2005-05-20 EXHIBIT C HUGGETT PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

project because you told us something, every negotiation Ive ever been involved in whether it be a contested case or with the concerned neighbors we write it down it goes in as a condition of approval. The fact is, is that the AOAO that dropped the contested case and youll notice there is a letter in there from Mr. Kim indicating that they dropped the contested case, they had a board meeting the same day as our last Commission meeting. This issue of our project was not even raised at that meeting. The agreement is with, for the easement, is with Vacations Internationale. Theyre the landowners that own it. So anything that we agreed to them has to be in writing, all right. And if we cannot reach an agreement with them this permits not valid because it says very clearly in here that we have to have a 20 foot roadway so you know those agreements all have to be in writing. So the fact that Mr. Soto is no longer the applicant it didnt grant any advantage to Mr. Huggett. WATANABE:Thank you. SPRINGER:CommissionerIwashita? IWASHITA:ThankyouMadameChair.Iwanttomakesurewefollowtherules,Id like, maybe address this to Counsel. Rule 4-6c is the rule requiring the Applicant to serve notice okay. And Rule 4-2 defines under subsection 2 applicant as a person whose seeking the approval of the Commission. In this case for an SMA Permit. And 7 defines a person as an individual all right? As I interpret this, those rules as it applies to the Applicant before us now, the Huggetts; that seems to me to require the Huggetts as the Applicant to serve notice. Any comments? SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe? IWASHITA:Im address- Im sorry, Im addressing it to Applicants counsel. SPRINGER:Mr. Schultz? SCHULTZ:I think its my understanding that the contested case was actually withdrawn back in December 2003, 4, 3, December 2003. So there really wasnt a contested case going on at that point after the AOAO pulled out. In either case, we did, its my understanding that we did do a notice as if there was still a contested going on we just didnt say that there was one. Cause it was our understanding given to us by the Planning Department that this was merely a resumption of the application for SMA 03-007. IWASHITA:Yeah I understand that. But Im just asking you to address what the rule says and actually the way I read it going backwards since the Applicant is provided notice right. I know the former applicant provided notice. SCHULTZ:Right. IWASHITA:But the Applicants now are the Huggetts. SCHULTZ:Uh, huh. EXHIBIT C 12