2007-07-20 TSEASCAPE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ALAMEDA: Oh, okay. DOMINGO: Mr. Ching, you’re of an opinion that rather than taking it incrementally, that the developer should consider the total acreage in his name to come submit an application before the State Land Use Commission for boundary amendment? CHING:Yes, that is my belief. And it’s also based on another item in my th correspondence of April 30, which indicated that Westpro, aka Seascape, had taken out a docket number for intention of filing with my Commission. DOMINGO: I see. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo, for asking that. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Can you -, I didn’t -, I guess I don’t understand the full impact of what you just said, that last statement. Can you expand upon that, that they pulled a docket number? CHING: There were consultations and indications that the developer would be submitting a petition for district boundary amendment with my Land Use Commission. A docket number was issued for their purpose of filing that petition.No docket has been received. The representation that I had was that that petition for district boundary amendment would address or cover the remainder of the 50 acres that was not urbanized by the County, and otherwise known as Parcel 51. IWASHITA: The one that’s being developed now. CHING: I believe Parcel 51 was originally reclassified by the County of Hawaii in 2004. I believe what you have before you today, this parcel is known as Parcel 3, I believe, Parcel 3. IWASHITA: Okay. So, and then your expectation is that, given what you’ve just said, is that you should receive some sort of docketing document and process it through the State Land Use Commission? CHING: In short. IWASHITA: Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Any other questions for Mr. Ching? Commissioner Woodward. WOODWARD: Yeah, Mr. Ching, that being said, does this body have any force, or should we bother with this? ALAMEDA: Mr. Ching? EXHIBIT B 5