HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0704.000 1998-2000Stephen K. Yamashiro
Mayor
March 14, 2000
'ifl;i 11 1�1� 8 25
(goixofV of t' r
it j
25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-8211 • I Fax (808)+961-6553
KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
(808)329-5226 • Fax(808)326-5663
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 99-031)
Applicant: Morton Associates Holdings
Request: A -20a to A-l0a
Tax Map Key: 7-3-26:19
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 99-014)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-030)
Request: A -5a to RS -15
Applicant: Keven H. and Patricia D. Rinkenbach
Tax Map Key: 7-3-5:98
esolution for Time Share
Applicant: Bridge Puako, LLC
Request: Resolution in Order to Establish Time Share on Subject Properties
Tax Mai) Key: 6-8-1:25 and 36-40
William G. Davis
Managing Director
Henry Cho
Deputy Managing Director
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,
4&VL i P
Stephen K. Yan lro
Mayor
L030300.MAY
Enclosures _ On file in the Office of the County Clerk
cc: Planning Department
Re5• aa?-oo
Comm. No. %Cit{
File No. 7 -Na
Ret. To:
Ref. Date MAR 2 0 2000
Stephen K. Yamashiro
mayor
MAR 1 4 2000
daunfla of �tt£uznu r
PLANNING COMMISSION
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii %7204252
(808) %1-8288 • Fax (808) %1-9615
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:
Resolution for Time Share
Applicant: Bridge Puako, LLC
Request: Resolution in Order to Establish Time Share on Subject Properties
Tax Map Key: 6-8-125 and 36-40
The Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on March 3, 2000, voted to send a
favorable recommendation to the County Council regarding the above -referenced request for a
resolution to establish a Time Share. The project site is located on the mauka side of Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway between the Mauna Lam Resort and Waikoloa Village, approximately
one-half mile north of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway-Waikoloa Road intersection, Waikoloa,
South Kohala, Hawaii.
The favorable recommendation for the Time Share request is based upon the following reasons
as cited by the Planning Director:
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
Approval of this request would not be contrary to the General Plan or the Zoning
Code. According to the Zoning Code, time share unit is defined as "any multiple -family
dwelling unit or hotel, which is owned, occupied or possessed, under an ownership and/or
use agreement among various persons for less than a sixty-day period in any year for any
occupant, and is regulated under the provisions of chapter 514E, Hawaii Revised
Statutes, as amended." Time share units are permitted in the Resort and General
Commercial zoned district. Further, time share units would be permitted in the Multiple
Family Residential zoned district if they are situated in any of the following:
a) Areas designated as resort under the General Plan Land Use Pattern
Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map.
b) Areas determined by the Director to be within resort areas identified by
the General Plan Land Use Element, except for retreat resort areas.
C) Areas determined for such use by the Council, by resolution.
The project area is zoned Multiple Family Residential (RM -4, RM -7 and RM -14.5) and
Village Commercial (CV -10). The applicant proposes to offer a maximum of 750 time
share units within the RM zoned areas. Therefore, the proposed time share use is
consistent with the RM zoned district.
The request would also be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan which states "Designate and allocate lands in appropriate proportions and mix and in
keeping with the social, cultural, and physical environments of the County" and to
"...encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its
residents in balance with the physical and social environment."
The request to allow the time share units within the project urban area would not
be contrary to the General Plan. The proposed Puako Residential Golf Community
project conforms to the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map,
which designates the area as Urban Expansion. 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.
0 •
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 3
The General Plan Land Use Element identifies the coastal areas proximate to the
subject property, as Resort. The coastal areas are part of the South Kohala Coast Resort
community consisting of Waikoloa, Mauna Lani, Hapuna and Mauna Kea Resorts.
These resorts are located less than five miles from the project site and are zoned Resort
(V-1.25), Village Commercial (CV -10), and Multiple Family Residential (RM -1.5,
RM -3, RM -4, RM -6 and RM -8).
Impacts associated with this request such as historical, traffic, drainage and design
concerns have been assessed through the Environmental Report, which was filed with the
change of zone application, 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 Fre
protection. The proposed request would complement the surrounding resort and
residential developments established in this area of South Kohala.
Based on the above findings, approval of the request to allow time share units
within the project area would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further
benefit the general public.
We have enclosed a draft resolution for your favorable consideration. A copy of the Planning
Department Background Report which contains portions of the application pertaining to the
subject request is also enclosed for your information.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Eleanor Mirikitani of the
Planning Department Kona Office at 327-3510 or Alice Kawaha of the Planning Department
Hilo Office at 961-8288.
Sincerely,
i `
Richard B. Baker, Jr., Chairman
Planning Commission
L I i I uokalan itrust02 PC
cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke
Mr. John K. Baldwin
Department of Public Works
Department of Water Supply
West Hawaii Office
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Kazu Hayashida, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu
B Bridg0l TS.emm-03/02/00
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND REPORT
BRIDGE PUAKO, LLC
REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION TO ALLOW TIME SHARE UNITS
BRIDGE PUAKO, LLC is requesting a resolution to allow time share units within the
proposed project area. The project site is located on the mauka side of Queen Ka`ahumanu
Highway between the Mauna Lani Resort and Waikoloa Village, approximately one-half mile
north of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway-Waikoloa Road intersection, Waikoloa, South
Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-8-1:Portions of 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40.
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Land Ownership: Bridge Puako, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability corporation, is the
fee simple owner of the subject properties. The properties were previously owned by
Signal Puako Corporation and subsequently by Puako Hawaii Properties, a Nansay
Hawaii, Inc. subsidiary.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2. January 8, 1993: Effective date of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 93-1, approved by
the County Council, which reclassified approximately 1,269.511 acres of land from the
Unplanned (U) to Residential and Agricultural (RA -la), Multiple -Family Residential
(RM -4, RM -7 and RM -14.5) and Village Commercial (CV -10) zoned districts.
(See Exhibit A - Zone Map and Figure 4)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
3. Scope of Request: The applicant is proposing to offer a maximum of 750 time share
units within the multiple family residential developments located within the project
urban district area in conjunction with the proposed Puako Residential Golf
Community. The proposed overall Puako Residential Golf Community includes
residential uses, commercial uses, golf course and clubhouse uses, and other related
accessory uses. According to the supporting documents, the components within the
proposed urban area can be summarized in the following basic elements.
E--704 CR es a 00)PC.
A. Residential Units (RS/RD/RM): A total of 1,795 residential units are proposed
within approximately 401± acres of the development area. This would result in a
density of 1.7 units per acre. The development would consist of single family, duplex
and multiple family units. To preserve the low density character of the residential
development the Master Plan indicates that this area will be limited to a maximum of
1,795 units. None of the single family residential lots would be smaller than the
allowable 7,500 square feet. In the event that smaller lots are deemed appropriate, the
applicant would apply for the necessary Cluster Plan Development or Planned Unit
Development as allowed under the Zoning Code.
B. Commercial Village: Approximately 30± acres are designated for village
commercial uses. The area is tentatively planned near the entrance to one of the
project's main entry from the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The Master Plan
indicates that a portion of the 30 acres may be set aside for smaller neighborhood
facilities throughout the project site. Tentative commercial uses would include
supermarket, restaurants, drug store, hardware store, gas stations and the like. Office
uses to support on-site retail facilities, residents and surrounding resort population
would also be provided.
C . Park: A 10 -acre park is planned tentatively near one of the main project entry
roads and adjacent to the loop road. This park would be developed for active
recreational uses such as soccer, softball, or football fields. This park would be
dedicated to the County upon its completion. Bike and pedestrian paths would be
constructed within the urban project area and connecting to areas outside of the urban
district.
D. Wastewater Treatment and Maintenance Area: The facility will be placed on
approximately 7 acres of land and located near the northeastern boundary, outside of
the urban district area. Depending upon the construction timetable of the areas outside
of the urban area, an interim facility meeting the requirements of the State Department
of Health may be constructed within the Urban District area.
-2-
4. Development Schedule/Project Costs: The time frame for the construction of the
Puako Residential Golf Community development is projected to begin during the latter
part of 2000 after securing all the required entitlements from the State and County.
The project is intended to be built in phases, with the initial phase consisting of at least
one of the golf courses and related infrastructure, as well as a portion of the residential
units and/or lots within the urban district area. The balance is anticipated to be
developed in response to market demand and result in a complete built out by the year
2015. The project construction cost for the initial development is anticipated to cost
over $75 million, $50 million for the basic infrastructure and $25 million for the golf
course and clubhouse.
5. Supportive Information: The applicant has submitted the following document in
support of the request: (See Exhibit B - Excerpts from Change of Zone Application
and March 2, 2000 Letter)
STATE AND COUNTY PLANS
6. State Land Use: On January 17, 1989, the project area was reclassified from
Agricultural to Urban District by the State Land Use Commission.
7. General Plan: Consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Multiple Family
Residential element. Further, the General Plan document lists Puako Mauka under
Urban and Rural Centers.
8. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map: The Hawaii
County General Plan LUPAG Map designates the project area 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 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
-3-
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. The LUPAG Map also designates the
entire property's Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway frontage as Open Area, which is
generally for parks, historic sites, and open space.
9. County Zoning: The project area is located within an area zoned Multiple Family
Residential (RM -4, RM -7 and RM -14.5), and Village Commercial (CV -10) by the
County.
10. Chapter 25, Zoning Code: Section 25-1-5 (103), Definitions. "Time Share Unit'
means any multiple -family dwelling unit or hotel, which is owned, occupied or
possessed, under an ownership and/or use agreement among various persons for less
than a sixty-day period in any year for any occupant, and is regulated under the
provisions of chapter 514E, Hawaii Revised Statutes as amended.
11. Hotels and/or Time Share Units are allowed in the following zoned districts: Resort
(V) and General Commercial (CG) allow hotels and time share units, Village
Commercial (CV) allows a hotel use approved by the Planning Director, and Multiple
Family Residential (RM) allows time share units provided certain conditions are met.
12. Section 25-5-32(a)(19), Zoning Code: Permitted uses within Multiple -Family
Residential District
(a) The following uses shall be permitted in the RM district:
(19) Time share units situated in any of the following:
(A) Areas designated as resort under the general plan land use pattern
allocation guide (LUPAG) map.
