BREAKING NEWS!

Posted 10/26/2026

Community Input Makes A Difference

Aloha,

1) Hawaii News Now covers Court reversal of the permits granted to Mike Serpa and SK Investors, LLC by the Kauai Planning Commission

Statewide media coverage is exposing how little review or inquiry occurred before Mike Serpa and SK Investors, LLC were granted development permits to build a dense multiplex/multistory (148 units) development on Serpa’s 9.4 acre parcel in Koloa. We Appealed the Planning Commission Decision granting Serpa’s permits. The Court could have granted the Appeal in part or reversed the Appeal in part. Judge Stephanie R.S Char granted our Appeal and reversed the entire Planning Commission Decision and Order. Serpa’s permits, granted February 24, 2026, are no longer valid.

Serpa claims he is building for those who cannot afford market priced housing. His development is strictly commercial and there will be no government control over how much each unit would sell for. He is currently selling a one bedroom unit behind Koloa Village for $705,000. The County does, however, through its Planning Commission have the responsibility to assure that what is built conforms to the South Kauai Community Plan and the controlling zoning under Form Based Code construction. The Commission and the developer focused on the need for housing without assuring that the housing developed was legal. Neither seemed to consider the fact that there are other parcels in Koloa slated for small housing developments. Serpa’s development is not the only answer for housing in the Koloa area. We will have to return to the Planning Commission for a new Hearing if Serpa persists in his application for the development permits that were reversed by the recent Order of Judge Stephanie R.S. Char. 

2) Comments due no later than October 8, 2026 for Kilauea Town Expansion Project – A Plan to grow Kilauea Town by more than 33%.

FOM recognizes the need for housing for our workforce on Kauai. Thus far, County rentals and County projects come the closest to providing affordable housing, although without adequate yard space for gardens or children to play because of their dense construction. Your comments to the proposed large expansion of Kilauea Town are critically needed because that project does not have water, the roads are limited and congested now in Kilauea with no plan for improvement until 2037. There is no wastewater operation to service the 310 proposed new units. A well is still “planned for” and a water storage tank with transmission lines have yet to be developed or built. After Hurricane Lowell, Kilauea was without potable water. When water service was finally restored, residents were told to boil their water even to brush their teeth. There is no question that Kilauea has a problem with potable water. Shouldn’t the 2nd DEA be more specific about the source of the water, what is needed for transmission and when potable water would be available for so many new residents?

Consequently, our main objection is that our County should not launch out and begin building these units, as is the plan, without adequate infrastructure in place or substantially certain to be developed by the completion of construction.

The following link will allow you to review their plan described in their 2nd Draft Environmental Assessment. If your comment does nothing more than send an email to the County stressing the fact that island residents need infrastructure because every community deserves the right to a quality of life which does not include crowded roads with construction trucks and materials being delivered to homes that can’t be lived in until until infrastructure is available. 

Kilauea Town Expansion Project – Section 201H Affordable Housing – 2nd Draft EA (AFNSI)

The proposed project is a “201H” project which means State and Federal funds will be secured to cover building costs in part and reduce rental or housing costs for its new residents. In order to qualify and receive 201H certification, however, the project has to have letters from the utility agencies confirming an adequate source and the ability to deliver water, power, wastewater, solid waste, adequate roadways to service the project.

The above link is word searchable and you will find the agency comments are still missing. We have no assurance that these service are available or sustainable for 310 new homes in Kilauea Town, which according to the last census had 900 homes. 
Our workforce does need housing that is not small tenement style structures where people are packed into a limited area with little to no open space, green belt yards or areas for children to play. Developers, like Grove Farm, have an abundance of land that they have owned for many many years. That land required little or no maintenance and has just sat since the end of sugar. That land and other acreage like the 25 acres of County land being proposed for the Kilauea Town Expansion Project have sat idle for 40 or 50 years with little or no maintenance. 

