2008-11-06 TBARSELL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

actually is comprised, much of that 16 plus acres is comprised of water as well as fishponds. And what we did is we sent to you essentially this set of photographs, which is actually after that aerial photo where they really have taken out a lot of the evasive mangroves, done their restoration, they’re working on the wall. And so from that perspective, you know, I think from the policy standpoint of this Commission the really big question is going to be understanding this history, understanding what they’re trying to do with the property, and the backdrop of these roads being private should a public pedestrian access be imposed as part of this application. In answer to Commissioner Alameda’s question about the issue of traditional, cultural Hawaiian access, when they got their CDU Permit with the Board of Land and Natural Resources the Board considered the issue of public access and said, no, because these fishponds are private, but at the same time we do not want to interfere with the traditional exercise of native Hawaiian and cultural traditions. And so that was kept as a condition that there would be no activity or behavior that would prevent that exercise from occurring. As we’ve indicated in our application that, and that wording is incorporated into the proposed conditions from the Planning Department, we’re saying that’s fine, that’s not their intention. But the real issue is dealing with whether or not public access should go in. When I looked at the, and I’m sorry for being somewhat long-winded cause that tends to be how I am sometimes. But when we look at the issue of the regulatory framework for dealing with public access issues, Chapter 205A, which you’re supposed to administer, it talks about public access, and it also talks about a balance consistent with the conservation of natural resources, along with areas that have recreational value. And, yes, it’s nice to snorkel and swim in that area. But as Chris said when we’re talking about lateral access along that shoreline it’s really not a practical thing to do in that area because you have these homes, seawalls, now we have this private fishpond wall that’s being constructed.So the whole idea for the Barsell’s property in particular is is there real purpose to doing this in light of also the sensitivities of what the Barsells are trying to do. They have, as I indicated, allowed educational groups. They have a turtle restoration program study that’s going on. So there are a lot of things that they’re trying to do, which from a real practical standpoint overall general public access may well interfere with those efforts. And so, and that’s just setting aside the issue, the private road issue. When I looked at the County’s public access Chapter 34, and, yes, we’re not dealing with the subdivision, the County has expressed a policy saying if you’re going to have a development that involves either six lots or more, or six multiple family residential units or more, then we are going to kick in this public access condition. Now that’s not binding upon you but it does express some policy from the County’s standpoint that talks about the circumstances under which public access really should be a condition. If we really look at what the Barsells are doing, it’s putting in a second family dwelling in what has been long considered a private subdivision. So that’s kind of where we’re at on this picture. I’m open up to questions, the Barsells are here also on that issue. So what we’re saying is for this particular property and circumstance is it really necessary, and then how do you then get to that point from a government road. Thank you. WOODWARD: Any questions for Mr. Yeh? ALAMEDA: Sure. EXHIBIT B 7