|
know, to top of the list. The county later on in year, one of theseI don't remember which one,
<br /> I'd have to read it—it states that, you know, we haven't shown that there has been any damage
<br /> from any waves or anything. Yes, we have, because when the damage in August 2019 happened,
<br /> a letter was written, pictures were taken, it was sent to then-Planning Director Yee, telling him
<br /> that we had to do something with that because it created a safety risk factor. The waves had not
<br /> gone up as far as the certified shoreline, the previous certified shoreline, but they had undercut
<br /> about three-foot of the soil, so that there was that safety factor; if somebody walked off on that, it
<br /> would collapse, or they could walk off the end of it. So we wrote the letter to the director, asking
<br /> to do something about it, and told him that, you know, no matter what, we were going to put a
<br /> railing out there to protect the public. We had to put a railing up. The railing is still there to this
<br /> day because there is still a drop-off there that's a danger to the people.
<br /> The area fronting the Kona Reef is being called beach in many places in these filings. It's not a
<br /> beach. The picture that Alex showed you of these huge mounds of sand deposits in front of
<br /> Kona Reef was totally misleading; there has never been that amount of sand there. You know,
<br /> maybe back in the 60's or 40's or something, I don't know, but the picture that he showed you
<br /> was misleading as it can be. There is a beach next door, and there are some sand deposits on the
<br /> pahoehoe shelf, but there, you know, what he showed you looked like there was just one big sand
<br /> beach in there, and that's not so.
<br /> Let's go back to the erosion report. He's saying that the fellow did it was not qualified. His
<br /> son-in-law who did the report with him, I looked his resume, he has done multiple erosion
<br /> reports and you know, facts are facts.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Mr. Pieri, I would prefer it if you would stick to the merits of your application
<br /> PIERL Okay, okay, okay (indiscernible–simultaneous speech)
<br /> VITOUSEK: —and discuss the points of why you believe this is necessary in order to justify
<br /> allowing for this variance under 205A. I've given you some time to go over the rebuttal to staff,
<br /> but if you could briefly state the case or why you believe this application deserves a variance
<br /> pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 205A-46, I'd appreciate that.
<br /> PIERL Okay, thank you very much, I will, I will see through the facts, but I have to say there
<br /> are multiple facts that are not correct. You can't judge something on misstatements and errors
<br /> and omissions.
<br /> The reason for the project is to, you know—it's as plain and simple as can be to protect the
<br /> property from tsunamis or hurricane waves that at some point may even undercut the structures.
<br /> If you undercut the structures, you may end up with a 20-year eyesore like you have next door
<br /> with the concrete slab.
<br /> The other thing is that you damage or undercut the property, or do enough damage to the
<br /> property, it's going to lower the value of the property and units in it, which will create a ripple
<br /> effect in the real estate market in Kona. Everyone's property values go down, which will mean
<br /> less tax revenue for the county as a whole, so then you are affecting the whole county services.
<br /> 13
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|