(B) Areas determined by the director to be within resort areas
identified by the general plan land use element, except for retreat resort
areas.
(C) Areas determined for such use by the council, by resolution.
13. Special Management Area: The project site is not located within the County's
Special Management Area (SMA).
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SURROUNDING AREA
14. Existing Uses: The project area is a vacant expanse of a`a and pahoehoe lava flows.
The property is located mauka of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway approximately 8,500
feet from the nearest shoreline.
15. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: The surrounding areas are part of the South Kohala
Coast Resort community consisting of Waikoloa, Mauna Lani, Hapuna and Mauna Kea
Resorts. All of these resorts are located less than five miles from the project site.
These areas are zoned V-1.25, CV -10, RM -1.5, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6 and RM -8.
Further to the east is the Waikoloa Village and to the northwest is the Puako Beach
Lots Subdivision. These areas are zoned primarily for residential uses.
16. Cultural/Historical Resources: An archaeological survey of the property was
conducted by Archaeological Consultants of Hawaii, Inc. in June 1987, and Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services Company in 1991. According to the 1987
archaeological report, the survey covered 1,040 acres of the Urban District area. One
site was identified, but determined to be of a recent vintage, as such it as not considered
significant. The remaining 1,960 acres were surveyed during the 1991 archaeological
survey and discovered 13 sites. Except for a possible burial cave, all of the sites were
of recent vintage. The possible burial cave will be preserved in tact. The State
Department of Land and Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-
HPD) determined both surveys to be sufficient and that the single site within the Urban
District was not considered significant.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
17. Access: Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway is the primary arterial highway connecting
Kawaihae and Kailua-Kona. The highway is a two-lane, two-way State Highway. The
pavement width is 24 feet within a 300 -foot right-of-way. The existing access to the
project area is from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. One of the proposed access would
be located directly across from the Mauna Lam Resort access road near the southern
Urban district boundary. The second access would intersect with Queen Ka`ahumanu
Highway about 1.25 miles to the north near the nothern Urban district boundary.
16'2
Traffic Impact Analysis Reports were prepared in March 1992 by M&E Pacific, Inc.
and in 1999 by Pacific Planning. The original report projected that with the project the
Level of Service (LOS) would be at E (which suggests the need for highway
improvements by the year 1998). The updated report suggests that the LOS E level
should be extended by another seven (7) years or to the year 2005. The applicant
intends to construct an unsignalized fully channelized T -intersection at the north end
and a cross -intersection at the Mauna Lani access road. These intersections will have
an exclusive left -turn storage/deceleration lane, as well as an acceleration lane. The
analysis recommended that in the future there will be a need for intersection
improvements at the Mauna Lam Resort access road. The Department of
Transportation prefers a grade separated intersection (interchange) in conjunction with a
4 -lane highway. However, the 4 -lane highway does not appear to be a short-term
possibility due to fiscal limitations. The applicant has proposed two alternatives,
interim interchange improvements or signalization until the final interchange is
constructed. The applicant intends to work with the Department of Transportation in
this regard.
18. Water: Potable water will be provided through a private system of wells, storage and
distribution facilities. The former owner of the project drilled and tested two (2) wells
at the well field at Ouli, approximately seven miles from the subject property. Initial
test results indicate that water from these wells and future wells should be sufficient for
the overall project needs. The anticipated demand for potable water is 1.3 mgd (million
gallons per day) based on the Water Resource Report. When the wells and additional
upgrades to the water system are constructed by the applicant, they will be dedicated to
the County upon completion. Non -potable water is proposed to be gained from six (6)
brackish wells on site. These wells will be constructed by the applicant and kept under
private ownership.
19. Wastewater: There are no municipal sewage system in the immediate vicinity.
Wastewater disposal will be accommodated by a private wastewater treatment plant on
site. The treated effluent will be disposed of in compliance with State Department of
Health requirements and used to support the irrigation needs of the golf course and
landscaped areas.
20. Solid Waste: Solid waste generated by the project will be disposed of at the new land
fill at Pu`uanahulu. The project's anticipated daily 7 tons of waste is planned to be
hauled by commercial haulers to the facility. A Solid Waste Management Plan will be
prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Department of Public Works for their
approval.
21. Utilities — Electrical: An existing 69 -KV overhead transmission line is located
approximately 3 miles mauka of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Tentatively,
overhead lines to the mauka portion of the project site will be constructed from the
69 -KV line to a new substation to be located at the northeast corner of the project site.
The balance of the lines are planned to be underground. As an alternative, the existing
substation at the Puako Road junction may be upgraded to service the project.
22. 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 Lam Station is located further north. The
State Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua, approximately 24 miles south of the
project 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, Kailua, Holualoa, and
Honaunau.
AGENCIES' COMMENTS
23. Police Department (January 4, 2000 Memo):
"Staff has reviewed the above -referenced proposals and found no adverse effects to
public safety or traffic impact by the proposed action."
24. Office of Housing and Community Development (January 4, 2000 Memo):
"Chapter 11, Article 1, Affordable Housing, of the Hawaii County Code is applicable to
the request.
-7-
"Thank you for the opportunity to comment."
25. Department of Water Supply: (See Exhibit C - January 14, 2000 Letter)
26. Department of Health: (See Exhibit D - December 27, 1999 Memo and Applicant's
Response - January 10, 2000 Letter)
27. State Land Use Commission: (See Exhibit E - January 5, 2000 Memo without
Decision and Order attachment, and Applicant's Response - January 10, 2000
Letter)
AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE
28. Department of Transportation, Fire Department, and Parks and Recreation
Department
PUBLIC COMMENTS
29. Steven D. Strauss, on behalf of Protect Puako: (See Exhibit F - January 26, 2000
Letter with Petition for Standing in Contested Case Hearing and $100 filing fee)
30. Sachiko Murano, Mauna Lani Resort: (See Exhibit G - January 27, 2000 Letter)
ERVE
o
�J RA -la
v
u RA-Iq
RA -1 �1� RA-Iq
RM -7
IMSET "A"
SCALE _ I IN. = 2000 FT-
(OROINANCE NO- 93-I)
ON 25-95A
i
Ne
P LL�
r Nn
_ N
h� LLs J Y
E {{
m <
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN
Puako Residential Golf Community
I
IE. Description of Subject Property
[. Location
The project area is located mauka of the Queen
�Ka'ahurnanu Highway, generally between [lie entrance w
Mauna Lani Resort and moving north towards the
entrance to Puako in the land division of Waikoloa and
district of South Kohala (See Figures 1-2). It is bounded
�, by the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to the west or makai
of the property prior to enactment of Ordinance No.
96-153, as amended, and shall be adiusted annually
based on the percentage change in the Honolulu
Consumer Price Index. This connector road will be
aapublic right-of-way maintained by appropriate
government agencies. [The mauka-makai road
shall be open for general public traffic. The 80 -foot
wide mauka-makai road shall be delineated on
plans submitted for plan approval review or
subdivision. The mauka-makai road may be
constructed incrementally with the golf course
development; provided, however, the entire road
within the project site, including an interchange at
Queen Kaahumanu Highway, is completed either
prior to completion of the final golf course or as
required by the Department of Transportation,
whichever occurs first.]
h. Re -number Conditions "17" through "21" to 1115"
to "19".
4. The designation of the Project District area, consisting of
1,060 acres for time share use, pursuant to Section 25-5-
32(a)(19)(C) of the Hawaii County Zoning Code.
The requested actions are in conjunction with the development
of a proposed residential golf community located at Waikoloa,
South Kohala, Hawai'i.
IE. Description of Subject Property
[. Location
The project area is located mauka of the Queen
�Ka'ahurnanu Highway, generally between [lie entrance w
Mauna Lani Resort and moving north towards the
entrance to Puako in the land division of Waikoloa and
district of South Kohala (See Figures 1-2). It is bounded
�, by the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to the west or makai
11
11
4. Condition 16 - Future Mauka-Makai Connector Road
The concept of this condition called for a designation of a
mauka-makai road that would connect to the mauka
properties. This concept is picked up in the rezoning
condition.
The proposed amendment would make the language
consistent with the rezoning condition.
C. Designation of Time Share
The applicant is proposing to offer time share for some of the
multiple -family residential developments within the Project
District. However, time share is restricted to certain areas and/or
zones. Within the multiple -family residential (RM) zones, Section
25-5-32(a)(19)(C) of the Hawai'i County Zoning Code allows
consideration for time share in areas:
• designated as resort on the General Plan land use pattern
allocation guide map;
• determined by the Planning Director to be within resort
areas identified by the General Plan land use element,
except for retreat resort areas; and
• determined for such use by County Council by resolution.
The General Plan of the Project District is Urban Expansion. As
such, it is not Resort on the General Plan LUPAG map. Although
tht t neral Plan land s,isv .°]eine rt identific s,
proximate to the subject property for resort uses (Anaehoomalu -
Major; Kawaihae-Hapuna - Major; and Puako Bay-Honokaope
'3�iy _ Major), this area is not, As such, it would appear that
a County Council resolution is needed.
The process for such a designation by Council resolution is not
clear - i.e., whether Planning Director and/or Commission
81
review/recommendation is needed. Assuming that a review is
needed, the applicant is requesting that favorable recommendation
of such a designation be forwarded to the Council.
This is based on the following reasons:
The General Plan LUPAG map's Urban Expansion
designation allows consideration for high, medium, and low
density type of uses. High Density and, to some extent,
Medium Density designations allow consideration for
commercial zones (CG and CV) that permit hotels and other
facilities associated with overnight accommodations.
Portions of the Project District are already zoned CV, and
the uses allowed therein (which includes a hotel) are
proposed to be carried over to the requested Project District.
It is thus maintained that if the CV zones could be
considered an area where some "resort" type of uses can
occur, then the multiple -family residential structures within
this Project District could be analogous to the RM zones
where time share uses are allowed.
It is understood that while a General Plan Urban Expansion
designation makes it possible for consideration of time share
use, its use is not automatic. There are other factors, as
described below, that must be considered.
2. Time share uses proximate to or within established
residential communities cwi create some measure of land use
anxieties; and these anxieties or concerns have led to this
need for controls over the location of time share use.