Another comment that you could include is the fact that the development could have 2 and 3 bedroom homes built five to an acre which would yield 140 new homes with yards and privacy, much less of an impact to the existing community and probably more readily able to be serviced by necessary infrastructure. Multi-generational living is part of our island culture. Our workforce would rather have a place to live where their children can play, they can have a small garden and live with relatives rather than stuffed into multistory tenement style housing with little or no greenspace for outdoor barbecue, gardening or just sitting out in the evening to enjoy our balmy nights. The County 2nd DEA talks about the residents of  the “Kilauea Town Expansion Project”, using the grounds of the adjacent, yet to be built, Namahana School for outdoor recreation. Meanwhile, when I checked with Namahana School they were not aware of the planned use of their property. They explained that the Department of Education doesn’t permit unapproved community use on school grounds. What is the total area of greenspace intended for the Kilauea Town Expansion Project once all the phases are constructed.

The following is a draft of the comment for FOM and Save Kola which will be filed on or before October 8, 2026. Feel free to use any of the points made as you develop your own comment. The bottom line is that I encourage everyone to title their comment as “Infrastructure before Development Please”. The email addresses for the parties/agencies that need to receive your comment, you will find below in FOM’s comment letter:

Mary Alice Evans, Director of the Department of Business and Economic Development –dbedt.opsd.erp@hawaii.govSteve Franco – sfranco@kauai.govAdam Roversi – aroversi@kauai.govCouncil Members – councilmembers@kauai.govWilliam Bow – wbow@kahewai.com

This Comment to the County’s 2nd DEA on the Kilauea Town Expansion Project is filed on behalf of the Friends of Maha`ulepu and Save Koloa whose members include island residents living between Haena and Kekaha. While our emphasis has been on addressing environmental threats to the south shore of Kauai, our membership has continued to grow since our inception in 2014. 

Everyone of our members favors the development of affordable housing. We realize, however, that if County Ordinances are not complied with, there is the potential for significant adverse impact to the environment, to the integrity of the community and the quality of life for people who make their home on Kauai. We know Kauai needs affordable housing and we are trying to help that effort as we protect our environment, our fresh water and our quality of life.

The proposed “Kilauea Town Expansion Project” is identified as a 201H development. We suggest and request the 2nd DEA be withdrawn. The 1st DEA was missing critical documents which precluded the ability to adequately comment on the development. The 2nd DEA is also missing critical letters from agencies responsible for the infrastructure that will be required to service and support life in the complex proposed. There is a reference in the 2nd DEA to the agencies that have been from whom comments have been solicited. The Hawaii Revised Statute “201H” Certification required both State and Federal funding that is that will be used to develop the project mandates that letters from the agencies providing critical infrastructure; water, wastewater, solid waste, safe and adequate roads etc. have yet to confirm in writing their ability to deliver these needed services. Their written letters confirm their ability to deliver adequate and sustainable services are a requirement the project can be approved by the County Council. See Exhibit 17 of the 201H Application for Certification. Because this is a 201H project, it has to be reviewed and approved by Kauai County Council after approval of the Environmental Review process. 

The County’s 2nd DEA – AFONSI must be withdrawn absent letters from the critical infrastructure providers that inform the public of how and when water, sewer/wastewater, solid waste, adequate roads will be provided, a meaningful comment cannot be made. 2nd DEA – AFONSI page 97 etc seq.

Currently, all traffic entering Kilauea Town must exit Kuhio Highway onto Kilauea Road. The design of the project anticipates traffic bound for the project site will leave Kuhio Highway via a new exit to be built by the State that will connect to Ala Namahana Parkway. The 2nd DEA – AFONSI  notes that the exit and connection will not be developed until 2037. 2nd DEA – AFONSI page 70.

Although the 2nd DEA states they anticipate no significant impact to the existing community, we would appreciate knowing what metrics were used to make that determination. Concerns have been voiced by many members of the existing community regarding the availability of potable water. While the 2nd DEA – AFONSI describes a plan by the water department to drill a well and add a new water storage tank, there is no letter or report from the Kauai Department of Water confirming that plan or its timing in relation to the Phased build out being proposed by the County. Another concern of the residents was the already congested one way in and one way out Kilauea Road. The State Department of Transportation did confirm that the earliest relief of that problem would be 2037. Why would this not make the current traffic congestion even worse between now and 2037? Shouldn’t the project and the DEA be republished once more details of traffic study, with actual counts of the numbers cars anticipated with the addition of the total units per each phase? That information is not yet available. 

