Kuka`iau Ranch Acquisition Wins\u00a0<\/b>Much of 2017\u2019s Legacy Land Funds<\/b><\/p>\n
Breaking with a decade of past practice, the state Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) in May supplanted funding recommendations from the Legacy Land Conservation Commission with its own.<\/p>\n
At the state Board of Land and Natural Resources\u2019 May 26 meeting, DOFAW administrator David Smith recommended that it fully fund a request for $738,346 to complete the agency\u2019s acquisition of nearly 4,500 acres at Kuka`iau Ranch, rather than provide $838,346 to a project to protect lands surrounding the Ala Kahakai Trail in Waikapuna, which would have required more than a million dollars of additional funding.<\/p>\n
DOFAW made the recommendation despite the fact that the Legacy Land Commission had ranked the 2,200-acre Waikapuna project above the DOFAW-proposed Kuka`iau Ranch project in its list of priorities. Both DOFAW and the commission, though, agreed on a recommendation to award $1.5 million from the Land Conservation Fund to pay the ongoing debt service for the Turtle Bay acquisition approved last year.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is unusual. We generally don’t come up with an alternative to the commission [recommendations],\u201d Smith admitted. He explained that a lack of staff led to a lapse of Legacy Land funding in fiscal year 2015-2016. As a result, about half the money was available this year for projects compared to past years.<\/p>\n
The change in recommendation rankled several commission members, especially its chair, Theresa Cabrera Menard. At the commission\u2019s May 8 meeting, she stated, \u201cUsually the commission\u2019s recommendation is what DOFAW backs in its submittal to the Land Board. But now DOFAW wants approximately $700,000 to fund its own second-ranked project at Kuka`iau, thereby leaving only $100,000 for the top-ranked Waikapuna. \u2026<\/p>\n
\u201cI have one question. And it\u2019s a very important one. Is this fair to the applicants? Applicants are expecting that this commission will select the awardees and that DOFAW will uphold that decision,\u201d she stated.<\/p>\n
She noted that DOFAW had only once before diverged from the commission\u2019s funding recommendations, and in that case \u2014 involving the purchase of land along the Ka `Iwi coast on O`ahu \u2014 it was because the applicant had changed details of the project midway through the approval process. (This is discussed in an article in the May 2015 issue of Environment Hawai`i<\/i>.)<\/p>\n
In the current case, \u201cDOFAW just disagrees with the ranking order of the commission and is asking the Land Board to fund its own project first,\u201d she continued. \u201cThis sets a new bad precedent. It impacts DOFAW\u2019s relationship with the public who came out to testify, the applicants themselves, and this commission. Should we expect a competing recommendation every time DOFAW puts forth an application that doesn\u2019t receive funding?\u201d she asked.<\/p>\n
Smith defended his division\u2019s proposal. \u201cI\u2019m not trying to slip anything through. My recommendation is different from yours. We\u2019ll put them both on the table \u2026 and let the board decide.\u201d<\/p>\n
He stressed that he believed his recommendation was more logical, since it would allow one project \u2014 the acquisition of upper Kuka`iau \u2014 to be completed, while the commission\u2019s recommendation would still leave the group seeking to purchase lands at Waikapuna with inadequate funding. He added that the Kuka`iau purchase needed to happen as soon as possible. \u201cIf we don’t do Kuka`iau [this year], we might lose the whole thing,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Despite his explanation, a number of commissioners echoed Menard\u2019s concerns about the precedent being set, the apparent self-serving nature of DOFAW\u2019s recommendation, and the program\u2019s potential loss of credibility with the public.<\/p>\n
When the matter came to the Land Board, DOFAW stood by its recommendation. However, to honor the commission\u2019s process and desire to protect Waikapuna, Smith told the board that his division intended to fully fund all of the top projects approved by the commission in fiscal year 2017, which ended on June 30.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat would require we come back in July to roll back FY18 funding,\u201d Smith said.<\/p>\n
DOFAW\u2019s Irene Sprecher explained that the use of FY18 funds to pay for the unfunded FY17 projects would reduce funds available to 2018 applicants to just around half a million dollars.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe would strategize and communicate that before applications. For FY19, we would be able to have a full competitive year,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
The Land Board unanimously approved DOFAW\u2019s recommendation, with the understanding that the division would return in July with a proposal to use FY18 funds to support the commission\u2019s top-ranked FY17 projects. That include the $2 million Waikapuna project proposed by the Trust for Public Land and the Ala Kahakai Trail Association, as well as a request for $210,000 for a conservation easement to the Hawaiian Island Land Trust over 6.12 acres of taro lands in Ke`anae, Maui.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