This Project District is being developed as a comprehensive
village and/or community that is adjacent to major resort
destination areas. It is NOT proximate to any existing
residential community. Future residents will purchase units
82
�i
or properties and/or live in this community knowing full well
that time share uses are being allowed within the multiple
family residential structures. There will be this expectation,
unlike introducing a time share use within established areas.
3. Because of its location, time share use within this Project
District can complement the existing resort activities along
the coast. It would provide an alternative means of financing
the cost of transient or vacation accommodation and at a rate
that would cut across different economic spectrums.
In sum, the requested time share uses would be situated in an area where:
a. it would not be inherently inconsistent with the General Plan.
The LUPAG map designates the area Urban Expansion area where
commercial zonings, which allow hotels and related uses, would be
permissible;
b. it would be within a large Project District and not an isolated
zoning or use;
C. there are no existing residential communities proximate to the
project and where time share expectations can be introduced before
the first resident lives or purchases a lot or unit in the Project
District; and
d. its use can complement the existing resort uses along the coast, as
well as broaden the base of the visitor industry.
83
SidnpyFuke, Planning Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996
March 2, 2000 ',`1G) r' c [.i - . ,-
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
• Planning • Variance • Zoning
• Subdivision • Land Use Permits
• Environmental Reports
Subject: Bridge Puako, LLC. - Project District and Related Applications
Waikoloa, South Kohala, HI, TMK: 6-8-01: 25, et al.
Since the last Planning Commission meeting on these applications, we have met with
a number of individuals and community groups to review their concerns. For the most part,
these meetings have been very constructive, and we appreciate your and the Commission's
willingness to give the applicant this much needed time to have this dialogue with the
community. It has and continues to be the applicant's desire to work these matters out in the
spirit of ho' o ponopono and not in a litigious, confrontational manner.
As a result of these meetings, the applicant is in the process of working out letters
of understanding with the Waikoloa Community Association and Mauna Lani Resort that
address matters of mutual concern such as access, potable and irrigation water, school
facilities, mauka-makai access, and others. In that regard, I am attaching a copy of a
presentation sheet, dated February 18, 2000, that summarizes the applicant's preliminary
position on these issues. It is the applicant's belief that this understanding and/or some
modifications thereto can be consummated in the very near term.
At the same time, the applicant has been trying to address concerns of individual
landowners from Puako and the Puako Community Association. To date, nothing has been
resolved. Since some of the concerns relate to the scale of the already -entitled project itself
and not the requested amendments to conditions, there is no telling when any resolution can
occur. Please he assured, however, that the already in place agreement with the Puako
c0flultunny Asdoeidituu will he u0nured by the applx arni.
It was the applicant's hope to successfully address all concerns before the March 3
n?rtiuy. I7t fbrtnnately, this will clot be, possible, and time is very important to the applicant_
As such, rather than risk further delays, the applicant has elected to proceed with the existing
entitlements and hereby respectfully requests the withdrawal of its applications for a Project
District zoning, amendments to conditions of Ordinance No. 96-153, and amendments to
conditions of Use Permit No. 90.
_.� '., ao 115—
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
March 2, 2000
Page 2
At the same time, the applicant respectfully requests your and the Commission's
continued review of the time share resolution. The applicant believes that the inclusion of
time share within the Urban District area
involves only a change in the form of ownership of a unit and not in the overall
density of the project. The density is already governed by the existing RM and
CV zonings;
will provide the needed economic cushion so that the additional concessions
demanded by the community - such as more school land, mauka-makai road
connection, reduction in the total number golf courses - can be made possible; and
• will have a positive economic impact, while creating less of an infrastructural
impact than full-time homeowners with children.
The concern of not having a "cap" or limit on the number of time shared units is
understandable. As such, the applicant proposes to restrict time share use to only the State
Land Use Urban district area and limit the number of units to 750.
The applicant would like to point out that the commitments contained in the
attachment were predicated upon the approvals of the submitted applications. With their
withdrawal, there may be some modifications to these commitments. Please be assured,
however, that should time share use be allowed, the project's economic cushion will be wider,
making it possible to honor the additional commitments on school, mauka-makai road, and
limitation on the number of golf courses.
Finally, in spite of this withdrawal, the applicant intends to continue working with the
affected communities and individuals to address existing and potential concerns.
We apologize for any inconvenience this action may have caused your office and the
Comrrussion and appreciate your time, patience, and understanding on this matter.
ce ly `
W
S NEY FUKE
Planning Consultant
Enclosure
cc Bridge Capital, LLC.
Presentation to Neighboring Communities'-'
concerning New Changes to Proposals for
the Aina Lea Development
February 18, 2000
Over the past several weeks meetings have been held with concerned residents and
association officers of Puako, Waikoloa Village and Mauna Lani Resort.
Before the Planning Commission hearing took place at Mauna Lani Resort on
February 4th, we had heard concerns from many people in the community about our
plans and proposed changes to the Aina Le'a development.
Because of this we asked the Planning Commission to defer the hearing for one month
to give us an opportunity to meet with area residents to communicate our plans, listen
to concerns and attempt to find resolution to the issues raised.
We have had two meetings with Puako community residents, two meetings with
officers and concerned residents of Waikoloa Village, and one meeting with officers of
associations within Mauna Lani Resort. Over the next two weeks we will also be
meeting with Mauna Lani Resort representatives and consultants and residents of
Mauna Lam Resort, members of the Waikoloa Village Association and again with the
Puako Community Association. We will also be having discussions with Mauna Kea
Resort, Waikoloa Resort, and the Waikoloa Bay Club representatives.
Based on the input received from the community and discussions with the project
consultants, the owner of the property has agreed to certain specific changes to the
proposals. It is hoped that these will help solve or mitigate concerns that have been
raised. Other proposed changes may also be withdrawn.
1. No Change to Mauka Makai Connector Road.
The changes requested are being withdrawn.
Discussion: The changes to the previous condition were meant to clarify the road
way commitment. As this has caused such misunderstanding, the language will
now be left unchanged.
2. Larger Donation of School Site.
1 he changes requested are being withdrawn. In addition, the owner is offering
to the State a larger school site of 32 acres (formerly 16 acres).
Discussion: Community residents and persons involved with the Waikoloa
School system have expressed a concern for a specific site commitment for the
school site and a need for more than 16 acres to accommodate future school
development.
3. Larger Buffer Zone.
The change requested is being modified, Instead of a B'af*er 7nne of 200 feat +he
owner is requesting a buffer zone of 600 feet.
Discussion: There are no set backs currently being required of other
developments along, the Kaabum,anu Highway in excess of 200 feet- In spi.tr nf-
this residents of the area have expressed concern particularly over the
commercial site being that close to the highway as well as dwelling structures.
4. Commercial Area to have Terrain and Landscaping Buffer
The owner has agreed to add specific language that will require a terrain and
landscaping buffer on the makai side of the commercial development.
Discussion: Area residents have expressed concern that the shopping center
could be unsightly. A terrain and landscaping buffer in addition to the distance
buffer will be developed to soften the appearance. The owner will look to the
Planning Department for help on the appropriate language for this condition.
5. Less Time Share Allowed and Study Underway
The change requested is being modified. Instead of requesting the time share
within the Urban District (which could allow up to 1795 units of timeshare) the
owner is requesting time share only in one of the golf villages with a cap of 750
units.
A study by KPMG Peat Marwick is underway and will be available prior to the
next Planning Commission hearing. The owners will make this available to
neighboring community residents.
Discussion: Concern has been raised that the project could have 1795 time share
units and negatively impact the surrounding area. More information as to the
actual impacts has been requested. The owner has initiated a study being done
now by KPMG Petit Marwick to clarify the demographics of the time share
users, their traffic patterns, the impacts on infrastructure, community facilities
and beaches, and the economic impacts of time share on the area.
Achial development of the timeshare on'its is estimated at 30 to 40 units per
year commencing in 2002. (The Bay Club has still only sold 75% of the 172 unit
first phase of their project over the past 5 years)
6. Lower Golf Density
The owner is requesting that the total number of golf courses allowed within the
project be reduced from six to four.
Discussion. The scale of the existing development rights has concerned some
area residents. The owner is responding by down sizing the total golf allowed.
The current plans are to start two of the Rolf villages over the next five years.
7. Lower Total Density with Urban District
The owner is requesting that the total number of units allowed within the Urban
District will be reduced from 1795 to 1150 (3576 reduction).
Discussion: The owner is requesting a reduction in the total density of the Urban
District to respond to concerns over the total scale of the project. The current
plans are to develop 200 units of time share and 300 units of multi -family and
single family units over the next seven years.
8. No change to Parks, Sports fields and other and Sports Facilities
The change requested is being withdrawn.
Discussion: Persons have questioned if the owner is seeking to be relieved from
building certain facilities and maintaining them. The proposed change to generic
"sports" was to allow flexibility for the County to determine what they wanted
but the owner will comply with the existing condition.
DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY a COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 AUPUNI STREET • HILO, HAWAII 96720
TELEPHONE (808) 961-8660 FAX (808) 961-8657
January 14, 2000
TO: Ms. Virginia K. Goldstein, Planning Director
Planning Department
FROM: Milton D. Pavao, Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION FOR TIME SHARE
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 99-028)
CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 96-153 (REZ 734)
USE PERMIT NO. 90 (USE 90)
APPLICANT — BRIDGE PUAKO, LLC
TAX MAP KEY 6-8-001:025,036-040.
We have reviewed the subject applications and have the following comments.
Water can be made available for the subject application from the Ouli water source(s) as cited on
Page 30 of their application.
For the applicant's information, should the subject revisions be approved and a subdivision
application executed, final approval will be subject to the following requirements:
1. Construct necessary water system improvements, which shall include, but not be limited to:
a. two production wells; one to be a backup well,
h. offsite transmission water mains capable of delivering water a,t adequate nre,eGnr-
anu vuiume under 001.11 peak -,flow and tire -110W conditions,
C. offsite storage adequate for both maximum day use and fire flow,
d. water mains capable of delivering water at adequate pressure and volume under both
peak -flow and fire -flow conditions,
C. service laterals that will accommodate an appropriately sized meter to each lot, and
f. fire hydrants. EXHIBIT
Ms. Virginia K. Goldstein, Planning Director
Page 2
January 14, 2000
Submit installation plans prepared by a professional engineer, architect, or land surveyor,
registered in the State of Hawaii, for review and approval.
