|
wall is this area here, and so this area is all vegetated, it’s got beach, look at this grass all the way
<br />out here. I measured it this morning; this from here to here is 164 feet, you know. And so this is
<br />not an area, this is an area where there is land makai of the shoreline, I mean, where there is land
<br />makai of the property, private property, which is mauka of the shoreline. And so all this is State-
<br />owned land, which is in the Urban District, because the beach reserve in Puakō is Urban District.
<br />And if you come out of the right-of-way here, you get onto the sand right there. And so what they
<br />are saying is that because sometimes there might be waves that come up to here, that they want a
<br />public access right across her whole lawn. And it’s just, it’s just not reasonable; it’s not
<br />proportionate to what the risk is. So what we would ask is that the -. And also, you know, to point
<br />out -. Can you go back to the shoreline, the shoreline certification one momentarily? So this place
<br />is, the only places where the shoreline and the wall were at the same place is here, and that’s been
<br />changed, cause the wall now goes back to here, end up here, you know. So I think the only
<br />rationale for, like, imposing any kind of public access condition is where the wall establishes the
<br />shoreline; in other words, where the shoreline is right on the face of the wall, because where the
<br />shoreline is way makai of the wall, there is no reason to put a public access condition on back over
<br />here. So what we would ask is that Condition 3 be amended, and basically to say that “In order to
<br />ensure access along the shoreline for fishing and recreational purposes that the public as enjoyed for
<br />many years, the landowner, applicant, successors or assigns shall not impede or otherwise restrict
<br />lateral pedestrian access,” and I’d like to say, “in an area six feet mauka of the wall in areas where
<br />the wall establishes the certified shoreline”; in other words, in areas where the wall is actually, you
<br />know, where the shoreline is actually on the face of the wall, that people can walk in the area six
<br />feet mauka of the wall in times of high surf. So that’s, you know, so I think that what we are trying
<br />to do is come up with a condition that’s reasonable and is limited and doesn’t basically give the,
<br />impose a public access condition on all of Mrs. Scharpf’s yard, or the major portion of Mrs.
<br />Scharpf’s yard.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Excuse me, Randy, could you please go over your statement of the proposed change into
<br />the condition?
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: Sure. And so what we would be saying -. If, can we go back to the one that has the
<br />shoreline setback, has the revised wall -. Okay, so, right now, the only, what we are suggesting is
<br />that in areas where the shoreline, the certified shoreline is established by the wall, in other words,
<br />where the shoreline is at the makai face of the wall – right now that’s in this area right here – that
<br />there be a six-foot wide pedestrian access strip mauka of the wall, if there is high surf, in other
<br />words, probably the same condition as they are talking about. Right now, down here, this is the
<br />shoreline out here, the wall is back here; if at some point in the future it changes, then this condition
<br />would say that they would have the six-foot public access strip mauka of the wall, if the shoreline
<br />moves in to where the wall is. What the Planning Department was referring to in terms of our
<br />engineer’s, our coastal engineer’s testimony, her testimony was that when the wall was in its
<br />previous configuration, if that then, and established the shoreline, if that wall were removed, there
<br />would be erosion; she wasn’t talking about this area, because she said specifically that in the
<br />northern and southern portions of the property the wall is at the shoreline. So what we’ve tried to
<br />do is accommodate the interest, but by saying that in areas where the wall is the shoreline, in other
<br />words, areas where the wall establishes the shoreline, that they have a public access condition; in
<br />areas where the shoreline is already well makai of the wall and on State property, that there is no
<br />need for it. So that’s what we propose.
<br />
<br />9
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|