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

Home

the curve of Beach Road once you enter into the gate, and then the long portion in green that has a jog in the middle that runs along the driveway, and is actually situated on the driveway. And then, in the next condition that we would propose consistent with Mr. Yuen’s comments is quoted in that middle paragraph that you have in front of you, but for the purpose of the audience, that, in exchange—well, there would be a cooperation of a new pedestrian public access, and that’s just what I identified for you. That’s the green shaded area that is bounded by yellow lines, so you can distinguish it from the existing easements which don’t have yellow lines in their perimeter, that we would agree, and with the Planning Department’s cooperation, to convey that pedestrian access within 240 days after the grant of the amendment, should you choose to grant it. And that would also recognize and have as a condition, the Planning Department is authorized to place reasonable terms on the exact location of that easement. That has essentially already been worked out. This was already surveyed out in connection with the Planning Department’s wishes, and the Planning Department recognizes in several points in the Background Report that, and also in the May 6 Agreement, that this is a much superior access, an improved access. I don’t want to talk too much about the issue of whether there, whether you can actually make access to the shoreline by the area that you saw today. We disagree about that. It’s our position that it—you can’t, and that there is no, there is no document of record that provides for a legal access to that and it’s actually recognized by the County’s own statements. The last portion of that condition would also authorize the Planning Department to substitute for a portion of the proposed new access along Beach Road. This curve in Beach Road here if the Association that owns that road, and it has, it’s a 30-foot wide road in a 60-foot easement, if they were to provide access to the County. If we were able to, and we’ve had discussions with them because that’s an access that’s actually used by pedestrians along the roadway, rather than cutting into a portion of the property here, so, if we can get an access that is suitable and available for the Planning Department, and the Planning Department would be authorized to substitute that access which would essentially be in the area that just follows the curve of Beach Road in the easement. And, so that’s why that provision is in there. It would authorize the County to do that, the Planning Department with no further involvement from the Planning Commission. Now, the last condition that we’re proposing to be as part of this—you can put that down—as part of this amendment really addresses the trust issues that others have brought up based on Mr. Watson’s prior dealings that have nothing to do with this case, but have to do with his prior dealings, and we’re not saying trust us. We’re saying we will provide to the County a quitclaim for the easement—of the portion of the property that extends all the way down to the shoreline that doesn’t currently exist. So, that would be quitclaimed to the County within 240 days. It would be sooner but the County Council has to actually accept that easement, so there’s little bit of delay in time in getting that done. And, the area down here in the actual shoreline has already been surveyed, and it would be a simple problem according to the surveyor to just identify the easement that would be in that area, whether it’s 10 feet wide or a little wider would be subject to negotiation with the Planning, Planning Department. But the Applicant’s goal is to provide safe public access. There’s an issue that’s arisen as to who owns this property, and it is the Applicant’s contention that they own this property. Continental Pacific may say otherwise, but we’re willing to 8 EXHIBIT G