2007-11-16 TKILGORE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

YUEN: I’d like to make one another comment. The question of coastal hazards is certainly a very valid and important one in any SMA Permit. I would not draw the conclusion, though, that the change in where the shoreline is certified from one year to the next or from one certification to the next necessarily means that there has been a physical change. There’s a bit of an art to the shoreline certification. It’s not scientific in a sense that two surveyors will go out and, even on the same day, and certify the shoreline at exactly the same place. So it may be that there’s been a change, there’s actually been a physical change in the shoreline; it also may not be. DOMINGO: So my theory, so my theory -. WATANABE: Art meets science. DOMINGO: So my theory that there is nothing right or wrong in planning, it depends on how you look at it at a certain day at a certain time, right? YUEN: Well, you strive for consistency as much as possible. And I wish you would say, you know, I wish we could say that there was an absolute way of certifying the shoreline. But the fact is that there are often negotiations and discussion between the State Surveyor; sometimes there is public input on a shoreline certification; and depending on, sometimes the landowner will not care about particularly where the shoreline is certified, and there will be a certification that’s more inland at one time. But that is just the fact of the matter that you can have the shoreline certified differently by two surveyors. I think normally surveying would be considered more exact than planning, but in the case of shoreline certifications, probably not. DOMINGO: One more issue which we haven’t gone into yet, but you know, they are proposing to replicate the conditions of the previously granted SMA Use Permit; and I think the last one was in 1991. So, you know, we are looking at about 15 years ago. Does the Department have any rule or any policy with regard to how far back the submittal of information would be applicable to a permit at the present day? I mean, because what we are looking at here are statements made over 10 years ago; and if we consider this very parcel, we are looking at over 20 years ago in 19, was it 19 -? DARROW: If I could interject on this matter, Special Management Area Use Permit 318 was also revoked in July 1999, and the reason for this was because the applicant had filed bankruptcy and was unable to pursue the project. So this particular application is a new Special Management Area Use Permit, separate from the one in 1991. DOMINGO: Yeah, but my question was they’re using the very same information they used then to be, as an exhibit to their submittal for the application. And if you look at it, at this parcel, you know, you are going back as far as 1982; and I don’t know if the information is still pertinent now as it was then. YUEN: Well, we do expect applications to be updated. And so – I thought, I thought that they submitted a, let’s see – the archeological report has been updated as of 2003; it’s not from the previous application. So they have submitted new information. EXHIBIT B 5