|
its sold for to the buyer. And then if this approval, you know, challenges the validity of the
<br />legal title to the property, which is what it is, subdivisions creates legal title to property, you
<br />know, then you have the title company in place, answer your question, to cover what the cost of
<br />fixing it. And if youve actually built out and occupied it and it has really, you know, been that
<br />way, youre not going to, well, actually if Hokulia had been all built out and all those guys had
<br />their multi-million dollar houses in place, it would be a different case. Its not the same case,
<br />you know. So as a practical matter and, you know, Im trying to look at it as a practical matter;
<br />and I think that my suggested amendment, you know, addresses that sufficiently to deal with the
<br />case that were handling. I appreciate the Directors concern about extending the ruling, if you
<br />were, of the Leslie decision to another circumstance at final approval but to me thats what it is.
<br />You know youre trying to extrapolate now and take it out into a different area of the
<br />Subdivision Ordinance which was not addressed in the Leslie case as far as I understand. I may
<br />be wrong. But Im more comfortable limiting it, you know, to the suggested language changes
<br />in the preliminary approval stages; and then it will take care of, as I see, what needs to be taken
<br />careof.
<br />ALAMEDA:CommissionerGrahamandthenCommissionSalavea.
<br />GRAHAM:Yeah,Imnotreallyhappywithtechnicalbecausetechnicaljust
<br />sounds like a lot more litigation hassling before some Judge on what does that word mean. So I
<br />feel like the Directors options are not bad. I mean, we can, I think, if the other Commissioners,
<br />Commissioners Iwashita and I were both comfortable with taking out that piece of language,
<br />going forward with this and it moves to the Council. And the Planning Director certainly has the
<br />opportunity to present the same language to the Council and say for the same reason hed like to
<br />have included. Its just that we didnt recommend it ourselves; and we can move forward that
<br />way. If you dont want to do that, you know, we can continue it to another hearing. But, you
<br />know, that feels like thats what I need for my comfortableness to vote positively on it; and I
<br />know I just have a few minutes left cause Ive got to get on the move.
<br />ALAMEDA:Okay, okay, very well.
<br />YUEN:Can I suggest a motion then? You know, just to bring this up.
<br />ALAMEDA:Okay.
<br />YUEN:I would suggest that the Commission forward a favorable
<br />recommendation, that you take a separate vote on 23-73. If one formulation, technical, or the
<br />other formulation, deleted, has five votes, that will be reported as the Commissions
<br />recommendation. If theres a split among the Commission Members on it, then we forward that
<br />up to the Council with that as a report of what happened in the Commission, that there was a split
<br />in the Commission on how that section should be handled, but otherwise so its a favorable
<br />recommendation. And thats to avoid us coming to a deadlock here on this particular language
<br />which, you know, of us not being, of two things: One, of us not being able to get five votes on
<br />the particular language on either and continuing it, or my having to say, which I dont want to
<br />that, oh, go ahead and take it out so that we can have the five votes and kick this up to the
<br />Council. I dont like being put in that position. So that would be my suggestion on how to
<br />handle this.
<br />29EXHIBIT D
<br />
<br />
|