Pay applicable facilities charges.
3. Submit the appropriate documents, properly prepared and executed, to convey the water
system improvements and necessary easements to the Water Commission of the County of
Hawaii. A registered land surveyor shall stamp and certify the metes and bounds
description within the conveyance documents. Prior to water meter services being granted
to the development or any of the lots within, the conveyance documents shall be accepted
by the Water Commission and approved by Corporation Counsel.
4. Comply with all other applicable policies and requirements of the Department's Rules and
Regulations. Noncompliance may be cause for voiding this water commitment, at which
time availability will be subject to change in accordance with the prevailing water system
conditions, policies, and Rules and Regulations.
Should there be any questions, please call our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8665.
Sincerely yours,
14L-�
Milton D. Pavao, P.E.
Manager
BCM:gms
Mr. Sidney Fuke
BENJAMIN J. CAVETANO
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 27, 1999
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
P.O. BOX 916
HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916
Bruce S. Anderson aE PhotF H521
).
tJ .y
i�,'yav .mfr
s �
TO: Virginia Goldstein
Planning Director, County of Hawaii
FROM: Aaron Ueno
District Environmental Health Program Chief ...._
SUBJECT: Resolution for Time Share
Request: Resolution in Order to Establish Time Share on Subject Properties
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-028)
Request: A -5a, RA -la, RM -4.0, RM -7, RM -14.5, & CV -10 to Project District
Change of Zone Ordinance No. 96-153 (REZ 734)
Request: Amend Condition D, G, O, Q & T and Delete Conditions S & W
of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 96-153
Use Permit No. 90 (USE 90)
Request: Amend Condition Nos. 3, 4, 14 & 16 and Delete Condition Nos. 2 & 5
Applicant: Bridge Puako, LLC
Tax Map Key 6-8-001_025 & 036-040
Tl,i, nfinA hq, nn 9dditinn7l rnmments to thnGe lnarle nrevirntgly Pef-renre is made to nrevinu c
continents of the subject development addressed to the planning Director.
WP7.0:REZ99-28RLZ734USE90.nIi
EXHIBIT
rcsaa� Fes'
y..
Jan -D -UO 12:3ilaal Pram -S' 0� h bF HLALIH r1ILu
Post -it®
Fax Note 7671
bale 1 ; 12MO
409esNo ;L
TO
lice.) KaucthCt,
Frorn Aa1VY1 7deho
CO./Dept.
Plaftrtiiij
co.
Phone #
q<, I- 92,g g
Phone
Fax #
qte l - 874-x-
Fax #
r OF HEALTH
ENVIRONMEiNTAL. MANAGEMENT DIVISION
FIVE WATERFRONT PLAZA, SUITE 250
$00 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96811
JOHN C. LEWIN. M.O.
DIRECTOR O! HEAITH
In re PlY, Please Teter to:
EMD•WWB
91-2-141X
May 10, 1991
To: Hawaii District Health office, Chief Sanitarian
From: Wastewater Branch, Chief
Subject: Land Use Commission (LUC) A87-617
Amendment to Condition Nos. 9 (substantial Compliance);
1 (HFDC); 2 (Water Development)
Waikaloa, South Kohala District, County of Hawaii
TXK: 6-8-1: portions 25, 36, 37, 38, 39 40, 41 and 42
We have reviewed the material on the subject project
submitted by your office. It has been determined that the subject
project is located within the proposed non-critical wastewater
disposal area as determined by the Hawaii County Wastewater
Advisory Committee and that there are no sewers currently available
in the area.
The Environmental Assessment the wastewater treatment
and disposal concept presented in Section 4.3.3 of the
Environmental Assessment is acceptable. As long as domestic
wastewater will be treated to secondary treatment with chlorination
and disposed of in accordance to the Department of Health's
Administrative Rules Chapter 11-62, entitled "Wastewater Systems",
we have no objections to utilizing aerated lagoons as a means of
wastewater treatment for the proposed community development.
However, the developers should be informed that the Department is
currently proposing various criteria for effluent reclamation which
may require a higher degree of treatment than typical secondary
1^rentreri- At the time of the wastewater treatment works review,
we w311 wOY1C W.LLIY Ldx4
for effluent reuse.
We do reserve the right to review the detailed wastewater
}!.l C°c'a, �')�.? r(,Ie1 j j1. i.�'Fl ipter 1.1- 62 e Shou.ld
you have any further questions, please contact Harold Yee of thAe:
Wastewater Branch at telephone 543-8287.
a,,DENNIS TULANG
.1 E111'U4 A II:J0111 I'f JD'3 v9 {IG {'.b IIV V11sV 116VhY/>l 1 J,F ✓.Vb/Jc 1";®0
l� OI N1
JOHN WAINEE JOHN C. LEWIN. M.D.
GOVEPNOP OP HAWAII� OIRIflfCNP Of NE4LTN
wru.�
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION jfffii�,7l�
FIVE WATERFRONT PLAZA, SUITE 250 In reply, Ell
300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD
HONOLULU. PIAWA41 98813
Ref No. 91-2-I413C
May 6, 1991
P0552AW
MEMORANDUM
To: Chief Sanitarian, Hawaii
From: Chief, Clean Water Branch
Subject: Land Use Commission (LUC) A87-617
Applicant: SIGNAL PUAKO CORPORATION
Request: Amendment to Condition Nos. 9 (Substantial
Compliance); 1 (HFDC); 2 (Water Developmer
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document.
We have reviewed the materials you submitted and have the following comment:
The environmental assessment indicates that 1,060 acres of land will be
developed for urban uses. The proposed project is therefore subject to
the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulation Parts 122, 123, and 124
(storm water discharges final rules promulgated December 16, 1990).
Construction activities including cleaning, grading, and excavation
activities that result in the disturbance of more than five (5) acres of
total land area must apply for a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES permit
application should be submitted to the Department of Health, Clean Water
Branch at least 90 days before the date on which construction is to
commence.
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Alec Wong, Engineering
Section of the Clean Water Branch, at telephone 543-8309.
k
4f
AW:aue
JOHN WAIHEE
GOVERNOR OF HAWAII
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
yp ..9'B a'li
STATE OF HAWAII,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
P. O. BO% 916 :.
HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916 -
July 23, 1991
Planning Director, County of Hawaii
Chief Sanitarian, Hawaii District
SUBJECT: Use Permit Application (UP 91-7)
Applicant: PUAKO HAWAII PROPERTIES
Request: 6 Golf Courses and Related Improvements
Tax Man Key 6-8-1:25, 36, 37, 38, 39 & 40
JOHN C. LEWIN, M.[
OIRELTOR OF HEALTH
Attached is the Department of Health's eight (8)
conditions applicable to the development of golf
courses in the State of Hawaii.
Our Wastewater Branch engineers would need to review
and approve the conceptual plans for the construction
of the Wastewater Treatment Works and disposal system.
Underground Injection Systems which receive wastewater
or storm run-offs from the proposed development need to
address the requirements of Chapter 23, Hawaii State
Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11,
"Underground Injection Control."
T4APn7,T) MAT.SUTTR.A
i;fiier SaniCa la5a, �-«wai
STATE OF IiAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
April, 1990 (Version 3)
EIGHT (8) CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS'NEW GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT
1. The owner/developer and all subsequent owners shall establish a groundwater
monitoring plan and system which shall be presented to the State Department
of Health for its approval. The groundwater monitoring plan and system shall
minimally describe the following components:
a. A monitoring system tailored to fit site conditions and circumstances.
The system shall include, and not be limited to, the use of monitoring
wells, lysimeters and vadose zone monitoring technologies. If
monitoring wells are used, the monitoring wells shall generally extend
10 to 15 feet below the water table.
b. A routine groundwater monitoring schedule of at least once every six
(6) months and more frequently, as required by the State Department of
Health., in the event that the monitoring data indicates a need for more
frequent monitoring.
C. A list of compounds which shall be tested for as agreed to by the State
Department of Health. This list may include, but not be limited to the
following: total dissolved solids; chlorides; PH; nitrogen; phosphorus; or
any other compounds associated with fertilizers, biocides or effluent
irrigation.
2. Baseline groundwater/vadose zone water data shall be established as
described in this paragraph. Once the monitoring system and list of
compounds to be monitored for have been determined and approved by the
State Department of Health, the owner/developer shall contract with an
independent third -party professional (approved by the State Department of
Health) to establish the baseline ground water/vadose zone water quality and
report the findings to the State Department of Health. Testing of the
analyses of the groundwater shall be done by a certified laboratory.
Tr the rj,gt, f,•nm thn rrjnnjtnrjn S"�taID iprjl r'q to t,hP nrecartne of the mc?&SUred
compound and/or the Increased level of such eonlpouna, the )Lu[e
Department of Health can require the owner/developer or subsequent owner
to take immediate mitigating action to stop the Cause of the contamination.
Subsequently, the developer/owner or subsequent owner shall mitigate any
adverse elIects Causeu uy Lie cviicauliiiailUu.
Attachment 1
-2-
4. Owner/developer shall_ provide sewage disposal by means of connection to the
public sewer system; or by means of a wastewater treatment works providing
treatment to a secondary level with chlorination. Effluent from this
wastewater treatment works may be used for golf course irrigation, subject
to Condition k3. The entire system shall be approved by the State
Department of Health in conformance with Administrative Rules Title 11,
Chapter 62, Wastewater Treatment Systems, effective December 10, 1988.
5. If a wastewater treatment works with effluent reuse becomes the choice of
wastewater disposal, then the owner/developer and all subsequent owners
shall develop and adhere to a Wastewater Reuse Plan which shall address as a
minimum, the following items:
a. Management Responsibilitv. The managers of the irrigation system
using reclaiming wastewater shall be aware of the possible hazards and
shall evaluate their system for public health, safety, and efficiency.
They must recognize that contact with the reclaimed wastewater from
treated domestic sewage poses potential exposure to pathogenic
organisms which commonly cause infections diseases (bacteria, viruses,
protozoa, and halminths or worms).
b. General Recommendations
1) Irrigated areas should be no closer than 500 feet from potable
water wells and reservoirs.
2) Irrigated areas should be no closer than 200 feet from any private
residence.
3) Application rates -should be controlled to minimize ponding.
