|
So, my point being is that our density caps are not going to be met by any stretch of the
<br /> imagination, although the resort was planned to handle this kind of density as we move forward.
<br /> And I, I do hope that you recognize and we'll try to make you comfortable that the things that
<br /> we're offering as benefits in exchange for turning that, the open space of nine holes of golf that is
<br /> unneeded into something else, you know, is more than, more than worth it. I would further add
<br /> that as to the, as to the Foundation contributions, we intend to, we intend to document that as a, a
<br /> covenant that goes with the land that a percentage of every timeshare unit that is sold will go into
<br /> that Waikoloa Foundation to fund those results, I mean those programs. And that, that is an
<br /> important part of how we're planning our exit strategy for Waikoloa to do the workforce housing,
<br /> to, to do the Foundation, and I think that the development of Kumu Hou is what allows us to do
<br /> that while at the same time we, we have planned for density caps, but in reality, the reality is that
<br /> the density caps will not be met.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. Yeah, basically not trying to say that anything is, is wrong
<br /> in any way. I'm just asking if we've had the level of analysis similar to what's being requested
<br /> with the traffic impact analysis. Where we're saying that, you know, after a certain amount of
<br /> time we're going to reassess the traffic situation and see what's happening. Well, I think that they
<br /> made this plan for public access in 1977 and there's been a significant amount of change, both
<br /> within the resort and outside of the resort. And I think now, since we're coming back for
<br /> additional change of zone is a good time to assess that. And I just haven't had an answer yet as to
<br /> whether that's been assessed at this point to determine if it even is a factor worth being
<br /> considered. And, as you said, it seems like there's pretty simple solutions to expand public access
<br /> into the unpaid portions of`Anaeho`omalu public access area,but what would be the criteria for
<br /> doing that you know? Here we are looking at the project again after almost 40 years. We can, we
<br /> can use this time to think, 'hey what, what can`we do?' what could we do to make things better?
<br /> BOEDEKKER: I would also add, Commissioner, too that one of the, I know that the Hilton
<br /> Grand Vacation timeshare project currently, the way that their shoreline access and beach access
<br /> works for their visitor. Is that they have shuttles that are continually going through the
<br /> community dropping people off at the shoreline so that we're not impacting the parking in any
<br /> way, which we would absolutely anticipate would be the case with Kumu Hou as well.
<br /> For that very reason, we want to keep it open to the general public as well, so shuttle service will
<br /> be a number one priority for this project.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Terrific. I mean, yeah, that's a great thing that will help with the parking issue, but
<br /> also analyzing the use issue to determine whether we're at the sustainable use for the resources or
<br /> were causing trampling of corals or fish pond or whatever the historic resources may be. Just
<br /> having that analysis of the use of the area, is the use still beneficial to the public, or has it
<br /> become more detrimental to the resource at this point.
<br /> FUKE:, Well, Mr. Chainnan, if I might just add, the SMA proposed Condition 5 specifically
<br /> deals with the requirement to submit an updated traffic—not traffic,updated public access plan
<br /> that incorporates the Kumu Hou area into this area. Admittedly, what you mentioned in terms of
<br /> whether there's a threshold relative to coastline use, you know, there is no discussion on that, but
<br /> if that is like a very significant issue that this condition, you know,perhaps could be modified to
<br /> 39
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|