Laserfiche WebLink
community has always been expressing to the Planning Commission which is the infrastructure, <br />the road infrastructure is not keeping up with the development that is going on in this area. <br />However, in this situation here the reason that they are asking for a waiver of developing that <br />was more for a safety reason and a maintenance reason and all these illegal activities which is <br />more realistic and practical as you compare it to the police report. But also on the other hand, I <br />also express the same concerns like Commissioner Watanabe and I guess the rest of the <br />Commissioners also expressing the same is that to be assured that in the future that the applicant <br />or the successors or assigns will be obligated to developing that road. Now in the condition, the <br />new Condition G it speaks of it€s going to be dedicated to the County and I€m of the assumption <br />that although, and if I€m wrong I€d like to be corrected. I€m of the assumption although it€s <br />going to be dedicated to the County that the applicant, the successor or the assign will still be <br />held liable or obligated to build the road if required by the Planning Director. The other thing I€d <br />like to address is the last sentence in the new Condition G. I€m not quite certain what that is <br />trying to say. It speaks of the obligation to build a road shall be secured by a covenant running <br />withthelandrecordedagainstatleastoneoftheparcelscreatedbySubdivisionnumberandit <br />gives a number or the applicant may build the road or bond its construction. I€m not quite <br />certain what it€s trying to tell us. If this is going to help secure or obligate the applicant, the <br />successor or the assigns that the road shall be built then I€m all for it but I€m not quite so sure if <br />that is what that sentence is trying to say and I don€t know if somebody will be able to help me <br />with this. <br />ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? <br />YUEN:I can take that. Yes that is what the condition is trying to say. The <br />Subdivision 02-00051 creates 4 lots of roughly 15 acres. So the lot, if this went through then <br />there would be a follow-up document that would be recorded against one of those lots and <br />requiring the construction of this road upon request of the Planning Director. And then the last <br />part gives the applicant the option, you can devoid that, you can just go ahead and build the road <br />or you can bond its construction. And again the bond is something that the full language isn€t <br />here, there would be something that would be reviewed by Corporation Counsel for its legal <br />sufficiency. <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? <br />WATANABE:Just for clarification Mr. Director? The parcels or parcel that you are <br />referring to would be most likely parcels that are mauka of this subdivision that are like 15-acres <br />and also owned by the applicant? <br />YUEN:There€s-, I don€t know if we have a good map showing it but there€s I <br />think there€s 2-? Well I think there€s one more mauka of this and then there€s 2 on either side of <br />Kakahiaka between this property and the current Lokahi makai development. <br />WATANABE:Yeah I guess the real concern was you know when I first read this was <br />almost like-, cause I did, I wasn€t privy to the fact that they owned other parcels adjoining this. <br />Was that oh we would put a covenant that was secured by say an affordable lot and since that€s <br />not the case I feel pretty comfortable. <br />EXHIBIT A <br />12 <br /> <br />