HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0566.000-Part 1 of 3 1998-2000 .
+, ' William G. Davis
\b Managing Director
Stephen K. Yamashiro : ,��'i!^ �/, i•
M Henry Cho
,� t
� t j~
v s; RE_CE� Deputy Managing Director
`
'99 UEC 2 PM -1 50
Qlnnnkg of Pttfi nit
r , , CLEFT'
25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 -4252 • (808) 9(67jj$�F�t1,1 )- s l ax (806) 96176> 53� f
• KONA: 75 -5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua -1 Jrta; H 4Ail 9 &4b
(808) 329-5226 • Fax (808) 326 -5663
November 30, 1999
_. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council •
County of Hawaii
• 25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members:
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99 -017)
V - Applicant: Manini'owali Equity Company, LCC
Request: Open to Project District
Tax.Map Key: 7 -2 -4:18 .
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99 -022)
Applicant: Kaupulehu Makai Venture
Request: V -2.25, RM -3, RM -10, CV -10, Open to Project District
Tax Map Key: 7 -2- 010:01, Por. of 2, 8 & 9; 7 -2- 012:002
Proposed Street Names (SUB 1704)
Lalamilo Farm Lots
Tax Man Key: 6 -6 -005
As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 5- 4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County
Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the
above - referenced requests.
Sincerely,
SN
Stephen K. Yamashiro
Mayor
L1 I0599MAY
Enclosures 56'
cc: Planning Department Comm. No.
Bid 119 File No. ZNG/CN
Note: Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the PC
Clerk's Office. Ref. Tot
No
(� Ref. Date 2 989- --,
/5-i- o1 2
w •1 • •
MtY oR
Stephen K. Yamashiro •: • !.
Mayor • !
qr
?�h;oswi'M.:
(gaunt of .tduttii
PLANNING COMMISSION
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-0252
(808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961 -9615
1 NOV 3 0 1999
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii •
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members:
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99 -017)
Applicant: Manini'owali Equity Company, LLC
Request: Open to Project District
Tax Map Key: 7 -2 -4:18
The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on November 5, 1999, voted to
recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill to change the district classification
for approximately 388± acres of land from Open (0) to Project District (PD). The property is
located on the makai side of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway immediately south of the proposed
Kuki'o Resort and existing Hualalai Resort developments at Manini'owali and Kuki'o 2'
North Kona, Hawaii.
The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending
favorable consideration of the change of zone:
In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable
goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is
only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and
decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth
determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of
these evaluations and decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on
similar areas in the County.
• •
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
The Project District (PD) development is intended to provide for a flexible and
creative planning approach rather than specific land use designations. It will also allow
for flexibility over time in the location of specific uses and mixes of structural
alternatives. The planning approach would establish a continuity in land uses and
designs while providing for a comprehensive network of infrastructural facilities and
systems. A variety of uses as well as open space, parks, and other project uses are
intended to be in accord with each individual Project District objective. A Project
District is an amendment to Chapter 25, Zoning Code, which changes the district
boundaries in accordance with the individual Project District.
A Project District may be established whenever the public necessity and
convenience and the general welfare require that a comprehensive planning approach
for an area should be adopted in order to establish a continuity in land uses and designs
while providing a comprehensive network of infrastructural facilities and systems. In
addition, a Project District may only be established if the proposed district: (1) Is
consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the County General
Plan; and (2) Will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding
area, community or region.
The Change of Zone Application from Open (0) to Project District (PD) zoned
district is consistent with the intent and purpose of the goals, policies and standards of
the General Plan Land Use, Single Family Residential, Multiple Residential, Housing,
and Economic Elements. The proposed development conforms to the following
applicable goals, policies, and standards of the Land Use Element:
Land Use
o Maintain and, if feasible, improve the existing environmental quality of the
island.
o Protect and conserve the natural resources of the County of Hawaii from undue
exploitation, encroachment and damage.
o Protect and promote the prudent use of Hawaii's unique, fragile, and significant
environmental and natural resources.
Si
• •
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 3
o Ensure that alterations to existing land forms and vegetation, expect crops, and
construction of structures cause minimum adverse effect to water resources, and
scenic and recreational amenities and minimum danger of floods, landslides,
erosion, siltation, or failure in the event of earthquake.
o There shall be a minimum of visual and odor pollution emanating from
sewerage treatment facilities.
The proposed change of zone will conform to the goals, policies and standards
of the Single Family Residential, and Multiple Residential Subelements of the General
Plan.
Sin gle- Family Residential
o To maximize choices of single - family residential lots and /or housing for
residents of the County.
o To provide single - family residential areas conveniently located to public and
private services, shopping, other community activities and convenient access to
employment centers.
o The County shall designate and allocate single - family residential zoned lands at
varying densities for future use in accordance with the needs of the communities
and the stated goals, policies and standards.
o Areas shall have basic improvements and amenities necessary for immediate
use.
o Areas shall be limited to low- density and medium density residential uses.
Multiple Residential
o To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for
its occupants.
o To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical,
social and economic needs of the island residents.
• •
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 4
o Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple
residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to
places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, recreational and cultural
facilities, and public facilities and utilities.
o The County shall encourage flexibility in the design of residential sites,
buildings and related facilities to achieve a diversity of socio- economic housing
mix and innovative means of meeting the market requirements.
o Recreational area and /or facilities shall be considered in multiple residential
development.
The proposed request would also complement the following Housing Element
goals and policies by creating a mix of residential housing opportunities, maintaining a
housing supply that allows a variety of choice.
Hou in
o Attain safe, sanitary and livable housing for the residents of the County of
Hawaii.
o Attain a diversity of socio- economic housing mix throughout the different parts
of the County.
o Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice.
o Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities
with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people.
o Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock.
o Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee - simple housing in
the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and
desires of families and individuals.
n r • II/
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 5
o Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital
status, ethnic background and income.
The Housing Element of the General Plan also states, in part:
o Housing provides more than just shelter from the natural elements. It
embodies the social, economic and emotional values of families and individuals.
Collectively, housing represents a community's aspirations and employment
opportunities, such as agriculture and resort developments.
o From governments' perspective, adequate housing for its residents is part of the
considerations of public health, welfare and safety. Housing and residential use
of land is a generator of government revenue through local real property taxes.
The revenues are balances by significant expenditures of public funds for roads,
schools, protective services and other capital improvement projects which
service residential areas. Thus, the provision of housing requires the
coordination of planning and implementation on all levels of government.
The proposed designation conforms to the following goals and policies of the
Economic Element:
Economic
o Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life.
o Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical
and social environments of the island of Hawaii.
o The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversification of its economy by
strengthening existing industries and attracting new endeavors.
This proposed development is consistent with the Economic Element of the General
Plan in that the proposed development will provide additional and expanded
employment opportunities for the residents of the area, as well as the entire island as a
whole. The employment opportunities from the proposed development as a result of
this zoning request will generate both short -term (construction) and long -term
(operational) employment. Further, the magnitude of this project will directly benefit
the residents of this County as the real property tax base will substantially increase,
•
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 6
will strengthen the existing visitor industry, and provide residents with opportunities to
improve their quality of life.
The applicant's overall objective is to develop a high quality residential
community while protecting the important cultural and environmental resources of the
area. The applicant has recognized the benefits of planning and designing a project in a
manner that is sensitive to the natural features and unique historical heritage of the
land. Based upon preliminary studies, the applicant believes that these objectives can
be obtained in an economically viable manner.
The proposed designation would also conform to the following elements of the
General Plan:
Historic Sites
•
o Protect and enhance the sites, buildings and objects of significant historical and
cultural importance to Hawaii.
o Access to significant historic sites, buildings and objects of public interest
should be made available.
Natural Beauty
o Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of areas endowed with natural beauty,
including the quality of coastal scenic resources.
o Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed.
o Maximize opportunities for present and future generations to appreciate and
enjoy natural and scenic beauty.
Natural Resources and Shoreline
o Provide opportunities for the public to fulfill recreational, economic, and
educational needs without despoiling or endangering natural resources.
�� • •
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 7
o Protect and promote the prudent use of Hawaii's unique, fragile, and significant
environmental and natural resources.
o Protect rare or endangered species and habitats native to Hawaii.
o Ensure that alterations to existing land forms and vegetation, except crops, and
construction of structures cause minimum adverse effect to water resources, and
scenic and recreational amenities and minimum danger of floods, landslides,
erosion, siltation, or failure in the event of earthquake.
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the
General Plan is a representation of the document's goals, policies, standards and
courses of action. It is also a graphic depiction of the physical relationships among the
various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic land use pattern for areas
within the County. The LUPAG Map designates the project site as an Urban
Expansion Area. This designation allows for a mix of high density, medium density,
and low density urban developments, industrial and /or open designations in areas
where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and
mix of uses have not yet been determined. Within areas designated for development as
resorts, portions of the resort area may be included in the Urban Expansion area. High
Density allows uses relating to commercial, multiple residential and related services
(general and office commercial; multiple residential - up to 87 units per acre). Medium
Density allows uses relating to village and neighborhood commercial and residential
and related functions (3 -story commercial; residential - up to 35 units per acre). Low
Density allows single family residential in character, ancillary community and public
uses, and convenience type commercial uses. Resort area include uses such as hotels,
condominium - hotels (condominiums developed and /or operated as hotels), and
supporting services.
The Change of Zone Application from Open (0) to Project District (PD) will
not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community or
region. The Kona Village Resort and Hualalai Resort developments are located one
mile to the northeast of the project site. Kona Village is zoned Resort (V -7) and Open,
and contains 130 hotel units. Hualalai Resort is zoned Resort (V- 2.25), Multiple
Family (RM -3 and RM -10), Village Commercial (CV -10), and Open and contains 250
hotel units. Adjacent to the north is the State of Hawaii Puuwaawaa lands. These
lands are zoned Agricultural -5a and Open. The adjacent land to the east, owned by
WB Kukio Resorts, is planned for resort, resort residential and golf course
, development. On April 10, 1999, the County Council approved the rezoning of
•
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 8
Kaupulehu Developments, located further to the northeast. This rezoning changed the
district classification from Open (0) to Project District (PD) for approximately
1,078.634 acres of land. In this instance, due to the physical location of the property
and the encumbrances imposed on the property through the land exchange process, the
proposed residential development will be setback 400 feet from the makai property
boundary and the State owned parcel, and 150 feet from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway.
The master plan delineates preservation areas for natural and archaeological resources
including a small cinder cone, sections of a historic trail and burials. The project will
be a compatible extension of the Kona Village /Hualalai /Kaupulehu /Kukio Resort
destination node. In addition, the project will have a compatible relationship with the
State park adjacent to the property. The development of the beach park at
Manini'owali will open up the area to more residents, and result in permanent
vehicular access for the public.
The area under consideration will be provided with all essential utilities and
services, including water. The project will be serviced by a dual water system
consisting of potable and nonpotable (irrigation) water. The applicant intends to drill
wells on State -owned properties located mauka of the project site to service the
project's potable and nonpotable (irrigation) needs. A desalination plant will also be
needed and constructed by the applicant.
Wastewater disposal will be accommodated by a private wastewater treatment
plant. Effluent from the treatment facility will be utilized to supplement nonpotable
irrigation water at the proposed project's 18 -hole golf course.
The policy of the General Plan requires that public access to and parking for
beach and shoreline areas be developed. The project site does not abut the shoreline.
As such, lateral coastal access is not an issue. However, a mauka -makai access
through the project site and leading to the State's coastal property at the southern
property boundary of the site will be provided by the applicant. The public access plan
shall be developed in consultation with the Planning Director and the Department of
Land and Natural Resources and shall include mauka -makai accesses, parking area(s),
provision of restroom facilities at appropriate locations, and related improvements.
An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Applied Research Group,
Bishop Museum from March to May 1991. A total of 25 archaeological sites,
comprised of 1,311 features (mostly small pits), have been recorded, mapped and their
spatial relationships determined. The range of sites included mauka -makai trail, burial,
burial chamber and platform possible shrine, pits, habitation features, and artifacts.
•
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 9
Twenty -two (22) of the 25 sites identified will be directly affected by the proposed
project. "It is proposed to appropriately treat the 25 significant sites through
preservation or data recovery."
As mitigative measures, significant sites will undergo data recovery or be
preserved with the approval of the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic
Preservation Division (DLNR). "At this point it is agreed to preserve sites 50- 10 -18-
5337 (trail), -5348 (burials), portions of -5338 (a burial and representative examples of
temporary habitations and pits), and two other isolated burial sites (50 -10 -18 -5339 and
- 5352). In the event preservation of site 5337 (trail) creates a conflicting use with
portions of land plan, the developer will coordinate with the DLNR -HPD and Na Ala
Hele to determine appropriate treatment of these trail sections. Site 50 -10 -18 -5355, a
possible habitation or small shrine, will require additional testing to verify its function.
If it is determined to be a shrine, the site will be preserved." The cinder cone and
sections of the trail may be incorporated into a public interpretation program. All of
these, plus the possible retention of representative pit features and temporary
habitations in site 5358 along a section of a trail will be discussed more fully in the
preservation and mitigation plan. Data recovery will address the portions of significant
sites not recommended for preservation. Data recovery will be conducted to recover a
reasonable and adequate amount of information of the affected sites. The State Historic
Preservation Division approved a revised Archaeological Inventory Survey (1993) of
the Land Exchange Parcel.
Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway is the primary arterial highway connecting
Kawaihae and Kailua -Kona. The highway is a two -lane, two -way State Highway.
There is presently an unimproved access though the project site that presently provides
access to the State owned property at Kua Bay. The access to the project area will be
from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. A fully channelized intersection, complete with a
left turn storage lane and right turn deceleration lanes will be constructed by the
applicant. Roadways within the Project District will be constructed in a manner
meeting with the approval of the County. These internal roads will be private and in
an effort to not create a highly urbanized ambience, the applicant may consider some
reduction of the road standards, particularly in terms of rights -of -way width and
improvements within the right -of -way. Bikeways and walking paths are tentatively
planned within the project site, possibly adjacent or proximate to the roadway. A
Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) was conducted by Traffic Management
Consultant (TMC) in March 1991. The State is planning to expand the Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway with an interchange that would essentially service all of the
existing and planned projects in the area. The various properties would then be
serviced by an internal service road. Until that time, the project will be serviced by an
•
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 10
at grade channelized intersection constructed by the applicant meeting with the approval
of the Department of Transportation. This new intersection would result in the
termination of the existing unimproved access to the State park. The Department of
Transportation states that the applicant shall conduct periodic traffic signal warrant
studies when the traffic system is installed. In addition, prepare a Traffic Impact
Assessment Report to assess a 2 -lane Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and recommend
interim measures as may be required. The applicant shall also commit contributing
funds for the cost of the interchange as stated in the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway
Master Plan (1997).
As a condition of the Land Exchange, the applicant shall construct a public
shoreline access roadway leading to the shoreline. The proposed route is situated in
the vicinity of the property's southern boundary and will be dedicated as a public
roadway.
Impacts associated with this project development such as historical, visual,
traffic, drainage and design concerns have been assessed through the Environmental
Impact Statement which was filed and accepted in March 1992 and will be mitigated
through conditions of approval. Therefore, the request would not unreasonably burden
the public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school
improvements, and police and fire protection. The proposed zone change would allow
for uses which complements the surrounding residential and resort uses established in
this area by the Kona Village and Hualalai Resort developments.
Based on the above findings, approval of the Change of Zone request from
Open (0) to Project District (PD) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use
pattern and further the public benefit.
For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Section 25 -8 -3, the North Kona Zone
Map, of the County Zoning Code is transmitted.
• •
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 11
We are enclosing a copy of the application, a transcript of the hearing and a copy of the staff
background for your information.
Sincerely,
A C l / 4 44 16(/ )
Leonard S. Tanaka, Chairman
Planning Commission
LmaniniOwaliO3PC
Enclosures
cc: Mr Sidney Fuke
Dr. Robert Warmington
Department of Public Works
Department of Water Supply
West Hawaii Office
Department of Land & Natural Resources
Kazu Hayashida, Director /DOT- Highways, Honolulu
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
November 5, 1999
A regularly advertised hearing on the application of MANINI`OWALI EQUITY COMPANY,
LLC was called to order at 9:04 a.m. in the Kona Surf Hotel, Kamehameha Ballroom, 78-128
Ehukai Street, Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Leonard Tanaka presiding.
PRESENT: Leonard Tanaka ABSENT & EXCUSED: Richard Baker, Jr.
Geraldine Giffin Florence Kubota
Lin McIntosh
Mildred Mosher
James Souza
Grant Togashi
Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director
Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner
Eleanor Miriki[ani, Staff Planner
Pam Harlow, Staff Planner
Fred Giannini, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Tom Pack representing Department of Public Works
Glenn Ahuna representing Department of Water Supply
And approximately 40 people from the public in attendance.
TANAKA: This is an application from Manini`owali Equity Company, LLC
applications for a Change of Zone by changing the district classification from Open (O) to
Project District (PD) for approximately 388 acres of land, and for a Special Management Area
(SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of a residential community with a maximum of
900 units consisting of mixed single family and multiple family residential units, golf course,
tennis facility, and related ancillary facilities and improvements. The property is located on
the makai side of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway immediately south of the proposed Kuki`o
Resort and existing Hualalai Resort developments at Manini`owali and Kuki`o 2nd, North
Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-2-4:18. At this time, we'll turn some time over to the Staff for an
overview on the application.
MIRIKITANI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Manini`owali Equity Company LLC is
requesting a change of zone by changing the district classification from Open to Project
District for approximately 388 acres, plus acres. The property is located on the makai side of
Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, immediately south of the proposed Kuki`o Resort and existing
Hualalai Resort developments.
t
{l•"(f>4L+1: ~-Sbb C~iII ~-19)P~
I'd like to direct your attention to the location map. Where my pointer is is the proposed
Manini`owali residential community. To the south is the Awake`e exchanged parcel in hatched
black, and this is the proposed Kekaha Kai State Park. To the north is located the adjacent
Kuki`o Resort, Hualalai Resort, Kona Village, and Ka`upulehu Development Project District.
The preliminary concept plan, this is also for your information, this is located approximately
1,000 feet from, inland from the ocean. The plan is for residential in the light green, and the
darker areas are for the golf course. This is Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The residential
units consist of 174 acres for approximately 900 units. The golf course recreational clubhouse
will take up approximately 8 acres, and golf course open space will be approximately
206 acres.
There will also be, in addition to the residential development, the single family duplex and
multi family units, the wastewater treatment and maintenance area, public access and
circulation system.
The development schedule and project costs are, will be built in phases, and the full build-out
of the proposed project is projected for the year 2007. Chairman Tanaka.
TANAKA: Thank you, Ms. Mirikitani. Commissioners, any questions? If not,
we'd like to call the applicant or his representative to come forward. And we also have four
people signed up to testify. We'd like to swear you all in at once if we could. We have Mark
Van Pernis, Dennis Pearson, Sr., Mike Varney, and Janice Palma-Glennie. Is there anyone
else that would like to testify on this agenda item? Okay. If you would all stand and raise
your right hand, we'll swear you in a[ this time. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission?
FUKE: I do.
TESTIFIERS: I do.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Okay. For the record, please state your name and
address.
FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name
is Sidney Fuke; I'm a planning consultant. I'm here assisting the applicant. I'd like to also
acknowledge the presence of Dr. Robert Warmington who is the president of Manini`owali
Equity Company, LLC, who's present here. We also have, in the event the Commissioners or
the public may request responses specific to archaeology, water resources, or traffic, we do
have the respective consultants here.
Relative to the Staff's Background Repott and the proposed conditions, we find them very
accurate. There are some conditions, however, that's more of an editorial nature, that we
2
would like to suggest towards the end of the, prior to the conclusion of the public hearing,
Mr. Chairman.
But as your Staff has indicated, I think, if I might refer to the board. I think that I'd like to
just kind of give the Commissioners some background on the land exchange and all that,
because there's a lot of history associated with this particular parcel. And first thing I would
like to note is that this is definitely not a coastal property as your Staff has indicated. It is, it's
a parcel of land that begins approximately 1,000 feet from the shoreline. And what had
happened was that back in the, excuse me, back in 1987, the same property owners, as a
matter of fact, Dr. Warmington and his group, owned this 333 acre property to the south of the
subject property, it's called Awake`e. And back in 1987, they submitted and received a
General Plan Amendment, you know, for a resort and resort-related activity on this Awake`e
property.
Since that time, I mean subsequent to receipt of that General Plan Amendment, the State had
expressed considerable interest in not only this, the Awake`e property, but possibly creating
like an entire coastal park. It's aseven-mile coastal park [hat would stretch essentially from
near the Kuki`o boundary heading back towards near Keahole Airport. And so there was
negotiations between the State and the landowner to see what could be done.
Finally, in 1991, a land exchange was consummated between the property owner and the State.
The State, basically, owned all of the subject property prior to the land exchange, and so what
happened was that Dr. Warmington and his group exchanged 333 acres of oceanfront property
for 388 acres of non-oceanfront properties. And it's kind of interesting because the, at that
time, if you look at the land exchange deed which is contained in the application, the value of
the Awake`e property was valued at $33.5 million and the value of the exchange property,
which is the subject property, was valued at $17 million. So there was a considerable amount
of "gift," you know, from the applicant to the State to help realize this coastal park; and the
applicant had waived the difference in the value when this exchange occurred.
But the exchange also came with a number of conditions attached to that, and I'd like to just
recite these conditions because they do have relevance to some of the conditions that are being
proposed.
One of the conditions was that there would be like a 400-foot wide open space buffer within
the subject area; and within that area, the only thing that would be allowed according to the
land exchange would be just an open space or golf course use. No structures, no vertical
structures, that, in any way
The State exchange also required that the project not be used for any hotel or time share
condominium units.
It also required the preservation of the foot of Pu`u Kuili. Pu`u Kuili, as a matter of fact, is
located on the adjoining Awake`e property, which the property owners owned back in 1987 or
prior to the land exchange, but it required like the preservation of the foot of Pu`u Kuili.
3
There's a smaller pu`u also on the property, the subject property, that was also required to be
preserved in its natural state as part of the land exchange.
There is an existing easement, roughly about in the middle of the property. It's a gravel road
that goes all the way down to Kua Bay right now; and that easement is in behalf of the State,
and the public presently uses that easement. One of the exchange calls for that in the event
that they do any development on this property and it required the possible relocation of this
easement, then that could be done. But that relocation would have to be, excuse me, would
have to be borne at the cost of the developer, and they would have to provide a brand new
60-foot wide right-of-way public access down to the Kua Bay area.
They were also required to construct up to $2.5 million of improvements that would be tied in
with the public acc the re-aligned public access road as well as the, any restroom and
parking facilities on State property.
And, finally, they were required to, if [hey were to develop any water system on this property,
then they would also be obligated to provide some measure of water to the State Park. So, as
you can see, it was a substantial amount of exaction that the, that resulted in this State
exchange.
The land ownership, as I indicated earlier, when the Awake`e properties as well as today,
they're basically the same. Dr. Warmington was involved way back 1987, and is still involved
in this property right now. And after the land exchange occurred, then the North Kona
Development Group, who was the General Partner at that time, applied for a General Plan
Amendment, as well as a State Land Use Boundary Amendment, back in 1993. They received
a boundary amendment from the State Land Use Commission to reclassify this area from
Conservation to Urban, subject to a number of conditions, and they also received County
General Plan Amendment from Conservation/Open to Urban Expansion, back also in 1993.
Between 1993 to 1999, the six-year hiatus, of course, part of the delay was a result of market
conditions, and there was some, I guess, internal differences relative to the general
partnership; and eventually it was all resolved. And now we are back, I guess Manini`owali is
back before the Commission seeking the remaining two entitlements that would have cleared
the project way back in 1993.
As you can see, this plan on my left over here is the original plan that was submitted by, it was
prepared by another planning consultant firm, and was submitted in conjunction with the
General Plan Amendment and the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. And as you can see
that the proposed public access would have resulted from generally in the area where the
existing West Hawaii Veterans' Cemetery access is and would, basically, go down makai, hug
the southern corner of the property, and eventually get down to Kua Bay. You can also see in
this proposed plan here that there would be a separate access, which is a permitted access, on
the State highway for the subject development.
I was not aware of some of the different kinds of constraints when we evaluated this, both Belt
Collins Associates and myself. And so what, when we looked at this plan, we realized that,
4
well, you know, on the north side, there is the Huehue parcel, which is undeveloped, and
there's also, Kuki`o rather. And they also had a requirement to provide a public access; they
also had a requirement to put in a channelized intersection and so, largely motivated out of
concern to minimize the number of access points in this area. And it would have, under this
scheme, there would have been one for the public access here, one for the project, one for the
Kuki`o property, one at Hualalai. And so we wanted to somehow, maybe from a planning
perspective, see if we could consolidate these accesses. And, thus, we arrived at this kind of
scheme over here wherein we would then put the access point at the farthest north of the
property. Hopefully, possibly, that we could then encourage the adjoining property owner to
participate in a joint access and then, of course, do a shared access basically combining three
potential accesses into one access that would service this whole area.
Well, after the plan was submitted, then I've had numerous meetings with the State Parks
people, I've had meetings with individuals who have some ancestral or cultural ties to this
area. And what was pointed out to me, and you know we were totally unaware of it, was that
one of the reasons why the State wanted the access to come down this way is that they did not
want an access on the north end because it would lead directly into some major archaeological
and burial features which is pretty much concentrated in the area of Kakapa Bay. And so, as a
result, what, based on our discussions, then we have now decided to abandon all efforts to
have the access at the northern end. And we'll be working very closely with the State to see if
we can realize an access on State property directly across of the West Hawaii Veterans'
Cemetery, and at which point then the major entrance [o the project would come roughly
around at this point over here. We have also committed to the State that at no point in time
would any point of that access be north of Kua Bay, which is what the State did not want to
have.
As far as the infrastructural considerations, as pointed out in the Staff's Background Report
and in the application, what the applicant intends to do is to construct a series of wells on the
property, you know, do a desalination plant on the property. And we have the consultant here
who would testify that, or who could testify that the infrastructure for water can be adequately
addressed.
In terms of the archaeological issues, we, there was an inventory survey done by a previous
archaeologist, who has since, that company has since gone to different, has been disbanded.
But we have, nonetheless, the State approved the inventory survey back in 1998. Your Staff's
proposed conditions address the subsequent efforts that need to be done, you know, in terms of
preparation of the mitigation plan, the burial plan.
And on the wastewater treatment plant, we did receive comments from the adjoining property
owner, which is the Kuki`o Group, expressing some measure of concern in the location of the
treatment plant. And on that, the developer has agreed to shift its location from its farthest
north end to nowhere, to a point nowhere closer than 1,000 feet from the adjoining property
line.
5
The applicant would like to begin construction as soon as possible, as soon as all of the basic
entitlements are issued and, hopefully, get off the ground by the middle or latter part of next
year. They anticipate a total build-out by the year 2007. The basic infrastructural costs would
be $75 to $100 million. This would not be, this would not include any costs for the residential
construction but primarily the access way, the well system, the required on-site infrastructure
roadways.
That's kind of like a thumbnail sketch of the project itself and, you know, I'd be more than
willing to respond to questions that the Commissioners may have.
TANAICA: Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Mosher.
MOSHER: I have a question.
FUI{E: Sure.
MOSHER: The Envirorunental Impact Statement, this is regarding Land Use
Commission requirement for asemi-private golf course.
FUI{E: Correct.
MOSHER: The Environmental Impact Statement in many places say that this is
going to be asemi-private golf course, and it needs to be open to residents of Hawaii. And I
wondered, and a condition of that finding of fact says the Petitioner shall make available
adequate golf tee times at affordable rates for public play to State of Hawaii residents. And, in
your application, you call for a private golf course. However, a condition that we've put in,
or recommended to be put in, is that you abide by all of the Land Use Commission conditions.
So are you saying it's not a private golf course and it will be open to the public? And if so, I
mean, unless you read the finding of fact, you don't really come across that.
FUKE: What happens under this multiple permitting system is that a
development has to comply, a developer or development has to comply with all of the different
levels of rules and regulations and, generally, the more restrictive regulations prevail. So
although the applicant's preference is for like a private golf course, if the applicant cannot seek
an amendment or is not successful in seeking an amendment to that Land Use Commission
condition then, obviously, that condition will prevail and they would have to, you know,
proceed accordingly. But it is the applicant's intention at this point in time to petition the Land
Use Commission with certain amendments to the existing conditions of approval. From the
Land Use Commission standpoint relative to housing, that particular condition, and there may
be some, a few other conditions that the applicant is looking at.
Just to give you some background on that, bearing in mind that the, when that condition was
imposed was in the early 1990s, I think 1992-1993 You know, it came at a time where, I
guess, it would be, I guess, was politically fashionable to require exactions along that line. I
think in Honolulu they were also talking about requiring golf course developers to pay a "tax"
6
of about $100-125 million, likewise, also on this Island, too. But I think if you notice like
over the last few years, it has been, there have been some concerns relative to the legality of
such an imposition or of such an exaction. And I think the way the County's approaching it in
a much more equitable way, which is vis-a-vis the impact fee requirement, to address generally
the overall recreational fee. And I think that you can see the proposed conditions on the
project district, there is a separate impact fee requirement that would address specifically the
recreational aspects. So we would hope that, at least this is the way that the County, you
know, has gone I guess over like the last six or eight years in realizing the difficulty in making
that kind of exaction and trying to make it more uniform by doing it through an impact fee
approach to address recreational. We would hope that the State can accept that approach; but
if it doesn't, then that's a condition that the applicant has to deal with.
MOSHER: So today we're looking at the impact statement in front of us. So if we
agree to give you what you're looking for, the conditions would change after you have
your right to build a golf course, because right now I'm looking at asemi-private golf course.
However, and that's the way I'm looking at it because [hat's what was required. But that, so
that could change and turn into a public, I mean a private golf course after you have your
SMA.
FUKE: If That is correct. If the Land Use Commission agrees with any
proposed amendments by the applicant, I guess, that would be the case. And so this is why
like what we're representing is, represents like an idealized situation on the part of the
applicant and on the SMA as well as the project district. And if that project district and SMA
application go, is, you know, are approved, and you still have that Land Use Commission
condition, then it's, the function of the golf course would have to vary somewhat to
accommodate the Land Use Commission's conditions. But in terms of the overall project
concept, it would, and the impacts that we would have to address relative to the golf course
and the overall residential project, it would not change.
MOSHER: Right, I'm just , my concern is being able to call a golf course and make
a tee time and not being turned down because, I'm sorry, you are not a member of the private
golf course or you're not a guest at the hotel. And
FUKE: Well, this is like, this is I guess an overall policy question that Ithink
MOSHER: Not hotel, I'm sorry, not a hotel.
FUKE: Yeah, no hotel, thank you.
MOSHER: But, you know, an owner
FUKE: Correct.
MOSHER: A property owner.
7
FUKE: Correct. But this is an overall policy question that I think that the
Coun[y would have to, if they want to revisit, you know, would be in a position to revisit. All
I was suggesting is that in years past, with recent approvals of golf courses or even prior
approvals of golf courses after 1992, there have been no exactions to that effect. And then the
way to address the recreational impact of a golf course would be through the impact fee
approach. Part of [he logic behind that was, of course, there was some, it was legally
questionable whether that kind of requirement could be made because if you stress that
argument further, if you say that you're going to require like a discounted fare or making it
available for the general public, then you can stretch that to all sorts of recreational activity, be
it tennis facility, swimming pool, so on and so forth.
MOSHER: Yeah, but this
FUKE: So
MOSHER: Just relates to golf courses.
FUKE: Correct.
MOSHER: And I just wonder, maybe I could ask Fred a question.
GIANNINI: What?
TANAKA: Corp. Counsel.
MOSHER: Could the County, could we impose a condition, or would that not be
legal?
GIANNINI: A condition what, on requiring stuff, on allowing tee times?
MOSHER: The same kind of condition that was in the finding of facts.
GIANNINI: I would Well, the problem I would have with that is does it have an
adequate connection to any of the factors that you're supposed to look for in as far as
evaluating SMA permits? I would suggest on these kinds of things it may be a little bit too far
divorced from the concerns of the SMA Act as far as allowing people, you know, managing
the, you know, who you allow into the golf course and the nature of the golf course. The
SMA is intended primarily to be concerned about environmental impacts or other impacts.
And I don't really know if you could justify a connection between any of the concerns of the
SMA and requiring certain number of tee times. I would suggest, with this particular thing, to
leave that as a Land Use Commission factor for them to deal with rather than having the
County get involved with that.
MOSHER: Okay. Thank you.
a
TANAKA: Also, if I could comment on that. We do have conditions as part of our
change of zone application that they will comply with all LUC or all other agency
requirements. So, at this point, because it's part of the LUC conditions, they need to comply
or go back and negotiate with them.
MOSHER: Right, but if they're able
TANAKA: Yeah.
MOSHER: To get a change from the Land Use Commission, then that will alter
TANAKA: That's right.
MOSHER: That, our one condition.
TANAKA: That's right, in that respect.
MOSHER: Yeah.
TANAKA: On that one Condition No. 8.
MOSHER: Yeah, on that one condition.
TANAKA: That's right, which we have no control over. The other concern I have
on this, Cormissioner Mosher, and I agree, I mean, if we could have a public play for all of
our golf courses, that would be great. But to impose such a condition at our Planning
Commission level, and I'm going to use a synopsis like in our industry, construction, it would
be like saying we would have the authority to say to the developer or the applicant, you have
to build your project all non-union or all union; and I don't think we have that authority to do
that. So why don't we just leave it
MOSHER: I understand.
TANAKA: As is. We have a condition that already mandates the applicant to
comply with the LUC conditions; and if he can work with amending that through the LUC
directly, that would be his prerogative.
MOSHER: Yeah, I can understand that.
TANAKA: Okay.
MOSHER: Thank you. Thank you, Sidney.
TANAKA: Okay. Any other comments of questions? Commissioner Giffin.
9
GIFFIN: Mr. Fuke, I appreciate the history on this project, and it was really well
done. I just want to know, since it appears as if the applicant gave up so much and is saddled
with so many different conditions, why did he do it? What was the motivating factor?
MOSHER: What was the base of the property?
FUKE: I really don't know, and Dr. Warmington was the original property
owner, still is the property owner. And there was, I guess, like a general partner that was
assigned that responsibility, and it happened; and as a result, there have been some falling out,
and we're here.
GIFFIN: You said that you brought along some experts, your archaeological
people that
FUKE: Correct.
GIFFIN: Did all the surveys and things. Are you calling them up? I have some
questions of them.
FUKE: Sure, if you have a specific question, you know. Archaeologically?
GIFFIN: Yeah.
FUKE: Yeah. We have Dr. Thomas Dye.
GIFFIN: Great.
FUKE: Yeah.
GIFFIN: Has he been sworn in?
TANAKA: Sir, can I swear you in first? If you would raise your right hand. And
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning
Commission?
DYE: I do.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. You are being recorded, so if you would start off
with your name, address for the record, please.
DYE: Okay. My name is Tom Dye. I work for International Archaeological
Research Institute in Honolulu. The address there is 2081 Young Street.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Giffin.
to
GIFFIN: In the Background Report, and also in the volumes of material that we
received for this project, there apparently was some sort of survey done. Could you highlight
some of those things that you found on the project property that you thought to be important?
DYE: Okay. I should make it clear that I was not involved in the inventory
survey.
GIFFIN: Oh, dear.
DYE: The inventory survey was carried out by Bishop Museum back in the
early 1990s. The Bishop Museum, I have familiarized myself with the project area. I spent
two days there with an assistant about a month ago, walking over the entire property, and have
read through all of the archaeological reports produced by Bishop Museum; and I'm generally
familiar with the archaeology of the area.
To summarize, they have, the important point, from a settlement pattern point of view, is that
this is not a coastal property; and along the coast, you find the major sites in this ahupua`a.
The subject property is back from the coast about a thousand feet, and it is very, very dry.
There's very little soil to do any kind of agriculture or other traditional Hawaiian pursuits.
And so that basically what you have is a series of trails that run mauka-makai through that
area. And on the sides of these trails are temporary habitation sites, well over a thousand pits
that have been pecked out of the lava for a purpose that is rather enigmatic. It's very difficult
to say what the purpose of these pits might be.
Four burial sites were found on the property. One of these was rather elaborate. I believe it
had the remains of 11 individuals in it. That one, at the time, there was a recommendation that
it be preserved in place and, subsequently, it has been walled off so that it's no longer possible
to enter the burial cave. The other three burial sites contained one or portions of single
individuals, and there's been a commitment to preserve those sites as well.
There's also been a commitment to preserve a portion of a very impressive trail that runs
mauka-makai and leads down to the bays. It's, where it crosses the a`a lava, it has big `ala
boulders, very smooth water-worn boulders that you can walk on [op of; and it's marked in
other ways as it crosses different kinds of lava flows there.
There is also another site that the Bishop Museum identified as a possible shrine. It's a, it's
not a particularly big site. But the indication that it is a shrine is that there is a concentration
of unwater-worn branch coral distributed over two features of this site. I spent some time
there and looked over that site very closely. It's, within the project area. It seems fairly
isolated, but was undoubtedly connected with sites that are down along the coast and now
belong to the State.
GIFFIN: So I don't know if I'm to ask you or Mr. Fuke, but what then is the plan
to do, you know, with these very impressive sites that were discovered?
ti
FUKE: All of those sites will be physically preserved, and there is, I'm sorry,
Commissioner Giffin, but I'm going back again to the Land Use Commission's condition.
Those were one of the issues that were brought up at the Land Use Commission's conditions
hearing. And then it, the Commission did require that those five sites all be preserved, those
four burials and then the makai portion of that trail which is, as Dr. Dye had indicated, is very
discernible. And there is another site, as he had indicated, that's within the 400-foot buffer
area that will also be physically preserved. Your Staff's proposed condition requires the
preparation of a preservation plan, and those
GIFFIN: Right.
FUKE: Will be incorporated into it.
GIFFIN: Throughout that area, there are also some lava tubes, aren't there?
DYE: That's correct.
GIFFIN: And, historically, those lava tubes could have been used for habitation by
the Hawaiians that traversed mauka-makai?
DYE: Yeah.
GIFFIN: It could have been also used for burial?
DYE: Yes, that's correct.
GIFFIN: Have any of the lava tubes been surveyed?
DYE: Yes, the lava tubes have been surveyed. A number of them have
evidence of temporary habitation within them, although the evidence for that is very sparse in
the project area.
GIFFIN: Because of the contents of the, or lack of contents in the lava tubes?
DYE: That's correct. There's very little soil to preserve things, so that what
you see on the surface is what's there, basically, in most of the lava tubes.
GIFFIN: And what about rare plants?
DYE: I'm sorry, Ididn't
FUKE: Rare plants.
DYE: Rare plants, yeah.
12
FUKE: Yeah, there was a study done by Dr. Winona Char.
GIFFIN: Right.
FUKE: And, you know, her study concluded that essentially on this property that
she could not find anything, you know, that would be of the, on the endangered species list.
But there's no telling, however, that, you know, as you go through construction as what,
would, what happened at the Kealakehe housing project that
GIFFIN: Right.
FUKE: You know, you do find `ui`ui or other things. So, you know, these will
be very mindfully addressed, you know, by [he developer as the project proceeds.
GIFFIN: And maybe a sensitivity for disclosures or anything like that when it's
discovered or, you know, what's the feeling?
FUKE: Well, you know, I've had some discussions with certain members of the
Council. And, you know, I think increasingly the Council and probably the Commission,
based on your question, you know, is looking at having landscaping planned that requires more
consideration for endemic or native Hawaiian plants; and I think this is the direction that the
applicant is leaning towards.
GIFFIN: Thank you.
TANAKA: Commissioners? Commissioner Souza.
SOUZA: Well, Sidney, while you said that you will preserve the burial sites and
the trail, will there be any public access to these burial sites and trail?
FUKE: These will have to be addressed in the mitigation plan; and, normally, in
the mitigation plan, they do require like easement rights to descendents of these burials and
also to the trail. So the specific answer to your question is yes.
SOUZA: I, you said mitigation rights. Who works out those rights? What
FUKE: I'm sorry, Imeant If I said rights, I'm sorry, it's mitigation plan. If
you look at your Staff's proposed condition, it requires that the developer prepare this
archaeological mitigation plan, which consists of basically two components. One is your burial
treatment plan, which still has to be reviewed and approved by the Hawaii Island Burial
Council, and also the data recovery. And so those plans would have to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director upon consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Division. And only after that approval is done and you actually go ahead and implement them,
then construction permits would he in a position to be issued, correct.
13
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioners, any further questions for the applicant? If not,
we'll ask you to step back. And we have the first four people that have signed up, we'll call
you up first. We have Mark Van Pernis, Dennis Pearson, Sr., Mike Varney, and Janice
Palma-Glennie. Okay. You may all come forward at this time. Okay, we'll start off with
Mark Van Pernis, and your name and address, for the record, please.
VAN PERNIS: I'm Mark Van Pernis. I'm a resident of Holualoa, and my business
address is Post Office Box 1837, Kailua-Kona.
This is, Kua Bay is considered by most of us in West Hawaii perhaps the finest beach on the
west side of the Island. It's a very important public resource, and it's been listed as such by
the State for several decades. I wonder how many of you have even been there.
Now, let me give you the history of the property before Mr. Fuke kicked in about 1987. Over
60 years ago, while the governor of Hawaii was out of the Territory on the mainland, the
Lieutenant Governor sold the State land for a dollar, that's Kua Bay, approximately nine acres,
to some well-connected political folks from Hilo. They used it as a fishing camp and a hunting
camp. There is a very important set of anchialine ponds at the beach, and game would come
down and hunt, and drink there, and they would shoot that game and they would also fish off
the, bring their boats in on the sandy beach and fish from there.
Then over 25 years ago, when Governor Burns and Mr. Rockefeller made their deal that
resulted in Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the beginning of the Gold Coast resort hotels,
some very well-connected Hilo politicians bought this property. Those who had inside
information that the highway was coming in bought this property, and they held it for awhile.
And approximately 20 years ago, while Mr. Steve Bess was the County Corporation Counsel,
these well-connected Hilo politicians, judges and such, offered the property to the County as a
public park, and that it was, since a prime site, at a relatively huge markup from what they
paid for it. This is after the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway went in.
There was a public outcry on their, and ethical complaints made to the County and State
against these individuals, under the circumstances. The County did not buy the property and
these gentlemen, in order to save face, sold the property to private individuals. I was one of
those individuals.
Thereafter, we put in a public road, working with the Land Use Commission, which is the
same road that's there now. It wasn't too long after that that we were approached by
Mr. Michael Hans, which I understand is the, was the principal of North Kona Development
Company, the applicant's predecessor. Mr. Hans and I became good friends. Mr. Hans and
his entity had acquired property at Awake`e, adjoining this property.
And to respond to Commissioner Griffin's, or Giffin's question about why they have given up
so much, they have given up nothing; they have gained a great deal. What happened is the
Awake`e property was slated to be condemned by the State for part of the Kona Coast Park. It
was Conservation land. It could not be developed. It could not be sold. It was on the market
to
for years without any offers. It was basically practically worthless other than one giant house
site.
Mr. Hans was a very able man and worked out a deal with the State to trade the Awake`e
property, Conservation, unusable property, for the property before you now, but with the
added bonus that it would be re-classified for development. Basically, they made a couple
hundred million dollars in that exchange. Mr. Hans was driving a Rolls Royce, literally, after
that exchange. Mr. Hans and I became good friends. He wanted to acquire the Kua Bay
properties from my hui on the basis that he could then trade it to the State, which wanted it for
the park and, of course, from the State, as part of that trade, less requirements for
development in what had been negotiated and obtained over thousands of man-hours of work,
as part of the trade.
Mr. Hans and I eventually parted ways over his political activity with Representative Chang to
try to bring gambling to the Kona Coast. And I understand that other financial circumstances
have resulted in the applicants, which are primarily Mr. Hans' creditors now, now being
before you.
So they gave up nothing. They acquired developable land, which was appraised at hundreds of
millions of dollars, by way of trading undevelopable Conservation land under the blight of
condemnation.
We ended up making the deal with the State. We gave the property to the State. We arranged
to have the State purchase the property. So after 60-some years, the State finally got back
their property that was probably taken away from the State under questionable circumstances to
begin with. They had to pay for it twice.
Now, I am concerned because there have been literally thousands of man-hours by the Land
Use Commission, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii Historic
Preservation Office, private consultants, community organizations, individuals. Mr. Yuen,
who's in on the Land Board for the Big Island, took the lead in this to work out this exchange
and to work out all of these conditions. They were all incorporated into documents which,
dated 1990-91. I wonder whether any of you have read them. Whether, I wonder whether the
County is even aware of them. For instance, have you ever seen this document dated
September of 1992 which imposes, states the requirements for the park development at Kua
Bay? And to the extent that the developer of this property is going to participate in those
developments, it has very specific language as what the requirements are of these folks.
My concern is that although it has been put in the context of a golf course, I believe that what,
in part of what's going on here is they are seeking from you conditions less onerous or less
specific or less definitive than those from the State. Then to go back to Land Use Commission
and say, well, the County has not required these conditions so we think the County is closer to
it, home rule, why don't you modify the conditions, as well.
t5
And I have been on that property probably, if you add up all of the time I've spent there
camping and so on, probably a year. I'm familiar with the historical aspects of it. And it's
not that I'm necessarily opposed to this development. What I am opposed to is that these
folks, who got this property and got this zoning, got this land use reclassification on the
specific agreement that they would participate in some of these park development plans, and
they got hundreds of millions of dollars.
Your recommendations here are very vague. They're the sort of thing I'd like to go to the
Land Use Commission and say, well, the County doesn't require this and they're on top of it
closer than you are, so now that there's a different Land Use Commission, different members,
why don't you lighten up these obligations? The County has been slow, which is natural, in
getting the park improvements in. The same bumpy road we bulldozed in years ago is still
what the, is being used by the public. I think their concern is that they will say, well, when
and if the State does improvements, then we'll do our thing. I would ask you to not
necessarily in a context of a golf course but require every condition that the State negotiated
with these folks in the land exchange 10 years ago be a requirement of what you're doing here.
So that they're not in a position to go back and say the County doesn't require it, the County is
vague on it, you change your conditions. They got their hundreds of millions of dollars of
rezoned land from Conservation land on a basis that they would do these things, not that, well,
they'd go back to the Land Use Commission and try to get out of it.