Excess irrigation tailwater in the reclaimed wastewater irrigation
area shall be contained and properly disposed. An assessment
should be made of the acceptable time and rate of application
based on factors such as type of vegetation, soil, topography,
climate and seasonal variations.
4) Effluent holding/mixing ponds shall be designed to prevent the
infiltration of the wastewater into the subsurface. The
holding/mixing ponds shall be made impervious.
5) Irrigation shall be scheduled such that the public is not in the
vicinity and the soil is sufficiently dry to accept the irrigation
water.
6) Permanent fencing or barriers shall be erected around polishing or
holding ponds to prevent public entry or stray feral and tame
animals from gaining access to the ponds.
-3-
i) Adequate irrigation records shall be maintained. Records should
include dates when the fields are irrigated, rate of application,
total application and climatic conditions. Records should also
include any operational problems, diversions to emergency storage
or safe disposal and corrective or preventive action taken.
8) The holding/mixing ponds shall be periodically monitored for the
purpose of detecting leakage into the subsurface. If leakage is
detected, corrective action shall be immediately taken.
c. Adequate Notice. Appropriate means of notification shall be provided
to inform the employees and public that reclaimed wastewater is being
used for irrigation on the site.
1) Posting of conspicuous signs with sufficient letter size for clear
visibility with proper wording should be distributed around the use
areas.
2) Signs shall be securely fastened. Periodic surveillance shall be
conducted to assure permanent posting at all times. Immediate
.replacements shall be made when necessitated by deterioration,
vandalism or misuse.
d. Adequate Employee Education. Employees or users should be cautioned
and warned of the potential health hazards associated with the
ingestion of reclaimed wastewater being used at the site.
1) Employees should be warned that the ingestion of reclaimed
wastewater is unsafe.
2) Employees should be protected from direct contact of the
reclaimed wastewater. If necessary, protective clothing should be
provided.
3) Employees should be informed of the following:
The irrigation water is unsafe for drinking or washing.
- Avoid contact of the water or soil with any open cuts or
o UUnua,
- Avoid touching the mouth, nose, ear or eyes with soiled
hands, clothes or any other contaminated objects.
- Be aware that inanimate objects such as clothes or tools can
transport pathogenic organisms.
- Always wear shoes or boots to protect feet from the
pathogenic organisms in the soil or irrigation water.
-4-
6. Releases from underground storage tanks (USTs) used to store petroleum
products for fueling golf carts, maintenance vehicles, and emergency power
generators pose potential risks to groundwater.
Should the owner/developer/operator plan to install USTs that contain
petroleum or other regulated substances, the owner/developer/operator must
comply with the federal UST technical and financial responsibility
requirements set forth in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part
280. These federal rules require, among other things, owners and operators
of USTs to meet specific requirements in the detection, release response and
corrective action. Also, the owner/developer/operator must comply with all
State UST rules and regulations pursuant to Chapter 342-L 'Underground
Storage Tanks' of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.
In consideration of the above-mentioned remarks, the Department of Health
recommends that the owner/developer/operator implement facility plan
alternatives that exclude the installation and operation of UST systems (e.g.,
the preferential use of electric golf carts, use of above -ground storage of
fuel oil for emergency power generators, etc.), or, if USTs are utilized, that
secondary containment be considered.
7. Buildings designated to house the fertilizer and biocides shall 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 for cleanup.
8. A golf course maintenance plan and program will be established based on
"Best Management Practices (BMP)" in regards to utilization of fertilizers
and biocides as well as the irrigation schedule. BMP's will be revised as an
ongoing measure. The golf course maintenance plan will be reviewed by the
State Department of Health prior to implementation.
If there are any questions regarding the eight (8) conditions mentioned here,
please contact Mr. James K. Ikeda at 543-8304. we ask you cooperation in the
protection of Hawaii's valuable groundwater resource.
JOHN WAIHEE
GOVERNOR OF HAWAII
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Q ➢jr~ 5y
I
STATE OF HAWAII ti :'_:0
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
P. 0. BOX 916
HILO. HAWAII 96721-0916
t
May 19, 1992
Planning Director, County of Hawaii
Chief Sanitarian, Hawaii District
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (R92-11)
Applicant: Puako Hawaii Properties
Request: Unplanned to RM -14.5, RM -7,
RM -4, CV -10, A -la
Tax Map Key: 6-8-1:Portions of 25, 36 - 40
JOHN C. LEWIN. M.0
DIRECTOR OF HEALTH
The proposed private Wastewater Treatment Works would
need to be prepared for review by our Wastewater Branch
in Honolulu. The report would need to include flow
calculations, design plans for the sewage treatment and
disposal system, etc. Please contact our Wastewater
Branch (ph. 586-4294) in Honolulu for approval.
The development of a new potable water source is
regulated by our Drinking Water Branch (Ph. 586-4258)
in Honolulu. The reference Administrative Rules is
Chapter 20, Potable Water Systems, Title 11, Department
of Health, State of Hawaii.
Underground Injection Systems which receive wastewater
or storm run-offs from the proposed development need to
address the requirements of Chapter 23, Hawaii State
Department. of Health Administrat.iti,c Rules, Title 11,
"Underground Injection Control."
Our Clean Water Branch (Ph. 586-4309) in Honolulu is
responsible for the issuance of National Pollution
Determination and Elimination System (NPDES) permits
which would regulate and control the grading process of
the subject development. This program is also
Planning Director, County of Hawaii
Page 2
May 19, 1992
recommending the twelve (12) point water quality and
environmental controls for golf courses.
Recommend that the consultant staff for the subject
development discuss the concerns listed above with our
related program Branches in Honolulu. If there is need
for additional information please call my office, Ph.
933-4275.
�,HAROLD MATSUURA
Chief Sanitarian, Hawaii District
•� e• N1
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
OM.C".v
January, 1992 (Version 4)
TWELVE (12) CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL NEW GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT
The following conditions are recommended for all new golf course development in Hawaii to
assure that environmental quality is preserved and enhanced as it relates to human health and
the protection of sensitive ecosystems. Additional conditions may be imposed based on site-
specific considerations.
1. Baseline groundwater/vadose zone and/or, if appropriate, coastal water quality shall
be established. Once the sampling plan has been determined and approved by the
State Department of Health, the owner/developer shall establish the baseline
groundwater/vadose zone water quality, and, if appropriate, nearshore water quality,
and report the findings to the State Department of Health. Analyses shall be done by
a laboratory approved by the Department of Health.
2. The owner/developer and all subsequent owners shall establish a groundwater
monitoring plan and system which shall be presented to the State Department of
Health for its approval. The groundwater monitoring plan and system shall minimally
describe the following components:
a. A monitoring system tailored to fit site conditions and circumstances. The
system shall include, and not be limited to, the use of monitoring wells,
lysimeters, and vadose zone monitoring technologies. If monitoring wells are
used, the monitoring wells shall generally extend 10 to 15 feet below the water
table.
b. A routine groundwater monitoring schedule of at least once every six (0)
months, or more frequently, if required by the State Department of Health in
the event that the monitoring data indicates a need for more frequent
C. A list of compounds which shall be tested for as agreed to by the State
Department of Health. This list shall include, but not be limited to the
following: total dissolved solids; chlorides; PH; nitrogen; phosphorus; and
other compounds associated with fertilizers, biocides, or effluent irrigation.
-2-
3. If the data from the monitoring system indicate increased levels of a contaminate that
poses, or may pose, a threat to public health and the environment, the State
Department of Health shall require the owner to take immediate action to stop the
source of contamination. Subsequently, the owner shall mitigate any adverse effects
caused by the contamination.
4. Owner/developer shall provide sewage disposal for the clubhouse and other facilities
by connecting to the public sewer system or by means of a treatment individual
wastewater system approved by the Department of Health in conformance with
Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 62, Wastewater Treatment Systems. The use
of wastewater for irrigation will be generally encouraged, with appropriate controls
(see Condition 5).
5. If a wastewater treatment works with effluent reuse becomes the choice of wastewater
disposal, then the owner/developer, and all subsequent owners, shall develop and
adhere to a Wastewater Reuse Plan which shall incorporate the.provisions of the
Department of Health's Guidelines for the Use of Reclaimed Water which includes:
a. An Irrigation Plan encompassing buffer distances, pipe and appurtenance
placement, and labeling.
b. An Engineering Report encompassing treatment options and treatment levels.
C. Hydro -geologic and hydrologic surveys to determine application rates, sizing
and storage needs.
d. A monitoring plan.
e. A management plan.
f. Public and employee education plans.
6. Underground storage tanks (USTs) used to store petroleum products for fueling golf
carts, maintenance vehicles, and emergency power generators that pose potential risk
to groundwater shall be discouraged. Use of electric golf carts and above -ground
aLVI , tZU i,: ivC Liiic.t ywh�� �J4a C; eciicduw�� oii.ill DC ciS�VUId�c;u.
Should the owner/developer/operator plan to install USTs that contain or other
regulated substa.nccs. the owner/developer/operator must comply with the federalUST
technical and financial responsibility requirements setforth in Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations Part 280. These federal rules require, among other things,
owners and operators of USTs to meet specific requirements in release detection and
response, and subsequent corrective action. Also, the owner/developer/operator must
comply with all State UST rules and regulations pursuant to the Hawaii Revised
Statutes, Chapter 342-L, Underground Storage Tanks.
BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO
GOVERNOR
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
P.O. BOX 916
HILO. HAWAII 96721-0916
September 5, 1996
Planning Director, County of Hawaii
Chief Sanitarian, Hawaii District
Change of Zone Ordinance No. 93-1 (REZ 734)
Request: Amendments to Conditions B (1) & S
Use Permit No. 90
LAWRENCE MIIK
DIRECTOR OF HEAL".
Request: Amendment to Conditions No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 14
Applicant: Puako Hawaii Properties
(Nansay Hawaii, Inc.)
Tax Map Key: 6-8-1:25 36 37 38, 39 & 40
The development of a new potable water source is regulated by our
Drinking Water Branch (Ph. 586-4258) in Honolulu. The reference
Administrative Rules is Chapter 20, Potable Water Systems, Title
11, Department of Health, State of Hawaii.
Our Clean Water Branch (Ph. 586-4309) in Honolulu is responsible
for the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits which would regulate and control the
grading process of the subject development. This program is also
recommending the twelve (12) point water quality and
environmental controls for golf courses.
