as a
request to depart from a rule that's going to put
you out on a limb as far as liability. I'm asking
you to make an interpretation that's consistent with
National Fire Protection Association standards.
If you carefully read, word for word, what this
board said when it denied my request for an
insurance waiver four years ago, a board member and
a planning department staff member both said perhaps
fire sprinklers could be a reasonable compromise.
That's in those minutes. A compromise between
unrealistic infrastructure upgrades and a waiver of
fire flow, something in the middle. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Member Okamura.
MR. OKAMURA: Isn't the problem that we don't
have a rule to fit the situation, so we're trying to
interpret some other rules. And that's why it's
hard for us, I think. And so we cannot make any
decision based on the fact that there is no rules to
cover the situation.
So what we need to try to do, I think, as a
board is to try to find some way to -- or have a
rule in place or have somebody decide what to do in
the situation, but probably it's not us. But I
think wouldn't the problem be that we don't have a
rule to fit the situation.
DR. DANTES: I think that's very basic. But
you also don't have a rule to fit most of the
situations that you're asked to resolve and they are
matters of interpretation.
MR. OKAMURA: Well, this case more especially
because I think even the county doesn't have
ordinances to fit this situation. From what you
told me in the last meeting. That they're trying to
decide.
DR. DANTES: But in this situation, the
question is have I or have I not met fire flow
requirements. And I have had an engineer calculate
those fire flow requirements based on the fact that
the premises has automatic sprinklers. And that
calculation has been submitted to the water
department and is within the capacity of the
standpipe.
MR. OKAMURA: I think that might be so, but I
think what we're here to do is the board is here to
interpret the rules that we have, not to say, okay,
those are, you know, you meet fire flow
requirements. I don't think we're qualified to
determine whether you meet fire flow requirements
or, you know, based on the different standards, you
know. You meet one standard but you don't meet the
other standard.
So I don't think we're qualified to determine,
you know, what standard to use. I'm sorry, that's
all I'm thinking now and I think the vacuum is
creating a problem for us. And I don't think we can
say okay, let's just waive the rules because there
is no rules that actually fit your situation that we
can waive.
DR. DANTES: I understand what you're saying.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Member Okamura. I mean
Member Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Dr. Dantes, would a comment from
the Department of Water Supply stating that we are
unable to comment on the adequacy of the automatic
sprinkler system installation because we do not have
sprinkler system rules so we're unable to comment as
to the adequacy -- you're saying that the Department
of Water Supply accept the automatic sprinkler
system. Would a comment saying we're unable to
comment as to the adequacy of an automatic sprinkler
system be acceptable?
DR. DANTES: Oh, okay, thank you for exploring
that. Well, if it were a perfect world and I were
designing it, I might say that perhaps the comment
could defer to the department of fire safety as far
as the interpretation of fire flow sprinklers.
MR. HIRANAGA: They provide their own comments.
So, you know, the department is providing their
comments. Their comment would be we're unable to
comment as to the adequacy of the fire -- the
automatic sprinkler system installation because we
have no rules in place to determine its adequacy.
So it's not a no; it's not a yes. We're unable to
comment. And then the planning department will
prepare their recommendation based upon that
comment.
DR. DANTES: Well, if it's the board's feeling
that that's the strongest -- the strongest support
that you can offer under the circumstances, then
I'll be grateful for it.
MR. HIRANAGA: It's just something -- because
we have no rules to make a determination, we can't
accept or reject it.
DR. DANTES: Well, a number of weeks ago my
discussions with the Department of Water Supply were
a lot further toward resolution than they are today.
I don't understand why. I had the impression that
the sprinkler system was okay with them and that the
only thing that they were worried about was whether
it should be attached to their meter or whether it
should have an independent water source. We were
all the way down to discussing schematics and
configurations of hookups and the rule that the
water department has that entitles a person to free
water powering a sprinkler system, there is a rule
like that.
And then for some reason it seemed to collapse
and back up to we want you to upgrade those 400 feet
of cast iron pipe. I just thought I would mention
that because I'm feeling kind of desperate at this
point in the discussion.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Ms. Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: I would just like to go on the
record because I know that this does get read by
certain members of the council and I have stated
this for the four years I've been on the board: I'm
opposed to the extortion that we apply to residents,
whether they be in a commercial situation such as
the B&B, which I'm not so sure that I call that
commercial.