So I'm asking you folks to recognize that this is a public resource, Kua Bay, of the highest
importance to West Hawaii, even though you may not be awaze of it, perhaps the finest beach
on West Hawaii. And I'm asking you if these folks are going to have the privilege of
developing, which the State has given them, that they honor every commitment that was made
by their predecessors when this trade was made. And not that well, you know, give us
something less or leave it to, it's really not your kuleana, really not your authority, as Mr.
Giannini may say, and then they take that back to the State. I don't want you to say, well, it's
whatever the Land Use condition, Land Use Commission may impose, but what the Land Use
Commission imposed beforehand, so that there's no excuse to go back to Land Use
Commission and lighten it up. I don't know whether any of you have actually read these
conditions, read the conditions on the road, specifically
And let me try to point out a couple of things. For instance, on the golf course, since we have
a golfer or two here, it was determined [hat fertilizing the golf course would denigrate through
leeching of the chemicals out to the bay through this extremely porous rock. That is a fresh
lava flow out there. It would have a negative effect on a coral reef -that is building on the
south side of Kua Bay, one that recreational divers and glass bottom boat people go to on a
regular basis. Thus, there were requirements. And in terms of the golf course being one of
those golf courses without a lot of grass, with rock in between, and so on and so forth, there
were requirements of baseline studies on the coral reef be done before the golf course be put
in. And so there'd be a way to monitor to what effect the coral reef was being and the fish
was being affected by the golf course, if it was from, like in Maui, where they leech out and
have these red tides and such. I don't see anything like that in your requirements. And I don't
16
see anything in your requirements that say whatever the State has required, you will do, part of
your requirements.
What I see happening, and remember, I've been an attorney in this town for 25 years,
represented developers more so than non-developers. I see what you can do with the vague
stuff from the County when you go back to the State and convince the State that home rule is
the way to go. I'm not attributing any bad motives to anybody. I'm just saying that I have the
history on this property that you folks don't, and that Mr. Fuke doesn't if he's talking about
only 1987 forward. And I think that you folks have a duty to represent the public, not just on
the basis of what the developer brings to you but on the basis of what the public and the State
brings to you. So I am asking that the conditions of your approval be tightened to say that
every condition imposed upon them by the Land Use Commission, by the Depaztment of Land
and Natural Resources, by the State Historic Preservation Office, and all of the other State
requirements, be a condition of their permit -not that they be, go back and take it away.
Because, as I said, thousands of man-hours took place, led by Chris Yuen, in this exchange.
And I don't see that going on now. I'm just saying, well, just take a shot at cutting some of
this stuff off. So [hat's what I'm asking you to do, to do your duty to represent the public.
And you ought to go out to Kua Bay before you make this decision, those of you who haven't
been there, and see what an important resource this is as, in representing the public.
The last thing I want to say is that there is history out there; it's primarily along the shore.
But, ecologically, this is a fresh lava flow, and everything they do on this property is going to
end up in the bay. And that's part of what was addressed by the State and that's what I'm also
concerned with. Thank you.
TANAKA: Thank you. Director Goldstein.
GOLDSTEIN: Yes, Mr. Van Pernis, if you would clarify for us a couple of things.
Where the parcels are that were essentially carved out way back in the, when was that, the
SOs?
VAN PERNIS: The 30s.
GOLDSTEIN: The 30s.
VAN PERNIS: Nine acres, basically
TANAKA: Use the microphone, please.
VAN PERNIS: Nine acres, four parcels of nine acres, including all of the white sand
beach area, anchialine ponds, and an area behind them at Kua Bay. Kakapa Bay, from the air
or from a distance, looks like a sandy beach. It is not; it is all white coral. But this sandy
beach here, it's a disappearing sand beach, is considered by many of us as the finest beach on
this side of the Island, and we are waiting for the State to open up better than what we did
years ago.
17
TANAKA: Mr. Van Pernis, was that the property that you talked about with you
and your hui?
VAN PERNIS: Yes.
TANAKA: Okay. Okay. So he's referring to the property that he was involved
with.
GOLDSTEIN: The other thing is you talked about some of the conditions. Actually, I
think you mean that there are two sets of conditions, one that came with the State Land Use
Commission and the other that was a part of the settlement agreement between the State and
the landowner.
VAN PERNIS: That is correct. That was part of the Virginia Isbell was actively
involved, and Chris Yuen, who was on the Land Board, was actively involved. This was
before the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Board of Land and Natural Resources.
I would point out not only were we involved with that, in response to Commissioner Tanaka's
question, not only with the makai property, but we had to deal with the entire property that's
before you in working out the easement that the State would allow us to use, because it was
State land at that time. We were in front of the State authorities to obtain approval to run a
road down to our property for the public access. So we had to deal with all of the issues that
are before you in terms of where to put the road, where was the history. We had archaeology
done. We had to have all of [he things that this applicant has done. We had to do, to put our
six-foot easement through, so we became very familiar with the subject property, in addition to
our beach property.
GOLDSTEIN: But that settlement agreement then is essentially like a contract between
the State and the property owner?
VAN PERNIS: It is a contract; and I believe this is part of what Mr. Fuke indicated he
may be trying to go back and modify.
GOLDSTEIN: Oh.
VAN PERNIS: And my concern is that if that takes place, thousands of man-hours of
work and agreement and quid pro quo, I would say, would be lost. Because part of the quid
pro quo here by the developer getting this developable land versus the undevelopable land was
that he would do these things for the public in terms of the park, and the golf courses, and so
on, and so forth. And so I am very concerned in that respect.
TANAKA: Okay. We'll ask, later on when Mr. Fuke comes back up, we'll ask him
specific questions about that.
~s
Also, I just would like to point out that there are two conditions in our conditions, as part of
our recommendation, that address or specifically say that the applicant shall comply with all
conditions of approval of the Land Use Commission Decision and Order. And it goes on to
say, there's another one, Z, that they should comply with all other agencies, as well.
VAN PERNIS: Well, I hear that, but I don't, I also heard Mr. Fuke say in answer to
Commissioner Giffin's questions that they intend to go up and attempt to modify those
conditions. That was stated in the context of the golf course matter. But I'm under the
assumption they will go up and attempt to modify perhaps everything, perhaps not having to
build a public road until the State is, you know, builds luas or whatever down there; and that
was not the deal. I think you folks have to say the conditions that exist now. So that they
cannot get into a position where they can say that this condition you just recited means that
they can modify those State conditions that have previously been agreed to, and ameliorate and
make less expansive their development.
TANAKA: Director, you had something?
GOLDSTEIN: No.
MOSHER: I
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioner Mosher.
MOSHER: What document are you referring to? Is that the exchange deed or [he
exchange agreement, I mean?
VAN PERNIS: No, this is the results of the, I call it the State park scoping program that
was done in 1991 and `92 as part of the exchange arrangements. These are draft and final
envirorunental statements from 1992
MOSHER: Yeah
VAN PERNIS: Which I suspect are probably the same thing you got. I don't suspect
that they've updated those at all. This is not, there is documents held by the State, which
finalize these, the beach park requirements.
MOSHER: That wasn't referred to at all in any of our background info.
MIRIKITANI: No, that particular document was not referred to in the Background
Report.
MOSHER: Can we get a copy of i[, because it, to me, anything that goes back to the
original intent, we should be aware of.
19
VAN PERNIS: For instance, on the, a[ the very beginning of this document, it states
word-for-word, the BLNR, Board of Land and Natural Resources, requirements on the road as
a condition for the exchange. I suspect Mr. Fuke may be, along with the golf course, seeking
to modify that requirement. Now maybe there's some logic to it
MOSHER: Yeah.
VAN PERNIS: Aligning it with the
MOSHER: Right.
VAN PERNIS: Aligning it with the Veterans' Cemetery Road or something like that.
But the idea of getting out of the road or postponing the road because they're supposed to put
in this road to the beach when they develop
MOSHER: Right.
VAN PERNIS: Not when the State does something or whatever. The State expected that
the park would be further along than it is, but it's not. So I don't want them to say, well, we
want to get out of this, because part of the exchange was they provide this public benefit when
they develop, not when the State develops.
TANAKA: Okay. We'll ask the applicant to comment on that, Mr. Van Pernis.
MOSHER: Yes.
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioner Giffin, do you have anything further for Mr. Van
Pernis?
GIFFIN: I just wanted to ask him, with your knowledge of what was, you know,
preceding what Mr. Fuke said, do you know if any of those conditions were recorded with the
deed?
VAN PERNIS: I don't know in what I could look it up, because this is ten years ago.
GIFFIN: Yeah.
VAN PERNIS: But they were all made a matter of record with the State and with the
recipient of the exchange at that time, North Kona Development
GIFFIN: Right.
VAN PERNIS: Company, which is not this applicant. Whether they're in the deed or
whether they're in conditions of approval for the land use reclassification, they are all there in
front of the DLNR and/or LUC, in some form, as a matter of record. And I don't know what
zo
has been provided to you and who has provided it, whether the developer through your Staff,
or the Staff originated it or whatever. But I would certainly say that, you know, again, my
basic position is whatever DLNR and LUC required should be inviolate because they, as I
said, made a huge financial gain by doing this exchange, and part of the quid pro quo was
these conditions. I don't think they should be in a position to go back to the State and say we
want to lessen these conditions ten years later and then, perhaps, point to the County's rulings
today and say, see, the County doesn't think it's a big deal, so you shouldn't. I'm worried
about that context. I think you should be specific, not that, well, whatever the State says we
say. We say whatever the State did before must remain.
GIFFIN: Thank you very much, and your comments are well taken.
TANAKA: Thank you. Commissioner Souza.
SOUZA: Mr. Chairman, would I be out of order to request or see if the rest of the
Commissioners go with my thinking that maybe before we go to the next public speakers, that
Mr. Fuke answer Mr. Van
GIFFIN: Van Pernis.
TANAKA: Van Pernis.
SOUZA: Van Pernis, sorry, you know, while the topic he's talking about is fresh
in our mind?
TANAKA: We have, well, before we decide that, we have four other people signed
up to testify; I'm sure there's going to be other concerns, too. So maybe rather than calling
him back and forth, you know, we try and maybe jot those questions down.
Aside from Dennis Pearson, Mike Varney, and Janice Palma-Glennie, and Curtis Tyler, is
there anyone else that would like to testify on this agenda item? Okay. So we have four more.
Would that be okay, Commissioner Souza?
SOUZA: Okay.
TANAKA: Okay. We'll go on to, so Commissioners, if you have any questions
about the comments and concerns that Mr. Van Pernis has, write them down so after we have
heard from the public, we'll call the applicant back up and we'll have him address all of the
concerns at once. If not, Mr. Dennis Pearson, name and address, please.
PEARSON: I am Dennis Pearson, Kailua-Kona. Good morning. This is support for
the Manini`owali residential community. These supports are based on the following
considerations.
zt
The request is consistent with State law land use and General Plan requirements. The State
Land Use Commission in 1993 reclassified the subject project into the "urban" district. The
County also approved a General Plan amendment that same year for this project.
The requested project district and SMA applications are thus consistent with those two basic
land use policy actions.
The project site is set back more than a thousand feet from the shoreline. There will be little,
if any, impact on the area's coastal recreation and cultural resources. As part of the State land
exchange agreement, the applicant will be required to make access and other improvements to
the State's planned Kekaha Kai Regional Park. This project will thus increase and not
diminish recreational opportunities.
All of the required infrastructure for the project--(be they road, water, or wastewater)--will be
provided by the applicant at its own expense. Therefore, there should be no burden to the
County and State financial systems.
Equally important, the project will represent the creation of additional employment. There
will be short-term construction jobs and long-term operational jobs to serve the golf course and
related amenities within the project. This comes at a time when Hawaii (and particularly the
Big Island) need more jobs.
I applaud the developer for being willing to make substantial investment on this island, while
also being sensitive to the area's environmental recreational and cultural concerns.
In closing, I again encourage your favorable consideration of this matter.
Thank you very much.
TANAKA: Thank you, Mr. Pearson. Are you representing yourself, or are you
with a group or association?
PEARSON: Myself.
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Pearson? Okay, if not,
we have Mike Varney.
VARNEY: Good morning, Commissioners, my name is Mike Varney, P. O.
Box 2891, Kamuela, Hawaii. I do have copies of my testimony to hand out to you this
morning.
GIFFIN: Good.
TANAKA: Okay.
zz
VARNEY: Regarding the change of zone and SMA use permit for the Manini`owali
Equity Company, the proposed project of 900 homes to be built on 388 acres mauka of Kua
Bay will have a tremendous impact to the shoreline and beaches of this area. The new
development will increase the amount of people who will be using Manini`owali and Kuki`o
Beaches and appropriate measures need to be taken to ensure the proper facilities are in place
to handle this added traffic.
The exchange deed between the North Kona Development Group and the State of Hawaii calls
for the provision of public access to Kua Bay, restrooms and 50-car parking lot. Preservation
of the small pu`u and the mauka-makai trail from the pu`u to the shoreline.
The seven-mile long, 1,600 acre Kekaha Kai shoreline park envisioned by the State will take
many years to complete. The public-private partnership for the beach improvements and
access roads will save this State a lot of money as equipment will already be on site.
I wrote Mr. Fuke regarding the relocation of the public access roadway to the north end of the
project. I suggested they go back to the original plan as approved by the BLNR in 1993 with
the access to the south. I am not against consolidation of both the State park entrance and the
project entrance, but I think it would be prudent [o consider a second access to Queen K,
possibly a joint one with the Kuki`o Resort to the north. I believe this is on the agenda, Item
No. 4 on today's Planning Cormission meeting.
TANAKA: Are you speaking of Kuki`o or Ka`upulehu?
VARNEY: Is
TANAKA: Ka`upulehu is on.
VARNEY: Ka`upulehu is. Okay.
GIFFIN: Yeah, but Kuki`o is not.
VARNEY: We are looking at the owners of 900 homes, construction and
maintenance vehicles, plus the hundreds of park users all using this one access. The Hawaii
County Planning Department will be the authority that ensures all these conditions are carried
out. And no decision should be made on this change of zone or Special Management Area
permit unless the proper language is added to the SMA permit, essentially reiterating all these
conditions on the BLNR agreement, along with adding afive-year time frame on when these
improvements will be completed. This would be consistent with the BLNR's agreement.
You guys did have a lot of questions earlier about these park improvements and what
documents they were on. They are on both the exchange deed and the Land Use Commission
Decision and Order Docket. The exchange deed was dated 1991, and the Land Use
Commission was dated 1993. All of these provisions are in there for the restrooms, the 50-car
parking lot, the preservation of these trails, the historic trails, the mauka-makai trails to the
23
small pu`u; they're all in there. It's all plain and clear, it's just you have to go in and find
these. And I respectfully ask you to consider adding these to your SMA permit as conditions.
Thank you.
TANAKA: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Varney? If not,
Janice Palma-Glennie.
PALMA-GLENNIE: Hi, my name is Janice Palma-Glennie, and my address is P. O.
Box 4849, Kailua-Kona.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I think this topic is very important, and
it becomes more apparent that it's critical that at this level, as Mr. Van Pernis and Mike
Varney were saying, that you folks have a really big responsibility to make sure a lot of these
things go as according to plan.
It's my understanding that the State bent over backwards to give the early speculators at
Awake`e more than a fair shot at making money on an investment in Hawaii which ended up
with a land swap, giving [hose speculators control of the Manini`owali land. The development
at Manini`owali now under discussion is to be built in a former Conservation district which
expanded on an earlier smaller resort node against any logical sense of incremental
development. Originally planned to allow 300 units, the luxury development, largely for
purchase by the super wealthy from off-Hawaii Island shores, now calls for 900 multi- and
single-family residential units to be allowed adjacent to what was judiciously set aside to be a
wilderness park.
My concern lies with the State and County's continual willingness to bend to the will of
developers at the behest of local residents and the quality of life which is fast slipping through
our fingers. Manini`owali Equity Company, Inc. should expect, as should all developers, that
desire to make huge profits from the use of Hawaiian land, to toe a line which will fit in with
the quality of life which West Hawaii residents expect and deserve. This quality of life cannot
be maintained if planners do not rigorously enforce agreements made in the public trust; and it
can barely be expected to survive with the kind of population densities asked for in this
sensitive location, especially with the high and exclusive nature of the development.
Following are several, my questions and considerations in this matter. The first one is water,
it is tentatively planned to come from brackish wells and then desalinate it. Where will these
wells be, and the desalinization plant be located, on State land mauka of Queen Ka`ahumanu
Highway rather than on public land? Is this an attempt to spread the development further and
to use public resources, in this case State land, to derive benefits at taxpayers' behest? I was
told that the desalinization, the wells would be mauka of the highway, and I'm not sure where
the desalinization plant is intended to be but
Second, will the access road from the highway become privately controlled? Will private
security patrols record license plate numbers of all vehicles which are, in fact, accessing public
land? Or will they otherwise intimidate [hose who drive on the public access road, as is the
2a
case in developments further north? Will the public feel like foreigners in their own land? To
ensure the privacy of those who come here and pay exorbitant amounts of money to get away
from it all Perhaps if the increased density is allowed, a second access road toward the
north of the one proposed across from Veterans' Cemetery should be discussed, one which will
not affect the sensitive Hawaiian cultural sites.
Also, can the integrity of a wilderness park be maintained with the sort of density being
requested or will Kekaha Kai State Park become overwhelmed by the development leaning
against it, as is the case at Hapuna Beach?
West Hawaii Today reported that this $75 million project is a resort development when it's
required to be residential. I think that might have just been a mistake in the paper, but this
needs to be clarified.
Also, it mentioned the project district designation, which supposedly gives the developer more
latitude merely for design, apparently requiring close matching of intended use and density of
land. This is unclear to me and seems to leave too much room for interpretation rather than true
limitation and delineation.
I also wanted to ask what the water source for the 18-hole golf course will be.
Also, amenities promised to be provided for the park include showers, toilets, etcetera. What's
the source of the water for these facilities, and will the developer be absolutely required to
provide them?
It appears that Manini`owali Equity Company is going back to the LUC to change many of its
major requirements. At the moment, camping is planned quite close to the proposed
Manini`owali development. It would not be a surprise if the development company and its
homeowners tried at a later date, or even now, to curtail activities such as this that might be
distasteful to those owners. What guarantee is there that the park development will go on as
planned if pressure to protect landowners is put upon the County and State officials?
And we see easily one commercial use of the park which was designated to be non-commercial.
Will further concessions be made for this increasingly growing development? That's probably a
State question rather than for you folks.
These questions and their long term answers bum in me and are not new to anyone who has
followed developmental patterns in Hawaii. What's not written in stone is very, often becomes
non-existent. My fear for this beautiful, irreplaceable area is that it will become not a
playground and area of sustenance for the people of Hawaii as it is now, but another spoiled
playground for the super rich.
Please use your integrity to ensure that this does not happen again in West Hawaii. 1 ask that
Manini`owali Equity Company, Inc.'s development be limited to the original 300 units and that
great care is taken in planning public and private access, and that the applicant be required to
25
fulfill all standing obligations given by the State and through the land swap exchange. Thank
you for your time.
TANAKA: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? If not, we'll ask you to step
back and we have, let's see, Councilman Curtis Tyler. Director Goldstein.
GOLDSTEIN: Before we proceed any further, just for the Commissioners' information,
we do have, as part of your Background or record, both the decision and order of the Land Use
Commission as well as the land exchange document.
MOSHER: Yeah, Ifound
GOLDSTEIN: Yes.
MOSHER: Ifound that.
GOLDSTEIN: Okay.
TANAKA: Okay. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to testify on this
agenda item? Okay. Councilman, did we swear you in earlier?
TYLER: Yes.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. You may proceed.
TYLER: Good moming, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is
Curtis Tyler. I come here today as, for myself, my family, as well as the elected represent
Council representative for District 8 in which this project is located. I also wanted to let the
Commissioners know that I have had, I believe it was two conversations with Mr. Fuke
regarding this proposal, at his request, so he could provide some information.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin, is the Rezoning 99-017 on the table, or are they both on the table?
What is it we're testifying to here? I just want to be sure.
GIFFIN: Rezoning 99- .
TANAKA: Both.
TYLER: Both of them are on the table?
TANAKA: Thank you. I'm going to begin by addressing the SMA, and I'll probably
be a lot more careful when I get to the rezoning, because it will come before the Council. But
I've spoken with Mr. Fuke about some of these items, and others came to light as a result of
some of the testimony that we heard this moming.
26
With respect to the SMA, No. D, this is on Page 2, it talks about open space and preserve areas.
And I wanted to note for the record, since I don't think it was previously mentioned, that a small
pu`u consisting of 10-plus acres, that's the low pu`u on the north side of the property, I believe,
as well as 1.5-plus acres of cultural preserves, will be left intact. My understanding is that's a,
that, at least that pu`u and the trail there derives from the State requirements.
And I think that, along these lines, you should consider adding protection for the trail. I've
spoken with the OHA representative for Hawaii Island, who I believe is working with the
applicant's representative to ensure the protection and conservation of this trail, this important
mauka-makai trail. As Mr. Pearson, Dennis Pearson pointed out previously in his testimony, you
know, that the protection of it and conservation of the cultural resources is important. And I
would hope that you would add this as a, as part of the condition.
The, No. E, it talks there about the public access and circulation system, and indicates that a fully
channelized intersection, complete with left turn storage lane will be constructed, etcetera. Later
on in the conditions, you'll note that it talks about if required, and I think this also is in the
rezoning. And I think it's absolutely essential that this be done because there's going to be a
four-lane road there before too long, hopefully in our lifetime. Commissioner McIntosh says no.
But in any case, it's very important to have these, if it's not a signalized intersection, to have
these left turn pockets in and out, because otherwise, it's extremely dangerous. And I think if
anyone has driven on Queen K, which I'm sure everyone has here, you know exactly what I'm
talking about.
I suggested to Mr. Fuke that, when I first saw his proposal, I think it was a couple months ago,
that any access to the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway be aligned with and done in conjunction
with the Veterans' Cemetery. Number one, it's a limited access highway, it's a high speed
highway. Number two is a portion of the property, at least the southern portion of the property,
is, fronts the highway along a hill, quite a long hill; and I think it would be inappropriate to come
in along that hill.
Mr. Fuke has also indicated to me that although they had originally considered an access at the
bottom of that hill, closer to the Kuki`o, the Kuki`o boundary, to try to consolidate those, that
apparently that's not going to be possible for a number of reasons. And so I think it makes a lot
of sense to work with the Veterans' intersection there, because there's already a widening of the
street, there's already some provision for an intersection. And I hope that Mr. Fuke and the
landowners will prevail with the Department of Transportation in this regard so that we will not
have driveways every so many feet on our limited access highway.
Also in that same paragraph there, No. E, it talks about bikeways and walking paths are
tentatively planned. I would like to suggest that you require these for any public roadways, that
which has access to the beach, etcetera. I understand that the proposal for the internal roadways
is to have them be private, so I don't think you can exercise much kuleana over that unless, of
course, you want to strongly suggest it. But I would suggest that on the, because this is going to
have a lot ofpublic use, that these be considered. Obviously, this wouldn't be along the Queen
Ka`ahumanu Highway.
27
The, Page No. 5, in bold faced type there, the second paragraph talks about the development
being consistent with the objectives and policies as provided by Chapter 205(a) and your own
guidelines and SMA Rule 9. I have not seen a, the basis of that finding. But I would ask that if
you Commissioners have not seen the basis for that finding, that you be very careful with respect
to your decision because of what has happened in the past with decisions and what apparently or
what is alleged to be inconsistent, inconsistencies with 205(a). And I would just ask that, so that
we avoid future problems that you look at this very carefully. I think this community needs more
collaborative efforts, more cooperative efforts; and where we can avoid confrontive ones, I
would ask that we try to do so, even if it means deferring the matter to review it further over
some period of time.
Also, there is a small paragraph, two paragraphs down beginning "A visual analysis of the
project was conducted by the applicant and the view analysis indicates" it will not, "it will
obstruct some views of the ocean from Queen Ka`ahumanu." If you have not seen a copy of the
visual analysis, I would ask you to review it, please. Mr. Fuke showed me some computer
renderings based on at least one scenario, design scenario. I don't know if you've had the
opportunity to see those, but I would ask you to look at those.
And while I'm on that subject, and I']1 probably mention it in some of the conditions specifically,
but about a month ago, I was aboard the "Norwegian Wind" on its inaugural voyage to Kona.
And while we were having lunch with a bunch of folks from the Kailua destination, Kona Coast,
etcetera, and while we were sitting there having lunch, we looked at the, at Hualalai, we looked
at the coastline and we looked at the mountains. And it was very interesting to note two of the
larger commercial properties, which I won't mention by name, because I don't want to do so at
this time, but just I think it's irrelevant to the discussion here, but looking from the makai,
looking from the sea, these structures just stuck out like tore sums, sore thumbs. They looked
like a prison or some kind of large, strange building, addition to the land. And, actually, some of
the visitors said it marred their view. They didn't really expect to see something like this when
they came from the ocean. And I think we all know that, and I've spoken with the Planning
Director about this, I think we all know that we're going to have literally hundreds of thousands
of visitors coming by ocean to our Island, and they bring a lot of money, and they take home a
lot of news, and we hope it's going to be good news. And a number of them mentioned to us,
gee, we were really surprised to see this, as I said. So I think we, in addition to the makai view,
looking from the highway, we also have to consider what it would be like looking from the ocean
to our visitors who are coming here. So I just wanted to make that comment.
And it says inhere that based upon the uses and design standards, including the following
concepts, and it says, number one, maximize the building heights, I assume that's supposed to be
minimize the building heights.
GIANNINI: Yeah.
TOGASHI: Yeah.
TYLER: Am I correct? Mr. Chairman, do you know?
28
TANAKA: Staff? I caught that, too, and I circled that. Is that, did you mean
minimize?
MIRIKITANI: Minimize.
TANAKA: Okay.
TYLER: So I'd like the record to reflect that that is minimize, not maximize,
because you'll be in real hot water if you have that in there. I assumed that was it.
Now, one of the other things is I think as we drive around some of our roads, Ali`i Drive, some
portions of Kuakini Highway, you will notice that in some of the newer developments that walls,
rockwalls or some kind of walls have been constructed, and the height of these walls is just
enough so that persons .driving on the road cannot see the ocean or the shoreline. And I don't
know whether any walls are contemplated in this area. But I would ask you, as a Planning
Commission, just as a matter of policy, that you, as you deal with SMA applications, that you
ask the question. Because those walls, I can think of two in particular, have a major impact on
the visitor and the resident experience when we're trying to look towards the sea. I was thinking
this morning, as I was driving down here, you know, what if all of Kuakini Highway had these
kinds of walls, or Ali`i Drive, and I wouldn't have been able to see the "Endeavor" leaving this
morning, that absolutely magnificent sight, or watched the cruise ships, or the paddlers, or, you
know, whatever it is? So I just, I mention that to you.
And one other comment. It's my understanding that the public, the current, unimproved public
access from Queen Ka`ahumanu to Kua Bay will remain available for public access, according to
your, according to the report, until a superior access is provided. So that the public, at no time,
will not have access there; and I hope that you'll ensure that that is not the case, because
certainly lots of people use that.
And Condition 12, proposed Condition 12, talks about, the last sentence, and this is on Page 11,
it says, "Implementation of the public access plan shall be completed with the opening of the
golf course." Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Planning Director a quick question regazding that?
TANAKA: Sure.
TYLER: Thank you. Ms. Goldstein, good morning. The golf course is going to
open before any occupancy permits aze granted, is that correct?
GOLDSTEIN: That's not clear.
TYLER: That's not clear?
GOLDSTEIN: No.
TYLER: So if the golf course were the last thing to be built and all the properties
would be built then, in fact, the plan might not be implemented until such time as the golf
29
course? I'm just wondering why it's tied to the golf course instead of occupancy or something,
unless the golf course is going to be built first. I think you need to
GOLDSTEIN: There is
TYLER: Ascertain that.
GOLDSTEIN: That needs to be clarified, I think.
TYLER: Would you do that, please?
GOLDSTEIN: Sure.
TYLER: I'm not telling you how to do your job. But it just was a question that
came to my mind, because I think I'm certainly going to hear about it if public access is cut off at
some time so
GOLDSTEIN: I don't think that the public access will be cut off. I think it's only if, I
mean it's only when that "superior" public access
TYLER: Okay.
GOLDSTEIN: Is available.
TYLER: But I think it's very germane to your decision making here today to
determine when that, the implementation of that improved access is going to take place. If it
says golf course, you want to find out when it is. Is that in the beginning? And, historically, golf
courses have come first, but that may not be the case. So that's perhaps one question you could
ask Mr. Fuke.
Did I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Planning Commissioners have seen the Land Use
Commission Decision and Order?
GOLDSTEIN: Yes.
TYLER: A92-677?
TANAKA: Yes.
TYLER: Have they also seen the land exchange agreement?
GOLDSTEIN: Yes.
TANAKA: Yes.
30
TYLER: Nineteen ninety-one? Have they also seen the settlement agreement to
which Mr. Van Pernis referred to?
GOLDSTEIN: No.
TANAKA: No. Negative.
TYLER: But they will be provided with that?
MIRIKITANI: It will be provided with that. We'll make copies for them available.
TYLER: Okay.
MCINTOSH: Is there a separate agreement?
GOLDSTEIN: Yeah.
TANAKA: Do you have something available today, Ms. Mirikitani?
MIRIKITANI: Mr. Van Pemis did have it with him. And would you like me to make
copies for you today?
TANAKA: Yes, or at least
GOLDSTEIN: Is that the settlement agreement, or is that some other general document
that came out of Parks and Recreation?
MIRIKiTANI: I don't know; I'm going to look at it now.
GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. Okay.
TYLER: Now, moving specifically, I'm speaking still on the SMA, moving
specifically to the proposed conditions. I would ask that with respect to Condition No. 3 that you
amend it by, where it says the applicant shall, for those in the audience who don't know, "The
applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval of the Land Use Commission Decision
and Order," and I would suggest that you add "Docket No. A92-677, Land Exchange
Agreement," whatever the date is, 1991, "and Settlement Agreement," and include those specific
numbers in there, because then you don't have to recite all these things together. And it says, "A
copy of the written documentation of compliance with these conditions shall also be submitted to
the Planning Director." I would, is this, you know, is this an open-ended When would those
be submitted? Perhaps some are complied with. But do we wait until they're al] complied with
or do we see one at a time? I don't know. So it's just a question that came to my mind.
MIRIKITANI: Mr. Chairman?
TANAKA: Yes, go ahead.
3l
MIRIKITANL If I could interrupt you, Mr. Tyler?
TYLER: Yes, please. Good morning.
MIRIKITANI: The document that we were referring to were the recommendations for a
beach park at Manini`owali, and that's dated September 1992. However, conferring with
Mr. Van Pernis, this is not the final document for the beach park renovations.
TYLER: Well, whatever it is, I'm not here to judge the
MIRIKITANI: Yeah.
TANAKA: Could
TYLER: What is the document.
TANAKA: Right.
TYLER: I'm just suggesting that you include it and you name it specifically so that
some of the concerns that were mentioned might be addressed. I'm looking at
TANAKA: Ms. Mirikitani, would you pass it around so we can at least review it now?
MIRIKITANI: Sure.
TANAKA: Before you copy it? Okay.
TYLER: I would, with respect to Condition No. 5, Mr. Fuke mentioned that he had
been working with some of the Council Members regarding landscaping buffers, etcetera, and he
was specifically speaking of some conversations he and I have had on a separate project. And I
would ask that you consider amending this to indicate that he would be, that the applicant would
work with the Arborist Advisory Committee, and that wherever possible, endemic Hawaiian
plants be used, endemic or indigenous Hawaiian plants be used. And this was a condition that
was put on by the Council on a rezoning that came before us a couple of days ago. And the, I
don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that the Planning Committee Chair told me
afterwards that she was really happy to see that and might be incorporating it in all of them. So
it's something you might want to consider at this time. Perhaps you can work with Mr. Fuke on
that.
And then moving right along here, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to give you
some specifics. Condition No. 11, which is at the bottom of Page 10, there's discussion there
about all, undergrounding all electrical communication utilities and systems within the project
site. And it says, "with the exception of the main 69 kilovolt transmission line from the
Mamalahoa Highway." I'm assuming you are speaking about Queen Ka`ahumanu because
Mamalahoa Highway
32
GOLDSTEIN: Correct.
GIANNINI: Yeah, that's right.
TANAICA: Correct.
TYLER: Is
TANAI{A: Yeah.
TYLER: Probably two miles
GIANNINI: Yeah.
TYLER: Mauka.
GIANNINI: Yeah.
TYLER: So I would ask that all of the lines be underground. And the reason for
that is because if you'll look at the resorts to the north, and this is part of the resort node as
stated in the General Plan, you won't see any above ground transmission lines. You will note
that the HELCO lines are set back from the highway by quite some distance, and the reason
for that is because this is in the SMA, preserve the viewplanes. So I would suggest that you
strike, you strike everything
GIANNINI: After the comment.
TYLER: After underground. And I would ask that there also be some kind of
provision in there which specifically says that the applicant would mitigate viewplane, negative
viewplane impacts, not only from mauka but from the ocean, from makai. And
TANAICA: Councilman Tyler?
TYLER: Yes, sir.
TANAKA: If I can interrupt you one
TYLER: You may, sir.
TANAICA: Item No.l 1, I think one of the reasons, coming from the industry, the
69 kV might be a requirement for overhead by HELCO. And there are certain areas that [he
community has tried to underground the 69 kV transmission lines, but because of the voltage,
there are no adequate designs for conduits and manholes for such a high voltage at this time.
A case in point is the Waimea Community Association, when they wanted to do that upgrading
~3
of that roadway. The final decision by HELLO was to reroute the 69 kV on the back side of
the community because there was no means to do that. So I wouldn't mind seeing something
if, "if possible by HELLO," because I think that is a determination by HELLO that Mr. Fuke
needs to explore.
TYLER: Well, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, HELLO has been putting its
lines above ground for as long as all of us can remember. And while there may be some
constraints regazding this in terms of financial impacts, I know that Oahu is experiencing a lot
of discussion, public community discussion regarding this matter. And if [hat is the case, I'm
wondering why we don't see the lines at Ka`upulehu.
TANAKA: I think once you get out of the substation, and the substation is intended
to step the voltage down from the 69 transmission voltage, which is used for trans-Island
transmission
TYLER: Right. Right.
TANAKA: Then it comes down to a voltage that is manageable, like a 13.8 kV
or 12.47.
TYLER: Sure. Well, Ithink
TANAKA: So after the substation, I think it's no problem with it being
underground.
TYLER: Okay.
TANAKA: But, again, I think this Commission really has, would not be able to
determine, we have not the expertise to say the 69 would have to be underground. So if you
want to
TYLER: So it may be
TANAKA: Put in language that it conforms to HELLO, and if it's approved by
HELLO, or there's a means to underground the 69, then, fine, Imean
TYLER: Okay, well, no
TANAKA: All the better
TYLER: I wasn't
TANAKA: For people in the industry; it's more work-.
TYLER: Right.
34
TANAKA: For us but
TYLER: Well, Mr. Tanaka
TANAKA: I don't see how it can be done.
TYLER: Mr. Tanaka, I certainly, you know more about electricity than I ever
hope to, but And it may be that Mamalahoa is correct, I don't know, because they may be
having a substation in between the 69 kilovolt line that runs there. I don't know. But
certainly, you ought to find out where the proposed electrical substation is. I guess maybe
that's the key question.
TANAKA: Yeah.
TYLER: And if it's, because I know the one at Ka`upulehu is mauka of the pu`u,
and I don't know whether the applicant has control over any lands mauka of Queen
Ka`ahumanu. So I think this is, this is a very important point because considerable money and
effort and time was taken to make sure that those lines were way, way mauka.
And No. 12, Condition No. 12, Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that you add there, you put
the number there, and add land exchange agreement and add any settlement agreement if, in
fact, that was part of it, too. And, let's see, and that, where it says in that condition, and shall
include mauka-makai access, parking areas, signage, emergency response considerations,
restrictions on use, if any, provisions of restrooms, and related improvements as required by
those documents.
And then, I'm almost done with this one, Mr. Chairman, just one more comment on Condition
No. 15, because I realize this will be my last shot a[ this. When it comes to the Council I
probably can do some things. But in there, if you would add, as part of that condition, that the
trail be protected, the cinder cone has already been noted, and that to the extent any ahupua`a
walls exist on the property that the integrity of those walls be protected. I was working with
Mr. Fuke on another project, and we added that condition down in Kailua because there's
some beautiful ahupua`a walls. I'm not certain that there are ahupua'a walls here. But if there
are, I would just ask that you routinely add this to your conditions because it's, these are very
important walls. They mark all of our tax districts and our property lines; and if you look at
your real property tax maps, you'll see them there. And that, let's see, that's it.
Mr. Chairman, sorry for the lengthy comments.
I'm moving now, sir, to the conditions regarding the rezoning and Page No. 8, there's a
comment there about the project will be serviced by a dual water system consisting of potable
and non-potable irrigation water. I would ask that you work with the applicant to see what we
can do about if the wells are going to be drilled mauka. And I'm also speaking to the
applicant, mauka of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway on State land, that we develop a
collaborative mechanism so [hat water may be made available to the Veterans' Cemetery. It's
35
a major problem right now; there's no water there, and it's costing the County taxpayers a lot
of money to haul water in there. And if the applicant would be willing to, and it's based on
my preliminary discussions with Mr. Fuke, they said they would be willing to consider it, that
if the water is going to be up there, rather than pumping it up, maybe it can just go laterally
across. So I would ask that you think about this because many veterans call me frequently and
speak to me about this issue. And if there's an opportunity and it's at the proper elevation that
we possibly at least make it available, obviously not on a free basis, but on some basis, a lot
cheaper than hauling the water.
Let's see. The, it talks about the cinder cone, this is Page No. 9, about the middle, the cinder
cone and the sections of the trail may be incorporated into a public interpretation program.
Obviously, you need to work with not only the State Historic Preservation but the OHA
representative who is extremely familiar with this particular area.
And I would, again, speak to the need to have the access to the project area at the Veterans'
Cemetery junction, to the extent the State will permit that.
I note here, at the bottom of the, just before the second to the last paragraph on Page 10, it
says the applicant shall also commit contributing funds for the cost of the interchange as is
stated in the Queen Ka`ahumanu Master Plan 1997. Yet, in one of the conditions in here, it
says that to the extent, let me find it here
MOSHER: Excuse me. I can't find what you're looking at.
TYLER: I'm sorry.
MOSHER: And I have everything.
TYLER: I'm sorry, Commissioner Mosher. I am referring, I'm very sorry. I
was referring to the County of Hawaii Planning Department Recommendation with, attached to
the proposed bill.
GIFFIN: Is it change of zone?
MCINTOSH: Change of zone?
TYLER: Yes, it is.
TANAKA: Yes.
TYLER: I'm very sorry.
MOSHER: No, that's okay because
TYLER: I thought I said -
36
TANAKA: What page?
TYLER: I moved on to that. I was looking at Page No. 8 when I was referring
about potable and non-potable water; it's the middle paragraph there, that short paragraph.
And I just was commenting that perhaps we can add some kind of a condition that say that the
applicant would use their best efforts to coordinate with the Department of Public, Parks, and
Public, Parks and Recreation.
And then I was looking at Page No. 9, approximately the middle of the page, the middle of
that long paragraph where it says the cinder cone and the sections of the trail may be
MOSHER: I don't, mine isn't like that.
TANAKA: Are you looking
GIANNINI: Wait, wait.
TANAKA: At the recommendation for the change of zone?
GIANNINI: You're not looking at the conditions?
MOSHER: I'm looking at the recommendation and the conditions.
TANAKA: Change of zone?
GIANNINI: No, no.
MOSHER: Change of zone.
TYLER: It's Page No. 9; it's approximately in the middle. I'm sorry,
Mr. Chairman, I didn't mean to confuse the Commission.
MOSHER: I was on the wrong Page 9.
TANAKA: Okay.
TYLER: Commissioner Mosher, did you find it there
MOSHER: Yes.
TYLER: What I was speaking about?
MOSHER: Thank you.
37
TYLER: Thank you. I'm sorry for the confusion. And then I was finally
speaking about Page ]0. In the last sentence in the second to the last paragraph at the bottom
of that page, and it says, "The applicant shall also commit contributing funds for the cost of
the interchange as stated in the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway Master Plan 1997." And I
referred to that and I said that there was a condition in here regarding, it's one of your
conditions regarding, yes, here it is. It's Condition N-1, and it says that the cost of such
improvements, these are the improvements for a fully channelized intersection, shall be borne
by the applicant and may be credited or deducted from the applicant's fair share contribution.
And I would submit to you that if it's required in the Master Plan, that this is a separate
requirement and that it not be deducted from the County fair share amounts. Because it is
already a condition imposed by the State and it should not negatively impact any, any, that
comes from the County. I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that it says
there,"as required under Condition T." I believe that that's the wrong reference. I believe it
should be Paragraph S. I'm sorry, Mr. Giannini, did you have a question?
GIANNINI: No.
TYLER: Okay. I believe that should be Paragraph S because Paragraph T is the
affordable housing element.
GOLDSTEIN: It's U, U, Condition U Actually, there is an error.
TYLER: Well, there's an error. It can't be the affordable housing. I think it, I
think it applies to Condition S, Condition S, as well as Condition, yeah, Condition S. Because
if this is a State requirement, if there are any requirements from Roads from the State, this
should not impact the fair share assessment that the County Council is going to put on this.
They are two different matters. One is, the fair share is assessed by the County Council
because of impacts. The fair share that may be assessed as a result of State highways or
improvements to the park, the proposed park or to access to that park is a separate matter. So
I would just ask, although I realize that this kind of language is standard, the kinds of
conditions imposed by the State are not standard. So I would just ask you to look at that
carefully, please, and I'll look at it when it comes to the Council, obviously.
I wanted to point out for the beneFit of the audience, as well as the Commissioners, if they did
not already note it, that part of the State conditions, as stated in Condition No. D and
Condition No. E, is that hotel and time share condominium or apartment units shall be
prohibited within there. And that matter, that hasn't come up, nobody has mentioned this, but
this is a very important condition that was imposed by the State and I think everyone should
know you couldn't expect it, you won'[ expect to see those there.
No. E that there is, in addition to the thousand foot, it has been called a setback, but actually
the property line doesn't begin until a thousand feet plus, there's a 400-foot no-build buffer,
okay, that was also imposed by the State. And so what you've done here is you've
incorporated specifically two conditions from the LUC docket, and they're very important for
38
people to know. Mr., I think Mr. Van Pernis and others suggested that you might incorporate
some of the others, and I would leave that to your discretion.
Condition No. F indicates that the County is not going to be obligated to construct any public
facilities within the project area. And I hope that this means that we won't be obligated to
construct any public facilities without, outside of the project area, but that are required by the
State. In other words, I don't want to see the public park facilities fair share to go to pay for
something that the State has already mandated as part of the land exchange, okay. I'd like to
see that money used for the maintenance of the park or maintenance of other parks. So it's a
big difference here between these two, so please don't confuse them if it's possible.
Mr. Chairman, I noticed in Condition G that there's a long list of types of improvements that
are to be allowed. And the first four, one being adult day care homes, the second being bed
and breakfasts, and three being boarding facilities, including rooming or lodging houses, and
number four being commercial or personal service uses on a small scale as approved by the
Director. I may be wrong on this but, and first of all, I don't understand why the first three
would be in there. And number, with respect to number four, it was my understanding that as
one of the conditions of the LUC decision and order was that there would be no commercial
facilities on this property. So I would ask you, you cannot countermand the State LUC, so
please be very careful before you final this. And I'll look at this when it comes to the Council,
but it's just something for your consideration. Because if it isn't taken out and it should be
taken out, then, you know, I'm going to get a hundred telephone calls saying what happened
over here? These guys did this and weren't paying attention. And it's not, I'm not trying to
put you on the spot; I just wanted to point this out in case you didn't see this.
Also, I would suggest with respect to number, Condition No. H on Page 3, that a similar
amendment be made regarding utilizing the talents of the Mayor's Arborist Advisory
Committee and the use of using endemic and indigenous Hawaiian plants wherever possible.
I'm wrapping it up here, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this, and thank you members of the
public for your patience.
Condition No. N-1, it talks about if warranted a fully channelized, etcetera, intersection. And
what it says earlier is that it will be, a channelized intersection will be made. So I'm not sure
that if warranted needs to be put in there.
I've already spoken about the Condition T, which I think should be S, and the Planning
Director says perhaps U.
No. 2, N-2 talks about a traffic monitoring program at the intersection of Queen Ka`ahumanu
Highway. There's no intersection there now, so I'm not sure what intersection that is, and I
would, but I'm sure you can work that out. That would be one of the questions you might
want to ask. And it says,"If additional intersection improvements such as fully channelized
intersection with acceleration, deceleration lanes are required." I would suggest with the
proposed density of 900 units, that you better require this and make sure it's done. We, as
taxpayers, I don't think want to pay for this later on when we find out we weren't paying
39
attention. And, also, add, once again, "the bikeways and pedestrian paths where it's
appropriate."
And No. 5, N-5, at the top of Page 6, it talks about no lots shall have direct access from
Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, and then it has an exception, "except through an access point
approved by the State Department of Transportation." And I would submit to you that that be
stricken because once again, we'd be having another roadway. And unless there's some good
reason, why I'm not aware of, and perhaps I'm not aware of it But I think we're looking
here at one channelized intersection, so that there's one point of ingress and egress; and that
the majority of that be utilized for public access so we can get to the beach. And then the
applicant can have its gated, you know, entrance if that's their wish, at another point.
And Condition No. 5, once again, I would add the settlement agreement. And just to clarify
for yourselves, that last sentence in there, what, when, with the opening of the golf course will
take place. I already spoke to you about that.
And the Council will be amending Condition U, as we usually do, contrary to Commissioner
McIntosh's wishes here. And we, you know, Commissioner McIntosh, I want to tell you that
a proposed draft of an impact ordinance came across my desk.
MCINTOSH: You saved my asking the question then, because there's been a lot of
conversation about this fair share assessment.
TYLER: I know that; and I wanted to let you know because I was rather stunned
to see this. It has only been, what, three years since we had this discussion
MCINTOSH: Five.
TYLER: Well, it's been three years since I've been on the Council so Let's
see, the Condition No., Roman Numeral V, excuse me, V, I'm sorry, Paragraph V on Page 8,
I would once again ask that you provide some language there regarding preservation of any
ahupua`a walls and the trails. With respect to any
TANAKA: Councilman, are you still on change of zone?
MCINTOSH: Yep.
