2014-11-06 Hearing Transcript-Scott Watson SMA 450 _Reconsideration_

Home

front of you, the public expressed similar support for realignment of the public access, which would be a condition of this amendment to the Use Permit. Third, the grant of the proposed amendment is supported by the Planning Department’s May 6, 2013, agreement with Applicant signed by the former Director, BJ Leithead-Todd, which recognizes that the proposed realignment which allows for the public to travel along a concrete driveway along the shoreline cliff edge for this portion in a safe manner and actually down the ramp to the shoreline itself was a measure and was a, recognized as a substantial improvement over the existing limited public access. Fourth, the grant of the proposed amendment will settle the present lawsuit with the County over conditions of the SMA, the existing SMA Use Permit. So, that’s what I have in terms of presentation today. I’m, I know that we’re on a, it’s a motion for reconsideration, it’s limited. I’m available to answer any questions that you might have. MIYASATO: Thank you. Before we ask any questions, I would like to acknowledge that Commissioner Ikeda and Commissioner Ono, who wasn’t present at the first hearing, that you have reviewed all the minutes and exhibits, that were presented. ONO: Yes. IKEDA: Yes. MIYASATO: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the Applicant? HEAUKULANI: I’ve got a question. Oh, I’m sorry-- HENKEL: No, go ahead-- HEAUKULANI: Steve, I appreciate that information, but you’re approaching this from the backside, right? This is what your client proposes to give back in return for us allowing or overlooking the fact that he violated the terms and conditions of his permit. STRAUSS: I think you asked a similar question before, and I tried to point out, and I don’t know if I did it effectively, that at the time that the, the residence footprint was created, it was with County approval. Was with the approval of the Planning Department, it was with the approval of the Building Department, and the existence of, of Condition No. 11 of 450 was only belatedly brought to the attention of the Applicant by the Planning Department which did not even consider it at the time that it first considered this application. So, when you say violate, I would say, I would agree that in a technical term, but the intent was to comply with all known County requirements and that’s what they did. It was only later on that the Planning Department pointed out and became aware in discussions concerning where the setback should be located of the condition of SMA No. 450. HEAUKULANI: When did your client first obtain a copy of Use Permit No. 450? 10 EXHIBIT C