Recommend that the consultant staff for the subject development
discuss the concerns listed above with our related program
Branches in Honolulu. If there is need for additional
rxf�trriat��n Tease call my office,
Ph. 933--4275,
Underground Injection Systems (Ph. 586-4258) which receive
wastewater or storm run-offs from the proposed development need
Planning Director,
County of Hawaii
September 5, 1996
Page 2
to address the requirements of Chapter 23, Hawaii State
Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11, "Underground
Injection Control."
AARON UENO
Chief Sanitarian, Hawaii District
WP5I.REZ734.mi
Millie SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (806) 969-7996
January 10, 2000 n.n SN 11 Pri 3 37
(1r;W YI
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: Various Amendment Requests - Bridge Puako, LLC.
Waikoloa, South Kohala, HI TMK: 6-8-1: 25 and 36 to 40
• Planning • Variance • Zoning
• Subdivision • Land Uss Permit:
• Emkonmental Reports
Thank you for sending me a copy of the State Department of Health's comments on
the subject matter.
It is my understanding that the gist of the comments were already covered by
conditions of approval to the original rezoning ordinance and Use Permit. Please also note
that in conjunction with the development of this project, all appropriate permits from the
State Department of Health regarding noise, dust control, and wastewater system will be
complied with.
You might also wish to note that the State Department of Health now has ten (10)
instead of eight (8) conditions relating to new golf course development. This is reflected in
the Department's August 1994 (Version 5) publication.
Again, thank you for sending me the agency's comments. I look forward to the
receipt and review of other agencies' comments on these applications.
Sincerely,
cr����U1 i
Planning Consultant
"I ROr A:$1.vvt A Ittlw,-, "�OI1
Mr. Sandy Marr, Bridge Puako, LLC
O&Dz 'o
BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO
GOVERNOR
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8 TOURISM
By Regular Mail and Facsimile
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
Planning Department
County of Hawai i
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109
I-Elo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
items.
LAND USE COMMISSION
P.O. Box 2359
Honolulu, HI 96804-2359
Telephone: 808-587-3822
Fax: 808-587-3827
January 5, 2000
ESTHER UEDA
EXECUTNE OFFICER
Subject: Resolution of Time Share
Request: Resolution in_Order to Establish Time Share on Subject
Properties
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-028)
Request: A -5a, RA -la, RM -4.0, RM -7, RM -14.5, & CV -10 to
Project District
Change of Zone Ordinance No. 96-153 (REZ 734)
Request: Amend Condition D, G, O, Q & T and Delete Conditions S
& W of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 96-153
Use Permit No. 90 (USE 90)
Request: Amend Condition Nos. 3, 4, 14 & 16 and Delete Condition
Nos. 2 & 5
Applicant: Bridge Puako, LLC
Waikaloa, South Kohala, Hawai i
cw.l
Based upon our review of the subject items to develop a residential golf community on
approximately 1,060 acres in Waikaloa, South Kohala, Hawaii, the project area was subject of a
petition for a State Land Use District Boundary Amendment, Docket No. A87-617. On
Ms. Virginia Goldstein
January 5, 2000
Page 2
January 17, 1989, the Commission approved the reclassification of approximately 1,060 acres
from the Agricultural District to the Urban District located in TMK Nos.: 6-8-01: Portion 25,
Portion 36, Portion 37, Portion 38, Portion 39, Portion 40, in Waikaloa, South Kohala, Hawaz i.
The reclassification of the petition area was and is still subject to fifteen (15) conditions as
specified in the Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order for
Docket No. A87-617, dated July 9, 1991 (Decision and Order).
In a letter dated October 30, 1999, the Applicant notified us that they intend to submit a
motion to amend certain conditions for the project area. It is noted that the Applicant acquired
the land in the project area during May of 1999, from K -W Puako L.L.P. who purchased the note
of the property from the original petitioner, Puako Hawaii Properties, hence is subject to the
conditions required of Puako Hawaii Properties. To date, we have not received any motion to
release conditions for the project area from the Applicant, and the fifteen (15) conditions for the
project area are still in effect until the Commission takes action to amend or delete those
conditions. This would affect the following proposed amendments and deletions as described in
the Applicant's requests:
1. Change of Zone Ordinance No. 96-153 (REZ 734)
Condition D: In Condition No. 3 of the Decision and Order a 1,200 foot setback from the
Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway is still in affect. The Applicant stated in the
annual report for A87-617 dated October 30, 1999, that they intend to submit
a motion to amend this setback, but to date no motion nor Commission action
has been undertaken to amend this setback. It is advised that any decision by
the County be consistent with the requirements of the Decision and Order.
Condition S: In Condition No. 7 of the Decision and Order, the Applicant is required to
work with the State Department of Education (DOE) on providing land for
school facilities. The Applicant stated in the annual report for A87-617 dated
October 30, 1999, that they will continue discussions with the DOE on
fulfilling this condition. We recommend that the deletion of this education
impact exaction in this ordinance be agreed upon by both the County and the
DOE and be consistent with discussions with the DOE.
2. Use Permit No. 90 (USE 90)
,n „ 1't�r„ Tltr• :^ �. r�E '^i+ _nr,-1 ^ -ri,.- ^n '-q'?^ ,��r '�" ,9 ^;;-, A�!•� ,. ..
Declaration of Satisfaction of Condition Number 8 of the Modified Decision
and Order dated July 8, 1991, that identified items of agreement between the
Petitioner and the Office of State Planning. One of the items of agreement was
�^ wC°:Lb11;1] ;1 1;' ^,gr;?77' for tl'.e l?p'ns;'L"9C5^. If tMl:ni-,,')? . Ifw �{�lf vr+ PmeP 1vt- q@
p___ ,
part of the community benefit assessment program. The Commission has not
received a motion by the Applicant to amend Condition No. 8 of the Decision
and Order nor any update regarding discussions with the Office of Planning on
amending the agreement.
Ms. Virginia Goldstein
January 5, 2000
Page 3
As noted earlier, the Applicant acquired the project area during May of 1999, and we will
ask them to provide us with updates of their intentions as they relate to representations made in
Docket No. A87-617. We recommend that any amendments to the subject items that involve the
conditions identified in the Decision and Order, as discussed above, are brought into conformance
in both County and State requirements. We are enclosing a copy of the Decision and Order dated
July 9, 1991.
If you have any questions in regards to this matter, please contact me or Russell Kumabe
of my staff at 587-3822. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
CC
ESTHER UEDA
Executive Officer
EU:aa
Enclosure: D&O for A87-617
dated July 9, 1991
Law Offices Of
STEVEN D. STRAUSS
P.O. Box 11517, Hilo, Hawai'i 96721
Telephone: (808) 969-6684/Facsimile: (808) 934-8898
HAND DELIVERED
January 26, 2,000
Chairperson ,r
Planning Commission
25 Aupuni Street
Room 109
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
Re: Bridge Puako Rezoning Application and related applications -
Scheduled hearing: February 4, 2000, 9:00 a.m.
Dear Chairperson:
I enclose two notarized petitions by Thomas W. Mader and Oliver Mitchell on behalf of
Protect Puako for standing in a contested case hearing. I am also enclosing a filing fee in
the amount of $ 100.00 made payable to the Director of Finance,
Following my preliminary review of the rezoning application, it appears that the project
significantly differs from that previously approved by the Planning Commission. It also
appears that the proposed amended project involves the use of state land, including
connection to a State highway. Accordingly, an environmental assessment is required by
Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 343-5(a) before the Planning Commission may take action on
the pending applications. See Citizens for Protection of North Kohala Coastline V.
County ofHawai'i, 91 Hawai'i 94 (Hawai'i 1999).
The upcoming hearing should be treated as informational only and no decision on the
merits of the applications should be made.
cc: Protect Puako
EXHIBIT
NAME:
(Page I of 2)
`I 4okO's w. MOtD'—pL_—C�a Zp�rz�
ADDRESS: I 0-e Pt)-AKO '6t—=PrC4 aP-lUG
I
�t]
PiTI tf Op
--
STATUS OF PETITIONER
A. IS your interest in this matter clearly distinguishable from that of the general public?
Yes 1j, No
if the answer is "yes', please explain: _ auau6
If the answer is 'no', please expiain how the proposed action will nevertheless cause
you actual or threatened Injury:
i
H• Are you a government agency whose jurisdiction Includcs the land involved in the
subject request? Yes — No ZC
ff the answer is 'yes", please explain the nature of the agency's jurisdiction:
C. Do you lawfully reside on or have some property interest in the land involved in the
" subject request? Yes_ No X
If the answer is 'yes", please explains:
o+AL-L
R�-z C'
,
D. Are you a person or persons descended from native Hawaiians who inhabited die
Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, who practiced those rights which were customarily
and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, or religious purposes?
Yes — No 4
If the answer is "yes", please submit any geneological evidence and historical
evidcttce s}towing-the exercise of those rights to support the statement.
ALMTIONER'S 5IONA'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
S5.
C01JN7 Y OF SANTA CRUZ
On this _ day or2�, 2000, before me persu�la':y appenrcd
Thutna� W- Mader, to tete known to%hc the persrnl described in and Who executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and decd.
�r^.gym
Comm. Y++8725"
POTA"v 4"I�FU"ww"
TARUA
CammTfKyuMr�t00r
My commission expires: _Y/7/q/_
NAME:
PIS P HELI
PETITIQ 1%V
(Page 1 of 2)
pS
Oliver Mitchell, Protect Pusko
ADDRESS: 37A Puako Beach give
___1Semup 8Hava+'z 96763
I. STATUS 0]F' PETITIONER
A. Is your interest to this matter clearly distinguishable from that of the general public?
Yes / No
If the answer is "yes", elease exvlain:
J (.'
If the answer is "no", please explain how the proposed action will nevertheless cause
YOU actual or threatened injury.
H. Are you a government agency whose jurisdiction includes the land involved in the
subject request? Yes No
If the answer is "yes", please explain the nature of the agency's jurisdiction:
C. Do you lawfully reside on or have some property interest in the land involved in the
subject request? Yes — No V`
If the answer is "yes", please explain:
T".
`r**Q i Vl d)
D. Are you a person or persons descended from native Hawailans who inhabited the
Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, who practiced those rights which were custotttarily
and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, or religious purposes?