Board Slashes Proposed<\/b><\/p>\n
Lava Tour Boat Fine<\/b><\/p>\n
On June 9, the Land Board voted to fine a lava tour boat company $15,000 for running three tours out of Pohoiki in East Hawai`i without a commercial use permit from the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR).<\/p>\n
DOBOR had proposed a much larger fine of $80,000 for eight illegal trips. That amount reflected the maximum per-violation fine of $5,000, assessed against both the vessel owner, Shane Turpin, dba Kohala Tours, as well as the captains involved in the illegal trips.<\/p>\n
Turpin does hold one of the four available commercial use permits for Pohoiki, but for a few days in early February, he ran two vessels there. At the Land Board meeting, he claimed that he had run two boats out of Pohoiki because he had mistakenly believed that DOBOR rules allowed him to use a vessel permitted for one harbor for up to ten days in another harbor, despite the four-permit cap at Pohoiki. What\u2019s more, he argued that should the board choose to fine him, it should be for three trips, not eight. While the non-Pohoiki-permitted vessel (Lava Kai 2) is the one that made eight trips, Turpin explained that DOBOR was in the process of transferring his permit to that vessel at the time of the violations. The vessel that was actually permitted at the time (Lava 1) only made three trips during that time.<\/p>\n
DOBOR administrator Ed Underwood, however, suggested that Turpin intentionally committed the violation. \u201cHe told me on the phone the reason why he ran the second boat was to bring issues to a head\u201d regarding the insufficient number of commercial permits at Pohoiki.<\/p>\n
\u201cI told him we\u2019re open to increasing the number of commercial permits. We need to engage in rule-making. Staff is beginning that process now. It takes a while,\u201d Underwood said.<\/p>\n
Regardless of whether Turpin intentionally committed the violations, Land Board member Stanley Roehrig seemed concerned about DOBOR\u2019s decision to fine the captains, as well.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the company is the permittee, why are we charging all the captains? If five people take turns being the captain, you gonna charge all five? Are we overcharging? \u2026 We need to decide if everybody who grabs the wheel is gonna get charged,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Deputy attorney general William Wynhoff, representing DOBOR, replied that the division\u2019s rules say no person shall engage in commercial activities without board permission, and that a captain who goes out and is knowingly engaging in commercial activities should be charged.<\/p>\n
Chris McGuire, an attorney representing Turpin, argued that an $80,000 fine was excessive. \u201cThe board has bigger fish to fry. \u2026\u00a0 My client did go over the line in a few instances, but not in a manner that would justify lowering the boom,\u201d he said, suggesting a fine of no more than $5,000.<\/p>\n
Land Board member Chris Yuen agreed, in part. He made a motion to approve a fine against Turpin for just the three trips that the Lava 1 made. At the maximum allowable fine of $5,000, that worked out to a total of $15,000. Yuen estimated that the three trips generated about that much in revenue.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don’t think $5,000 per violation is excessive,\u201d Yuen said, adding that he didn\u2019t quite understand Turpin\u2019s explanation of why he ran the two boats, which allowed him to collect so many more people.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s pretty clear we\u2019re giving them the benefit of the doubt by saying let\u2019s act as if you swapped the Lava Kai 2 for the Lava 1. Then they would have had only 26 people \u2026 but they had another 23, perhaps more. At $150 to 200 per passenger, the math doesn\u2019t work out that differently than $5,000 per violation. If somebody makes a deliberate violation, it\u2019s not excessive to charge them what they earned from the violation,\u201d Yuen said.<\/p>\n
Carrying Capacity<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Before DOBOR imposed a commercial vessel cap of four at Pohoiki in 2014, Turpin had two boats permitted there. When the cap was imposed, the lava had stopped flowing into the ocean, so Turpin didn\u2019t really need to run more than one vessel there. But in 2016, the lava returned, as did demands from people to see it. Whether he\u2019ll ever be able to regain a second permit is an open question. While DOBOR is considering reviewing the cap, Underwood said the area is heavily congested with both public and commercial users.<\/p>\n
\u201cTurpin has the largest vessel. If the other three would increase in size [to match his vessel], there would be a 200 percent increase in people. The county says there is such a demand down there they want DLNR to help pay for upkeep,\u201d Underwood said.<\/p>\n
