Laserfiche WebLink
impediment to getting that. Shipman may feel that they can object, but still the bottom line is <br />that they’ve already conveyed it and they’ve obtained whatever they had to obtain back to give <br />us the complete title. So that’s what we feel, we agree, suspect. <br />DOMINGO: You don’t have any kind of a letter or affidavit that would indicate that <br />what you’re saying is in fact a fact for us to consider? <br />SULLA: Well, I can provide that; and our attorney Wayne Nasser has provided that <br />and detailed it to the objecting parties here; and they’ve seen that. So we can provide that very <br />easily for you, whatever. Well, what we have are opinions of title by the attorney in Honolulu <br />who’s working for Fidelity Insurance and can outline what is going to happen and why. We can <br />get whatever is required to satisfy, to make comfort with the Commission. <br />WATANABE: Thank you, I appreciate that. On the other hand I think this body would <br />prefer to stay out of the access issue and focus on the land use issues; and one way of doing that <br />is conditioning the approval or the recommendation; and then we’d stay completely out of the <br />legal access issues. Yes, Mr. Fuke. <br />FUKE: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to that, I think if I can just kind of amplify a little <br />bit, you know, in terms of the process. Because, you know, notwithstanding whatever <br />recommendation that the Planning Commission may offer, the process, you know, of this <br />application would require at least like maybe three or four months of hearing before disposition <br />before the County Council. And assuming that there’s like a favorable disposition on the <br />application before the Council, then prior to establishing any use on the property the normal <br />procedure requires that the applicant submit plans to the Planning Department for plan approval <br />review. So pursuant to that like what I, you know, if the Commission is so inclined there could <br />be like a condition that would read something along this line, and it would read like, “Final plan <br />approval for any uses on the subject properties shall not be issued until proof of access meeting <br />with the approval of the Corp. Counsel has been demonstrated.” <br />WATANABE: Okay. Did everybody get that? So what Mr. Fuke is suggesting is we <br />could add a condition if we are so inclined that would require legal access to be established prior <br />to issuance of final plan approval. Okay? Is that satisfactory? Mr. Hayashi, do you have <br />something? <br />ARAI: If I may. <br />WATANABE: Oh, Mr. Arai. <br />ARAI: I would not support such an amendment, that is deferring something as <br />substantive as access or availability of access down to the individual plan approval review. <br />When you get down to plan approval review, that’s about, that’s just before when you’re ready to <br />build; and we shouldn’t be having to determine on a case-by-case basis whether legal access is <br />available. I’d rather have something as substantive as availability of access addressed more at <br />this level than at plan approval. <br />FUKE: Mr. Chairman? <br /> EXHIBIT A <br />5 <br /> <br />