But I don't think that we need to keep putting
the burden of our infrastructure flaws on the
public, on the residents, on the homeowners. I
think it needs to go -- we need to improve our
infrastructure, we need to look at our developers
that want to develop and start looking at funds,
whether they go into a significant CIP fund to help
take care of that infrastructure. And I just want
to put that on the record that this is the time that
we need to make this decision whether the water
department defers to the fire department codes for
fire flow, whether we accept hold harmless clauses,
or whatever we do, it's time to take the burden off
of the residents. Thank you.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Yes, Mr. Tengan.
MR. TENGAN: For the record, we were not
extorting the public. We are just applying the
rules. And I would like that entered into the
record also.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Thank you, Mr. Tengan.
Okay. Let that be entered into the record.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have discussed this
matter. Mr. Johansen? Member Johansen?
MR. JOHANSEN: I don't think we should pass on
this. I think we should make a recommendation. If
that recommendation is that the county council,
which is in the process of formulating rules in its
present meetings, make a rule which defines this
situation so that people know where they are, then I
think that should be our recommendation.
Other than that, when I get back to what I was
saying at the outset about the practicability of
rules and their enforcement, do we have an
enforcement mechanism, do we have adequate sanctions
for someone who flouts the rule, who flouts the
requirement that they register as a B&B or a TVR.
Thinking as a scofflaw, I would say that it
would be possible to make arrangements with a travel
agent so that you could rent out a bed and breakfast
through the travel agent, you'd never have to
advertise. It would be very difficult to monitor,
to discover a bed and breakfast.
And as a practical matter, if you're going to
make rules that are going to be enforced, I think
we're going in the wrong direction. I think we
should recommend approval. I think we should
recommend approval and we should recommend that
since there are no rules for sprinkler system but
the fire department has approved rules for sprinkler
system in a situation like this, we should defer to
the rules of the fire department, in addition to
recommending that the County Council make a rule
which is -- which covers this situation.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: I think that that's
what the process is in place right now. Go ahead,
Mr. Dantes.
DR. DANTES: Thank you. Thanks for the leeway
to speak. Since you brought that up, I should
mention that this is a visible test case this
morning. I'm doing this to set an example for other
people in the industry, the example being that it is
possible to comply because the county will
ultimately be reasonable if reasonable information
is presented.
There are hundreds of people waiting in the
wings that have not been willing to apply for
permits. They want to see what happens to me. And
I've encouraged them to step forward and apply and
our whole organization has for years. But when
people do and they see what happens to them and what
happens to them is they get into an impossible bind,
it tends to make them want to stay underground.
We're working for effective enforcement. We
feel it's essential. But there has to be the
ability to comply with the law as well. It's a
balance.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Thank you for that
insight.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, may I offer a comment?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Yes, Director Tengan.
MR. TENGAN: You know, I've been looking at
these situations where we have a difference between
the fire department and the water department. And
in my mind, I seem to have come to the conclusion
that as far as the sprinkler systems are concerned,
the fire department is basically concerned about
suppressing a fire within the structure.
The water system standards goes beyond that.
If there is an external fire on property, the fire
sprinkler system will do nothing to suppress the
fire. And that's where I think our standard is.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Mr. Okumura, you had
something.
MR. OKAMURA: This is the last question. Well,
comment maybe. Might not be a good thing to say
because we don't have rules, we can approve this.
But nothing personal. But the logic being that
mentioned earlier that because we don't have a rule
to fit this situation, we should approve it. I
can't see that. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Ms. Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: Just to address the director's
comment, aren't we being a little hypocritical with
saying that something that happens on the property
past the meter is something we should concern
ourselves with when Upcountry has bacterial problems
that we may have created that goes -- and from the
meter to the household, we're saying we don't have
anything to do with the property.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Ms. Parsons, can we
stick on the subject at hand, please?
MS. PARSONS: It is. It's the issue of going
beyond the meter. We say we don't go beyond the
meter. The meter is where we stop our obligation.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that I'm
responsible for the household inside the household
and I'm not responsible -- because there is a fire,
but I'm not responsible for anything else, quality
of water aside. You either stop at the meter with
responsibility or you go beyond it.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, I would like to respond
to that.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Mr. Tengan
MR. TENGAN: Our fire protection requirements
are along the public's roadway. It's not inside of
the house. And that's the standard that we're
applying. You need fire protection along the
property, not on the property.
