2006-04-21 TShockley - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

will be it should be the Department of Transportation. And so the language I suggested was that these improvements may include the sight line improvements, turn pockets, signalization, illumination at the intersection. Now it may include all of those, it may include some. The Department of Transportation in the past in my discussions with them have not supported signalization at that intersection. So I didnt want to have language written so that the way it was written the applicant, the intersection would be improved to DOT standards but the applicant still couldnt get final subdivision approved because there was no signal placed there. So my suggestion was that the language say that the applicant, yeah the applicants cannot get final subdivision approval until the improvements are made to the intersection. That DOT determine what those improvements are and they may include, and the reason by putting may include so that the applicant come back later say oh gee well I would have never agreed if you told me it had to be this or this or this. Unfortunately the way the language was written by the Council is they have too many mays and not enough shalls and I know that thats created some consternation and I know Mr. Gimpels going to testify that hes not happy with that. And I wouldsaythatwewouldaccepttheconditionprovideditsclear,twothings,1isthatthe improvements shall be made but 2 that the determination of how those improvements are made and what those improvements consist of is determined by the Department of Transportation. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah I wasnt implying that we should try to dictate what improvements would be just that the improvements would be made to the intersection of Kaloko Drive but that said you know I think it would be appropriate for the Director to comment on that, whether its even appropriate for us to put that in. Im just thinking that you know since the Council has already expressed an interest and this is really just a recommendation from this body it might help that we kind of show them that we can appreciate the thought theyve put into it? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director do you care to comment? YUEN:Im neutral on the additional condition. Let me just, for point of clarification, the cost estimate, the design that was done is not a full-blown design. But basically a conceptual design for the Kaloko intersection involved shaving back the lava banks on either side to improve the sight distance, widening the pavement, which would be possible because of shaving the banks down creating turn pockets and I believe in both directions so that you would have a- what we call refuge lane when you come out on the left turn and as well as a left turn pocket. Im not a 100% sure of that but, and then that the intersection itself having a clear right turn and left turn lane out of Kaloko. It does not include signalization. The cost estimate was to- the instructions were to try to come in within whats been collected already in Kaloko which is about $440,000 in cost so were a little bit below $400,000 for what I just described, something like $400,000. So its doable with what has already been collected. The signalization, ballpark would be another 4 or $500,000, which would translate to another 40 lots, 40 or 50 lots being subdivided. The difficulty with the Council condition is that the payment of fair share is triggered by final subdivision approval. So, if you need another, you need a little more money. Now, there are lots in Kaloko that have rezoning conditions that make them pay this fair share fee and have not gone to subdivision yet. So there will be some more money coming in. But, if you do start tying this payment, tying final subdivision approval to the construction of the EXHIBIT C 6