Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-22 TSTANFORDCARR PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 22, 2008 STANFORD CARR DEVELOPMENT, A regularly advertised hearing on the application of LLC (SMA 07-000019) was called to order at 1:40 p.m. in the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, - Alii III Room, 69275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Rene’ Siracusa Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel  Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager OgxkkhrEtihlnsn+Rs`eeOk`mmdq Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner Deanne Bugado, Planner, Kona Office And approximately ten people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: STANFORD CARR DEVELOPMENT, LLC (SMA 07-000019) Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 691 residential units, 516 hotel units (consisting of 184 hotel room suites containing a total of 266 keys with an adjacent enclave of 100 self-contained family bungalows containing a total of 250 keys), 3 golf holes and related support facilities within the Mauna Lani Resort. The property involved is located makai of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, within the existing Mauna Lani Resort, Kalahuipuaa, Anaehoomalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-8-1: 54 and 6-8-22: 10. WATANABE: We are now on Agenda Item No. 4. The applicant is Stanford Carr Development, LLC. It is for SMA 07-000019. With that, I’ll turn it over to Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS: Good afternoon. HAYASHI: I know we have a long day ahead for you folks today, so I’ll keep this presentation very brief. This particular application was heard by the Planning Commission back EXHIBIT C 1 in, almost one year ago, back in August 2007. But before I go into the specifics, I’d like to give you orientation as to where the property situated. If you look at the location map, this is the overall zoning map for the area. This is the Queen Kaahumanu Highway going towards Kohala, and this would be in a Kona direction. This particular project is referred to as the Bridge Aina Lea project across at the mauka side of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This particular road is the Mauna Lani Drive leading to the Mauna Lani Resort project. The subject property is outlined in this black border and goes in this general configuration. This particular road is Hoohana Street. And this is the road, Kaniku Drive, that goes towards the Fairmont Orchid Hotel that’s situated here. The Mauna Lani Bay Hotel is located at this location. This gives an aerial view of the Mauna Lani Resort project. Again, the project site is located in this general configuration, and this would be the Fairmont Orchid Hotel. As far as the SMA Use Permit application, the applicant is requesting a development of 691 residential units, 516 hotel units – and it’s a little bit complicated what’s written up there, but the applicant will give more detailed description as to how they will be counting their hotel units. There will also be three golf holes and related support facilities within the project area. Now, this is the site plan for the proposed development. The project area is located in this general configuration. As a matter of orientation, I’ll give you some of the descriptions of the developments within the surrounding area. First of all, this particular condominium project is called The Villages at Mauna Lani, and as you recall, the Villages AOAO did petition the Commission for standing on this particular application, which was granted by the Planning Commission. We also have The Fairways at Mauna Lani project. We also have the Kulalani condominium project, which is currently under construction. And then we have the Ka Milo development also under construction. Now, the main hotel building would be situated at this general location off of Hoohana Street, and that is this particular road. Also there would be bungalows located in this particular area, which would also be a part of the hotel development. We also have proposed town houses in these general locations. And the three-hole golf course would be in this general configuration. Now, just to refresh your memory, back in 2007 when this petition came before you, there were petitions for standing requested by three individuals or associations. First of all, Mauna Lani Resort Association, which was represented by Randy Vitousek who is an attorney here on the island. We also had a request for intervention by the Villages at Mauna Lani AOAO, and that association was represented by David Harada-Stone, a partner of another law firm located on the island. And as an individual, Richard Gilroy also submitted a petition for standing. All three of these individuals or associations were granted standing by the Planning Commission back in 2007. Now, the Planning Commission also decided to hire a hearings officer to hear the contested case hearing. Through the County’s procurement process, Sherry Broder was hired as the hearings officer for this particular project. Now, after about nine months of a lengthy discussion and pre-hearing conferences conducted by the hearings officer and also participated by all of the parties, first on February 27, 2008, Richard Gilroy decided not to proceed with this request for intervention, and withdrew his petition for standing. At that time all of the Planning Commissioners were given copies of his letter of withdrawal. Then the Mauna Lani Resort EXHIBIT C 2 Association and the Villages at Mauna Lani AOAO withdrew their petitions in June 2008, a couple of days before the contested case hearing was to commence by the hearings officer. And both of these associations reached negotiated resolutions of their issues with the applicant, and now express their support for the application. Planning Department has submitted to you supplemental information; and the supplemental information is the green-color paper. We’ve also submitted revised background and recommendation. And basically the revised background and recommendation included a new Exhibit 15, which is the report prepared by the University of Hawaii, called “A Review of Coastal Monitoring Data for Developments in West Hawaii,” and this was as a result of a request by a former Planning Commissioner, William Graham, who indicated that he wanted to have this report entered into the record, so we have presented that as an exhibit. And we also included a new condition, No. 10, which basically refers to a water quality monitoring program. And all of you have a copy of those revised background and recommendation noted in the yellow handout that was sent to you. So rather than going through the details of the project, I’d like to defer that to the applicant, and they are prepared to give that presentation to you. Are there any questions regarding the procedures that I’ve outlined? WATANABE: Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, thank you. What does this mean where it says 184 rooms, 266 keys? I’m not sure what “keys” mean? What is that? HAYASHI: Okay. I can explain that to you, but I think the applicant is prepared to respond to that question. WATANABE: Shall we, is it okay if we defer it to the applicant, Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Sure, fine with me. WATANABE: Okay. Any further questions of the staff? