2021-02-18 Leeward Exh A (SMA 20-076 & SSV 20-012)

Home

Page 5 of the background report, the first paragraph states that the shoreline grass area is used by residents. It's used by everyone; everyone that comes near uses that area. It's used for sunbathing, whale watching, they watch the ironmen swim, they watch canoe races, they watch fireworks over the bay, you know, over Kailua Bay, you know, it's a really popular area and it's well used. Utilities service, wastewater, number 20, item number 20, the county sends a bill every month. It gets paid. We are hooked up to the wastewater, the county Wastewater Division. Okay so, that's, you know,just some of the areas there. That's, that's enough with that. We've already corrected—if you go to the, let's go to the Special Management Area Use Permit application, the county's recommendation,paragraph 2, "The structure would be embedded in the existing soil on both sides for about a half[�/z] of its length, and on approximately the northern half[�/z] of[its length the] structure would be exposed,"we've cleared that up. That's in both reports. That's not going to happen; the entire wall will be embedded and covered over. The sentence after that, "Drainage would be a component of the design,"we've covered that; that's going to be perpendicular pipes to the wall, they will have screens and filters on the mauka side so that no particulate goes through. Until everything on the ocean side of the wall washes away, any fluid, any water, that gets into those drainage pipes is just going to run into the back of the fill in front of it. But there will be no discharge of dirty water into the ocean. Again, there is the point of the drainage pipe running through full length, that's not going to happen. On page 2-well, let's just ignore that. On page 3 we go through the exposed rockface again, which won't happen. The statement that Alex and the state and everyone is harping on that I made in the setback variance application or the SMA application was, "The intended purpose of the CRM structure is not to artificially fix the shoreline; that being said, it would be irrational and naive to think that at some point in the future some areas, if not all, of the CRM wall will not serve in this capacity." It's a statement of conjecture. It's a statement of being intelligent enough to realize that it is a possibility. It's not an inevitability, okay, sea level rise, whatever, it's still not an inevitability. Just below that, it says that the wall will inhibit—what does it say, inhibit—"interfere with existing recreational and waterline activities." There is no possibility for it to interfere with these activities. I just tell you now, you know, I cannot see this in any way, shape, or form. The paragraph after that, "The applicant failed to incorporate the Hawaii Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report 2017"; the erosion report that was done, it was done in 2016, I'm not, I'm not an expert, I can't take the data from that 2017 report and give it to you like it should be given to you. No, I can't analyze that data. The last paragraph, the second line up from the bottom, "It is unclear how a wall, built to grade, will protect a structure that is built only 1-foot above the base flood elevation,"we are trying to protect it from the ocean, from tsunamis and hurricane waves. This project was put to bed for a long time. It was started and it was put to bed for a lot of years because the association got complacent. They hadn't had any problems since 2011. The—and Alex is right, they are rare occurrences; tsunamis and hurricane storms that pass close enough to the Kona Coast and cause damage are rare occurrences. So we got complacent. But what started this process up again was in August of 2018 Hurricane Barbara passed south of the island and took a large chunk of State land fronting the south end of the property and washed it out to sea, and that's what brought the project right back up to, you 12 EXHIBIT A