|
required concrete stakes, braces, etcetera, which are, you know, which add to the safety factor.
<br /> The second design, which is a rock wall can be excavated for a one- or two-day's work, the wall
<br /> can be built, it can be backfilled upon inspection by the county, and then the next section can be
<br /> built. It will not involve concrete stakes and braces everywhere. When the j ob is over, it will not
<br /> cause, you know, tons of material to be taken, the foam lumber, etcetera, to be taken to the
<br /> landfill. The second design, which is a rock wall, is a thousand times better than the first design
<br /> for many, many reasons. And then the paper that I've been, the design that I just sent with my
<br /> letter is the clarification that the entire wall will be covered.
<br /> Let's go back to the background report. It says that it will include a drainage pipe that will run
<br /> the entire length of the structure. Absolutely not. That was blown out of the water from the very
<br /> beginning because all the drainage pipe at the back of the wall will do is create a place for rats
<br /> and cockroaches, because along the shoreline you do have a rat problem. Coconut trees next
<br /> door especially. So that was never going to be part of any program, a full-length drain. They
<br /> were concerned about draining, where is it going to drain to. The other thing is it would just end
<br /> up filling up with rainwater or sprinklers, you know, those sprinklers when they come on,
<br /> because the lawn has sprinklers. So that was, you know,just a ridiculous part of design.
<br /> When I turned it over—let's see page 2, sorry, on page 3, they say that it's, "The shoreline
<br /> fronting the property is rocky boulders." There are rocky boulders on it, but the shoreline in
<br /> front of that is a pahoehoe shelf that extends, you know, probably even the place is 150 feet out
<br /> to sea.
<br /> On page fif—page4, I'm sorry, the, again, background report,just received an email yesterday
<br /> (indiscernible–simultaneous speech)
<br /> VITOUSEK: One second, is it, one second, is it page 4 of the background report(indiscernible–
<br /> simultaneous speech)
<br /> PIERL Yes, page 4 of the background report.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay.
<br /> PIERL In the middle of Planning Exhibit 3, letter dated November 19'', they sent a letter saying
<br /> that the AIS, the archaeological inventory study [sic], was not done. It was done, and it was
<br /> submitted properly. I contacted Alex in probably in February or March of last year in
<br /> straightening this out with him. He claimed it wasn't there. I sent him a letter of, with the
<br /> receipt, etcetera. What happened was the AIS that was included in the final environmental
<br /> assessment was incorrect. The original AIS was not sent to me until after, ended up being in the
<br /> final environmental assess—actually in the EA. I made sure to correct that with Graham Knopp
<br /> who was doing the FEA. He did not correct it. It was corrected with Alan Haun, it was
<br /> corrected with me, but for some reason the wrong AIS was included in the FEA, which was why
<br /> I contacted Alex with the straightened-out the first part of last yearI think it was the first part
<br /> of last year, I have to look up dates. Yesterday I got a letter finally from SHPD that the AIS is,
<br /> it's taken care of, that problem has been taken care of.
<br /> 11
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|