My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-04-07 EXHIBITB
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2011
>
2011-04-07 EXHIBITB
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 1:47:35 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 1:47:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
case feel that the regulations that the state and the federal go <br />inadequate. They are what they are. And we have strived to mee <br />particular we have worked to meet the new EPA, industrial boiler <br />on February 23rd which is the most, which is the strictest set o <br />of our nature. <br />Now since the evidentiary hearing, as was noted earlier, we finished a traffic study. That traffic <br />study had to be reviewed by the Department of Transportation. A <br />SMA permit, we've submitted that information record to the Count <br /> <br />A complete archaeological survey was completed, submitted to Sta <br />rd <br />Office on February 3. Unfortunately due to the short staffing over here they have n <br />their review. ThatÓs why it hasnÓt been submitted to this Count <br />SHPDÓs response to that report. <br />On the air permit the Department of Health issued a first draft, <br />comments, voluminous comments were received. After consideration of those and looking at the <br />development of the MACT, the department developed a second draft <br />comment and review. Those comments have been received and the d <br />them in preparation to submit the draft air permit to EPA for EP <br /> <br />Now we made a concerted effort to listen to the concerns of the <br />impacted by the project and to respond to those concerns in a re <br />noise level. They were concerned about noise. WeÓve agreed to <br />the property line. As an industrial facility, zoned industrial <br />decibels. But we've agreed to 55, which is a daytime residentia <br /> <br />We've routed truck traffic. Mr. Watson was concerned about a tr <br />Road. No trucks are going to go down that portion of Sugar Mill <br />right turn at railroad right-of-way, coming around on the south <br /> <br />Now the process of developing a project of this nature is not one that's based simply on develop <br />a concept and go push that concept and idea, but developing a co <br />molding it in such a way that it meets all the regulatory requir <br />and it meets the concerns of the public. That requires a substa <br />changes are made throughout the process. That's what has happen <br />would simply remind you again that should you approve our reques <br />this job, thereÓs 20 megawatts plus of sustainable renewal energy fueled by a local renewable <br />resource that will move the State and the County further down th <br />portfolio standard goals, the elimination of the burning of 250, <br />year and, as you've already heard from several people, jobs. <br /> <br />I want to thank you again for the opportunity to address the Com <br />case, but I sincerely believe that we have done what we need to <br />requirements for the permit. Again, thank you. <br />21 <br /> EXHIBIT B <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.