Land Board chair and DLNR director Suzanne Case added, \u201cThere is tension. It\u2019s hard for boats to get in and out when there\u2019s people in the water. \u2026 The volcano is erupting and there\u2019s a lot of popularity and people want to take these lava tours.\u201d<\/p>\n
She said the permit cap was established to address safety issues. \u201cThe push to open that is the popularity of the lava tours. [Pohoiki is much closer to the flows than Hilo harbor.] Even if you opened up the question, there would be no guarantee the result would be an increase \u2026 because of the safety issues,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Roehrig asked Underwood if his division was planning to place traffic cops at Pohoiki.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s dangerous. The kids go right down the ramp. The surfers are there. \u2026 It\u2019s a very nasty area right now. What plans do we have for that?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n
Underwood replied that the Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement has been policing the area.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m talking about DOBOR,\u201d Roehrig said.<\/p>\n
\u201cDOBOR has no staff in Hilo. We could go to the Legislature and ask for additional staff,\u201d Underwood said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not talking about having someone there every day. I\u2019m talking about having a community meeting to familiarize yourselves with problems. That\u2019s a hotspot,\u201d Roehrig said. Underwood replied that he was \u201cwilling to reach out to the community.\u201d<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
Board Raises Rent<\/b><\/p>\n
On Hilton Fireworks<\/b><\/p>\n
The Friday night fireworks show that the Hilton Hawaiian Village has been putting on for the public for more than two decades is now subject to rent closer to that imposed on all other fireworks shows for the portion of the public beach designated as a safety zone around the launch area.<\/p>\n
In the past, Hilton representatives had successfully argued that the hotel\u2019s Friday shows should not be subject to the standard $500 in rent for a right-of-entry permit because they provide such a benefit to the public and nearby businesses. But in an effort to be fair to those that pay the full rent for their safety zones, the DLNR\u2019s Land Division proposed last month to increase the rent for the Hilton shows from $50 to $250. Hawai`i Explosives & Pyrotechnics, Inc., which runs the show for the Hilton, would be the actual permittee.<\/p>\n
While the rent hike would increase the Hilton\u2019s annual costs for the shows by about $10,000, some Land Board members suggested that the hotel can afford it and, in any event, businesses that benefit from the show could help pitch in toward that increased cost.<\/p>\n
At the Land Board\u2019s June 9 meeting, Hilton representatives again stressed the community benefit of the Friday shows, which regularly draw hundreds of spectators.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe recognize your argument that there is a community benefit, but there is also a commercial and business benefit to Hilton,\u201d board chair Suzanne Case said. \u201cArguably, anybody else that does this could argue that it is a community benefit. \u2026 Other fireworks, everybody gets to see them.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think anybody else does it 52 times a year,\u201d replied Hilton vice president Jerry Gibson.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are people that don\u2019t like the fireworks,\u201d Case noted \u2013 a point many pet owners might agree with.<\/p>\n
Rick Egged of the Waikiki Improvement Association urged the Land Board to consider the fact that the weekly fireworks shows cost Hilton $446,000 a year, which the hotel has to constantly justify.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s difficult. It\u2019s always a question of whether they\u2019re going to get it approved. \u2026 I would really request the board consider not increasing the rate,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Board member Sam Gon suggested a further compromise: raising the rent to just $100, rather than $250. While member Chris Yuen seconded his motion, it ultimately failed.<\/p>\n
Even so, Yuen argued to keep the rent as it is. \u201cWe have a beneficial relationship [given] the increased spending that in some way makes its way back to the state. I think Hilton doesn\u2019t want to come here and say, \u2018If we pay more, we\u2019ll yank the show.\u2019 \u2026 When somebody does something that\u2019s really nice, even if we can charge them more, should we charge them more?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n
But given that the annual permit covering the shows was expiring that day, a Friday, and a new one was needed to cover the show that night and through June 2018, Gon made a motion to pass the Land Division\u2019s recommendation.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it\u2019s a good compromise, not perfect. We value your operation and all you folks do at Waikiki. If this doesn’t work, you could come back. Maybe we\u2019\u2019ll revisit it and change it,\u201d Roehrig said. \u201cWe get the heat from both sides. Heat comes every day. We get it on the social media, too. We have to be transparent,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
