Laserfiche WebLink
beneficiary named under the Trust have passed away and no activity that I am aware of has named <br />who’s the successor/beneficiary. There has been no legal determination. So when this came forward, <br />in the absence of any legal determination of someone that can actually speak on behalf of the Trust, I <br />thought the best action was to allow this to proceed because it preserves the potential value to the <br />beneficiaries. Otherwise, what you basically end up having is the applicant would then have to go <br />back and initiate a rezone of their properties without this piece in it; and the time and effort that that <br />would take really puts them at a disadvantage. And so it was just trying to weigh the equities in terms <br />of this kind of unusual situation. Because if at some point in the future the beneficiaries are <br />determined, they can then do a petition to have their property downzoned if that’s what they want. But <br />that’s kind of an unusual circumstance. But I’m just trying to preserve what I think is at this point, in <br />the absence of someone to speak legally on behalf of the Trust, to try and preserve the trust’s assets. <br /> <br />DOMINGO: You know, I’m not, I’m not trying to be a hindrance to us going forward and taking <br />action on this particular application. But what I am concerned is from the legal aspect in the future if <br />anyone would come before the Planning Director and apply for the same kind of action that we’re <br />contemplating taking now. Would we be able to justify that in any case at any time? I think Corp. <br />Counsel should be able to answer that. I would like to hear from him. <br /> <br />KERN: Mr. Torigoe, would you like to speak to that? <br /> <br />TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually this is a very unusual situation. I don’t know that we’ve <br />seen this before the Planning Commission before. And I really, I think we need to hear positions from, <br />you know, interested persons and their attorneys if they have any. I’m not in a position to, you know, <br />just make that determination on my own. <br /> <br />KERN: Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Anything else? Madam Director? <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: If I’m hearing Corp. Counsel correctly, what we may be looking at is asking the <br />applicant to perhaps submit a memo, a memorandum of law or something to the Commission stating <br />their position on why this should go forward, if I’m hearing Corp. Counsel correctly. <br /> <br />TORIGOE: Well, that is one option. The matter is on the agenda now already, and we’ve opened the <br />item. So public testimony is also in order, so you could allow that also. <br /> <br />KERN: Commissioner Domingo. <br /> <br />DOMINGO: Just one question to clarify matters. Does the Pplanning Department have any <br />documentation as to the wishes of the Trust at that time when she was living to indicate that we can go <br />ahead and process the application involving that Parcel 3? <br /> <br />KERN: Madam Director? <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: Maija, our files indicate that at the time of the original application, right? <br /> <br />COTTLE: At the time of the original application all five properties were owned by Tri-Electric, which <br />was owned or the president of Tri Electric was William Hirose. And so he owned all of those <br />3 <br /> EXHIBIT A <br /> <br /> <br />