2012-05-17 Leeward Exh B - Mooers

Home

GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Robby? None? Thank you, Robby. We are back, Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Maija, could you read Condition 3 as proposed by Mr. Vitousek so we can compare it with the language up there? COTTLE: Sure. “In order to ensure access along the shoreline for fishing and recreational purposes that the public has enjoyed for many years in this area, the landowner, applicant, successors or assigns shall not impede or otherwise restrict lateral pedestrian access mauka of the seawall in areas where the wall establishes” – I’m sorry -. LEITHEAD TODD: There is “six feet” in there somewhere. GIFFIN: Uh huh. COTTLE: Hold on just a second. Okay, let me start at, “successors or assigns shall not impede or otherwise restrict lateral pedestrian access in an area six feet mauka of the seawall and in areas where the wall establishes the certified shoreline during times that the area makai of the seawall is inaccessible due to high water.” Again? LEITHEAD TODD: No. I’m, you know, I’m comfortable with the language because it leaves room in the event that the shore moves inland up to the wall. I think it’s a compromise, because I don’t think people should be able to go through the whole 40-foot area, it restricts it to a six-foot area mauka of the wall, and I think it would satisfy HRS 205A. And the reason is, kind of the history here is, when we did an emergency grant to do the repair, we were doing authority through the Department, but to grant a variance from the shoreline area has to go through the Planning Commission; and that’s why this wall kind of got parsed into two different pieces, because we felt that our authority as the Department did not extend to the entire wall, that it had to come to the Commission. And so it was a very difficult time, I think, for Mrs. Scharpf, because she’s tried to do the right thing. And she’s been a good member of the community there, you know, she has worked with us -. She took on some repairs that really weren’t anything that she had done; those steps were there before her, and yet they created a public hazard, and she was able to go in and take care of it. The real problem here is that a lot of these walls got built, you know, without permits. Nobody knows exactly when they got built. I suspect that some of them are pre-1970 walls, which would be the issue. I know for a fact that a bunch of them weren’t there in the 50’s when I played as a kid in that area and when we camped down in this area and we used to rent, you know, down in Puakō. So sometime between then and now walls got built. And in the long run those walls create an artificial shoreline; the shoreline can no longer move in. On the residents’ part most of those walls are there to try protect their property or it was so they could build up their yards because, you know, you want to bring dirt in, etc. Water under the bridge the walls are there. But in administering the law and trying to look at these conditions, we are kind of required under State law to try and preserve the potential for lateral access particularly in areas where we are granting a variance. I don’t think that it’s an issue very often, because I do kind of agree with Mr. Robertson in that, you know, if the area is full of water, people really shouldn’t be going down there. But I know fishermen that, you know, do go out in water that I wouldn’t venture. So I think that Mr. Vitousek’s language will strike a balance between our need to comply with the HRS, as well as trying to protect Mrs. Scharpf’s privacy. 13 EXHIBIT B