With that, the board approved Gon\u2019s motion.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
Seawall Easement Costs\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
Vex Land Board, Landowners\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
Manuel Madeira patiently waited hours for his item to be heard and to speak his piece on what he saw as the unfairness of the DLNR\u2019s Land Division proposal. But even though the division director and Land Board members agreed that it wasn\u2019t fair, the board voted to charge his company, West Coast Roofing, Inc., thousands of dollars for an easement covering his legally built seawall in Makaha, O`ahu \u2014 for the second time since 2013.<\/p>\n
In January 2013, the Land Board authorized a 55-year non-exclusive easement for a 131-square-foot portion of the company\u2019s seawall that was found to be encroaching on the public beach. The company paid $3,000 for the easement in September 2013.<\/p>\n
That month, however, a state surveyor conducting a shoreline certification discovered that an additional 190 square feet of seawall was encroaching on the beach. The area had been previously buried under sand.<\/p>\n
On June 9, the Land Division proposed that the company pay $4,351 to extend the easement so that it covers the additional area.<\/p>\n
Madeira testified that in addition to already paying $3,000 for an easement and another $3,000 for a survey of the area, \u201cthey want me to pay an additional $4,000.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI looked at the wall yesterday. Now only 106 square feet of the wall is exposed. The sand shifts on this shoreline. We don\u2019t have any real loss of shoreline. To make matters worse, I was required to get $1 million liability insurance of part of my land outside the seawall. It\u2019s land I cannot protect, yet I have to have liability insurance. \u2026 When it was brought to my attention I would be incurring another cost \u2026 I don\u2019t feel it\u2019s fair,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe agree it is a challenging situation,\u201d Land Board chair Suzanne Case said, noting that legislation had been proposed to minimize costs for easements covering legally built seawalls. Those bills, however, have consistently failed, year after year.<\/p>\n
Land Division administrator Russell Tsuji informed Madeira, \u201cSo you\u2019re aware, the shoreline certification is good only for one year. If it [the shoreline] is determined again to be further in, you could need another easement.\u201d<\/p>\n
When it came time to vote on the matter, board members hesitated.<\/p>\n
\u201cAaugh!\u201d member Keone Downing exclaimed.<\/p>\n
\u201cI feel for landowners, too,\u201d Case said, while Tsuji complained, \u201cI can\u2019t even get a hearing on that bill\u201d on shoreline easements.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think I\u2019m gonna vote no. Hopefully, we\u2019ll send a message to the Legislature. They can\u2019t put all this on top of us,\u201d member Stanley Roehrig said.<\/p>\n
Tsuji explained that those who have opposed the proposed legislation to allow the DLNR to receive less than market rent for easements for legally built seawalls view it as encouraging shoreline construction at a time when sea level is expected to rise. The state Office of Planning is one agency that has consistently expressed concern about the bills.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhatever the law is, we need to apply it fairly across the board,\u201d Case said. \u201cWe agree it\u2019s challenging. We\u2019re going to continue to try to fix it. I don’t see we can avoid our responsibility to follow that law.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the end, the board, except for Roehrig, voted in favor of the Land Division\u2019s recommendation.<\/p>\n
(For more on this, read \u201cBills Facilitating Shoreline Easements Fail For Fifth Year at Legislature<\/a>,\u201d in our March 2017 issue.)<\/p>\n * * *<\/b><\/p>\n New Royal Hawaiian Groin<\/b><\/p>\n Gets Permit, With Conditions<\/b><\/p>\n On June 9, the Land Board approved a Conservation District Use Permit for the construction of sand-retention groin fronting the Royal Hawaiian and Sheraton Waikiki hotels. But it may be months, or longer, before the permit is actually issued.<\/p>\n That\u2019s because some board members had serious doubts about whether the design prepared by the DLNR\u2019s contractor, Sea Engineering, will achieve the department\u2019s goal of rebuilding and maintaining the beach fronting the hotels. As a result, the board made a third-party review a condition of its approval.<\/p>\n Sea Engineering has proposed building a T-head groin that would extend 160 feet from the Sheraton\u2019s seawall. Built in 1927, the existing 370-foot-long groin is dilapidated in parts but serves to prevent sand from being swept away by ocean currents. A portion of the groin is submerged and broken apart and \u2018[c]ollapse of the structure would cause the sand that is impounded on the eastern side of the groin to be released,\u201d according to a report by the DLNR\u2019s Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands.