Laserfiche WebLink
ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? <br />YUEN:Well that€s right. The State property does go all the way to Queen <br />Kaahumanu. That€s a large lot that the State owns. How the State would want to handle that <br />really depends on how they develop the property. I know that there are no current plans by the <br />State to do a development there. Having Seascape build in fact extends Kakahiaka Street almost <br />to the boundary of the State property and at least makes the potential for building-, this makes a <br />potential for having access to a State property that€s immediately adjacent. Actually without <br />Kakahiaka Street being built the State propertyhas no access for a long way from either side. <br />And if the State wanted to develop up from Queen Kaahumanu then naturally they would have to <br />build their own road going up from Kaahumanu but it€s a long way from the Queen Kaahumanu <br />Highway to this elevation. <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe follow up? <br />WATANABE:I€m trying to be real careful about this cause I know the rules say that we <br />shouldn€ttestifyasCommissionersbutyouknowIlivein-,sincewe€reindiscussionIhopethis <br />is appropriate. <br />ALAMEDA:This is okay. Go ahead. <br />WATANABE:Okay. I live in Kona Vistas and as you know Lako Street was stubbed out <br />in Kona Vistas and we did have significant problems with trash being dumped there, drug sales <br />going on, you know people having sex there, everything, all kinds of things were going on. And, <br />since the development started to occur where Lako Street is being extended much of that has <br />kind of cleared up except that it moved towards our Rec. Center. And the real issue with this is <br />you know the response time from the police is sufficiently long that they never ever catch <br />anyone. Which means that you know the neighborhood gets involved in this, in trying to police <br />their own area and it€s sort of a risk. So in my mind when you€re looking at 3 to 400 feet that <br />leads to nowhere and saying that we€ll complete that road and then put a barrier so that they can€t <br />go in, use that additional 3 to 400 feet kind of doesn€t make sense. I at the same time though <br />share the other Commissioners concerns that there be sufficient language that we€re assured that <br />the developer is not let off the hook. And to a great extent I think by what the Director indicated <br />as far as the parcels in question that would be encumbered being you know like 15 acres or so it <br />would seem that that€s significant collateral for 3 or 400 feet of road. <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones? <br />GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Chair. The concerns that I have pretty much is in line with <br />what Commissioner Watanabe had spoken about. Mr. Fuke had mentioned the reasons why they <br />would like to waiver the requirement to develop that portion of the road is a real problem. I was <br />looking at the police comments also on the report and I was hoping to see something that says <br />it€s along the lines of safety and something that€s criminal that would be occurring and their <br />recommendation would be along those lines. But reading their report it just states that it€s the <br />staff opinion that the practice of deferring connector road construction does not work and sets a <br />negative precedence. And I think what they are trying to say here is the same problem that the <br />EXHIBIT A <br />11 <br /> <br />