|
minute, they will, the Department has indicated that they are agreeable to that request to
<br />correction of the northern and the westerly boundaries. That, as I will refer to in a minute, assists
<br />in providing a better and usable public access easement to the ocean front. The Department is
<br />waiting to approve that when the determination is made relative to the next two issues that I’m
<br />going to be discussing.
<br />
<br />The first of those is the fact that the existing public access easement that, created by the
<br />subdivision map back in 2002 to 2006, created a public access easement that is really unusable.
<br />It is very steep, short area that goes through a wooded area to a cliff, and doesn’t give access
<br />back at the ocean frontage so that a decent public access would exist. We have proposed in a
<br />meeting with the Planning Department last fall that a resolution of the two issues—one, the
<br />setback issue, and the unusable public access issue—be a solution to the problem that exists. We
<br />are willing to give to the County a public access that is much longer, much bigger and usable,
<br />that goes directly from Sugar Mill Road, down to the ocean and in front of property that is safe,
<br />open, very usable, as opposed to this unusable existing public access easement.
<br />
<br />We are requesting that the issue that was created after our Building Permit was issued and the
<br />foundation was done, that there was a conflict with a Settlement Agreement that had been
<br />entered into with Continental Pacific and the County which we knew nothing about, never been
<br />provided a copy. It wasn’t referenced in any title insurance policy. It wasn’t referenced in any
<br />preliminary report of title. It wasn’t recorded. It wasn’t part of the CC&R’s. We are unaware of
<br />this, and in that Settlement Agreement which occurred when the subdivision was created, there
<br />was a Condition 11. And Condition 11 established a setback relative to the shoreline which was
<br />different than, bigger than what the State law provided. We designed the house. We created the
<br />location, not intending to violate anything. We were following, we thought, State law, and we
<br />knew nothing about this Settlement Agreement that had been entered years before. We have
<br />been discussing that with the Planning Department, including a very lengthy discussion
<br />yesterday. Chris Yuen was kind enough to come because he was the Director at the time to share
<br />his thoughts with regard to what we were requesting to be done. And, the process in which both
<br />the relocation, resubdivision, the northern and westerly boundaries, the issue of the providing a
<br />better public access and the amendment of Condition 11 only for Lot 23 is fully discussed in an
<br />Agreement that was entered with the County, and we have provided a copy of that for each of
<br />you which addresses these issues in a very favorable way—that this improves the situation,
<br />creates a win-win situation for the public, number one, the County, and us. That is an
<br />Agreement that was signed by the then Director, BJ Todd, our attorney, and approved by Amy
<br />Self. That inadvertently or for whatever reason, wasn’t attached to your materials so we, with
<br />the consent of Daryn, we’ve provided a copy to be given to each of you. Don’t expect you’re
<br />gonna read that 6 or 7 pages now, but it, it focuses on what I’ve just said to you. The relocation,
<br />resubdivision, north and westerly boundaries, the changing or substituting a very usable, better
<br />public access, and the resolution of this setback issue which was never intended as a violation,
<br />but we are into construction, and there is a civil engineer, structural engineer report to the County
<br />which is included in their materials which indicates where we have located the house. It’s safe.
<br />There is not an issue of safety or danger, and outside of our property, there is this public access
<br />that goes to the shoreline which serves the public interest.
<br />
<br />3
<br />EXHIBIT E
<br />
<br />
<br />
|