GIANNINI: Yes.
TYLER: Yes, I am, sir, I'm on Page No. 8, I'm on Paragraph No. V,
Condition V.
TANAKA: Oh, V, okay.
TYLER: Yes.
ao
TANAKA: Victor, okay.
TYLER: Yes. Victor, I'm sorry; and just to be consistent with what I said
earlier And, also, let's see, Condition No. Y at the top of Page 9, I would, once again, as
the Chairman pointed out, Paragraph Y and Paragraph Z both indicate compliance with all
laws, requirements, etcetera, etcetera. But I would specifically, I would ask that you
specifically name, at least in Condition, not at least, in Condition Y, the land exchange
agreement, the, add A, Docket No. A92-677 and whatever the settlement agreement is that I
haven't seen.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for, and Members of the Commission, thank you for indulgence,
members of the public who are waiting patiently. I'm finished, if you can believe it.
TANAKA: Thank you, Councilman Tyler.
TYLER: I hope I'm not totally finished as a result of that. I'll be happy to answer
any questions.
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioner Souza first.
SOUZA: I was going to suggest a recess. Anybody else feel the
TANAKA: Okay.
SOUZA: Way I do?
TANAKA: I would agree. But let's see if we have any questions for the
Councilman first and then we can take a recess. Commissioner Mosher.
MOSHER: I have a question of Fred. If we include these document numbers and
identify these documents, should the applicant be successful in amending the findings, the Land
Use conditions, would those document numbers, would they just be amending document
numbers?
GIANNINI: What you would, if you intend for the conditions in those documents to
be lasting conditions and unchangeable, you're going to have to include the documents within
your, you know, within your decision, like to attach them and incorporate them by reference.
MOSHER: So if the, they go and try to amend the Land Use Commission's
requirements, it, they couldn't change any
GIANNINI: No, they couldn't because
MOSHER: Of the conditions.
41
GIANNINI: The conditions would be a part of your granting
MOSHER: Apart of the
GIANNINI: Yeah.
MOSHER: Okay. Thank you.
GIANNINI: Okay.
TYLER: Mr. Chairman, may I offer just a suggestion there. If, obviously, the
Slate has superior authority over the County. And my though[ would be that if you did
incorporate these and subsequently there were any changes ordered by any State agency, in this
case the Land Use Commission, [hat it would be, it would then be incumbent, as I know as
happened I think in at least one case I can think of, it would be incumbent upon the applicant
to come before the Council to clarify this matter if there was a question. It just seemed that
that might be a simpler way to do it. But I certainly would, you know, you'd have to defer to
your Counsel. Thank you.
GIANNINI: The other problem that it could also raise is if, for example, the County
were to say you must follow all of these conditions and then specifically incorporate the
conditions that are in a Land Use order. If [hey go back and try to change it under the, they
go back to the Land Use Commission and get the Land Use Commission to change the order,
then they could then challenge. They could challenge potentially the County's permit
conditions as saying these are conditions which should be under the jurisdiction of the Land
Use Commission and, therefore, the County may not have the power to hold it to us. But I'm
saying if you want to, if you want to make those conditions adhered to, and even to attempt it,
you have to, I would say the thing is you would have to incorporate those specific documents
with those specific conditions then and say you have to, you have to abide by these specific
conditions.
TYLER: Mr. Chairman, that was my intention was, and I neglected to say rather
than attaching them, just say as incorporated by reference, unless you felt it was
GIANNINI: It would, we, rather than saying incorporating by reference and giving a
number, it would probably be a lot clearer to attach that actual document to your permit.
MOSHER: As an exhibit.
GIANNINI: As an exhibit, yeah.
TYLER: Mr. Chairman, one final comment. I made an error, and I need to
correct this, and I knew better at the time. I've been informed by the trustee of the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs, Hawaii Island representative, that, in fact, Hawaii Island elected trustee,
a2
that she is a trustee, not a representative; and I think we all know there's a big difference, and
I apologize to the trustee. She also indicates that she is working on this project as a consultant
kama`aina, not as an OHA official. So I wanted to just clarify that for the record; and I thank
Anna Kihalani Springer for that clarification. I am finished now, Mr. Chairman.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Togashi.
TOGASHI: Yeah, before we recess, and before the Planning Director puts the other
revised set of recommendations, Ithink we need some clarification on that, that booklet that
was being passed around which purports to be some kind of a settlement agreement. Because I
just don't get that feeling that it's just a, just a set of recommendations; and I don't see any
settlement agreement that you are speaking of.
VAN PERNIS: If I may respond. I don't think I referred to it as a settlement agreement.
If Idid, I mis-spoke. It's a set of recommendations that resulted in a final park plan that
incorporated the recommendations and, at that time, North Kona Development's role in it.
And Ithink
TOGASHI: We don't
VAN PERNIS: We don't have a copy of that final
TOGASHI: Yeah, I don't think you, I don't think you have a copy of it.
VAN PERNIS: And Idon't
TOGASHI: To include something like this where we are not sure
VAN PERNIS: No, I am not suggesting that that be included; that wasn't my
recommendation. What, my recommendation was that the final park requirements imposed,
between them
TOGASHI: Okay.
VAN PERNIS: Be incorporated. That just shows you where it was going and makes
reference.
TOGASHI: Okay.
VAN PERNIS: There is a final park plan, I think it's dated 1998, I'm not sure,
Mr. Varney is not here any longer
MCINTOSH: Is that Kekaha Kai? This is the precursor to Kekaha Kai, correct?
VAN PERNIS: No, that's for Manini`owali.
43
MCINTOSH: Well, I know. But I mean isn't it all now part of Kekaha Kai?
VAN PERNIS: There is a master plan for the entire park, but also this has been finalized
as far as the
MCINTOSH: Really?
VAN PERNIS: Manini`owali one.
MCINTOSH: Oh, okay.
VAN PERNIS: And I don't have that, but it's available from the State.
TOGASHI: Okay. I see what you're saying.
VAN PERNIS: And, but I agree that the conditions stated in the deed and [he
DLNI2/LUC land exchange should be, my recommendation is there should be conditions to
this approval so that they cannot go back and say, well, the County didn't require them, or
basically get out of those requirements. Because that was the quid pro quo for the financial
gain that they made through the exchange.
MCINTOSH: Just as a point of clarification, and I don't have a microphone, Sharon,
there were exactions.
TANAKA: Use Commissioner Souza's.
MCINTOSH: Exactions on this property separate and apart from the exchange deed
and agreement to purchase? There is another document that attaches to this property?
VAN PERNIS: Well, you'll have to confer, you'll have to check with the DLNR on that.
But my understanding is that there was, the exactions that will require these folks in the park
were made more specific in the course of the park scoping plan.
MCINTOSH: Because I, the Manini`owali Park scoping plan or Kekaha Kai?
VAN PERNIS: The Manini`owali portion. The, what you have before you was prepared
by consultants hired by North Kona Development Corporation, this applicant's predecessor.
The Earth Plan I think was the name of the consultants. They were hired at the, by them to
develop these plans subject to the State's approval. The Earth Plan developed them, these
were recormendations. The recommendations were submitted to the State; and subsequently a
final decision was made in another document. And that's, and that decision was then, in turn,
later incorporated into the entire park plan, but I don't think you need to go that far. You just
need to go with the final decision on these recommendations which were made by the State. I
have copies of those because I participated in that process. But I was not involved in the
44
S[a[e's final decision making, and thus was not provided a copy of that, although I understand
Mr. Varney may have access to it and certainly it's in the State records at some place.
TANAKA: Okay.
FUKE: Mr. Chairman, can I just make, just give me two minutes; and then I
share Commissioner Souza's concern because I have the same need, too.
TANAKA: Okay.
FUKE: The only thing that the applicant is aware of, at least I am also aware of,
is that there is that agreement which is already in your file, between the State and the
respective property owners, which stipulates all of the different things that the applicant must
do. Now, this agreement, as part of the land exchange, required not only the approval of the
Board of Land and Natural Resources, it required the approval of the Legislature. And I can
state right now, after conferring with Dr. Warmington, the president, that they have absolutely
no intention of going before the Land Board and going before [he Legislature to have any
provisions of this land agreement amended. This land agreement is already recorded with the
Bureau of Conveyances. So if the Commissioners wish to have that become part of the
condition of approval, the applicant has absolutely no objections to that.
Relative to the Land Use Commission's conditions, I think that if you look at the Land Use
Commission's conditions, none of these conditions relate to the park aspect. All of the
discussions on the park, where the access, the obligation to provide $2.5 million
improvements, so on and so forth, are not in the Land Use Commission's conditions. They
are part of the land exchange agreement. And there is no way as I, you know, just to reiterate
again that the applicant has any intention of going before the Legislature, going before the
Land Board to have that changed. I mean, I think we all know how difficult it is to have a
document changed and approved by the Legislature.
And, with that, well, one final comment. What Mr. Van Pernis is referring to is this
Kekaha Kai State Park which was provided to me by the State Park Planner, Sherrie Samuels,
which, as I indicated earlier, I was not aware of. And this Kekaha Kai State Plan, which is
dated 1998, is now before the Land Board for final approval. And this is the plan, that if it's
approved by the Land Board, that the applicant has an obligation pursuant to that agreement to
implement. If they wish to use that existing 60-foot wide easement that bisects their property,
that old gravel road, I mean, that's fine. But if they wish to relocate, and as I indicated, it's
the intention of the applicant right now to have it relocated, then it would still be subject to the
approval of the State Parks Department. And as I indicated like also I've had discussions with,
you know, Councilman Tyler that at this point in time, you know, it's looking very good that
the access point is going to be, you know, directly across of the Veterans' Cemetery. But we
can't make that commitment because that's State land. And the way that your conditions are,
well, your proposed conditions as written by the Staff provides for that kind of flexibility.
And having said that then, you know
45
TANAKA: Okay.
VAN PERNIS: May Imake
SOUZA: Recess.
VAN PERNIS: One inquiry?
TANAKA: Real quick, then we're going to recess.
VAN PERNIS: Yeah.
TANAKA: Give you one minute.
VAN PERNIS: There's a document entitled Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Decision and Order. Is that what is before you?
TANAI{A: LUC.
GIFFIN: Yes.
VAN PERNIS: All right. That, of course, is the most critical of the documents.
MCINTOSH: Right.
VAN PERNIS: Along with the deed and
TANAKA: Right. We agree with that. We have that. Thank you. We have a
motion by Commissioner Souza. Any second for a
MCINTOSH: Second.
MOSHER: Second.
TANAI{A: Ten-minute recess? Okay. Moved and seconded. We'll break
until 11:20.
RECESSED The meeting recessed at 11:10 a.m.
RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:25 a.m.
TANAICA: The meeting of the Hawaii County Planning Commission will now come
back to order. We'll ask you to take your seats. Before going any further, I'd like to
recognize, we have some Council Members in the audience. We'd like to recognize the
46
presence of Councilwoman Leithhead-Todd and also Councilwoman Pissichio, in addition to
Councilman Tyler. Thank you for being here.
TANAKA: Okay, Mr. Fuke, there were quite a few concerns that were
brought up, if you could provide some comments.
FUKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the comments raised by the
public, as well as the Commissioners, during the public hearing portion, I think are very well
taken. As a result, we'd like to make some proposed amendments. Before making those
proposed amendments, however, I'd like to clearly note, again, re-emphasize that the applicant
has in no way any intention to escape or diminish the requirements or the understandings of the
State Land Exchange relative to access, the obligation to make new improvements, you know,
within the proposed State, Kekaha Kai State Park.
I'd like to also note that I know that there have been a number of suggested language and other
kinds of changes suggested by Councilman Tyler on the zone change. And I would like to
suggest in the interest of time that inasmuch as the Council almost always comes forth with third
or fourth amendments to the drafts of the recommendations provided by the Planning
Commission and Planning Director that, you know, we be given an opportunity to work out the
specific details at the Council level.
But, nonetheless, there are a few changes that I think that I would like to suggest which, you
know, addresses some of the major issues that were brought today. And I've passed out a sheet
of paper,;but before doing that, however, I guess specifically, and this is kind of like brought up
further by Councilman Tyler as well as others. Relative to, where it is on proposed Condition 3
on the SMA, as well as proposed Condition Y on the project district, I would like to suggest that,
if you look at the, you know, but they aze, basically, identical. And so it would read like, "The
applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval of the Land Use Commission Decision
and Order," and again, in parenthesis, "(A92-677)" and you would add this new portion too,
"and exchange deed and agreement to exchange dated December 28, 1990, Document No. 92-
038660, and shall not seek any amendments to said agreement." So which, this makes it very
clear that, and as I had represented earlier that the applicant is proposing some amendments to
the Land Use Commission condition; but with respect to the State agreement, there is absolutely
no intention of the applicant to do that. And so this would sort of like codify whatever we had
represented today.
Also, like on the rezoning Condition No. N, we appreciate the concerns raised by the public
about the need for a fully channelized intersection. We would like to suggest that Condition N-1,
you delete the reference to "if warranted" so it becomes clear that a fully channelized
intersection, and again, change the wording of channelization to channelized, so it would read
like, "A fully channelized," "including but not limited to decel etcetera, etcetera.
And also to delete in its entirety, proposed condition, on the rezoning again, N-5, because it is
clearly not the applicant's intention to have any of the lots get direct access to the Queen
Ka`ahumanu Highway.
47
TANAKA: You said delete entirely, Mr. Fuke?
MOSHER: He did.
TANAKA: Okay.
FUKE: Correct, yeah.
TANAKA: Number five.
GIANNINL• N-5.
TANAKA: Actually, you might want to say that there will be no access, yeah? And
maybe just exclude the "except through," yeah?
GIANNINI: Okay.
FUKE: Yeah, we would have no objections to that suggested language to make
it
GIFFIN: So after highway?
TANAKA: After highway.
GIANNINI: Period after highway.
TANAKA: Period. Yeah.
Fi 7KE: Yeah. Period, correct.
TANAKA: Mr. Fuke, clarification back on N-2. If it is your intent to install this fully
channelized intersection, then on N, excuse me, on N-l, as you indicated the amendment, on
N-2, where it says if additional intersection improvements, such as fully channelized
intersection, it pretty much says the same thing there, yeah?
FUKE: That is correct. It would apparently be redundant. So perhaps that second
paragraph can be, second sentence of that condition could be deleted.
TANAKA: Okay. Mr. Fuke, how do you feel about the proposed language by the
Councilman on the native plants issue?
FUKE: I think on that, it's something that, a language that we'd have to work out
more specifically, you know, and Ithink
TANAKA: At the Council level?
48
Fi 1KE: Correct. I think that, you know, we have worked on a similar type of
language for another zone change which I don't have, you know, with me right now, but it is the
applicant's intention to incorporate, as much as possible, endemic or, you know, native Hawaiian
plants within the project. I can give the Commission the assurance that, you know, if this matter
goes to the County Council, that we will come up with suggested language that would
incorporate this particular position.
TANAKA: Okay.
FLJKE: I've passed out the, what earlier that we had proposed as suggested
languages. This is titled Manini`owali Equity and then proposed amendments to SMA, etcetera
which, hopefully, all of the Commissioners should have a copy of. What we would like to ask
the, request the Commission to consider is in the SMA, on the second sentence of Condition No.
5 for the SMA It reads right now, "The plan shall also reflect the metes and bounds
description of the 10-acre pu`u preserve," which is the reference to the small pu`u on the
property, "including consideration for Pu`u Kuili." And what we would like to suggest is that
the language be changed to say that, "The plan should also reflect the metes and bounds
description of the small pu`u and the foot of Pu`u Kuili within the subject property, and said
aeeas shall be preserved in perpetuity in their natural state."
The reason why we would suggest this is, aze two-fold. One is that we really don't know the
actual size of this pu'u. And by stating that it is 10-acres, then I think by, you know, we would
have to find a 10-acre area when, in fact, it could be 11 or it could be six or five. But at this
point in time, it's really undeterminable. And, secondly, to make it clear that this preserve area,
you know, will be preserved in their, in perpetuity in its natural state; and so, you know, thus, it
can't be used part of the golf course or whatever except for, you know, visual enhancements.
Relative to Condition No. 12 on the SMA portion, again, over here, we would just like to make it
cleaz that, you know, this would be
GOLDSTEIN: Excuse me? If-.
FL1KE: I'm sorry?
GOLDSTEIN: If I may just ask, then would that previous condition also the language be
the same for the rezoning H?
FUKE: That is correct.
GOLDSTEIN: Okay.
FUKE: Thank you very much. And for, on Condition 12, which relates to the
public access program, we would like to suggest on the second language, excuse me, on the
second paragraph, it reads, well, presently, it reads now, "The plan shall be developed and
approved in consultation with the Planning Director and DLNR and shall include mauka-makai"
areas, "access, parking areas, signage," so on and so forth. What it doesn't make clear is that
49
like where these facilities should be. And pursuant to the agreement, it's our understanding that,
in our agreement with the State, that it's our understanding that the parking area and the restroom
facilities would all be within the Kekaha Kai State Park. And so the proposed language that
we'd like to suggest would be, "The plan shall be submitted for the review and approval by the
Planning Director upon consultation with the DLNR and shall include mauka-makai bike,
pedestrian and vehicular access, parking areas and restroom facilities on State land located makai
of the subject property and at locations approved by the DLNR, signage, emergency response
considerations, restrictions on any use, if any, and related improvements." To delete the term
"The final comprehensive public access plan" and basically state as follows, "Implementation of
the public access plan shall be completed no later than the opening of the golf course or final
subdivision approval of any residential increment," which I think addresses the concerns raised
about like the development, minus the golf course, may occur prior to. And then this assures the
public and the Commission that park access will be developed in conjunction with any
development activities on the site.
TANAKA: The last sentence was, "Or final subdivision approval of
FUKE: "Any residential increment." So there is a possibility the development
maybe subdivided, you know, for financing purposes. So we would not necessarily wish to
have that requirement be tacked on in conjunction with that. However, if they do like a 15-lot to
20-lot subdivision then, obviously, it has to be in.
Relative to the project district, as the Planning Director had clarified, you know, we'd suggest
the same language change to proposed Condition H, which relates to the description of the small
pu`u on the site.
And on Condition, proposed Condition N, excuse me, M as in Mary, as it's presently written
right now, it says that the interior roadway requirements for the Manini`owali Project District
shall be designed to residential standards as allowed by the Subdivision Code, and as represented
in Section 3.3 etcetera, etcetera. What we would like to recommend is that there be a deletion of
this condition, and maybe I can explain why.
The residential standazds right now, pursuant to Department of Public Works' conditions, require
that if you have a 50-foot wide right-of--way, that the entire right-of--way would have to be
improved with swale. And, you know, that, the intention on the applicant right now is to have a
50-foot wide right-of--way, 50 or 60 Feet wide right-of--way, depending on the situation, on the
fully improved roadway;. But relative to the swales, you know, to have the consideration maybe
like grass swales or some modifications thereto which would be consistent with the overall visual
ambiance that the other projects in that area has. By having this condition written, then it kind of
like mandates the developer to have the full 50 or 60-foot wide improvements be made within
the entire swale and would be visually very inconsistent with that azea. So we would like to, by
having its deletion, it still would require the developer to come forth with subdivision roadway
standards that would meet with the County's approval. But it would allow the developer to
apply for either a variance or a planned unit development permit, as the case might be, to allow
for some modification to improvements within the balance of the right-of--way. So, as a result,
50
we would like to suggest the deletion of Condition M and then subsequently the renumbering of
all of the different conditions, excuse me, re-lettering.
And with that, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, we'd be more than happy to
entertain any questions or other suggested amendments that the Commissioners may have.
MIRIKITANI: Mr. Chairman?
TANAKA: Condition S would be similar to what we went over for the SMA, is that
correct, on your last page of your proposed conditions?
FUKE: Correct, yeah.
TANAKA: Okay.
FUKE: Because Condition S is identical to Condition
MIRIKITANI: Condition 12.
FUKE: Condition 12
MCINTOSH: Twelve.
FUKE: Of the SMA, correct.
TANAKA: Everybody got that straight? Okay. Commissioners, any questions?
Commissioner McIntosh.
MCINTOSH: Yes, I would like some explanation on Condition 11 in relationship to the
69 kV line and whether it is Mamalahoa Highway or Queen K.
MIRIKITANI: That's Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway; Mamalahoa should be deleted.
MCINTOSH: And the substation is going to be where?
MIRIKITANI: The substation is located, it's in the applicant's report on the electrical, I'll
find the page for you.
MCINTOSH: Thank you.
TANAKA: On Page 38 of the Background Report, Item No. 5, Utilities, Power and
Telephone.
GIANNINI: Oh, yeah.
MIRIKITANI: Thirty-eight?
st
GOLDSTEIN: Yeah.
TANAKA: Thirty-eight. Three thousand feet mauka of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway.
GIANNINI: Well, but that's where the line is, but it doesn't say where the substation
would be, right?
TANAKA: So from there
MIRIKITANI: Actually it's, yeah, it's on Page 38, and it refers to, there's an existing 69
kV overhead transmission line located approximately 3,000 feet mauka of Queen Ka`ahumanu
Highway. The proposed project will be connected to this system. This connection will probably
require off-site and on-site utility easements, separate transformers, and off-site transmission
facilities. The applicant will participate in paying for these facilities.
TANAKA: So
MCINTOSH: So the overhead line is going to go from where to where?
GIANNINI: Over the highway.
GOLDSTEIN: And it doesn't answer the question of where the substation
TANAKA: Substation.
GOLDSTEIN: Is going to be.
TANAKA: Mr. Fuke.
FiJKE: Yeah, it's my understanding that tentatively the substation would be
located mauka of the highway. Now, if an easement from the, and the properties mauka of the
highway all belong to the State. And if that's not possible, then we would have to look at
different alternatives, possibly on the property, on the property itself.
MCINTOSH: Is there some way that you can keep that overhead line? And you may
have just said if the State will consent on the mauka side of the road, so that there's nothing
overhead on the makai side?
Fi JKE: If the, the way the condition is worded is like the only exception would be
the 69 kV line. So all other lines within the project, and assuming it's on the mauka side, then all
other lines within the project would be underground.
MCINTOSH: No, I understand that. So we can't have any assurance today where that
substation is going to be so we know where the overhead line will terminate and the underground
services will start?
52
FUKE: That's correct. Was that a question or a comment? I'm sorry.
MCINTOSH: You confirmed it. And on the viewplane analysis you did in your
Background Report, how were the two sites selected? Are there any other through plans to the
ocean horizon. Because on these two examples that you've given us, one of the horizons is
totally obliterated by units, so that you're losing If these are the only two places where you
can actually see the ocean driving down Queen K, then we're losing 50 percent or half of the
ability to see the ocean from the highway.
FiJKE: Are you referring to Figure 2 of the view location?
MCINTOSH: I'm actually refemng to the next one, Figure 3. And if I look at the page
previous, where you point out the two places where you're going to do the viewplane analysis,
I'm wondering how those two places were selected. Are there any other sites along the frontage
where you gain additional viewplanes of the ocean, or are these two sites it, totally?
FiIKE: Those were the only two shots that were taken because they appeared to
be the most negatively affected, you know and However, as you, moving north, there will be,
just given the topography of that areas, where it kind of like goes down, it's a lower elevation
area than the viewplane; the vista kind of like opens up. So the higher portion of the property's
on the south end of the site. So that's why the viewplane analysis was taken more from that
perspective rather than trying to show a really rosy picture, you know. So that would be the
most, more worst case situation, worst case scenario.
TANAKA: Before we go on, can I just make an announcement to the public. We are
planning to take a lunch break right after this application; we don't know how long that might be.
But all others, including Item, Agenda Item No. 2, Ka`upulehu, will be after lunch, okay, so if
that helps you with your schedule today.
Okay, I'm sorry. Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Togashi.
TOGASHI: Yes, I was wondering if Mr. Fuke would have any objection to including,
as suggested by Councilman Tyler, a study of, and preservation of any ahupua`a walls? This
would be in both the SMA permit and the project district application. I guess it would be like in
Condition 15 of the SMA, perhaps a, it says here the plan shall consist of three subplans, and
maybe adding a fourth, a study of any ahupua`a walls, and if need be, a preservation.
TANAKA: We have some comments from Director Goldstein first, if we may.
Director.
GOLDSTEIN: I don't believe there are any ahupua`a walls
GIFFIN: I was just going to ask
GOLDSTEIN: On this particular piece of
53
GIFFIN: Are there any?
GOLDSTEIN: Land, either on the south or the north.
GIFFIN: Yeah, I was just going to ask.
TOGASHI: Okay, never mind.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you.
FCTKE: But there are significant trails, as was indicated by Dr. Dye, like on the
lower portion of the property which the applicant intends to preserve.
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioners? Commissioner Souza.
SOUZA: Thank you. There was, is this working?
GIFFIN: Yeah, it is.
MCINTOSH: Yeah, it is.
SOUZA: There was much discussion about where you're going to build the wells.
Can you tell us where If I understood, you said in the morning that you would do it on your
property, but not you would go across the road.
FUKE: What I indicated in the beginning of the presentation was that initially we
were looking at having desalination wells on the mauka side of the property because the
elevation was a little higher. It all falls on State land. But we realized that there maybe some
difficulty in getting the appropriate permits and let alone the development, the use rights of those
wells if they are successful. So we had the water resource engineer, Dr. Tom Nance, evaluate
the situation; and he, in his evaluation, he concluded that it is very feasible to have your
desalination wells, you know, located on the subject property because it's at a sufficiently high
elevation. And his preliminary evaluation or conclusion is that these desalination wells would be
sufficient to accommodate the irrigation and potable water needs of the project. And the cost
would be somewhat comparable to other operating wells, private wells in this area, you know,
which rely on deep wells. So we were, obviously, the owner was very happy to get that resolved.
If you have more specific questions, he is here so I'll be more than happy to turn those questions
to him.
SOUZA: But if I may, on another subject, I have a, on the memo from the
Department of Public Works to the Planning Director, on roadways, it says roadway connections
to the adjoining parcels
FUKE: Correct.
54
SOUZA: Should be provided meeting with approval of DP These roads should be
open to public traffic. It is DPW policy on large subdivisions to recommend that functioning
interconnections be made to adjoining parcels. This would have the effect of reducing short-
range traffic on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway.
FUKE: Correct.
SOUZA: But I don't see you address that. All I see you address, unless I'm missing
something, is that all roads will be private.
FUKE: All roads will be private, you know, just like Hualalai or the other projects
in that area. However, users within that area would still be able to, under that condition, would
be in a position to get access from one project site to another project site. This is like one of the
things that the State has been talking about. They've been talking about like this frontage road
that would be on the makai, immediately makai of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, and it
requires that this frontage road be established for all of the different properties in this area. So,
eventually, if the State develops a, what they call a major interchange in that area, you know,
grade separated interchange, then there would be one access; and these projects would then all
get access from this major interchange and you would get access through this frontage road. So
what Public Works is saying is that it will be incorporated into the project by having this
frontage road connection to the north side. Relative to the south side, which is the State-owned
property, again, if we work it out with the State, and using that access from the existing
Veterans' Cemetery property, then obviously, you know, there will be access to the south side.
SOUZA: Yeah. Well, the part that puzzles me say "will be." It says roadway
connections to the adjoining parcels should be, not say will be.
FUKE: I'm sorry, I don't understand.
TANAKA: Are you referring to Item No. 6, Commissioner Souza?
SOUZA: Correct.
MIRIKITANI: On Page 6, Condition No. 4 of the change of zone, N-4, it states a roadway
connection to the adjacent parcel along the northeast boundary shall be provided meeting with
the approval of the Department of Public Works.
SOUZA: Thank you.
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioners, any further questions or comments for Mr. Fuke?
MCINTOSH: Mr. Chairman?
TANAKA: Yes.
55
MCINTOSH: Just one last, I think the only unanswered question is why we have the
allowed uses of adult day care homes, bed and breakfasts and boarding facilities within the
development
TANAKA: Okay.
MCINTOSH: As allowed uses.
MIRIKITANI: In the project district, one of the requirements is that the permitted uses for
single family residential or multiple family residential be, comply with the project district. These
are permitted uses within the single family residential according to the Zoning Code.
GOLDSTEIN: I think what she's asking is if the, I mean, all of the uses would have to be
those that are within a residential zone. Nevertheless, you're asking
MCINTOSH: Do they have to be?
GOLDSTEIN: Whether these, yeah, can we delete some
TANAKA: Yeah.
GOLDSTEIN: That are not applicable? And I'm assuming yes.
GIANNINI: In the Zoning Code?
MIRIKITANI: Yeah.
MCINTOSH: Well, there's also a question for the applicant. Are these
GOLDSTEIN: Yeah.
MCINTOSH: Uses in there at your request or only because they are allowed uses in the
residential zone? Do you want them there, or would you rather have them not there? Like one,
two, three, four.
FI JKE: We didn't make that request. It was actually, we just requested for a
project district and the uses as we had proposed . You know, notwithstanding what's stated over
here, they are still constrained by the land agreement. So that, you know, if the land agreement
says you can have single, multiple family, no resort, that's the terms of the project.
Relative to, like Condition No. 4, I think, Condition, not, G-4, however, it provides the, they are
going to have some commercial uses within the project. I mean, you might have like a
manicurist or whatever have you or like golf course operation is a commercial, so at least it
makes it clear that some commercial activities are allowed. But, again, bearing in mind that
what is governing on the
56
TANAKA: Yeah.
FUKE: Use is really like the terms of the land exchange.
MCINTOSH: Okay. Leave it alone.
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioners, any further questions? Okay. Is there anyone else
in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? And before we move on, I'd also like
to apologize and recognize OHA Trustee Anna Springer; thank you for being here. Okay, if not,
Commissioner Giffin.
GIFFIN: I move that a favorable recommendation for a project district request be
forwarded to the County Council, Change of Zone Application 99-017. Now, this is where it
gets tricky, yeah, with the conditions, and I'm going to ask Staff's help to re-read those that were
changed.
GIANNINI: Excuse me, but could you rephrase that. Those changes were suggested
by the applicant.
TANAKA: Proposed, yeah.
GIANNINL• Proposed.
TANAKA: Okay, we're on the change of zone first.
MIRIKITANI: The first change was on Page 3, H-1. And the change, I believe that you
have a copy of the changes for that Condition H-1, which states, "The following design
standards shall apply: Landscaping for the development shall comply with the Planning
Department's Rule No. 7 landscaping requirements."
GIFFIN: Seventeen. That's under 17?
MIRIKITANI: No. 17.
TANAKA: Seventeen.
MIRIKITANI: Landscaping requirements. "A metes and bounds description of the," and
then we're going to take out "10-acre" and replace it with the word "small pu`u" and you take
out the word "preserve" and you add in "and the foot of the Pu`u Kuili within the subject
property shall be submitted with this plan." And then you also take out "including consideration
for the Pu`u Kuili."
MCINTOSH: And add "Said area shall be preserved in perpetuity in their natural state."
MIRIKITANI: That's correct. The next one to change is No. M on Page 5, and this is to
delete the condition entirely.
57
GIFFIN: Re-letter.
TANAKA: Okay. Go ahead.
MIRIKITANL• No. N will be change, N-1.
GOLDSTEIN: M-1.
TANAKA: New M-1, Mary, Mary-1.
MIRIKITANI: Mary-1. And I believe Mr. Fuke had suggested a, taking out the words "if
warranted."
TANAKA: Okay. And we have that in front of us so
MIRIKITANI: Okay.
TANAKA: You don't have to read the whole thing.
MIRIKITANI: And also at the last
GIFFIN: Oh, oh, excuse me. Earlier we said that that was a typo. Is it Condition
T?
MIRIKITANI: It's Condition U.
GIFFIN: Okay, so that should also be
MIRIKITANI: That's
GIFFIN: Included.
MIRIKITANI: Changed. Yes. M-2 shall also be changed by the deletion of the second
sentence.
M-5, these words "except through an access point approved by the State Department of
Transportation" shall be deleted.
Condition S will also be changed, and you have a copy of the proposed change in front of you.
Would you like me to read that for you?
TANAKA: No, we have that. Thank you.
58
MIRIKITANI: Okay. The next change will be on Condition Y, and we were going to add
in the words, "The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval of Land Use
Commission Decision and Order (A-92-677) and the Exchange Deed dated
TANAKA: December 28, 1990.
MIRIKITANI: "December 28, 1990, and the applicant shall not seek any amendments
FUKE: To said agreement.
MIRIKITANI: "To said agreement."
TANAKA: Okay.
MIRIKITANI: That's all the changes there are for the change of zone.
TANAKA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
MCINTOSH: Second.
MOSHER: Second.
TANAKA: We have a motion by Commissioner Giffin and a second by
Commissioner McIntosh to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for
Manini`owali Equity Company, LLC, this is for a change of zone REZ 99-017, for the reasons as
stipulated by the Planning Department and with the conditions and amendments as just read.
Any discussions? Commissioner Souza.
SOUZA: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that, you know, I really feel good. We
spent a lot of time here this morning discussing things, but I feel good that the ultimate end, the
developer is willing to take care of the concerns that was raised here by the public this morning.
I think the developer recognized those concems, he wants the project to get underway. And I
just feel that this whole project, after the amendments, is really well put together; and I'm proud
to see something like this be developed.
TANAKA: Commissioner Giffin.
GIFFIN: And I agree. I think that it's refreshing. Isn't it?
SOUZA: Really.
GIFFIN: To have an applicant before us who's more than willing to meet the
concerns of our public and of ourselves. So mahalo.
TANAKA: I'd also like to comment, too. I appreciate the fact that the applicant is
spending I think it's $2.5 million, if not more, on the public access road, that it will be
59
maintained for the public's use to get down to Kua Bay, and also to improve it, you know, with
the restroom facilities and a parking lot and so forth. So it's a welcome addition to the Kona
Coast.
Any further discussions? If not, roll call.
MIRIKITANL Commissioner Giffin?
GIFFIN: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Commissioner McIntosh?
MCINTOSH: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Mosher?
MOSHER: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Souza?
SOUZA: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Togashi?
TOGASHI: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Chairman Tanaka?
TANAKA: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Six ayes; the motion has been carried.
TANAKA: Okay. Let's move onto the Special Management Area Use Permit.
Commissioner Giffin.
GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the Special Management Area Use
Permit SMA 99-004 be approved with the conditions as read by Staff.
SOUZA: Second the motion.
MCINTOSH: And changes
GIANNINI: Wait, wait, wait.
MCINTOSH: As recommended by
60
TANAKA: Okay.
MCINTOSH: The applicant.
GIFFIN: The developer, uh huh.
TANAKA: Okay. Ms. Mirikitani.
GIANNINI: Changes.
MIRIKITANL• You want me to read the conditions?
GIANNINI: Yeah.
TANAKA: Yes, please.
MIRIKITANI: Let's start on Page No. 9, Condition No. 5.
TANAKA: Was there something on three?
GIFFIN: Yeah, three.
MIRIKITANI: I'm sorry.
TANAKA: Pretty much follows
MII2IKITANI: Oh, yes, you should add in
GIANNINI: Condition Y.
MIRIKITANI: The words "Land Use Commission Decision and Order," A.
GIANNINI: Ninety-two.
GIFFIN: Ninety-two dash six.
MIRIKITANL A-92-677 and the Land Exchange Agreement dated September
TANAKA: December.
GIFFIN: December.
MIRIKITANL "December
TANAKA: Twenty-eighth.
6t
GIANNINI: Twenty-eighth, 1990.
MIRIKITANI: "Twenty-eight, nineteen
GIANNINL Ninety
MOSHER: Ninety eight.
MIRIKITANI: "Ninety eight."
MCINTOSH: Ninety.
GIANNINI: Ninety.
TANAKA: Ninety.
MIRIKITANI: "Ninety."
TANAKA: I think 90.
MIRIKITANI: And then we could go to Condition No. 5. And where you get down to the
words, "10-acre pu`u preserve," you would insert the proposed conditions as given out to you in
your handout.
TANAKA: Okay.
MIRIKITANI: Would you like me
TANAKA: Well, we have that, and that's similar to the other condition in
MIRIKITANI: It's identical.
TANAKA: The change of zone.
GIANNINI: Yes.
TANAKA: Yeah. Okay. Okay.
MIRIKITANI: Then we go on to
GIANNINI: Twelve, right?
MIRIKITANI: Number
TANAKA: Eleven.
62
MIRIKITANI: Eleven.
GIFFIN: Eleven.
MIRIKITANI: Where we change the words "Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway" from
"Mamalahoa Highway."
GIANNII~II: Right.
MIRIKITANI: And No. 12, we would also change the, this to the proposed No. 12 given
out to you in your handout.
MCINTOSH: With the addition of the language.
MIRIKITANI: With the addition of the language.
TANAKA: Yeah.
MCINTOSH: "For final subdivision of any residential increment."
MIRIKITANI: That's correct.
TANAKA: Right.
FiJKE: "Plus the bike, pedestrian
MOSHER: Bikes and cars.
FUKE: "And vehicular access."
MIRIKITANI: And that's all the changes that there are for the SMA.
TANAKA: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Giffin, a second by
Commissioner Souza, that we approve the Special Management Area Use Permit Application
No. 99-004 for Manini`owali Equity Company, LLC, with the reasons as stated by the Planning
Department and with the conditions and amendments to the conditions as stated. Any
discussions? Okay. Roll call.
MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Giffin?
GIFFIN: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Commissioner McIntosh?
MCINTOSH: Aye.
63
MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Souza?
SOUZA: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Togashi?
TOGASHI: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Chairman Tanaka?
TANAKA: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Six ayes; the motion has been carved.
TANAKA: Okay.
GIFFIN: You forgot
MOSHER: You forgot me.
GIFFIN: Commissioner Mosher.
MIRIKITANI: I'm sorry.
MOSHER: Aye.
MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Mosher.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fuke, we'll notify
FUKE: Thank you.
TANAKA: You in writing of today's results.
FUKE: Thank you.
TANAKA: And thank everybody for being here.
The discussion ended at 12:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
l~~1 . E•l~-.v,~ ~ - _
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
64
BManin0l. emm-10/29/99
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND REPORT
MANINI'OWALI EQUITY COMPANY, LLC
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 99-017)
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA 99-004)
MANINI'OWALI EQUITY COMPANY, LLC has submitted applications for a
Change of Zone by changing the district classification from Open (O) to Project District (PD)
for approximately 388± acres of land, and a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to
allow the development of a residential community with a maximum of 900 units consisting of
mixed single family and multiple family residential units, golf course, tennis facility, and
related ancillary facilities and improvements. The property is located on the makai side of
Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway immediately south of the proposed Kuki'o Resort and existing
Hualalai Resort developments at Manini'owali and Kuki'o 2nd, North Kona, TMK: 7-2-4:18.
('F.NERAL INFORMATION
1. Land Ownership: North Kona Development Group was the previous owner of the
parcel. North Kona Development Group acquired the pazcel in May 1991 through a
land exchange with the State of Hawaii. The subject property formerly owned by the
State, was exchanged for the adjacent land to the south at Awake'e (approximately
334+ acres) which was formerly owned in trust with Long & Melone, acting as
Trustee. Manini'owali Equity Company, LLC acquired the property in fee on August
12, 1999.
RF.i.F,VANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2. May 20, 1991: Effective date of Ordinance No. 93-10, which redesignated the parcel
from Conservation to Urban Expansion and to amend the Land Use element of the
General Plan by allowing an Urban Center at Manini'owali/Kukio 2nd, North Kona,
Hawaii. (See Exhibit A -Ordinance No. 93-10)
3. March 5, 1993: State Land Use Commission (LUC) approved the reclassification of
approximately 388.057 acres from Conservation to Urban District with conditions.
(See Exhibit B - SLU Decision and Order Docket No. A92-677 Conditions/Map)
~1: ~ '
4. Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS): A Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the General Plan Amendment covering the property was prepared in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes, regarding
Environmental Impact Statements and accepted by the County of Hawaii Planning
Department on March 10, 1992.
5. Conditions of the Exchange Deed and Agreement to Exchange: In May 1991, the
Awake'e property was exchanged with the State for the subject 388 acre non-coastal
property. The Awake'e property was important to the State's plan to implement a
7-mile park extending from Kakapa Bay at Manini'owali to the Keahole Point area.
The proposed park would contain undeveloped open space and include the coastal areas
of Manini'owali, Awake'e, Makalawena and Mahai'ula. This area would also be part
of the Ala Kahakai Demonstration Trail proposed by the State's Na Ala Hele Trail and
Access Advisory Group. The land exchange was subject to several conditions which
were incorporated into the Land Patent Award as perpetual easements and covenants.
These conditions are included in this development. These conditions state:
a. Designating a 400-foot wide open space (golf course use would be permitted) or
structural setback consisting of 53+ acres between the applicant's makai
property line and the State-owned parcel.
b. Prohibiting hotel or time share condominium or apartment units.
c. Preserving the foot of Pu'u Kuili (which is located near the south property line)
and the small pu'u located at the northern end of the project site.
d. Allowing uninterrupted public use of existing vehicular and utility access to Kua
Bay. Provision of a 60-foot wide easement from the Queen Ka'ahumanu
Highway to Kua Bay for vehicular access and utilities, unless a new one is
built.
e. Requiring a public roadway from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to the Kua Bay
area and construct public park facilities (parking lot and restrooms) up to $2.5
million.
-2-
f. Allowing water access to the State at no cost to the State if water is developed
on the subject site.
APPLICANT'S R_F.Q TF T
6. Request: The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone for approximately 388.057
acres of land from Open (O) to Project District zoned district, and a Special
Management Area Use Permit for the proposed development.
7. Scope of Request: The proposed Manini'owali Residential Community Project
includes residential use with a maximum of 900 units consisting of mixed single family
and multiple family residential units, golf course, tennis facility, trails, access to the
adjoining State-owned coastal property, and open space preserve/buffer areas.
According to the application and supporting documents, the plan can be summarized in
five basic elements (See Exhibit C for details):
a. Residential: Approximately 900 residential units are proposed within
approximately 174 acres of the development area. The development would
consist of single-family, double family and multi-family units. The overall
density of the entire Project District would be approximately 2.3 units per acre.
Residential units will have some direct golf course frontage homesite. No
condominium or apartment offering time-sharing plan shall be developed.
b. Golf Course, Clubhouse and Related Facilities: A private championship
18-hole golf course and driving range on approximately 175 acres are
planned. Portions of the golf course will be located within a 400-foot wide
open space buffer adjacent to the State-owned parcel, as well as within a
150-foot wide open space buffer adjacent to the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway.
The balance of the course will meander throughout the project site, providing
additional open space for homeowners. An 8~ acre area would be used for the
golf clubhouse and tennis complex. The clubhouse would include a locker and
dining area. The clubhouse would be designed in a manner consistent with the
coastal environment and would be less than 45 feet tall. This complex would
also have a swimming pool, tennis courts, and related facilities.
-3-
c. Wastewater Treatment and Maintenance Area: Two to three acres would be
set aside for the golf course maintenance functions and wastewater treatment
facility. These facilities would be tentatively located near the northern
boundary of the property.
d. Open Space and Preserve Areas: Approximately 40 acres will be set aside for
open space and/or cultural preserve azeas. A small pu'u (cinder cone)
consisting of 10± acres as well as 1.5~ acres of cultural preserves will be left
intact. Additionally, a 400-foot wide band paralleling the shoreline and another
150-foot wide band fronting the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway will be left free
of structures and used as part of the golf course, landscaped and/or kept in its
natural state. Inclusive of the golf course, the amount of open space/preserve
area approximates 206 acres or more than 50 peccent of the property.
e. Public Access and Circulation System: Access to the project will be directly
from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. A fully channelized intersection, complete
with aleft-turn storage lane will be constructed by the applicant. The roadways
within the project site will be private. Bikeways and walking paths aze
tentatively planned within the project site. The circulation system is intended to
provide access to residents and guests of the subdivision. The project site does
not abut the shoreline. As such, lateral coastal access is not an issue. A
mauka-makai access through the project site and leading to the State's coastal
property will be provided by the applicant in accordance with the conditions of
the Land Exchange. The public access plan shall be developed in consultation
with the Planning Director and the Department of Land and Natural Resources
and shall include mauka-makai access, pazking area(s), provision of restroom
facilities at appropriate locations, and related improvements.
8. Development Schedule/Project Costs: The project is intended to be built in phases,
with initial phase consisting of the golf course and related infrastructure, as well as at
least 25 % - 35 % of the residential units and/or lots. The balance is anticipated to be
developed in response to the demand. Full build out of the proposed project is
-4-
projected by the year 2007. The project construction is anticipated to cost over $50
million for the infrastructure and another $25 million for the golf course and
clubhouse.
9. Supportive Information: The applicant has submitted the following documents:
A. Application for Change of Zone -Project District Application and
Special Management Area Use Permit Petition dated July, 1999
(See Exhibit C)
B. Final Environmental Impact Statement dated March 10, 1992
(For Reference)
STATF. AND COUiVTY PLANS
10. State Land Use: On March 5, 1993, the project area was reclassified from
Conservation to Urban District by the State Land Use Commission with several
conditions.
11. General Plan: Consistent with the goals, policies and standazdS of the Land Use,
Single Family Residential, Multiple Residential, Economic, Housing, Historic Sites,
Natural Beauty, and Natural Resources and Shoreline elements. Further, the General
Plan document lists Manini'owali as an Urban Center.
12. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map: The Hawaii
County General Plan LUPAG Map designates the project azea as Urban Expansion
Area. This designation allows for a mix of high density, medium density, and low
density urban development, industrial and/or open designations in areas where new
settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses
have not yet been determined. Within areas designated for development as resorts,
portions of the resort azea may be included in the Urban Expansion azea. High Density
allows uses relating to commercial, multiple residential and related services (general
and office cotmercial; multiple residential - up to 87 units per acre). Medium Density
allows uses relating to village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related
functions (3-story commercial; residential - up to 35 units per acre). Low Density
allows single family residential in character, ancillazy community and public uses, and
-5-
convenience type commercial uses. The LUPAG Map also designates the entire
property's frontage along Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and along the shoreline as
Open Area, which is generally for parks, historic sites, and open space.
13. Kona Regional Plan: Kona Regional Plan: The Kona Regional Plan land use concept
map designates the subject area as Open. It should be pointed out that the Kona
Regional Plan was adopted as Resolution No. 1-84 in April 1984 by the Planning
Commission and has not bee updated since the adoption of the 1989 General Plan.
14. County Zoning: The project site is located within an area zoned Open (O) by the
County. The objective this district is to encourage development around it such as a
golf course, country club and pazk, to buffer an otherwise incompatible land use or
district; and to preserve a valuable scenic vista or an area of special historical
significance.
