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

Home

with maps showing where public access would be allowed, the house and accompanying structures, including a swimming pool and basketball court, were built with no provision for public access. When the Planning Department investigated this years later, the Planning Department determined it would not be practical to require him now to fulfill that requirement. In that project at Pauka‛a as well as another Watson development at Nīnole, the Planning Department issued numerous fines for work that was done without authorization. One violation, an unpermitted helipad at Nīnole—now, I say in my testimony that it remains unresolved. However, I was informed today by Steve Strauss that that had been resolved. I went to the Planning Department to confirm this. The last notice that Mr. Watson received concerning this violation in 2013 stated that fines as a result of the Planning Department’s own rules were approaching $27,000, and that they were continuing to accrue so long, daily, so long as this violation was unresolved. He ignored those letters until April of this year, and at that time, he and Mr. Brilhante apparently resolved the violation with payment of a fine that was 10 cents on the dollar--$2,300. And the Planning Department was completely left out of the negotiations for this fine. In fact, one of the planners had to e-mail Mr. Brilhante asking what this payment was for. In light of these and other infractions, it’s prudent to take a hard look at statements made earlier today by Mr. Watson when he stated, for example, that his lot extends to the ocean. He was told when he was purchasing it that it was an oceanfront lot. This is contrary to the legal description of the property where metes and bounds description clearly indicates it does not extend to the shore. I point this out since if Mr. Watson’s claim of ownership of the grassy ramp down to the ocean is accepted. There’s nothing but reliance on his goodwill to ensure that public access will be allowed. That reliance has not been earned. Yet, another concerned raised, is that this will almost surely encourage other property owners in this subdivision to seek to extend their own lots seaward at the expense of public access. SMA Use Permit 450 was a product of years of negotiation. It was in place at the time that Watson and his partner purchased the land, and as a long-time developer and an experienced attorney, respectively, they certainly should have been aware of the constraints it imposed. Thank you. MIYASATO: Chris. YUEN: Good afternoon, Members of the Commission. My name is Chris Yuen. I live at, my address is Post Office Box 5, Nīnole, Hawai‛i 96773. I know you’ve had a long day. I’ll try to keep this brief. This really, I see in two parts. There is a public benefit toward the relocation of the easement. This is actually something that I had worked on when I was Planning Director, and unfortunately, I wasn’t able to get this done while I was the Director. The path that the public has been using all these years is different than the metes and bounds of the actual easement. The easement is walkable. It does not pinch off as it stands, but you have to go down a little slope. I think you saw this on the site visit today. You have to go down a little slope, and there’s one point in front of the proposed house site, where it’s perhaps seven feet wide—a little bit narrow. The public has been going along Beach Road, and then turning right to get to the public access and this is where the easement would be relocated. 3 EXHIBIT G