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hayashi. So Mr. Lim? LIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Steven Lim representing Stanford Carr Development, LLC. With us today is Stanford Carr, the principal who is seated in the middle. To his right is, from Wilson Okamoto, Alan Suwa, our project planner. And Tiffany Mathias also with Wilson Okamoto, in the purple. To Stanford’s left is Ernie Vasquez from MVE Architects, our project architect. Also with us today are Jennifer Benck from Carlsmith Ball, Peter Phillips from SCD and Tom Nance from Tom Nance Water Engineering. We are going to take the liberty to make the project presentation. Alan will lead off with the presentation, and Ernie Vasquez will detail the project concepts for you. We’ll discuss the question raised by Commissioner Woodward. EXHIBIT C 3 As the staff has indicated, we’ve settled our issues with the Mauna Lani Resort Association and the Villages at Mauna Lani, which is the closest residential development across the street. And we’ve addressed the resort-wide and their specific concerns. Then we’ve agreed to conditions in our private settlement agreements that would address these concerns. We have proposed some conditions of approval that are slightly revised from those that you saw from the Director; I think we passed those out earlier today. And I have, based upon the request and the agreement by Stanford Carr Development to add two more conditions, which are essentially going to be, I’m going to read in the conditions into the record, and provide the staff with a copy: One is relating to the irrigation of the three-fairway golf amenity or equivalent open space area, and the other one is the agreement by Stanford Carr Development to utilize the construction access road that we’re going to be using as an alternate emergency evacuation route for the Mauna Lani Resort and the Puako community. So we’ll go forward with the project presentation, and we’ll close with the discussion on the conditions. I don’t know at what point you want to take public testimony, but please tell us. WATANABE: Okay. I think, since we already have you up, we can probably take testimony after your presentation. But before we proceed, you know, I already swore you in, Mr. Lim, but may I swear the other three of you in since you will be providing testimony. So would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? APPLICANTS: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. Then before each of you begin with your presentation, would you state your full name and address for the record, please. I guess we’re going to begin with you, so you may start. SUWA: My name is, again, Alan Suwa. I’m a planner with Wilson Okamoto Associates. I reside at 95-1093 Kelakela Street, Mililani, Hawaii. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As the last on developed area of the master plan of Mauna Lani Resort, beneficial use of this area is proposed to complete the vision of a major visitor destination at Mauna Lani. The project is consistent with the existing Mauna Lani Resort development. The proposed site plan, as you will see, has been configured to provide the amenities that are expected from a world-class resort facility, or preserving and enhancing the natural beauty and resources of the project site and surroundings. The entire project will be developed over an eight-to-ten-year timeframe, and the estimated construction cost of the proposed improvements is about $400 million dollars. The site is situated within the Special Management Area boundary such that all proposed improvements are subject to the objectives, policies and guidelines of Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes and Rule 9 of the Hawaii County Planning Commission. We believe the project is consistent with the objectives, policies and guidelines of the Coastal Zone Management program and the Special Management Area rules. What we’d like to present is how the plan addresses the ten objectives EXHIBIT C 4 of the SMA, but in the interest of time I’d just like to summarize it, and of course we’ll be open for questions on various issues areas, if you have questions. To summarize, construction of the proposed improvements is not anticipated to cause any adverse impacts to water quality, scenic and recreational amenities, and will not increase the risk of flood, erosion or siltation. Potential short-term related air and water quality impacts will be avoided and mitigated through the implementation of appropriate best management practices. Permits for stormwater discharges will be obtained. The project is not anticipated to have cumulative impacts, as it involves the expansion of an existing master-planned resort area that is being developed at much lower densities than originally proposed. The project will not restrict public access to tidal lands, marshlands and beaches, and will not interfere with or detract from the line of sight toward the sea from State highways. Finally, the project will have no effect on water quality, fishing grounds or water life habitat. At this time I’d like to call on our principal architect for the project, Ernie Vasquez of MVE Pacific, to walk you through the site plan. VASQUEZ: Thank you, Alan. Ernie Vasquez, 1100 Alakea Street, Honolulu. MVE Pacific is the firm that’s involved with the planning. This is an overview of the overall site that from last year we have made some significant changes and that was primarily the reduction of the hotel from a six-story to a four-story; so when we talk about the hotel component, we have lowered that from where we were last year. But the thrust behind the planning has been to really enhance the main existing road, Hoohana Road, to a nicer, upgraded boulevard, so that we have all of our entrances coming off of that main entrance. Each of these planning areas stands alone with its own, shall we say, recreational amenity, its own sort of district. So when we look at Parcel 1, for example, there’s a two-story to three-story, in the second parcel. They are also connected by pedestrian connections. We want to be able to walk from one village to the other village. So we’ve tried to design in each of these parcels not only vehicular circulation for accessibility for parking but also pedestrian connectivity, so that we can have people walking from one village over to the resort, to the hotel, to the amenities, to the spa. So we are trying, in all of this, trying to create the concepts that we see in a lot of our planned communities, and we are trying to do more of a walkable community concept. So the idea behind the densities is, one of, looking at two- and three-story for-sale resort condominiums to villas, the lower density, which is almost the lowest density in the parcels – this has one-story – it’s geared more to our move-down buyers; it’s geared to a different segment of the community. The idea behind, shall we say, even the residential, and one of the parcels that we have, Parcel 4, it also could be phased, could be early access off of the main road. It’s the only parcel that has access off of this road; everything comes in off of the Hoohana Road. We see upgrading that road, we see making that richer sort of sense of entry, to also help the rest of the community have access to what’s currently there, the childcare center in that area. We took liberties of reshaping the open space to create better visibility for the residential to the open space by providing the three holes. We also look at trying to create, shall we say, a sense of identity in the entrance coming in perpendicular to Hoohana Road with its access coming into the hotel component and the bungalows. And I know one of the Commissioners asked the question of the keys. The idea behind the keys, for example on the bungalows, is a buyer could buy a two-, three- or four-bedroom home, and then put it into the pool of the hotel, so that it could be managed; that one unit that could be a EXHIBIT C 5 three- or four-bedroom could generate three keys or four keys, and those are the concepts behind the mini-suites that could be put back into the pool of the hotel, or rental. The idea of the hotel – we have 184 rooms and suites for a total of 255 keys – so the idea we might have a two-bedroom suite that could turn into three keys. So it’s an issue of management and an issue of income in terms of how the hotel component could generate the use. We are seeing a lot of the resort condominiums really look at the opportunity to share the amenities with the hotel, dining with the hotel, the spa facilities with the hotel, and a lot of the for-sale concepts that we are seeing throughout mainland area is coming to, shall we say, blossom here on this site. The boards that you see here – I don’t know if we have the time to go through them – but it gives you the overall view of the architectural palette that we’ve sort of brought to all of the villages. There’s sort of carryovers to try to tie the architecture together to combine with from, shall we say, the villas to the bungalows to the town homes to the stacked flats to sort of create a family of residential character that ties it all together, and has a bearing and relationship to here, to the resort market of Hawaii. And I’m here to answer any questions, if there is any further things that we need to clarify. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman. I’m still not really clear about this idea of the keys. Does that mean if you have 184 hotel rooms and you have certain, say, condominiums or whatever that you can rent out in addition, that’s what you are talking about? VASQUEZ: The bungalows would be in addition to the 184. WOODWARD: And that’s how you arrive at 255, or whatever the number is? VASQUEZ: Correct. It’s a basis of the number of suites and rooms that gave us the key count of 255. And then we add separately the 100 bungalows. Just to clarify, here is the hotel and then here is the 100 units bungalows. And they’re also on the idea that they would be on the pool that would be managed from the hotel. WOODWARD: Okay. So basically if you had a situation where the people that owned bungalows – I assume these are going to be privately owned? VASQUEZ: Correct. WOODWARD: If they are not there, they can put them in the pool and then the hotel would have 255. That’s the difference between rooms and keys. Is that right? VASQUEZ: Correct. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo. EXHIBIT C 6 DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Originally, what were the pending issues that the potential contested case hearings were at that time -? LIM: I’ll answer the questions. We’ve settled issues with the parties, and primarily they related to concerns over the construction access traffic – you know, Mauna Lani is relatively a high-end resort and they only have one way in from the Highway going into Mauna Lani – so they wanted us to implement a construction access road and that would primarily run from the project along Hoohana back out towards the fire station, towards the Waikoloa fire station, the one along the Highway, and we are going to be in negotiations with Tokyu Corporation who is the owner of the land, and with the State Department of Transportation over the specific location on where we come out there. That road would also be improved as – we’re thinking to rough grade and gravel standard – that would also be used and available for the Puako Community Association to use as emergency access for them and the Mauna Lani Resort people in case there is something that happens on Mauna Lani Drive going up to the Highway. Other big issue, I think, was the commitment by Stanford Carr Development to attempt to use commercially reasonable efforts to utilize the wastewater that is going to come from the project back to the treatment plant that’s further in on Hoohana, and try to bring that back on the, what they call, R-2 standard so we can irrigate it. We are not in control of the quality and quantity of effluent that comes back to us, so we are promising to do commercially reasonable efforts to try to get that done. And we’ve already committed to the community, and the Planning Director has required this condition that the three-hole golf amenity be watered by non-potable water. The last one was the issue of the density.And we’ve had various negotiations with the community, and have agreed that the proposal that’s before you today is within the Mauna Lani Resort Association and the Villages Association’s idea of what they think is consistent with the density for Mauna Lani Resort. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Am I to understand that you have reached a settlement with all of the intervenors, that they’ve all withdrawn their contested case applications? LIM: That is correct. And we have, when I was speaking about those two additional conditions that I’m going to read – I think we have Mr. George Robertson from the Puako Community Association here to testify, he is one of the public witnesses who will testify – we are agreeing to add two more conditions, and I’m going to read it to you. One relates to that non-potable irrigation of the golf amenity and the other one relates to the utilization of the construction access road for alternate emergency access in favor of Puako. WOODWARD: Just as a brief follow-up, I would like to congratulate you and Sherry Broder who evidently was the hearings officer, that you guys were able to come to an agreement with these three other parties. And I think that’s remarkable achievement. WATANABE: Any further -? Ms. Bowman. EXHIBIT C 7 BOWMAN: I just need clarification on the bungalow rental – and maybe I’m thinking, like, Mauna Lani Bungalows. But you’ll have three- or four-bedroom bungalows with one kitchen; so when you rent them to separate people, who has the kitchen? Or is that -? I just can’t visually see this, sorry. VASQUEZ: It functions like a condominium home for a family with one kitchen. The suites are what’s put back into the keys. They would not have any kitchen; it would be a mini bar at best that basically is in a suite. I don’t know if we submitted the floor plans, but the idea would be – this is a model of the project that we did in Palm Springs – and the idea behind it is the suites would be similar to a room in a hotel that has a mini bar, closet, bathroom and sleeping area; there is no kitchen to that unit, to that key. It only is in the main residence when you rent the entire house. BOWMAN: And the suites have separate entrances? VASQUEZ: Correct. BOWMAN: Okay, I’m sorry if I, I’m a visual person so I couldn’t really see that. VASQUEZ: So am I. I wish I had the floor plans. BOWMAN: Yeah, that would help. But thank you. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you. I was just wondering, you know, what is the impetus for the downsizing from the sixth level to the fourth level? LIM: Primarily the height regulations in the Resort-Hotel District are more stringent than they were previously. And so in addition to that, I think that the product type was more conduced to a lower level hotel. This is an unusual hotel project in that it’s farther away from the ocean than most projects that you see. So they had to modify the product type and pricing range. ALAMEDA: It’s a comment, I’ve got to say this. A lot of revisions that you guys did, I mean, talk about collaboration. Good job. WATANABE: Thank you. I don’t think we have any further questions. So Mr. Carr, I believe you are the last presenter? Oh, well, second to the last, yeah? th CARR: Stanford Carr, 1100 Alakea Street, 27 Floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the members of the Planning Commission for allowing us to make this presentation. We are EXHIBIT C 8 pleased that we’ve settled with the intervenors; and it was a collaborative effort and we found amicable solutions. And we are glad to be here today. Thank you very much. WATANABE: Thank you. Well, that was short. Do we have any -? I don’t think we have any. Okay. Maybe then we should proceed -. BOWMAN: I have, excuse me, Chair. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Just, I have one quick question, just curious. A three-hole golf course, so it would be more like a practice range? CARR: That’s correct, Commissioner. We have 50 acres of open space, so why not capitalize on it and create a par-3, par-4, par-5 practice course. You could actually set up three different tee boxes. But it’s recreational amenities to be owned by the property owners here, as well as a visual open space amenity for the adjacent neighborhoods. BOWMAN: And did you consider any other open space uses? The golf course was -? CARR: That’s one other than, the fallback could be open space parks. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. CARR: You’re welcome. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: I might just address that you can play six times and then you would be playing a real golf course. And the other thing is, you know, golf courses are excellent water sources. I mean, if you go up, if you want to see a nene goose, you go up to Big Island Golf Course, and there are more nene geese there than you can shake a stick at. So this does add, I think, to the general layout as far as being something that is environmentally sensitive, and it does create watering holes for all sorts of critters. So I applaud you for that. I think that’s great. WATANABE: I think we are ready for your conditions, Mr. Lim. LIM: Thank you. We’ve already passed out the applicant’s proposed conditions that you should have received late yesterday or this morning. And so these will be two additional conditions. I think the applicant’s conditions, we’ve redlined those off of the Planning Director’s proposed conditions. The first one that we’ve added is the underlined condition that you see relates to a direct quote out of one of the settlement agreements, and we’ve committed to the Villages that we would include that as a proposed condition, and that basically ties the development down to its concept. The other modifications were combining of four separate EXHIBIT C 9 conditions down into two because they essentially talked about similar things. And the last condition related to the use of non-potable water for irrigation of the golf amenity. The last two conditions are what we’ve agreed to with Mr. George Robertson who is here – he is going to testify on behalf of the Puako Community Association – and I’m going to read these into the record and provide a written copy to the Planning Department staff. The first condition relates to the three-fairway golf amenity: “Applicant shall develop a three-fairway golf amenity or equivalent open landscaped area and use commercially reasonable efforts to use effluent water treated to the R-2 standard from the Mauna Lani Resort’s wastewater treatment plant to irrigate the golf amenity or open landscaped area; provided, however, that the applicant’s commitment to use the R-2 treated effluent shall be conditioned upon the operator of the wastewater treatment plant providing R-2 treated effluent of an acceptable quantity and quality so as to enable the applicant to use such effluent within its subsurface drip irrigation system without incurring unreasonable expense or liability.” And the reason why – that’s the end of that condition – the reason why we have that caveat in that condition is that the requirement for utilizing R-2 treated effluent, which is currently being produced by the wastewater treatment plant – they are run by Hawaii American Water – sometimes clogs the subsurface irrigation system. So we haven’t tested that for whether we can do that without extraordinary expense; so that’s why you have the caveat there. And this is a condition that all of the intervenors have agreed to. The second and last condition is related to the use of the construction access road that we’ve committed to use for alternate emergency evacuation. So I’ll read that now: “To the extent allowed by the applicable government agencies and Mauna Lani Service, Inc., applicant shall take commercially reasonable steps to enable its construction access road to also serve as an alternate emergency evacuation route for the Mauna Lani Resort and the Puako community; provided, however, that the applicant shall not be responsible for maintenance and/or control of the alternate emergency evacuation route.” That’s the end of that condition. So we think that, with these conditions, we’ve satisfied the concerns that at least we know of today, and we ask for your support of these conditions. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So who is going to maintain the road? LIM: This is going to be a temporary access road for Stanford Carr Development. It’s on Tokyu Corporation’s property. And we are agreeing to use our best efforts to have the road service the emergency access route, one of the emergency access routes, for Mauna Lani Resort. We cannot, because it’s not on our property, maintain it, and we understand that the Puako Community Association and the intervenors have not required that. IWASHITA: I guess -. WATANABE: Follow-up? IWASHITA: Yeah, maybe to the Director or staff. When the County makes arrangements for using private roads for emergency access, is there procedure that’s followed, or -? I don’t know, like in Puna -. EXHIBIT C 10 WATANABE: You are implying that maybe the County has some vehicle in place to gain the ability to maintain the road? IWASHITA: I guess, it’s not clear to me how this, you know, after the project is completed and after the use as a construction road is done, if the intent is to use it for emergency purposes to get out of the property or whatever you said, how is that going to be done? LIM: We are not intending that that would be a County road or a Civil Defense maintained road or anything like that. This is a private road that we utilize. It’ll be open to the general public, but it’s not going to be a County or Civil Defense road. If you are familiar with that area, it’s pretty dry and there’s already an existing access road from the project area going towards the Mauna Kea Beach Resort, and it comes out and hits the Highway, runs parallel to the Highway, comes out and hits the Highway near the Puako entry. We’re going to be heading up towards the Highway and connecting further closer to the fire station there to shorten the distance. And once we create the bulldozed and, you know, graded-out and graveled road, we don’t anticipate there’s going to be much maintenance required. Right now, the current road although hits the Highway all the way at the north end, it’s kind of bumpy and hilly that most cars probably can’t go on right now. So we’re trying to just provide another exit route for emergency purposes. I know that the Puako Community Association is currently processing its draft environmental, I think it’s a final environmental assessment, to allow that they cross the State parcel coming out from Puako Drive in a southerly direction to access the Mauna Lani Resort roads near the Fairmont Orchid, and they’ve pretty much got that done almost. IWASHITA: So in addition to the language you’ve proposed, is there some written understanding amongst the owner of the land, Puako Community Association and Mauna Lani for this emergency use. LIM: That’s correct. We’ve been in discussions already, and in fact there’s already alternate alignments for where we take that road up to the Highway. IWASHITA: So there will be something in writing between all the parties involved. LIM: That’s correct. IWASHITA: Okay, that’s fine. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions? Okay. Then you may be seated. We have three individuals who have signed up to testify on this matter. So may I call Lynn Higashi, George Robertson and Margaret Wille up, so that they may testify. Okay, I’d like to swear you all in at the same time, please. So would you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. EXHIBIT C 11 WATANABE: Thank you. Then I guess we’ll start with you, Ms. – you all may be seated – we’ll start with you, Ms. Higashi. I believe you are testifying on behalf of Randy Vitousek? HIGASHI: Yes. Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners -. WATANABE: Would you speak into the mike, please, ma’am. And before you begin your testimony, name and address, please, for the record. HIGASHI: My name is Lynn Higashi. My address is 75-170 Hualalai Road, Suite B303, Kailua-Kona, 96740. And I’m with the office of Cades Schutte, Randy Vitousek’s office. WATANABE: Thank you. You may proceed. HIGASHI: And I’m just here on behalf of Mauna Lani Resort Association to note the withdrawal of our opposition to the SMA application and to support the project, as we’ve reached an agreement with the applicant. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any questions for Ms. Higashi? Easy, yeah? Thank you. HIGASHI: That’s why I’m here. WOODWARD: That was pretty clear. WATANABE: Okay. I guess Mr. Robertson. Name and address, please. ROBERTSON: George Robertson, P. O. Box 44490, Kamuela 96743. And I’m on the Board of the Puako Community Association. I’m here to express my thanks to Stanford Carr Development for adding these conditions. Our major concern as a community is the water quality of the coastline, and the fact that they are willing to use the effluent that’s produced by the project to irrigate their golf course should take care of our concerns. The only thing I’m worried about is that the language “economically reasonable” or whatever, I’m concerned that that may give them an out on just saying someday, well, we can’t do this anymore, the quality of effluent is not adequate and so on; and maybe you folks could take that into consideration. I don’t see that being a problem; I think they will be wise to use the effluent for irrigation, that saves them using other water for that. So hopefully, that’ll be done, and it’ll be satisfactory. Our concern also is that the Mauna Lani sewage treatment plant has become a private company, Hawaiian Water, they are in the process of drilling two injection wells and their plan is to inject effluent from the sewage treatment plant into those wells. And we are very concerned that that would percolate out onto the reef and have an impact on the new shore water. So I’m very happy to see that the Director placed a requirement for water quality monitoring in the conditions. And hopefully, we can establish a baseline study and measure any impacts that may result from these wells. I know these wells are not related to Stanford Carr, but they impact the Resort and will possibly impact Puako. So if that effluent can be used for irrigation, that satisfies us. EXHIBIT C 12 The other thing I want to thank Stanford Carr for is the provision of the escape route. You know, Puako has suffered from some serious forest fires in the keawe forest, and the more ways we can get out that community, the better. And we appreciate the offer and the establishment of this new escape route. So that’s good news for us. You know, I think the issue of maintenance may not be that big of a deal because the escape route would be gated, only used in emergencies, as I understand it, so there probably would be very little maintenance required, but you folks may want to take a look at that and place a maintenance requirement on the developer in a long term because at some point it may need some maintenance. Thank you. WATANABE: Do we have any questions for Mr. Robertson? Seeing none, I have one comment, Mr. Robertson. You mentioned injection wells and effluent being pumped into injections wells. Actually that is addressed in the CDP that is coming up for, actually your community is part of that, the South Kohala CDP; they do address water quality that’s been injected into those. ROBERTSON: Yeah, I sit on that Steering Committee. And we have put a provision in that Plan that injection wells be prohibited -. WATANABE: It was R-1, but I don’t know if it’ll go through as R-1 -. ROBERTSON: Correct. WATANABE: But this is being addressed in that. ROBERTSON: That’s right. And we are recommending -. WATANABE: I just wanted to point that out. ROBERTSON: Correct. Yeah, we are recommending the water be treated to R-1 level, if it is injected. But in this case, I don’t think that we can stop these wells because it may be that they are in operation before the Plan takes effect – I’m not sure. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Ms. Wille. WILLE: Margaret Wille. My family has lived in Puako. I do not, I live in Waimea. I’m on the South Kohala Steering Committee, but I’m testifying just as a member of the public. And I really just want to raise some questions that I had after reading over the material and listening to the presentation. One, a lot of times you’ve asked questions about, are things being worked out in contracts and with the other groups. And I would just like to encourage as much as possible whatever you do require that you actually put it into your approval, so that it’s also there for the public to know, such as recommending providing an emergency evacuation route that can be limited to significant emergencies. Kohala Ranch does that; when the police contact them, they allow public access. But I think really this has been such a really terrible problem in this area that if there could be something in there, what you write, if they come back and say we can’t do this, EXHIBIT C 13 they come back and say we can’t do this; but I think acknowledging and putting something into your approval would be a good idea. Second, just in terms of the same issue that Mr. Robertson raised, and that’s protecting the reef and the coastal water, certainly that’s all of South Kohala. If I were to pick out one key concern, it’s protecting that asset, water quality. And so I was glad to see that there is a provision in there for monitoring. I think it’s a plan is to be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. And I just wondered whether, there’re a number of places where it says a plan, the water monitoring program, shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Director. I think there is a golf course management plan to be submitted to the Planning Director. And an annual report is to be submitted to the Planning Director. I think also stormwater -. I’m wondering if some of those plans couldn’t be, like, request that Stanford Carr provide those to, like, the Puako Association or the Mauna Lani Association or somewhere where you got some public input. I know the answer may particularly in the area of resource conservation, water protection, encourages how can you incorporate public participation. So particularly where it says there is a monitoring program, it doesn’t say, monitor and if you find something wrong, correct it; but somehow that there’s a little bit more than you’re required to do a plan and submit it to the Planning Director and check. I found the affordable housing section confusing. Maybe you all can understand that, but it was, just reading it, it wasn’t, it’s like 10 percent, but maybe we’ve already done it from the other developments. The General Plan keeps saying encouraging on-site housing for workers, just, I don’t know what you are really requiring there, and maybe I’m just having trouble reading it. Two other quick things. On recreation, I think the SMA talks about adequate access to recreational areas and providing adequate public recreation. I think the three-hole golf course is great, but I just wonder such as playgrounds. And maybe if there’s something there, or maybe this is all for retired people. But considering the increasing burden on Hapuna, and we have very limited beaches, very limited parks, what – and this was an issue that kept being raised repeatedly in the South Kohala, sort of, adequate recreational areas; and I just didn’t see anything that may be there. I’m just raising these -. Are there any playgrounds or anything other than the golf course or paths or jogging places or trails? And the whole area has limited emergency services. I don’t know whether there’s any additional concerns just addressing those kind of shelter issues or whatever needs on that area. And lastly, just I’m looking at the plan, and I see it says that the approval is for ten years and there could be a subsequent approval for up to another ten years. So we are really talking potentially a long-term planning going on and development. And this is something that I don’t think there is a rule requiring it, but at least at this point just in terms of sustainability issues, I think Mauna Lani, at least my understanding is, really sort of talked about self as a green place and what they are doing and sustainability. But I just, to encourage whatever there is in terms of the energy, other areas of sustainability; we are really looking at a project that might be done 20 years from now. What kind of, you know, I would be interested in what way is there encouraging those efforts. Thank you very much. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Wille? EXHIBIT C 14 ALAMEDA: I have a question. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: I just wanted to, so you are representing yourself in this? WILLE: Yeah. I’m here actually for the six o’clock program, but I came early; I wanted to see because of my interest in Puako. ALAMEDA: Okay. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you for your testimony. You all may be seated. Before I call up the applicants and their representatives, I’d like to ask Mr. Yuen if you are agreeable to the proposed conditions as revised by the applicant inclusive of the additional two revisions that he had mentioned, which referred to the irrigating the golf course with effluent and the Puako emergency access route. YUEN: Well, I’m agreeable to all the ones we received in writing and the one about the emergency access route. I do have a couple of questions about the irrigation, though. WATANABE: Then maybe we should have Mr. Lim and the applicant come up, please, so you could respond to those. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: If I might make a comment. My parents lived in Southern California; and all of the golf courses in Southern California are irrigated with what they call gray water, which is essentially effluent. And I don’t think it’s technically a problem. The only technical problem is finding the right kind of sprinkler heads and emitters if you’re going to have an underground system. So I think that’s something that can certainly be dealt with because the whole, all of Southern California, the golf courses are irrigated that way. So the technology certainly exists. WATANABE: Thank you. Oh, Mr. Yuen. YUEN: Yeah. My question has to do with the R-2 standard and how you are going to irrigate. Because my understanding is that, and I don’t have them in my head, but there are Department of Health regulations, of course, on the use of R-2 water which is not as treated as the R-1 water which limit the kinds of irrigation you can do with it around people. So if you, and I just want to make sure that we’re not putting in something here that can’t actually be implemented. . LIM: You are correct. The R-2 requires what we call subsurface drip irrigation so you can’t spray it. I mean they do spray it at Mauna Lani but that’s all pre-existing before the EXHIBIT C 15 rules came into effect. So now any new uses have to do subsurface drip irrigation. And it is a technical problem with the subsurface drip irrigation when you don’t have R-2 effluent that’s being treated well, they don’t screen it out really well. What happens is that it gets stuck in the holes, and that’s why we have these caveats about having adequate waste water coming out of the plant. But the regulations as we understand them allow subsurface and that at most we’d have to put up are warning signs in areas that there are residential uses nearby. If they have spray I think it’s something like 500 feet away from any residential uses. YUEN: So some of the water is, if some of the water is used on the golf course the current, the, no -. I’m seeing Tom Nance behind saying, shaking his head no. LIM: Yeah, Mr. Nance is the best to answer that. YUEN: Okay. LIM: He is the Hawaiian American Water consultant and so he’ll be able to tell us that. YUEN: Yeah, if we’d bring him up I have a couple of questions along the same -. WATANABE: Mr. Nance? YUEN: Yeah, Tom Nance. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Give me a second. Mr. Nance, may I swear you in before you provide testimony. Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? NANCE: Yes, I do. WATANABE: Okay. And then before you respond to any of the questions could you state again your name and address for the record. NANCE: Name is Tom Nance. Address is 680 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 406, Honolulu 96813. WATANABE: Thank you. So would you care to rephrase the question? YUEN: Yes. So is any of the current effluent from the Mauna Lani waste water treatment plant used on the golf courses? NANCE: No. In the earliest years of the golf course it was, but it probably hasn’t been for the last ten years. It’s being used in a nursery area instead. EXHIBIT C 16 YUEN: And it’s all used in a nursery as irrigation for the nursery? NANCE: At the present time, yes. YUEN: Do you know why they want to stop doing that? NANCE: They expect, well, I’ll tell you what I do know but I don’t know the whole story. I think they’re anticipating the sewage effluent load to continue to increase over time which will exceed what can be handled at the nursery, and the long-term viability of the nursery is in question; and the golf course has elected not to use it. So Hawaii American Water made their decision to go to the disposal well. YUEN: Because it would require this upgrade to R-1 because your golf course is near residences? NANCE: As a practical matter, yes. YUEN: Right. You know, this subsurface issue is, you know, we’ve been through this on other projects and I understand there’s a significant cost to upgrade a plant from R-2 to R- 1. Is there a simple way to solve the clogging-the-pipe problem that Mr. Lim is talking about, the filtering out so they can be used, R-2 water can be used for subsurface drip irrigation? NANCE: Yeah, my understanding is – it’s not really my area of expertise but I work with people who do – the emitters, resistance of clogging has improved greatly in recent times. But you’re still looking at having, very likely have a pressure filter situation where you took the R-2 effluent, run it through a pressure filter, and then into the subsurface R-2 irrigation system. But, you know, the plantations when they were doing drip with surface water, they did that same kind of filtering all over the place. YUEN: Yeah, I’m sorry the sound system, it may be my hearing or the sound system, I didn’t quite understand the last couple of sentences that you said. Could you say the last couple of sentences? NANCE: You mean the part about the plantation? YUEN: Yes, go ahead. NANCE: Yeah, when the plantation switched to drip irrigation they were taking surface water sources that had sat in reservoirs and had high torpidity during storm events; and, well, they always used filters and, in fact, chlorination before it went into the drip system. YUEN: Yes, okay. You know, that’s really all the questions I have; and I think the condition as worded is fine. You know, the way it was worded is “commercially reasonable,” which means that if there is some, you know, you have a problem using the water but there are some measures that you can take that are not exorbitantly expensive to fix it but that it would be commercially reasonable to implement that. I see Mr. Lim nodding his head in agreement; and EXHIBIT C 17 with that understanding I think the condition is fine. I just didn’t want us to get in a situation where we were saying to do something that was not going to pan out in the end. LIM: That specific language, the “commercially reasonable” language, was negotiated with the Mauna Lani Resort Association. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Okay, thank you. YUEN: That’s fine. And so the proposed conditions are fine with me. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Yeah, it would seem to me that there would be, you know, as I say the technology for this exists. And if you’re going to have underground drip emitters you either have settlement tanks and/or filtration units before it goes into the pipes. It may be a combination of the two, but I think that certainly is technically a reasonable thing to do. WATANABE: Okay. Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My concern is that our applicant does not control the waste treatment facility and, I guess, the condition as written basically, I guess, in my mind can insulate the developer and applicant from proceeding with using the R-2 water if the Waikoloa -. What’s the name of the company that runs it? PUBLIC: Waikoloa Water (sic). IWASHITA: Waikoloa Water (sic) does not choose to filter it or whatever. So, you know, I understand what Commissioner Woodward is saying, is that, you know, I guess it’s a very commonly used technology elsewhere. But in this case because we have a separation legally between the party treating the water and the party that’s going to use it, you know, it’s going to be, well, I can’t do it because they haven’t filtered it and he says, well, we don’t have an obligation to filter it and we’re not going to incur the expense. So how do we address that? WATANABE: Yeah. I’m not familiar with all of the rules. I did read Bobby Jean Leithead’s testimony with regard to, you know, R-2 has to be subterranean rather than straight. But -. IWASHITA: No, no, I -. WATANABE: I understand what you’re getting at. But what I’m trying to drive at is whomever is providing the effluent I think there’s a, I don’t think they can have it any worse than R-2. And if they can’t have it any worse than R-2 and it’s commercially reasonable that R- 2, to use as irrigation, then I think it will work out. But maybe, Mr. Yuen, you could advise us EXHIBIT C 18 on that whether it can, if you have a sewage treatment plant, can you release effluent that’s any worse than R-2? IWASHITA: Mr. Chair, can I, I’d like the applicant to address my concern. WATANABE: Sure. Mr. -. CARR: Mr. Chair, may I interject, please. By way of background we approached Hawaii American Water Corporation to see what we could do to take the excess effluent; and through the course of our conversations with Hawaii American Water Corporation this is a win- win for both entities of interest, and that I feel very confident that we’re going to be able to work the logistics out to implement the use, meaning the project being accommodating and accepting the effluent for irrigation and vice versa. This has been a proactive approach on both parties, ourselves as the developers here as well as with Hawaii American Water. WATANABE: Thank you. IWASHITA: Follow-up? WATANABE: Sure, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess the way the language is written my concern is that, you know, if this marriage, if you will, right now, you know, looks good and everybody has a rosy picture about how it’s going to go forward, but if for whatever reason in the future it ends up like 50 percent of marriages and you end up wanting a divorce from each other, right, and now the way the condition is written, you know, if they tell you we don’t want to do, we’re not going to incur any more cost of filter or, etc., or do whatever you need, right, then you can come back to the Department and to the County and say, well, we’re not doing this any more cause we don’t have any control over it. All right, that’s my concern, is that the way the language is written only one of the parties, right, is within the control right now of the condition; and if that nonparty decides not to comply, you can come back and say, well, we did our best and we can’t force them to filter it, and we can’t use it. LIM: Right. We can only control the things that we can control. And in terms of enforcement, this is a condition that was specifically negotiated with both the Villages and the Mauna Lani Resort Association. So they also recognize the control issue. But I think everybody believes that both Stanford Carr with Mauna Lani Resort Association and working with Hawaii American Water, that there will be a solution that’s reached. We just can’t tie it because it is like Commissioner Woodward recognizes, it is a third party that we can’t control through this. We have through the settlement agreements a specific contractual undertaking to do this with Mauna Resort Association. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita, I think the point I was trying to drive at is if the sewage plant continues to process sewer there are other laws that regulate the sewage plant which means what are they going to do with the effluent. If they’re not going to take it because they can’t use it they have to dump it somewhere else; and it’s still subject to the regulations, which means EXHIBIT C 19 they’re going to have to find some other partner. You see? So I think in the end, yeah, everybody is regulated to some degree. And you’re right it doesn’t have to be Stanford Carr Development that they’re going to dump the effluent to, but they’ve got to get rid of it some place; and it has to be treated to an acceptable level somewhere. IWASHITA: I guess my concern, Mr. Chair, is that on the prior testifier talking about the injection wells, and what’s possible now, and perhaps that might have adverse effects on shoreline water because R-2 might be, possibly be injected in these wells without, you know, and that might conform to current regulation and we don’t have any monitoring, you know, any process in place to prevent any adverse effects from it. You know, if that is in fact the case, and I don’t know that it’s not, then obviously I want everything to work out right. My concern is that, again, if these are private parties, they all have their separate interests and there’s an agreement or whatever but, you know, we have no control over that, granted. Right? So my concern is, I understand now that everybody is tying to make their best effort. My concern is – and I don’t know if there’s any realistic way to address it, you know, with only the applicant before us – if there is somehow a falling out and you don’t get what you need, you know, or to use it on this open space area for irrigation, then, you know, what do you do? Because it may end up with adverse effects that you don’t want. WATANABE: Yeah, to some degree it’s being addressed in the South Kohala CDP. They do talk about the level of effluent that’s being inserted into those injection wells. LIM: Well, let me make a point. The R-2 treatment and the effluent we use as irrigation water is a step over and above what the requirement is. I believe, and Mr. Nance he knows better and he can confirm, but I believe if Hawaii American Water wanted to take all the effluent from Mauna Lani Resort and put it into those two injection wells, that complies with the Department of Health’s regulations. Now I know Mauna Lani Resort Association, Puako, they don’t like that. But I believe that’s technical compliance with DOH regulations. So this attempt by us to reach this settlement agreement to use R-2 in irrigation is a step above what is normally required. WATANABE: Ms. Bowman? BOWMAN Just a quick question maybe. At the end you say “if,” the end of your condition, “it’s if it’s not cost prohibitive.” Can you read just the last part, please. LIM: Okay. WATANABE: Commercially reasonable. LIM: It’s “providing that the R-2 treated effluent of an acceptable quantity and quality so as to enable applicant to use such effluent within its subsurface drip irrigation system without incurring unreasonable expense or liability.” BOWMAN: And if it appears that it is going to