MS. PARSONS: That's residents. You stop at
the meter. You have to make your mind up. You stop
at the meter or you don't. Now, if you want to take
on putting the fire flow in there, you're opening up
the door.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Mr. Johansen.
MR. JOHANSEN: Aside from that, maybe the fire
chief could tell us if their requirements don't also
cover more than just the structure on the property.
Aren't you responsible for fire protection for all
aspects of the county?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Chief Kapalolo.
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: On commercial projects,
normally we work well with the water department
because it's pretty cut and dried, as the director
mentioned, and we'll work with inside a property if
they're getting a structure out, water pretty much
insures that we have that infrastructure capability
and sustainability in the system.
Sometimes our rules are silent when we go into
residential because mainly the code applies to
commercial structure. But these kinds of special
use kinds of requests come in, we need to look at
the code a little closer. And the code allows us
some flexibility or -- that's not the right word.
Some exceptions. And these exceptions allow us to
meet [inaudible]. Understand the water has the
rules or policies that they follow. And currently,
you know, this is their application. And for us, we
normally look at the entire fire protection to be as
what would be the end users of that, whether it be
on the property or out on the roadway.
If a fire does occur, we being the end users
certainly would like to have that capability to
mitigate any kinds of fires, whether they're on
property or offsite.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Okay. I think we've
discussed this matter in many aspects. And just to
-- and I'd open up for a motion in a moment, but
just to add my comment and my take on all of this, I
agree with our members, both Parsons and Johansen,
that we need to somehow get the departments together
so they get more correlated. But again, the
departments' responsibilities are really different
in their respects. The Department of Water gets the
water to that area, to that fire hydrant, to that
standpipe, to whatever. The fire department is
insured in how to fight the fire. I mean, two
different entities. Water there doesn't mean you
fight the fire. I'm correct in saying that, Chief
Kapalolo. Fighting the fire needs the water, but if
the water doesn't come in proper pressure or does
not come into the area or does not -- they can't do
their job. Okay.
So the water department gets the water there,
okay, to that location. Whether it's on the street,
to the house, whatever. In fact, most of it would
be on the street because no standpipe is generally
on somebody's property. I know a few exceptions to
that rule.
The challenge we face is the two rules don't
interface. Sprinklers are now becoming a bigger
part of our everyday life especially in areas
throughout the United States and more here on Maui.
So again, those rules now somehow have to be
incorporated. And we don't have that ability to
incorporate rules; we just make recommendations.
And so whatever the recommendation the board makes,
I want you to understand, Mr. Dantes, that I
sympathize with what you're saying, I understand
both positions, I understand what my board is
saying, and I agree that no matter how you look at
it, one day we've got to come to some definite,
whether it's the council or somebody make a
definitive rule so that we won't have this and we
can bring all these underground people out of the
system and put them on what we call a taxable,
usable system. I agree. You know. Because all
these underground stuff, we don't get any tax
revenue from and that's a big loss in our economy.
You know.
I also say from an insurance end standpoint,
Ms. Parsons and Mr. Johansen, there is a definite
difference between B&Bs and residential. It is
considered a commercial entity. It is not
considered residential. From an insurance
standpoint. That's my world I live in. So whenever
somebody comes in and wants to do a B&B, it goes
under a commercial policy. It does not go under
residential. So that industry has a definite
distinction. Okay? Just so everybody is clear on
that part. As far as an industry now. I'm not
talking governmental agencies, just an industry.
Mr. Johansen.
MR. JOHANSEN: How do you treat an ohana? A
rental of 180 days or more.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: An ohana is considered
residential for the purpose of ohana. Okay. Ohana
now. Now, if you're talking B&Bs, because of its
consistent change-over, short-term rental, rental of
just specific spaces, not the entire entity, that
insurance industry defines that as commercial
versus --
MR. JOHANSEN: What if you rent a room for more
than 180 days?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Now you're getting into
semantics. But I'm just saying --
MR. JOHANSEN: It isn't just semantics.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: I'm just saying what
our industry looks at is that. Now, again, people
do it underground, like you say, if somebody rents a
room out for more than 180 days. I know there are
residents out there that I insure right now that
they have family members living downstairs and
renting out. Which is illegal. And I tell my
clients that, it's illegal. But can I go there and
-- I don't have that authority. I do not. I'm just
trying to distinguish what the industry, the
industry I work in, how they define it. That's all
I'm trying to say. I'm not saying what is right and
wrong out there. I'm not saying what is going on
out there, because we all know. Okay.
