Laserfiche WebLink
happening and I think the Commissioners want to get some assurance that you know whatever <br />gets recorded it€s not like a (inaudible) type of recordation where the owner of maybe lot 1 or lot <br />2 that€s going to be encumbered with thiscan easily run away from that condition. So you want <br />to put the Department in a position to review it so that you can guarantee that you know the <br />process is such that the road will be completed and then whoever buys the property or retains <br />ownership to the property would know that this is an encumbrance that runs with the land. <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? Director? Commissioner Iwashita? <br />IWASHITA:I€m not real clear first on where these other 3, 15-acre parcels are. <br />FUKE:If I can direct you to the Planning Department Exhibit Number 2 in their <br />Background Report. <br />IWASHITA:Number? <br />FUKE:PlanningDepartmentExhibit2.Soareweliterallyonthesamepage? <br />IWASHITA:Thisisa10-acre,10-acre,14.583acresanda12.892-acre? <br />FUKE:Correctyeahandthenthe,wheretheproposeddevelopmentisscheduled <br />to be would be on lot number 2. <br />IWASHITA:The 10.001 acres? <br />FUKE:That is correct and so the developers already obligated you know to <br />construct the extension of Kakahiaka Street all the way through roughly like one half of or <br />maybe two thirds of lot number 2. You know a rough stretch of about approximately 2,000 feet. <br />And so the remaining area that does not get, as proposed, would not be constructed at this point <br />in time would be a stretch of 2 or 300 feet. And so one of the parcels would be encumbered with <br />that condition and that could conceivably be lots number 1, 4 and 3 but more than likely lot <br />number 1 because its adjacent to the area of the roadway. <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? <br />IWASHITA:Yes, thank you. My other-. I have a suggestion I€d like to know if the <br />developer would be, or I€d like the developer€s comments on it. That is, I would suggest adding <br />in order to make it clear and I know I don€t want, we don€t want to put too much specificity in <br />here. But for the purposes of having a very clear process to secure this road being built in the <br />future my suggestion is that we would add the following language in the last sentence of the new <br />proposed paragraph G, after the reference to subdivision number 02-000051 and the comma, <br />including the granting of a security interest in the amount equal to the current cost for the County <br />of Hawaii to build and then the remainder of road lot, a proper reference to this section of the <br />road as determined by the Department of, the Director of the Department of Public Works and <br />said amount to be increased on an annual basis of 3%. And in my mind then that language <br />would make it clear on present dollars what the cost would be for the County to have to build <br />EXHIBIT A <br />14 <br /> <br />