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

Home

YUEN:Well, the logic of itis certainly true that the application remains valid regardless of a change in ownership. We would only be concerned that the applicant is the owner because we would want to picture that the person making the application is the owner and wants to carry out the same project. But, you are always judging the project based upon what is presented as a project not on the merits of or the perceived personality or merits of the applicant itself. So, I know that weve made the point, we made this point in discussing applications many times that people will come in with character references for example. And talk about what a good person the applicant is or fortunately less frequently sometimes talk about what a bad person the applicant is and weve discussed the fact that we are looking at a project. If we have concerns about the project that everything should be covered by a condition. That youre not relying upon the personality or the identity of the person whos applying because that can change and that the permit can be actually carried out by somebody different than the person applying for it. So Im absolutely confident as a proposition that the Applicant is irrelevant and the change in who is applying at least as far as the SMA permits and the rezoning ordinances does notconstituteanewapplication.Andtheyreconsistentinthiscaseandinothersimilarcases they can continue with the same application. SPRINGER:Thank you Mr. Director. Commissioner Iwashita any follow-up? IWASHITA:Not at this time. SPRINGER:Thank you. Thank your Mr. Schultz. Commissioners any further questions of Mr. Schultz? Mr. Mooers do you have any other comments at this time? MOOERS:Not at this time. SPRINGER:Okay. Mr. Kim, if you could state your name and address for the record and then enter into any discussion that you care to have with us this morning. KIM:Thank you. Robert Kim, 77-6400 Nalani Street, Suite A-1, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 96740, 329-6611. Thank you Madame Chairwoman and members of the Commission. First of all I would orally move to strike the memorandum of the Applicant. My motion is nd addressed on several grounds. Number 1, at the last meeting April 22 the parties had entered in to a stipulation in conjunction with the advice of Mr. Torigoe. At that meeting it had indicated that each party was to submit their position papers at a minimum 10 days prior to submission of th the next hearing. The hearing is May 20. Following the agreement of the parties made in open record I submitted as agreed my memorandum on May 10, 2005. I did not receive a memorandum in opposition or a position paper from the Applicant until yesterday and I have a stamp on my document showing when it came in. In fact the memorandum itself isnt dated until th May 17. Its untimely and therefore it should be stricken. Thats my first argument. Second, it containsexhibits,whichhavenotbeenauthenticated.Idontbelievethattheminutesorthe transcripts have been approved or reviewed by this body. Secondly, thirdly, Mr. Hayashi points outthatthedocumentsarenotincludedinyourpositionpapers.Theyhaventevenbeen furnished to you and therefore those memoranda are incomplete, untimely and include documentsthatshouldnotbeincluded.Soinfairness,becausehadIreceived,althoughIdont have a right to respond, it was only that we had to file these memorandum 10 days before. But EXHIBIT C 8