<\/p>\n In 2012, the DLNR, with Sea Engineering\u2019s help, replenished the Royal Hawaiian-Moana Surfrider section of Waikiki beach with up to 27,000 cubic yards of sand, but three years later, the beach had lost about 30 percent of the new sand, the report states. As a result, the department is now proposing to repair or replace the Royal Hawaiian groin with a more stable structure to maintain the beach.<\/p>\n In April, the Land Board deferred the OCCL\u2019s permit request because some members wanted more information on how the new groin would help matters. For one thing, they wanted to know whether the existing groin could simply be repaired. Sea Engineering\u2019s Scott Sullivan returned to the board last month to explain things further.<\/p>\n Sullivan noted that the first 100 feet of the existing groin are somewhat intact and functional, but then the groin becomes submerged and progressively more broken, making it \u201cpretty ineffective.\u201d<\/p>\n Should the groin fail, it could potentially undo the benefits of the 2012 beach maintenance project, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cYou asked, could we repair the existing groin? It cannot withstand a hurricane type event,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n Big Island board member Stan Roehrig remained skeptical. \u201cWe\u2019ve had a number of tidal waves hit over the last umpteen years and the groin is still there. How is it that this new engineer [at Sea Engineering] said it can\u2019t withstand a tidal wave if it has? Did he go out and look at the history? \u2026 It sounds like he just made that up in his office,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Sullivan tried to assure Roehrig that his colleague\u2019s conclusions were based on sound calculations. \u201cFrom an engineering standpoint, we have a responsibility to design these correctly. It\u2019s standing there, I admit. Why? I don\u2019t know. We\u2019re lucky. We can continue to be lucky if that\u2019s the way we want to go. I can\u2019t tell you why it\u2019s still standing. I can tell you that it shouldn\u2019t be,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Roehrig still wanted to know if something could be installed that was substantially the same shape as the existing groin.<\/p>\n Sullivan suggested that the DLNR could just make a big wide concrete wall there, but the problem is that it would only be about 100 feet long, which he believed was not long enough to maintain the beach to the width that the department wants.<\/p>\n \u201cIt won\u2019t be very much more efficient than what we\u2019ve got. The wall will be stable. It\u2019s not going to be sufficient to save the beach,\u201d Sullivan said.<\/p>\n \u201cHow do you know? You don\u2019t know!\u201d Roehrig argued.<\/p>\n Sullivan reminded board that he was simply designing the groin for the DLNR.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m working for you. This is not my wall. \u2026 We should not be adversarial here. We\u2019re on the same team. We\u2019re trying to do what\u2019s best for you,\u201d he said, noting that a T-head groin would help prevent rip currents during high surf, which can move sand offshore.<\/p>\n Addressing the Land Board\u2019s concern expressed in April about the new groin becoming a hazardous attraction to people, Sullivan recounted his observations during a recent king tide.<\/p>\n \u201cI walked from Queen\u2019s surf groin up to the Moana hotel. We had a fairly dangerous situation. Half the island was jumping off the Kapahulu drain.\u00a0 \u2026 Waves would knock them down. People are going to do what they\u2019re going to do. I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any solution. Everywhere I looked, people were climbing any structure,\u201d he said. With regard to the new groin, if built, he said, \u201cYes, they\u2019re going to be all over it.\u201d<\/p>\n Roehrig said his concern about a T-groin is that he believed it would be put in a place where he learned how to surf as a kid.<\/p>\n \u201cI want the place for the keiki to learn how to surf,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cI think we decided that spot is a bit east of the proposed T-groin,\u201d board chair Suzanne Case said.<\/p>\n There was some debate over whether the removal in 2012 of two groins that had been deemed to be ineffective and safety hazards changed the makeup of the beach thereafter.<\/p>\n Land Board member Keone Downing seemed convinced that the removal had increased erosion, especially in front of the old Waikiki Tavern. Sullivan, on the other hand, said whether or not their removal caused erosion, he didn\u2019t think they were effective.<\/p>\n The bigger issue was that a bunch of sand the DLNR put there in 2012 washed away, Case said. \u201cDo we need a big picture here? Is this [groin] a first step in a series of improvements?\u201d she asked.<\/p>\n \u201cYes,\u201d OCCL planner Tiger Mills replied.