15. Project Districts (PD): Purpose and applicability. The Project District (PD) zone is
intended to provide for a flexible and creative planning approach rather than specific
land use zone designations. It will also allow for flexibility in location of specific uses
and mixes of structural alternatives. The planning approach would establish a
continuity in land uses and designs while providing for a comprehensive network of
infrastructural facilities and systems. A vaziety of uses as well as open space, pazks,
and other project uses are intended to be in accord with each individual Project District
objective.
Criteria for establishing a Project District. A Project District may be established as
an amendment to the Zoning Code whenever the public necessity and convenience and
the general welfare require that a comprehensive planning approach for an area should
be adopted in order to establish a continuity in land uses and designs while providing a
comprehensive network of infrastructural facilities and systems. In addition, a Project
District may only be established if the Proposed District:
(1) Is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and the County
General Plan; and
-6-
(2) Will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding
area, community or region.
Minimum land area required. The minimum land area required for a Project District
is fifty acres.
Permitted uses. Any uses permitted either directly or conditionally in the RS, RD,
RM, RCX, CN, CG, CV or V districts shall be permitted in a Project District;
provided, that each of the proposed uses and the overall densities for residential and
hotel uses shall be contained in a master plan for the Project District and in the Project
District enabling ordinance. (See Exhibit D -Project District Section of Zoning
Code)
16. Special Management Area: The project site is located within the County's Special
Management Area (SMA).
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AR_FA
17. Property: The project azea is located 1 mile to the southwest of the Kona Village and
the Four Seasons - Hualalai Resort areas. Makai (west) is a 1,000 foot strip of coastal
lands of Manini'owali and Kuki'o 2nd ahupua'a which is owned by the State. A pocket
of approximately nine acres located at Kua Bay are owned by private landowners. The
project site is located approximately 4 miles north of Keahole Airport.
18. Existing Uses: The project area is a vacant expanse of a'a and pahoehoe lava flows.
The site is vacant of any structures. There is a dirt/gravel roadway access to Kua Bay
located along the middle portion of the site.
19. Topography: The project azea is gently to moderately sloping from approximately 60
feet above mean sea level to an elevation of approximately 250 feet above mean sea
level at Queen Ka'ahutnanu Highway (approximately 3,600 feet inland) with an overall
average slope of about 5 to 6 percent. The project azea consists of spazsely vegetated
pahoehoe and a'a lava flows. The most significant topographic feature on the site is
the small pu'u or cinder cone located at the northern end of the property. The foot of a
significant pu'u (Pu'u Kuili) has a height of 342 feet above mean sea level and is
-7-
located at the southern property line.
20. Shoreline: The property does not abut the shoreline. The project is located
approximately 1,000 feet inland. Any potential runoff or discharge which could reach
ocean waters can be handled by on-site improvements. Any impacts from soil erosion
and runoff during site prepazation and construction phases can be adequately mitigated
through compliance with existing regulations.
21. Soil Survey Report: The Soil Survey Report, published by the Soil Conservation
Service, classifies soils located within the project site as A'a (rLV) and Pahoehoe
(rLW) Lava Flows, Rock Land (rR0) and Cinder land (rCL). The predominate soil
type is a'a and rock land. There are few sections that have soil depth of a few inches
and these areas can support limited dry land grasses and trees.
22. Land Study Bureau: The Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System
classifies soils within the project area having an overall master productivity rating for
agricultural use of "E" or "Very Poor".
23. ALISH: The project area is not classified by the State Depaztment of Agriculture's
Agricultural Lands of Importance to Hawaii (ALISH) Map.
24. FIRM: The project azea is designated as Zone "X", areas determined to be outside the
500-year flood plain.
VISUAL RESOURCES
25. A visual analysis of the project site and its relation to the surrounding area was
conducted by the applicant. The view analysis indicates that the project area will
obstruct some views of the ocean from the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. Several
mitigative measures have been proposed to minimize the impact on visual resources.
This is based upon the uses and design standazds including the following concepts:
1) maximize building heights, locations, setbacks, materials and landscaping will be
comparable to the existing Zoning Code; 2) there will be nonstructural setbacks at the
mauka and makai ends of the subject site. The setback from Queen Ka'ahumanu
Highway will be 150 feet and the setback from the makai boundary adjacent to the
State property will be 400 feet. Although portions of the golf course and landscaping
-s-
would be allowed in these areas, there would be no above ground structures; 3) the
small pu'u consisting of 8-10 acres and located at the northwestern end of the site
would be preserved. The foot or base of the Pu'u Kuili is located at the southwestern
section of the property. This area will be also restricted from structures; 4) heights of
structures would be restricted to a level so as not to totally obstruct the view of the
Pu'u; and 5) extensive landscaping would be introduced throughout the site.
FI ORAL/FALINAL/MAIZNE R_FSOURCES
26. Flora: A floral survey of the project site was conducted by Char & Associates in April
1991. Of a total of 36 species inventoried, 25 are introduced or alien species; 1 is a
Polynesian introduction; and 10 are native. Typical vegetation expected to be found
within the project site consist of scattered patches of plants on pahoehoe lava flows.
The majority of the area surveyed is covered by a grassland composed of fountain grass
with scattered kiawe trees. Other shrubs included the 'ilima, 'uhaloa, and a'ali'i.
Other plants found on the property include pili grass, ihi, carpetweed, goosefood, bitter
herb, and buffell grass. No officially listed threatened or endangered plants were
recorded on the project site.
27. Faunal: An avifaunal and feral tttammal survey was conducted in 1989 and 1990 by
Phillip L. Bruner. The survey did not locate any threatened or endangered species
within the project site. The black-necked stilt or Ae'o on the adjoining makai parcel
was observed. The Pueo (short-eazed owl) was not observed. Migratory indigenous
birds, such as the Pacific Golden Plover and the Wandering Tattler, were observed
along the coastline. Feral mammals observed within the general vicinity include the
small Indian Mongoose, feral cats and feral goats. The report concluded that "No
threatened or endangered wildlife species will be affected by the project, as none occur
on the property." Further, "T(t) the controlled use of fertilizers and pesticides in golf
course maintenance pose little or no hazard to birds frequenting the grassed areas or
ponds associated with the golf courses."
28. Marine: A study prepazed by Oceanit Laboratories, Inc. in September 1991
recommended the following observations: Marine waters located off of the Kaupulehu
-9-
coastline are classified as Class AA. The objective of Class AA is that these waters
remain in their natural pristine state as nearly as possible. The reef fish community off
Manini'owali is typical of other sites along the North Kona coast. A single anchialine
pond neaz the project azea is located on the privately owned land approximately 250
feet behind the beach. There are no anchialine ponds on the project site. "Short term
impacts on the mazine environment from neazshore construction projects could
potentially result from airborne dust and increased silt in runoff waters. Dust and silt
introduction to the ocean will not occur due to this project because of the 1,000-foot
distance of the property from the shoreline, extensive construction site watering, the
low normal rainfall, and the lack of surface runoff from the site. Long-term impacts
on the marine environment could potentially occur form the use of fertilizers and
pesticides, irrigation disposal of diluted secondary treated sewage effluent, and the
increased public access to the shoreline."
Mitigative Measures: Mitigative measures to protect the groundwater directly relate
to the marine environment and ocean water quality. These include erosion control
during construction as well as long-term operational measures such as the use of an
Integrated Pest Control Measure, managed fertilizer and pesticides applications and
monitoring of the ground water.
rrrr TiTRAT /HI TO iCA . F.SOURCES
29. An azchaeological inventory survey of the property was conducted by Applied Research
Group, Bishop Museum from March to May 1991. A total of 25 archaeological sites,
comprised of 1,311 features (mostly small pits), have been recorded, mapped and their
spatial relationships determined. The range of sites included mauka-makai trail, burial,
burial chamber and platform possible shrine, pits, habitation features, and artifacts.
Twenty-two (22) of the 25 sites identified will be directly affected by the proposed
project. "It is proposed to appropriately treat the 25 significant sites through
preservation or data recovery."
Mitigative Measures: Significant sites will undergo data recovery or be preserved
with the approval of the Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic
-10-
Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD). "At this point it is agreed to preserve sites
50-10-18-5337 (trail), -5348 (burials), portions of -5338 (a burial and representative
examples of temporary habitations and pits), and two other isolated burial sites
(50-10-18-5339 and -5352). In the event preservation of site 5337 (trail) creates a
conflicting use with portions of land plan, the developer will coordinate with the
DLNR-HPD and Na Ala Hele to determine appropriate treatment of these trail
sections. Site 50-10-18-5355, a possible habitation or small shrine, will require
additional testing to verify its function. If it is determined to be a shrine, the site will
be preserved." The cinder cone and sections of the trail may be incorporated into a
public interpretation program. All of these, plus the possible retention of
representative pit features and temporazy habitations in site 5358 along a section of a
trail will be discussed more fully in the preservation and mitigation plan. Data
recovery will address the portions of significant sites not recommended for
preservation. Data recovery will be conducted to recover a reasonable and adequate
amount of information of the affected sites.
According to letter dated January 16, 1998, the State Historic Preservation Division
approved a revised Archaeotogical Inventory Survey of the Land Exchange Parcel
dated 1993.
PUBLIC ACCESS
30. Public access from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to the shoreline at Manini'owali will
continue to be provided along the existing trail until a superior access is provided.
This existing unimproved roadway traverses the property and leads to Kua Bay which
is best accessed by 4-wheel drive vehicles. The applicant will provide an improved
public shoreline access roadway from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to the State park
and will continue to work with the DLNR -Division of State Parks to establish the
exact location of this access. The applicant will provide parking lot and restrooms up
to $2.5 million, as a condition of the land exchange.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
31. Access: Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway is the primary arterial highway connecting
-11-
Kawaihae and Kailua-Kona. The highway is a two-lane, two-way State Highway.
There is presently an unimproved access though the project site that presently provides
access to the State owned property at Kua Bay. The access to the project area will be
from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. A fully channelized intersection, complete with a
left turn storage lane and right turn deceleration lanes will be constructed by the
applicant. Roadways within the Project District will be constructed in manner meeting
with the approval of the County. These internal roads will be private and in an effort
to not create a highly urbanized ambience, the applicant may consider some reduction
of the road standards, particularly in terms of rights-of--way width and improvements
within the right-of--way. Bikeways and walking paths are tentatively planned within the
project site, possibly adjacent or proximate to the roadway. A Traffic Impact Analysis
Report (TIAR) was conducted by Traffic Management Consultant (TMC) in March
1991. The State is planning to expand the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway with an
interchange that would essentially service all of the existing and planned projects in the
area. The various properties would then be serviced by an internal service road. Until
that time, the project will be serviced by an at grade channelized intersection
constructed by the applicant meeting with the approval of the Department of
Transportation. This new intersection would result in the termination of the existing
unimproved access to the State park. As a condition of the Land Exchange, the
applicant will construct a public shoreline access roadway leading to the shoreline.
The proposed route is situated in the vicinity of the property's southern boundary and
will be dedicated as a public roadway.
32. Water: The site is not presently serviced by any public water system. The applicant
intends to drill wells on State-owned properties located mauka of the project site to
service the project's potable and non potable (irrigation) needs. A desalination plant
will also be needed and constructed by the applicant.
33. Wastewater: There are no municipal sewage system in the immediate vicinity.
Wastewater disposal will be accommodated by a private wastewater treatment plant.
Effluent from the treatment facility will be utilized to supplement non-potable irrigation
-12-
water at the proposed project's 18-hole golf course.
34. Police, Fire, Medical, and Education: Police protection is provided by the Kealakehe
Police Station located approximately 5 miles south of the project area. Fire protection
is provided by the County's Kailua-Kona Fire Station, located approximately 15 miles
south of the project area, and the Mauna Lani Station is located further north. The
State Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua, approximately 24 miles south of the
petition area. The North Hawaii Community Hospital is located in Waimea. Public
educational facilities are Kahakai, Konawaena and Kealakehe Schools. In addition,
several private schools are located in Kamuela, Kapaau, Holualoa, and Honaunau.
35. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: The Kona Village Resort and Hualalai Resort
developments are located 1 mile to the northeast of the project site. Kona Village is
zoned Resort (V-7) and Open and contains 130 hotel units. Hualalai Resort is zoned
Resort (V-2.25), Multiple Family (RM-3 and RM-10), Village Commercial (CV-10),
and Open and contains 250 hotel units. Adjacent to the south of the project site is the
State of Hawaii Puuwaawaa lands. These lands are zoned Agricultural-Sa and Open.
The adjacent land to the east, owned by Huehue Ranch, is planned for a resort,
residential and golf course development. On April 10, 1999 the County Council
approved the rezoning of Kaupulehu Developments, located further to the northeast.
This rezoning would change the district classification from Open (O) to Project District
(PD) for approximately 1,078.634 acres of land.
At:FNCIES' COMMENTS
36. Department of Water Supply (October 4, 1999):
"We have reviewed the two subject applications and since the applicant is proposing to
construct their own private water system, we have no specific requirements.
"We recommend that the Fire Department be consulted for fire requirements."
37. Police Department (August 12, 1999 Memo):
"Staff has reviewed the above-referenced applications and recommends another traffic
analysis be conducted prior to the installation of any future site access improvements."
-13-
38. Real Property Tax Office (August 19, 1999 Memo):
"There aze no comments at this time.
"Current Real Property taxes are paid through June 30, 1999."
39. Office of Housing & Community Development (August 4, 1999 Memo):
"Affordable housing conditions, pursuant to current affordable housing policy 98-1,
should be applicable to the affected residential portion of this request.
"Thank you for the opportunity to comment. "
40. Department of Public Works: (See Exhibit E -September 28, 1999 Memo and
Applicant's Response -October 14, 1999)
41. Department of Education: (See Exhibit F -August 19, 1999 Letter)
42. Department of Land and Natural Resources -Division of State Parks: (See Exhibit
G -September 8, 1999 Letter and Applicant's Response -September 20, 1999
Letter)
43. Department of Health: (See Exhibit H -September 9, 1999 Memos and
Applicant's Response -September 20, 1999 Letter)
APP •IC NT' F.SPONSE
44. Applicant's Response: (See Exhibit I -September 3, 1999 Letter)
AGENCIES - NO RFSPON~
45. Civil Defense, Fire Department and Department of Transportation
PUBLIC COMMENTS
46. James M. Leonard, PBR Hawaii on behalf of WB Kuki'o Resort LLC:
(See Exhibit J -October 12, 1999 Letter and Applicant's Response -September 20,
1999 Letter)
47. Michael Varney: (See Exhibit K -October 28, 1999 Letter)
-14-
COUI'~TT`rY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII
BILL NO. 9
ORDINANCE NO. 93 10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY OF HAWAII GENERAL PLAN AS
ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 89-142 AND AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE
NOS. 90-71, 91-48, 91-72, 91-131, AND 92-115.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. The County of Hawaii General Plan Land Use
Pattern Allocation Guide Map is hereby amended to redesignate
approximately 388± acres of land, identified by Tax Map
Key 7-2-04:Portion of 17 located at Manini'owali and
Kuki'o 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawaii, from "Conservation"
to "Urban Expansion."
All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof.
SECTION 2. The County of Hawaii General Plan document,
Land Use Element, is hereby amended to include Manini'owali and
Kuki'o 2nd on the list as an Urban Center.
SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions of
applications of this ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application, and to this end
the provisions of this ordinance are severable.
EXHfBIT
F~ ,
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its
approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL MEM ER, COU TY OF HAWAII
Hilo, Hawaii
Date of Introduction: January 27, 1993
Date of 1st Reading: January 27, 1993
Date of 2nd Reading: February 10, 1993
Effective Date: February 24, 1993
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
~Gt~~
~Q~T COR ORATION COUNSEL
DATED : DEG _ '
-2-
AML'~~bMc:NT TO THE -NEf~AL P~-AN PuaK ;
_ '
AN7E7`+piW6 THE CouNT7 1= HAWAII GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE PATT EJ~N Al..LO CATION POYOO loy %
GUIt~E MAP 5>' cHAN61NG THE LANG uSE
pESiC-iNATtON FROM CONSERVATIOfV To M=wai~.a eoy
r
UREH!`t CxPANS70N AT MAN7NI'OWAI..I
AND KUKI'O 2NOr NORTH KONA, t-7A VYAlI HOnoYOeo• ea~
PREPARED fdY I°LANNIN6 rJEPARTM BNT
caaJNTY of HA WA71
TAx MAP KET 7-'=-04° PORT1oN op 17 ~ r`
i
Gne ~noomow B/a~r
/1(
/
~I I
e
a~neie Dvy
S ~ ~j
CONSERVATION TO ~J I - S~
URBAN CXPAN~JION
(9861 AcReS'~
O ~w
r 'r'
Manew~0~_
i
e'r ~
r O R
Jl d gt?
b
n
'l1
~I K O N
I~
HOOOF0110Y a A
Bay T
~S~^ ~j J ///~.+/J/A
6
\ ~ L
EXHiBiT "A" _ =
BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET NO. A92-677
NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, ) NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT
a Hawaii limited partnership ) GROUP, a Hawaii limited
partnership
To Amend the Conservation Land )
Use District Boundary into the ) This is t0 txrtlfy that this is s true sled Correct
Urban Land Use District for > ~ ~ De~si08 end Order on fite In Ma c`iir~
Approximately. 388.057 Acres, at )
Manini'owali/Kuki'o 2, North Kona, ) o;ttNtltAtEL,andUseCcr,.missian,Hono}ulutisrr;:::.
Island, County and State of ) MAR 0 5 1993
Hawaii, Tax Map Key No.: 7-2-04: ) tl
Unte Y Executive Office;
portion of 17 )
3 -
a ~
~ r_
` T
r. '
FINDINGS OF FACT, i = r
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION AND ORDER s N
" o
w =
~asn
02699
BEFORE THE IAND USE COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET NO. A92-677
NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, ) NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT
a Hawaii limited partnership ) GROUP, a Hawaii limited
partnership
To Amend the Conservation Land )
Use District Boundary into the )
Urban Land Use District for )
Approximately 388.057 Acres, at )
Manini'owali/Kuki'o 2, North Kona, )
Island, County and State of )
Hawaii, Tax Map Key No.: 7-2-04: )
portion of 17 )
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION AND ORDER
NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, a Hawaii limited
partnership (hereinafter "Petitioner"), filed a Petition for
Land Use District Boundary Amendment (hereinafter "Petition"),
pursuant to Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended
(hereinafter "HRS"), and the Hawaii Land Use Commission Rules
Title 15, Subtitle 3, Chapter 15, Hawaii Administrative Rules,
as amended (hereinafter "Commission Rules"), to amend the Land
Use District Boundary to reclassify approximately 388.057 acres
of land situate at Manini'owali/Kuki'o 2, North Kona, Island,
County and State of Hawaii, identified as Tax Map Key No.:
7-2-04: portion of 17, from the Conservation District to the
Urban District (hereinafter "Property").
The Land Use Commission of the State of Hawaii
(hereinafter "Commission"), having reviewed and examined the
testimony, evidence and argument of the parties and/or counsel
for the parties presented during the hearings, the parties'
Proposed Stipulated Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
becision and Order, with exceptions~by the County of Hawaii
Planning Department and the Office of State Planning
(hereinafter "OSP") filed thereto, and Petitioner's responses
to the OSP's exceptions, hereby makes the following findings of
fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
1. On May 12, 1992, Petitioner filed a Petition for
Land Use District Boundary Amendment.
2. On May 20, 1992, Petitioner filed an Addendum to
Petition for Land Use Boundary Amendment to submit additional
background information on Petitioner and on the acceptance of
the Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared for the
Property.
3. On June 23, 1992, the Commission issued its
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order
Accepting an Environmental Impact Statement for a State Land
Use District Boundary Amendment, relative to this Petition.
4. On July 1, 1992, Petitioner filed an Amendment to
Certificate of Service to insert Kua Bay Beach Estates
Association of Owners, Mark Van Pernis, et al., Philip D. Gray,
et al., and the Department of Land and Natural Resources of the
-2
District into the Urban Land Use District at Manini'owali/
Kuki'o 2, North Kona, Island, County and State of Hawaii,
subject to the conditions stated in the order, for a
residential community, including a"golf course and tennis
facility conforms to the standards for establishing the Urban
Boundaries, is reasonable, non-violative of Section 205-2,
Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, and is consistent with the
Hawaii State Plan as set forth in Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised
Statutes, as amended, and conforms to the Hawaii Land Use
Commission Rules.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Property, being subject
of this Docket No. A92-677 by Petitioner NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, a Hawaii limited partnership, consisting of
approximately 388.057 acres, situate at Manini'owali/KUki'o 2,
North Kona, Island, County and State of Hawaii, and identified
as Tax Map Key No.: 7-2-04: portion of 17, and approximately
identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein, for reclassification from the Conservation
District into the Urban District, shall be and is hereby
approved, and the State Land Use District Boundaries are
amended accordingly, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall provide affordable housing
opportunities for low-low/moderate and gap group residents of
the State of Hawaii to the satisfaction of the State Housing
Finance and Development Corporation in accordance with the
-41-
Affordable Housing Guidelines, adopted by the Housing Finance
and Development Corporation, effective July 1, 1992, as
periodically amended. The location and distribution of the
affordable housing or other provisions for affordable housing
shall be under such terms as may be mutually agreeable among
Petitioner, the State Housing Finance and Development
Corporation and the County of Hawaii.
2. Petitioner shall immediately stop work on the
impacted area and contact the Historic Preservation Division,
State Department of Land and Natural Resources, should any
archaeological resources such as artifacts, shell, bones or
charcoal deposits, human burials, or rock or coral alignments,
paving or walls of historic or prehistoric significance be
encountered during the development of the Property.
3. Petitioner shall preserve at least 5 historic
sites (all or a portion of the mauka-makai trail as determined
by the Department of Land and Natural Resources and 4 burial
sites), and archaeologically data recover the remaining sites,
provided that if any remaining site is established as a shrine,
its disposition shall be determined by the State Department of
Land and Natural Resources. A detailed preservation plan
(scope of work) and archaeological data recovery plan (scope of
work) shall be approved by the State Department of Land and
Natural Resources prior to the work. The detailed preservation
plan shall include acceptable buffer zones around the sites,
-42-
interim protection measures during construction, and long-term
management measures (e.g., public access, trails,
interpretative sign design and text, maintenance). The buffer
zones and interim protection measures shall be approved and
implemented prior to construction. The archaeological data
recovery plan shall be executed prior to construction. The
State Department of Land and Natural Resources shall verify in
writing the successful execution of both plans.
4. Petitioner shall fund, design, and construct the
necessary roadway improvements to the satisfaction of the State
Department of Transportation and the County of .Hawaii.
a. Petitioner shall submit construction plans
for work within the State highway right-of-way for review and
approval by the State Department of Transportation.
b. Petitioner shall participate in the funding
and construction of off-site transportation improvements
necessitated by the proposed development of the Property.
c. In the event that the County of Hawaii
adopts an impact fee ordinance for transportation improvements,
the requirements set forth in condition 4 herein, shall be
satisfied to the extent that the cost of any specific traffic
improvement is also included in the County's impact fee
computation.
5. Petitioner shall provide its fair share for
school facilities necessitated by the proposed development, as
required by the State Department of Education.
-43-
6. Petitioner shall implement effective soil erosion
and dust control measures both during and after construction to
the satisfaction of the State Department of Health.
7. Petitioner shall fund and construct adequate
civil defense measures as determined by the State and County of
Hawaii civil defense agencies.
S. Petitioner shall make available adequate golf tee
times at affordable rates for public play to State of Hawaii
residents.
9. Petitioner shall fund and construct adequate
wastewater transmission and disposal facilities, as determined
by the State Department of Health and the County of Hawaii
Department of Public Works.
10. Petitioner shall comply with the "Twelve (12)
Conditions Applicable to All New Golf Course Developments",
prepared by the State Department of Health dated January 1992
,(Version 4), as amended.
il. Petitioner shall engage the services of a
qualified golf course superintendent to oversee the irrigation
of the golf course and application of fertilizers, pesticides
and herbicides to the golf course within the Property and who
shall be qualified in the application of fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides on those areas.
12. Petitioner shall participate in an air quality
monitoring program as specified by the State Department of
Health.
-44-
13. Petitioner shall cooperate with the State
Department of Health and the County of Hawaii Department of
Public Works to conform to the program goals and objectives of
the Integrated Solid Waste Management Act, Chapter 342G, Hawaii
Revised Statutes.
14. Petitioner shall monitor coastal water quality,
and develop and implement a program to identify major areas of
groundwater introduction into the marine environment, in
consultation with the State Department of Health.
15. Petitioner shall fund the development of the
necessary water source, storage, and transmission facilities to
provide an adequate supply of potable water to the Property.
16. Petitioner shall fund the design and construction
of drainage improvements required as a result of the
development of the Property to the satisfaction of the County
of Hawaii Department of Public works and the State Department
of Land and Natural Resources.
17. Petitioner shall develop the Property in
substantial compliance with the representations made to the
Commission. Failure to so develop the Property may result in
reversion of the Property to its former classification, or
change to a more appropriate classification.
18. Petitioner shall give notice to the Land Use
Commission of any intent to sell, lease, assign, place in
trust, or otherwise voluntarily alter the ownership interest in
-45-
the Property covered by the approved petition prior to visible
commencement of construction on the Property.
19. Petitioner shall provide annual reports to the
Land Use Commission, the Office of'State Planning, and the
County of Hawaii Planning Department in connection with the
status of the subject Project and Petitioner's progress in
complying with the conditions imposed.
Adequate assurance of satisfaction may be evidenced by
execution of a certificate of satisfaction in recordable form
stating that such condition has been satisfied, in whole or in
part. The Office of State Planning will certify for itself and
all state departments and agencies, and the County of Hawaii
Planning Department will certify for itself and all county
departments and agencies. Any other party to the boundary
amendment proceeding may be asked to indicate whether they
concur in the certification of satisfaction.
20. The Commission may fully or partially release
these conditions as to all or any portions of the Property upon
timely motion and upon the provision of adequate assurance of
satisfaction of these conditions by Petitioner.
21. Within 7 days of the issuance of the Commission's
Decision and Order for the subject reclassification, Petitioner
shall (a) record with the Bureau of Conveyances a Statement to
the effect that the Property is subject to conditions imposed
by the Land Use Commission in the reclassification of the
-46-
Property, and (b) shall file a copy of such recorded statement
with the Commission.
22. Petitioner shall record the conditions imposed by
the Commission with the Bureau of 'Conveyances pursuant to
Title 15, Chapter 15, Section 92, Hawaii Administrative Rules.
-47-
BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
Zn the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET NO. A92-677
NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, ) NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT
a Hawaii limited partnership ) GROUP, a Hawaii limited
partnership
To Amend the Conservation Land )
Use District Boundary into the )
Urban Land Use District for )
Approximately 388.057 Acres, at )
Manini'owali/Kuki'o 2, North Kona, )
Island, County and State of )
Hawaii, Tax Map Xey No.: 7-2-04: )
portion of 17 )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order was served upon the
following by either hand delivery or depositing the same in the
U. S. Postal Service by certified mail:
HAROLD S. MASUMOTO, Director
Office of State Planning
P. O. Box 3540
Honolulu, Hawaii 96811-3540
VIRGINIA GOLDSTEIN, Planning Director
CERT. Planning Department, County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
JAN N. SULLIVAN, ESQ., Attorney for Petitioner
Takeyama 6 Sullivan
CERT. Suite 1411, Century Square
1188 Bishop Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
NORTH KONA DEVELAPMENT GROUP
CERT. Attention: Michael Hands
2877 Kalakaua Avenue, Suite G.F.1
Honolulu, Hawaii 96815
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, this 5th day of March 1993.
ESTHER VEDA
Executive Officer
DOCKET NO. A92-677 - NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT, a Hawaii limited
partnership
Done at Honolulu, Hawaii, this 5th day of March 1993,
per motion on February 25, 1993.
LAND USE COMMISSION
STATE OF HAWAII
By
ALLE Y O
Chairma nd issioner
gy (absent)
KAREN S. AHN
Vice Chairman and Commissioner
gy (absent)
JOANN N. MATTSON
Vice Chairman and commissioner
By
AL N K. HOE
Co sinner
By .
EUSEBIO LAPEN JR.
Commissioner-7
REN N L. K. NIP
Commissioner
gy (absent)
TRUDY K. SENDA
Commissioner
Filed and effective on By
March 5 , 1993 ELTON WADA
Commissioner
Certified by:
Executive Officer DE OND J. H. WON
Commissioner
-48-
,,y~
~
~
1~aia4vAi~
K mu4ahu Pt i
1 ~ ~ -J
i ^
'
~WI'10
ny N,
~,.P N Kakie ~ ~ ~ ~..M • w~
_ Bay ~ ~
Q Ktkau• t'. ~
' G
. . en
r'" J ~~F_
~I
e )
P pih• Pt ij0 r~-~
• , ~ 6~ '
I
}
JCrs Bny ~ • • • ~ • V ~
• i
as •nn• \ ~ fl.
! • ~ • • • •
~ ••~a~aaia~• •
Re~eiat~es • ~ ~ • a • •
_ ~ M~•••••
o ~ • •.,y • • • s~ e . ~ fl~_
• • • • • S j`i
• `I J~ ~ .
~ ` I
KOH A HAMAKU A
DOCKET NO.: A92 - 677 NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT
GROUP. a Hawaii Limited Partnership HILO
LOCATION MAP ONA
TAX MAP KEY : 7 - 2 - 04 : por. 17 PUN
MANINI' OWAIi - KUKI' O 2ND . NORTH KONA , HAWAII KA
SCALE: 1' = 2.000 tt t APPROVED AREA
i
~~a JUL 26 ri'1 4 19
APPLICATIONS FOR '
.
~l.ui~l i ~i i.., iT r,II
- SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT
AND
PROJECT DISTRICT
APPLICATIONS
FOR THE
` PROPOSED
MANINI' OWALI
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
MANINI' OWALI & KUKI' O 2nd
NORTH KONA, HAWAII
TMK: (3) 7-2-04: 18
PREPARED FOR:
MANINI'OWALI EQUITY COMPANY, LLC.
PREPARED BY:
SIDNEY FUKE, PLANNING CONSULTANT
July 1999
~d~~
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT PETITION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION
{ PETITIONER: Manini'owali quity Company, LLC
' PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE: , (Robert C. Warmington) President
' PETITIONER'S INTEREST, IF NOT OWNER:
t
ADDRESS: 68-1375 Pauoa Road. IInit Q-2 Kohala Coast,HI 96743
rELEFHONE: 885-3544 88.5-3544
usiness ome
f OWNER: Manini'ovali Equit Company LLC
I OWNER'S SIGNATURE:
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-2-04: 18
I NATURE CF DEVELOPMENT: Ptopose:i residential community consisting of a
maximum 900 units of a mix of single and multiple family units, a
-6 a-,~ ^»~sc; te~ris €ee~#~~a~~eU#~e~-~a].atad imp=Raema r4
t TOTAL COST/FAIR MARKET VALUE: $75 million DATE OF PETITION: July 1, 1999
THE PETITIONER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FILING THE FOLLOWING WITH THE DEPARTMENT:
A. Fifteen (15) copies of the completed petition including the Following:
1. A written description of the proposed project and a statement of
objectives.
2. A written description of the anticipated impacts of the proposed project
an the 3.1A including but not limited to:
I a. Description of environmental setting;
b. The relationship of the proposed action to the County General Plan,
Zoning and Subdivision Codes and other applicable ordinances;
I c. The probable impact of the proposed action on the environment;
d. Any probable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided;
e. Alternatives to the proposed action;
f. Mitigating measures proposed to minimize impact; and
1 g. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.
3. A written statement discussing the proposed development in relation tr ~^e
objectives and policies as provided by Chapter 205A, HRS, and the Special
Management Area guidelines.
4. A plat plan of the property, drawn to scale, with all proposed and
existing structures and other pertinent information shown thereon.
S. Any other plans or information required by the Director.
I B. In the case of a petitioner whose proposed development has been assessed, _5
. copies of the Director's Determination and any information as to the areas
critical concern as delineated by the Director.
~ (See Instructions i., na,-~.~
PROJECT DISTRICT APPLICATION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(Type or legibly print the requested information)
APPLICANT: Manini'owali q ity Co ny, LLC
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: obert C. DATE:• J~ul~v 1.
1999
armington, i s rest ent
ADDRESS: 68-1375 Pauoa Road, Unit Q-2 .
]Zohala Coast, Hawaii 96743
LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER:
LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS:
Robert C. Warmington -President Dr. Val Deduk -Vice-President -
PHONE:(Bus.) 885-3544 (Res.) 885-3544 885-8429
LANDOWNER(S): Manini'owa quity C pang, LLC
' ANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): 1~ay DATE: July 1, 1999
LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: Same as ~ippl~ca~n~
~QjjgST: Open TO Project District
«~g (3) 7-2-04 : 18 (Proposed Zoning)
TAX MAP KEY: - -
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 388.057 acres
AGENT: Sidney Fuke.
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212
ADDRESS:
Hilo, HI 96720
TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 969-1522 (Res.) 961-6909 (F~) 969-7996
Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent.
ORIGINAL: Sidney Fuke COPIES: Dr. Robert Warmington
(See Instructions on Reverse Side)
MANINI'OWALI RESH)ENTIAL COMMUNITY
-County Planning and Environmental Report-
CHAPTER PAGE
B. Climate 10
C. Topography 10
D. Soil Types and Agricultural Potential 12
E. Drainage and Storm Runoff Water Quality 12
F. Groundwater Resources 14
G. Marine Resources and Ocean Water Quality 16
H. Natural Hazards 19
I. Botanical Resources 20
J. WildBfe Resources 20
K. Archaeological and Historic Resources 21
L. Air Quality 24
M. Noise Characteristics 25
N. Traffic Impacts 27
O. VisualImpacts 29
P. Socio-Economic Characteristics 32
1. Population 32
2. Lifestyle and Community Issues 33
3. Economic Activity and Employment 34
4. Government Revenues and Expenditures 35
5. Housing 35
Q. Infrastractnre, Public Facilities and Services 36
1. Roadways 36
2. Water System 37
3. Wastewater System 37
4. Solid Waste 38
5. Other Utilities 38
6. Police and Fire Services 39
7. Health Care 39
8. Schools 39
9. Recreation 40
V. PLANNING AND LAND USE REGULATORY
CONSH)ERATIONS 41
A. Overview 41
B. State Land Eachange 41
ii
MANINI'OWALI RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
-County Planning and Environmental Report-
CHAPTER PAGE
C. State Plan and State Functional Plans 42
D. State Land Use District 43
E. County General Plan 43
1. Land Use Policy Allocation Guide Map 44
2. Policies 44
F. Kona Regional Plan 48
G. County Zoning Code and Project District 48
H. County Subdivision Code 50
VI. RELATIONSHIP TO SMA OBJECTYVES, POLICIES AND
GUIDELINES 51
A. Recreational Resources 51
B. Historic Resources 51
C. Scenic and Open Space Resources 51
D. Coastal Ecosystem 52
E. Economic Uses 52
F. Coastal Hazards 53
G. Conclusions 53
VII. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS; PROBABLE ADVERSE, UNAVOIDABLE
EFFECTS; ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION; AND
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES 54
A. Cumulative Impacts 54
B. Probable Adverse, Unavoidable Environmental Effects 55
C. Alternatives to the Proposed Action 55
1. No-Action Alternative 55
2. Residential Subdivision Alternative 56
3. 36-Hole Golf Course Commitment of Resources 56
VIII. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PERMITS 57
iii
MANINI'OWALI RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
-Final Environmental Impact Statement-
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
1 Hawaii Location Map 2a
2 RegioualLocation Map 2b
3 Property Boundary Map 2c
4 Conceptual Master Plan 4a
5 Prototype Conceptual Clubhouse Plan Sa
6 Archaeological Sites Overlayed on Original
Conceptual Master Plan 22a
7 Summary of Significant Archaeological Sites 23a
8 Proposed At-grade Intersection Improvement 28a
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TTTLE
A Exchange Deed and Agreement to Exchange
B Development Standards Summary Table
C Manini owali View Analysis
Belt Collins, May 25,1999
D Traffic Impact Analysis Report For The
Proposed Manini owali Residential Community
The Traffic Management Consultant, June 23, 1999
E State Land Use Commission Decision and Order,
Docket No. A92-677, March 5, 1993
iv
COUNTY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
MANINI'OWALI EQUITY COMPANY, LLC
MANINI'OWALI and KUKI'O 2nd, NORTH KONA, HAWAII
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-2-04: 18
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of this Document
This report has been prepazed in support of a Project District (PD) and
Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit Applications for a proposed
residential community at Manuti'owali and Kuki o 2nd, North Kona,
Hawaz i This report follows the informational guidelines for a County
Environmental Report and requirements for a SMA application.
Subautted as part of these applications and incorporated herein by
reference is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated
February 1992, that was prepared for this project and used in conjunction
with a Cou~y General Plan amendment that resulted is a) the creation of
the Manmi'owali/Kuki'o 2 as an urban center within the General Plan
document; and b) a change to the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide map
from Conservation to Urban Expansion.
B. Petitioner and Landowner
The petitioner (also referred to as "applicant") and owner of the subject
property is Manini'owali Equity Company, LLC (also referred to as
"MEC'~.
The North Kona Development Group (NKDG), a limited partnership,
secured interest in the property as pazt of a Land exchange with the State of
Hawaz i in 1990. The State exchanged the subject area for the applicant's
333+ acre property oceanfront parcel located adjacent and south of the
subject pazcel in the ahupua'a of Awake'e. The State retained interest of
the area makai of the subject property, aztd, together with NKDG's former
Awake'e property, the State was able to consolidate its ownership interest
of coastal lands in this azea. A copy of this agreement is attached as
Appendiz A.
The limited partnership formed Manini'owali Equity Company, LLC.
MEC has since acquired complete interest of the subject property and is the
applicant in both of these applications.
t
C. Requested Action
This report is used to support a Project District and Special Management
Area Use Permit applications for a proposed residential community at
Maniru'owaG and Kuki'o 2ud.
D. Description of Subject Property
1. Location
The project azea is located about five (5) miles north of the Kona
International Airport within the ahupua'as of Manini'owali and
• Kuk'io 2nd. (See Figures 1-3). It is bounded by the Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway to the east or mauka side; State lands to the
west or makai and south; and the urban areas ofKuki'olst and
Ka'upulehu to the north. Pu'u Kuili, a natural landmark, is located
to the south in the ahupua'a of Awake'e.
The property is not a coastal property. It is located approximately
1,000 feet mauka of the shoreline. The coastal area consists of
Manini'owali Beach and Kua Bay.
2. Access
There is an existing jeep or dirt road that leads to Kua Bay through
the subject pazceL Anew access to service this project and Kua
Bay is proposed to be constructed at the north end of the site.
3. Adjacent Uses
The subject site is bounded on the mauka side by the Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway. There is a State pazcel between the subject
site and the ocean. "this pazcel is part of the State's planned
Coastal Recreational Park.
The resorts at Hualalai and Kona Village are located approximately
one (1) mile to the northeast. There is an intervening pazcel
between the subject site and the Hualalai resort. This pazcel has
entitlements for a resortlresidential and golf course project.
The properties mauka ofthe Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway aze
vacant and owned by the State of Hawa? i.
2
awi
' RTH i
KO A ~
-'-"S'- Honoka'a
%l c
Kawaihae ?
aimea
SOUTH ~ i ;
KOHAL i
PROJECT ; HAMAKUA NORTH
.LOCATION : ~ HILO • f
x ~ i
/ i
i ~ /
Ke-ahoi i ~.l % ~ SOUTH HI)o
e r~ HILO ~ ~ /
i ~
Kailua- % ~
Kona i ~
A ~•i
i' ~ Kea'au
~
! ~.i
\i
% ~
e •Hona ' ~ PUNA
i-
r i
' ; KA' U
1 i
S UTIi~i Pahala
NA,'
i•
i ' Puaalu'u
~ LEGEND
Na' alehu . _
District Boundaries
Ka Lae ~ Major Roadways
(South Poi)
~ Towns
a
Hawaii Location Map MaFs
MANINTOWALI RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ~cttRE ~
y
a.
u 4
5 a
o r
o C7 ~ z
~ ~ U
E ~
.p c
c >
~ u
~ h A
Z o ° $
c u
c
a a° x
® ® ! 1
J
~OA
7
{yyF
AY~~:~.T,
i°'. ~
t~'~
z
L a
~ ,
M
~~O ~
UU
_ ~ ~ z
~ ~ Q
~ / a
z ~ W
~ ~ CC
/ a
O
~ ~
e
0
'cn
7h
u^
I
[/LUWEO /YEO \ /
9AY V
,fin ~ /
J ,.,....-uw Pony _ _
/
tiT ~ ~
5 ~ ~
^'AAA, A GAY ~ I \ /
ps
s~'~
~1n
`o
_
PqP/MI POIN/ ~ r/~/ ~c+~ \
~ , .
~ / M o
~ ~ ~
~ c ~
n N
Ku/~
/L1 ND/WA
BAY I ? O
.l
.,~,.n..:.~ ,q .
1, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ \
GRANT 2023 i - a c- ~
Lony / K/eiw, LN'Ti,uls
n°'•F~.. c
AwA/rEC 34903 Aca. < a'agn
9AY J
„
~ O P 9.~nsr E:/~/c _
_ . _ -o-i__ _ _ ~e se-rte..
Y53 i0 _ '
M A w K A L
~s
- ~ AW s3ee 3 r OS
p / c ,~A
~ U
H A
M A :.I
Property Boundary Map ~ o`
MANINI'O~YALI RESIDENTIAL COMMiJNIT'Y FIGURE 3
4. Project Area Characteristics
The project azea consists of 388.057 acres and is identified by
TMK: (3) 7-02-04: 18. It is within the State Land Use Urban
District.
The subject site is vacant of any structures and active uses. It is
essentially an open expanse of a'a and pahoehoe lava flows with
limited vegetation on the makai end. There is a dirt/gravel roadway
access to the Kua Bay azea located along the middle portion of the
site.
3
II. DESCRIPTION OF CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN
STANDARDS
A. Objective
It is recognized that the Project District provides some measure of
flexibility in terms of locational and other design considerations.
Nonetheless, its is important to have an overall land use framework to
provide some guidance to the development of this site.
In that regard, the objective of this land use master plan is to provide this
needed framework. This master plan will provide the basis for the orderly
development of a residential community that is:
• supported by recreational amenities (tennis and golf course) and
adequate infrastructure; and
• designed and implemented in a manner that is sensitive to the
environmental and cultural resources of the area.
B. Master Plan Development Goals
Pursuant to the above objective, the Manini'owali Residential Community
is planned for a maximum of 900 single- and multiple-family residential
units with recreational amenities that would include an 18-hole
championship golf course and a tennis facility, trails, access to the adjoining
State-owned coastal property, and open space preserve/buffer azeas. (See
Figure 4)
It should be emphasized that the actual number of units and their ultimate
location may vary from the proposed Master Plan to accommodate mazket
and site considerations, as well as compliance with appropriate
governmental regulations and policies. Hence, pursuant to the Project
District requirement, a more detailed site plan must be submitted to the
Planning Department for its review and approval before specific
development permits can be secured.
C. Project Components
I. Residential
The original master plan projected a density of 900 to 1,100
residential units. The current plan reduces and faces this density to
a maximum of 900 units, which averages out to 2.3 units per acre
(900 units over 388 acres). This density is generally comparable to
a
I{aupulehu Development's Project District (1,030 units over 439
acres).
The units will be consistent with the standards contained in the
Zoning Code for asingle- or multiple-family structure, as the case
may be. These standards relate particularly to setbacks and heights.
It was represented at the State Land Use Commission that at least
70% of the units will besingle-fanvly dwellings. This may change,
depending on mazket conditions.
It is anticipated that at least SO% of these units will be sold to the
second-home and/or retirement market. The balance will probably
be occupied by working/commuting residents.
The single-family dwellings will probably be custom built by
different developers and/or the lot owners, subject to certain design
covenants. The muhiple-family units will be constructed over time
by the applicant and/or its successors of assigns.
Given past and current real estate sales, the expected cost of the
lots and/or amts should range between $500,000 to $1 million.
2. Golf Course, Clubbouse and Related Facilities
A private 18-hole championship golf course and a driving range aze
planned for 175+ acres of the site. Portions of the golf course will
be located within a 400-foot wide open space buffer adjacent to the
State-owned pazcel, as well as within a 150-foot wide open space
buffer adjacent to the Queen I{aahumanu Highway. The balance of
the course w~71 meander throughout the project site, providing
additional open space for homeowners.
To minimize disturbance of natural azeas and reduce operational
and environmental impacts, portions of the course may be
developed using a tazget design concept. Under this concept, the
ungraded or natural area would become part of the golf course,
serving as its hazards. Farther, the existing terrain will be used as
much as possible to avoid extensive construction cut and Sll work.
An 8+ acre area would be used for the golf clubhouse and tennis
complex The clubhouse would include a locker and dining area.
The clubhouse would be designed in a manner that would be
consistent with the coastal environment and would be less than 45
feet taq (Figure Please note that the schematic plan contained
in this report was used in conjunction with another application and
5
was not prepazed by the applicant. Its inclusion is intended purely
to illustrate the concept design or character of the proposed
clubhouse.
This complex would also have a swimming pool, tennis courts, and
related facilities. While a portion of the servicing needs of these
activities could be accommodated within the golf clubhouse, it is
very likely that another structure would be constructed for these
activities.
3. Wastewater Treatment and Maintenance Area
Another 2-3 acres would be set aside for the golf course
maintenance functions and wastewater treatment facility.
Tentatively, these facilities would be located neaz the northern
boundary of the property.
4. Open Space and Preserve Areas
Approximately 40 acres will be set aside for some sort of open
space and/or cultural preserve areas. A small pu'u (cinder cone)
consisting of 10± acres as well as 1.5+_ acres of cultural preserves
will be left intact. Additionally, a 400-foot wide band pazalleling
the shoreline and another 150-foot wide band fronting the Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway will be left free of structures and used as part
of the golf course, landscaped and/or kept in its natural state.
Inclusive of the golf course, the amount of open space/preserve
azea approximates 206 acres or more than 50% of the property.
5. Public Access and Circulation System
Access to the project will be dvectly from the Queen I{a'ahumanu
Highway. A fully chamielized intersection, complete with aleft-
tum storage lane will be constructed by the applicant.