The information that is available confirms the concern by existing residents the traffic flow is already bad in Kilauea. We couldn’t find any information that any traffic engineer has assessed more than a single weekday and a single Saturday in 2023. That assessment alone supported the public’s concern of inadequate roads to handle the proposed phased construction before 2037. The following traffic engineer on existing conditions as of 2023 reports the intersections as very congested: 

“6.1 Existing Conditions
The hourly traffic volume data utilized in this report was collected on Thursday, September 14, 2023 and Saturday, September 16, 2023. Traffic count data was collected prior to the start of construction at the Kuhio Highway/Kolo Road intersection. See the traffic count data provided in Appendix A for the existing intersections studied and their corresponding traffic count data. Based on the traffic count data, the weekday AM, weekday PM, and weekend SAT peak hours of traffic were determined to occur between 7:30 AM – 8:30 AM, 3:15 PM – 4:15 PM, and 11:30 AM – 12:30 PM respectively. Synchro analysis shows that all movements at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during the AM, PM, and SAT peak hours of traffic except for the following movements: Kuhio Highway & Anaina Hou Community Park

• The northbound left-turn movement operates at LOS E during the SAT peak hour of traffic.
Kuhio Highway & Kolo Road

• The northbound approach operates at LOS E during the AM and SAT peak hour of traffic.

• The southbound approach operates at LOS F and undercapacity conditions during the AM and SAT peak hours of traffic, and at LOS F and overcapacity conditions during the PM peak hour of traffic.
Kuhio Highway & Hookui Road

• The southbound left-turn movement operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour of traffic. Based on observations at this intersection, frequent gaps along Kuhio Highway allowed for one or more vehicles at a time to complete the left-turn movement, and minimal queues were observed along Hookui Road for a majority of the PM peak hour of traffic.” 2nd DEA – AFONSI page 484.

 Disposal of recycled water at Namahan School, other schools, and parks.

The 2nd DEA identifies Nāmāhana school, Kīlauea neighborhood park, Kīlauea elementary school, and Anaina Hou community park amongst areas for recycled water disposal. 2nd DEA at [PDF page][1] 41, 708. Potential impacts of use of recycled water at these areas are not assessed. State Department of Health (“DOH”) regulations require recycled water systems “to the maximum extent practicable shall:

(l) Irrigate at a rate not greater than the plants use it;

(2) Minimize recycled water runoff and pending on the ground;

(3) Post signs or other devices warning the public not to drink, swim, or otherwise come into contact with the recycled water;

(4) Keep the public away from the areas being irrigated with recycled water;

(5) Clearly mark pipes, tanks, valves, and equipment used in recycled water use systems such that they are easily differentiated from potable water systems;

(6) Provide training to employees such that they are aware of this chapter and any conditions the director imposed on the recycled water use system;

(7) Provide control measures to minimize vector nuisances; and

(8) Monitor groundwater as required by the director.

HAR § 11-62-27(i). Use of recycled water in public areas and where school children are regularly present may have significant impacts not assessed in the 2nd DEA.”

Cumulative impacts of solid waste generation.

The project will use County solid waste services “in accordance with current collection policies.” 2nd DEA at 68. The 2nd DEA does not quantify the solid waste generation impacts of the project, nor does it propose mitigation for its contributions to the County’s limited capacity for solid waste. The County’s “only permitted landfill, Kekaha Landfill, is projected to reach capacity in 2030.”[2] Limitations on solid waste disposal is requiring the County to create a new landfill. This project’s contributions to the cumulative problem of solid waste generation is not disclosed or assessed.

Project impacts to stream and springs not assessed or disclosed.