<\/p>\n Sullivan added that the department had recently contracted Sea Engineering to look at Waikiki from the Natatorium to the Hilton Hawaiian Village. \u201cIt\u2019s time to take a look at the big picture and come up with a long term strategy. We\u2019ve been asked to look at short term, five years, and long term. The Royal Hawaiian groin replacement is the first project. \u2026 It really needs help,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Case asked Sullivan whether there were designs other than the T-groin that would solve the erosion problem. \u201cAre there other opinions about how best to hold sand in?\u201d she asked. \u201cIs this something reasonable professionals can differ on? \u2026 We\u2019re making a big investment in this. How do we know this is the right one?\u201d she asked.<\/p>\n Sullivan first defended his company\u2019s work. \u201cOur firm has great engineers. I think we do as good a job as you\u2019ll find,\u201d he said. With regard to a possible alternative, he said that whatever the design, it would have to meet the objective, which in this case is to keep the 2012 beach position. To do that, \u201cwe need to dissipate wave energy before it reaches the hotels,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Whatever design is ultimately decided upon, Sea Grant\u2019s Dolan Eversole suggested in testimony that something needs to be done quickly. \u201cI want to leave you with a simple message: The current groin is in a very poor state. The last three winters, we had to close the Royal Hawaiian beach stairs,\u201d he said. \u201cThe existing condition of the groin is dysfunctional.\u201d<\/p>\n Land Board member Sam Gon moved to approve the permit. In seconding the motion, member Chris Yuen offered an amendment.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t mean any criticism of the engineer, but we have heard skepticism from board members,\u201d he said. Yuen and Case recommended that the board seek a second opinion on whether a T-head groin meets the goals of the project. He left it up to the board chair to execute a contract to evaluate the design.<\/p>\n Gon said he liked the idea of an independent corroborator. \u201cIt\u2019s an important project in an important spot. It is my expectation that a second opinion will corroborate [the T-head design]. If it doesn\u2019t, we should know about it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n With that amendment, the board unanimously approved the permit.<\/p>\n * * *<\/b><\/p>\n Health Hazards Force<\/b><\/p>\n Old Uncle Billy\u2019s to Close<\/b><\/p>\n On June 9, the Land Board voted unanimously to renew a revocable permit to Savio HBH Development Company LLC, for one month \u2014 to July 14 \u2014 with the understanding that the company would not book any more guests at the Pagoda Hilo Bay Hotel (formerly known as Uncle Billy\u2019s Hilo Bay Resort) on Hilo\u2019s Banyan Drive and would work to close the place immediately. The permit extension would give Savio time to remove any personal property, as well.<\/p>\n Board member Chris Yuen added that Hawai`i County inspectors would be evaluating the hotel property in the coming days and if they found any emergency situation that required guests and employees to be removed immediately, the Land Board chair would be authorized to close it earlier.<\/p>\n Peter Savio of Savio HBH supported the board\u2019s decision, noting that he was basically babysitting the hotel for the department and was not really interested in holding onto the property. As a Land Division report to the board stated, \u201cThe revocable permit was intended as an interim measure to keep the hotel in operation until such time that the Banyan Drive Hawai`i Redevelopment Agency, organized under the supervision of the County of Hawai`i, Planning Department, develops a long-term conceptual plan for the future of the Banyan Drive resort area.\u201d<\/p>\n Last year, Erskine Architects, Inc., a consultant for the state, found that the hotel \u201ccontains numerous life safety issues.\u201d Those included an unsafe stair tower in the West Wing, insufficient escape routes in case of fire, termite infestations, and large quantities of hazardous materials.<\/p>\n The DLNR announced on June 17 that the hotel was to close immediately.<\/p>\n \u2014Teresa Dawson<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Kuka`iau Ranch Acquisition Wins Much of 2017’s Legacy Land Funds Breaking with a decade of past practice, the state Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) in May supplanted funding recommendations from the Legacy Land Conservation Commission with its own. At the … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11093,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[421],"tags":[3],"class_list":["post-9779","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-july-2017","tag-teresa-dawson"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9779","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9779"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9779\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/11093"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9779"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9779"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9779"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}