2017-10-30 Hearing Transcript - Amendments to PC Rule 9 (Joint Meeting)

Home

This is a naked power grab by the Planning Commission, excuse me, by the Planning Director at the public's expense and at your expense since you represent the public. Remember that, you represent the public, not developers or the government. Now, I have submitted written testimony, and I read the newspaper article yesterday. I assume you have it. I gave it to the staff to distribute, and thus, I will not repeat that. I'll ask you to read. Having seen these suggested changes for the first time and being an experienced attorney with development experience, I point out the following to you in the Planning Director's submittal. For instance, the addition, expansion of no SMA except for 7,500 square feet development, you will see lots of applications for 7,499 square feet, then change orders after initial approval. There is no provision for, if the initial application is expanded upon, there is no initial or any sort of enforcement or review process. So there will be, I guarantee you, there will be that. I have never been associated with a development that do not involve a change order on the shoreline. You are advocating your authority for the public. So too would Section 2, 499,000 will be the cost, before contractor or after contractors, of every shoreline development, then there will be change orders. Again, I point out I have never been associated with a shoreline development that involved change orders that up the price, sometimes doubling. So this is just a methodology for the developer or the homeowner or whomever to circumvent the SMA policy. Now, the Planning Department knows this. They're not stupid. And I don't think you should be taken for fools when this has no provision for enforcement or review when the limits are exceeded. Now, I'm also concerned about the provision for the harbors and such. Shouldn't the public have the right to have some input on this? Why are you taking it away and giving it to a politically appointed person? Also of great concern to me is the political appointee's ability to waive the Shoreline Management Area shoreline survey. This is a naked land grab. We all know that the shorelines change. We all know that setbacks are determined from the shoreline. So they will determine setbacks through their improvements based on outdated, incorrect shoreline surveys. The improvements will be constructed. Then, if there was another shoreline survey, oh, we're too close to the water but, too bad, we got our approvals. And the public loses that part of the shoreline. Shoreline surveys and shoreline locations have been an issue, a public issue, for decades here and the on the other islands. Why are you basically allowing developers to determine where there, say work of their improvements are going to be, and then thereafter maybe find out they're too close? They will be too close, if they have an old survey. But, it's already done. So these proposed changes, I suggest, have been consciously written to defeat the public's input in shorelines and shoreline development. And, you are being asked to approve them when there is no problem with the shoreline survey and shoreline improvement process as existing now. These should be rewritten to accommodate all of these things at a minimum. Veto— LINGER: Please, Mr. Van Pernis, if you could summarize your comment, please. EXHIBIT A 7