Niu Stream is a culturally important, significant natural resource that crosses the project site and continues to the ocean at Kīlauea Bay, approximately 0.7 miles from the project site. 2nd DEA at 38 (citing the State Division of Aquatic Resources, Atlas of Hawaiian Watershed & Their Aquatic Resources (2008)). The project proposes culverts and roadway crossings, which will modify the Niu stream channel:

“On-site drainage improvements include roadway swales and ditches, culverts at [Niu] stream crossing, and detention basins throughout the site to allow for stormwater to slow and settle. Additional runoff from the roads would drain via controlled flows through culverts under Ala Nāmāhana Parkway to Niu Stream, which would act as a detention basin.” 2nd DEA at 30, 40

The 2nd DEA misleadingly states Niu stream “will be preserved and integrated into approximately 6 acres of park and green space”. 2nd DEA at 267. Utilizing Niu stream as a detention basin for stormwater runoff adversely impacts the stream’s sedimentation, erosion, and water quality.The public and residents in the area clearly do not anticipate Niu stream being used as a detention basin. Their concerns expressed to the County and incorporated into the 2nd DEA emphasize the need to protect and preserve Niu stream and its cultural value rather than directing multiple culvert storm water runoffs into the stream. 2nd DEA at 61.

            The proposed project itself will potentially impact underground flows, including flows impacting Niu stream. “[G]roundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 7.6 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of the field exploration. Considering the proximity of the project site to Niu Stream, groundwater levels are anticipated to vary in response to the water level in the stream.” DEA at 38. Indeed, Dr. Mehana Vaughn explained:

some of the important areas, Ko‘oke‘a, the fisheries that Namahana includes large portions of, Puʻukumu Stream as well as Niu Stream are both important and does have loʻi along them. And have evidence still of loʻi kalo being farmed along them. Um, there are springs hidden among them that are really important. A really important part of projects in those areas is to think how they impact groundwater and the steams and springs and seeps that come out makai.

2nd DEA at 424 (CIA appendix). The 2nd DEA does not disclose the depths of excavation associated with the project nor whether they may impact springs.

2nd DEA discounts adverse impacts to Niu stream, rather concluding development near the stream will improve access and thus cultural stewardship of the stream. Id. at 61, 90. This misstates their consultant’s conclusion, which is: “[t]here is opportunity for this project to improve cultural stewardship and access to portions of Niu Stream[.]” 2nd DEA at 387 (CIA). The project does not propose any means of taking advantage of or advancing that opportunity by, for instance, proposing agreements with, or funding for, community stewardship groups. Without an actual proposal, the 2nd DEA’s conclusion is premised on speculation and does not disclose or assess potential impacts.

Finally, the County cannot rely on the Nāmāhana School’s 2022 analysis prepared to assist in compliance with constitutional obligations to protect Hawaiian cultural resources and practices under article XII §7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution. See Ka Pa‘akai o Ka ‘Āina v. Land Use Commission, 94 Hawai‘i 31, 7 P.3d 1068 (2000). Nāmāhana School’s 2022 Ka Pa‘akai analysis identified Niu Stream as an important cultural resource, but importantly the School did not propose to modify or utilize Niu Stream for runoff. 2nd DEA at 313 (citing Chandler and Cordy 2022).

Transportation improvements inconsistently described; timing not considered. 

The 2nd DEA describes “two proposed roundabouts on Ala Nāmāhana Parkway as part of the project including one at each of the eastern and western connections to the interior project roadway” and an “additional roundabout is planned to be constructed at Ala Nāmāhana Parkway and Kūhiō Highway.” 2nd DEA at 28, 75 However, the project traffic assessment only describes one roundabout as a planned roadway improvement as part of the project. 2nd DEA at 466 (TIAR).

Traffic is a significant issue for Kīlauea Road, to which the project proposes to connect. Kaua‘i Kākou General Plan at 89 (2018). To mitigate especially local tourist traffic, the County general plan proposes a shuttle and parking pool in this area. Id. The 2nd DEA does not address how the project’s usurpation of this area without including these transportation improvements is consistent with the general plan.  

