|
consolidation/resubdivision application, the Planning Department will accept and use the
<br />March 4, 2010, certified shoreline survey completed for the Special Management Area
<br />Assessment. So, that’s how we got to the County agreeing to use the shoreline including the
<br />actual shoreline as defined by the certified shoreline in 2010. So, we got beyond the use of claim
<br />that the areas that you saw, that the first access that you went, is where the shoreline actually is.
<br />For purposes of this subdivision and reconsolidation and implicitly the SMA permit amendment
<br />that we’re seeking here, the County has agreed that the shoreline is actually where the shoreline
<br />is in this section, and I’m pointing to the left hand portion of the photograph.
<br />
<br />And you will note that the reason we agreed to do this is because it provides—and this is what
<br />was signed off on from the County, it provides for an improved, superior access for the
<br />shoreline, and that’s what we’re about. Some people will say, no don’t let him change anything.
<br />Screw ‘em because of what Mr. Watson may have done in the past on some other area, and to
<br />those people, I would say, is it really worth it? Is that vengeful position really worth it when it
<br />costs an improved, superior access to the public. And, I think it’s really shortsighted to do that.
<br />
<br />There was another violation, people talked about violations that was deleted. The County found
<br />that the original violation, there was no violation. There were—NOV’s are Notices of Violations
<br />and NOVA’s are Notices of Violations Amended—you can see that they changed over time.
<br />The County would say one thing at one—then the Planning Department say one thing once and
<br />something later on—and this had to do with the County’s claim that without any, any legal basis,
<br />and Mr. Yuen can address this as well, the County, in order to try and impose setbacks on the
<br />area that I’ve indicated in this, along this pedestrian easement, in back of that, the County tried to
<br />claim that this parcel was actually owned by Continental Pacific, and Continental Pacific doesn’t
<br />own any parcel adjacent to it. They just said the remnants owned by that is not a legal position,
<br />and it’s something as Mr. Yuen states, is complicated, and the County doesn’t, doesn’t really
<br />belong in getting involved in who owns that. Their position should be to get improved public
<br />access through any means they can.
<br />
<br />The Agreement also required the landowner to submit an application and revised plot plan that’s
<br />been accepted by the County. All the, all the Planning Department, all of that has been covered
<br />and disclosed, and then finally, there was a $500 fine that was imposed for some past soil
<br />violations.
<br />
<br />So, that’s where we are with our current status with the County. There are no existing violations.
<br />There are no pending violations. This was resolved. It was resolved in a manner to which the
<br />County committed, yes, we would like to propose that we obtain this improved public access.
<br />We want that from you. The County—the Planning Department officials went out to the
<br />Pepe‛ekeō community, presented this proposed plan. I was present. I did not speak, but I was
<br />present at that. April Surprenant was present there. I don’t know if Daryn was present there as
<br />well. And as it stated in their Background Report, it was generally well received by the people
<br />looking at the, from the community that were looking at access issues. And, now, Jeff—I just
<br />need the last, the last one.
<br />
<br />There we go, okay. In the summary of our position which is not on here, there are references to
<br />pages of the Background Report that support what I’ve told you. It’s not just me saying this.
<br />10
<br />EXHIBIT G
<br />
<br />
<br />
|