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

Home

quitclaim our interest, easement interest, in this property, and we still intend to obtain the property, clear title from the, Continental Pacific and we’ve been in direct negotiations with them to do that--essentially have them quitclaim any interest that they have. So, regardless from the standpoint of who ultimately is determined to own it, while we have accessed the ability to control access to that portion, we would agree during the period of dependency of that conveyance, until it’s actually given to it, to not restrict any pedestrian public access to and over such area. And no access has been restricted to this point—that has been made available to the public. Signage has been posted and people actually use it on a regular basis, so that would continue. You can put that down. So, that’s where we would start, which is where we would like you to end up, and this addresses the concerns of both the setback and what would happen in the future with regard to guaranteeing these accesses. Now, with respect to the—Jeff, can I ask you to one more time load another file for me? Sorry. With respect to the May 6, 2013, Agreement—in May 6, 2013, after an extended process in negotiations with the Planning Department, and having overcome a series of obstacles, and having satisfied violations—the County was satisfied—I came on board, I think it was about February 2013, and there were no further violations, and there have been none since February 2013, when I intervened on behalf of the Applicant, and committed that I would make sure that there would be no further violations. And we have had none, since then there have been no violations. This Agreement which is between the Applicant and the Planning Director deals with the existing lawsuit. It says you can either, we either suspend on the existing lawsuit that tried to establish what the shoreline setback really meant. What the limits of County authority are, and I think Mr. Heaukulani had some questions about that last time that I can try to answer later. I won’t try to presuppose those questions. But this Agreement recognizes that the access that we are proposing is superior to what exists on the ground now. And at that time, you’ll see—I’ll use this laser—the parties agreed to a 40-foot shoreline setback and they also agreed that that would be used from the 2010 survey. The parties still disagree as the appropriate definitions of shoreline and shoreline setback. We don’t have to resolve those issues now, and this would take care of it with the amended language with Mr. Yuen’s help that we’ve already provided to you. The Planning Department agreed that the landowner was following the requirements to mitigate SHPD issues, and that’s been done. There was no fine for alleged violation regarding a self-fence. That was resolved. There was—agreed that there was a temporary activity—agree that there was a temporary relocation of the public access to be consistent with the proposed consolidation/resubdivision. So what happened was at this time, the County said, yeah, we would like to use the proposed access. We would like to use it on a temporary basis. We want the public to be able to use it, and so that’s what we did, with no other agreements in place. No other commitments apart from this agreement, so that has been in use, actually even before May 2013, but the proposed access is identified here. The public has had the benefit for about a year and a half. It also required the landowner to submit a Special Management Area Use Permit Assessment Application which was done. That’s for the consolidation/resubdivision that redraws the property lines that allows for this public access. And for purposes of review of the pending 9 EXHIBIT G