The roadways within the project site will be private. Bikeways and
walking paths aze tentatively planned within the project site,
possibly adjacent or proximate to the roadway. The circulation
system is intended to provide access to residents and guests of the
ofthe subdivision.
The project site does not abut the shoreline. As such, lateral
coastal access is not an issue. However, a mauka-makai access
through the project site and leading to the State's coastal property
6
will be provided and constructed by the applicant at the northern
end of the site.
D. Use and Design Standards
The uses and design standazds within this Project District will be guided by
a set of standards that will be made a part of this PD. For the most part,
these will be compazable to those outlined in the Zoning Code, with the
possible exception of allowing a golf course through this rather than the
Use Permit process. These standazds are found in Appendix B, entitled
"Development Standazds Sununary Table."
1. Residential Use
Residential uses would be typically a single family, duplex, and
multi-family development. These structures will be generally low
rise, with views of the golf course, ocean, and other features of the
environment.
The structures would adhere to the residential standards of the
Zoning Code (i.e., single family dwellings would follow the RS
standards, while duplex and mutiple fatnity structures would follow
the RD and RM standards, respectively.)
2. Clubhouse and Related Structures
As part of the golf course and recreational azea, there will be a
clubhouse and other related structures. These structures will utIlize
the design standards - in teens of height, setback, landscaping,
pazking, etc.- ofthe Village Commercial (CV) district.
3. Other Structures
There will be other structures for the maintenance facility as well as
the wastewater treatment plant. These structures will be essentially
single-story in height, and will adhere to the CV standazds in teens
of landscaping and parking.
4. Infrastructural Standards
As the project is proximate to a resort destination node and the
roads will be private and not dedicated to the County, the roads
within the project would be designed to resort standards. Some,
but not necessarily all, of the departures from County standard road
aze:
7
• rights-of--way width.
• pavement widths (i.e., no fiill pavement of entire right-of--way).
• absence of curbs, gutters, and sidewalk, with alternative
standards to accommodate pedestrian movements such as a
combination walking/jogging/bike path.
• limiting street lighting to intersections and certain key areas
• use of project signs within the rights-of-way.
• gates within rights-of--way.
• length of the cul-de-sac streets and its use to accommodate
emergency vehicles.
A private water system will be provided to address both potable
and non-potable needs of the project. Tentatively, a desalination
plant would be constructed on lands mauka of the subject site on
State land. The wells and plant would be designed and permitted to
meet with the State's, and if appropriate, County Department of
Water Supply's approval to service the potable needs of the
project. Irrigation wells would be developed at a lower elevation,
and together with the effiuent from the wastewater treatment plant,
they would provide the irrigation needs of the project and the golf
course.
Drainage and other infrastructural requirements of the County
and/or State would be complied with.
5. Open Saace and Cultural Preserves
The important resources of the site woukl be protected, and
impacts of view planes would be mitigated. To accomplish these
objectives, the following standards will be respected:
• Setting aside an 150-foot wide band of open space fronting the
Queen ICa'ahumanu Highway. Although a portion of the golf
course may occur in this area, no above-ground structures will
be allowed.
• Setting aside a 400-foot wide band of open space along the
makai property line: Like the mauka band of open space, golf
course uses would be allowed. No above-ground structures
will be allowed.
• Preservaing the foot of Pu'u Kuili, which is located near the
south property line.
• Preserving the small pu'u located on the project site.
• Preserving the four (4) identified burial sites and any other
possible burials that may be inadvertently discovered.
S
• Providing extensive landscaping throughout the site, through
the use of low-water use and salt tolerant plants.
• Providing a new and improved 60-foot wide public access over
the project site to the State shoreline property.
6. Buildin¢ Envelopes
A visual analysis was made of the project from the Queen
I{a'ahumanu Highway, the shoreline looking mauka towazds the
project site, and from the adjoining Pu'u Kuili. The analysis,
which is found in Appendix C, basically notes that:
HiphwavViews: The project will change the landscape. However,
given the sloping topography, the neazshore water is not really
visible from the Highway. The offshore water will not be impacted
by this project and continue to be visible from the Highway.
To m;n;m;~~ visual impacts ofPu'u Kuili, the report recommends
restricting building heights at the southwestern'portion of the site.
Given the existing topopgraphy and the proposed development
standards (Appendix B), the visual impacts can be mitigated.
Mauls Views from State Pazk Land: Given the topography, tfie
additional setback, and the proposed development standazds, the
views of the mauka area and Pu'u Kuili will not be impeded.
III. DEVELOPMENT TIMETABLE AND COSTS
The applicant intends to proceed with the implementation of this project
immediately upon securing the required entitlements from the State and County
governments and the necessary financing. Hopefully, this will occur in early 2000.
The project is intended to be buih in phases, with the initial phase consisting of the
golf course and related infrastructure, as well as at least 25% - 35% of the
residential units and/or lots. The balance is anticipated to be developed in
response to their demand. It is hoped that the demand wt71 resuh in a complete
buildout by the year 2007.
The estimated construction cost is estimated to approach $50 million for the
infrastructure and another $25 million for the golf course and clubhouse. (Please
refer to Appendiz B of the FEIS for more detailed cost breakdown.)
9
IV. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. ANTICIPATED
IMPACTS, AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
A. Overview
This chapter discusses the environmental setting, anticipated impacts, and
proposed mitigation related to this Project District application. This
discussion relies heaviiy on and essentially s rna,;~ps the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed ManinCowali
Residential Community, dated February 1992. Where appropriate, direct
excerpts aze noted by quotation marks. A fuller discussion of the
respective sections aze found in Chapter 4 of the FEIS and the technical
reports contained in its appendix, which are made a part of this submittal.
B. Climate
The project azea is in asemi-tropical and semi-arid azea with annual rainfall
of approximately 17 inches. The mean annual temperature is about 78
degrees Fahrenheit, with an average high of 83 degrees Fahrenheit and an
average low of 67 degrees Fahrenheit. Relative humidity ranges between
71 to 77 percent year round.
The proposed project should not have any significant impact on climatic
conditions and no mitigative measures aze required
C. TopoQraphY
1. EZIStInE Conditions
The project azea is gently to moderately sloping. The average slope
ranges between 5 to 6 percent, with above mean sea level
elevations ranging from 60 feet at the makai end to 250 feet at the
property boundary closest to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway.
The most significant topographic feature on the site is a smallpu'u
or cinder cone located at the northern end of the property. The
foot of a significant pu'u (Pu'u Kuili) that has a height of about 342
feet above mean sea level is located at the southern property line.
2. Anticipated Impacts
Construction activities will require mass grading and filling of
various portions of the site. Development of the golf course,
roadways, and building sites will require fine grading and
importation of material for the golf course and landscaping.
to
The grading and associated construction work will have short-term
impact on air quality in the azea and possibly to offshore water
quality by increased levels of dust. There could also be an
increased amount of soil in surface runoffduring the grading and
construction of the golf course and prior to the golf course turf has
taken root. This could resuh in some mazginal secondary impacts
to the turbidity of the coastal waters. Given its distance from the
shoreline, however, this does not appear to be significant.
For the long-terns, coastal waters could also be impacted by
infiltration to groundwater resuhing in increased sedimentation,
nutrient enrichment, and the introduction of biocides.
3. Proposed Miti¢ative Measures
To minimi~P these potential impacts, the following aze proposed:
Project Design: "The location of land uses in the master and
siting of facilities will avoid changes in topography as much as
possible. The site's natural slopes and features will be
respected to m;nim;~e grading requirements."
• "Grading Ordinance Compliance: All gradmg operations
will be conductedm.a manner which will ensure full compliance
with dust, erosion, and sedimentation control standards and
guidelines of the Hawai i County Code...."
• Golf Course and Landscaping Soil: Trucks transporting
soils would be covered to minimize soil loss. Further, during
the construction and stockpiling phases ofthe project, the soil
would be wetted down to m;n;mi~e dust.
Soil erosion by surface runoffto the coastal waters should not
be significant, given the distance from the shoreline.
Nonetheless, this potential will be min;m;~ed through proper
grading techniques, such as the use of retention azeas and filter
fences.
For the longer term, through the proper use of an Integrated
Pest Management approach, herbicide and pesticide impacts to
the coastal waters Can be m;n;m;~pd.
Il
D. Soil Types and Agrccultural Potential
1. Existing Conditions
According to the soil survey maps plotted by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, the subject site is
characterized by four (4) soil types. These aze pahoehoe lava flows
(rLVI~, cinder land (rCL), rock land (rRO, and a'a lava flows
(rLV). The predominant soil types aze a'a and rock land. There
aze few sections that have soil depths of a few inches, and these
azeas can support limited dry land grasses and trees.
The University of Hawai i Land Study Bureau's soil classification
system identifies the soil as Class E or very poorly suited for
agricultural purposes.
The State's Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii
(ALISH) does not identify the project area as Prime, Unique, or
Other Important Agricuhural Land.
2. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Miti¢ative Measures
Given the land's limited resource from an agricultural perspective,
the proposed project should have little, if any direct agricultural
impacts. The project, however, does have some potential indirect
agricultural impacts relative to the use of locally-grown agricultural
products in the planned restaurants on site.
E. Drainaee and Storm Runoff Water Quality
1. Eaistins Conditions
The U.S. Corps ofEngineers Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
designates the project azea Zone X (areas determined to be outside
the 500-yeaz flood plain).
It should be noted that the annual rainfall is slight (about 17 inches).
That fact, coupled with the highly permeable volcanic soft make
surface runoff somewhat non-existent. Because of its permeable
nature, however, groundwater can find its way downslope to the
ocean water, approximately 1,000 feet makai of the subject
property.
There is also a small anchialine pond on a privately-owned pazcel
surrounded by State land just mauka of the beach at Kua Bay.
12
2. Anticipated Impacts
During the short-term, surface water runoff is likely to increase as a
result of the grading and other alteration of the existing terrain, the
importation of soil The construction of buildings, roads, and other
impermeable surfaces should have along-term impact.
Likewise, there will be a potential for short and long term impacts
to both on and off-site surface water quality. During the short-
term, these impacts will be tied in to construction. The operational
impacts (golf course and landscaping) will be the potential long
term impacts.
3. Proposed Mitigative Measures
To address both drainage and water quality impacts associated with
surface rtmoffand percolation, the applicant proposes a number of
measures. These include:
• Drywells. Through the use of drywells, additional water
- generated by the impervious surface can be injected into the
• Erosion Controls. =Through proper design, excess water will
be directed to the golf course and landscaped azea where the
ground is a little more permeable and can absorb the additional
water. The County Grading Ordinance, which governs erosion
and dust control during construction period will also be
complied with.
It should be noted that the drainage program will not have any
direct discharge into the ocean.
To address operational impacts associated by the use ofpesticides
and herbicides for the golf course and landscaped azea, proposed
mitigative measures include:
• Erosion Controls. Soil erosion mitigation measures
recommended by the State DOH, County of Hawa? i, and SCS
will be adhered to.
• Integrated Pest Management. "An IPM program will be
instituted to min;rn;~e frequency and amounts ofpesticides
being applied to the golf course."
13
• Irrigation Management. Through the controlled use of
irrigation, the likehltood of nitrate and' pesticide movement in
surface waters or movement to groundwater can be decreased.
• Other Measures. As explained in the FEIS, these include
fertilizer application, detention bains, certified golf course
management, and Best Management Practices for Urban
and Runoff Control.
F. Groundwater Resources
1. E%ISt1nQ Conditions
The proposed project will require potable water for consumption
and non-potable water for irrigation. The groundwater resources
with the Manini'owalilKukio 1st ahupa as are considered to be
adequate to meet the demand of the proposed project.
Given the proximity of the subject site to the ocean, there are no
potable groundwater reserves at the project site. The County of
I-Iawaaz is water system which ends at the Kona International
Airport is four (4) miles to the south. Systems that currently serve
existing and planned developments north of the project site are also
at capacity.
As such, the applicant plans to utilize State lands mauka of the site
to establish a field of brackish water wells. A dual water system
would be constructed to provide both potable and non-potable
water. Desalination plants would be used to provide the potable
water. The irrigation or non-potable water would be used directly,
or if needed, blended with treated effiuent.
The projected water requirement ranges between 430,600 gpd to
645,900 gpd of potable water. Of the 947,400 gpd needed for non-
potable purposes, approximately 291,200 gpd would be recycled
effiuent water. The total average daily demand on the aquifer is
thus about 1.09 mgd.
2. Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts of this approach are a) the use of treated
wastewater effiuent and brackish water for irrigation; and b) the use
of fertilizers and pesticides in groundwater entering the coastal
marine environment. The latter will be covered in another section.
to
According to the FEIS, disposing the treated effiuent in the golf
course and otber land irrigation would be `most environmentally
sensitive" as opposed to an ocean outfall, injection wells, or septic
tanks with leaching fields.
"The volume of treated wastewater (291,200 gpd) will amount to
about 30.7 percent of the average golf course irrigation needs
(947,400 mgd). Typically, only 5 to 10 percent of properly applied
soluble nitrogen eventually infiltrates the groundwater with the
other 90 to 95 percent utilized by plant and soil ecology
update....Studies of groundwater quality prepared by Oceanit
Laboratories, Inc. (October 1991), show that with proper irrigation
management of turf azeas, treated effiuent nitrogen is expected to
be utilized completely by the turf grasses, with minimal leaching to
groundwater."
"The presence of bacteria and viruses will be well within allowable
limits and none are expected to reach the aquifer."
Relative to the use ofnon-potable water for irrigation, it will be
mixed with the effiuent at a 70:30 ratio. This resuh in a lower
salinity of the irrigation water and tbe m;o;n,;~P the need for over-
irrigation to reduce or remove the dissolved salt from the
plants/grasses. -
The use of irrigation water should resuh in an overall increase of
the recharge volume by about 6 percent.
In terms of the use of fertilizers and herbicides for the golf course,
Oceanic Laboratories, Inc. (October 1991) "modeled the worst-case
potential contribution of nitrogen to groundwater below the project
site." It noted that the "A(a)verge nitrogen concentration in the
underlying aquifer increased to a predicted concentration of 2.18 to
2.95 mg/1 under this worst case scenario. This value is well within
EPA potable water limit of 10 mg/1. No water source could be
affected by tis (sic) nitrogen because of the groundwater flow
towards the ocean."
The study also concluded that "the impact of phosphorus on the
aquifer is very small.,,
"An assessment of the potential impacts of fertilizers and pesticides
to be used on the proposed 36-hole golf course was conducted by
15
Chazles Murdoch, Ph:D. and Richazd Green, Ph.D. in January
1994, and is attached to this EIS as Appendix A and s»n+rt+ari~ed
here."
3. Proposed MitiEative Measures
The following recommended measures aze designed to address
impacts to the azea's water supply and groundwater quality:
Conservation of potable water. This will be done through
the use of desalination plant (and thereby conserving the
region's potable water); directing the mazket ofthe project to
the second home or seasonal group (which reduces overall
consumption); and employing water conservation practices
(such as the use of effiuent, creation of a tazget golf course,
etc.).
• Conservation ofnon-potable water. This can be done
through use of sah tolerant turf grass, xeriscape and native
plantings.
• Measures to minimize impacts to groundwater. Through the
use of organic rich topsoil in the high maintenance areas of the
golf course, leaching of pesticides can be somewhat controlled.
Further, irrigation will be controlled and thus avoiding `washing
out" of the fert7izer and pesticides.
Other measures i~lude adoption of an Inteiuated Pest Mana¢ement
Control Pro¢ram, development of a Management of Chemical
Storage and Use program, use of Treated Wastewater Effiuent and
Slow-Release Nitrosen Fert~7izer, and development and practice of
a Groundwater Monitoring Proeram.
G. Marine Resources and Ocean Water Quality
1. Eaistin¢ Conditions
Although the project site is not adjacent to the ocean, the existing
marine environment along the shoreline immediately makai of the
project site was examined. The study, prepared by Oceanit
Laboratories, Inc. (September 1991) and made a part of the FEIS,
made the following observations:
16
a. While there aze no streams entering the sea along
Manini owali, there is evidence of high volumes of highly
nutrified groundwater inflow.
b. "Water quality ut the nearshore ocean off Marini' owali
generally conforms to the State water quality standards set
for AA coastal waters."
c. The water sample from Kua Bay was of slightly lower
salinity and higher silicate, suggesting intrusion of
groundwater.
d. "Within the shoreline azea...there is a variety and abundance
of marine life determined largely by wave energy, and by the
topography and bathymetry of the shoreline that affords
sheher to aquatic life."
e. Fairly abundant reef Ssh were observed.
f. There is an anchialine pond makai ofthe project site and
about 250 feet from the shoreline and about 16 square yards
in surface azea
2. Anticipated Impacts .
"Short term impacts on the marine environment from neazshore
construction projects could potentially result from airborne dust
and increased silt in runoff waters. Dust and silt introduction to the
ocean will not occur due to this project because of the 1,000 feet
(sic) distance of the property from the shoreline, extensive
construction site watering, the low normal rainfall, and the lack of
surface runoff from the site.
"Long-term impacts on the marine environment could potentially
occur from the use of fertilizers and pesticides, imgation disposal of
diluted secondary treated sewage effiuent, and the increased public
access to the shoreline."
Golf course and residential activities have the potential to add
nutrients to the nearshore marine environment. This could
stimulate growth of benthic algae and possibly coral growth.
"At the Maniru'owali coast, it is not likely that the coral
communities deeper than three to six feet will receive nitrogen from
the inflow of
17
groundwater. Freshwater tends to rise and spread out on the
surface limiting its ability to convey nutrients. The benthic
communities within the tidal and surge zones may receive a steady
flux of nutrified groundwater. The extent of this effect will not
likely be noticeable, because nitrogen in the groundwater, which is
the primary nutrient hkely to be increased by golf course and
residential development, is already in excess in the neazshore
environment. The proposed residential and golf course
development will occur at least 1,000 feet away from the coastline,
allowing for extensive dilution in the aquifer, thus reducing the
extent of groundwater inflows of nutrients. This separation will
serve as a buffer to environmental impacts to the neazshore marine
environment. Furthermore, wave and current mixing in the
nearshore environment will immediately dilute nutrient subsidies. It
is possible that some aeeas of intertidal algal growth may shift
toward rapid growth species which are more adept at taking
advantage of increased nitrogen levels."
Relative to the impacts of Pesticide Use on the eolf course and
landscaped areas. "No golf course development in Hawaz i has been
linked to pesticides input to the nearshore enviromment, nor has
there been any evidence directly implicating golf course pesticide
use with impacts on the neazshore ecology. Based on the findings
of groundwater studies by Oceanic Laboratories (October 1991),
the concentrations of pesticides entering the ocean in groundwater
are expected to be extremely minute, and will lflcely be below the
measuring instruments' detection threshold."
The project will also provide an improved public access to the
shoreline. This could provide sow problems with security, litter,
and excessive use and removat of the area's marine resources.
3. Proposed Mitigative Measures
Mitigative measures relating to protection of the groundwater
directly relate to the marine environment and ocean water quality.
These include erosion control during construction, as well as long-
termoperational measures such as the use of an Integrated Pest
Control Measure, managed fertilizer and pesticides applications,
and monitoring of the groundwater.
is
H. Natural Hazards
1. Eaistine Conditions
The Manini' owali Residential Community FEIS identified four
natural hazards: floodwaters, tsunami inundation, lava flow
inundation, and seismic activity.
The US Corps of Engineers Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
designates the site to be within Zone X, an azea determined to be
outside the 500-year flood plain.
• Relative to tcnnami the sites is located at least 1,000 feet inland
from the ocean at elevations of 60 to 250 feet above msl. As such,
the threat of inundation from tsunami is not overly significant.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the island into 9
volcanic "hazard zones" ranging from 1 to 9, with zone 1 being of
the greatest risk. This azea is designated Zone 4. It should be
noted that the city of Hilo and Kailua-Kona aze designated Zone 3.
According the Uniform Building Code (iJBC), the entire island is
located within a cake or Seismic Zone 3. The County is
contemplating the adoption of a revised UBC that would increase
the designation to Zone 4.
2. Anticipated Imparts and Proposed MitiPative Measures
The proposed project should have no impacts on natural hazards
and no mitigative measures are required. Nonetheless, the design
of structures w~71 be mindful of the seismic hazards of the island and
be constructed in accordance with prevailing building standazds.
Ahhough not within the tsunami zone, if needed, a tsunami
evacuation plan can be prepared. Likewise, due to the uncertainty
of volcanic eruptions, the most practical mitigative measure is the
provision of an eazly warning alert system that will warn area
residents of an impending threat. Such can be prepared if required
by the County.
I9
I. Botanical Resources
i. Existine Conditions
A botanical assessment was conducted by Chaz and Associates.
The survey identified very dense fountain grass (Pennisetum
setaceum) over 70 to 90 percent of the site. Other identified shrubs
included the 'ilima (Sida fallax), 'uhaloa (Waltheria indica), and
a'ali'i (Dodonaa viscosa).
There is a dense ring of kiawe trees at the base of the small pu'u
located at the north or Kuki'o boundary. Also identified were the
pill grass (Heteropogon contortus), 'ihi (Portulaca pilosa),
carpetweed (Moluga cerviana), goosefood (Chenopodium murale),
bitter herb (Centaurium erythraca), and the buffell grass (Cenchrus
ciliaris).
"No officially listed threatened or endangered plants was recorded
at the project site."
2. Anticipated Impacts
A significant portion of the vegetation will be removed during the
clearing and grubbing stages of the project. It is anticipated that at
least 315 to 325 acres of the subject site will be cleared.
3. Proposed Mitigative Measures
To minimize adverse impacts on the vegetative resources of the
site, erosion rnntrol measures wi71 be taken during the construction
phase to avoid impacts to the undisturbed vegetation azeas.
Further, re-vegetation will be timed so that soil exposure will be
kept to a minimum.
Additionally, the applicant will implement a landscaping program
that uses a lot of native plants that aze climatically suitable to the
semi-arid, coastal environment.
J. Wildlife Resources
1. Existing Conditions
Phillip Bruner conducted an avifaunal and feral mammal study of
the area. His study observed resident and endemic land and water
birds such as the black-necked stih or Ae'o on the adjoining makai
20
pazceL This endemic and endangered species is not as numerous
on this island, as it is on some of the other islands. No Short-eared
owl or Pu'eo was observed.
The study also noted the presence of migratory indigenous birds
such as the Pacific Golden Plover, particulazly along the coastline.
The Wandering Tattler was also observed along the coast.
A number of exotic birds were observed and/or speculated to be
found within this azea. These include the Gray Francolin, Spotted
Dove, Common Myna, Yellow-billed Cazdinal, and the house finch,
among others.
In terms of feral mammals, the small Indian mongoose, feral cats,
and goats were observed on the site.
2. Anticipated Impacts
The project will cause some measure of disruption of wildlife use of
the site, particularly during the construction phase. Most birds and
feral mammals are expected to migrate to neighboring undeveloped
areas during this period. When the project is completed, however,
it is anticipated that the site will be attractive to many birds.
"No threatened or endangered wildlife species will be affected by
the project, as none occur on the property."
Further, "T(t)he controlled use of fertilizers and pesticides in golf
course maintenance pose little or no hazard to birds frequenting the
grassed areas or ponds associated with the golf courses."
3. Proposed Mitigative Measures
This project is not anticipated to create any significant impacts to
a~ wHdlife species on the site. Nonetheless, certain measures will
be taken to m;n;m;~e any impacts. These include re-vegetation of
cleared areas (which can then serve as habitat azeas for some
wildlife species) and structured and certified use of pesticides and
herbicides.
K. Archaeolosical and Historic Resources
"An investigation of archaeological and historic features was conducted on
project site by the Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum, during the
period from Mazch to May 1991....The significant evaluations of sites and
21
general mitigation plans have been approved by the Department of Land
and Natural Resources-Historic Preservation Division(DLNR-HPD)...."
"The azchaeological inventory findings aze snmmari~ed in the following
discussion, and the preliminary report is included as Appendix J (of the
FEIS)."
It should be noted that another report dealing with burials was submitted to
the State DLNR-HPD and the Hawai i Island Burial Council. The location
of these burials aze kept in confidence.
1. Existin¢ Conditions
There were several azchaeological studies of this area. The most
recent (which is included in the appendix of the FEIS) was
performed by Pantaleo, et. al (December, 1991). This study
recorded a total of 25 archaeological sites, consisting of 1,311
features (mostly small pits). Figure 6 shows the location of these
complexes relative to the original proposed master plan.
"The results of the mapping and recording of archaeological
features show a common pattern in the seaward portions of the
middle wne of a few inland heading trails and associated temporary
habitation. However, resuhs show an unexpected cultural activity
in the form of numerous pit features in the middle wne,.... T'he
occurrence of the numerous pit features (more than 1,100)
especially along one trail section indicates some form of specialized
activity. Initial evah~ation of these pit features, based upon
archaeological reseazch in other projects in North Kona and test
results, suggest multiple functions, including quazry, agriculture,
and storage."
`"Two temporary habitation features contained abundant midden
and artifacts (50-10-18-5348) and 50-10-18-5354). Their location
inland (over 1,000 feet from the coast) suggests that exploitation of
• marine resources took place over an extended period of time.
Artifacts recovered included coral abraders and opihi shell scrapers,
indicating exploitation of marine resources. Even though no
fishhooks were actually found, these types of artifacts suggest
fishhook manufacture.>,
"Also, one site (50-10-18-5355) is interpreted as a possible
religious shrine. It is a low rock platform containing branch coral,
midden, and lithic debitage. Initial interpretation indicates
specialized use. Additional testing in the next phase of the
22
iSy 1 ~ }
I '
ii-
i
t
I
I
r
W
a
;r
w
~
U e ~y
Z '_l • 6
: ~
("n y V
Q ~ i
.a a
z
- ~ 5 x ;i
Z a x !3
g 3 ~ s3
a ~ ~ ~ 43
y Z sE
:5 F
G
fii'.. ~ _ 1.
t
Z
~P ~ m
C ~ o
G . ~ ~ Om a
w 5
c ~
~J . a~eds
~
e ~ d ~ w
0 9
S't
\ ~ i a U U o
i
~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ C
9 }
~v k o
jr ` Ir ' ~t\ ',~Y 1 rc S u r fi aiedS Q v
~~~~r l~ ~ ~r ~ uadp ~ WI
/t ~ ~ { I 1 i ~ ~ _ OSl _
1 _~y r ll ~ ~ ~ b
k ~
' n +A ~ ~ k I~ J
_ _ E.i\ I Ss~~ W ~C
Z ~ ~k l4` i 4 i 4 ~ I y ~ a
C t J ~ Kt ~ ~Jt
a k~j~11 ' yh~,t ~ ~gF- /-.qtr , -4~~.~r
~ a i
~ a (
o 4 ' :Ai i r ~ ~ i i Ott a
r~u ( t)j S~jyt ~l l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. , t~ . <1 3 ~a
lr~ ~ . ` r 1 O n~. s
~ 2~6f~ - ( l ~ ~ a~~i : i . r
t x5~~t i ~ ~ ~ ~ Nri
1 15 i~ ~ i 4, _ 1
~SY~ ~ y~~ Y I ~ ~ Y~
h; ~q k ~ - iii _ m
~y5 ~r~t>7}till ~ v ~ i '
r ~ 111
rr it u~ Q
5 k ".A- r'~5'.L'
r v x - ti ~
q I ~ Y i.~ 6 i1~1 tA'~ F ~ \ \
,r r k ail tit k,3'FP i~ 14 -~~1 " -.i ~ i k{ ®o
, l
C b
Y E I~
r W
u c m
c
~ E ~ SI V
_ OI
Y ~ N m o Q V e
W ~ o O a
a`.~ ~1~ ~ ~ a „o `s 8 ~ I
i%iy a.oirv ~ ~ a F g z I 3
N s ~~I it ~
a ~ .r, ~ .~I
_
a
00 p
~:M 1 V JS \
L _
~ 1
u, \O ~ .I I N
\ , VIII
~ H ~
N / ~ ~ EII III
~e-~ ~T III .
,III
II1,
' ,!4 0~~~~1 aray~ 1. II
a ~ ~ ~
Y / II lill~
4
_ r
JJJ I
/ u3f~- <~rin 3 I I
archaeological work will be performed to verify the function of this
site."
"Significance Assessments: To facilitate State and County
review, Bishop Museum's proposed significance assessments for
the 25 sites identified within the project azea during the
reconnaissance survey aze summarized in Table 5. (Figure 7 in this
report) All of the recorded sites aze considered significant under
Criterion D of the National Register criteria. The burial sites and
trail segments are also given a significance rating of E. Some types
are excellent examples of site types (Criterion C). DLNR-HPD
uses significance criteria to evaluate eligibility for both the Hawaz i
State and National Register of Historic Places. Criterion C is
defined as excellent examples of site types. Criterion D is defined
as significant resources which have yielded, or may be likely to
yield, infom~ation important in pre-history or history. Criterion D is
defined as resources of significant cuhural value. The review of the
proposed significant assessments has been concluded and approved
by the Historic Preservation Division."
2. Anticipated Impacts
Based on the original master plan, at least 22 of the 25
archaeological sites will be directly affected. "It is proposed to
appropriately treat the 25 significant sites through preservation or
data recovery."
3. Proposed Mitisative Measures
"Several mitigative measures have been proposed to m;n;m;~e
potential impacts to azchaeological resources. Significant sites will
undergo data recovery or be preserved following DLNR-HPD
recommendations. General mitigation plans for sites which will be
preserved and data recovered have been approved by DLNR-HPD.
The next phase of archaeological work will include the completion
of a detailed mitigation plan for data recovery and site preservation;
this report will be submitted to DLNR-HPD for their review and
approval"
"Preservation: Preservation Commitments are shown in Table 6
(Figure 7 in this report) At this point it is agreed to preserve sites
50-10-18-5337 (trail), -5348 (burials), portions of -5338 (a burial
and representative examples of temporary habitations and pits), and
two other isolated burial sites (50-10-18-5339 and -5352). In the
event preservation of site 5337 (trail) creates a conflicting use with
23
MA. .vI'OWALI RESIDENTIAL COMM. TY
• Final Envirottmental Impact Statements
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
State Significance To Be To Undergo
Site No Evaluation Preserved Data Recovery
50-10-18-5337 C, D, E X
50-10-18-5338 C, D, E X1 X (por)
50-10-18-5339 D,E X2
50-10-18-5340 D X
50-10-18-5341 D X
50-10-18-5342 D X
50-10-1 &5343 D X
50-10-18-5344 D X
50-10-18-5345 D X
50-10-18-5346 D X
50.10-18-5347 D X
50-10-18-5348 D, E X
50-10-18-5349 D X
50-10-18-5350 D ~ X
SO-10-18-5351 D X
50-10-18-5352 D, E X3 X (por)
50-10-18-5353 D X
50-10-18-5354 D _ X
50-10-18-5355 D, E• X4
50-10-18-5356 D X
50-10-18-5357 D X
50-10-18-5358 D X
50-10-18-5359 D X
50-10-18-5360 D X
50-10-18-5361 D X
C= References sites reflecting distinctive architectural charaaezistic or type, period, or method of
construction, or presenting the work of a Master, or possessing high artistic value.
D= Applies to sites which have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important to further
understanding of traditional culture, history or pre-history.
E= Specifies sites or places which have significant historic or cultural value to an ethnic group of the
State, as proposed.
• Feature 1 and 2 of Site -5355 require further testing~to confirm function.
1 [fe. 402 (burial) and other features (pits, temporary habitation)]
2 fe. 196
3 fe.2
4 fe 1 and fe. 2 (E function is verified)
Source: Bishop Museum Qanuary 1992)
FIGURE 7
23a
portions of the land plan, the developer will coordinate with
DLNR-HPD and Na Ala Hele to determine appropriate treatment
of these trail sections. Site 50-10-18-5355, a possible habitation or
a small shrine, will require additional testing to verify its function.
If it is determined to be a shrine, the site will be preserved"
The cinder cone and sections of the trail and site 50-1018-5338
may be incorporated into a public interpretation program by the
applicant. All of these, plus the possible retention of representative
pit features and temporary habitations in site -5358 along a section
of a trail will be discussed more fully in the preservation and
mitigation plan.
Data recovery will address the portions of significant sites not
recommended for preservation. Data recovery will be conducted to
recover a reasonable ami adequate amount of information of the
affected sites.
L. Air Quality
An air quality impact study was conducted by Barry D. Neal and
Associates (June 1991) as part of the FEIS. The following summarizes
that report as discussed in the FEIS.
1. EaistinE Conditions
The air quality monitoring stations aze found in Hilo and Honoka'a
and not in this azea. As such, the data in that area cannot really be
correlated to the subject property.
The project azea is subjected to air pollutants from natural and/or
vehicular sources. With the exception of a power plant located at
Ke'ahole about 4 miles to the north, there are no industrial or
agricuhural air pollution sources neazby.
However, the on-going volcanic activity in Puna is the largest
intermittent natural contributor to air pollution. The west side of
the island, particularly Kona, is affected by this vog (volcanic
smog), and preliminary studies show that sulfate levels in South
Kona to be at least five times higher than Hilo.
Locally, the emissions from motor vehicles traveling along the
Queen Kaahumanu Highway represents the largest source for this
site.
24
2. Anticipated Impacts
The short-term air quality impacts would be from construction
activities - on-site emissions from construction vehicles and fugitive
dust generation. Off-site impacts would occur due to the operation
of concrete and asphalt concrete hatching plants needed for
construction.
There would be potential long-term indirect impacts relating to the
traffic generated by this project. The consultant did a cazbon
monoxide modeling based on several scenarios, one of which
assumed a complete buildout by the yeaz 2006. There was an
increased level (due in part to the eventual signalization of the
Highway to support projects in the area). However, the increased
level was well within acceptable State and National Ambient Air
Quality Standazds.
Another long-term impact could be the use of pesticides on air
quality. The report concluded that "Because they (pesticides) aze
not highly volatile and are applied in dilute sprays (50 to 100
gallons of spray solution per acre) to open azeas, there is little
likehliood of toxic levels in the atmosphere."
Impacts from the proposed wastewater facility should not be
significant. There will be effective odor conrol measures.
3. Proposed Mitigative Measures
Dust control measures (such as watering, covering of open-bodied
trucks, etc.) will be used during the construction period. Further,
the pazking azeas and landscaping will be initiated in the eazly
stages of the construction phase to help with the dust control.
Further, to reduce the air emission impacts ofslow-moving
construction vehicles, to the extent possible, they will be moved
during periods of low traffic volume.
Other mitigative measures include making roadway
improvements to facilitate the flow of traffic; putting controls
over the use of pesticides; and implementation odor controls
for the treatment plant.
M. Noise Characteristics
An acoustic study was conducted by Dazby and Associates (June 1991)
25
for the FEIS. The following summarizes that report.
1. Existin¢ Conditions
The existing noise environment consists of ambient noise levels
resulting from wind and foliage, surf, birds, and intermittent flyby
events of helicopters and aircraft. Noise for vehicular traffic is
most evident near the Highway. The noise level measured from
about 350 feet from the highway registered between 45 to 52 dBA
(decbel units). It should be noted that this falls within the
"Minimal Exposure, Unconditionally Acceptable" level category,
with traffic noise below 55 Day-Night Sound level (Ldn) at
approximately 150 feet or greater setback.
As one moves makai, the natural sounds -wind and foliage, buds
and surf -become more dominant. The dBA in that azea ranged
between 38 to 41.
Noise from the Kona International Airport located about 4 miles
south `were bazely audible and did not increase the ambient noise
IeveL"
2. Anticipated Impacts
In the short-term, there will be significant increases in noise level
attnbutable to construction activities. However, there will be no
residents in the azea during this period.
Over the long term, the project should generate additional traffic
along the highway, and in turn increase the vehicular noise level.
However, the amount of increase, at most, should be 1.0 dBA.
Such an increase is usually not noticeable to the normal hearing,
and thus the impact is really negligible.
Due to setbacks integrated into the proposed development
plan, noise levels at the project's housing units should not exceed
the 65 Ldn FHA/HLJD noise standards, and aze expected to be
approximately 55 Ldn or less.
Urban activities introduced by the proposed Project District
development would increase the existing background ambient
noise levels. These increases -such as those associated with the
golf course maintenance, clubhouse activities, air conditioning
units, and the
26
like - are unavoidable. Therefore, administrative controls (such as
noise curfews) may be required to m;r,;m;~e their impact on noise
sensitive receptors.
"(I~noise created by activities within the development may be
noticeable at the State's beach pazk where camping activities may
eventually occur. However, most of the pazk azea is exposed to
high sound levels of surf and wind noise, with Ldn levels probably
exceeding 70 dB, depending on weather condition. Due to this
natural masking sound, the project-generated noise is not expected
to cause any significant noise impact at the beach park."
It should also be noted that this project is a residential one, where
occupants would usually demand a lower noise level. Further, there
will be a 400 foot buffer between the State park and any structures.
3. Proposed Mitigative Measures
To mitigate potential noise impacts during the short-term
construction period, compliance with State DOH noise regulations
will be enforced. These include limiting construction activities to
certain periods of the day; requiring all construction equipment
have approved exhaust and muffier systems; and adheru?g to State
DOH blasting measures.
For the long-term operational control, the design and siting ofthe
public structures (clubhouse) and the waste treatment plant will
take into account inchule ways to minunizs noise impacts. This will
include the siting of matters such as the air conditioning units,
exhaust fans, sound insulation of portions of public structures
subject to major functions, and the h1ce.
N. Traffic Impacts
The traffic impact analysis of this project was done neazly eight (8) yeazs
ago in 1991. As there have been more developments in the region, an
updated analysis was done by the same consuhant (Traffic Management
Consuhant) and the entire report is found in Appeudi= D).
1. Existing Conditions
Access to the project site would be from the Queen Ka'ahumanu
Highway, a high quality, two-lane highway between Kawa~ae and
Kailua-Kona. It has a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour and a
z~
two-way capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour. The pavement width
is 24 feet within a 300-foot right-of--way.
2. Anticipated Impacts
The traffic analysis was predicated upon 950 dwelling units. It
should be noted, however, the requested Project District is for a
maximum of 900 units, SO less than the number used for the
analysis.
Using a land use forecast for the yeaz 2020, the State Department
of Transportation with the assistance of the County Departments of
Planning and Public Works, prepazed the "Hawaii Long Range
' Land Transportation Plan" (HI,RLTP) in 1998. The HLRLTP
projects the traffic in the vicinity of the project "to increase at an
annual rate of 3.7 percent."
"Fronting the project site, Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected
to carry a total of 1,128 vph during the AM peak hour of traffic,
612 vph northbound and 516 vph southbound, during the Yeaz
2007 AM peak hour of traffic without the proposed project. The
two-lane Queen ICaahumanu Highway would operate at Level of
Service (LOS) "E" and a v/c ratio of 0.58."
The PM peak hour of traffic would also operate at LOS "E" with a
slightly higher v/c ratio of 0.61.
The project would have an unsignalized fully channelized T-
intersection. This intersection, to be constructed by the developer,
would have an exclusive left-turn storage/deceleration lane, as well
as acceleration lanes. (See Figure 8)
Based on these improvements, at the project's intersection, peak
AM traffic would operate at LOS "C" or better. The Queen
I{a'ahumanu Highway, however, would continue to operate at LOS
"E" and the v/c ratio is projected to increase to from 0.58 to 0.72.
"The left turn movement from the Project Access Road to
northbound Queen Kaahutttanu Highway is expected to operate at
LOS "D" during the PM peak hour with the site-generated traffic.
The other turning movements...aze expected to operate at
satisfactory Levels of Service." The Highway is expected to
continue operating at LOS "E", with the v/c ratio increasing to 0.76
from 0.61.
zs
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HWY
C7
PROJECT
ACCESS
ROAD
NOTE: NOT TO SCALE
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HWY
Proposed At-Grade Intersection Improvements soux~:zric
MANINI'OWALI RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY FIGURE 8
.,o_
3. Proposed Mitigative Measures
The analysis recommended that a fully channelized intersection,
complete with alert-turn storage lanes and
acceleration/deceleration lanes be constructed. With those
improvements, "the proposed Manini owaG Residential Community
should not have any significant impacts on peak hour traffic."
O. VisualImpacts
A view analysis was done by Belt Collins, a copy of which is made a part of
this report as Appendia C). This analysis, as well as the FEIS were used
to describe the visual impacts of this project.
1. Existing Conditions
The site is bounded by a 1,000 foot wide strip of State land and the
Queen I{a'ahumanu Highway on the makai and mauka sides,
respectively. The land has a slope range of 10.15%. The mauka
end has a varying elevation of 275 feet above msl to 75 feet above
msl, while the lower makai end ranges between 125 feet above msl
to 25 feet above msl.
Because the Highway is located approximately 5,000 feet from the
shoreline, the property appears to be fairly flat. However, there is a
significant drop between the end of the project site to the State
coastal property. Thus, the makai coastal view is more of the
offshore rather than the neazshore.
There is a small pu'u neaz the Kawaihae or northwestern edge of
the property at 160 feet above msl. This azea will be preserved.
`there is also Pu'u Kui[i located on the adjoining State property
south of the project site which rises to 342 feet above msl.
2. Anticipated Impacts
There aze two principal impacts - from the Queen ICa' ahumanu
Highway and the State property makai of the subject site.
Because the property slopes away from the direction of travel, the
view of the project site from the Highway heading north is not
generally visible. The project site becomes more visible traveling
south, however, generally after the entrance to the Hualalai
Resorts.
29
"Ocean views from aing the mauka boundary ofthe project area are
visible at the western property comer and then become obscured by
the highway cut slopes. The ocean becomes visible again for most
of the norther two thirds of the project azea.... When the project
area is visible, the dominant features aze Pu'u Kuili, which is
located south of the Manini' owali property, and a smaller pu'u on
the northern edge of the property."
Accordingly, any development or structures on the project site
would generate some measure of visual impacts.
3. Proposed Mitigative Measures
To mitigate these potential impacts, the following mitigative
measures are proposed:
Use and Design Standards
All uses covered by tbese applications will be governed by a set
of standazds that will be made a part of the project district
ordinance and/or condition of the SMA permit. These
standards, such as height, setbacks, pazking, etc., will be
comparable to the existing Zoning Code.
• Open Space Buffers
There would be non structural setbacks at the mauka and
makai ends of the subject site. From the Queen ICa' ahumanu
Highway, the setback would be 150 feet. The setback at the
' makai end adjacent to the State property would be 400 feet.
Although portions of the golf course and landscaping would be
allowed in these areas, there would be no above ground
structures.
• Preservation of Significant Visual and Cultural Landmarks
The smallpu'u consisting of 8-10 acres and located at the
northwestern end of the site would be preserved.
The foot or base of Pu'u Kuili is located on the southwestern
section of the property. This area will likewise be restricted
from structures.
30
Further, the major azchaeological features on the site, which
includes at this time four (4) burial sites, will be preserved.
• Height Limitations
To m;n;m;~r the visual impact of Pu'u Kuili from a portion of
the Queen ICa' ahumanu Highway, a visual corridor between
the Highway and the Pu'u would be created wherein the heights
of structures would be restricted to a level so as not to totally
obstruct the view of the Pu'u.
Landscaping
Extensive landscaping would be introduced throughout the site.
Given the area's chazacter and water source, plant material
would be of a variety that is fairly sah tolerant and requires low
water use. These would include plants like palm, bouganvillea,
naupaka. and the h1ce.
31
P. Social and Economic Characteristics
1. Population
a. Eaistin¢ Conditions
Population growth on the island, particularly the West Hawaii,
has been fueled in lazge measure by the growth of tourism, as
tourism is now the primary revenue and/or economic
generator.
"The resident population of Nor[h Kona and South Kohala has
increased by 10 percent between 1970 and 1980 and 5.5
percent between 1980 and 1999 (sic)." (Please note that should be
1990).
Although the Department of Business and Economic
Development and Tourism (DBED-T) estimated that the
County's population would increase to 160,400 in the year
2000, this does not appeaz likely. The US Bureau of Census
estimate as of July 1998 was 143,135.
The Bureau also noted that for 1995, the estimates for the
districts ofNorth Kona and South Kohala were 25,447 and
12,098, respectively or a combined total of 37,545. This
represents an additional population of 6,121 from 1990.
b. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Miti¢ative Measures
The project is anticipated to attract a significant amount of
second home or part-time residents and/or retirees. It is
anticipated that more than 50% of the residents will bepart-
time, ahigher amount than what was originally projected in the
FEIS.
As such, these people will generally tend to be older than the
average for the County or North Kona azea, with an average
age of 55 years. The number of school-age children should be
quite small
There would also be some increase in the resident population
resulting from in-migration to fill permanent project-related
jobs. The ntunber of permanent employees is anticipated to be
32
around 100 to 120. Due to the unemployment level, most of
the jobs are anticipated to be filled by existing residents. The
project is nonetheless anticipated to generate an additional 330
new residents.
In stating that no real mitigative measures aze need, the FEIS
stated that "The project has been proposed in a manner
consistent with the goals of the Office of State Planning (OSP)
West Hawai i Regional Plan. Urban expansion and the
associated population in the section of West Hawaii will be
focused at the Kaupulehu/Kona Village/Kuki'o Resort Node.
Proposed a? the context of these expected settlement patterns,
the Marini owali Residential Community will be seen as a
compatible extension of the resort node, both visually and in
the type of residential community."
2. Lifestyle and Community Issues
a. Eaistina Conditions
Based on the study in the FEIS, the lifestyles of the region aze
characterized by agricultural/rural legacy, retirement
communities, resort workers, and executive/professional
group. The amenities of the "country" environment (open
space, htkmg, recreation, etc.) aze prized.
b. Anticipated Impacts
The project will increase resort and business development, and
will be compatble with the existing and planned uses on the
adjacent properties.
"The overall affect of Marini owali Residential Community on
lifestyles ut the North Kona/South Kohala area will be a
continuation of the. current housing development patterns and
trends, and an enhancement of recreational opporhmities and
community facilities resources." Because resort uses are not
being requested, the homes should be somewhat less than the
other homes/lots within the adjoining resort projects. As such,
and because of its proximity to Kailua, it can "provide
opportunities for local buyers compazed with neighboring
resort developments."
33
c. Proposed Mitigative Measures
13y adhering do design guidelines, impacts relative to open
space can be minimised. Further, implementing commitments
to improve access to the State-owned property makai of the
subject site, provide water, and assist with the development of
the park should help realize the broader community's
recreational and open space goals.
