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

Home

a motion for a continuance so that you can respect the Sunshine Law and include public, the public in these revisions. The decision & order says two things, not one thing. The agenda is wrong. The Court order says, "(1) do not" it says, "the Commission shall issue revised findings and [of] fact and conclusions of law in support of its original D&O" i.e. denying the SMA permit, that "do not rely on Piilani's use of plastic bottles as the basis for finding a substantial environmental [adverse] environmental impact or inconsistencies [inconsistency] with the objectives and policies of [Chapter] 205A ... and (2)" the public trust doctrine. They didn't say that you couldn't add the impacts to public land. That case was Hilo Project, CAP 14-000751, Hilo Project vs. The Planning Commission. The Court said remanded because they didn't consider the impacts to the public land. You heard much testimony about Wailoa River State Recreational area. It's included in the Envision Hawaii or Hilo, Hilo Envision Plan 2020-25. It's part of the Bayfront Trails plan. This project is not consistent with what I would call our General Plan, and these community plans that have been worked up over the last ten years. I submitted the Noise Reference Manual. I submitted the email from James Toma. "Thank you for your email. The Noise Section is responsible for enforcing Chapter 48 [46], Community Noise Control. Piilani Partners [,LLC] may apply for a noise permit that would limit the times of noisy construction work Monday[s] through Friday[s]." The industrial activities would also need to comply with Chapter 48 [sic]. The County, if the County chooses to add special noise limitations through a permit that they issue, then it would be up to them to enforce these conditions. So, basically, we know now it's unenforceable. A special, a special noise condition is unenforceable, the community Noise Reference Manual says that it harms wildlife. I personally see the Nene fly in every afternoon to feed in Wailoa, in Waiakea Pond there, because they don't have enough food where they're living. It the noise, it's harmful for human health. They talked about violence. So, you're actually making it more dangerous for people to go to that park if there is incessant noise nearby, because people get irritated and lash out and start fights. I testified to all of this, and don't laugh at me. I don't laugh at you. REPLOGLE: I'm not laughing at you. I'm actually agreeing with you. ROHR: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Okay, I live near a beach park. There's a lot of violence, and it happens for various reasons, but one reason in this noise manual is that people get more angry when they are around incessant noise. So, if you would please add into this another section under the public trust doctrine because Article XI, Section 1 protects the beauty and natural environment of public land, and you've had testimony about that. Okay, so—so there, you, the agenda just says narrow public trust. No, that wasn't it. It was more than that that the Court said should be considered. Okay, now the fact that you didn't get specific in the revisions and they weren't done in Ramseyer, we can't even tell what was changed. Jerry Rothstein won a, won a case against the County Council for a rezoning amendment under the Sunshine Law because they didn't always get the revisions and the Ramseyer version to where the public could even review it and testify EXHIBIT B