Just so that everybody is clear before we
decide that we are sympathetic with you, I
understand where you're coming from, the department
has presented their case. Now I leave it up to the
board to make a motion to decide what they want to
do, to recommend, to deny, whatever. I leave it to
the board now to make that recommendation. Enough
for my speech. Thank you.
MR. HIRANAGA: Just a comment based upon your
bringing in the insurance world. The penalty for
not properly disclosing the use of the property is
that if it's determined by the insurance company
that in fact it was not a residential use but in
fact a commercial use, that they would not satisfy
the claim.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: They can deny the
claim, that is correct
MR. HIRANAGA: That's the penalty. You can
operate a B&B under a residential policy, but if
something happens and they determine that it was due
to a commercial use, they deny the claim. So.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: There is a definitive
penalty in that area, yes.
MR. KUSHI: You refund the premium?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Yes. Let's not go into
the insurance issue. Come on, you guys. That's
putting me on the spot. But I really want a
distinction. That's was just for distinction for
everybody's use, Mr. Dantes, just to be clear on our
industry and how we determine the two. Okay.
All right. I'm open to a motion. Yes,
Ms. Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: I would like to make a motion
that the board recommend that since we have no rules
or policies in place, that the water department
defer comment to the fire -- for the fire department
codes for fire flow in this issue.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Is there a second? No
second?
MR. JOHANSEN: I'll second it for purposes of
discussion.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: All right. It's been
moved and seconded. Okay. I think we've discussed
to a thing. But I open it up. Go ahead, go back to
the maker of the motion first.
MS. PARSONS: I'm making this motion for the
purposes of Mr. Dantes' specifics. I think we're
going to get into the fire flow issue and we can be
more specific on our recommendation there and make a
more specific recommendation for council purposes to
make rules. That was the reason why I think right
now we have no rules, we have no policies, we have
no business even being here with Mr. Dantes as far
as I can see in this issue because I don't think --
I don't think the water department has a right to
overstep the boundaries of the fire department
codes. But that's what we're going to go discuss
next. And so for now I'm just saying let's defer --
recommend that the water department defer to the
fire department for the codes for fire flow in this
case.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Member Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: I guess I object to the word
defer because we're transferring responsibility and
authority to the fire department. I would prefer
that my previous suggestion that we're unable to
comment on the adequacy of sprinkler systems because
we have no rules addressing --
MS. PARSONS: That's what I'm saying --
MR. HIRANAGA: No, you're not saying that.
You're saying defer. I'm saying no comment.
MS. PARSONS: Okay, no comment. I like that.
I'll modify it that.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: No, it has to be an
amendment purpose now because you've already made
the motion. Okay. So we need an amendment to the
motion if you want to change the wording from defer
to what you just said.
MS. PARSONS: I'll make a motion to --
amendment to make no comment.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Do I have a second?
MR. HOLMBERG: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: All right. So the
amendment on the table is to make no comment in
regards to this, right? .
MR. HIRANAGA: Well, I mean, are you saying the
exact words "no comment?" Or no comment because we
have no rules addressing the adequacy of fire
sprinklers systems? There's a big difference
between --
MS. PARSONS: We have no rules and policies for
fires, yes, that's the amendment, for fire sprinkler
systems. Therefore we're unable to make any
qualified --
MR. HIRANAGA: Interpretation.
MS. PARSONS: -- interpretation.
MR. JOHANSEN: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Yes, Mr. Johansen.
MR. JOHANSEN: Could we have the full motion
stated? Is this a recommendation to the water
department saying -- are we saying that we recommend
that the water department return to the planning
commission with no recommendation?
MS. PARSONS: No comment.
MR. JOHANSEN: No comment. Okay.
MR. HIRANAGA: Well, there should be a specific
state --
MS. PARSONS: Right. No comment due to the
fact that the water department has no rules or
policies in place for sprinkler systems and fire
flow -- regarding fire flow.
MR. HIRANAGA: To determine the adequacy of
fire sprinkler systems.
MS. PARSONS: Yes. Much better. More
eloquent.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: So let's put it all
together in one sentence. Okay. For record
purposes, Mr. Hiranaga, would you state the
amendment?