3. Economic Activities and Em„plovment
a. Eaisting Cooditioos
"Compared to Hawaz i County, North Kona and South Kohala
were highly represented in service type occupations. North
Kona had s&ghthj more people in management and professional
occupations than the County, and technical, sales, and
administration were also favored in North Kona. Also,
consistent with the predominant visitor industry, North Kona
and South Kohala were highly represented in the personal,
entertainment, and recreational industries..."
"Ranching and agriculture are still important in South Kohala."
The construction industry is also important for both districts.
b. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigative Measures
Personal income resuhing from this project should be about
$11.9 million during the construction period, and about $2.6
annually as construction subsides and the project gets on line
operationally.
The study in the FEIS notes that about 295 direct construction
jobs would be created annually over the build out period.
Based on the State's job multiplier of 1.4, the project should
generate more than 400 indirect jobs. Once the project is
completed, the estimated direct and indirect jobs created are
120 and 60, respectively.
"The impacts of the project on economic activities and
employment will be beneficial to azea residents and businesses.
Consequently, no mitigative measures aze needed or
recommended."
34
4. Government Revenues and Expenditures
Between 1994 to 98, the real property taxes paid to the County was
over $230,000. There are no cun'ent expenditures being made for
direct services to date.
With the development of this project, there will be additional tax
revenues to the County and State governments. The FEIS noted that
over $10 million a~ually in taxes would be paid ($5.7 to the State and
$5.5 to the County).
The applicant intends to provide all ofthe required infrastructure
(water, sewer, roadways and the h7ce). Further, the additional taxes
generated should help offset any public services needed for this
project. As such, no mitigative measures aze proposed and/or
necessary.
5. Housing
a. Eaistin¢ Conditions
Reflecting housing conditions in 1990, the FEIS noted a
housing shortage, in spite of the growth of housing units
during the 1980s. Since then, there have been additional
housing starts and lower prices, resulting in a change of the
condition. There have been a number of affordable housing
projects in North Kona that aze still available and/or have not
been developed due to (among other factors) the lack of
response.
Reflective of this change, the County of Hawaii has adopted a
housing policy (Ordinance No. 98-1) which outlines the
affordable housing obligation of projects. In this situation, the
obligation would be 10% of the total units to be developed.
The State Land Use Commission, in its approval of the
boundary amendment, also required an affordable housing
condition that was common at that time - 60%.
b. Anticiaated Impacts and Proaosed Mitigative Measures
This project is not an affordable housing one. However,
through satisfaction of the affordable housing condition, it will
help address that spectrum of the housing mazket.
35
Further, the provision of additional lots and homes will add to
the overall region's housing supply. It should then satisfy some
of the housing preferences and need of existing and future
residents of the region.
As noted earlier, the proposed mitigative measures would be
through compliance with the County Housing Policy and State
Land Use Commission's condition and/or the satisfaction of the
affordable housing conditions that will be made a part of the
proposed Project District Ordinance.
Q. Infrastructure, Public Facilities and Services
1. Roadways
a. EaistinQ Conditions and Anticipated Impacts
Access to the subject property will be via the Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway. It is a limited access highway with a
300-foot right-of--way. There is an unimproved access through
the project site that presently provides access to the State-
owned properties at Kua Bay.
b. Anticipated Impacts
The State is planning to expand this highway into a 4-lane
highway with an interchange that would essentially service all
of the existing and planned projects in the azea. The various
properties would then be serviced by an internal service road.
Until that time, however, the project would be serviced by an
at grade channelized intersection constructed by the applicant
and meeting with the approval of the State Department of
Transportation.
This new intersection would resuh in the termination of the
existing unimproved access to the State pazk. Access to this
pazk would be through this new intersection proposed for the
north end of the project site. This would be in accord with the
terms of the land exchange with the State. This portion of the
roadway woukl be built to County dedicabe standazds and so
dedicated to the State and/or County.
36
All interior roads within the project itself would be
constructed in a manner meeting with the approval of the
County. As these roads will be private and in effort to not
create a highly urbanized ambience, the applicant may consider
some reduction of the road standards, particularly in terms of
rights-of--way width and improvements within the rights-of-
way.
c. Proposed Miti¢ative Measures
' The applicant w~71 be constructing the required channelization
intersection, complete with left turn storage lane, at the
project's entrance. This should help maintain the efficient use
of the Highway.
2. Water System
The site is presently not serviced by any public water system. As
noted in Section 4-F of tbis report, the applicant intends to drill wells
on State-owned properties located mawEa of the project site to service
the project's potable and non-potable (irrigation) needs. A desalination
plant will also be needed and constructed by the applicant. An
application for aright-of-entry is planned to be submitted for the
State's consideration before the end of this yeaz.
The anticipated potable water demand ranges between 430,600 gpd to
645,900 gpd. For non-potable purposes, there will be a need for
947,400 gpd, of which about 291,200 gpd would come from recycled
effiuent water.
The impacts and proposed mitigations of this system aze discussed in
Section 4-F.
3. Wastewater Facility
There is no municipal wastewater facility in this area. LHce the
adjoining planned and eadsting developments to the north, the
applicant intends to construct a private wastewater treatment plant
meeting with the req»+~*~Pnts of the State Department of Health.
Tentatively, this plant is planned to be located on the north boundary.
Effiuent from this system would be used to support the irrigation
needs of the golf course and the landscaped areas.
37
As the system will be private, no municipal impacts aze anticipated.
Relative to potential groundwater and coastal water impacts and
associated mitigative measures, they are covered in Sections 4-F and G
and the FEIS in greater detail.
Additionally, the following mitigative measures are being proposed:
• odor abatement facilities
• stand-by power
• storage vaults to handle wastewater overIIow and storage
• alarms and telmeteriug
• fencing of facilities
• appropriate signages
• testing and monitoring measures.
4. Solid Waste
A new landfill at Pu'uanahulu was recently opened. The project's
anticipated daily 7 tons of solid waste is planned to be hauled by
commercial haulers to this facility.
To reduce burden on the facility, a solid waste management plan will
be prepazed meeting with the approval of the County. This plan will
discuss measures to reduce waste through recycling and other
conservation practices. It should also be noted the County also
requires an "impact fee" for projects going through the entitlement
process that addresses solid waste.
5. Utilities -Power and Telephone
There is an existing 69-KV overhead transmission line located
approximately 3,000 feet mauka of the Queen I{a'ahumanu Highway.
The proposed project wdl be connected to this system. This
connection will probably require off-site and on-site utility easements,
separate transformers and~off--site transmission facilities. The applicant
will participate in paying for these facilities.
"The project is not expected to adversely affect the regional or island
power supply due to the timing of project implementation and
HELCO's development of additional power generation combustion
turbines."
38
In terms of mitigation, the FEIS notes that "Energy efficient and
conservation features suitable to reduce the peak electrical demand
will be designed into the project....These will include the use of energy
efficient light sources, daylighting design, energy efficient pumps, and
scheduling of industrial loads during off-peak hours, whenever
possible. Solar energy use and heat exchanger units for portions of the
project aze also being considered."
Telephone service is available. This will be achieved through the use
ofHELCO's poles "or by sharing duect burial trenches and concrete
encased ducts for electrical lines. No mitigative measures aze
necessary or proposed."
6. Police and Fire Services
Police and fire protective services aze available from Kailua,
approximately seven (7) miles south of the project site. The response
time is about fifteen (IS) minutes.
The project will invariably generate potential demand. However, the
project is atready within an azea that is presently being serviced and
should not result in the "extension" of these services.
The additional tax revenues as well as the anticipated "impact fees"
required through the project district entitlement process should help
mitigate this component of the impact.
7. Health Care
Emergency services can be provided through the Fire Department's
emergency medical unit located in Kailua, seven ('n miles from the
site. There aze hospitals in Waimea and South Kona
Understandably, the project will potentially additional demand for
these types of services. "Tax revenues generated by the project should
more than cover the cost of additional emergency bealth caze."
8. Schools
The project site falls within the North Kona District. Tentatively, the
public educational needs would be serviced at Kealakehe, which
recently moved from a K-8 to a K-12 facility.
39
The number of school children coming from this project is not
expected to be high. Many ofthe homes will be second homes and
occupied by people whose children aze out of school. As noted
eazlier, the estimated average age of occupants is 55 yeazs.
Notwithstanding that factor, the project is expected to pay its "fair
shaze" exaction through a condition imposed by the State Land Use
Commission. That, combined with the additional tax revenues should
be more than adequate to cover the anticipated impact.
9. Recreation
There aze a myriad of recreational activities in the region. These
include golf courses, a stnall boat hazbor, hiking trails, beaches,
archaeological and cultural activities, and more all within ten (10)
miles of the site.
The State-owned property located makai ofthe subject site is also
planned to be a major coastal pazk. The project itself will include
recreational amenities for its residents and guests that will include a
golf course, swimming pool, tennis courts, and bdce/jogging trails.
The applicant will be making significant contnbutions toward the
development of the State coastal pazk. It will construct a new access
to the pazk, as well as assist with the provision of potable water and
other facilities (such as restroom).
Through the applicant's participation with the access and related
improvements to the State pazk, its anticipated "impact fee"
assessment tied in with the project district entitlement, and the
additional tax revenues, the project's impact on the recreational
resources should be significantly mitigated.
40
V. PLANNING AND LAND USE REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
A. Overview
The proposed Maniru'owali Residential Community is consistent with the
pertinent State and County land use documents and policies. These include
the Hawaz i State Plan and its Functional Plans, the County General Plan,
Hawaz i Coastal Zone Management Program and the County Special
Management Area Rules, and related development programs.
B. State Land Eachange
The applicant previously owned the adjoining, 333 acre coastal property to
the south, in the ahupua'a ofAwake'e and identified by TMK: (3) 7-2-04:
3. The County of Hawaaz i redesignated the property "Resort," "Medium
Density Urban," and "Open Area" on the General Plan Land Use Pattern in
August 1988.
In May 1991, the Awake'e property was exchanged with the State for the
subject 388 acre non-coastal property. The Awake'e property was
important to the State's plan to implement a 7-mile park extending from
Kakapa Bay at Manini'owali to the Ke'ahohe Point area. The proposed
pazk would contain undeveloped open space and the coastal azeas of
Manini'owali, Awake'e, Makalawena, and Mahi'ula. This azea would also
be part of the Ala Kahakai Demonstration Trail proposed by the State's Na
Ala Hele Trail and Access Advisory Group.
The land exchange was subject to a number easements and covenants
which were incorporated into the Land Patent Awazd. In summary, these
aze:
• designating a 400-foot wide open space (golf course use would be
permitted) or structural setback consisting of 53+ acres between the
petitioner's makai property line and the State-owned pazcel.
• prohibiting hotel or time shared condominium or apartment units.
• preservaing the foef ofPu'u Kuili (which is located neaz the south
property line) and the small pu'u located on the project site.
• allowing uninterrupted public use of a 60-foot wide easement from the
Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to Kua Bay, unless a new one is built.
• requiring roadway (access) to the pazk and pazk (pazking lot and
restrooms) improvements up to $2.5 million.
at
• allowing water access to the State at no cost to the State if water is
developed on the subject site.
The applicable conditions will be implemented subsequent to securing all
required County land use entitlements and in conjunction with other
permitting phases of this project.
C. State Plan and State Functional Plan
The project is consistent with the overall theme, goals, objectives and
priority guidelines for the future long-range development of the State as
articulated in the Hawaz i State Plan, Chapter 226, Hawaz i Revised
Statutes.
In terms of the policies relating to population [Section 226-5(b)(1 & 2)],
the project will encourage an increase in economic activities and
employment opportunities on a Neighbor Island. It will also contribute
towazds long-term employment opportunities, revenues for both the State
and County, additional recreational resources, additional housing, and
moderate population growth.
There will also be direct economic benefits [Section 226-6(a)(1 & 2)].
Approximately 295 fiill-time operational jobs will be created when
completed. The annual personal income during the construction period is
estimated at $2.9 million.
In terms of the policies relating to the physical environment [Section 226-
- 11(a)(1 & 2) and (b)(1,3,4,6,8,9)], the project will be mindful of the
existing natural features of the property and will preserve important
azchaeological features.
The project will work closely with the State DLNR-HPD and the Burial
Council regarding preservation of burials and protection and treatment of
the 25 azchaeological sites on the property. View planes will be considered
and buildings will respect these planes. [Section 226-12(a)(b)(1 to 5)]
A private wastewater treatment plant will be constructed. Adequate
measures will be taken during its operation, as well as in the use of its
e$luent and management of the golf course to address impacts to the
coastal and groundwater in tbe azea. [Section 226-13 to 16].
Relative to the transportation policies [Section 226-17], the project will
make its own improvements to the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway,
consistent with the requirements and standards of the State Department of
Transportation.
42
The project will have employ energy efficient techniques and systems, such
as dayGghting design, energy efficient pumps, and the use of solar power
for certain components of the project. [Section 226-18]
The project will result in additional housing for the azea and will pazticipate
in an affordable housing program with the State or County. It will also
provide recreational opportunities for the project, as well as make more
accessible the State's shoreline pazk through an improved roadway and
participation with some of the pazk's infrastructure. [Sections 226-19 and
23)
The project is also consistent with the State Functional Plans. These
include the Tourism, Housing, and Conservation.
D. State Land Use District Classification
The State Land Use Commission found that the subject project was
consistent with the Office of State Plan's West Hawaii Regional Plan
(which established four resort "Destination Nodes" in this region One of
these nodes is the Hualalai/HuehuelKaupulehu area.
It also determined that the request was consistent with the State Land Use
Law (including the Hawai i State Plan and the State Coastal Zone
Management Objectives and Policies). As a result, it reclassified the
subject property into the Urban District on March 5, 1993 by the State
Land Use Commission . (See Appendu E)
This approval was subject to a number of conditions. These conditions
addressed issues such as affordable housing, azchaeological features,
roadway improvements, school facilities, soil erosion and dust control,
wastewater, and environmental protective measures.
These conditions will have to be complied with as the project proceeds
with the various entitlement and construction permitting processes. Some
of these conditions will also be on-going, such as the monitoring program.
E. County General Plan .
The Hawaaz i County General Plan is the policy document for the long
range comprehensive development of the island of Hawaii. The General
Plan provides direction for balanced growth of the County. The Plan
contains goals, policies, and standards concenvng twelve functional
azeas as well as a series of maps referred to as General Plan Land Use
Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Maps.
43
1. Land Use Policy Allocation Guide Map (LUPAG)
On February 24, 1993, the General Plan (LUPAG map and
document) was amended to change the designation of the subject
property from Conservation to Urban Expansion. (Ordinance No.
93-10). Urban Expansion "(H)allows for the mix of high density,
medium density, low density, industrial and/or open designations in
areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the
specific settlement pattern and mix ofuses have not yet been
determined."
The proposed development concept was the subject of the General
Plan Amendment. It is thus reasoned that the requested Project
District and SMA Use applications aze consistent with the General
Plan.
Z. General Plan Policies
The proposed project is also consistent with the policies of the
General Plan. These policies and the project's relationship to them
are discussed in depth in Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
To give a sense of these policies, however, a brief discussion
follows.
The project and the requests would be consistent with policies
relating to:
Econoaric
The County of Hawaii shall encourage the development of a
visitor industry which is consistent with the social, physical, and
economic goals of the residents of the County.
The County of Hawaii shall encourage the continuing
development of the retirement industry.
The project will complement the visitor industry. Further, many of
the units will be occupied by retirees or the second home market.
Environmental Quality
The County steal! encourage the State to establish air and water
quality monitoring stations in area of existing and potential
growth.
as
There will be monitoring program for the groundwater, anchialine
pond, and neazshore ocean makai of the project site.
Flood Control and Drainaee
It is the responsibility of the government and private sector to
maintain and improve existing drainage system and to construct
new drainage facilities.
The site is not designated a floodway. All drainage improvements
on site will be done by the applicant, consistent with the standazds
and requirements of the County.
Historic Sites
The County shall require both public and private developers of
land to provide a historical survey prior to the clearing or
development of land....
An azchaeological reconnaissance survey has been done. A
preservation and mitigation plan will be submitted for the review
and approval of the State DLNR-HPD and the County of Hawaz i.
Natural Beauty and Natural Resources and Shoreline
The County shall consider structural setback
from major
thoroughfare and highways and shall establish development and
design guidelines to protect important view planes.
The County shall encourage the public and private agencies to
manage the natural resources in a manner that avoids or
minimizes adverse effects on the environment and depletion of
energy and natural resources to the fullest extent possible.
Encourage the use of native plants for screening and landscaping.
There will be a 150 foot structural setback from the Queen
ICa'ahumanu Highway. There will also be a 400 foot structural
setback from the makai property line as well. The small pu'u on
the northern end of the site will also be preserved.
Out of deference to design and water considerations, landscaping
will be oriented to native plants that require little water and is
tolerant of brackish water.
as
Housin
Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the
different pans of the County.
Mainlain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice.
The County shall encourage a volume of construction and
rehabilitation of housing su~ciext to meet growth needs and
correct existing deficiencies.
The County shall work with, encourage, and support the private
sector efforts in the provision ojaffardable housing.
The housing project will accomplish the above objectives. Different
housing types will be provided, and there will be a process of
participation in the affordable housing program
Public Utilities
A systematic program by the County, State, and private interest
shall identify sources of additional water supply to ensure the
development of sufficient quantities of water for future needs of
high growth areas.
Private sewer systems shall be installed by land developers for
major resort and other developments along the shorelines and
sensitive higher inland areas... in conformance with State and
County requirements.
The applicant will be doing its own water exploratory program to
address potable and non-potable water needs Further, a private
wastewater plant will be constructed by the applicant meeting with
the standazds and approval of the State Department of Health.
Recreation
Public access to the shoreline shall be provided in accordance with
an adopted program of the County of Hawaii.
Ahhough the property does not abut the shoreline, it provides a
means for access to the State park makai. This access will be
improved and provided in perpetuity through the subject property.
46
Traa~ortation
The County shall investigate various methods of
funding road
improvement, including private sector participation, to meet the
growing transportation needs of the island.
The applicant will make all of the required improvements to address
the traffic impacts of this project. The County, though the impact
fee approach, will also assess projects of this nature its share of
roadway fees.
Land Use
Zone urban and rural types of uses in areas with ease of access to
community services and employmem centers and with adequate
public utilities and
facilities.
Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with existing
and projected needs of the neighborhood, community, region, and
County.
The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of
communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the
physical and social environment.
Single Family Residential. The County shall encourage more
innovative uses of land with respect to geologic and topographic
conditions through the use of residential cluster and planned unit
developments. The clustering of residential units in sloping areas
is a means of minimizing grading and drainage problems,
preserving the natural appearance of the topography, preventing
strip development, and making optimum uses of the terrain for
buildings and open space.
Multiple Residential. Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated
as the demand
for multiple residential dwellings increases. These
areas shall be allocated with respect to places of employment,
shopping facilities, educational, recreational and cultural
facilities, and public facilities and utilities.
Open Space . Protect designated natural areas.
The project is proximate to places of employment. The site is
readily accessible and all required infrastructure will be provided by
the
47
applicant. Archaeological features will be protected, and the
natural landform (pu'u) will be left intact.
F. Kona Regional Plan
This plan which is designed to guide the implementation of the General
Plan was prepazed in 1983. At that time, the General Plan designated this
site Open. Consistent with that designation, the land use concept map
recommended an Open designation. The Kona Regional Plan has not been
updated since the initial adoption of the General Plan in 1971.
G. County Zonin¢ Code and Prroiect District
The subject site is zoned Open by the County. Pursuant to the Zoning
Code (Chapter 25, Division 4), a Project District (PD) application is being
filed with this report.
The purposes of the PD aze:
"to provide for a flexible and creative planning approach rather than
specific land use designations for quality developments. It will also
allow for flexib0hy in location of specific uses and mixes of
structural ahernatives. Tbe planning approach would establish a
continuity in land uses and designs while providing for a
comprehensive network of infrastructural facilities and systems. A
variety of uses as well as open space, pazks, and other project uses
are intended to be in accord with each individual project district
objective...."
The applicant desires the flexibility afforded by the PD. The exact location
of the recreational amenities, natural buffers, azchaeological features,
access, and so forth cannot be established. Further, the mix of residential
units is still undetermined, as a lot will depend upon the market.
Accordingly, h becomes difficuh -short of expanding considerable funds
and doing detailed studies - to have the property be zoned in the
conventional manner with a metes and bounds description for each of the
proposed uses. The PD provides the needed design and site planning
flexibility while assuring that public concerns (such as access and visual
impacts) and associated infrastructure aze addressed.
48
The criteria for a PD and the requested PD's relationship are:
a. whenever the public necessity and convenience and the
general welfare require that a comprehensive planning
approach for an area be adopted.
In this situation, the size of the property (388 acres) exceeds
the minimum requirement of 50 acres. Having only a
singular use (such as a golf course or amultiple-family
project) should not necessitate a PD. In this case, however,
there are three (3) different uses (golf course, single-family
residential, and multiple-family residential) which would
normally require three (3) different zonings (Open,ltS, and
Rlvi). Each zoning district requires its own metes and
bounds description.
At this point in time, the exact boundaries cannot be
determined without considerable more detailed studies.
Further, market conditions will dictate the demand for the
types, size, and quality of the residential units.
As such, the PD provides the needed flexibility that will
avoid having to proceed (and in turn, burden decision-
' makers) with a number of amendments to the rezoning
ordinance to accommodate field and design changes.
Through conditions of approval, all of the required
infrastructure and associated concerns will be addressed.
Thus, the requested land uses (golf course, single and
muhiple family residential units, and related facilities) will
continue under a density cap. The density and ]and use
considerations that normally go with a traditional zone
change will not be circumvented.
b. consistency with the intent and purposes of the Zoning
Code and the County General Plan
All oftbe standards and criteria for the respective land uses
outlined in the Zoning Code will still be met. The design
criteria contained in the section on View Plane Analysis are
similar to the Zoning Code. For example, a single family
residential dwelling will still have to meet with appropriate
setback and height limits for the single family zoning.
LHtewise, the parking requirement for the golf gourse or the
49
r
' . •
height of the clubhouse must be consistent with the Zoning
Code.
+" The subject property has been designated Urban Expansion
on the County General Plan. All of the requested uses for
1 this PD are permitted in that designation.
c. will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the
surrounding area, community or region.
While there will be impacts, the significant ones will be
mitigated. The other impacts will likely be beneficial.
As noted throughout the report, the project will provide its
own infrastructure, contribute towards an affordable
housing program, provide public access to the shoreline,
and generate needed employment and tax revenues.
Monitoring program to address the coastal and groundwater
will be undertaken. Archaeological sites will be preserved,
as well as the significant pu'u on the subject site.
Should the PD be approved, the applicant, pursuant to
Sections 25 -6 -46 and 47, will submit the required site plan
for the review and approval of the Planning Director.
H. County Subdivision Code
The applicant will seek subdivision approval for the Project District
after site plan approvals. The subdivision will be constructed according
to Project District and subdivision code requirements.
1
1
1
1
50
VI. RELATIONSHIP TO SMA OBJECTIVES. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
A full description of this portion is contained in the FEIS. This chapter merely
attempts to c~mmari~r the project's relationship and conformance to the SMA
objectives, policies, and guidelines.
A. Recreational Resources
The proposed improvements should not have any adverse impacts to the
recreational resources of the area. The property is not a coastal property, and
there is an intervening State-owned parcel between the subject pazcel and the
shoreline.
If anything, the project should actually enhance coastal recreational
opportunities. The project will result in the construction of a new, improved
access to the State-owned parcel, which m tum will result in increased
accessibility to the shoreline. Further, the applicant is obligated to make some
improvements to the State pazk in conjunction with the development of the
proposed development.
B. Historic Resources
An azchaeological inventory survey of the site was done and reflected in the
FEIS. An archaeological mitigation plan (which will include a data recovery
and preservation plan) will be prepared for the approval of the Planning
Director, upon consuhation with the State DLNR-HPD. Appropriate
mitigation will be implemented prior to or in conjunction with any land
disturbance activities.
Notwithstanding the above, the identified burials will be preserved as is and
other significant features recommended for physical preservation will be
adhered to.
Finally, should there be any inadvertent discovery of additional azchaeological
features on the property, work will immediately stop and appropriate
clearances from the State DLNR and/or County Planning Department will
occur before work is resumed within the affected area(s).
C. Sceuic and Opeu Space Resources
The subject property is located makai of the Queen I{a'ahumanu Highway.
As such, this or any project will resuh in some measure of visual impacts.
The goal is to mitigate this impact.
51
In that regazd, at least 65% of the 388 acre project site will be in some form of
open space. These include the open space around the periphery of the golf
fairways, along the highway setback, the pu'u, the 18-hole golf course, driving
range, and park spaces.
As the site slopes makai towazds the ocean, views of the offshore waters and
the panoramic coastline should not be significantly impacted. To protect the
view plane of Pu'u Kuiili located on the adjoining property, building heights
in that area will be restricted to one and two stories only.
D. Coastal Ecosystem
The site fatls within Zone "X" (azeas of minimal hazard) on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map. That fact combined with the project's site from the
shoreline (1,000 feet), impacts to the coastal ecosystem should not be
excessive. Stone water runoff will be controlled on the site at drywells and
golf course turf azeas. Further, the soil or a'a condition of the property
should minimize off-site runoff
As discussed in the FEIS, there will be controlled measures during the
development and maintenance of the golf course to minimize adverse impacts
to the ground and coastal waters:
There will be no cesspools on the site. The project will also be serviced by a
private wastewater treatment p4-tnt that will conform to State Department of
Health requirements.
E. Economic Uses
Although there aze signs that the State of Hawaii is slowly making some
economic progress, projects on the island of Hawaz i aze still difficult to come
by. This project then, working within the fi~amework of existing regulatory
documents and zoning and related regulations, woukl help provide some
impetus to the island's economy. Its proximity to the planned and developing
resort destination node concept identified in the Office of State Plan's West
Hawa? i Regional Plan should he}p implement and strengthen this "nodal"
concept.
According to the FEIS, the project should generate over 295 direct
construction jobs and 400 indirect jobs. When completed, the estimated
number of direct and indirect jobs created should approach 120 and 60,
respectively.
52
The success of an azea should help generate sustained and much needed State
and County revenues.
F. Coastal Hazards
The subject site is located outside of the tsunami zone. It is also classified
"X", azea outside of the 500 yeaz storm on the Flood Insurance Rate Map.
Appropriate mitigative measures to address seismic and volcanic hazards will
be taken through compliance with the Building Code and development of an
emergency evacuation plan.
Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the proposed improvements would be
consistent with the objectives, policies, and guidelines of the Special Management Area Rules
- and Regulations. Specifically:
• The proposed project will not have a~ substantial adverse environmental or
ecological effect. Auy effect that may result will be n,;nim;~pd to the extent
practicable and is clearly outweighed by Public heahh, safety and welfare, and
other compelling public interest.
Further, it will not generate a~ adverse effects by themselves or in conjunction
with other individual developments, tfie potential cumulative impacts of which
would result in substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect and the
elimination of planning options. Appropriate mitigative measures will be taken
to address a~ potential adverse impacts of this project.
• The proposed improvements - as discussed eazlier -are consistent with the
objectives, policies, and guidelines of the SMA Rules and Regulations; and
• The proposed improvements are consistent with the County General Plan, State
Office of Plan's West Hawaii Regional Plan, and the County Zoning Code. The
requested uses are consistent with those documents.
53
VII. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: PROBABLE ADVERSE, UNAVOIDABLE
EFFECTS; ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION: AND
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES
This section merely summarizes, yet somewhat updates the FEIS relating to these
matters. As such, for a fuller discussion of this section, please refer to the FEIS.
A. Cumulative Impacts
These impacts relate to the proposed project in conjunction with existing and
planned developments in the azea. These impacts will include:
• Land Use: This portion is gradually being transformed into a
resort/residential community. This project will be a part of this
transformation.
• Ocean Water Ouality: Due to the project's distance (approximately
1,000 feet) from the shoreline, it "wHl not create adverse ocean water
quality impacts because extensive measuues will be implemented to
control erosion, storm water, and chemical use on the site."
• Potable Water. The additional water required for this project is within the
sustainable capacity of the Hualalai Aquifer System. This is in large due to
the planned desalination plant.
• Traffic: These will be additional traffic generated by the project.
However, the applicant will construct its own access in accordance with
the State DOT standards. The frontage mad concept with a system of a
major interchange envisioned by the State can be implemented with this
project.
• Air Oualitv: Ahhough the project will increase vehicular traffic and in turn
generate increased pollutants in the azea, the increase should be within
State and National Ambient ,Air Quality standazds.
• Noise: No adverse noise impacts will be created. There will be some
measure of impacts during construction, but all appropriate mitigative
measures will be taken.
54
• Socio-economic Characteristics: "The project will contribute to the
cumulative population, housing, employment, and economric growth in the
West Hawaz i area"
Visual Resources: Although the character will change, it will be fairly
consistent with the existing and planned activities north of the site.
• Archaeoloev: At least 10 percent ofthe project site will be preserved to
address archaeological and related issues.
B. Probable Adverse, Unavoidable Environmental Effects
Possible unavoidable envirommental effects inchule:
• grading and aheration of the terrain;
• developa~at around and/or neaz archaeological sites;
• some meas~ue of alteration ofthe visual appearance of the landscape;
• construction related impacts such as noise, dust, traffic, and the h7ce;
• use of the groundwater;
• additional generation of solid waste; and
• some measure of demand on public services, h7ce police and fire.
Notwithstanding those effects, measures to mitigate both their short- and
long-term impacts will be addressed and taken.
C. Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The proposed Manini'owali Residential Community is aloes-density
residential community. There will be a golf course and significant open space
- both natural and man-made within and along the makai and mauka portions
of the site. The various ahen~atives considered by the FEIS were:
_ 1. No-AMion Alternative
This would involve no changes to the project azea This alternative,
however, would resuk, among other matters, in the a) retention of the
existing unimproved access to the State-owned coastal property; b) no
additional employment, personal income, and recreational
opportunities; c) less envirommental impacts; and d) no additional
public revenues.
55
2. Residential Subdivision Alternative
This was based on a much higher residential density of approximately
2,000 units, at an average density of eight (8) units per acre. This
would probably resuh in a greater number of permanent versus
temporary residents.
Under that scenario, one would find greater ten•ain and/or topographic
modifications; less open space; additional generation of the water
resources; additional vehicular generation; less natural views of the
off-shore as weIl as the small on-s$epu'u as well as the adjoining Pu'u
Kuili, greater demands for public service.
"In summary, the residential subdivision could create greater adverse
impacts than the proposed project."
3. 36-Hole Golf Course Akernative
This would be a 36-hole stand alone golf course project. There would
be retention of improved and unimproved open space; comparable
surface and drainage impacts to the proposed project; potential
greater impact to the ground and coastal waters due to the additional
pesticide and fertilizer; less potable water demand; less traffic; and
other lesser impacts in the area of public service, air quality, and the
like.
"In summary, the golf development alternative would comparatively
create some equal and greater environmental impacts, and it would
contribute less to the local economy."
D. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
This required land to implement this project represents the most significant
irretrievable commitment of resources. There will also be an commitment of
public resources in the forms ofthe required services once the project gets
completed.
However, these commitments have to "be weighed against the economic,
social, and recreational benefits to the residents of the region, County and
State.
56
VIII. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PERMITS
This document, together with the FEIS, aze intended to support the issuance of a
Project District permit by the Hawaz i County Council, and a Special Management
Area (SMA) Use Permit by the Hawaz i County Planning Commission Should these
permits be approved, there will be a number of permits that will still be required to
implement this project. Most of these aze "ministerial" permits but nonetheless
important to the project's successful implementation Some, but not necessarily all, of
these are:
State of Hawai i
• Department of Land and Natural Resources Well Construction Permit
Pump Installation Permit
Archaeological Mitigation
and Burial Treatment Plans
• Department of Heahh Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit
Potable Water System
Underground Injection Control
• Department of Transportation -Highways Highway Entrance
Construction Plans
Couuty of Hawai i
• Planning Department Project District Site Plan
Plan Approval
Subdivision
Building Permits
• Department of Public Works Gradmg/grubbing permit
Buikling Permits
Drainage System
• Department of Water Supply Water Master Plan
Water Construction Plans
57
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUMMARY TABLE
Manini'owale Project District
Manini'owali, Hawaii
; DESIGN:... .
PARAMETERS SINGLE=FAMILY MCJLTI-FAMILY `GOMINERCIAL
Proposed Uses Single-family. Duplex and multi- Commercial Center,
family. Residents' Club,
Golf Clubhouse.
Comparable Zoning RS RM CV
Permitted Uses Same as RS zoning Same as RM zoning Same as CV zoning
district, except for: district, except for: district, except for:
• Golf course and Golf course and Golf course and
related uses as a related uses as a related uses as a
permitted use. permitted use. permitted use with-
- out a use permit.
Permitted With Use Same as RS zoning, Same as RM zoning, Same as CV zoning,
Permit except as discussed except as discussed except as discussed
above. above. above.
Height Limit Same as RS zoning Same as RM zoning Same as CV zoning
district (35 feet). district (45 feet). district (35 feet).
Minimum Building 7 500 sq.ft. 7,500 sq.ft. 7,500 sq.ft.
Site Area
Minimum Building Same as RM zoning Same as RM zoning Same as CV zoning
Site Average Width district (60 feet). district (60 feet). district (60 feet).
Minimum Front and Same as RS zoning Same as RM zoning Same as CV zoning
Rear Yard district district (20 feet). district (15 feet).
For 7,500 to 9,999 sq.ft.
lots: 15 feet.
For 10,000 to 19,999
sq.ft. lots: 20 feet.
For 20,000 or greater
lots: 25 feet
DESIGf~E` _
PARAMETERS SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL
Minimum Side Same as RS zoning Same as RM zoning Same as CV zoning
Yards district. district district.
For 7,500 to 9,999 sq.ft. 8 ft. for one story None, except where
lots: 8 feet for one story building, plus an adjoining building site
and 10 feet for two additional 2 ft. for is in aSingle-Family or
ri s. each additional story. Multi-Family and
where the side yard
For 10,000 to 19,999 adjoins the side yard
sq. ft. lots: 10 feet for of a building site in
one storyplus 1 Single-Family or
additional foot for each Multi-Family, there
additional storX. shall be a side yard
which conforms to
For 20,000 or greater the side yard require-
lots: ?
5
f~~• ments for the adjoin-
ing use.
Other Regulations a) There may be more a) There may be more a) All front yards
than one main build- than one main shall be land-
ing on any building building on any scaped, except
site. building site. for necessary
access drives and
b) Distance between b) Distance between walkways.
main buildings on main buildings on
the same building the same building b) Plan approval
site shall be at least site shall be at shall be required
15 feet. least 15 feet. for all new struc-
tures and additions
c) Exceptions to the c) Plan approval shall to existing struc-
regulations regarding be required for all tures.
height, building site new buildings and
area, building site additions to exist- c) Exceptions to the
average width and ing buildings. regulations for the
yards may be CV district regard-
approved by the d) Exceptions to the ing heights, build-
director. regulations regard- ing site areas,
ing height, building building site
site area, building average widths
site average widths and yards may be
and yards may be approved by the
approved by the director.
director.
APPENDIX C
MANIlVTOWALI VIEW ANALYSIS
by
_ 1' Belt Collins
3 May 25,1999
a
R
T
_ t
•
• - - -
Manini'owali - -
- View Analysis ~ \
- , -
t
• Preparedby:
~ BELT COLLINS ~ ~ •
May 15,.1999- -
BELT COLLINS HAWAII LTD. • 680 RLA MOANA BOULEVARD, FIRST FLOOR, HONOLULU. HAWAII. 96813-5 406
TEL: (808)521-5761 FAX: (808)538.78!9 EMAIL: havaii®bdtcallim.com WEB: www.beltcollinx.u,m
. ENGINEERING • PLANNING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVI0.0NMENTAL CONSULTING - -
HA7AI1 • SINGAPORE • HONG KONG • AUSTRALIA • THAILAND • MALAYSIA • PHILIPPINES • GUAM • SEATTLE • ARIZONA
Belr Cullim ix an equal oppnr[uniq cmPloYCr.
View Analysis
Existing Conditions
The Manini'owali project area is a rectangular parcel bounded by a 1,000' strip of State
land on the makai side and Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway on the mauka side. The site
generally slopes from the high point at the Kai]ua-Kona mauka corner of the site (elevation
275') to the low point at the Kawaihae makki comer of the site at elevation 25'. The mauka
elevations of the property along the highway range from 175' -275'. The makai elevations
bordering the State property range from 25' to 125'. The site slope is generally uniform at
about a 5-]0% slope, except for the Kailua Kona makki comer which has a steep grade
change neaz the boundary with the State land and has a 10-15%a slope. Because the
highway is located approximately 5,000 feet from the shoreline, the property appeazs to be
relatively flat. There is a small pu'u located at the Kawaihae edge of the property boundary
which is about elevation 160' at its highest point. The site is vegetated with grasses,
shrubs and small kiawe trees.
Viewed from the highway, Pu'u Kuili, located on the State property to the south, neaz the
Manini'owali property boundary, is the most prominent site feature in the vicinity. From
the top the Pu'u, hikers enjoy an unobstructed 180 degree view of the horizon which
includes the entire Manini'owali shoreline. Important views from the beach are limited to
Pu'u Kuili and the upper slopes of Hualalai. Portions of the highway are also visible from
the beach.
Proposed Uses
The proposed use for the Manini'owali property is a residential golf community with single
and multi family units distributed throughout the property. The makki project azea boundary
is located 1,000' from the shoreline. Beyond that, a 400' buffer runs along the mauai edge
of the property within which no buildings can occur. Because portions of the proposed
development may be visible from the highway, and from the shoreline looking mauka, a
view analysis was conducted to identify potential mitigation measures to minimize visual
impacts.
Methodology
The existing ocean view from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway was analyzed from the point
of view of a vehicle approaching the project area from both the east and west direction, as
well as from various points on the makai side of the highway along the mauka boundary of
the Manini'owali parcel. The mauka views of the project area were analyzed from the
shoreline trail looking across the 1,000' wide State land parcel to the makai edge of the
Manini'owali project area. The view of the project azea from Pu'u Kuili was analyzed from
the top of the Pu'u. Locations of the panoramic views taken from the highway, makai
State land and the Pu'u were recorded using a Global Positioning System and are shown in
Figun; 1. The existing views taken from these locations aze shown in Figures 2 - 6, and
are labeled "Existing Views".
The potential impacts of development upon existing views from the highway and the
shoreline viewpoints were analyzed by superimposing photos of an existing resort
residential development onto photos of the proposed Project District. Photographs of
existing Hualalai development units were taken from GPS recorded points and later
measured to determine the correct distance as a reference. Computer wire frame views
were also produced from the five view points using the same view angles and focal points
that were used in the photographs. Proposed building locations were added to these wire
frame views and were used to determine the correct building heights from particulaz
distances. The view from Pu'u Kuili was created without using photo images from
Hualalai, because it was not possible to obtain a measurable aerial view of the buildings.
Instead, this view was created by combining the existing condition photograph and the wire
frame view. Views of the potential appeazance of the development from the various
viewpoints aze labeled as "Existing Views with the Proposed Project Superimposed" in
Figures 2-6.
Analysis
The project azea is no[ generally visible when approaching on the highway from the Kailua
" Kona direction because the property slopes away from the direction of travel. Approaching
from the Kawaihae direction, the project area becomes visible only after the vehicle passes
the Hualalai resort entrance, approximately 4,000 feet from the property boundary.
Ocean views from along the mauka boundary of the project azea are visible at the western
property comer and then become obscured by the highway cut slopes. The ocean becomes
_ _ visible again for most of the northern two thirds of the project area. The blind spots along
the highway aze generally due to lava outcrops and other topographic features which
obstrtct the line of sight. When the project area is visible, the dominant features aze Pu'u
Kuili, which is located south of the Manini'owali property, and a smaller pu'u on the
northern edge of the property.
Approaching Hig~iw~y Views: Coming from Kailua-Kona motorists will be able to see the
Kailua-Kona mauka comer of the property. Residential and golf course development in
the area will be visible. The remainder of the property is obscured from view. From the
Kawaihae direction, motorists will be able to see the development after passing the Hualalai
entrance, but will still have road segments of limited or no views of the project azea.
Highway Views along the ProRertv Boundary: Development within the project area will
change the visual landscape of the azea. In the segments directly mauka of the project azea
where the ocean is visible from the highway, there will be portions of the site where single
and multi family buildings will partially limit or obstruct the ocean and pu'u views. Golf
holes will also be visible from the highway, but will not obstruct the views. For ocean
views from the highway, see Figures 2 and 3.
Mauka Views from State Pazk Iand: Mauka views of the proposed project from the 1,000'
State Pazk land will include single family homes and the golf clubhouse. Portions of golf
holes will also be visible from the shoreline. For mauka views from the State Pazk land see
Figures 4 and 5.
Views from Pu'u Kuili: The development will be visible from Pu'u Kuili, however, the
ocean views and view to the shoreline will be eleazly visible because of the 1,000' State
Park land setback. For Views from the Pu'u, see Figure 6.
The view analysis indicates that the ocean and pu'u views from Queen Ka'ahumanu
Highway will be impacted by the proposed development. A landscaped single and multi
family residential community and golf course will be visible from the highway. To mitigate
visual impacts in the area where the terrain is highest (above the 225' contour), building
heights will be limited to allow views to the top of Pu'u Kuili from the highway (see Figure
This will help to minimize impacts on ocean and pu'u views. The visual appearance of
the project area will be altered with the proposed development. To further mitigate visual
impacts, it is recommended that multi-family clusters be sepazated to provide view
corridors to the ocean and to the pu'u.
Mauka views to the mountains and to the Pu'u aze not obstructed by the development, and
therefore no mitigation measures are necessary in this area.
The views from [he pu'u to the ocean will not be obstructed as a result of the development,
and therefore, no mitigative measures aze necessary.
9BJJ.5a00i0pSi 8.28.99 J
_ - -
- - ~
J /
- _ 2 d i
1 ~1 _
~~I1 ~ - State of
- _ Hawaii
~ ~ / 1. ~ ~,Kuili \
,
1 t ~ anini owafi rope r J
•
_ Kukio r Pu'u ~ ~ ' ~ D
l/ ~ ~
ice,` ~ pJ i~ .3
3 ~x
~ r ~ .1_ i _
l ~ fir' i
i ~ ~GDB ~
`I ~
' d
.
• ?1 ` i
z~ ~ ~ ~ ~
k
Figure t
® VIEW LOCATIO N
0 600 1200 Vlew Ana~ysis
® Manini'owali Project District Apchcaucn
NORTH SCALE IN FEET Belt Collins • June ~ SS9
Section (25- 25-6;39.7. AppesLs. [The approval or disapproval of the ohana dwelling unit by
the planning director may be appealed to the Board of Appeals in accordance with its rules.] Apv Denson
Q~+ne,
ved,j~y the decision of the director in the issuance of an ohana dweliiny psrtnit decision except for a
decision r~din~e duration of a pgQpit under section 25-6-39.2. mav~pp~al the director's action to the
tward of appeals. in accordance wish this chapter. within thirty {Jays after the date of the director's written
SSLSlSjt?D.
Diviaioe 4. Protect DiaMcts (PDl
Sectioe 2S-6-dQ. Pntposr wed aRp i~bili~.
'?'!±e p~ject dis+:iM (PDl development is intended
to provide for a flexible and crestive,.pl nnin¢~pproach rather than specific land use designations. for
Qyal~
developments. it will also allow for flexibiliri in location of specific uses and mixec_ of structural
alternatives. The Dlannin~approach wo.Id est_¦bliah a continuiri in lands . pd deeljQpe_ while ptovidinc
for a comnrehene_ive network of infrasin!cRral facilities and;,ysrems. A yarieri of Ises a well a open
Spac~p~rlrs nd o her n iect u~ a*r intended to be ~n accord with each individ~l ptpject dis?riM
obicctive. A plpiect distriM is an ar*_endment to this chroter which chances the district bo m Ares in
ar~nrdance wi h he individ .al ptpject district
tine 1~~-F-dl. Criteria for dtabLhies a protect dLtrict A p~ject dis*rict may be
.sr.blished as an a*rrendment to this chapter whenever the public nec.~ssiri and convenience and the
¢eneral welfare teauire that a tom siv planning approach for a_n arr. shoeld be adopted in order to
establish a continuJp• in land .sea r.A desivns while orovidinv, a
c~mp~hen~ive network of infra_s*+±c oral
facilities and Systems. in addition_ a p~pied diQ+±ict may only he esLblished if Lhe pmeosed dis*_riM:
1 is c~nsis+'trt witfi the irttent and j}y>I(=}Qe_e of this chaffer and the County general plan.
(21 Will not resuk in a eebstantial aayerse imps t span Lhe surroundin~rea community
or reai°n.
5~~.~oe 2~-P:2. Mieiessns L¦ed arr~ reaeired. 'the minimum land aria repaired for a Droiect
district shall be fiflv acres.
CR--rise 2_ ` ' .Permitted o~~ . Anv
uS,
p,~rmitted either directs or conditionally in the RS.
Rr~_ RM. RCX. CN. CG_ CV or V districts shall be permitted in a p~piect
d,~is+*~'~ct_provided. that each of
~,,pronosed uses and Lhe ov II densities for residential and hotel tiara eha11 be con wined in a master Dlan
for h project dis+3ict a.±d in Lhe p~Qject district enabling ordinance.
Sectioe 2t-6-9d. Applintioe for proieM distriM: reaairemseta.
(al An application for a protect dis+*~ct mAy~ filed by a protx~y owner or anYother arson with
t~p_o~rty owner's content The application shall be on a form prescribed for this purpose by the
director and shall be accompanied bv: E X H I B I T
~ ~
ZONING CODE REVISION-Ranwy~r reran
1,~ ~ DRnrr verve
(1) A filing fee of ~ -5 000.
A description of th~prop~y in sufficient d'stil to determine its precise location.
A mac_ter coot gal plan of the prop~y. showing th~proiect district bound rigs and
the land asst and acreage of land involved.
(41 A description of the propotd project district. including land uses. densities.
- * I Duircments and development ergo ard<
A description of each of the open space arses proposed for the proiect dicr_rict for
rulhral and/or environment) pyrnoss<_. includina hose open space areas nrcc_srved beCa~e of natural
I1ST~CdS.
A metes and bounds des..::ption of the prorxrty prepa*ni by a s!*vevor.
f 71 A list of tfie names. a!tdresses and tax map kev numbers for those moperty owners and
' <er of rccoro of aurrppndinq„properties who are reayitr~ to receive notice under s_Mtion 25_2-4.
