2020-02-06 Exh B Piilani Partners Remand SMA 18-070

Home

Condition 11 is one that got a lot of discussion because of concern about what could happen in the event of a natural disaster. So, we revised the standard condition on emergency preparedness to require the emergency preparedness plan to include certain things. It would have to include actions to be taken and the parts and equipment necessary to take the actions to protect the well and the aquifer in the event of a tsunami, earthquake, sea level rise, or other natural phenomenon. And the reason I bring this up is because when we were talking in the appeal in court, and I think it might actually be in one of the original, in one of the comparison conditions, there was a finding of fact that it was responding to Mr. Nance's comment that, you know, the water, any contaminant will be pumped out in the first few minutes of pumping, and the comment was, "Well, what if the pump doesn't work anymore?" Well, obviously, we would replace the pump, but this condition would certainly, if the Planning Department and the Civil Defense Agency thought it was appropriate to require us to keep a spare pump in case a tsunami happens and the pump is flooded and we can't get it started, we would have a spare pump to drop in there so we could pump it out. Condition 12, I've just mentioned in passing, but we did propose a $100,000 scholarship endowment fund and also a recycling and redemption center. Adopting the Planning Department's Recommendation together with the conditions that have been agreed to on the record would just require a simple vote to do so. There would be no further findings and conclusions; there would be no more appearances before the Court; and Piilani respectfully requests that you do that. Thank you, and if you have any questions, I'm glad to answer them. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. You guys have any questions? Anybody have any questions? All right, thank you very much. At this time, I'd like to—go ahead. YEE: Michael Yee again, Planning Director. Because the original Applicant submitted my original Recommendation, I want to comment the first paragraph it reads, "Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this recommendation based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. This approval recommendation is based on the following findings." So, at that time, I made a recommendation. During the proceedings and stuff, there was never a question posed to me have I changed my mind. Okay? It wasn't necessary for me to answer that question. So, I just want to point out this was made at a certain date in time. Once the Planning Commission makes a determination, okay, it could go to Council for a vote and stuff and other things. Once the Planning Commission makes a decision, I support that decision. Again, my authority comes from the Planning Commission, so if they make a decision, I remain highly supportive of that decision because they are trying to take in all the points of view on the Island. So, I want to be clear because they handed it out, just because I made a recommendation then, that was at that point in time, okay? And, there was never a question posed if I had changed my mind since then or not. The Planning Commission has already made their decision, and that's what got appealed, okay? EXHIBIT B 18