2008-01-11 TPDKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

time we meet to consider these items before us, personally what I’m feeling and sensing is, you know, there is that contentious feeling among the Department and the applicant. And you know, I think to a certain degree it may have impacted on the members of the Planning Commission. Through some of the deliberations I’ve had a sense of feeling of some Commissioners by their expression having a desire to have the parties get together and talk about it, you know, discuss the issue. And as the last resort I don’t think any one of us would just like to go through the whole items and then abruptly or whatever may happen, either deny the Planning Director’s initiatives or approve it. You know, any way you look at it, there will be some degree of I think doubt in one or the other’s feelings or perhaps even to a degree of the integrity of an individual. I just, you know, as a last ditch effort, you know, in this public hearing want to know if the Planning Director and the applicant can meet and discuss the issues and hopefully come to some kind of amicable conclusion, which both of the parties can subscribe to. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo, we’ve been asking for that for quite a while now and -. DOMINGO: Well, you know -. WATANABE: It doesn’t appear as though – please let me continue – doesn’t appear as though that’s going to be possible. With that in mind, and I will ask again both parties whether that’s possible or not, that’s why I’m not ruling that out. But again not knowing where Item 4 is headed or how the other Planning Commissioners are planning to vote on Item 4, I don’t want to jump to the conclusion that this Commission will then play as mediator in Agenda Item 5. And so I’d like to get that decided. However, that said, you know, Mr. Director, we’ve asked you in the past whether you’re willing to concede on this to some degree, and I don’t believe your position has changed. But, for the record, would you care to make a statement? YUEN: Well, I’m very willing to meet with the applicant and discuss this further. But I would like to proceed with the request to rezone the property to RA-5a; and at the end of this meeting, have that go to the Council with either a favorable or unfavorable recommendation from the Planning Commission. I understand that it -, the Planning Commission, you’re very often faced with difficult choices; and I’m sorry that in this case this is a difficult choice that I initiated and presented to the Planning Commission. I have worked with people on many, many issues over a seven-year period, and have probably come to compromises that are then embodies in things that come to the Commission where there is no dispute between the applicant and the Planning Commission. I’ve done that probably a hundred times, if I’ve done it once. I haven’t been able to do that in this case. I don’t know if a position like that is possible. There is time to, certainly before this goes finally through the County Council to, for everybody to modify their positions or to come to different kinds of visions of what would happen. But I have to say that as far as today I’d like to see the Commission discuss the merits of the proposal on the return to the 5-acre zoning and attempt, you know, to take vote on it, and make a recommendation to the Council one way or the other on that. There is also Mr. Lim’s request for a time extension, which the Commission should also vote on. He can extend the time on that although – and that’s entirely up to him, of course – although I would imagine that he would want that to go up to the County Council at the same time as the 5-acre zoning. I certainly have no objection to doing that. I believe he can under the timeframes make sure that that happens. EXHIBIT C 3