|
<br />The agreement is important because it shows that there was no remnant parcel that could
<br />interfere with the new easement that the Applicant is willing to convey to the County to make it
<br />easy for the public to travel to the shoreline. Under the original agreement, the one that I just
<br />handed out to you, Continental Pacific was required to survey the corners of Lot 23, and also Lot
<br />20. Lot 20 was no longer part of that agreement after continuing negotiations, but Lot 23 was
<br />this parcel, the parcel that was sold. Continental Pacific undertook and promised to survey the
<br />corners and also to identify the building envelope for approval by Mr. Alderson or his
<br />successors. This they did not do. And, if you refer to the agreement on Page 3, Item H, and on
<br />Page 4, Item J. It also required that the foundations, the existing concrete foundations which
<br />were located here, here and over here, and you may recall from your site visit, which remain in
<br />place, so these foundations which remain in place really allowing only one place for a building
<br />envelope where the house was, residence was located, and has created the, some of the
<br />controversy that arose here. There was no other place really to put the property, keep these
<br />foundations in—put the residence, keep these foundations in place and to still comply with the
<br />terms of the agreement.
<br />
<br />There’s no record or document supporting any claim by anyone else to the so-called remnant
<br />parcel which extends down to the ocean, and as noted previously in prior testimony, the deed for
<br />the property includes a seaward boundary. According to a 2002, and maybe Mr. Ikeda, a little
<br />background—according to a 2002 certified shoreline, the shoreline was established up at the--
<br />what was known as a pali or a second pali and did not extend all the way to the actual shoreline,
<br />and that was in part because it was so overgrown that it wasn’t surveyed, properly surveyed.
<br />And, so that essentially cut off our—it cut off public access. And that was not the intent of the
<br />Planning Commission. It was not the intent of the Planning Director, but that was the result of
<br />what happened by the lack of the survey.
<br />
<br />Because Continental Pacific nor anyone else besides the landowner has a claim to the so-called
<br />remnant parcel, Applicant is free to convey an easement all the way to the shoreline, and
<br />Applicant will also agree as a condition of any of the amendment that’s sought here, to
<br />indemnify the County from any challenge to grant of the public easement. And, Applicant’s
<br />position is consistent with the written testimony of former Planning Director, Chris Yuen, that
<br />rd
<br />was submitted September 3, 2014. The Applicant is also willing to include the changes
<br />proposed by Mr. Yuen to the permit amendment in his September 3, 2014, testimony. As
<br />modified, this proposal greatly serves the public interest. Applicant noticed that in the
<br />Background Report, it’s already in evidence, at Page 6, in the Planning Commission hearings on
<br />SMA Use Permit 450, the Planning Department notes the primary concern expressed by the
<br />neighbors, fishermen, and the general public was ensuring the safe, public shoreline access.
<br />And, that’s what this amendment accomplishes, and it doesn’t exist now.
<br />
<br />Many may express the same desire today. Some have expressed the same desire in community
<br />meetings referred to in July and also in their testimony before this Commission. The proposed
<br />amendment makes this concern, makes this desire a reality.
<br />
<br />In the Background Report at Page 9, the Planning Department notes that in the July 2013 public
<br />meeting at which this was part of the presentation and this I’m referring to the photograph in
<br />9
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />
<br />
<br />
|