(8) A county environmental report provided that a county environmental report shall not
~ ~ he an environmental im+t*cr <mtement or n enviro mental aassssmem and negative
L-~~- ~-cn prepared and i<ened in compliance with chapter 343. Hawaii Revised Statu*_ees. ae
BmLII~ti~.
(may other p~ni or information rep +i~
red
by rules adepj~bv the director in
ae~~rdance with chanter 91. awaii Revised Statutes.
j
o) \'Jititin ten dam aRer filinQ,~application for a p~ject dist*iet the am~licapt shall serve notice
of
fie
applie +ion or surr'oundina owners and les<.r< of record as provided by <_~tion ?5-2-4.
(p l ~'liihin one hundred riy--ly day= after,Lptpje~t disirict a~licaHon has beep accemed by the
rn the a' --•x <ha11 ferarrrl the appli +tiop to h _nmmiasio .together with the directors
nr. ommendation on Lhe_pron~a~'
pLOiect di<rr+ct -mod tpaether wish a proop<~ oroieM distriM ordinance
bleb e<rahliehee the p.vieM disrrict a ides nroiect di<rr;M <randa*~< and conditions_ includina
p~mihed land ~<sYe-
a~
e--ssprv ~~f-- den•itiea heiahtg,-„-+ba k and vas pees from the requirements of
this chapter and frpm chanter 23 (<ubdivision control) if applicable a< confined in the master conceptua l
plan for the proieM disr*iM.
(d) Th ~ mi<sion <hall review env project district application and <_hall forward its
.*+•ommendation on th,,,,; nli soon to h o ~ncil tiro ~ h mayor for the council's consideration and
3CIj4II.
(1) In rcvieWinQ the anplic.-tion the commi«ion <hall hold at least one public hearing in
the ictrict in which the proposed ptQie..t duct is lo..ated The commie ion shall provide reasonable
notice of the date of the hearin~(o Lhe applicant The commi«ion <hall al<o n~~bli<h poles of the hearing
in accordance with the requirements of this chanter
ZONING CODE REVISION•RamaNer version
161 oruFr verse
~l Within ten dayiafter receiving notice of the date of the public hearipy, the a Ion icant
shall <erve notice of the hearing on <urroundin~gwners and lessee< of record ac provided by <ection 25-2-
4. The applicant <hall alto <erve notice on owners and lessee<_ of record of interests in other properties
which the commission may find to be directly affected by the proposed protect district.
(,$1 Within ninety davs after receipt of
the
application from the director. unless a loner
psrirtia aoreed to by the aoolicant the commi<sion shall transmit the proposed project district ordinance
(gQether with i e recomme dation thereon ihmu~h the mayor to the council. The commission shall
commend approval in whole or in purr with or without modifications_ or rejection of such proposal.
$,~,tioe 2S-R.dS Conditions imposed on protect di.+trict
(al The council m~, , imoo<. conditions on the use ofthe pipp~y 'pct to th-rj„oroiect district
provided the council find< that the conditions are:
(jl * - to prevent circum<*ancea which mav~ adverse to the oubtic health safety
and welfare: or
(21 Re~onably,r~„^,nceiyed to fulfill needs direct~y ema~stinQ
fmm he 1 nd use<nrooos^~d_
wii~h
r toed to prot~t:
'on of tbz public from the notentislly deleteriou_a effects of the proposed uc_es_ or
fi,lfil(ment pf the need for public s.~ice demands created by the proposed uses.
O?] In addition to the conditio s described ~ subs-^tion fat. the council shall include the
followin¢ conditions in snvpjpject district ordinance:
(11 A des: ripjjon of each of the us, propos-..:1 in the p~yect dis+*ict;
(21 The ove,sll densities for the residential and hotel ua.~< established in the proieM
Si15iLtGC
(1 Any infrattn,cture requirements for the p~ject district and
(41 Anv open enasn r~+~!irements for the p~ject district
Ccctioe 2u-dl,. Review tied approval of site ylana. -
(al After adopjjon of a ptpject di<t*+ct enablin¢ ordinance Lhe apph ant <hall t ~bmit to the
director defiled siL Ala"< fo- t}t_ ptQiec, di<trict development The Cite pl~,ns shall conform to the protect
di<*r+et enabling ordinance and shall include the follewin¢:
(11 Plant_ for required infrasin~cturc improvement_tc
(21 All items required for 8,p~8Rprev=1
application a. ided y c~,;tion 25-2-72• and
(~_l Any other information regy~re~y
r,_rle< adopted
by~~director in accordance wish
~~prer 91. Hawaii Revised $LRRes.
(bl Within sixty davs after acceptance of the siLf,,,a t^-< the .t'*..~tor hall e~*her deny or approve
Iht_p11rOS.
(5,,,1 The director may approve cite plans for a pLgiest di<+*+ct only if the
annlica~oinolied
with all of the condmons contained in the nr-yiect district enabline„{~rdinance and the rite olan< conform to
162 ZONING CODE REVISION.Ramsayar ~
,ti . ~ rdc rontained in the p~girelct district enabling ordinance. The director may approve the site plans
.~:_,...,...rn~iirinnc nr th. rlirnrrnr may approve the site planc_ subject [o certain chan¢e~c when. in the
director's opinion <uch condition< or cha_naec are necessary to carry out the puroosec of the protect district.
this chapter a a rnncideratinnc ['O.^.*3,ned in ~CChOp 25-6-Q7.
(dl If the director fails Io render a decision on the site nl ns
wig thin the prescribed ceriod. the site
plan ball be considered approved without further certification bv~he director.
c 'rt-'-~7 Review criteria and eoedition. o[ approval. In reviewin¢ site plans for a
ptgjgct di trice the dira^.tor shall consider Lhe proppsed development and uc_es in relation to the
surroundin¢ prvpertiec improvements <r_reets. traffic_ community charaMeristics. and natural featutree a_nd
~^'v require conditions or chan¢e<_ to a<surc:
(11 Adequate Ii¢ht and air. pro siting and arran¢ement of all structures and
improvements are proved d:
(,~1, xis*inQ and prospective haffic movement will noYbe hindered:
{~l Prs,cer landscanin¢ is provided hat is commensurate wish Lhe development or Lse and
it< cul7oundin¢s:
L41 tinciehtly areea are p~gpyfjv ssrsened or eliminated:
~1 Adequate off-•rr~ p~'t`~eti i• provided to serve Lhe development or use:
{{1 Access to the A+°Wipg arc.• will not create potential accident h Barris: and
able limit_e am. natural and ma_n-made features of communiri value are
p~< rv d
,~goe 2t-.::9 Con•troction ie conformity with aQproved aite plans. Fverv stn!cture.
de~e(Qp ~ t and ,se contained in site plans for a p~jeM district approved by Lhe director e_hall be
r ctn,Oted and develnn~.' in accord nce with the terms snrrifications and conditions of approval for
those site p,an;,
y~ 2LL9. Plae apQror,--~ iseed bysoerovd of Bite plaea. Plan aonroval shall be
rnnc;dered i <t
CJ
v.~he^ <ite plans for a protect district a~ approved by the director. a< provided by
'+s d 2t 6-:57 and no further action is regyircd for the issuance of ol~n
aonroval under this
4hapll:L.
cwrr;nw 2LL9 1 Ameedmeet Any amendment to the conditions and c_randards contained in
a„proie,.t district enablin~yyrdin
nce~,
`hall be ^*~'es<ed in the same manner as the oroieM district enablin¢
p 'nanrr• ,nl < *h o ,ncil in h~proiect dis+*iM enablin~otdinance authorizes the amendment to be
ants h~ the director A regyest for any amendment shall be submitted in writin¢ to the director. in lieu of
Ilye~pplication regyirpd for a proia: district The repn.<t shall be accompanied by a filin¢ fee of 5250.
sestina 2S-S-~9 2 Apor-1 of dir~tor'• sctio~ op protect district site otaps Anv cerson
a¢¢r,rved h~ the decision of the dira.tor in the is<Lance of a decision reQardin¢ protect district site plans
ZONING CODE REVISION-Ramseyar venwn
163 Dw.Fr verea
may app ai th- 'i.-""~" board of app~~< accordance with itc rules within thirty days
aftsr the written decisipn is i<s,!rd by the director.
Divi<iop 5 Aericulhral Project D'<trici. fApDl
e 9t..tS.A Ppt•npse aed spplicsbility The agricultural oroiect district (APDI
derelo t'< intended to vrovide a flexible and creative ola_nnin¢ anoroach for developments within the
agricultural zoning di<+'+cts in lieu of <*ec'fic land u e desianation< It will allow for flexibility in the
jo..ation of specific tv~ f agricultural use< and varystion< in lot sizes tinder this planning anoroach.
o~pportunitie< Will be plpyid~d for a mix of <mall sale agricultLral activities and associated residential
n<ec a< .ell 8s larger a!*+ieul oral proia:
< This distdet will also provide a vehicle to sa~iefy the demand
~ .rural life<+vle on m rainal aarict_Itural land while decrcasin¢ the pressure to_develoo important
a¢r;r ,Rural la*+d for t_hi p,~, a The nnina npmach would establish a continuiri in land uses and
...t..i ' iracen+etural facilities and s.,erem< to support the various types of
degi¢ns while pro--vidipg a
uor~r Rural de loo. opts. An agricultural project di<rrict i< n a+nendment to this chanter which changes
r k r1 r;~ in ac.-ordan~. with the individ~l agncuitural protest district
~5.t"on as r'riterL for ntablLhin,: a n set district An aariculttLral oroiect district
miXStr~3~' L ' intendment to thi< ehaMer whenever the ppblic neeeSSiri and convenience and
~ 1 welfare regu~ that a c~mnrchensive Inning y~pn+¦~h for s_~ agricultural area should be
adopted in order to es"biL<i+ a continuiri in land Lses while providing the required infrastructural fatalities
' r adition sn saricu +rsl rnoieM distriM may onh 6e bli<hed if the proposed district:
~ wig the intent and putrtos~ of this cht~nter and the Gounri general plan- and
(21 Nill pot rc b in a <ub<~ntisl adverse imps ~nrm the <urrounding area community of
l~II.
c ~Lc 2 t?:inimum Lod area regaircd The minimum land area required for an
' ~I +ral ppQiect disi~!~* shall 6e frve acres.
c +Ltia Permitter psei• overall det><i_tv~i
ny„ -e permitted tither directly or
conditionally iatim A orLA disvici9 < al~pcrmitta; in an aarieult~ral ptpje~t di<*r+ct and the overall
d ne~;~, rmit~~ in a a~cul + I oroia di<+rict <hall not be ; 4• ter thhan one acre pier buildin¢ site. Each
of Lhe pr,~ 'tbe ove~ll densities for dwellipg u<es <hsll confined in a master conceptual
plan for the agricultLral pLpi~ di<+*~ct and in Lhe a ~1 + I ptpject disrriM enablin¢ ordinattce.
c.,.~ S, Application for agricultnral project district: reauiremepts.
(al An gpp~ ~ -1 protest di<*r+ct may be filed by a prop rtv owner or any Qths[
2erson with the ps~s`rtv os. et'< content The application <hall be on a form prescribed for this purpose
by the director and <hall be accompanied bv:
(11 A filin¢
f_
ee~ 1
~0
Rer acre up to a maximum filing
fyr`of 55.000.
I (14 20NING CODE REVISIOWRa ~~e~9
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HILO, HAWAII
DnTE September 28, 1999
Memorandum
TO :Planning Director
FROM De ent of Public Works
Engineering Division
sus.iECr: Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-017)
SMA Use Permit Application (SMA 99-04)
Applicant: Manini'owali Equity
Location: Manini'owali & Kuki'o 2n°, North Kona, HI
TMK: 7-2-04:18
We have reviewed the subject application and offer the following comments:
rai
1. All development generated runoff should be disposed of on site and should not be
directed toward any adjacent properties.
2. Applicant should be informed that 'rf drywells are included in the subject
improvements, an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit must be applied for from
the Department of Health, State of Hawaii.
3. A drainage study should be prepared and a drainage system installed meeting with
the approval of DPW.
4. All grading and grubbing activities shall comply with Chapter 10 of the Hawaii County
Code.
Solid Waste
5. The developer should prepare a solid waste management plan, subject to the
approval of DPWs Solid Waste Division, for the development which is to be
administered by the Association of Homeowners or by the developer if no association is
established. E X~ j g I1
,
Memo to Planning Director
September 28, 1999
Page 2
R wa
6. Roadway connections to the adjoining parcels should be provided meeting with the
approval of DPW. These roads should be open to public traffic. It is DPW policy on
large subdivisions to recommend that functioning interconnections be made to adjoining
parcels. This would have the effect of reducing "short range' traffic on Queen
Kaahumanu Highway.
7. All roadways within the proposed development should follow the guidelines
incorporated in the H~waa RtatPwide unffomt Design Manual for Streets and Hiahwavs
and A Poli on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). These roadways
should also meet the requirements of DPW. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks should be
required in areas of pedestrian traffic.
8. In the interests of pedestrian and bicyclist safety, bike lanes should be considered
throughout the project.
9. We defer to DOT concerning improvements within the Queen Kaahumanu right-of-
way.
If you have any questions please contact Thomas Pack in our Kona office at 327-3530.
TWP:sIs
cc: Engineering -Hilo
Engineering -Kona
Planning -Kona
SidneyFuke, P~a~ining Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • Planning • Variance • Zoning
Telephone: (BOB) 969-1522 • Fax: (BOB) 969-7996 • SuOdmsion • Land Use Permits
• Environmental Reports
October 14, 1999 '~.9 OCT ~5 P17 143
A U
COfJ~~T' "-r~
r c
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: ''SMA (SMA 99-004) and Rezoning (REZ 99-017) Requests
Manini'owali Equity Company, LLC, TMK: 7-2-0: 18
Thank you for sending me a copy of the County Department of Public Works' (DPW)
comments regazding the subject matter. Please note the following:
1. A drainaee study will be prepared in conjunction with the development of the
property. Said study will be submitted for the review and approval of the
DPW prior to or in conjunction with the processing of any land disturbance
permits.
Said study and/or plan will provide for waters to be generated by the project
to be kept on-site. If drywells aze needed to address this requirement, the
appropriate UIC permits will be secured.
Prior to any grading and grubbing of the site, appropriate plans and permits in
accordance with the County Code will be complied with.
2. The applicant is awaze that as a condition of Project District approval, a solid
waste manaeement plan will be required. Said plan will be prepared and
submitted to the County for its review and approval.
3. Relative to roadway, the project will have a future frontage road that
would connect to proposed and existing developments to the north. As
roadways within the project are intended to be private and properties to the
south are owned by the State, mandating a road connection to the south may
notbe needed.
Please note, however, that the applicant will be working with the State in
establishing a new mauka/makai road that would serve as access to the
State's coastal park makai of the subject property. A portion or all of this
road
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
October 14, 1999
Page 2
(which will be opened to the public) will be constructed on the subject parcel.
This road should thus have the opportunity to provide public vehicular access
to State-owned properties to the south.
As noted eazlier, with the exception of the road leading to the State pazk, all
other roads will be privately owned and maintained. The roads will, however,
be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Department of
Public Works, using possibly the resort standazds. Further, bike and
pedestrian paths aze planned within the site, although not necessarily adjacent
to the roads.
We trust that the foregoing adequately addressed the comments of the DPW. If not
or should there be further questions or comments on this matter, please feel free to contact
me. 'Thank you for your continued courtesies and attention on this matter.
' cerely,
`
S NEY M.FUKE
Planning Consultant
cc Mr. Tom Pack, DPW
Dr. Robert Wazmington via FAX
BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO c o c ti~ PAUL G. LeMAH1EU, Ph.D.
GOVERNOR ' SUPERINTENDENT
I -
ti\\~\\
O~~.y.P`}.~
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P.O. BOX 2960
HONOLULU, HAWA1198804
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
August 19, 1999
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director J
Planning Depaztment
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109
Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252
Deaz Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: Maniniowali Residential Comrnunitv - SMA 99-004 and REZ 99-017
As noted in the applicant's environmental report, the Maniniowali Residential Community project is
subject to a school fair-shaze condition imposed by the State Land Use Commission in Docket No.
A92-677.
The Department of Education (DOE) has informed the applicant that the fair-shaze requirement for this
project is $850 per unit (see attached letter). In response, the applicant requested that further
discussion on the fair-shaze contribution be deferred until the county has acted on the various land use
applications.
Therefore, the DOE will contact the applicant regazding the fair-shaze contribution once the county has
made a decision on the Special Management Area and Project District applications.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please call
Mr. Sanford Beppu at 733-4862.
Very truly yours,
~L~~'`'ufit/
a eMalueu, Ph.D.
Su Tint dent of Education
PLeM:hy
Attachment E X H I B I T
cc: A. Suga, OBS v ' v
D. Sakai, HIDO
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
• 1 ~ ~ ~
,~a• i
BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO f ~ Y
GOVERNOR : )~t'1~
Pad G. LEMaldeq PhD.
• w.•~ SuperilAendmt
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P.O. BOX 1380
HONOLULU, HAWAII 8680
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
March 24, 1999
Mr. Eric T. Maehaza
Attorney At Law
733 Bishop Street, Suite 2530
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Maehaza:
Subject: .North Kona Devel_pment Group -LUC Docket No. A92-677
We understand that your client will be seeking county zoning approval in May for the subject
project. In light of that timeframe, the Department of Education feels that now would be a good
time to begin discussions oa a school fair-share contribution to satisfy Condition No. 5 of Land
Use Commission (LUC) Docket No. A92-677. The condition states:
"Petitioner shall provide its fair share for school facilities necessitated by the
proposed development, as required by the State Department of Education."
A sample fair-share agreement is attached for your information. Note that for this project, the
DOE's fair-share requirement is $850 per residential unit. With the exception of elderly housing,
the $850 figure applies regardless of the type of housing constructed (market vs. affordable) or
buyer profiles (young families, retirees etc.).
r
i
Also note that payments can be made incrementally as sales are closed. We found this to be the
most workable approach for developers since payments are tied to the actual sale of units.
We request the opportunity to meet with you to further discuss this matter and to obtain
additional information on the project, including number of units planned and buildout schedule.
The DOE uses such information for its enrollment projections.
•
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Eric T. Maehaza
Page 2 •
Mazch 24, 1999
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please call
Mr. Sanford Beppu at 733-4862.
A response by Apri128, 1999 would be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Paul G. LeMahieu, Ph.D.
Superintendent of Education
PLeM:hy~Qre)
Attachment
cc: A. Suga, OBS
P. Bergin, HIDO
E. Ueda, LUC
A. Mitsuda, OP
EDUCATIONAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT FOR
(NAME OF PROJECTI
(Noce: Subject to AG Review and Approval)
THIS INDENTURE, made this day of , 19_, by and
between [NAME OF DEVELOPER], whose principal place of business and post office
address is ,and the State of
Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, hereinafter referred to as the "DOE;"
WHEREAS [name of developer] is the developer and recorded owner of that
certain pazcel of land comprised of approximately acres and identified as Tax Map
Key pazcels ,also known as "[name of project];"
WHEREAS the [name ofprojectj is anticipated to be developed in phases, with
approximately _ units in Phase 1 and a total of approximately units in the
entire project;
•
WHEREAS (name of developer] and the DOE have mutually agreed that the
educational contribution set forth in this Agreement will satisfy condition number _ of
Land Use Commission Docket No. (or County of Ordinance No.)
for (name of project] based on a total count of units maximum;
NOW THEREFORE, [name of developer] and the DOE agree as follows:
l . Tj_]ame of developerl's Cash Contribution. [Name of developer) shall contribute a
total of Dollazs ) to the DOE.
a. The Cash Contribution shall be paid to the DOE in installments, in
accordance with the following schedule:
1, Dollars )payable within thirty (30) .
days after the closing and recordation of a total of
residential units within the project; and
2. Dollazs )payable within thirty (30)
days after the closing and recordation of a total of
residential units within the project; and
g, Dollazs )payable within thirty (30)
days after the closing and recordation of a total of L~
residential units within the project, or portion thereof.
b, An escalation factor shall be applied to the balance of the Cash
Contribution that remains to be paid after the closing and recordation of a total of
residential units within the project. The escalation factor shall be based •
on the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the City and County of
Honolulu, now issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States
Department of Labor, utilizing the average CPI rate for the six (6) months
preceding the date on which the escalation factor is triggered. The escalation
factor shall thereafter be adjusted annually, based on the published average CPI
rate for the preceding year.
•
® IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Agreement the
day and year first above written.
(NAME OF DEVELOPER]
BY Date:
[Name ofIndividualj
Its
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
BY Date:
[Name of Superintendent]
Its Superintendent
•
Approved as to form;
BY Date:
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii
t
•
STATE OF HAWAII ) •
ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU )
On this day of , 19_, before me personally appeazed
Superintendent of the State of Hawaii DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and
deed.
Notary Public, State of Hawaii
My commission expires:
STATE OF HAWAII ) •
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 19_, before me personally appeazed
of [NAME OF DEVELOPER],
to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed.
Notary Public, State of Hawaii
My commission expires:
0
46 e, N9
4H , 19 p ~ 1~
Y ~G(!_
BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO t R•Y TIMOTHY E. JOHNS
CNAIRPEPSOx
GOVERNOR OF HAWMI eA j BORRO OF LANG ,WO NATUML RESOURCES
JANET E. KAWELO
~4p'a'~ OEPUII' DIRECTOR
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
AQUATIC PESOURCES
DIVISION OF STATE PARKS BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION
P.O. BOX 621 CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96609 ENFORCEMENT
CONVEYANCES
FORESTRY ANO WILDLIFE
1999 HISTORIC PRESERVATION
UND
STATE PARKS
Mr. Robert C. Warnungton, President
Mr. Val Deduk, Vice President
Manini'owali Equity Company, LLC
68-1375 Pauoa Road, Unit ¢2
Kohala Coast, Hawaii 96743
Gentlemen:
Applications for Special Management Area Use Permit and Project District Approval ;
for the Proposed Manini'owali Residential Community, Tuly 1,1999 _
The Division of State Parks was recently given the opportunity to review--the
Manini'owali Equity Company applications for SMA permit and Project District
approval for the proposed Manini'owali Residential Community, North Kona, Hawaii,
TMK:(3) 7-2-04:18.
In reviewing the applications, we noted that your firm has proposed a major change
from its eazlier 1991 preliminary plan for this development. In the 1991 preliminazy
plan (copy attached), the proposed public access was located on the south side of your
property skirting the lower slope of Pu'u Kuili, and leading directly to Kua Bay. )n the
current conceptual plan presented in your SMA application, you have relocated the
public access to the north side of your property, and have terminated the access in the
lava field mauka of Kakapa Bay, a remote, pristine bay and shore, that park visitors
must presently walk to.
The Exchange Deed and Agreement to Exchange between North Kona Development
Group and the State of Hawaii calls for the provision of public access to Kua Bay, not to
Kakapa Bay. Kakapa Bay and the azea mauka of the Bay contain significant
archaeological sites, including aMaui-style heiau. Finally, we note that the Agreement
also requires that your firm provide water and comfort station facilities at Kua Bay, a
requirement that you have addressed in your current SMA application. A copy of the
executed Exchange Deed and Agreement to Exchange is attached for your review.
Furthermore, the Exchange Deed and Agreement to Exchange specifically states on
page 6, pazagraph 2, that the location and placement of the 60-foot wide public access
easement is to be mutually agreed upon in writing by the Grantor (the applicant) and
the Grantee (the State) based on State Park planning, final azchaeological work and land
use planning. No written agreement for the location and placement of the access
easement has been signed. Pazagraph 2 continues and clearly states that should no
agreement be reached on the location of the easement, the location shall be along the
southwestern boundary of Manini'owali.
EXHIBIT
~ , .
Manini'owali Equity Company LLC
Page 2
Planning for the entire 1642 acre Kekaha Kai State Park (formerly Kona Coast State
Park) has progressed based on your 1991 preliminary conceptual plan for the
Manini'owali Residential Community. It should be noted that North Kona
Development Group was a member of the community-based task force that
participated in park planning process, and as such, your firm was informed of all
meetings and decisions throughout the planning process. A copy of the Kekaha Kai
State Park Conceptual Plan, approved by the Boazd of Land and Natural Resources in
June 1998, is attached for your review. A development plan and EIS is now being
prepared for the Mahai'ula Section of the Pazk and will be published in the coming
months.
We would like to meet with you to discuss your proposed relocation of the public
access road to the north side of your property. We believe that State Pazk concerns
regarding access to Kua Bay must be resolved before a decision is made on your
application for a Special Management Area permit. Please call me at (808) 587-0290 or
State Park planner Sherrie Samuels at (808) 587-0296, to arrange for a meeting.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
~r y,
TON H. NAGATA
trator
Attachment: Preliminary Plan for Manini'owali Residential Community, i6 May 1991
Exchange Deed and Agrrement to Exchange, dated December 21,1990
Conceptual Plan for Kekaha Kai State Pazk, June 1998
C County of Hawau Planning Department
Russell Kokubun, Hawaii Member, Boazd of Land and Natural Resources
Department of Land and Natural Resources, Land Division
Penn Fv'~Ini.~~
t`.Y
~'gs
'f~ a
Qo.,M•°+8 PEDESTRIAN TRAILS ~
c, . .O
9 HISTORIC TRAILS
4WD SERVICE ROADS f,
PAVED ROAD/PARKING '0~"Ya"~" ~
v~m~nN„
ACT[VITYAREAS "~"'°Y.a~
~ ~.K ~ '~e a - t:
PICNIC FACILITIES -"i - `sT
VEGETATION ~amry ~ ~,w~~ ` ~g
IAGI LLgxaRl 'T 1["iRa~ k-1:3
\f
x~~~-\,-.~ INTERPRETIVEAREA _ ~ ~k' s,~~`~ ~~.r','~
~':T'+ SANDY BEACHES ~ M1 • ~ ~ ~irk~~ k~...
CONTROLLED ACCESS GATES t r,.4;°rE' 0
KYU'~i•i
OPEN GATES I~.~Nnon,lmn4„w _ KV
„ ~ r , ;
% X x CAMPING 5eua~nen I a~ ;
.NO
Fanfuu-~ ~ 1~ ~ fl#YT .:i
NON-PARK AREAS ~t*- -°t~r"y i~
xM
AIa KNhn • •~4 ~K,N r v ry4 yi
J S µE a~
~ ill I Tul ~ nF.~~j~~. i ~
•Da'-
ink R[kuF V r/, • I ~ ~I X'G^
~limilry F:iLm _ j^
~Siyrvwoan Limiu k1ti l\` 1
1 ~ ~
• \
t
.M X 1 ~Im•i 3 ~ \
3 -.1 . ,~°°°animl° 1
S,FIa9wIM'.a~,~l~`` ~ 3Wp RpG
CaaNl Twl[ `~~TIYIa
H
~}~a~ q~
• ~ 1 A.
s,lMy + ANA "~`?4:>' - '
ArckiYYl[
u..nwR~~e[Jn '.ti ~wea I f, tR.
Kryat K. IvnF V[. K siPyc'y°[n k.~,.. ~
T 4m ,y~ny k y~.
NJW'ul[Bry p~k AmbnWRAainlmarc[
D+Y Mann{. FAetw Cwn t~ y '
~ f f'
f Xalr
• g16maAw
• • • C Slnm <
an
_ H A y
C r
d rao.na saa -9 `qt +t'~ ,[,a ~
s f•O Crt KImK ~ jP & k { {
R ` p
m
~ 3WO ROtla• - ~ _f
k ~ ~
® Yer I~ ~ ~ AT~
{oinl aM ~ k
lYU Intl FuEn t F l - t
i
4
h
B x
~ a°~ r Cq Fnn~i f~~~~
E~:
`ei+- ~A o ~ T S
a a a _ t s+..
TA q t" ~ I ~3 3
C ~ d'
s
~ y
a :•t 4-=n
~~4
~
~~N3 _IU.--r-~ a~lxxa~m: T_~*~-n. as` ic~a.~.'.#, x.:a`-,
0' 1100' 2200 uo R'rr+
Kekaha Kai Stale Park Conceptual Master Plan F~g~EUC 5-I
5-4
)
' - )
)
)
)
)
)
) TN! OIIIGMAL OF THE DCfUMEM
) PFCOFDED AS FO0.0WS
) STAiE OF HAWAII
) BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES
) ~ 17 1992 ails Ate
) DAT!______~_y.TIME..__.._.~-
' DOCUMWT NP.42=A3A6Fn
LAND COURT SYSTEM 1 REGULAR SYSTF'M
Return by Mail ( ) Pickup To:
DEFT. Of LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
EX ANGE D ~D ND AGRE£*EFNT TO XC ANG
THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this 1~~
day of ~f«M~ , 19_~, by and between
NORTH BONA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, a Hawaii limited partnership,
whose address is 1600 Ala Moana Boulevard, N2306, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96815, hereinafter referred to as the "Grantor," and the
STATE OF HAWAII, by its Board of Land and Natural Resources,
whose address is 1151 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96a 13,
hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee";
WITNESSETH•
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of that certain
parcel of land situate at Awakee, North Rona, Hawaii,
designated Tax Map Key (3) 7-2-04:03, containing an area of
333.815 acres, more or less; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain
• parcel of land situate at Kukio d and Maniniowali, North
Kona, Hawaii, containing an area o 388.057 acres, more or
less, designated Tax Map Key (3) 7 2-04: Por. 17; and
G VANTM[NT Of lAN ",ANO NATpw AI gC9Cl1q CC~J
DI VISION OF IANO MANAOCM LNT
r, e. Fa. m
+a.aww..A.+u~ .uo.
L:
WHEREAS, the Grantee wishes to acquire Grantor's land
for public purposes, to wit: the planning, construction,
development and establishment of the proposed North Kona
Regional Park and Wildlife Sanctuary, situate at North Kona,
Island of Hawaii, Hawaii; and
WHEREAS, the land of the Grantor has a fair market
value of THIRTY THREE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND
AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($33,435,000.00), and the land of the
' Grantee has a fair market value of SEVENTEEN MILLION AND NO/loo
DOLLARS ($17,000,000''.00), as determined by a disinterested,
qualified appraiser; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor shall waive the difference in
the appraised fair market value between its land and the
Grantee's land.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the
covenants, agreements, and conditions as hereinafter set forth,
the parties agree as follows:
The Grantoz, for itself, its successors and assigns,
and in consideration of the conveyance to the Grantor of
Grantee's land described in Exhibit ^C" and delineated on
Exhibit ^D^ herein, does by these presents, grant, bargain,
sell and convey unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns,
absolutely and in fee simple, all of that certain parcel of
land situate at Awakee, North Kona, Hawaii, designated Tax Map
Rey (3) 7-2-04:03, containing an area of 333.815 acres, more or
less, all more particularly described in Exhibit "A," and
delineated on Exhibit "B,^ both of which are attached hereto
and made parts hereof; SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to the fallowing
encumbrances:
1. Title to all mineral and metallic mines reserved
in favor to the State of Hawaii.
-2-
L
2. Reservations of the rights of native tenants.
3. Rights of public access to and from a public
road.
4. Reservation of any and all ancient native
trails, archeological sites, burial cave(s) and/or burial
grounds that may be shown on an accurate on the ground survey
in favor of the State of Hawaii.
5. Rights of the United States of America, State of
Hawaii, and the public generally, in and to that portion of the
property lying below the mean high water mark of the Pacific
Ocean, presently oz hereafter established by law or ruling of
the Courts and any rights and easements thereto for commerce,
navigation, an3 fishery in favor oP the public or the federal,
state or municipal government.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said real property, together with
all improvements thereon, and all tenements, rights, easements,
privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or
appertaining or held and enjoyed therewith, unto the Grantee,
its successors and assigns, forever.
AND, the Grantor, for itself, and its successors and
assigns, warrants that it is lawfully seized of said land in
fee simple, that it has good right to grant and convey the same
as aforesaid; that the same is free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances, except as aforesaid; and that the Grantor and its
successors and assigns shall WARRANT AND DEFEND the same unto
the Grantee, its successors and assigns, against any and all
claims and demands of al 1. persons whomsoever, forever.
. AND, FURTHER, in consideration of the Grantee
conveying its land to the Grantor, the Grantor agrees to waive
any difference in the appraised value of the Grantor's land
which exceeds the appraised value of the Grantee's land to be
exchanged.
-3-
AND, FURTHER, the Grantee, for and in consideration
of the foregoing conveyance to it, and pursuant to the
provisions of Section 171-50, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as
amended, does hereby covenant that it shall convey to the
Grantor, its successors and assigns, by a separate instrument
in the nature and form of a Land Patent Grant, that certain
parcel of land situate at Kukio 2nd and Maniniowali, North
Kona, Hawaii, containing an area of 388.057 acres, more or
less, designated Tax Map Key (3) 7-2-04: Por. 17, more
particularly described in Exhibit "C," and delineated on
Exhibit "D,^ both of which are attached hereto and made parts
hereof, Exhibit "C" being a survey description prepared by the
Survey Division, Department of Accounting and General services,
State of Hawaii, designated C.S.F. No. 21,392 and dated
December 3, 1990, and Exhibit "D" being a survey map designated
H.S.S. Plat 304-B; SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to mineral (including
geothermal) and xater reservations, prehistoric and historic
remains reservations, burial sites reservations, the rights of
native tenants, easements and encumbrances of record, and a
covenant against discrimination and; RESERVING AND SUBJECT,
FURTHER, to the following perpetual restrictive easements in
favor of the State of Hawaii: ,
1. A portion of the land to be conveyed to the
Grantor by the Grantee, being a zone 400 feet wide mauka of and
along the seaward boundary line of said land, containing an
area of 53.037 acres, more or less, and designated as "Parcel
A", all more particularly described in Exhibit "E" and
delineated on Exhibit "F", both of which are attached hereto
and made parts hereof, which zoned Parcel A shall be
restricted, in perpetuity, to the prohibition of buildings
and/or structures above or~beldw ground on said land,
-4-
notwithstanding any applicable zoning and/or building laws, now
in force or which may hereinafter be in force, which may allow
for buildings and/or structures on said land. It is clearly
understood by the parties herein that use oP said 400 feet wide
zone for golf course purposes, excluding buildings and
structures, is permitted, upon Grantor obtaining all applicable
State and County'of Hawaii approvals and permits.
2. The entire parcel of land to be conveyed to the
Grantor by the Grantee, EXCEPTING, HOWEVER, Parcel A described
herein, shall be restricted, in perpetuity, solely to
residential use, residential-commercial use, condominium and
apartment use, golf course, golf clubhouse, tennis center,
andjor other similar ancillary uses, upon Grantor obtaining all
applicable State and County approvals and permits. No. hotel,
condominium offering time-sharing plan, or apartment offering
time-sharing plan, shall be developed, constructed, nor
permitted on said land and, also, Grantor its successors and
assigns shall not seek rezoning to allow such usages of said
land.
3. A portion of the designated landmark of Puu
Ruili and the smaller unnamed Puu located at the Kukio end of
the land to be conveyed to the Grantor by the Grantee shall be
restricted, in perpetuity, to the prohibition of construction
and/or alteration and shall remain in its natural state. The
boundaries of said Puus shall be mutually agreed upon in
writing by the Grantor and Grantee based upon topographic and
soil survey maps.
AND the Grantor, its successors and assigns, does
hereby covenant with the Grantee, its successors and assigns,
as follows:
1. The Grantor shall allow continued public use of
the existing vehicular and utility access from Queen Kaahumanu
-5-
Highway across the Kukio 2nd and Maniniowali land to Kua Bay,
all more particularly described in Exhibit "C" and delineated
on Exhibit "D" herein, until a superior access is provided, at
which time said existing vehicular and utility access may be
relocated and/or extinguished upon the mutual written agreement
of the Grantor and Grantee.
2. Grantor agrees to convey to Grantee a sixty (60)
feet wide easement for vehicular access and utilities, across
the Kukio 2nd and Maniniowali parcel to be conveyed to the
Grantor, for public access from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Kua
Bay, the location and placement o! said easement to be mutually
agreed upon in writing by the Grantor and Grantee and
determined based on State park planning, final archaeological
work, and land use planning; PROVIDED, that if an access
acceptable to the Grantee is provided other than across the
Kukio 2nd and Maniniowali parcel, this easement designation may
be extinqulshed with the prior written approval of the
Grantee. In the event the Grantee and the Grantor are unable
to mutually agree in writing upon the location and placement of
said easement, the sixty (60) feet wide easement for vehicular
access and utilities shall be located and placed from Queen
Raahumanu Highway along the southwestern boundary of
Maniniowali, except in areas where topographic conditions
and/or archeological sites make such location unfeasible.
3. Zn the event the Grantor utilizes the Kukio 2r.d
and Maniniowali parcel, more particularly described in Exhibit
"C^ and delineated on Exhibit "D"-herein, for any of the uses
• permitted herein (i.~e. golf course, tennis center, residential
use, condominium and apartment use, etc., permitted herein)
other than its presently existing uses, the Grantor shall
construct a public roadway from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to t~.e
-6-
Kua Bay area and, also, public park facilities consisting of a
parking lot and restroom facilities; subject, however, to
Grantor obtaining all applicable state and county approvals and
permits, and that said roadway and improvements may be
considered in satisfying all or part of any such requirements
which may be imposed by the State Land Use Commission and/or
the County of Hawaii. In the event the Grantee constructs said
public access roadway and park facilities and said public
access is used to satisfy any o! Grantor's public access
requirements which.,may be imposed by the States Land Use
Commission and/or the County of Hawaii, the Grantor shall then
reimburse the Grantee for the full cost of the roadway and park
facilities in an amount not to exceed the maximum sum oP Tw0
MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS
($2,500,000.00), said reimbursement to be paid to the Grantee V
b the Grantor within sixt C
y y (60) days of Grantor having
obtained State Land Use Commission and/er County of Hawaii
approval that said public access roadway constructed by Grantee
may be used to satisfy any oP Grantor's public access
requirements.
4. In the event the Grantor develops a water system
on the KUkio 2nd and Maniniowali parcel, more particularly
described in Exhibit "C" and delineated~on Exhibit "D" herein,
the Grantee sha21 have the right to connect to said water
system developed by the Grantor and to use said water at no
cost and expense to the Grantee.
THIS i.AtiD EXCHANGE shall be subject to disapproval by
the State Legislature by two-thirds vote of either the Senate
or the House of Representatives, or by majority vote of both,
in any regular or special session next following the date of
this Exchange Deed and-Agreement. to Exchange.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, a
Hawaii limited partnership, the Grantor herein, has caused
these presents to be executed this o~/s'T day
of ~~-u-.-Qx'1'- 19 4~ , and the STATE OF HAWAII, by
its Hoard oP Land and Natural Resources, the Grantee herein,
has caused the seal of tha Department of Land and Natural
Resources to be h~e~rjeunto affixe and/these presenOts to be
executed this~ad =,day of ~XLU~? 19 70 , both
effective as of the day, month, and year first above written.
- NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT GROUP,
a Hawaii limited partnership
Approved by tha Board Hy: North Kona Development
of Land and Natural Corporation, a Hawaii corporation,
Resources at its meeting its General Partner
held on December 7, 1990.
MICHAEL ~ HANDS
Its V e President
GRANTOR
STATE O HA II
By
Chairperson a Member
Board of Lan nd
Natural Reso es
GRANTEE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Depu ttorney G 1
Dated•+-'~~i~990
2335E
-8-
F'..
~J
STATE OF HAWAII )
SS.
COUNTY OF NDWLU )
On this 2)~ day of ~CCCY1'1bGY , 1990, before me
appeared MICHAEL J. HANDS, personally known to me who being by
me duly sworn, did say that he is the Vice President of NORTH
KONA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Hawaii corporation; that NORTH
KONA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION is the general partner of NORTH
XONA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, a Hawaii limited partnership; that the
foregoing instrument was executed by NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION as the general partner of and on behalf of NORTH
KONA DEVELOPMENT GROUP; that'~the seal affixed to the foregoing
instrument is the corporate seal of NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION: that said instrument was signed and sealed on
behalf of NORTH KONA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION by authority of its
Board of Directors; and said officer severally acknowledged that
said instrument is the free act and deed of NORTX KONA
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, as the general partner of NORTH KONA
DEVELOPMENT GROUP.
Nora c, State of Hawaii
My commission expires: II L1 9~
2335E
-9-
;J
• ~
STATE OF HAWAII
lURVlY DIYIl ION
21,394 D[R. O~ AOCOUNTINO AND O[N[RAL lLRVIC[!
C.LI. Me MONOWW De0?nbeL 6, 1990
GFANr 2023 TO KAHAIALII
Aorakee, North Rona, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii
Beginning at the east corner of this parcel of land and on
the bcundacy between the lands of Maninioweli and Awakee, the coordinates
of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation
Station 'AKAHIPUU' being 17,111.99 feet North and 12,672.87 feet West,
thence running by aztmaths measured clockwise fran True South:-
1. 39° 45' 4189.06 feet along Tract 1 of Kukto-Gana
Government Tract;
2. 118° 00' 4160.00 feet along Tract 1 of Kukio-0ani
Government Tract to the upper
reachea of the wash of waves at
seashore;
3. Thence along the upper reaches of the wash of waves at seashore, the
direct azimuth and distance
being;
231° 06' 13• 5224.06 feet;
4. 315° 59' 45• 469.54 feet along Tract 1 of Kukio-{kxna
Government Tract;
5. 301° 26' 40• 884.40 feet along Tract 1 of Kuk io-Oan3
Government Tract;
6. 315° 11' 40° 1710.24 feet along Tract 1 of Kuk io-0ana
Government Tract to the point of
beginning and containing an AREA
OP 333.815 ACRFS, MJRE (R LESS.
SSRiVEY OMSICN
DEPARTlII'NP OP ACCWNfING AND GENER4L SERV2CES
STATE OF HAWAII
By: I~.w rti,c.., ~ Lt.e.~4w u V L
Ra S. Na artura
Land Surveyor gm
Canptled fran data furn.
by Wes Thanas S Assoc., Inc.,
CSF 21201 and Cov't. Survey Records.
EXHIB~L"A'
o s~~!°' v
M t~ J~J J N J O YV t~ ^ U, J ACA o~T,~,
t-r,nr.55 rt. 5. 3 00~\
Ir,cTa.eT•N. ~
6 Ate' 1 Ot k b
L y Q ~
,I.a~ ~j X ~ .Z
'~IID'9~'43' S ¢ k
467.54 ~ t T4oad and YS, Ufili'f~
l9' Essemeni- (loo.oo ? S fee{ wfd~)
fi5~n V1 p y~
T~~~. N ~ n3
n 'I O K ~ 15 X07
~2
s' ~ 0 ~ a n X
001 t~ R p p ~ S
dal q ~ d' n o~
a ~ I ~ ~ '
~ ? ~ `r
o-
~D "
Y- "'f 5IIN p
un 1N 16oO ~
v v ~ ~ ~
m n I O ~
S't IS ~
K Y ~
n ~ ~O
u
J` r~
1 ~ SS C H. h 168, P+Pana
~~T, Zto~ A, A
GIANT 2O'c3 TO 1~AHAlALIt
Awakee, Norfh!Sona,lsland aFHawaii, Hawa~%
State: I' inei~= i0OO feet
»8 x-544 !?0;
C. BK. DCnOTC3 aCGC3D PQrr+trr--~
- Deno-es no vehic:e neca;s =e.-+-irced
SURVEY DIVISION ~8"
T~1 ~~c-'^~2-G<c3 DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAt_ SERVICES
:s, STATE OF HAWAII f-"
"7
i
,J
STATE OF HAWAII
~unvcr orvuwe
21,392 C6ri. Or ACCOUNT NO AND O[N[RAl a[nWC[3
a~.r. xs xoxoww December 3, 1990
PORTION OF THE
GOJF.RNMFNT (ANDS OF KUKIO 2ND AND MANINI0i7ALI
Kukto 2nd and Man intowal t, North Rona, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii
8etng also a portion of Tract 1 of Kukio-Oana Government
Tract.
Beginning at the'east corner of this pazcel of land, on the
boundazy between the lands of Rukio 1st and Rukio 2nd and on the
northwest side of Queen Raahumanu Highway (Katlua-Rawaihae Road), Project
No. 1980-01-71, Reahole to Anaehocmalu Section, the coordinates of said
point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station
•AKAHIPW being 18,991.62 feet North and 8,699.99 feet S7est as sham on
Government Survey Registered Map H.S.S. Plat 304-8, thence running by
azimuths measured clockwise fran True South:-
1. Along the northwest side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Katlua-Kawa ihae
Road), Project No. 19BC-01-71,
Keahole to Anaehoanalu Section,
on a acve to the left with a
radius of 38,810.05 feet, the
chord aztauth and distance being:
45°' S0' 41.38• 1203.54 feet;
2. 134° 57'- 23• 40.00 feet along a jog on the northwest
side of Queen Raahumanu Highway
(Katlua-Rawaihae Road), Project
No. 19BC-01-71, Reahole to
Anaehoanalu Section;
3. Thence along the northwest side of Queen Raahumanu High!+ay
(Katlua-Rawaihae Road), Project
No, 19BC-01-71, Keahole to
Anaehoomalu Section on a curve
to the left with a radius of
38,850.05 feet, the d~ord
azimith and distance being:
44° 15' 04' 956.42 fee[;
4. 313• 32' 45• 40.00 feet along a jog on the nocthwest
side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway
(Katlua-Kawaihae Road), Project
No. 1990-01-71, Keahole to
Anaehocnalu Section;
-1-
C YLI~OIT "N~
c.s.,, H°. 21,392 Decenbec 3, 1990
5. Thence along the northwest side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Kailua-
Kawaihae Road), project No.
