|
we really don’t have anything like that, so we would continue with our basic recommendation of
<br />the, following the requirements of the Flood Insurance Program.
<br />WATANABE: Thank you. Any follow-up to that? Mr. Iwashita?
<br />IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess the other concern I would have with regard
<br />to, you know, whatever the increase in the sea level is going to be is that I guess in considering
<br />approving projects like this within an area that would be affected, directly affected, by the sea
<br />level rise is how that, part of what we are supposed to consider in 205A is essentially our
<br />decision is irreversible. We are talking about the end of the century, that kind of a timeframe,
<br />that this project can exist here because of the public infrastructure that is committed to this area,
<br />and allows a project like this to go forward. So I’m not real clear, you know, as far as Alii Drive
<br />is concerned and all the infrastructure that goes on with it and can possibly go along with it, you
<br />know, sewer and all those kind of things, that what we are really looking at is by committing,
<br />allowing these entitlements to go forward, that the County is committing to maintaining that.
<br />And so if there is an increase in sea level rise, if there is hurricane damage or those kind of
<br />things, you know, like the earthquake we had last year, all of the damage that has caused to our
<br />existing infrastructure, we are supposed to fix it because people have to rely on it for access and
<br />those kind of things, and that’s what needs to be done. If, the more projects we approve on Alii
<br />Drive basically, you know, the more and more we have to commit; we’re basically committing to
<br />improving, and beyond just maintaining, but improving and expanding all of the infrastructure.
<br />So I’m not sure, you know. This is obviously not, that concern doesn’t directly affect the
<br />applicant, but that’s -. How do we factor, I’m trying to figure out how to factor that in, that
<br />concern, in terms of more development on Alii Drive, you know, and what the impact is going to
<br />be on what would be deemed -. You know, if we fully develop Alii Drive, I don’t think
<br />everybody is going to say, well, we leave it the way it is. It’s not going to be, you know, it’s not
<br />going to be sufficient public improvement -.
<br />WATANABE: I think I understand your concern; on the other hand, I don’t think any of
<br />us would suggest that we stop development along Alii Drive now, and rising sea levels or further
<br />erosion would cause damage to Alii Drive, that we would abandon Alii Drive even if we didn’t
<br />put any more buildings on it. So I’m not sure if that’s germane at this point.
<br />IWASHITA: I’m not saying that, I guess, you know, there are issues now with Alii
<br />Drive in terms of emergency exit capability, right? That’s there; that’s a present problem. What
<br />I’m trying to suggest is that, you know, there needs to be some serious thought given to how
<br />increase in sea level rise is going to impact Alii Drive, right, and whether or not that that
<br />consideration should be, well, I think we need to have some information on that. Because to say
<br />that, well, maybe it will, maybe it won’t, that’s not to me the best way for us to fulfill our duty
<br />to, you know, properly plan.
<br />WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions from other
<br />Commissioners for the applicant? Mr. Rho?
<br />RHO: I have a couple of questions. But first I wanted to ask Jeff if he could refer
<br />back to the – whatever this is called – the background report, on page 3, Section 14, the last line
<br />which is bracketed; it says 8-foot sideyard setbacks. Can you tell me what the height restriction
<br />would be, if it was just 8 feet, or how many stories?
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />11
<br />
<br />
|