2008-11-24 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

wouldn’t have to appeal in court; that’s in part what I’m trying to avoid is because I feel that, you know, we can’t go forward anyway, let us go back to the drawing board and continue our development efforts rather than spend the time fighting this in court. Because the net effect of having a denial on both of ours – which is what I’m anticipating the vote would be, if you took a substantive vote on Items 1 and 2 on the agenda today – is that we both should be appealing to the Third Circuit Court. Because, you know, if the Planning Director’s application to revoke the SMA Permit is effectively denied for a failure to reach a five-vote either which way, what does that mean? Does that mean my SMA Permit 379 is good now? I don’t know. To me, there’re a lot of uncertainties there. And it’s really somewhat of a useless legal exercise for us to be in court and appeal a final decision by the Planning Commission. That’s why I’ve asked for the deferral. Everybody will stay status quo. There is no court action. I can go concentrate on the development of the property, and bring something back to you that’s acceptable. WATANABE: Any further comments from anyone else? Yes, Mr. Housel? HOUSEL: Mr. Lim, you’ve mentioned that you would, with the deferral, you would consider reducing the number of lots in this property. Do you have an idea how many lots you would have in mind? LIM: No, we never got to that point. We tried to talk with the Director during the proceedings on this case in which you had directed us to discuss this, but we never got anywhere on that. So that’s why I’m saying, you know, let us go back to the drawing board and let us restart our planning effort again and come back to you. And if we can’t convince you that that’s a reasonable proposal, then deny the Permit. HOUSEL: Okay. WATANABE: Follow-up? Do you have a follow-up? HOUSEL: No. WATANABE: Well, for your information, historically we were discussing half the density, 25. There was a proposal, and that was not accepted by the Director, though. Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Are we ready for comments, or are we just still in the questions phrase here? WATANABE: Very good question. I’ve kind of moved forward, haven’t I? Yes, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: I’ll keep it brief. There are just a couple of brief things I’d like to say in response to what Mr. Lim has said. One is that I agree with the term, “limbo;” I actually used this with the Council. I don’t think we have an argument about that the zoning is in effect in limbo, and that the Council needs to make a decision on the zoning. As far as instituting litigation, that’s entirely up to Mr. Lim and his client; no one is forcing them to do that. If the EXHIBIT A 8