|
FUKE: Under the current zoning, because the zoning was like for a whole bunch of other
<br /> properties, and Waikoloa was the fee owner and they were the applicant, so they had already
<br /> designated an easement, you know, from the, for the extension of Puakala Place, and that's the
<br /> reason why, on the second line, you see like, "within the existing right-of-way easement,"
<br /> because there is an existing easement. So that's the easement that's going to be used or maybe
<br /> slightly modified to go a little bit north or south, or, not, it's east or west, mauka or makai.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Right, I mean the question is whether this is adequate in ensuring that the
<br /> connection will be completed, seeing as there is, there is absolutely no time frame on this project.
<br /> And
<br /> FUKE: Yeah
<br /> VITOUSEK: this existing requirement for the area that Area B is also included under.
<br /> FUKE: It's a good point, you know, Mr. Chairman, it's a good point, because Hilton Grand
<br /> Vacation does not really like happily, doesn't want, does not want to be constrained by any
<br /> development, you know, like timetable for this property. So, however, the way it's structured,
<br /> the condition is structured, should Hilton Grand Vacation proceed with the development of their
<br /> property and there is no roadway on the Mauna Lani side, well, Hilton Grand Vacation will be
<br /> obligated to construct that road up to the property line. Alternatively, if Hilton Grand do not
<br /> have any plans to develop and the property owner at the Mauna Lani side connects to this area,
<br /> but it said like the last slide, "but in any event no later than completion of a road on the adjacent
<br /> property to the north." Then, this is an obligation not only of Hilton Grand Vacation but
<br /> something that's going to be negotiated with Waikoloa Land, yeah.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Right, but I mean that you know from our perspective looking at it, these
<br /> conditions have been on the books for over 30 years and there is no connection, so obviously it
<br /> appears as though the resorts don't have an incentive to put this connection in place, which is
<br /> why we would like, I think a more stringent condition for the creation of this activity important
<br /> to ensure that it will be done and not, not continue to float in the air as an incomplete condition
<br /> of the overall ordinance.
<br /> FUKE: Well, you know, like, Mr. Chair, I think part of the reason why is that like you have the
<br /> road, you know, extended all the way to Mauna Lani, and then it's like a road to nowhere, where
<br /> Mauna Lani has no plans or whatever, then the question then becomes, is it really logical to have
<br /> that road be extended all the way to the property line at this point in time when there is no
<br /> connection? Alternatively, if and when Hilton Grand decides to develop the property, they are
<br /> going to put in the road, but they don't want to, neither does Waikoloa Land, want to
<br /> prematurely put in a road and connection. And so even if Hilton Grand Vacation does not put in,
<br /> you know, has no development plans, so if you have a condition that requires like maybe within
<br /> five years they put in the road and there is no connection on the Mauna Lani side, what it does
<br /> then once you put in the road, you preempt the opportunity for Hilton Grand to do appropriate
<br /> site planning of the area. Because that's why we had to include the provision to say that that
<br /> right-of-way can be adjusted a little bit, you know, mauka or makai.
<br /> 16
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|