|
fact that is what actually is happening here. And I think Mr. Yuen explained why it isn’t. That’s
<br />why, you know, I want some confirmation from Mr. Torigoe as to if he in fact agrees with that as
<br />our attorney for the Planning Commission.
<br />GRAHAM: Yeah, Mr. Torigoe, did what you hear from Planning Director Yuen all
<br />sound legally accurate to you?
<br />TORIGOE: You’re referring to whether the Planning Director has authority to agree to
<br />an extension of the time beyond the 60 days. Is that the question?
<br />GRAHAM: Is that the question, Mr. Domingo?
<br />DOMINGO: Yeah, that’s one of them. And, okay, when an applicant submits an
<br />application, the applicant would in fact agree to whether an extension of the 60 days would be
<br />appropriate in his favor, and he would do it. Now in this case, as the Planning Director, is there
<br />the leeway wherein he would be able to hold it on the Planning Commission level for another
<br />extension of time?
<br />TORIGOE: Yeah, you know, you can, the Planning Director has expressed a position,
<br />and I think it’s an arguable position. I was hoping to get some input from both the Planning
<br />Director and the applicant regarding that before I had to give you an opinion on it. I could give
<br />you an opinion, you know, right now, but then I’m not sure if you would want to do that in an
<br />open session or whether you want to get that as a matter of attorney-client privilege because you
<br />may disagree with my opinion and go the other way, you know, in which case the record would
<br />have me contradicting you.
<br />DOMINGO: You know -. Mr. Chairman? Thank you, Mr. Torigoe, for your
<br />comments. It’s been frank and I can understand what you are saying. You know, at the last
<br />meeting we received a letter from the representative of the applicant, Mr. Lim, with regard to the
<br />application and the sequence of time that has taken place and his efforts to see if this whole issue
<br />could be resolved. And you know, in frustration, because nothing had actually happened, you
<br />know, he was forced to in his interest write that letter for the applicant. Now recently I read a
<br />reply to that by Mr. Yuen regarding what the attorney’s applicant said in his letter. You know, I
<br />see in both letters and I can understand it; there is a lot of information that we need that is not in
<br />our hands. And you know, one is saying one thing and the other is reflecting on another thing.
<br />And it seems like, if you look at it, the blame is upon either one and it depends on where you are
<br />coming from, you know, whether or not you support the application, the move on or not. And
<br />that’s why I think, you know, more time is needed. Both parties, as Mr. Lim indicated, would do
<br />their part and then a final analysis would be submitted to the Planning Commission for our
<br />review and study, so that we can make a decision. And whatever that decision may be, then that
<br />will be final because at that point we would have all the information before us, the arguments,
<br />the arguments for the action or inaction of both parties. And that’s what I’m looking at.
<br />GRAHAM: Okay, thank you, Commissioner Domingo. I might say I think we’ve
<br />gotten pretty clear presentations by both the applicant and the Planning Director, and I would
<br />like to encourage us to kind of move forward rather than just chewing on the same information
<br />too long. Commissioner Watanabe?
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />18
<br />
<br />
|