work, that there’s a happy medium for everyone, can you just leave that off then, the last part? EXHIBIT C 20 LIM: The condition that I’m reading is in part pulled directly from the settlement agreements. So whether we pull it out or not, it’s -. I think that in terms of us we don’t know if the R-2 effluent can be used cause we haven’t tested that. And if we find that it has to go to R-1 that would require us to pay for upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant and all the other facilities in that; and that’s where we get into that commercially reasonable issue. I think at this point all we can say is that, you know, that’s why we have those caveats in there, is because we’re trying to do the right thing but we don’t know if we can yet. And I think that we have enough heavy weights like the Mauna Lani Resort Association looking over our shoulder that, you know, they’re going to make sure we give it a good try. BOWMAN: And to follow-up if I can. And the other resorts don’t use the effluent for their golf courses? LIM: That’s correct. I believe that’s what Mr. Nance said. BOWMAN: They use -? NANCE: No, they do, they do -. BOWMAN: They do? I need confirmation on that. NANCE: Waikoloa up until about three months ago was using all of the beach resort effluent for the two golf courses as a supplement to brackish irrigation water. DOH, and they had been grandfathered in, it was R-2 quality water. And DOH three months ago said you can’t do that any more, you need to convert to R-1. So at the moment that effluent is going into pit disposal until means can be put in place either to convert to R-1, which is going to take a little while, or to send the effluent to their disposal well. BOWMAN: And -? NANCE: At Mauna Kea R-2 effluent is used on their golf courses. BOWMAN: And these are overhead or drip? NANCE: They’re not drip, they’re spray. In both cases the effluent is not the major component of the irrigation supply. It’s a relatively small amount compared to the total golf course irrigation. BOWMAN: And if Mauna Lani has to go to R-1, is that what you said could possibly be an alternative? NANCE: Well, if that was to go to the golf course or something that would utilize spray it would have to be R-1. BOWMAN: But that’s cost prohibitive? EXHIBIT C 21 NANCE: I’m not in a position to judge that. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It would seem to me that the agreement between Stanford Carr and the sewage treatment plant is to supply R-2 water; and then you guys need to figure out the technology to make it work, whether it’s settlement tanks, filtration, what kind of emitters you’re going to use. But it can’t possibly be more expensive than using city water. So I can’t see that this would fail, you know, if you do a little bit of research. And I’m not particularly concerned -. It’s a lot better to put it on a golf course than it is to shoot it down a hole, you know, where it’s definitely going to get into the ocean eventually. So I think I don’t have any problem with any of these conditions. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: What’s comforting for me is that there are a lot of checks and balances with this development and there was a lot of collaboration prior to this point. I mean to come to somewhat a consensus on the three potential contested case hearings is really satisfying to me. And I see a lot of revisions, and I see a huge attempt to try and accommodate the different perspectives. So I’m ready to make a motion if there’s no objection to that. WATANABE: Give me a second and let me acknowledge Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I’m not objecting too of the Commissioners wanting to go forward. I just wanted to clarify based on what Commissioner Woodward just said and what I think I heard Mr. Lim say, is that there is a, well, maybe clarify. So is it the case that the applicant, Stanford Carr, is obligated to do the filtering of the R-2 before it enters the irrigation system, this subterranean irrigation system? LIM: That is not correct. We don’t know what the system is and that’s why we have to do the commercial and reasonable efforts. IWASHITA: Okay. So, because what I thought I heard Commissioner Woodward say, you know, his impression is that the R-2 treated effluent would be provided to Stanford Carr and that the terms of this condition basically requires Stanford Carr to whatever, do the commercially reasonable filtering and so forth, so that it could be used in -. LIM: We don’t know where that would occur, whether it would be improvements to the existing plant or where; and that’s the whole point. IWASHITA: Okay. Maybe I can ask, I’m sorry, can I have your name again? EXHIBIT C 22 NANCE: Tom Nance. IWASHITA: Mr. Nance. So is that a scenario that’s possible? I guess my impression of Commissioner Woodward’s, his comments earlier is that the R-2 treated effluent would come to some facility set up by Stanford Carr on the project site, be filtered, and then put into the irrigation system? NANCE: Sort of. And the most logical thing regardless of who’s paying for what would be that the pump and the filter be at the sewage treatment plant because the filter is going to have a backwash and you’ll want a place to dump that and back into the treatment plant process. The thing is where you’d want to do that. So there’d be a pump and a filter at the treatment plant, and then a transmission pipeline to Mr. Carr’s project. IWASHITA: Okay, thank you. So maybe I’ll direct it to Mr. Lim or another applicant then. Does the agreement with the other parties require Stanford Carr to pay for this additional filtration to get the sufficient quality water into the system? LIM: That’s correct. We’re directed to use commercially reasonable efforts to use the effluent to R-2 standards for subsurface irrigation. IWASHITA: Okay. So one other possible scenario as described by Mr. Nance is setting up a filtration system, paying for a filtration system at the plant so that the water could be at a sufficient quality to not gunk up the subterranean irrigation? Is that correct? LIM: That’s one option, yes. We just don’t know. IWASHITA: Okay, fine. I’m satisfied. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Alameda, motion time. ALAMEDA: All right. Okay. With regard to Special Management Area Permit, Special Management Area Use Permit, SMA 07-000019, I move that Planning Commission approve the special management area use permit for the development of 691 residential units, 516 hotel units (consisting of 184 hotel room suites containing a total of 266 keys with an adjacent enclave of 100 self-contained family bungalows containing a total of 250 keys), 3 golf holes and related support facilities, in addition to the conditions stated by the applicant’s representative Mr. Lim. WATANABE: Very good. WOODWARD: Second. Way too much information, but second. WATANABE: Okay, so just for clarification, it’s the conditions as proposed by Mr. Lim inclusive of the two additional conditions that he read and will provide in writing to the Planning Staff? EXHIBIT C 23 ALAMEDA: That’s correct, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Thank you. And do we need any further discussion on this? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: I just have one last comment and I guess I want it just for the record, I really hope that the effluent problem can be worked out. I just hate to see it not be put back in the golf course and put into injection wells. So I hope that can be economically worked out. Please? Thank you. WATANABE: Any further comments? Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. HAYASHI: Chair Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries, seven to zero. LIM: Thank you very much. WATANABE: You’ll be informed in writing, Mr. Lim. EXHIBIT C 24 LIM: Thank you. The discussion ended at 2:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT C 25