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

Home

OLYMPIA: Nope, they say at the two places that I quote in our summary of position. They say on Page 7, Paragraph 17 and Page 9, Paragraph 42 in the Background Report of the Planning Department that they were unaware of 450 and Condition 11, and we were, too. HEAUKULANI: But, that’s actually not what Paragraph 17, Page 7 says. It says they were not aware of the setback requirements. My question to you was not about the setback requirements in Condition 11 but whether you were aware that there was in place an SMA permit. OLYMPIA: I was not. It was not in our prelim. It was not in our title policy, and it was not in the files that I went over at the Planning Department. I don’t know what more I could do. You’re a lawyer. I was a lawyer at that time, and I was trying to do the due diligence to satisfy myself that we were doing what we were supposed to do. And, there was no condition or limitation ever placed on us until we received that letter after construction had started and after our Building Permit had been issued based upon the location of our residence. And if there’s someplace else you can look, I read the CC&R’s over a dozen times. It’s not in our title report. It’s not in our deed. It’s not in our preliminary title report. Nothing is referenced in the Agreement of Purchase, and as referenced and you can see, Page 2 of the Summary, if you read Condition 11 as quoted on Page 1 of the Background Report, it expressly states that the Applicant, Continental Pacific, shall inform all buyers of the setbacks established under this permit. The Aldersons who testified before you, Mrs. Alderson appeared before you at the continued hearing, and she said that they were unaware of 450 and Condition 11. But, it required that Continental Pacific are to notify—give disclosure of that condition to buyers. That’s an expressed condition of a document that we never received. I can assure you, if I would have seen it, and we would have known about it, we wouldn’t be here today. There’d be no reason for me to do it otherwise. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any further questions for the Applicant? KANUHA: Mr. Chairman? MIYASATO: Yeah— KANUHA: I have a—just a couple of questions here. One of the items in the Commissioners’ files is a copy of the court decision and order? STRAUSS: Yes. KANUHA: Yeah. Can you explain to the Commission how this relates to some of the, some of the questions maybe that Commissioner Heaukulani has been raising? STRAUSS: It really doesn’t. The court’s decision, well, the court case relates to the extent that if the public access realignment is approved through amendment of SMA No. 450 according to the language that we proposed, then the court case will be resolved. The—in the court case, we filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied, but it’s not denied with prejudice. It can be brought back again with some additional information. And Judge Hara had requested some additional information. But, the issues in that case are somewhat different, well, they’re 15 EXHIBIT G