2014-07-03 Hearing Transcript - Scott Watson Amend SMA 450

Home

we discovered that, that line was grossly inaccurate going up and through the buildings, and isn’t a sea cliff whatsoever. Chris Yuen has been out there and walked the site. Daryn, Maija, most everybody in the Planning has been out there to look it, and I encourage all of you to come look at it also. It was Continental’s decision to avoid expenses. They did not do any mitigation on any of these buildings or even disclosed they are sitting there when they did the survey. So, they got out of any of the mitigation work which was dumped in our lap to do, which was about $50,000 worth of mitigation on the structures. The structure of the top then, if I’m to believe this is all accurate, is half in the ocean. I was also made by the State to mitigate that building and the flume below it which is on this map, which they are calling an old railroad bridge. All of this is on the shoreline clearly if you go out and look at it in person. Again, Continental avoided a lot of money in surveying and certifying that shoreline so they went with an aerial photograph and determined that, that would be the shoreline. They did what they needed to do get the Planning Department to approve their subdivision. Again, this was something that we thought we could correct because it was not accurate and every ocean front project requires certification of the shoreline, so now there is some accuracy in the drawing, and the Planning Department all agree that what we’re proposing here is a benefit to the public for access, and allows us to go ahead with a building that they permitted us to build and approve in 2012. So, again, all I’m asking for is everyone to take a look at it, and look at the surveys and look for some accuracy here--because they had to change three of the four property lines were done incorrectly at the start. Thank you. MIYASATO: Director. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, I had a question. Mr. Watson, in your presentation, you said you had three, three objectives you want to accomplish, right? WATSON: Yes. KANUHA: Can you repeat the third one for us again? WATSON: The third one. The amendment, if we amend this— ARAI: Microphone— WATSON: Oh, excuse me, sorry Daryn. The amendment will resolve an ongoing legal dispute and court fight about legal interpretations of the correct shoreline and whether the County is property enforcing State law. That was the point three. KANUHA: But hasn’t that been partially determined by Judge Hara’s dismissal of your request for summary judgment or partial summary judgment? WATSON: I don’t know that I can answer that question correctly. Respectfully, and this is going to be continued, and I would rather that Gary did most of the speaking. I’m a builder, and this isn’t my forte. I’m in here trying to defend myself from activists wanting access to engineers wanting particular things from the County wanting everything that’s on their, their list. So, again, we’ve tried to accommodate everyone in the development of this. We took an old site that was commercially abandoned, and all the mess was left there, which we cleaned up. We 13 EXHIBIT E