|
you know, 10 or 20 percent, depending on, you know, like which agency, more than the
<br /> estimated cost of the improvements, then that satisfies the need to actually fulfill the complete
<br /> improvements before you can get final approval. But you need to have an agreement between
<br /> the County and the developer, which would state that, look, I can guarantee that the
<br /> improvements would be in by X period of time, and that guarantee is through this, through this
<br /> bond, you know. And so if I fail to, you know, because you are giving me ability to now sell the
<br /> property, okay, and if I fail to make those improvements, County, you are hereby authorized to
<br /> use the bond, cash it in and make the improvements, because you have had all of these individual
<br /> property owners that purchased property with the expectation that the improvements would be in.
<br /> You know, over and beyond that, while you can get a building permit for property that's been
<br /> bonded, you know, like you have final approval, you won't be able to get occupancy until all of
<br /> the improvements are in. So what the, the request right now is just to say that, you know, like
<br /> the current request is that you already have the ability to bond your roadway system, your
<br /> waterline, and all of that, why did you exclude drainage? So the request is just to kind of wrap
<br /> everything together.
<br /> KNOWLES: Got it.
<br /> FUKE: Thank you.
<br /> KAY: Mr. Chair, if I can just take you back on thatChristian, againI did kind of an
<br /> exhaustive review of the record to determine why that trigger was there prior to Final
<br /> Subdivision Approval, and the best that I can ascertain is that it's likely that that was just a
<br /> standard condition of approval that was applied back then; there was nothing in the letter from
<br /> DPW at the time that had any kind of trigger there, so, and other conditions in the ordinance that
<br /> allowed for bonding of other roadway improvements. So, that and the allowance for bonding
<br /> that's within our Subdivision Code led us to recommend, and the Director to recommend,
<br /> approval of the amendment. Thank you.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Commissioners, questions?
<br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Sorry,just one final question, thank you. And this was, many of the
<br /> testifiers this morning had mentioned that there is a lack of a tsunami evacuation plan. Is that a
<br /> requirement for this development or is that—why,why are the testifiers, why did many folks that
<br /> testified indicate that that was something that we should look at or consider?
<br /> ARAI: Well, I'll try to answer that. A tsunami evacuation plan, we've seen it before in permits
<br /> for other types of developments within the Special Management Area, especially when there is a
<br /> direct concern that property could be affected by, what am I saying, the high, coastal high water,
<br /> you know, like storm waves along the shoreline, and that's when, you know, that's when some of
<br /> those plans come in place. But the fact that this property is in an evacuation area, you know, I
<br /> don't think the applicant would have any objections to including it in the SMA permit to prepare
<br /> a tsunami evacuation plan as part of this approval.
<br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you, Mr. Arai. County? County members, do you have any,
<br /> anything else to share?
<br /> 21
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|