Laserfiche WebLink
essentially all of the major property that was previously held by Waikoloa Land. So we’ve been <br />kind of like meeting with the community along the way, and trying best to see as neighbors how <br />we can best – you know, how this project and other things that Waikoloa Mauka has or may have <br />in mind for this area – how they can kind of fit in with the community. So we’ve been kind of <br />having a lot of these meetings with the community. Along the way we here were discussing with <br />Councilman Pete Hoffman, and two primary issues came up as it relates to the proposed <br />amendment. One was that just trying to see whether this developer as well as maybe other <br />developers – and the other developer that we’re working with right now is called Bridge Aina`lea <br />that has a project off of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Both of these projects have a fair share <br />impact fee obligation. And in talking with the community, we are just trying to see how both of <br />these developers can collaborate, use the fair share impact fee and actually do a turnkey for the <br />community, and in that regard to kind of facilitate and accelerate the construction of a much- <br />needed community center in the Waikoloa Village area. So we’ve been working very hard on <br />that in that vane. And from this developer’s standpoint – Council Hoffman has no problem in <br />providing a generous interpretation to say that if you have a community center, then that will <br />fulfill your recreational impact fee obligation – but we just want to make sure that if they do that, <br />then in fact down the road they will be able to get credit. So I think that this is what it’s designed <br />to do. The idea is that once the community center is constructed, then it would be turned over to <br />the Department of Parks and Recreation for operation. So that’s the first amendment. <br />The other one is as, again during the course of the discussions, the concern raised about, <br />especially from Councilman Hoffman and a few others within the community, saying that since <br />there is going to be a traffic light, where the Castle & Cooke Wehilani’s project is at the lower <br />end of Waikoloa Village, is going to be constructed at that intersection, to have another traffic <br />light at the Pua Melia/ Waikoloa Road or the Paniolo Road intersection may be <br />counterproductive, especially for trucks going mauka. And so as a result they suggested perhaps <br />it might be better to do a roundabout rather than a stand-alone traffic light which is the <br />developer’s obligation and they’re prepared to do that. From the developer’s standpoint, they are <br />saying, I don’t care, if you want a roundabout, that’s fine; if you want a stand-alone traffic light, <br />we can do that too. But we just need some kind of direction. The existing Ordinance right now <br />limits the option only to -, you don’t have any option, you’ve got to do a traffic light. So what <br />this proposed amendment does is like it provides the option for a roundabout in that area. We <br />had to have our engineers look at this intersection to see whether a roundabout is feasible in that <br />area from the engineering and geometric perspective. The engineers, R. M. Towill, looked at it <br />and found that it was doable. And so as a result we said, fine, we’ll do it because it does not <br />involve any acquisition of properties. So that’s the other part of the amendment. <br />Tied in with that is that the entire stretch of the project along Waikoloa Road is in excess of one <br />mile, and right now the existing condition limits access on Waikoloa Road to just one point. <br />And in light of the kind of problems that have been associated with fire in a major cul-de-sac <br />area like in Waikoloa Village, the wisdom of having another access point at least a mile away <br />from the current access would be much more prudent. So we realize that having another access <br />may mean potential for accidents. So as to minimize that accident, what the Public Works has <br />recommended was that they be also required to have -, the developer be required to have a fully <br />channelized intersection at the second access point to which the developer is saying – based on <br />their comments and in our response – saying fine they’ll do that. In terms of where the project is <br />right now, the plans for the onsite infrastructure have already been filed and they are under <br />review right now by the County. Let’s see. As your staff indicated that the tentative plan is to <br />EXHIBIT C <br />5 <br /> <br />