Laserfiche WebLink
property as the boundary being the sea cliff, and the shore, and the ocean is in front of that. It <br />doesn’t describe any remnant parcel in front of it. <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: We’re not talking about remnant parcels. We’re gonna be here all afternoon if <br />we don’t stay focused. But doesn’t Condition 11 itself expressly anticipate the possibility that <br />the shoreline might be, subsequently be determined to be more makai of the sea cliff? <br /> <br />WATSON: Again, the way that it’s worded, the sea cliff can’t go through a building that’s been <br />there for a 130 years, so I, our argument is none of this was accurately done, and all we’re asking <br />for is it to be done accurately like every project— <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: Okay, maybe my question wasn’t as clear as it could have been. It is correct, <br />though, that Condition No. 11 of the SMA Permit No. 450 did anticipate the possibility that later <br />certifications of the shoreline might be more makai of the top of the cliff. <br /> <br />WATSON: I don’t understand your question. <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: All right. I’m—it’s likely not your fault. It’s likely a bad question. The <br />permit itself says a condition shall apply even if the shoreline is later certified at a location makai <br />of the top of the cliff. Correct? <br /> <br />WATSON: Understood. <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: Okay, and what actually happened is that a later certification indicated that, at <br />least at that time, the shoreline was more makai of the top of the cliff. Correct? <br /> <br />WATSON: Yes sir. <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: All right, and with all of that in place, you constructed within the existing <br />setback. <br /> <br />WATSON: No sir. <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: Okay, explain that to me. <br /> <br />WATSON: Again, the building never encroached on this boundary line. The setback is <br />determined from the shoreline, not from what the Director had called originally— <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: I’m going to disagree with you on that one, sir. In this case, the setback is <br />determined by Condition 11 of the SMA permit. <br /> <br />WATSON: When we pulled the permit, the Planning Department determined this area in front <br />of that boundary line to be a remnant parcel that didn’t belong to us. We disagreed with that. <br />That’s not what we purchased, and the prior owners purchased. The inaccuracy of the survey <br />shows that none of this was ever surveyed properly, and all we did was survey it as the Planning <br />Department asked that we do at the beginning of any building process. So, as we recertified it, <br />12 <br />EXHIBIT E <br /> <br /> <br />