|
Again, I would defer because when I asked Alex Roy if I had Chip Fletcher testify at this hearing
<br /> in favor of the project, if that would make any difference, I was pointblank told that, no, that
<br /> would not make any difference. So (indiscernible–simultaneous speech)
<br /> VITOUSEK: Again, Mr., Mr. Roy is entitled to his professional opinion. It's the
<br /> PIERL It was not Mr. Roy's (Indiscernible–simultaneous speech)
<br /> VITOUSEK: Commission's decision—hold on the Commission's decision is the decision,
<br /> is the deciding body here, so we have to weigh information from Mr. Roy, from you, from any
<br /> applic any testifiers, but there are none today, so all that is going to be considered by us. And
<br /> in the Planning Department they are going to make their best negotiation they can, but it's up to
<br /> us to make a final decision. So if we are to accept the recommendations of the erosion study, we
<br /> cannot justify a hardship because of the fact that the erosion study identifies that there is no
<br /> significant erosion in this area. You know, if they are talking about six inches of erosion over
<br /> the past 40 years, then the wall itself will take away more of the property than would happen in
<br /> the next 120 years under the current erosion rate provided by your consultant. To me, this is not
<br /> a matter of, you know, needing additional information. Based on what we have here, I would
<br /> feel like there is considerable information to identify a lack of hardship on the part of the
<br /> landowner to necessitate hardening the shoreline in this area. Go ahead, Mr. Pieri.
<br /> PIERL (Inaudible–microphone on mute)
<br /> JACKSON: Mr. Pied, you are on mute.
<br /> PIERL Thank you. The erosion report, again, was done in 2016. As I previously said, the
<br /> county was notified of damage from Hurricane Barbara in 2019, September of 2019. The
<br /> concern is both. This is a dual-purpose wall. It is to cut down on erosion, but since we can't put
<br /> it exactly along the shoreline, anything, of course, on the mauka [sic] side of the wall may
<br /> become eroded. But these very south end of it, we are really concerned with loss, you know,
<br /> tsunami or hurricane waves, of loss of structures, you know, if the, like, you know, there is no
<br /> doubt in my mind that hurricane waves or tsunamis could just like it could clear the face of the
<br /> wall, if the wall was there—could undercut a four-story structure.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, I don't believe that, from geological perspective under 205A, that the
<br /> protection against hurricanes and tsunamis is an appropriate threshold for shoreline hardening. If
<br /> we use hurricanes and tsunamis as our threshold for protecting the shoreline, there would be one
<br /> massive stone wall, or seawall, across the entire coast, because the possibility of a tsunami
<br /> overtopping a one-foot retaining wall or an at-grade retaining wall would be the same as if the
<br /> wall is not there. Looking at threat assessment, you know, the threat assessment provided in the
<br /> EA provides the same level of threat from a volcano as it does from tsunami. And, you know,
<br /> we are not having a discussion about creating a massive berm on the mauka side to protect the
<br /> property from a volcano. In the event of a catastrophic tsunami or hurricane, the loss of the
<br /> small amount of sediment in front of Kona Reef is going to be a very small problem considering
<br /> the rest of the effects on the Kona coast. I believe that, again, we have not crossed the threshold
<br /> to establish a need for this structure when having no, no structure at all over the last 40 years has
<br /> 21
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|