Laserfiche WebLink
white, and one of our conditions refers to a pink line; and so the two pages of the exhibits you have, <br />Exhibits 2 and 3, show the pink line that Condition 3 refers to. The pink line is on the Exhibit 3. <br /> <br />So, Condition 3, the reason why we added Condition 3 was because the criteria for granting a <br />variance, which are in HRS 205A-46(c) and your Planning Commission Rules, state that the <br />Commission cannot grant a variance unless conditions are imposed to maintain safe lateral access <br />along the shoreline or to adequately substitute for its loss. In this particular area, according to the <br />applicant’s engineering report, coastal engineering report, most of the time the shoreline is <br />accessible; people do go there to dive or to fish or just to walk along the shoreline in this area. But <br />according to the engineering report, there are times during high high-tides or storm events where the <br />area fronting the property along the shoreline is not accessible; the water will actually come up to <br />the seawalls in that area. So we’ve added Condition 3 in order to allow people who are along the <br />shoreline to get away back to the mauka-makai public access way whether it be, you know, <br />climbing over a wall to get to that or any way that they need to in order to get to dry ground. So the <br />condition reads, “In order to ensure access along the shoreline for fishing and recreational purposes <br />that the public has enjoyed for many years in this area, the landowner, applicant, successors or <br />assigns shall not impede or otherwise restrict lateral pedestrian access mauka of the seawall and <br />within the 40-foot shoreline setback area” – this area is shown on Exhibit 3 between the seawall and <br />the pink line – “during” – this condition would apply – “during times that the area makai of the <br />seawall is inaccessible due to high water.” <br /> <br />With that, I just have a few corrections to make to our recommendation and background report. We <br />had a numbering problem when we created this variance number; so it’s actually Variance No., <br />Variance Application No. 12-08, rather than 07. And then you will notice at the very end of the <br />recommendation report after Condition 5, it says, “Should any of the conditions not be met or <br />substantially complied with in a timely manner, the Planning Director may initiate procedures to <br />revoke this permit”; it should say “to revoke this variance.” And that concludes my presentation. <br />Are there any questions? <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Maija? I do. Maija, could you go back to the slide that <br />you have, showing the access -. Yeah, that’s good, that’s good, yeah. Okay, now, that’s a County <br />access from Puakō Beach Drive to the ocean, right? <br /> <br />COTTLE: Correct. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Okay. I can see where the far right-hand side of the access is low. The left-hand side, <br />however, is high. And in the background report, and correct me if I’m wrong, there was a mention <br />of stairs that might have been damaged during high surf. I don’t know, I’m just presuming. Okay. <br />Who put that in? And is it the County’s responsibility to put it back so that – you see that high end? <br /> <br />COTTLE: Yes. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: And you’ve been on this access, right? <br /> <br />COTTLE: Yes. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Okay. Is it lopsided like that where it’s high on one side and low on the other? <br /> <br />3 <br />EXHIBIT B <br /> <br />