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

Home

So, deferring to the Water Commission to consider the well permit is appropriate and, I believe, required by statute. But, deferring to the WRPP update, so this Commission, rather than the Water Commission, can decide whether the well is appropriate is not in keeping with the statutory scheme. So, we would respectfully request that the Commission reconsider the indefinite continuance it imposed on February 7th, apply the SMA criteria, and the Planning Department's recommendation and wait for the Water Commission to rule on Piilani's well permit. Thank you. I'll take any questions. CLARKSON: Are there any questions for the Applicant? If not, thank you. BUNN: Thank you. CLARKSON: Please be seated. We have at this time 26 people signed up to testify on this matter. I'd like to remind the people who are going to testify that this is a request for a reconsideration. We are well aware of all the original testimony on the merits of the project. But, if you still wish to testify on this reconsideration action, please do so. At this time, I'm going to call up four testifiers at a time. Len Gambla, Dwight Vicente, Lyman Lincoln, and Cory Harden, if you would come forward? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? GAMBLA/LINCOLN/HARDEN: Yes. VICENTE: [No response.] CLARKSON: Please introduce yourself, speak into the microphone, and we'll proceed on to my left, the testifier to my left. GAMBLA: Thank you, sir. I'm Len Gambla. Good morning and aloha everybody. Thanks for taking your time to listen to the folks who took off work today to come testify. Regarding the request to reconsider the SMA Use Permit to develop the potable water well, I am not in favor of deferringI mean, I'm in favor of continuing to defer. I'm not in favor of the project. When I hear the individual speak about the public use, it is a public use, its public trust water. I get it, reasonable and beneficial use of the water. If it's reasonable and beneficial, to me, it would be something like a public/private partnership. To me that would make more sense than a completely private entity taking the water, benefitting. You know, there's a big, there's an outflow of water, but I wouldn't see the inflow of money from a financial perspective that would directly benefit the County. It might benefit the State, but I don't think the money, that would come back to the County in particular. So, to keep it brief, I'm not in favor of it. CLARKSON: Please speak into the microphone, introduce yourself, and proceed. LINCOLN: Good morning. My name is Lyman Lincoln, and I'd just like to say that I oppose the project, and I'm against having this reconsidered. Thank you. EXHIBIT B 4