Laserfiche WebLink
WATANABE: Thank you. You indicated that you had some questions, or at least one <br />question, that you wanted to ask. <br />FERNANDEZ: Well, just thinking back what happened at the last Planning Commission <br />session, the question over this SMA after-the-fact is, my assumption is the SMA ultimately is <br />going to be approved; it’s not going to be denied. The question is, one that is sort of a rhetorical <br />question is how much conditions or mitigation measures is Mr. Mohammadi or E. Commerce <br />Enterprises going to have to do to this property in order to be able to be granted an SMA <br />approval. I’m just trying to, is that, my understanding is if it’s denied -. What happens if the <br />SMA is ultimately denied? I can’t imagine that. <br />WATANABE: Maybe I should defer that to the Director, because you’ve been in <br />negotiations with the representative, yeah, of the applicant? <br />YUEN: Right. Well, the Commission can deny the SMA permit application. At <br />this point what we are -. The applicant came in with an application – and you’ve seen what they <br />proposed. The Department had a set of recommended approval but with a different set of <br />conditions that they would have to perform, which they did not agree with, and we are currently <br />in discussions about that. If the application were denied, then it would become strictly an <br />enforcement matter as to what would have to be done on the ground as far as fixing the problem. <br />The difficulty, of course, is once somebody has done something like this, it is very difficult to <br />actually fix it in terms of restoring it the way it was. So there is a violation that’s been filed, and <br />they have contested the violation for this. The violation would involve fines and some follow-up <br />work, and so that’s also, you know, in a parallel track. It doesn’t get heard by the Planning <br />Commission; it’s with the Board of Appeals and there is a hearings officer who will hear the <br />violation side. <br />WATANABE: Did that pretty much answer your question? <br />FERNANDEZ: Yes, I mean, my whole point with all of this is saying, you know, that I <br />really, I would desire, right, that as much restoration of Waipiele Gulch occurs that is possible, <br />right? That’s ultimately where I’m coming from that I think what has happened to the gulch <br />itself and to the environment down there is horrific, and that the Planning Commission needs to <br />really take a serious look at how much restoration can be achieved in that area. <br />WATANABE: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of Mr. <br />Fernandez? Yes, Ms. Bowman. <br />BOWMAN: I have a question since you’ve lived there for a long time, and I’m not <br />familiar with down there. Was there an existing vehicular – like, for fishermen – road that you <br />know of? <br />FERNANDEZ: My understanding in speaking with colleagues I work with in the office, <br />that there was never an access road from the cul-de-sac in the back where the second violation <br />occurred, right, the long road that goes down there. There was the ability, if you were bold <br />EXHIBIT A <br />2 <br /> <br />