Further, the 2nd DEA conclusion that the project will have no significant impact on traffic in the area depends on full construction of four publicly funded transportation improvements by the year 2037: (1) Ala Nāmāhana Parkway Extension connecting Kīlauea Road directly to Kūhiō Highway; (2) Roundabout at Ala Nāmāhana Parkway Extension and Kūhiō Highway; (3) Two project access roundabouts; and, (4) Roundabout at Kūhiō Highway/Kolo Road. 2nd DEA at 74. With the exception of the last improvement, the 2nd DEA includes no timelines for construction of these traffic projects. The 2nd DEA fails to disclose potential significant traffic impacts should the project be completed in the absence of these other projects. Indeed, absent these other improvements, the local area streets are operating at a “[Level of Service (LOS)] E or worse”. 2nd DEA at 74. 

Misuse of prime agricultural lands for residential/commercial development is significant.

The project proposes to redistrict “designated agricultural lands of importance, including lands designated as Prime Lands” to the State Land Use Urban district for residential and commercial uses. 2nd DEA at 30, 47 (citing Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program 2024). The 2nd DEA does not assess alternatives on non-prime agricultural lands, rather eliminating alternatives in different locations because “the existing project site is designated as the town expansion area for Kīlauea and is already located on County-owned land.” 2nd DEA at 34.

The 2nd DEA does not assess impacts of the loss of prime agricultural lands.

Project inconsistent with County general plan

The County eliminated consideration of alternative locations on the basis of the area’s designation for town expansion, but the project does not comply the Kīlauea Town Plan (2006). 2nd DEA at 34. “The [Kīlauea] The Town Plan supports additional housing development of approximately 200-240 units on undeveloped land west of the town.” Kaua‘i Kakou at 89. the project itself proposes 310 units.

The project is further inconsistent with the County General Plan provision: “[Kīlauea] Town expansion will also provide the opportunity for a new park and public school site.” Kaua‘i Kakou at 89. The project includes only 0.7 acres of park consisting essentially in Niu Stream. The project does not propose the 1.3 acres of “TBD” lands for a new park or public school. 2nd DEA at 28.

Dedication of between 1.3 to 2 acres to County does not constitute mitigation.

“TBD” lands are to “be dedicated to the County of Kauaʻi . . .” 2nd DEA at 28. The 2nd DEA improperly considers this dedication as a mitigation measure. See 2nd DEA at 28, 333 (“up to 2 acres of land will be dedicated to the County of Kauaʻi for its use”). The County’s these county-owned lands to the County does not constitute mitigation for any impacts because the County already owns the lands.
 
Project will remove known habitat for listed native species.

The project is proposed for an area regularly used by listed native species, including the threatened nēnē (Hawaiian goose, Branta sandviecensis) and the endangered ʻōpeʻapeʻa (Hawaiian hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus semotus). 2nd DEA at 53.

Nēnē are state and federally listed as threatened and listed as endangered under state law HAR Chapter 13-124. Two pairs of nēnē were actually observed on the project site and are known to forage in grasslands such as those of the project site. 2nd DEA at 53-54. The consultant report did not survey for ʻōpeʻapeʻa even while it acknowledged: “there are numerous records for this species on Kauai and in the vicinity of the Project Area (Tomich 1986, DLNR 2015a, Montoya-Aiona 2020). Furthermore, there are numerous large trees in the Project Area that could potentially serve as suitable roosting habitat.” 2nd DEA at 255.

Despite the project’s destruction of these grasslands and ʻōpeʻapeʻa habitat, the 2nd DEA does not assess or disclose the extent of cumulative reduction of habitat and thereby arrives at the unsupported conclusion of “no significant impacts.” 2nd DEA at 54. Irrevocably destroying endangered species’ habitat is a significant impact. HAR § 11-200.1-13(b).

 Attempts to merely remove listed species and avoid killing individuals does not address habitat removal. Here, the 2nd DEA mistakes minimization measures for disclosures and assessment of potential significant impacts. 2nd DEA at 234, 255. Agency guidance does not address cumulative impacts on native listed species, which is the task of the 2nd DEA.

Water use and development timing and volume inconsistent and unaddressed.

The 2nd DEA proposes to rely on the County of Kaua‘i Department of Water (“KDOW”) Kīlauea-Waipake-Kalihiwai water service system. 2nd DEA at 67. KDOW itself has determined the area’s water system needed greater storage capacity and volume to address future projected water use and hazard response. Id. The 2nd DEA “anticipate[s]” water transmission improvements to coincide with Phase I of the project and “anticipate[s]” it will have sufficient capacity for the project. Id.

