|
ROY: I have not looked into those. A lot of those walls areI look back in the aerial
<br /> photographs, and they've been there for decades. So I have to kind of go back probably 30 or 40
<br /> years to take a look to try to work back that area. I just, you know, unfortunately don't have the
<br /> time to do a coastal study. That would have been a job for the applicant.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Okay. Do you, do you know if the walls that are nearby are the one to the
<br /> south is the one I'm thinking of—is that the same type of wall that the applicant is requesting or
<br /> something different?
<br /> ROY: The ones that are, I outlined are exposed seawalls, and are, you know, as I shared in the
<br /> design, would have that makai face that's exposed to the water and then backfilled, so similar in
<br /> some of the designs that we were shown to this wall, but, you know, different in that those I
<br /> believe were built as seawalls when they were allowed to be built, you know, back 20, 30, 40
<br /> years ago.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Okay. And last question is, it seems, in your presentation it seemed like there
<br /> was concern about the fact that there would be exposure on the makai side of the wall, but then I
<br /> guess in this last letter, the February I0h, it seems like now they are talking about burying it.
<br /> Does that, does that make it any better or more desirable to you guys or not?
<br /> ROY: You know, that was one of the alternatives we had discussed, and we had asked the
<br /> applicant to provide us a better analysis of alternatives. And that letter was sent, you know, very
<br /> late after the reports on background and recommendation were written, so we were not privy to
<br /> that information. While it may be a better solution environmentally, I think then the question
<br /> would be what is the effectiveness of this structure on alleviating the issues that they are having,
<br /> and that's where there was issues to—we didn't believe that structure would be effective, and
<br /> that's based on my experience on what I've seen, and then, again, the erosion report really didn't
<br /> speak to how that structure would be effective.
<br /> I just want to give you a quick little from, you know, this is the conclusion from the report, and
<br /> I'll just read a couple of lines: "No significant erosion of the shoreline fronting the Kona Reef
<br /> Condominiums has taken place in historical time," "Minor erosion of a lawn fronting the Kona
<br /> Reef [KR] Property is caused by the infrequent," or rare, "storm surge or tsunami waves that
<br /> reach or extend beyond the shoreline," and then they go on to say that, "That erosion can be
<br /> mitigated by the construction of'this wall. But there is actually no, no nexus between that
<br /> statement and showing how the wall would actually alleviate. Because in the application the
<br /> applicant stated that anything, any land that's makai of the wall would eventually erode away.
<br /> And so the reason that we talk about the face and the exposed face is because the hardened
<br /> structure style that this represents and the fact that the state is adamantly working to alleviate or
<br /> minimize hardened structures at shoreline. Chapter 205A was recently amendedI know I
<br /> talked about that in the recommendation. While this application came in prior to those changes,
<br /> it still speaks to the state's position on seawall structures and their long-term impact.
<br /> Again, we are not, as the director made clear, we are not shutting the door on this project. We
<br /> just feel it's, we don't have the appropriate information to make a conclusion, decision, so that
<br /> we can protect the beach,protect the structures, you know, and preserve the access, which is
<br /> 9
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|