|
discussions and how realistic is it that their water commitments could be used up, or used
<br />towards this project?
<br />
<br />FUKE: Conceivably, you know, at this point in time there is excess water
<br />commitments thatÓs already been earned by Mauna Lani and Mauna Kea. Mauna Lani has, in
<br />our discussions with Mauna Lani, they do have a few, well, basically they donÓt have any
<br />developable lands because whatever lands that they had originally satisfied for development have
<br />already been parceled out or sold to different investors; however, in our discussion Î and so
<br />based on the amount of water availability required for their projects, if you take that aside,
<br />Mauna Lani would still be in the position to assign the additional water commitments, their water
<br />commitments to this project Î however, what they have told us is that because in the past the
<br />different units have used sometimes in excess of the normally allocated 600 gallons per day,
<br />some for example have used, you know, like the single-family dwellings anyway, have used like
<br />4,000 to 5,000 gallons per day, and then so this has created some issues for Mauna Lani, and thus
<br />Mauna Lani and Mauna Kea have had to construct new well systems, you know, to secure
<br />additional water commitments. And based on that Mauna Lani is saying that they would not
<br />want to put themselves in jeopardy at this point in time; so they are saying maybe four or five
<br />years from now after the project has developed, we can consider it. As it relates to Mauna Kea,
<br />Mauna Kea is saying that, yeah, they do have more than enough water; however, what they told
<br />the applicant is that, however, if you can give us some assuranc
<br />this water come back to us, you know, then maybe we can work som
<br />why we are trying to work with DW Òina LeÒa because DW Òina LeÒa already has a water
<br />agreement with the Water Department to construct two wells at thuli system, and that will
<br />then provide considerable amount of water not only for their project but being in the position
<br />where Òina LeÒa could then restore the water that was assigned from Mauna Kea to Puak Bay
<br />Investors. So it becomes a little bit convoluted, but Î and thatÓs why I appreciate what the
<br />Planning Director is saying that if you have to do a tri-party agreement, it might take longer than
<br />a year to have it established.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Thank you.
<br />
<br />WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further -? Mr. Brilhante.
<br />
<br />BRILHANTE: Yes. Sorry to interject here, but just a little housekeeping matter. As a ,
<br />you know, in the, I guess, proposed change in the condition, just directing us back to Item No. 3
<br />where it says the Ðfinal subdivision approval shall be secured within five (5) years from the
<br />effective date of this permit,Ñ I know there was some discussion about the automatic five-year
<br />extension; what I donÓt want to have happen is there be any confusion as to when that automatic
<br />extension takes effect. I notice the date of the original permit, I believe, is a Ð07Ñ number, so
<br />there might be at least a two-year difference between when the original permit was granted and
<br />todayÓs approval. So what I propose is language to the effect of the Ðfinal subdivision approval
<br />shall be secured within five (5) years from the effective date of the original permit,Ñ if thatÓs
<br />something that you guys would want to have discussion on this, my proposal.
<br />
<br />WATANABE: Mr. Fuke, I believe that was what we previously discussed, and it seems
<br />like it summarizes what we discussed.
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />5
<br />
<br />
|