Yes. No ✓
If the answer is "yes", please subtNt any geneological evidence and historical
evidence showing the exercise of those rights to support the statement.
STATE OF HAWAII )
) 5S.
COUNTY OF HAWAII
On this day of -yQ , � before me personally appearedG/,vim H �1, to
the known to be the person described in and who executed the foregping instrument, and
acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and decd,
Notary Public, State of Ha ail
My commission expires: it �J
"i, 1, a, 'J6 ns a& NUI uve 6 L iw km'VLAN ' A
DELIVER TO
FAX NUMBER
DATE
,MWNA IAN1 RESORT
FACSIMILE
Ms. Virginia Goldstein
County of Hawaii
Planning Department
961-8742
January 27, 2000
@00110k"
'01� '41q 27 P19 3 63
1YYAII
FROM aX Sachiko Murano
Mauna Lani Service, Inc.
Subject. Bridge Puako LLC Rezoning Application PAGE 1 OF 10
Our comments regarding Bridge Puako LLC's Rezoning Application are attached. The
original is being sent via postal service today. Please contact my office at 885-6677 should
you have any questions.
I look forward to seeing you on February 4"'.
68.1310 Mauna Lani Drive, Suite 101, ltohala Coast, HI 96743. (808)885-6677 -TEV (808)885.6375 - FAX
rJi; Al/06 ig. i�u ,A9 3:r �.4 �� 1 I_ __',lei r'E
MA VNA LA NI RESORT
Mauna Land Service, Inc.
January 27 2000
Mr. Richard B. Baker, Jr., Chairman
County of Hawaii Planning Commission
c/o Planning Department
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720-4252
Dear Chairman Baker:
Bridge Puako LLC
Puako Residential Golf Community
Waikoloa, South Kohala, Island of Hawaii, TMK: (3) 6-8-01: 25,36-40
Mauna Land Resort, along with its planning and engineering consultants, has
reviewed Bridge Puako's applications for Project District Zoning, Amendments to
Conditions of Ord. No. 96-153, Amendments to Conditions of Use Permit No. 90, and
Designation of Timeshare Use. The contents of the applications, as well as the
incompleteness of updated supporting studies and impact analysis, raise several
concerns which we feel should be addressed more thoroughly before the applicants
requests are considered.
Specifically, there is no detailed study of the proposed timeshare use and
potential impacts. The applicant is asking for a substantial reduction in the existing
conditions of approval, while the impacts from the project with the addition of
timeshare use most likely will be greater. Also, the currently configured project and the
uses proposed will have a substantial impact on Mauna Lani Resort. We respectfully
request that the Planning Commission defer action on the applications until the
following concerns have been adequately addressed.
Timeshare Use
a cap on the number of timeshare units. Thus, up to 1,795 units would be permitted for
timeshare use. Timeshare units have historically operated at high occupancies of 80% to
90%, which normally result in considerable added impact on public infrastructure and
1a16hi ies -�'UiJN 45 gads, palks and beaches, as even as higher water and sevmr use.
Given that the original approval for this project was for conventional residential
development, we request that a study on the characteristics of timeshare use and its
wnio Mauna Girl give, Suite IN - Kul -Lila Coast, Fiiwal'i 96743-9784
Tclephcm: (608) 885-6677 , pacniwAn (806) 8856375
UO 15; WSJ F&I 644i s.9i5 itl.LaUNA iLANR RS ._ fA U�U;%i UiU
impacts be completed before the Planning Commission considers its inclusion in the
Project District:
Location of Protect Access Points
Two project access points (State Department of Transportation approved locations) are
shown on the Puako Residential Golf Community plan, the major one assumed to be
across from the Mauna Lani Resort Entrance. (It is assumed that this is the primary
access since it is the first access to the project from the airport direction and the one
adjacent to the 30 -acre commercial area.) According to the applicants plan, the Mauna
Lani entrance would become a cross intersection whereas it is now a t -intersection.
Mauna Land strongly objects to the location of the major access to the Bridge Puako
project directly across from Mauna Land Resort's existing entrance. We are concerned
about the impacts of a cross intersection which is likely to have more conflicting
movements than the existing t -intersection. Queen Kaahumanu Highway within the
coastal resort area where Mauna Lani Resort is situated currently has only t.
intersections. A cross intersection may require improvements which are more urban in
nature and incompatible with a designated major resort area. Mauna Lani is also
concerned about the impacts of the proximity to the proposed intersection of high
traffic commercial uses such as hardware stores, gas stations and supermarkets.
Although the traffic study has been updated for the current applications, they are not
complete and we request that a full traffic study be prepared. Given the potential for
much increased traffic due to time share use and the extensive commercial uses
proposed, we request that the possibility of moving the approved highway access point
away from the existing Mauna Land Resort entrance be explored. To lessen conflicts,
entry to the proposed project from the airport direction might more logically be from a
t -intersection at another location on Queen Kaahumanu Highway at a safe distance
from the existing Mauna Lani Resort t intersection.
Water SQPPIV
Attached is a memo from TNWRE, our water resource engineering consultant, which
addresses some of our concerns with the proposed project and its impact on regional
resource and supply, as well as on Mauna Land Resort. Please refer to it for a full
Regarding potable water requirements for the Bridge Puako project, the estimates
contained in the application seem to be low, as they are based on a low water use
standard which is inappropriaw foe the 90aath Kohala f oast region, as Wa-ll aas uuie AI 44
use. A review of actual well development suggests that in is unlikely that the two Ouli
wells could adequately provide the proposed projects potable supply requirements.
fi1/27/00 42.09 JPAX nM:3ONA, LANA kSl, L�j' 6,1/4UIRJ
Regarding brackish groundwater supply for irrigation, there is already substantial well
development both upgradient and downgradient of Bridge Puakds six proposed
brackish water wells, as shown in the application. TNWRE estimates that the supply
that can be safely developed in the Puako-to-Makaiwa section is on the order of 9
MGD. Given that current pumpage is approximately 8.6 MGD, only a small amount is
left to develop in the mauka-makai corridor before water quality is likely to be
adversely impacted. This has direct consequences for Mauna Lani Resort whose wells
may, become useless due to high salinity levels resulting from over -pumping.
Mauna Land Resort has monitored its wells since the opening of its golf courses,
continues to conduct weekly testing for chlorides of all of its irrigation wells, and
intends to continue this monitoring. We believe that similar weekly monitoring should
be performed for the golf courses developed by Bridge Puako, and that the monitoring
record compiled by Mauna Lani Resort and for the first Bridge Puako golf course be
evaluated. We also request that the Commission consider adding a condition that
Bridge Puako be required to perform this monitoring, and that the development of each
golf course subsequent to the first be contingent on the evaluation of the results and the
absence of adverse impact on the Mauna Lani wells.
Impact on Pubfic Facilities
The impact on parks, beaches and the shoreline area resulting from development of a
project of the magnitude proposed by Bridge Punko has the potential to be detrimental
and is not fully addressed in the current applications. Existing resorts in the region
have built and maintain facilities open to the public which are of a scale that may not be
sufficient to accommodate the applicants proposed project: We request that the
potential impacts be addressed.
Amendments to Conditions of Ap vals
The applicant proposes deletion of a 1,200 -foot buffer along Queen Kaahumanu
Highway (replacement with a 200 -foot buffer shown on revised plan). We believe this
greatly reduced buffer and the golf course development proposed adjacent to the
highway may not provide a safe separation from highway users.
The applicant states that the project concept is essentially unchanged from that
potentially a more intense use than residential use. Nevertheless, the applicant is asking
for relief from several conditions of approval without providing the rationale for such
relief. The applicant requests reassigning to government entities the responsibility for
constructing and maintaining sabstandal infrastructure and community facility
improvements. Such relief from providing the improvements previously conditioned
and the community package associated with the original project approvals will place a
much greater burden on both the County and the State. We respectfully request that the
01"MOO kS;ill FA -X , 335 Ba75 M'1A�-UA' AAAA P";51 aj. 006/oku
Planning Commission seriously consider the effect of deleting the conditions before
doing so, as such action will set a precedent for future projects.
In conclusion, Mauna Lani requests that the Planning Commission defer action
on the Bridge Puako applications so that the concerns raised above may be thoroughly
addressed. We also request that the Planning Commission consider retaining existing
conditions which bend to mitigate impacts from the project and which represent a fair
share of improvement development, commensurate with what other developers have
constructed and maintain. Finally, we request that the Planning Commission consider
imposing performance controls through appropriate conditions.
Thank you for considering our comments and we would be pleased to answer
any questions which they may elicit
Sincerely,
�Mauna lL(aniiSServ'icce, Inc.
Sachiko Murano
Vice President
Attachment
01;_4t/H30 L/:A0 SAS& 366 6.J:6 MAUNA LANA Lk,`s_ @0rob/ol.0
Tom Nance Water
Resource Engincering
TO: Sachiko Murano
MAXED
January 24, 2000
00/082 (99-63)
FROM: Tom Nance,
SUBJECT: Water Supply Concerns Raised by the Proposed Pusko Residential Golf
Community
I reviewed the November 1999 zoning application report by Sidney M. Fuke and the supporting
groundwater assessment by Dan Lum dated March 1992. Both documents describe a development that
would include more than 2600 residentlal units and six golf courses on the 3000 -acre Puako property
formerly owned by Nansay. Providing sufficient water supply for this development raises Issues for
the region and for Mauna Lent Resort in particular. These are briefly discussed In the paragraphs
following.
Potable Supply
Two wells in the Nansay Oull parcel are to provide, potable supply for the project, most likely
by connecting these wells to the Department of Water Supply (DWS) system in South Kohala. The Fuke
report states that both wells were completed and that their pump test results demonstrate the
adequacy of their supply for the project. The problems with this and other representations regarding
the project's potable supply are as follows:
goauired Sunnly. Both the Fuka and Lum reports state that an ultimate average supply 1.3 MGD
will be needed. This is based on potable water use of 400 OPD per residential unit, DWS' standard.
