2008-08-22 TSTANFORDCARR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

conditions down into two because they essentially talked about similar things. And the last condition related to the use of non-potable water for irrigation of the golf amenity. The last two conditions are what we’ve agreed to with Mr. George Robertson who is here – he is going to testify on behalf of the Puako Community Association – and I’m going to read these into the record and provide a written copy to the Planning Department staff. The first condition relates to the three-fairway golf amenity: “Applicant shall develop a three-fairway golf amenity or equivalent open landscaped area and use commercially reasonable efforts to use effluent water treated to the R-2 standard from the Mauna Lani Resort’s wastewater treatment plant to irrigate the golf amenity or open landscaped area; provided, however, that the applicant’s commitment to use the R-2 treated effluent shall be conditioned upon the operator of the wastewater treatment plant providing R-2 treated effluent of an acceptable quantity and quality so as to enable the applicant to use such effluent within its subsurface drip irrigation system without incurring unreasonable expense or liability.” And the reason why – that’s the end of that condition – the reason why we have that caveat in that condition is that the requirement for utilizing R-2 treated effluent, which is currently being produced by the wastewater treatment plant – they are run by Hawaii American Water – sometimes clogs the subsurface irrigation system. So we haven’t tested that for whether we can do that without extraordinary expense; so that’s why you have the caveat there. And this is a condition that all of the intervenors have agreed to. The second and last condition is related to the use of the construction access road that we’ve committed to use for alternate emergency evacuation. So I’ll read that now: “To the extent allowed by the applicable government agencies and Mauna Lani Service, Inc., applicant shall take commercially reasonable steps to enable its construction access road to also serve as an alternate emergency evacuation route for the Mauna Lani Resort and the Puako community; provided, however, that the applicant shall not be responsible for maintenance and/or control of the alternate emergency evacuation route.” That’s the end of that condition. So we think that, with these conditions, we’ve satisfied the concerns that at least we know of today, and we ask for your support of these conditions. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So who is going to maintain the road? LIM: This is going to be a temporary access road for Stanford Carr Development. It’s on Tokyu Corporation’s property. And we are agreeing to use our best efforts to have the road service the emergency access route, one of the emergency access routes, for Mauna Lani Resort. We cannot, because it’s not on our property, maintain it, and we understand that the Puako Community Association and the intervenors have not required that. IWASHITA: I guess -. WATANABE: Follow-up? IWASHITA: Yeah, maybe to the Director or staff. When the County makes arrangements for using private roads for emergency access, is there procedure that’s followed, or -? I don’t know, like in Puna -. EXHIBIT C 10