MR. HIRANAGA: As I would suggest?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Yes.
MR. HIRANAGA: The Department of Water Supply
is unable to comment on the adequacy of fire
sprinkler systems because the department has no
rules addressing fire sprinkler systems.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: You got that? Okay.
George.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, I would have a problem
with that motion. I can go along with the board
having no comment, but we do have a comment, the
department has a comment. So we could communicate
to the planning commission and the planning
department that this is the board's -- under your
signature and the department will offer its comments
under my signature.
MS. PARSONS: No, this is not our comments;
this is our recommendation to the department.
MR. TENGAN: This is your recommendation.
Whatever it is.
MR. JOHANSEN: Mr. Chair, could we have
Mr. Tengan restate what their comment would be to
the planning commission?
MR. TENGAN: Basically we would stick on our
comments that we offered in this issue here.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Any more discussion on
the amendment? Seeing none, we're going to vote on
the amendment and we'll do a roll call vote.
MS. CRIVELLO: I just want clarification.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Yes.
MS. CRIVELLO: Are we -- this motion --
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: No, we're on the
amendment right now, not on the motion. We're on
the amendment only.
MS. CRIVELLO: But is this amendment to the
main motion to recommend to the department or to the
regulatory process?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: To the department.
MS. CRIVELLO: I just needed to have that
clarified.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Any other questions?
We'll start with you, Member Helm. On the
amendment.
MS. CRIVELLO: On the amendment.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: On the amendment.
MS. CRIVELLO: Can you say the motion to the
amendment?
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Okay. I hate to
trouble you, but can you -- you want the whole
motion or you want the amendment to the motion?
MS. CRIVELLO: I want the whole motion.
MS. PARSONS: Start with the amendment.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Well, she's asking
about the motion, because she's clear on the
amendment, right? Can you read your motion as you
first stated it? The motion, not the amendment.
MS. PARSONS: Right. It was a recommendation
to the water department to defer to the fire
department codes for fire flow. And then we
modified it so that it was to say that the
recommendation to the water department to make no
comment with regard to --
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Stop. I just don't
want to confuse her. The main motion -- you got the
main motion. The other part was the amendment.
MS. CRIVELLO: Then we're going to vote on the
main --
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Yeah. So now we are
only on the amendment. I didn't mean to cut you
off. Just so that we understand, we are talking
about the amendment, we are voting on the amendment.
Sorry. Okay. Are you clear with that, Ms. Helm?
MS. CRIVELLO: I said yes to the amendment.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Yes to the amendment.
Mr. Johansen?
[Voices saying aye.]
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: I make it unanimous.
Now we go back to the main motion with the
amendment in place, which would mean that we were
not -- we are recommending.
MS. PARSONS: Right. To the water department.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Right. Are we clear
with that? Okay. Starting from the other side,
Carl, I'll start with you this time.
MR. HOLMBERG: Yes.
MR. HIRANAGA: Can we have it stated for
clarification what we're voting on?
MS. PARSONS: It's the amendment.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: No.
MS. PARSONS: The motion is now the way that we
just worded it as the amendment. So could you read
the amendment for us? It's basically as you stated
it before, that we are recommending to the water
department to make no comment due to the fact that
we are unable to make -- recommend -- make
decisions, make recommendations, since we have no
rules for fire sprinkler, fire flow, fire sprinkler,
fire flow rules, regulations. We don't have the
rules to deal with. And so we're asking them to
make no comment. It's the same thing you just said.
MR. HIRANAGA: Well, I mean, don't think the
words "fire flow" should be involved. We're talking
about fire sprinklers.
MS. PARSONS: It was amended exactly how you
said it. I may not be -- it all falls in the same
category.
MS. CRIVELLO: Mr. Chair, we need to have it
exact.
MR. HIRANAGA: Yeah, so we know what we're
voting on.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: You know what? I'm
going to -- can I have a ten-minute recess and this
way I can then go back in the minutes and find the
exact motion. Call for a ten-minute recess.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: I would like to
reconvene the meeting. Member Parsons, would you
read the motion and the amendment that was attached?
MS. PARSONS: Okay. The motion originally was
the recommendation for the water department to defer
to the fire department codes for fire flow. And
then it was amended to the water department take a
no comment position due to the department's lack of
rules and policies concerning fire sprinklers.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Oka. Are we clear now?
