2008-04-18 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WATANABE: Are we in agreement in that, procedurally, Mr. Director and Mr. Lim? Does that sound fair? So both parties have an opportunity to reintroduce at a later date. LIM: We wouldn’t agree that that can happen; we won’t stipulate to that. If he can do that, or we can do that, then that’s something we’ll address as a later stage. I think at this point in time what I’m trying to do is to just try to -. WATANABE: Close it out. LIM: Capsulate everything, close it up. And if we are going to go to court, we get to go to court. WATANABE: Okay. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Yes. WOODWARD: I had a question for Mr. Lim. My understanding is as things stand right now that the failure to approve the time extension essentially means that the SMA Permit at this point will become invalid -. LIM: That’s not my interpretation. We believe it’s still alive until revoked by the Planning Commission. WOODWARD: Okay. So you’d rather just leave it like it is than to have us hold this in abeyance until you get the rezoning application through Council; you’d just like to leave it like it is? LIM: That’s correct. And it does also, like I said, put all the legal issues in one basket once the County Council takes final action. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Mr. Yuen, your comments, so we are clear on how you would care to proceed because I sense that you wanted to somehow arrive at a conclusion on the revocation. YUEN: Well, I always like the Commission, if possible, to come to a decision by five votes whether it’s something that the Department and I are advocating or not. And there is a possibility of the Commission making a decision on both the SMA Permit and the revocation. So, there is not a big rush on it in a sense that if the Council enacts a zoning that would not allow 50 units, then the SMA Permit is not valid -. WATANABE: It would have to be revised -. EXHIBIT A 27