2008-01-11 TPDKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

being if Agenda Item 4 passes, then everything else is moot. And also because the Director has th made it very clear that he will not extend beyond this January 11 date, in which case an unfavorable recommendation would be forwarded to the County Council. Now it’s also my understanding that really the reason for wanting to keep the items consolidated is the SMA th permits, which are not agendized but agendized for the March 20 meeting, go hand in hand with the – how should I put it – with the application for a time extension. And that application for a time extension would only arise if Agenda Item 4, the Planning Director initiated revocation, passes. So if you will consent to that, then I think we can narrow or focus our discussions. LIM: As we stated before -. I’m sorry. Steven Lim representing -. WATANABE: Let me swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? LIM: I do. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Lim. And name and address, of course. LIM: Steven Lim representing Kohala LLC, which is the applicant, and Item No. 5 on the agenda today. My address is P. O. Box 121, Hilo, Hawaii, 96721. Your question was whether we would agree to the hearing of Item No. 4 only, which is the Planning Director’s initiated downzonings, and – excuse me -. WATANABE: I’m not suggesting that we not deliberate on Agenda Item 5; it is agendized, we will address that. I’m hoping that we can deliberate on Item 4, so that we will get a clear direction as to how the Planning Commissioners feel. Obviously, if it’s five or a greater number in favor of the Planning Director’s recommendation, then Agenda Item 5 is moot. On the other hand, if it’s five or greater against the Planning Director’s recommendation, then we can proceed to Agenda Item 5. And my thoughts here are that, you know, with Agenda Item 5 as I understand the Rules allow the applicant to agree to an extension of time, which then we could join in, if appropriate, with the SMA discussions. On the other hand, I do want to make a point that if indeed we proceed to 5 because Agenda Item 4 fails, then I would like to record in these discussions some direction, so that we can provide the Council with some direction, since we are sending it up separately, as to where we are headed with Agenda Item 5 and the subsequent SMA th discussions that are agendized for March 20. LIM: I think our legal position is that we believe that the five matters including the SMA matters were all consolidated and they still remain consolidated. We have no objections to you taking up for discussion purposes Item 4 and then Item 5 so long as it’s understood that we are not waiving any of our claims that all these matters are consolidated. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Even before we go any further, you know, we have had discussions on this issue for a number of months, and as each time goes by, as each EXHIBIT C 2