MR. JOHANSEN: Point of order. The amendment
contradicts the main motion. I think we need some
clarification here. If we vote for the main motion,
we're voting to defer to the fire department or
recommend deference to the fire department.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Corp Counsel Kushi?
Mr. Okamura?
MR. OKAMURA: So it is to recommend -- does the
motion say that the board recommends to the
department?
MS. PARSONS: Yes, I amended the motion to say
that the water department -- instead of the first
portion, I amended to say the water department take
a no comment position due to the department's lack
of rules and policies concerning fire sprinklers. I
amended the motion totally.
MR. JOHANSEN: If we vote for the main motion
--
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: With the amendment
approved already.
MR. KUSHI: Main motion is amended.
MS. PARSONS: It's not longer there.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Okay. Any more
questions? Okay. Starting with you, Carl, Member
Holmberg.
MR. HOLMBERG: Main motion as amended, yes.
MR. HIRANAGA: Yes.
MR. JOHANSEN: Yes.
MR. OKAMURA: Yes.
MS. PARSONS: Yes.
MS. CRIVELLO: No.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: And I'm yes. So six to
one. Okay.
Mr. Dantes, I think we have done what the best
job we can do for you and hopefully much success and
hopefully the governmental agencies and the county
council resolve your matters for you and for the
public. Thank you for all your efforts and time.
DR. DANTES: Thank you all, too.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: At this point I would
like to ask the board their indulgence. I would
like to skip for now and move up under Other
Business, discussion with the Department of Fire and
Public Safety Chief or his representative on fire
flow and fire protection requirements. The reason
for that is they are busy people and they have other
things they need to get to and I think since they're
here and present, it will be a good opportunity. So
I ask the board their indulgence. Is this okay with
you? All in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Okay. Thank you very
much.
Neal, Carl, maybe come over here, it would be
easier for you guys to speak to us. I think you see
the main reason why we asked you to come. We gave
you a live example. And I think we've run across
this situation all the time. So I'll open, start
off with you folks, give your comments, and then
I'll turn to the director for his comments and open
for questions from the board. Go ahead, however you
want to start, chief.
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: I'll start us off. Just
trying to look at what section we're on here on your
agenda here.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Other Business, number
IX.
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: Chair, first of all,
thank you and good morning to you and members of the
board. Appreciate the opportunity to come here and
be able to share some of the things that we do with
the department in terms of how we apply the -- or
how we look at the fire protection and the fire flow
that's necessary for some of these projects here.
Ironically, Captain Martin, who heads off our
Fire Prevention Bureau, could not be here. He's
actually in charge of the bureau that administers
our plans review and our code enforcement section.
Our apologies again also for our plans review
officer, Lt. Scott English, who is away on vacation,
a much needed vacation and he could not be here.
So instead myself and Chief Bal will be here to try
to answer any questions that you may have.
I think I want to open that to get a sense of
direction of what it is that you folks would like to
know. I think you already have a set of questions
in your own mind and so I would like to leave it
with that, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Comments from you,
Neal, before we start?
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF BAL: I'd like to point out
that some of your board members did make some
interesting acknowledgements and that's the fact
that fire sprinklers are -- have been with us a
hundred years, they're all over the nation.
There are rules in commercial -- on the
commercial side of this county that require
sprinklers throughout a lot of the commercial
buildings here as long as they meet a certain
requirement. So there is water sprinklers,
buildings through the hotels. And of course, there
was a 75-foot rule some years back that was approved
and came in. Anything other that in a living --
dwellings and so forth. Hotels, all they had to
retrofit.
One of the condos wanted to come up and say
that, well, we have the most advanced fire alarm
system variable to us and we want to use that in
lieu of fire sprinklers. And we told them that
wasn't a very good idea because not save any lives
and that was our stand on it. And when we were
attending their appeals hearing, it just so happens
that -- and I was at the hearing so I was near their
condo, it caught fire. And it lapped up, which they
said lapping is going from out one window up into
the next building and so forth and so forth. And it
trapped this guy that can barely move around on his
own. And the people went in there and pulled him
out and of course all of the alarm system did kind
of get most of the people out, but it didn't save
much of their buildings and so forth. And I always
like to refer back to that one because, you know,
Murphy's law says our job over there is to try to
save lives and property, and then of course now the
environment.