19BC-O1-71, Keahole to Anaehomalu
Section m a verve to the left
with a radius of 38,810.05 feet,
the chord azisuth and distance
being:
- 43° 27' 23• 121.17 feet;
6. thence along the northwest side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Railua-
Kawaihae Road), Project No,
1900-01-71, Keahole to Anaehoanalu
Section on a are to the left
with a radius of 38,810.05 feet,
the chord aztm;th and distance
being:
41° 41' 16.5' 2274.30 Eeet;
7. 149° 21' 33' 1661.46 feet along the Governmen[ Land of
Awakee;
8. 135° 11' 40• 1710.24 feet along Grant 2023 to Kahaialii;
9. 121° 26' 40• 200.01 feet along Grant 2023 to Kahaialii;
10. 183° 05' 30• 313.24 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Rukto-0rnia Government Tratt;
11. 191° 03' 296.00 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Kukio--0ana Government Tract;
12. 248° 40' 346.00 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Kuk tO-OU~~a Government Tract;
13. 250° 22' 498.00 feet along the remainder of Tract i of
Kukio-0ana Government Tract;
14. 232° 29' 652.00 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Kukio-0oma Government Tract;
15. 235° 15' 537.00 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Kuk io-Oana Government Tract;
16. 226° 07' 529.00 feet along the remainder of Trar 1 of
Rukio-OOrta Government Tratt;
17. 214° 30' 522.00 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Kukio-0ana Government Tract;
18. 197° 09' 335.00 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Kukio-Oorta Government Tract;
19. 177° O1' 372.01 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Rukio-0ona Government Tract;
20. 233° 45' 498.04 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Kukio-0cma Government Tract;
21. 234° 13' 608.00 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Kukio--0cma Government Tratt;
-2-
~.:.,.h°. 21,392 December 3, 1990
22. 226° 38' 393.00 feet along the remainder of Tract 1 of
Kukio-Gma Government Tract;
23. 335° 15' 12' 3794.62 feet along Grant 2121 to Pupule to the
point of beginning and wntain ing
an ARFA OF 388.057 ACRES.
Vehicle access shall not be permitted tnto and fran Queen
Kaahumanu Htghway (Railua-Rawathae Aoad), Project No. 19BC-O1-71, Reahole to
Anaehovnalu Section, over and across Courses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the
above-described parcel of land.
SUBJECT, HC47EVE[t, to a perpetual non-exclusive road and utility
easement rnvered by Grant of Easement, State of Aawatt to Philip Gray,
Peter Smith, Rusty London and Manintowalt Corporation dated January 7, 1985
'and rernrded in Ltber 18457, Page 605 (Land Office Deed 5-27473) and moce
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of this easement and on r2~e
northwest side of Queen Raahumanu Highway (Kailas-Rawaihae Road), project
No. 1980-01-71, Reahole to Anaehoomalu Sectton, the dtrect azirtuth and
distance to the end of Course 5 of the above-descr tbed parcel of land
being 43° 25' 30.85• 78.97 feet, thence running by azimuths
measured clockwise fran Ttue South:-
1. 142° 00' 48.5• 646.89 Eeet;
2. 127° 00' 48.5• 175.27 feet;
3. 144• 00' 48.5' 441.59 feet]
4. 119° 00' 48.5• 267.53 feet]
5. 163° 00' 48.5• 83.89 feet;
6. 131° 00' 48.5• 268.21 feet;
7. 150° 00' 48.5• 191.46 feet;
8. 142° 00' 48.5• 302.24 feet;
9. 129° 00' 48.5• 324.47 feet;
10. 138° 00' 48.5• 238.02 feed
11. 152° 00' 48.5• 283.95 feet;
12. 168° 00' 48.5• 63.09 feet]
13. 138° 00' 48.5• 9.78 feet;
-3-
~.s_.,,,,, 21,392 Deoembec 3, 1990
14. 235° 15' 30.24 feet along the cemaindec of Tract 1
of Kuk io-Oana Government Tract;
15. 318° 00' 48.5• 14.01 feet;
16. 34 B° 00' 48.5• 66.91 feet;
17. 332° 00' 48.5• 276.05 feet;
18. 318° 00' 48.5• 231.98 feet;
19. 309° 00' 48.5• 325.53 feet)
20. 322° 00' 48.5' 307.76 feett
~21. 330° 00' 48.5° 188,54 feet=
22. 311° 00' 48.5• 271.79 feet=
23. 343° 00' 48,5' 86.11 feetr
24. 319° 00' 48.5• 262.47 feet]
25, 324° 00' 48.5• 438,41 feet;
26. 307° 00' 48.5• 174,73 feet;
27. 322° 00' 48.5• 646.35 feet;
28, Thence along the northxest side of Queen Raahumanu pighxay
(Ratlua-Kaxaihae Road), Project
No. 19BC-O1-71, Keahole to
Anaehocmalu Section on a arve to
the left xith a radius of
38,810.05 feet, the chord a2irfuth
and distance being:
43° 30' 21.3° 30.33 feet to
the point of begtmtng and
mntatning art AREA OP 2.268 ACRES.
SURVEY DIVISION
DEPARTMfI7P OP ACCOUKTING AND GIIiERAL SERVICES
STATE OP NAVAIIr
Raymo S. Nacamara
Land cveyor gm
Compiled fran data fucn.
by Wes Thana.4 6 Assoc., Inc.
and Gov't. Survey Recrords. ,
-4-
i ~ a
i~i.
i +
s !
~ ~ ~ A W it I ' rO
_ rJ
I ^ QC "r,-
Y a ~ ~ I 3
•
~ ~ a h
'S
y ~ •
3 _
a..~r as v ~ ~fi: _
j S -0i
3 ~ ~ .S •~Z• o .t
~r :•i
c I N ~ ~
O l
N
?1 l
~ ^-1 a i(' r - •W
~I y3~ ^'P i_f± w• ni`w~:
h'.^r~nw..1.. ' t
.••~..~an•T l__-=..n'w' ..:5 a_w.. 4..~~ '~•1 r •t 'f 'i:~
~ s,` i _~~'~,=L~~ tom`
' _
I +a Z n.f~a...11^ ..a t i =E 'r 'I'CS:' L
:i t it w^,l u % i
~ O ~
g
o
a a
.~.r~q'.a.... G
,
n~ n= >:i A
dt u
L tiGt
h t
l n~P"t•
O
~ rr
~ 0
i' ~ rC, a
S =
t ; O ~s
~a: L
t ~ ~ 'o
E
S~ p
i
~~i z~ ~ ~
Ear o~ I
~ ~ ~ o~ s-
t ~
_
a ~
~ Z
a ~ i i ;
~
Y ' ~ ~ EXHI8R:SD"~
r s;
STATE OF HAWAII
SVRV[`/ DIVISION
DEPT. OF ACCOUNTING AND G[NERAL 3[RVIC E!
e.e.r, we r~4S woweww Decelrlber 14, 1990
PORTION OF TH£
GOVFT2NMENr LANDS OF KUK20 2ND AND MANSNIO4ALI
BUILDING RESTRICTIONS
PARCII. A
Kukto 2nd and Maniniowali, North Kona, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii
Being also a portion of Tract 1 of Kukio-Dana Government
Tract,
No Buildings or Structures shall be cronstructed above or
below the surface of the ground of the folla+ing described
paccelof land,
Beginning at the west corner of thts parcel of land and on the
east beundary of Grant 2023 to Kahataltt, the coordinates of said point
of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation station
•AKAHIPUU' being 18,429.75 fee[ North and 14,048.72 feet Hest as sham on
Government Survey Registered Map H.S.S. Plat 304-C; thence running by
azirtuths measured clockwise Eran True South:-
1. 183° 05' 30' 313.24 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-0cnu
Government Tcact;
2. 191° 03' 296.00 feet along the [ematnder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-Oare
Government Tract;
3. 248° 40' 346.00 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-0rnla
Government Tract;
4. 25tl° 22' 498.00 feet along the ranatnder of
Tractl of Kukio-0cna
Government tract;
5. 232° 29' 652.00 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Rukio-Dora
Government Tract;
6. 235° 15' 537.00 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukto-Dora
Government Tract;
7. 226° 07' 529.00 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-0ala
Government Tract;
R` -
~i
c s.r. n°._ 21,395 cecember 14, 1990
8. 214° 30' 522.00 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kuk io-Oana
Govec nment Tract;
9. 197° 09' - 335.00 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-Orn~a
Government Tract;
10. 177° O1'. 372.01 feet along the remainder of
Tact 1 of Xukio-am~a
Government Tract;
11. 233° 45' 498.04 feet along the zemainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-paw
Government Tract;
12. 234° 13' 608.00 feet along the remainder
of Tract 1 of Xuk io-0rnt3
Government Tract;
13. 226° 38' 393.00 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-Gana
Government Tract;
14. 335° 16' 12• 422.09 feet along Grant 2121 to Pupule;
15. 46° 38' 284.74 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Xukio-0rna
Government Tract;
16. 54° 13' 632.87 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-Oma
Government Traces;
17. 53° 45' 280.43 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Xukio-Orna
Government Tract;
18. 357° O1' 227.04 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-0cma
Goverrmient Trace;
19. 17° 09' 467.04 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-0aw
Government Tract;
20. 34° 30' 623.72 feet along the remainder cf
Tract 1 of Kukio-Gaw
Government Tract;
21. 46° 07' 601.64 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-0ara
Government Tract;
22. 55° 15' 559.29 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Rukto-prn~a
Government Tact;
-2-
21,395 cecember 14, 1990
23. 52° 29' 705.28 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-Gana
Government Trace;
24. 70° 22' 555,01 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-0ana
Government Tract;
26. 68° 40' 120.09 feet along the remainde[ of
Tract 1 of Kuk io-0ma
Government Tract;
26. 11° 03' 48.20 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Xukio-Orna
Government Tact;
27. 3° OS' 30• 582.80 feet along the remainder of
Tract 1 of Kukio-Gam
Government Tract;
28. 135° 11' 40• 301.89 feet along Grant 2023 to Kahaiali i;
29. 121° 26' 40• 200.01 feet along Grant 2023 to Kaha ialii
to the point of beginning and
containing an AREA of 53.037
ACRES.
SPATE OF. HAWAII
DEPARTNFT7P OP ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL SE.R'JICES
SLAT~E^OF HAWAII
Ra n S. Na
anurc~a~-
tan Surveyor cv
Canpiled fran CSF 21,392
and Gov't. Survey Records.
-3-
A
q _ ~ _
i'
w n.` ~ a
s
q a I
• ~r
.y ~ : • [
tiiS ~ M1;S ~ O w t
w i[=. ~
+7 ^.+z =~=i L~ a
p i IP
.._^,wim ~ s•!:-yam-, ~ f
T t
h F Z F +r ~ ° 1•
> ~ r.
:iiii ~ S t ~ ~ k
r ' 1
J
:50'
~ O h.. ~
.K..•
S•
i= •
• a:: •
~ ~
~ =K eff
~ 4' r
V V"'
~s'~ •
; ~ {
Tx' J
:_.t.:. ~ yP4~>
O
1
J >l
O
i
i >
7 ~
Z = ~ 1~
~ a
~ ¦Z
C E• °
1
e ~ ~ ~ ~
_ ~r ~ ;
'f~ ~4v sa €E ~ .
cJ~o~
i ~i ooh.
i ~
_ ~ ~
~ ~
~z ~p~
It
s8 ZQ ~m
v
e~ ~
E ~
z.'Z . ~ ~ ~ w O
x~'~ ~ l~(,-. _ rte 6 ~ ~ 'Y a
• ~kl ~T'J~ ~.t. ~ .f. I t ( ;,~:5 W ' ~ d u U ~ ! a~edyl Q ~
Yt ' l1 .•1 e -S' Lii..s Yt 9\- i. J
\ \ \ ~C ` I UU?? L~L
k} i a r ~ t y, # 4 '-Ek,~ ; 7 ii~~J ~s 1~~ Y n ~ . Z t,, ~,1 c<<~
4w V j
s<
1 'eiTb i^' t T
/IC1 ~
i i.Y t~ r c r 'a ~
v ~]er,l ~ Jr ,J ~ ~'r ~ , CJ' .l tL c~ t r Ik i.
{ ~ ~a I r •
SI Ir 2-~ 1~ 1 s r' ~
~~P~{J~ 'C ,~~~t~~(I iP~''I~ , 'y ~44f Is P I i ~~~~~~t
y+- K 1. 64
/'NS ~G~ //'/3~•-• rev ~',~f~ pr3 ~'`'^.Ys., It. ~C~
?1 "},'4Ar ~r i'~!.' / L/'/_.Ss ~ ~dil~,~e- ~ z'~ FI.3
~~1Ci'~I~i~Cr~ ~ i~S~~'ll_ ~~;~yb ~ W _~f;; }i ~m' ~~:k ~W:.
~ f ~ f
1 lr r a ° 3 O'~•
.,~W 5 r` n ~ ~ _
' ~ 1
6 ~,i .t= t~ , . t
111 itt~. '~ry~~ F'~ r 7. ~ ,i? ~ yy
I-~`~9, `~l ~At saS a1 y"~ .'r' ~ /~f ~7 - z , r ~
if l i~„`N1~~ '~~~77~y, '~5, t (y~,• `t - ~ Y ..i:... ~ ~ ~ x
/:~-~v f y; ~,i;^.~I,~~~'f ~~fN f' ~fvll f ~ ter-!.
F }t
_ wry. _ ~i .
' ~ l
~ e
° g c~ 11
~ g' oP
Ill
~
~ ~ ~I:
~ - ~ ~ ?
/ / I
~ ~w.. ~ ~
~ - -
. , -
,
~
r
o -
g , R,
d is t~
~ - ~ -
i
~ ; .
~ ~ "v....
i
- - I I,
_ _
Pi _
i a ~ _ _
Y . y
as - ~ e
a
. ~ "iy
N ~
i
1'v +~d
V
~ ~ ~ i P ~1
SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • Planning • Variance • Zonirg
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 • Subdivision • Lana Use Permits
• Environmental Reports
September 20, 1999
Mr. Ralston Nagata, Administrator
Division of State Pazks
Department of Land and Natural Resources
STATE OF HAWAII
P.O. Box 621
Honolulu, HI 96809
Deaz Mr. Nagata:
Subject: Applications fo Sr
MA Use Permit and Project District
Manini'owali Residential Community, TMK: 7-2-04: 18
I was recently provided with a copy of your September 8, 1999 letter to Dr. Robert
Warmington, regazding the subject matter by Sheme Samuels of your staff. Thank you very
much.
As you may be awaze, I have been retained by the applicant to assist with the
prepazation and processing ofthe subject applications. As a result, Dr. Warmington has
requested that I shaze his thoughts with you directly through this letter, most of which have
been discussed with Ms. Samuels.
1. The proposed relocation of the mauka-makai coastal access was driven by
the principle of minimising accesses at the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. By
positioning it at the northeastern end, it was believed that with the
participation of the adjoining property owner and the State, one major access
from the Queen ICaahumanu Highway could possibly serve this project, the
adjoining planned development to the northeast, and the mauka-makai coastal
access.
2. Although the former general partner was part of a task force involved with the
planning of the Kekaha Kai State park, he is no longer associated with this
project. Unfortunately, the information resulting from his participation was
not readily available to Dr. Warmington or myself. While this is not really an
excuse, we aze nonetheless glad that your office brought this to our attention
at this stage of the planning process. There is time to make the adjustments.
3. Based on your letter and my discussions with Ms. Samuels ofyour staff, as
well as with individuals who have ancestral and cultural interests in this area,
Mr. Ralston Nagata
September 20, 1999
Page 2
particularly makai of the subject property, we can appreciate the reasons for
having the public access planned away from the north end of the park.
4. The applicant is also awaze of the need to have the State's approval in any
relocation of the existing public access easement. The revised concept master
plan submitted with these applications aze only preliminary and will be subject
to accommodating concerns like yours, design, marketing, topographic, and
other public-related considerations.
5. In view of the foregoing, Dr. Warmirrgton and his company agree to:
a. work closely with your office and others in establishing the exact
location of this access prior to submitting the detailed concept plans
for the Planning Director's review and approval;
b. not have the vehicular/pedestrian access exit onto State land anywhere
northeast of Kua Bay; and
c. continue to explore the possibility of a joint access serving both the
State Pazk and the subject development on either the subject or
adjoining State-owned property to the south.
As such, by a copy of this letter, we aze requesting that the Planning Director
consider a condition incorporating the aforementioned planning concepts into the SMA Use
Permit and Project District Ordinance.
Again, thank you very much for your comments on this matter. We look forward to
coordinating our specific planning and design efforts relative to access with your office and
others in the very neaz future.
Sj~c~rely,
SIDNEY. F[JKE
Planning Consultant
cc Planning Director
Dr. Robert Warmington
tE Oi r,+k
r ~•aD • ~i
0, 1~`~1 „A
} BRUCE 5. ANDERSON, Ph.D., M.P.H.
BENJAMIN J. CAYEfANO DIRECTOR OF HEALTH
GOVEFINOR OF HAWAII ~ 6F ~ f
STATE OF HAWAII In reply, please r°lar to:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH F"°
P.O. 80X 3378
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96801
September 9, 1999 99-174/epo
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii -
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109
Honolulu, Hawaii 96720
i
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: Special Management Area Use Permit Application
(SMA 99-004)
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Manini'owali Residential Community
North Kohala District, Hawaii
TMK: 7-2-4: 18
Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the subject
application. We have the following comments to offer:
1. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 introduced
a number of new mandates and initiatives that emphasize
the prevention of possible contamination through improved
water system management.
a, ~aacit~Ass»rance: By October 1, 1999, all new
public water systems must demonstrate adequate
technical, financial, and managerial capacity
necessary to reliably produce and deliver drinking
water meeting all State and Federal drinking water
regulations prior to commencing operations.
Technical capacity refers to the management structure
of the water system, including but not limited to the
adequacy of the source water, infrastructure (source,
treatment, storage, and distribution), and the
ability of system personnel to adequately operate and
maintain the system and to otherwise implement
technical knowledge.
EXHIBIT
1 ~ 1 ~ ~ &+4C uA ~~y
Ms. Virginia Goldstein 99-174/epo
September 9, 1999
Page 2
Financial capacity refers to the financial resources
of the water system, including but not limited to
revenue sufficiency, credit worthiness, and fiscal
controls.
Managerial capacity refers to the management
structure of the water system, including but not
limited to ownership accountability, staffing and
organization, and effective linkages to customers and
regulatory agencies.
b. Q~Prator Cert~f~cation: By February 5, 2001, the
State will have established guidelines specifying
minimum standards for certification and
recertification of operators of community and
nontransient, noncommunity water systems. Every
water system must have an operator to perform certain
key compliance functions and who is trained and
certified to the level that the State determines is
appropriate to the functions, facilities, and
operations of that system.
2. The Manini'owali Residential Community final environmental
impact statement indicates that the proposed development
will have a dual water system. The potable and nonpotable
water systems must be carefully designed and operated to
prevent cross-connections and backflow conditions. The
two systems must be clearly labeled and physically
separated by air gaps or reduced pressure principle
backflow preventers to avoid contaminating the potable
water supply. All nonpotable spigots and irrigated areas
should be clearly labeled with warning signs to prevent
the inadvertent consumption of nonpotable water. In
addition, nonpotable spigots should be installed in
secured, below-grade enclosures.
If you have any questions concerning drinking water, please
contact Mr. William Wonq, Chief of the Safe Drinking Water
Branch at 586-4258.
iTtSDFRGROtn?D INJECTION CONTROL.
1. If the project plans to use drainage injection wells
(drywells), it will be necessary to obtain a UIC permit to
authorize the construction and operation of these wells.
2. The UIC rules prohibit sewage or industrial disposal wells
in areas above the UIC line. This rule may apply to the
project's wastewater disposal plans.
Ms. Virginia Goldstein 99-174/epo
September 9, 1999
Page 3
3. Injection wells cannot be sited within 1/4 mile of any
drinking water source.
The ten standard golf course guidelines (Version 5, 1994)
should apply to this project. A copy of these guidelines is
enclosed.
If you should have any questions concerning Underground
Injection Control or the golf course guidelines, please contact
Mr. Chauncey Hew of the Safe Drinking Water Branch at 586-4258.
Sincerely,
GILL
Deputy Director for
Environmental Health
Encl.
c: HDHO
SDWB
tor,,,.
,oa
}~~fi STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
August, 1994 (Version 5)
GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO GOLF COURSES IN HAWAII
In order to assure that environmental quality is promoted, protected and enhanced, the Stale
Department of Health (DOH) recommends the following for all golf courses in Hawaii. The
owner/operator must also comply with all applicable DOH rules.
1. Baseline groundwater quality and, if appropriate, coastal water quality should be
established.
2. The owner/operator should establish a groundwater and, if appropriate, a coastal
water monitoring plan. The groundwater and coastal water monitoring plans should
minimally describe the following components:
a. A routine monitoring schedule of at least once every six (6) months for the
first three (3) years of operation and once a year thereafter, or more frequently
in the event that the monitoring data indicates a need for more frequent
monitoring.
b. Compounds which should be tested for include compounds associated with
fertilizers, biocides, and effluent irrigation. These data should be permanently
retained by the golf course and submitted periodically to the State DOH and
the Planning Department of [he county in which the golf course is being
proposed. These data should be provided both in detail and in summary
format and should relate to-the baseline data and to adverse impact levels.
c. If the monitoring data indicate increased levels of a contaminate associated
with golf course maintence activities that poses, or may pose, a threat to
public health or the environment, the owner should immediately inform the
State Department of Health and the County Planning Department.
Subsequently, the owner must mitigate any adverse effects caused by the
contamination.
3. If a wastewater treatment works with effluent reuse becomes the choice of wastewater
disposal, then the owner/developer and all subsequent owners should develop and
adhere to a wastewater reuse plan which should incorporate the provisions of the
Department of Health's Guidelines for the Treatment and Use of Reclaimed Water,
developed by the Wastewater Branch and dated November 22, 1993. A copy of the
guidelines may be obtained by contacting the Wastewater Branch at 586-4294.
4. Above ground storage tanks for storing petroleum products for fueling golf carts,
maintenance vehicles, and emergency power generators should be used rather than
underground storage tanks (USTs). USTs may pose a potential risk to the
groundwater and should not be encouraged.
5. Buildings designed to house fertilizers and biocides should be bermed to a height
sufficient to contain a catastrophic leak of all fluid containers. It is also
recommended that the floor of this room be made waterproof so that all leaks can be
contained within the structure in order to facilitate a cleanup.
6. A golf course maintenance plan should be prepared and implemented with regards to
the use of fertilizers and biocides as well as an irrigation schedule. This maintenance
plan should be based on operational practices that would minimize or prevent
environmental pollution, including, but not limited to, pratices that are taught at the
certification school of the National, Association of Golf Course Superintendants.
7. Every effort should be made to minimize the amount of noise from golf course
maintenance activities. Essential maintenance activities (e.g., mowing of greens and
fairways) should be conducted at times that do not disturb nearby residents.
8. Solid waste should be managed in a manner that does not create a nuisance.
Whenever possible, composting of green-wastes for subsequent use as a soil
conditioner or mulching material is encouraged. The composting and reuse should be
confined to the golf course property to eliminate the necessity for offsite transport of
the raw or processed material. In addition, during construction the developer should
utilize locally-produced compost and soil amendments whenever available.
9. Pesticides and other agricultural chemicals should be applied in a manner that
prevents the offsite drift of spray material. The State Department of Agriculture
should be consulted in this regard.
10. To avoid soil runoff during construction, the developer should consult with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service to assure that best management
practices are utilized.
If there are any questions regarding the guidelines recommended above, please contact the
Environmental Planning Office at 586-4337. We appreciate your cooperation in preserving
and protecting environmental quality in Hawaii.
Page 2
Sidney~uke, PiG ng Consultant __~i ~.d.
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • Punning • Variance • Zoning
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 • Subdivisbn • Land Use Permits
• Environmental iiepons
September 20, 1999 , ~ ~ ~ ~
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Deaz Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: SMA (SMA 99-04) and Project District (REZ 99-17) Requests
' Manini'owali Equity Company LLC TMK: 7-2-4: 18
Thank you very much for sending me a copy of comments from the State
Departments Health and Land and Natural Resources -State Parks Division Please note that
as the State Pazks sent a letter directly to the applicant, we took the liberty of responding
directly, with a copy (attached) to your office.
Relative to the State Department of Health's comments, we note the following:
1. The planned potable and irrigation wells must eventually be reviewed and
approved by a variety of State agencies, including the State Water
Commission and the Department of Health. These applications will address
matters of water quality and quantity meeting with the DLNR and DOH's
standazds.
As the water system will service both irrigation and potable needs, the system
needs to be cazefully designed to min;n,i~P cross-connections. Appropriate
plans will be developed by certified water engineers and submitted to the State
for its approval.
Once the wells are certified and accepted, the applicant is awaze that, as the
wells will be privately operated, there will have to be operator certification.
2. As the project will probably utilize drywells, the applicant is awaze that
injection well permits from the State will be needed. These will be applied for
prior to the construction phase of this project.
3. Finally, the applicant is awaze of the need to comply with the golf course
guidelines. It should be noted that one of the Land Use Comnussion's
condition
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
September 20, 1999
Page 2
required compliance with the January 1992 (Version 4) guidelines. We
understand that there is now a August 1994, Version 5. The applicant is
prepared to comply with Version 5.
We trust that we have adequately responded to these agencies' comments. If not or if
there are more questions, please feel free to direct them to me. Thank you very much.
SiQnc~erQely
SIDNEY~~
Planning Consultant
Enclosure
cc Dr. Robert Warmington
State Department of Health
SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hib, Hawaii 96720 ' Pia^^^9' • Z°^O9
Telephone: (808) 969.1522 • Fax: (608) 969.7996 • SuCdvision • larM Use Pennds
• Emswndeal ReGa<is
September3, 1999 '~4 Sri :3 P('I y Z~
C:;~.:::~ ~ L;, ::,;il
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street
Hflo, HI 96720
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: SMA 99-004 and REZ 99-017 Applications
Manini'owali Equity Company. LLC, TMK: 7-2-04: 18
Thank you for sending me a copy of agency comments regarding the subject
applications. In response to these comments, Please note the following:
1. The applicant is aware of the need to comply with the County's affordable
housing policy (Ord. No. 98-1) as noted in the Office of Housing a~
Community Development's co,?n„P..t~ It should also be noted that the State
Land Use Commission conditioned its approval with an affordable housing
requirement. The applicant intends to work with the County, and if need be,
with the State in satisfying these requirements. This will be done prior to or in
conjunction with the subdivision approval process.
2. Relative to the Police Department's comments, an updated traffic study was
included in the applications. Said study noted that a fully channelized
intersection wt71 be con.~tructed by the applicant. Notwithstanding said study,
however, technical analysis and/or plans wdl still have to be conducted by the
applicant's engineer. These analysis and plans will inch~de establishment of the
enact Location and the design of the intersection. All must be coordinated
with and approved by the State Department. of Transportation prior to the
start of a~ roadway improves.
3. Finally, relative to the State Department of Education's comments, the
applicant is prepared to Snalize its ~-share educational co~rtbution, as
conditioned by the State Land Use Commission, upon disposition of the
pending County PD and SMA applications.
EXH181T oo~~az4
.z,
Ms. Virginia Goldstein
September 3, 1999
Page 2
We trust that the foregoing adequately responded to the respective agencies
comments. If not or if there are more comments or questions on these applications, please
feel free to contact
lY.
~vv1~
S NEY M. FLTKE
Planning Consultam
cc County Police Department
County Office of Housing and Community Development
State Department of Education
Dr. Robert Warmington
~ ~ ~
'~9 OCnT }18 PI~I 2 56
1 ~i 41:7 is C_~~~.
~..,~~,~~_~~~w~ COUNTY C' ~?;,','i';I
~~u,cart: ~xcnrtri n rcc.
e>n nosa~rvi:>~ sruoits
October 12, 1999
1VIs. Virginia Goldstein, Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
RE: PROJECT DISTRICT AND SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MANIIITI'OWALI E9UITY COMPANY LLC.
MANIIVI'OWALI AND HUSI'O 2'rD, NORTH HONA, HAWAII TA% MAP KEY
(TMH): (3)7-2-04:18
Deaz Ms. Goldstein:
We are in receipt of the Notice ofApplication Submittal for the Manini`owali Project
District and SMA applications. Our comments are being submitted on behalf of
the WB Kuki'o Resort LLC, owners and developers of the WB Kuki'o Resort
property and aze in reference to the Preliminary Concept Plan included within the
notification packet. We have particular concerns regazding the planning for the
Nlanini owali project and its potential impacts to the planned devetopme::t
adjacent to the Kuki`o property. Our concerns are as follows:
N'm. Frank Brand[ Thomas S. Witten K. Stan Gunrao Rai; ell Y J. Gluing _
[~::y_ i.
HONOLULU OFFICE ~ ~ ~ ~ r
iui~ort,E ~ f r+uoorFi r
21 Iv:UHI S11 EL-, W ILA l~ H.A4AAII 30 93L'204 101 AIJPUNI tiCRLEI', IIILO Ld~O(iA (E:Tr 5 ' IF i1P HI O L AW'.AII
C~LL;n x rd~0)°_§ 4 Y F~.S~t 04, ~-0.1903 TEL FPH~JSC bbl^ru F' i'-t~^~ ~
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
RE: PROJECT DISTRICT AND SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MANIIVI`OWALI EfJUITY COMPANY LLC.
MANINI'OWALI AND KUKI'O 2ND, NORTH KONA, HAWAII TAR MAP KEY
(TMH): (3)7-2-04:18
October 12, 1999
Page 2
1. Location of Project Access -The primary access to the Manini'owali
project and intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway is shown to be
directly adjacent to the Kuki`o property boundary. The Kuki'o property
access is located at the Department of Transportation (DOT) permitted
access point, approximately 1,6501ineaz feet to the north. However, given
the acceleration and deceleration lane requirements for both intersections,
the Manini`owali intersection may need to be located further to the south
in order to avoid potential conflicts between the traffic movements for each
intersection. We note that the plans contained within the project EIS
indicate the Manini'owali project intersection to be located significantly to
the south, neaz the location of the current jeep access road. Also, as was
shown in the plans contained within the project EIS, a•frontage road, as is
planned for the Kuki'o resort project, should be provided to allow for an
internal connection between the respective projects. The frontage road with
the Kuki'o property is planned approximately 150-feet from the Queen
Ka`ahumanu right-of--way.
2. Location of Wastewater Treatment Plant ('WWTP) -The WWTP for the
Manini`owali project is shown at a location abutting the KuIQ`o property.
This is of particulaz concern in that, because of its proximity to the Kuki`o
property boundary, the facility would have direct negative impact on the
planned residential use within the Kuki`o property in terms of potential
visually, noise and odor impacts. Given the preliminary nature of the
project plans for the Manini`owali development, as well as the amount of
open space planned as part of the project, there appears to be ample
opportunity to site the WWTP in a manner so as to minimize its impact to
the adjacent uses and in particulaz, to the planned uses at Kuki`o.
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
RE: PROJECT DISTRICT AND SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MANII~II'OWALI E$UITY COMPANY LLC.
MANIIVI`OWALI AND KUKI'O 21iD, NORTH KONA, HAWAII TA% MAP KEY
(TMK): (3)7-2-04:18
October 12, 1999
Page 3
3. Location of Public ShorelineAccess -Provision for public shoreline access
at Manini'owali is also shown extending along the common boundary with
the Kuki'o property and terminating at a point neaz Kakapa Bay. As
indicated in the June 1991- Comprehensive Public Access Plan for the
Regent Kona Coast Resort (Kuki`o Beach Resort) and approved under the
SMA and CDUA Permit applications for the proposed Kikaua Point Park,
public shoreline access and pazking has been planned at either end of the
Kuki'o property, including provisions for public pazking at a location
abutting the Manini'owali property and Kikaua Point Park parcel. This
parking location, shown in the Comprehensive Public Access Plan, could
potentially serve a dual function of providing access to the State property
fronting the Manini`owali properly at Kakapa Bay, as well as the 7.5 acre
Kikaua Point Park pazcel. The proposed public access for the Manini'owali
Project along the northern boundary would be duplicative of the planned
public access at Kuki'o and would potentially lead to an overtaxing of the
shoreline resource at Kikaua Point.
Additionally, the proposed public access does not appear to relate to the
shoreline recreational resources at Manini`owali or other existing and
planned public access points along the coast. The State lands fronting the
Maniru'owali property includes neazly a mile of pristine coastline. The
neazest public access point to the south of the Manini`owali property is
provided to the Kona Coast State Pazk at Mahaiula, approximately four-
miles to the south. We suggest that provisions for public access within the
Manini'owali property be located further to the south in a manner that
enhances opportunities for accessing the primary recreational shoreline
resources in the azea rather than duplicating the approved public access
planned at Kuki'o.
4. Water Source Development - We note that the proposed source of potable
and irrigation water for the Manini'owali project, as described within the
project EIS, would be a series of brackish wells drilled on the State lands
mauka of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. The yet unidentified well sites are
proposed at the 600 foot elevation above mean sea level (amsl). The
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
RE: PROJECT DISTRICT AND SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA)
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MANIIVI'OWALI EQUITY COMPANY LLC.
MANINI'OWALI AND KUKI'O 211D, NORTH KONA, HAWAII TAX MAP KEY
(TMK): (3)7-2-04:18
October 12, 1999
Page 4
brackish well system that has been developed to serve the WB Kuki'o Resort
property includes three wells located the mauka property boundary, near
the 620 foot elevation (amsl). Our concern is that the wells planned for the
Maniru'owali project be located a sufficient distance for the existing Kuki'o
wells so as not to impact the existing water resources at the WB Kuki'o
Resort property.
We have met with representatives of the Manini`owali project to discuss these
concerns and other issues of common interest. It is our sincere belief that,
through proper planning, the development of our respective projects can be
implemented in a complementary and compatible manner. We look forwazd to
working with your office and the representatives of the Manini'owali project to this
end.
Sincerely,
PB HAWAII
AMES M. LEONARD AICP
anaging Director -Hilo Office
xc: Manini`owali Equity Company, LLC c/o Sidney Fuke
Ed Divita
Mike Meldman
Scott Nesbitt
BJ Kobayashi
Kevin Kasai
Steve Lim
Milton Morinaga
John Neese
Tom Witten
SidneyFuke, PI4.,,iing Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • Planning • Variance • Zoning
Telephone: (808) 969.7522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 • Subdivision • Land Use Permits
• Environmental Pepons
October 18, 1999 ,`q9 OCT 18 p~ p 58
~ Jfd iii Yrr',ya~~All
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Duector
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Deaz Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: Applications for SMA Use Permit and Project District
Manini'owali Residential Community, TMK: 7-2-04: 18
I am receipt of a letter from James Leonard of PBR Hawaii expressing comments of
the adjoining property owner (WB Kuki'o Resort LLC) regarding the subject matter.
As noted in that letter, we did have a meeting with Mr. Leonard and others. It has
always been and continues to be the applicant's intent to work cooperatively with the
surrounding property owners. As such, the applicant believes that the articulated concerns
aze well taken and can be reasonably accommodated.
Relative to the project access, the proposed location was motivated out of a concern
to minimi~.e the ntunber of major accesses along the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. It was
believed that a northern access would allow for a possible joint access with the adjoining
property, as well as to accommodate the need for a new or improved coastal access to the
State's planned Kekaha Kai State Pazk. However, after discussions with the State DLNR,
that access location was abandoned, as it would not have been prudent from a cultural and
azchaeological perspective. (Please refer to the attached letter, dated September 20, 1999, to
the State DLNR -State Parks Division.) Accordingly, the applicant will now work closely
with the State in establishing an access that serves the needs of both the applicant's project
and the planned Kekaha Kai State Pazk.
The ground elevation of the proposed location of the wastewater treatment plant is
generally lower than the rest of the site. From an operational and visual perspective, it was
felt that that location would be most feasible. In light of the expressed concern, however, the
applicant comrnits to situate the plant no closer than a thousand (1,000) feet from the Kuki'o
property line and incorporate landscaping azound the plant.
On the matter of public shoreline access, as noted in the September 201etter, access
through the subject property will NOT exit onto State land northeast of Kua Bay. As Kua
Bay is located more than two thousand (2,000) feet from the Kuki'o boundary, the proposed
access should thus not conflict with the adjoining property owner's access plans.
~3~~?~~
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
October 18, 1999
Page 2
Finally, in terms of water source development, at this point in time, the applicant
intends to drill wells on its property and construct the required desalination facility. Should
that prove to be inadequate, then, additional wells will be applied for on State lands mauka of
the subject site. It should be noted that in the application for such a well, the State will
require studies to address proximity of other existing wells to minimize or avoid the kinds of
potential problems raised by Mr. Leonard.
We trust that the foregoing adequately responds to the comments raised in Mr.
Leonard's letter. If not or if there are further questions on this matter, please feel free to
contact me. Thank you very much
Sincerely
S Y M. FUKE
Planning Consultant
Enclosure
cc Mr. James Leonard, PBR Hawaii, w/ enclosure
Dr. Robert Warmington w/o enclosure via FAX
P.O. BOX 2891 KAMUELA, HI 96743
Virginia Goldstein, Director ~qq CCU 29 Pit `l
Hawaii County Planning Department ~ , , + ; ~ .
25 Aupuni Street i-~ ~ ( ,j;,`rt Fa i
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mrs. Goldstein: October 28, 1999
I am writing regarding Change of Zone and SMA use permit for the Manini'owali equity
company. TMK 7-2-04:017.
The proposed project of 900 homes to be built on 388 acres mauka of Kua Bay will have a
tremendous impact to the shoreline and beaches in this area.
This new development will increase the amount of people who will be using Manini'owali and
Kukio beaches and appropriate measures need to betaken to ensure the proper facilities are
in place to handle this added traffic.
The developer has proposed changes to the original development plan-that include moving the
60 ft wide public access road to the north side of the property and ending at Kakapa Bay a rocky
bay that contains significant archaeological sites and large heiau.
The exchange deed between North Kona Development Group and the State of Hawaii calls
for the provision of public access to Kua Bay, restrooms and 50 car parking lot.
Preservation of the small Pu'u and the mauka - makai trail from the pu'u to the shoreline.
The 1991 development plan by the North Kona Development Group along with the Kekaha Kai
State Park conceptual plan approved by the BLNR in 1998 show the access road from
Queen K. just mauka of Pu'u Kuili. This being the most logical location as it is directly across
from the new West Hawaii Veterans Cemetery where large amounts of tax dollars went into
widening the highway for fuming lanes and channelized intersection.
To minimize the amount of fuming lanes on Queen K. this access road needs to start at this
intersection and end at Kua Bay along with restrooms and parking lot built as far Mauka as
possible to protect the fragile shoreline environment. Showers, picnic tables and Vaiis could be
built closer to the beach.
The seven mile long, 1,642 acre Kekaha Kai shoreline park envisioned by the State will take
many years to complete. This publicprivate partnership for beach improvements and access
roads will save this State a lot of money as equipment will already be onsite.
The Hawaii County Planning Department will be the authority that insures all these conditions
are carried out. No decision should be made on this Change of Zone or Special Management
Area use Permit unless proper language is added to the SMA essentially reiterating all the
conditions on the BLNR agreement.
Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter.
Michael Vamey cc~ Sidney Fuke, Shen•ie Samuels -State Parks F~ ~ ~~,Af p~
EXHIBIT
(
SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant '
- ~ 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 272 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 •Planngg•Variance•Zonig
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (806) 969-7996 • SubdiV'sion • Land Use Pennds
• Frnimunenlel Repels
November 1, 1999 ~~9.~!d~';::3 3 ~
~COUH7Y GE' HA~rAII
Mr. Michael Varney
P.O. Box 2891
Kamuela, HI 96743
Deaz Mt7ce:
Subject: Proposed Maniniowali Residential Community - TMK: 7-2-04: 17
Thank you for your letter of October 28, 1999 regazding the subject matter. Your
comments regazding the planned location of the shoreline access and its relationship to the
overall Kekaha Kai Shoreline Pazk aze well taken.
Since the applications were filed, I have had discussions with Ms. Sherrie Samuels of
the State Pazks Division of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. As a result, we
have elected to abandon all plans to have the public access relocated to the northeastern end
of the site.
• Please find enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20, 1999 to Mr. Ralston
Nagata explaining our rationale for the northeastern access - which we have abandoned -and
our proposed conditions to address the very issues/concerns you have raised. I am sure that
after reading this letter, you will see that we ate both of the same minds in that respect.
Again, thank you very much for your input. If you have further questions or wish to
discuss this matter personally with me, please feel free to contact me.
Sinc~rely,
W V`--~
S Y~M. FIJKE
Planning Consultant
Enclosure
cc Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director, w/o enclosure
Ms. Sherrie Saznuels, State Pazks, w/o enclosure
Dr. Robert Wazmington w/o enclosure
G0~903
~ ~
October 28, 1999 'q9 NUti 1 P(9 3 35
PLANNiI~ii DEPT.
COUNTY Ci H„WAIi
Plari*+~
*+m Co®ission
COUNPY OF HA'~I
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Ca®oissioaers:
Re : *Ra*murdpiALE PROJECT
I want to lend aqr support for the above project sad my reasons are
as follows:
a. This project is is as area already set aside for resort use,
next to RUICIO sad the gQnr.ar.nr RESORT.
b. The developer will be required to prepare a plea that addresses
recovery of burials and major archaeological features for review
and with the approval of the State & County. These reviews must be
imple~meated before any construction activity can occur on the site.
It is my understanding that the developer is working closely with
our Hawaiian Agencies is this arena.
c. I understand that the property in question is not adjacent to
the shoreline, however, the developer will be working together with
the State to iu~rove access to the beach for cultural and recrea-
tional purposes.
As a active Hawaiian born and raise8 is Kona, we seed to be part of
any growth oa this island. As long as our leads are respected,
shared, and enjoyed by the kamsaina as well as the malihini, there
should be ao problem. I ask that your commission approve this
pro]ect.
should You have any questions, please feel free to call me at
326-4732. Mahalo, Mary A. Spinney-Green.
- 1 - ~~`~~iyII'
November 5, 1999
Mr. Leonard Tanaka, Chairperson
Planning Commission
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720 '
re: Proposed Maniniowali Residential Community
Dear Chairperson Tanaka and Members of the Hnwaii County Planning Commission:
My name is Dennis R. Pearson, Sr. and I've been alife-long resident of Kona. I strongly urge the Planning
Commission to approve the required permits to make this project a reality.
This support is based on the following considerations:
1. The request is consistent with State Land Use and County General Plan requirements. The State
Land Use Commission in 1993 reclassified the subject project into the °urban' district. The
County also approved n General Plan Amendment that same year for this project.
The requested project district and S.M.A. applications are thus consistent with those 2 basic
land use policy actions.
2. As the project site is set back more than 1,000 feet from the shoreline, there will be little,
if any, impact to the area's coastal recreational and cultural resources. As part of the State
land exchange agreement, the applicant will be required to make access and other improvements
to the State's planned Kekaha Kni Regional Park. This project will thus increase and not
diminish recreationol opportunities for the general public.
3. All of the required infrastructure for the project--(be they road, water, or wastewater)--will be
provided by the applicant at its own expense. Therefore, there should be no burden to the
County and State financial resources.
4. Equally important, the project will represent the creation of additional employment. There will
be short-term construction jobs and long-term operational jobs to service the golf course and
related amenities within the project. This comes at o time when Hawaii (and particularly the
Big Island) is in dire need of more jobs.
I applaud the developer in being willing to make substantial investment on this island, while also being sensitive
to the area's environmental, recreational and cultural concerns.
In closing, I again encourage your favorable consideration on this mutter.
Thank you for giving me this chance to share my thoughts with you.
,c~.d~ //~~'~ty'
P.O. BOX 2891 KAMUELA, HI 98743
Hawaii County Planning Commission
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720 Nov. 4, 1999
Dear Planning Commission members:
I am writing regarding Change of Zone and SMA use permit for the Manini'owali equity
company. TMK 7-2-04:017.
The proposed project of 900 homes to be built on 388 acres mauka of Kua Bay will have a
tremendous impact to the shoreline and beaches in this area.
This new development will increase the amount of people who will be using Manini'owali and
Kukio beaches and appropriate measures need to be taken to ensure the proper facilities are
in place to handle this added traffic.
The exchange deed between North Kona Development Group and the State of Hawaii calls
for the provision of public access to Kua Bay, restrooms and 50 car parking lot.
Preservation of the small Pu'u and the mauka - makai trail from the pu'u to the shoreline.
The 1991 development plan by the North Kona Development Group along with the Kekaha Kai
State Park conceptual plan approved by the BLNR in 1998 show the access road from
Queen K. just mauka of Pu'u Kuili. This being the most logical location as it is directly across
from the new West Hawaii Veterans Cemetery where large amounts of tax dollars weM into
widening the highway for fuming lanes and channelized intersection.
To minimize the amount of fuming lanes on Queen K. this access road needs to start at this
intersection and end at Kua Bay along with restrooms and parking lot built as far Mauka as
possible to protect the fragile shoreline environment. Showers, picnic tables and trails could be
built closer to the beach.
The seven mile long, 1,642 acre Kekaha Kai shoreline park envisioned by the State will take
many years to complete. This public-private partnership for beach improvements and access
roads will save this State a lot of money as equipment will already be onsite.
The Hawaii County Planning Department will be the authority that insures all these conditions
are carried out. No decision should be made on this Change of Zone or Special Management
Area use Permit unless proper language is added to the SMA essentially reiterating all the
conditions on the BLNR agreement.
Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Vamey
P<
_ IS ��-., s I *m
' .—t �+3v { ,m ire 4 , s m �4„ '?,.`e u� t a A ,� ` i a
d
►bd . T iY d .
. 4 .. ,..te _.'c -w-' --- .��y • �,iw
-a - y k - '= +a..- ��.� .� .�,�..w✓ `i RK -v�' s- airs ^.S. -
Y n - - "5� { YS...k N
d in 5 5,
4 � : rl dA Yy k� �i' �9'. . D
a '�" , s 'S'r. r ,4
r vw .hag.
w k ? ���y %4 v q;
�\�y ��1/4 4 i ^�S ° .d .
+ o - � ra y - Z- > Y e t +" N .
sA \ '" f' e.°+wr 4 ^ _ ra '',
tt, � ' . .b 4 te r ' 3 'f ' 4 e`�'T�'fi. ..�
I .,
t ns
b✓�+ ° - is
x
-, ut , , 'e
SK
Y -•--� - sss..~+ v
G ‘el' � o a' f �v T "[T, .- i M1F4,
'' I 4 -M
k Y Ti- "G -
z r
�s MF
x » ' e
tsrY
`y ` '. 9�k +` � 21 l E 1 v
,),', ` ].�y�,,,§ 5 .6''42k`�" a n b a r a"¢ s x 3, ^ 2 I d �
a4 5 114 4 R.3 �i�a '^'., 444y4 Y�' � lk S h
,X "'S Sfi $ ° "a ° acs zr . , a , tR� "!,',,', ' Y J te r , ' .e � 'k •
a
t . �" ti 'ef d l
�4 ' '41#1, o ; 1 1 41 1f 1
A �2 i; ,. �xa1
x v. "'' '" ' it{j