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

Home

The other reason is very obvious. It's an extremely popular place, it's used by thousands of people a year. It's not used just for somebody to walk by, you know, as stated in one of these recommendations. Like I said before, they are there to the Ironman swim, they are there for fireworks, they are there for whale watching, they are there for every outdoor activity imaginable. It is in the interest of the public that this property is saved. There is a dedicated shoreline access, 10 feet right-of-way along the shoreline, but Kona Reef for the past 40 years has let everyone that comes there use their property for whatever they would like. The other thing is is in the statutes or codes or whatever, or the Kailua Village Design, they are asking to, or they are wanting to, maintain a shoreline corridor. To me, this is a very important part of the shoreline corridor. As far as studies go, we launched to do studies, but before the studies were done, I was told that they really wouldn't matter who we had testified, so I thought, well, if it really won't matter who we have do a study, because I was told that the whole thing was, until I spoke to Mr. Kern, I was told the whole reason was going to be they did not want to set a precedent. That was the hard belief, this is a state belief, it's a county belief, they don't want this project to set a precedent. Like I said, until I talked to Mr. Kern, that was the feeling I got. But I talked to him too late to have these studies updated. Mr. KernI also in the letter stated that we are willing to do whatever it takes to get this project approved. If we have to post a bond to monitor the effect of the wall on the beach, that's fine, you know. The beach next door, again as I stated in the letter, is just as big an asset to the Kona Reef property as it is to the county and everyone else. It increases our value, it increases our rental income, it increases the desirability, you know. I, I cannot see denying this project for unsure future unless we look and see what the unsure future is first. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much, Mr. Pieri. Would you mind muting yourself while you are not speaking—okay. With that, are there any questions for Mr. Pieri? And again, you know, I'd like to take this opportunity to give each planning commissioner the opportunity to state their questions and their concerns to have those addressed by both Mr. Pieri and by Planning Department staff. I'll ask the commissioners take no more than 10 minutes per person. Commissioner Van Pernis, you got your hand up first, please go ahead. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. Mr. Pieri, the county says they need a lot more information or your information is not complete or accurate. You say the county is erroneous in many of its conclusions. Would you consider or would you agree to a deferral of this application pending submission of information required by the county and your correction of what you allege are mistakes by the county or lack of proper information from the county? I also recognize that some of your application is relatively recent and modified, and I think a deferral would help. Would you agree to that? PIERL I will agree to that being a possibility, once I hear what the questions are from the rest of the commissioners. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis, do you have any other questions or concerns. 14 EXHIBIT A