Waikōloa Village residents have been asking the same questions for years. Why don’t we have a permanent second road? Who is responsible for building it? What has actually been required, promised, or delayed?

These questions came up repeatedly at a January 2026 Waikōloa Village evacuation traffic study community meeting. They are common topics of conversation between neighbors throughout the community. They are reasonable questions, and the answers are often more complicated than they first appear.

Wildfire Safety Advocates of Waikōloa created this FAQ to help clarify the facts. This document brings together public records, planning documents, and long-standing history to explain what has happened, what has not happened, and why the second road remains unbuilt today.

This FAQ is not about assigning blame. It is about providing clear, accurate information so our community can move forward with a shared understanding of the situation.

Updated: January 11, 2026

Has the need for a second evacuation road for Waikōloa Village been recognized before?

Yes. The need for a true second road, open 24/7 to public traffic, in Waikōloa Village has been identified, documented, and communicated for decades. Representatives of Wildfire Safety Advocates have repeatedly raised this issue in written correspondence and in direct meetings with government officials.
Formal warnings and requests date back at least to 2004, including:
- Pete Hoffman, District 9 County Councilmember (2004 letter during review of PUD #73) 2004 Peter Hoffman County Council PUD Comments.pdf
- Major John Dawrs, Hawaiʻi Police Department, Area II Operations (2004 letter) 2004 Police Department Comments.pdf
- John Schick, General Manager, Waikōloa Village Association (2004 letter) 2004 WVA Comments.pdf
- County of Hawaii 2005 General Plan (pg 250) lists “build a road connecting the northern end of Paniolo Drive to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to provide alternate access to Waikoloa Village.” as a necessary Course of Action. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ctxgzpaw6ouRGaXrXhwUZPJvzPNN7QQC/view?usp=sharing
- 2008 South Kohala Community Development Plan, page 97, which identifies a second road as a “very high priority” South Kohala CDP.pdf

Why wasn’t a second road built if it was already identified as a priority?

The short answer is that the road is expensive and crosses multiple privately owned parcels. Why it did not appear as a requirement in the earliest PUD approvals—despite explicit warnings from the Police Department and a sitting County Councilmember—is not clearly explained in the public record.
This is a common assumption, but it is not accurate under the current governing documents. The developer has the option to build a second road as part of future development, but it is not a mandatory requirement.

What governs development at the north end of Waikōloa Village?

A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is an administrative agreement between a developer and the County that authorizes large-scale development.
- PUD #73 governs development of approximately 866 acres at the north end of Waikōloa Village.
- Phase I consists of 276 homes.
- Phase II is conceptual and tied to future, conditional approvals.
Unlike legislative actions, a PUD:
- Does not go before County Council
- Does not solicit public testimony
The mauka–makai road first appeared in the Third Amendment (2013). WHLI-amended and restated agreement DOC-81540769.pdf
Under the governing 2021 Fourth Amendment, the developer is required to build a two-lane extension of Paniolo for Nana Kai Phase 1 homes only. 2021.10.29 4th AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 73 (PUD Docket No. 04-04).pdf
Required (Phase I):
- Two-lane Paniolo Avenue Extension
- Internal subdivision roads and basic utilities
- Dedication of Paniolo Avenue to the County
Not required:
- A mauka–makai road to Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway. What the community often refers to as a “second road”.
- Any commitment for a second road
- Fire-resistant construction standards or perimeter firebreaks (they are suggestions, not requirements).
Later, and only if Phase II proceeds, the developer may choose one of two options:
1. Widen Paniolo Avenue between Ho’oko and the entrance to the Nana Kai development or
2. Build a two-lane mauka–makai road.
Bottom line: A second road is not considered until after 276 homes are built, and even then, it remains entirely the Developer’s choice which option to select. The second road will likely cost approximately $25 million. Widening Paniolo Avenue is likely to cost less than $5 million.
The mauka–makai road became optional in the Third Amendment to PUD #73 (2013), following litigation and settlement after the County revoked the original PUD. That amendment allowed the developer to choose between widening Paniolo Avenue or building a mauka–makai road.
This structure was carried forward unchanged in the Fourth Amendment (2021), which remains the controlling agreement.
The delay is the result of multiple, reinforcing structural factors:
- Building the road is optional, not required.
- The route crosses five privately owned parcels.
- No party is obligated to pay for construction.
- The option is tied to future Phase II development, which has no “date certain” or timeframe.
- Public agencies lack the incentive to act, while private funding is assumed to be possible
Bottom line:
No entity is required to act, no timeline exists, and responsibility is fragmented among multiple parties.