For many years KDOW has been requiring property owners of parcels comprising the current project area to acknowledge they will not be served by the KDOW system. The 2nd DEA proposes the proposed water storage tank will be constructed in late 2026 “along with development of a new drinking water well.” 2nd DEA at 67. We are unaware of an environmental assessment or exemption for this water tank and well project. The County’s anticipated timeline is overly optimistic.

The 2nd DEA identifies is no enforceable plan to ensure sufficient water volume and concurrency between water development and project construction. Lacking this element, the 2nd DEA should disclose and assess foreseeable impacts of additional development in an area without water delivery from KDOW.

The 2nd DEA does not disclose project water usage volume. Without considering landscaping, “live/work”, commercial, or other uses, the project will use 131,500 gallons per day (“gpd”).  See Hawai‘i Water System Standards, at 111-3; 2nd DEA at 25 (land use summary). The 2nd DEA does not disclose whether the additional 310 units and other elements of the project will usurp KDOW water delivery capacity that will therefore no longer be available to other properties in the area, nor impacts of the additional demand of this project.

The project relies on area facilities. The 2nd DEA should disclose whether the installation of the tank will result in regular KDOW water service to other existing and proposed development in the area.

The 2nd DEA appears to have omitted agency comments. There is no “will serve” letter from KDOW acknowledging its capacity to deliver water to this project.
 
2nd DEA omits environmental disclosures and assessments.

The 2nd DEA’s biological report lists three appendices, which are not included in the report, which appear to have intended to disclose a species’ resource listing for the Kīlauea area, avoidance measures for listed species, and biosecurity protocols. 2nd DEA at 262-64.

The 2nd DEA also omits “agency participation”. 2nd DEA at 94 (“[Add Agency Participation]”). The 2nd DEA was required to include any written comments and responses to comments received as part of the early consultation provisions. HAR § 11-200.1-18(d)(10). If other agency comments were received they should be disclosed in a new 3rd DEA.

Thank you for considering our comments. Mahalo nui,

Bridget Hammerquist, President
Friends of Maha`ulepu, a 501(c)(3)
Kia`i Wai o Wai`ale`ale, Co-founder
PO Box 1654
Koloa, HI 96756
friendsofmahaulepu.org
friendsofmahaulepu@hawaiiantel.net
(808) 346-1973 cell

---

[1] 2nd DEA pagination refers to numbers as viewed in an electronic PDF viewer unless otherwise indicated.

[2] https://www.kauai.gov/Government/Departments-Agencies/Public-Works/Solid-Waste/New-Landfill

Posted 10/13/2026

County doesn’t own the land to be developed

Aloha,

As indicated in our last hui email, Public Comments on the Kilauea Town Expansion Project were due on or before October 8, 2026. We shared a draft of the Comment to be filed. In that Comment, filed on behalf FOM and Save Koloa, we noted that there was an issue as to who owned one of the larger parcels of the proposed 50 acre, 310 unit housing project. It turns out nearly 50% of the parcels to be developed in the proposed project, are still owned by a private entity. The County’s Eminent Domain Action failed and significant questions exists as to the adequacy of the County’s Environmental Review, some of which are part of our Comment filed October 8, 2026 and some of which are tied to the federal funding purportedly to be used in support of the proposed project. In the 2nd DEA, the County claimed ownership of all the lands to support this project. Their claim is false as are other statements in the 2nd DEA, a  misrepresentations that warrant publication of a 3rd DEA and withdrawal of their 2nd DEA as described below.

——– Forwarded Message ——–

Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2026 16:31:46 -1000
Subject:	Re: Supplemental Comment on Kilauea Town Expansion Project 2nd DEA – AFONSI
From:	Bridget Hammerquist <friendsofmahaulepu@hawaiiantel.net>
To:	County Council <councilmembers@kauai.gov>, dbedt.opsd.erp@hawaii.gov, Steven Franco <sfranco@kauai.gov>, Adam Roversi <aroversi@kauai.gov>, wbow@kahewai.com