|
in saying, that, you know, hopefully we can get some more information up to the Planning
<br /> Department to further look into this project.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Commissioner Carr Smith.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you. I just wanted to get some clarity so that we can move forward. It's
<br /> my understanding that the missing information is further erosion studies and subsequent reports.
<br /> Is that correct or is there something more, Alex?
<br /> VITOUSEK: Go ahead, Alex.
<br /> ROY: We had asked the applicant to conduct an alternatives analysis to see if the wall structure
<br /> would actually alleviate issues on hand or if there may be other options, such as planting
<br /> naupaka or directing public beach access to one point only. And these, there are a number of
<br /> alternatives that could be presented, but because we, they were never presented, we don't know
<br /> if that would be effective or not. So it doesn't seem, because the erosion report didn't really talk
<br /> about the effectiveness of the wall or about the impact of the wall, it's unclear if this would even
<br /> alleviate that issue. And the applicant has made a number of statements to kind of contradicting
<br /> himself here in this meeting, saying that the water would have no impact and the water would
<br /> have an impact, the water would sit behind the structure but then it would be drained and
<br /> wouldn't move, so I would ask, you know this is from the FEA, so the applicant states, "The
<br /> purpose of the project is not to deflect wave energy, or to hold soil in place against the eroding
<br /> action of waves, as the structure would be located above the shoreline," so I think there is no
<br /> clear purpose, and that is what's troublesome because there is just no clear purpose on the actual
<br /> issues. The erosion report never once talks about impacts to the structures; it talks about impacts
<br /> to the grassy area. And while Mr. Pieri may be allowing the public to sit in that area, there is no
<br /> public access easement that makes that a public area, so it could be closed at any time. Now,
<br /> Mr. Pieri would like to, or the AOAO, would like to make that public area, maybe there would
<br /> be something that we could do to, you know, change the way that we look at this project, but at
<br /> this time that's just, you know,just them being nice and allowing people to come in doesn't
<br /> mean that it's in perpetuity.
<br /> CARR SMITH: So, that public access corridor that we saw in your report, Alex, takes people to
<br /> the ocean but does not take them across the lawn. Is that what you mean?
<br /> ROY: They allow them to traverse the lawn area,but, no, there is no public access easement
<br /> agreement, so there is no like deeded metes and bounds access point; it's just they allow to come
<br /> in one area and then by the, you know, the Kona Reef allows them to traverse across the grass or
<br /> at that point enter into the ocean. You could come right into the ocean at that point, step onto the
<br /> beach or onto the rock area. But, yeah, there is no actual public access, deeded access
<br /> agreement, and that's, this all came out of the shoreline setback variance from the 1980's, which
<br /> was triggered by a violation from the Kona Reef.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you.
<br /> KERN: If I could add just(indiscernible—echo)
<br /> 17
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|