Why is building a second road so complicated today?

The proposed route crosses five separate TMKs, several of which have multiple owners, requiring approval from an estimated 10–20 individuals or entities. Coordinating voluntary agreements at that scale is extremely difficult without public acquisition authority. The TMK’s in concern and legally recorded owners are as follows:
- 368002019 - Waikōloa Village Association
- 368001060 - Kamakoa LLC
- 368001059 - Moki II LLC
- 368001006 - FRANK DE LUZ III FAMILY LMTD PARTNERSHIP
- 368002022 - Waikōloa Heights Land Investors
As long as public agencies believe a private developer may eventually fund the road, there is little incentive to pursue public financing. Acquiring land without owner participation would require condemnation, which the County has explicitly ruled out.
No. Developers have never made any binding or enforceable commitment to build a second road.
- Verbal statements, public events, or promotional materials do not create legal obligations
- No recorded agreement or permit condition requires construction of the mauka–makai road
- The PUD makes the road optional, not mandatory
Only written, adopted agreements are enforceable, and none in existence require the road.
Because plans, options, and obligations are often conflated.
The road has been discussed in planning documents, public meetings, media coverage, and ceremonial events using forward-looking language that can sound like a promise. Meanwhile, the governing legal documents treat the road as optional.
Without a consistent explanation distinguishing these categories, confusion is understandable.

What is the 2026 Waikōloa Village evacuation study and what can it actually change?

The evacuation study is a County-sponsored technical analysis of how the community would evacuate during emergencies. It evaluates road capacity, traffic flow, and response constraints.
It is happening now because evacuation risk has been repeatedly identified, and the County agreed to pursue an updated, data-driven analysis. Hawai’i county has contracted with a highly competent external firm with extensive experience in evacuation modeling to generate this study.
The study does not create infrastructure requirements on its own. The resulting report will demonstrate how traffic patterns would change under various evacuation scenarios, giving emergency planners an opportunity to prepare for future evacuations.
By itself, no. In practice, it depends on how the results are used.
A study can support action—or delay it—depending on whether it informs decisions or substitutes for them.

The study, in and of itself, has little to do with a future second road; it is intended to serve as a tool for officials. If utilized properly, it should dramatically improve evacuation planning for the region while also being a useful justification for additional road capacity.
No. A study cannot require construction, but it can justify new requirements.

Status of the Second Road

As of early 2026:
- No full mauka–makai road exists.
- No construction is underway for a complete second road.
- No written obligation and no timeline exists for a second road.
What is happening:
- The State has found emergency funding for and is advancing a partial, interim emergency egress route on the makai side.
  - Work is beginning imminently and is planned to result in a Hulu-type evacuation only route out of the North end of the village.
- The County has said they are calling this the WEER - Waikōloa Emergency Evacuation Route.
- County Public Works is working to secure temporary access agreements.
What is not happening:
- No active plan or funding for the mauka segment on county-owned land.
- No commitment to a two-lane public arterial.
- No developer construction under the PUD option.
Bottom line:
The current work is both deeply appreciated and will be a tangible improvement for the community’s safety. At the same time, it does not represent a “second road” for Waikoloa. The project remains partial, interim, and incomplete.
One or more structural changes would be required:
- A binding requirement
- Clear public sponsorship
- Secured land access
- Dedicated funding
- Formal agreement that the road is essential public-safety infrastructure. Lip service has gone a long way, it is time for people to start writing it down.
Bottom line:
The second road is solvable, but without deliberate action, it will remain optional and unbuilt.

This FAQ will be updated as new information becomes available. If you believe something here is inaccurate or incomplete, we welcome corrections supported by public documentation.

Waikōloa Village Second Road