Laserfiche WebLink
built, including golf courses at Mauna Lani and Waikoloa Beach Development. So why <br />even haggle over the original condition which require them to spend, to upgrade Ainaloa <br />Boulevard at a great expense without putting a dollar figure, multi-million dollar expense, <br />probably in excess of the $6 million that was originally talked about? <br />The developer originally came in and got the permit on the strength of making a number <br />of promises about things that they would do, including this big improvement of Ainaloa <br />Boulevard; and our feeling was that they should not try to back out of those promises at a <br />later date. So we urge the Commission not to change that. <br />What this settlement says is that whether you build, but the payment would only have to <br />be, would only be due upon, in the original terms, upon receiving Plan Approval for the <br />golf course. In other words, they have a five-year time frame to submit, under the terms <br />of the time extension they have five years to submit for Plan Approval. At the end of the <br />fiveyears,theydon€thavetopayanythingiftheydon€tbuildthegolfcourse.Ifthey <br />submit for Plan Approval, then they have to pay the money. So they have five years to <br />do that. <br />This settlement says, this proposed settlement says that they have a year to pay $500,000, <br />and there€s no time extension on that. If they should submit their, for a grading permit <br />for the golf course before the year is up, they would have to pay then. If they want to <br />keep their permit alive for the length of the time extension, there is only that time <br />extension. This does not extend the five-year time extension that the Commission gave <br />to get Plan Approval for the golf course. If they want to keep that alive, they have to pay <br />$500,000 within the year. If they don€t pay the $500,000 a year, this, the permit <br />becomes, will be dead because they€ll be out of compliance with conditions of the permit <br />and there€s no time extension on the one year. <br />ALAMEDA:Okay. Will you identify yourself for the record, then you can <br />proceed. <br />LEITHEAD-TODD: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd. I think I <br />want to explain a little bit about what happens when you go up to the Third Circuit Court. <br />You go up to the Court and when you go to the Third Circuit Court, you risk reversal, <br />you risk amendment. You know, the Court has that discretion. And Judge Hara basically <br />called us in to discuss settlement and really pushed us strongly to settle. Because he <br />basically was looking at this, there had been a couple of things that had changed from <br />when this originally came to the Planning Commission, and one was that the County had <br />actually taken over ownership of Ainaloa Boulevard. So he was looking at it in terms of <br />what kind of a condition would you imposed. And he was saying that, you know, the <br />condition to improve the intersection at Ainaloa and Highway 130 had been deleted, <br />because it was moot, because the State had done those improvements. So he was looking <br />and, you know, he posed the issue that since the County had taken over Ainaloa <br />Boulevard and the original condition was aimed at improving it -. Because it was a <br />private road that was owned by the Ainaloa Community Association, that there had been <br />a reason that he could see that you would impose this condition, because it was a private <br />8EXHIBIT D <br /> <br />