So as far as sprinklers go, I'm a strong
proponent of sprinkler systems in everybody's home.
And I tell you what, today when I used to go out and
speak about it, I'd ask -- I'd ask everybody in the
room to please give me an idea of what they think it
would cost you to sprinkle your home, your very own
home today. And I've got, you know, estimates from
one end -- but it's always very high, oh, cost me a
hundred -- thousands of dollars. And many of them
are surprised today at just what a sprinkled home
costs. Very cheap now, with all the technology.
Anyway, I could go on and on and on, but I've
been out of that job for two and a half years and
I'll stop right here.
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Thank you for your
comments, Chief and Deputy, thank you very much for
being here. I'll open the floor up for questions.
Member Hiranaga?
MR. HIRANAGA: I guess initially if you could
maybe explain to us the purpose of fire
extinguishers. Is it to retard fire, to such
repress fire? Because it doesn't replace the need
for a fire department. So what is the purpose of
fire sprinklers?
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF BAL: Funny you should ask
that. I guess I should have arranged for our new
fire education trailer to be out here and give you
all, you know, a real nice demonstration. This is
covered by one of the federal grants and it teaches
-- it will be going around to the schools and
teaching young kids how to get out of a burning
building. And this trailer actually generates smoke
-- without fire, of course. And it heats up the
doors, it teaches kids how to touch the doors and
feel and come out and crawl out of the house and so
forth.
Well, at the very front of this trailer is an
actual glassed in area that has a fire sprinkler.
And they throw in some paper and some cardboard and
they light it up and they show you the time it takes
for the sprinkler to come on and put that fire out.
Or at least, you know, knock it down to where it's
manageable by anybody else coming along and not
letting it spread. And that's the main idea of a
sprinkler.
There is many different variations for
different types of installations. In here it says
to the standard of NFPA 13D. Well, there is many,
as you can tell, many different types of
installation standards covering most of the
different installations. But to answer your
question, you know, sprinklers is there to save
property and lives.
MR. HIRANAGA: Is it to provide time for the
fire department or -- is it there to help control
damage in order to provide time for the fire
department to arrive, or is it there as a means to
eliminate the need for the fire department to
arrive? That's my --
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: There is kind of two
schools of thought on that. One is that it --
mainly the thought behind that is to be able to save
lives. It's a real active system versus a passive
fire protection. Building codes are normally of a
passive type where they build one-hour construction,
they build to maybe minimize the spread of fire.
With the application of the fire sprinkler,
it's more of an active. It's like a firefighter
sitting there with a hose at night, anything goes
off, he puts it out. It does a number of things.
It actually reduces and creates what we call the
level of where it threatens life safety. The
sprinklers can actually reduce the heat in that
room, they can somewhat dissipate the smoke in
there. So it allows you that ability to leave the
room while it's actively putting out the fire. So
it gives you that kind of opportunity there.
Without that in there, you just have a roaring
fire that will flash over in three to five minutes.
Sprinkler will pretty much mitigate that flashover
end of it, which again is a concern of the fire
department because it tethers on the threshold of a
five-minute time frame that we look at before
flashover occurs. If we can reduce that kind of a
flashover in there, that allows the life within that
building to be able to at least have the opportunity
to leave.
The second thing it does, it reduces property
damage. Before the flashover occurs, you just have
maybe aesthetic damage to walls and stuff like that.
If we don't get in there time, the sprinklers don't
go off or they're not there, the fire starts to
increase, then it impacts structural members,
structural members cause failing roof collapse,
endangers firefighters.
So that gamut of us trying to save lives out
there that this sprinkler system offers that to the
people themself. But it also offers the fire
department that time that we need to get there. As
we all aware, our stations are far and few out
there. So looking at sprinklers out there on the
benefit that Chief Bal mentioned, that's extremely
important that we do try to meet our mission
statement which is to save lives, protect property
and environment. I hope that answers the question.
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF BAL: My question to your
question would have been do you mean an accidental
fire or an intentionally set fire? There is a
difference.
MR. HIRANAGA: No, just fire.
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF BAL: In general. Because
we've got to deal with all these different --
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: Ralph, you've got take
a question? Member Johansen.
MR. JOHANSEN: First question, as a practical
matter, is the previous applicant is on -- what is
it called, what is the name of that road? Ulumalu
Road. How far is the fire station from where he is,
just as an example, and how long approximately do
you think it would take to get there?