However, experience along the South Kohala coast has universally shown that DWS' standard Is too low
for this dry region, particularly for the class of residential development Intended. Using more realistic
water use rates, the project's average supply requirement is likely to be more than two MGD (a
njPCpnn of 9 5 ►Aran 1r shnwn In the tally hnlmw) Th1S --!1 ,1 .gni ljrn v mnr,lw y lily `P131! n41mr,,! 3
rapacity in excsaa of 3 MOD plus stancby capacity.
690hia Moana adulevurd. Suite 406 . Hannlula. Hawaii 96x13.5411 • Phnlet (808) 537-1141 • Far: (808) 339-7717. 6'fmail: tnwre(PalnhaACl
u1/2T/Tl0 12:11 P2,.K 93a kWi6 2WAU14A iL'INl ik;s± u10Ya `i ,"Vn li ¢tl
Memo To: Sachiko Murano
January 24, 2000 -- 00/052
Page two
Conservative Estimate of Actual Potable Supply Requirements
Type of Development
No. of Units
Avera • Max. Day
GPD/Unit MGD MGD
Ag -Zoned Residential
863
1,200
1.036 1.553
Other Residential
1795
700
1.256 1.885
Golf Course Clubhouse
6
25,000
0.150 0.223
Commercial
30 Ac.
3.000
0.090 0.135
Total
2.532 3.708
Aqugl Well Develo mens. The first of the two Oulf wells (State No. 6046-01) was developed
and pump tested at 1.5 MGD by Signal Oil in 1989. The second well Is located just 1000 feet north of
the first well, a less than desirable spacing at the proposed 1.5 MGD pumping rates. The second well
was not actually completed. Nansay halted 113 construction after the pilot hole had been drilled and, to
my knowledge, no pump test was ever conducted In the pilot borehole. Basad on salinity and
temparature profiles I've made In both of these wells, On static samples Iva collected from them, and
on other information such as from the nearby Kawamata well (No. 6145-01), it is clear that the quality
of the second well will not be as good as the first. Its potential yield will only be known after an
approximate pump test Is conducted.
Unresolved Issues. It is unlikely that the two Dull wells could actually provide all of the
project's potable supply requirements. Given the limited spacing between the wells, their concurrent
operation would have to be at moderate pumping rates of not more than 1.0 MGD per well. When
standby capacity is considered, the two wells could only supply a smaller scale project than the one
proposed.
Brackish Groundwater for Irrigation
Based on irrigation supply of 0.75 to 1.0 MGD for each of six golf courses and another 0.16
u. -Y . a�� A.auif:4.1 u,- ',M 1Wipd:ir ., a _i+t r.Zh J, ata�d YAa �a'JL16`:GJ"t �'SS%5 2iL'�IFJej IeJ'�a&J 2A9tl¢TSVO --A
4.66 to 6.16 MGG. This is to be obtained from six wells which would be arrayed along the Inland
boundary of the property. The Lum report only briefly deals with the potential Impact of this pumping
based on regional scale numbers for the sustainable yield of groundwater. His analysis Ignores local-
scsle impacts wrntn wouici clearly be significant. dubsiantiat wall development alrenuy e€dsts
upgradlent of the Puako parcel (the West Hawaii Utility Company's potable wells) and downgradient In
the Mauna Lent Resort (Its seven active brackish wells). When the impacts within this mauka•makal
corridor are assessed, It is clear that drawing 4.6 to 6.2 MGD more for the Puako project will have a
significant Impact on the water quality of Mauna Lani's wells.
01/227/00 16:11 PA1 885 6375 MAUNA LANf1 RSj 0008"OAA)
Memo To., Sachiko Murano
January 24, 2000 — 001052
Page three
Bgnlonai Groundwater Flew, The best estimate of groundwater flow in South Kahala Is the
detailed water budget analysis by Brian Kanehiro and Frank Peterson In 1977 (UH WRRC Technical
Report 110). It calculated a groundwater flow of 8.38 MGD per coastal mile. For the 3.25 -mile $sedan
of the coastline from Puako Bay to Makatwa Bay, total groundwater flow would be about 21 MGD. Only
a portion of this could be developed without Impairing water quality, probably In the range of one-third
to one-half of the total flow. Since the State Water Commission uses 44 percent to establish
sustainable yields for thin basal aquifers, that fraction can be applied here. For the Puako-to-Makaiwa
section, then. the supply which can be safety developed fa on the order of 9 MGD.
Fxi=ting Groundwater Use. The attached map shows the locations of the existing Waikoloa and
Mauna Lanl wells in relation to the Nansay-Puako parcel and the proposed six wells along its inland
boundary. Pumping from existing wells Is approximately 8.8 MGD at present (refer to the tally below).
This leaves only a small amount left to develop In this particular mauka-makat corridor before water
quality Is likely to be adversely Impacted.
Present Pumpsgs of Existing wells
Average Use
W a 11(s) (MRD)
Waikoloa Potable Wells (Nos. 5745-01, 02, & 03 and 55413-01 & 02) ' 4.0
Waikoloa Village Gait Course Wall (No. 5548-01) 1 0,7
Mauna Lani Resort Irrigation Wells (Nos. 5749-01, 5750-01, 02, 03, I
& 04, 5850-02, and 5651.01) 3,g
Toted Present Pumpags 1 8.8 1
High Salinity in Mauna LaOJ's Irrigation Wells. The salinity of Mauna Lent Resort's Irrigation
wells has boon stable through the 15190q, hill their high '01191% holm 4a�ni ar a;..-,r;jn„ nr,=,t IRS t«o i1A,
rourso operation and maintenance (rotor to the tally of Individual well pumpage and chlorides below).
Smell salinity Increases will render some of these wells useless and leave an Inadequate remaining
supply to irrigate the Resorrs two golf courses. In my view, there I$ no question that withdrawing an
additional 4.0 t® (r,2 M fAD of groundwater from new walla dlroctly .opjrAdlent ,ad11 �nlues sw�:fi r sal¢nity
rise to occur.
01/27/00 d2: 12 iF"AI X85 gai5 IYML, eI LA[M1 .X81 1;.191U 4Ib/uit it
Memo To: Sachlko Murano
January 24, 2000 — 001052
Page four
Summary of Mauna Lent Resort's Brackish irrigation Wells
Well
Use In 1999
Average
Average Chlorides
Stats No.
Name
MGD
(MG/L)
5750-04
STP
0.389
939
8750-03
Fire Station
0.383
842
5760-01
Puako Shaft
1.522
914
5651-01
Highway
0.593
751
6650-02
Culvert
0.334
944
5749-01
North
0.629
614
5750-02
Parker 8 Shaft
0.033
800s
Total for Six Wells
3.883
838
$ygoested Prmcmallc Approach to Onif re irse Conatruetion. Given the possible adverse Impact
of the six proposed golf courses, proceeding with their development should occur on a cautiously
prsgmatic basis. Mauna Lana Resort conducts weekly testing for chlorides of all of its irrigation wells
and the record of these tests and pumping amounts provide a valuable baseline. The same weekly
monitoring should be required for the first and all subsequent golf courses constructed in the Puako
parcel. When the Puako project then wants to proceed on the second or any subsequent golf course
atter the second, the monitoring record compiled by Mauna Lent Resort and for the Puako golf courses
should be evaluated. Approval of all golf courses after the first one should be contingent on their
having been no adverse impact on the Mauna Lani wells resulting from pumpage to Irrigate the then-
mdating Puako golf courses,
uv. r dll ivdwpeta� rj's,r: yw is uriey. a &e:Y�' i
Attachment
k 'il
-
0313sradf�A Wn
, � ✓ a / .' _ .. , 1 � l.' t�, :ry,-t �� , 4r\f s� t4_�'""ya r.. � J iQ... � ,� m ~`.
�'•J J /. .i fnh ✓,fii Wai , .f '.1•y4;.^l�+^ 'S.Li+vvl y :�
•" �'. / i fl n`y "-y
IX
i o t
O,•t LU
V+.Y moi '
.L ' ,i �••'' • \.• ` , f ,.,� r pl W
.v P'--•,yL..J ••,,J y r > (y, ll1 f o fpfi:` �.ir .^+ o M1 "" -•+\.
`N•'``�ApLq /J h�t !•
U- t o rU i t -V e}
L f L f_•r ''r}: � -A P� 7 � s'j,/i�7f� •�f.�� J' `4� �{, �r y '1 !'Lf)f3� O � +' � i�j s
';, a r .'.•.•.. v'v •'\% � w+f ���ty +ice � 111[[Atti\•��'�,1`- .. ✓ ,�t,t� � •! O U �11,,
C: r
,
y.'—s�•s.v.; ,yam • , •.\/. ;+ e.V ` a1,� • a !\�y
y.
SidneyFuke, Planninq Consultant
AJP 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996
March 9, 2000 ' i 1 ii i ; ;'
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
• Planning • Variance • Zoning
• Subdivislon • Land Use Pangs
• Environmental Reports
Subject: Bridge Puako, LLC - Proposed Time Share Use
Waikoloa, South Kohala, HI, TMK: 6-8-01: Por of 25,36-40
At the Planning Commission meeting of March 3 regarding the subject matter, I
presented information provided me by the project's traffic consultant. This information was
taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Edition. It
summarized trip generations of recreational homes (such as time share), condominiums, and
single-family detached housing, with the conclusion that recreational homes generate the least
amount of trips.
Please find enclosed a copy of this 1 -page summary for your files.
Should you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank
you very much.
S'cer�ly,
SI NE M.
Planning Consultant
Enclosure
cc Mr. Sandy Marr, Bridge Puako, LLCw/ enclosure
13020;",
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Edition
Land Use for 750 units
Weekda
Avg. Trip Rate Tris
% diff
Recreational Homes
3.16 2,370
Single -Family Detached Housing
Residential Condominium/Townhouse
5.86 1 4,395 J
9.57 1 7,178
85%
1 203%
Single -Family Detached Housing
Land Use for 750 units
Weekday, Peak Hr. of Adjacent St. Traffic,
One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.
Avg. Trip Rate Tris % diff
Recreational Homes
0.16 120
Residential Condominium/Townhouse
0.44 330 175%
Single -Family Detached Housing
_
0.75 563 369%
Land Use for 750 units
Weekday, Peak Hr. of Adjacent St. Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Avg. Trip Rate Tris % diff
Recreational Homes
0.26 195
Residential Condominium/Townhouse
0.54 405 108%
Single -Family Detached Housing
1.01 758 288%