2019-03-07 Hearing Transcript - Piilani Partners Request for Reconsideration SMA 18-000070

Home

CLARKSON: Please introduce yourself, and state the reasons for making this application for a request for a reconsideration. BUNN: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Director, Corp. Counsel, staff My name is Pam Bunn, and I represent Piilani Partners. I'm not going to repeat what we've already said in our application. I'll be brief and answer any questions the Commissioners have. The action that was taken on February 7fh was to basically defer action on Piilani's application, and I want to quote it, "until such time as the State [Water] Commission on Resource Management can complete its public hearings and render [its] findings" regarding its update to the statewide Water Resource Protection Plan. That's how it was stated on the record of actions. As stated in the meeting, it was stated variously, but it was very clear that the Commission was looking for some direction from the Water Commission. The effect of this Commission's February 7 t action is to de facto deny Piilani's application because the Water Commission is not going to finish its process by April 8th. So, Piilani's request today is a very narrow one. It's requesting the Commission to reconsider that action. If it's granted, it will effectively undo the action taken at the February 7 t meeting returning matters to the state they were immediately prior to the action being taken. So, the way matters stood at that point was that public testimony on the SMA application was closed, and a motion to deny Piilani's application had failed for lack of a second. It's clear in taking the action that it did that this Commission was waiting for some kind of answer from the Water Commission. It's also clear, however, that the Water Commission will answer any question concerning Piilani's proposed well when it considers Piilani's well permit, which is a step in the process. I just want to talk briefly about the roles of this Commission as opposed to the Water Commission, because these roles are very clearly set out in the Constitution, statutes, regulations, all of which define the scheme, and there appears to be some, some blending. This Commission is designated as the authority, the Special Area—the Special Management Area authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is HRS 205-A. It's charged with carrying out the objectives, the policies, and procedures of Part 2 of the CZMA dealing with SMA permits, and that's in HRS, Chapter, Section 205-A, 27. To carry out this conditions mandate, the Commission is required to adopt certain guidelines for review of SMA Applications. That's mandated in HRS, Section 205-A, 26. The Commission did as mandated in Section 9-11(e) of the Planning Commission's Rules. I'm sure you're all familiar with the criteria that are in Section 9-11(e) of your rules. Piilani has addressed each of those conditions in its application and in its presentations before this Commission, and the Planning Department's recommendation on Piilani's application addresses each condition. The role of the Planning Department on thisI'm sorry, the Planning Commission on this application is to apply those criteria to the application to determine whether to grant or deny the application. Now, here there's a little bit of gloss that may have created some confusion because of the implications of the Public Trust Doctrine. As we've discussed, the Public Trust Doctrine is a EXHIBIT B 2