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: I believe that your
question is really something that we in the
department really looked at and took a look at real
hard and fast on it. We've got two stations out
there. One of them is the Makawao Fire Station.
That's up on the hill. The other unit will probably
be Paia. As you can see just by mentioning those
areas, you're kind of saying well boy, those guys
are really out there. And yes, it is a response
time that we're concerned with.
I'm going to just take a rough estimate, but I
think from the last response time that we looked at,
depending on traffic, it took anywhere between 15
and 18 minutes to get there. And then maybe we need
a couple of minutes for the guys to get out of the
station, we'll add that on, and then traffic which
we don't have any control on, just to get there,
that increases the time response. I would say by
the time we drop the lines, it will be a good
20 minutes, and that's for us to hook up.
So having adequacy on the system, yes, very
important.
MR. JOHANSEN: And then I have a second
question which is Mr. Tengan said that not only is
there responsibility to provide adequate fire flow,
but also to protect the perimeters of the property.
And a sprinkler system only addresses the main
structure. Supposing you have out buildings, are
you requiring sprinkler systems in say a tool shed
or a garage or something like that or what are your
requirements?
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: The first part, I prefer
not to comment on Mr. Tengan. I would have him
comment and make his response to that.
MR. JOHANSEN: I'm asking more what the fire --
go ahead.
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: What I perceive you're
asking us is would we require other buildings there
to be sprinkled. Again, we apply the code across
the board and if it comes true that that particular
structure or structures, for the use that they
determined to be, that our code requires that fire
protection, we would require it. So it's across the
board, yeah, we would apply that for any building
permit requests.
MR. JOHANSEN: And what about flammable trash
accumulations on property which are a fire hazard,
how does the fire department make provision for
that?
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: Most of the times we get
complaints about them and that's normally how we
would be aware of some of these conditions.
Hopefully the homeowners take a more responsible
position on those kinds of issues there because it
could be a detriment not only to fire but to health
there. But --
MR. JOHANSEN: You don't foresee any liability
problems there because you're not equipped to
monitor that, right?
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: We do from time to time
if we make a call and make us aware, we will go out
and investigate them. But certainly, you're
correct, we don't have the manpower to do that,
we're get out there in every home and ensure it.
But certainly that would be a good incentive for the
homeowners.
MR. JOHANSEN: On the other hand, it seems to
me that the water department, in requiring adequate
fire flow, is taking into account the possibility of
flammable material and out buildings, other
flammable structures --
CHAIRPERSON VICTORINO: I'll stop you at this
point, Mr. Johansen, excuse me. I think we're
getting off of what we need to stay on.
Stacy, please.
MS. CRIVELLO: First of all, I can appreciate
and I can value the sprinkler system for fire
protection. And I think more important, I can
appreciate how you more than once have said you
apply your fire codes.
But I go back to the water department. In your
opinion, and I don't know how -- would you see a
water sprinkler system be a substitute for
standpipes or fire hydrants? Because it's the
department's requirement to provide from the water
system to the hydrants or the standpipes, if I
understand it correctly. So would that be a
substitute in place of fire hydrant and standpipe?
FIRE CHIEF KAPALOLO: Stacy, that's a very good
question because I think you have a good
understanding about how the fire protection works.
When the flow requirements are necessary for the
project, we need to have a supply system that brings
it on through, and then if there is any type of
system that like a standpipe or hydrant, we need to
make sure that that's there. So that's pretty much
the first phase of that or first part of that
system.
When we come in, we're pretty much -- by "we" I
mean our fire personnel come in and utilize the
system, the adequacy part, the duration, has already
been met by the Department of Water. So we're using
a system that's met that particular requirement.
By applying any type of what we call fire
appliances, in the world of the commercial entities
we have out there, there is a number of I would say
options that they can apply, which obviously the one
that we know and we're talking about today which is
the fire sprinkler. It's an automatic fire
sprinkler. Those flow counts are also calculated
into the demand for that particular building and not
just an exception to. So if we're adding anything
into those buildings, they also are part of the
calculation, what is the demand for this system
based on that we have a sprinkler system, based do
we need -- the required fire flow.
In these kind of cases here now when we're
looking at them, we have exceptions in our fire code
that allow us to apply thos 