2014-09-04 Hearing Transcript-Scott Watson Amend SMA 450

Home

only later after the County became aware of SMA No. 450, and if you look at their Background Report, they admit that it was not apparent to them at the time that they first dealt with the permitting for this project. So, neither the County Planning Department nor the Applicant was aware of the setback requirements that were imposed by SMA No. 450, and the County Planning Department did not originally use those setbacks in determining where the setback should be for the structure. Only later did the County raise these shoreline setback issues. Excuse me—and finally I want to correct something that Ms. Tummons said. Ms. Tummons said that Mr. Watson ignored the fine, or the notice of violation relative to his helipad, from the County. That’s not true. Mr. Brilhante and I began negotiations upon receipt of that Notice of Violation and we made an offer, and there was some additional information that needed to be gathered and the delay was solely based on our negotiations. He did not ignore that violation. He was concerned about it the entire time, and that’s a—that’s what happened. It was not some, some instance of Mr. Watson just ignoring it. And, finally, there are some issues that people have raised about the project falling into the ocean. And if you look at the archaeological survey inventory that was submitted originally with the application, the areas that are being built on, encompass largely areas that have warehouses on them that were built in 1920, and the foundations were still there. This project was certified by a structural engineer, and any safety concerns have already been addressed, and the area that we’re talking about with, above the ramp specifically, is not even impacted by erosion—that erosion occurs down at the shoreline as you can see from where the shoreline is. So, those are my comments. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to try and address them or have the Applicants address them. HEAUKULANI: Steve, I had a couple of questions. You talked right near the end of your presentation about Agreement that was not of record. What Agreement were you referring to? STRAUSS: That’s what the County refers to in its Background Report. A Settlement Agreement with Continental Pacific, and under the terms of that Agreement, Continental Pacific supposedly says whatever is makai of this line, the County gets for access purposes. But, it’s not part of the CC&R’s for the subdivision. It’s not part of the subdivision approval. It’s not part of our deed. It doesn’t appear any where there, and it was only in a file at the County Planning Department that was located after this all began. So, it was not of record anywhere. HEAUKULANI: But, the SMA 450 permit, that is of record. STRAUSS: That is of—not in our deed. It’s not in record of our deed. HEAUKULANI: So you, I mean, that’s really my question, is—you know, I don’t recall the comment about saving Mr. Watson from himself, but I do recall this Commission being individually and collectively concerned by a series of applicants coming in here after they had violated a term of their permit and asking for the amendment to happen. Now, you’ve said today that your clients didn’t know about SMA 450, Condition 11 until the Building Permits were 12 EXHIBIT G