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

Home

When the Planning Commission granted the SMA permit, they fixed that or attempted to fix that in place forever in saying that’s going to be the shoreline regardless if it’s later certified. The problem arises, is that when you move the shoreline inland, and you provide access based on that inland shoreline, there’s a danger as in this case that it cuts off public access to the actual shoreline so when you define the shoreline as the top of the cliff, you don’t get the shoreline out down at the bottom of the cliff anymore which actually exists. And this was treated as if that did not even exist. So, the area that you saw down there this morning with, with the kayak and the landing and the ramp that goes down, none of that is part of what was termed the certified shoreline in 2002. So, the amendment is designed to allow public access to that shoreline in a formal way, and to recapture the actual shoreline. And for our purposes, for the setback issues, we would agree to use the 2002 shoreline which you have, which is in a map that was provided to you this morning. As the top of the, along the top of the bluff, sometimes they call a sea cliff or pali, and use that shoreline as the setback area only in areas where the actual shoreline exists below. So, the shoreline at the top of the pali where it is inaccessible below remains in place. The 2010 certification kept that portion of the 2002 certified shoreline in place. The change is the addition of the shoreline down below. So, that would change the setbacks that the County has sought to enforce, and I have to give you a little history here. There’s been some question about whether the developer knew this or knew that at the time. They’ve already submitted testimony, sworn testimony, that they did, were not aware of SMA No. 450’s setback requirements at the time that they got their Building Permit. Neither was the Building Division, which told them where they could put the, the foundation for the building, and that’s what was permitted. Neither did the Planning Department, which originally tried to impose a 50-foot shoreline setback, and a 50- or 20-foot sideyard setback for a parcel that didn’t exist, and then walked back those positions later on. There’s an agreement dated May 6, 2013, that you have that resolves all prior issues. The County Planning Department is satisfied, and I need to correct something. Other people have given you testimony that there may have been some impact on public access. There was never any violation dealing with public access at all. There was never any cut off of public access. Public access has been provided throughout, and it has been improved, as recognized by the County’s own Agreement which states in the Background Report first on Exhibit 4, the current public access easement has gaps that do not allow for continuity for pedestrians to access the shoreline. And, in Exhibit 8, they expressly state that the current public access actually prevents access to the shoreline. That’s because of the use of the 2002 certified shoreline in a place that ignored the actual shoreline. Not having impaired any public access, I think you’d be really remiss in holding the developer accountable for something that has not happened. With respect to the public access that is being proposed—Scott, if you would get that—that board behind. Okay, as you saw this morning, there is no existing public access that runs from Beach Road in the subdivision to the shoreline, to the, either the sea bluff or all the way down. This portion exists. This portion does not. This portion exists. This portion does not. And when I say this portion, I am referring, just to make a record for the transcript, I’m talking about the curved portion at the entrance that follows along 7 EXHIBIT G