2010-08-12 THU HONUA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

no. Her application is untimely. As you know your rules say that a petition should be filed no th later than seven calendar days prior to the first meeting on the matter, which happened May 7. th And Ms. Rohr filed her application on July 13, which is a little over two months late. Second, Ms. Rohr bases her application on the fact she believes her interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public, which is the standard. Again, that’s incorrect. She was in Hilo which is about 12 miles away from the power plant. Her desire to use the Hmkua coast for recreational purposes also doesn’t distinguish her from the general public. And her background as an environmentalist and having an education in planning, which she also proffers as reasons why she has a distinguishable interest, are obviously not. Plenty of people in the public have those, I guess, can meet those criteria. With respect to the fact that the application is incomplete, I’m going to just quickly go down Ms. Rohr’s procedures as required by Rule 9 and explain. Number 1, our application is complete. Number 2, we did provide with our application a description of a plot plan that was to scale. Number 3, we received a waiver for the shoreline survey. Number 4, although the applicant may apply to the Commission for the SMA Permit, we have received a permit, the permit was transferred from the original applicant to us; and it’s my understanding, and I could be wrong, that the permit runs with the land. So as it goes from owner to owner the permit is going to go with them. Under 5, we did comply with 5(c), we did produce a copy of the letter written by the applicant to the DLNR. After the DLNR didn’t respond within 30 days, we simply followed Rule, it’s actually 9-11(b)(I)(5) not just 9-11(b); and we attached a copy of a letter. So those are really our arguments. I mean her application to intervene is untimely, and she doesn’t distinguish her interest from that of the general public. And as Mr. Woodward had commented, also, it is prejudicial. We’ve already started the contested case proceeding with the hearing officer. We’ve had an initial meeting, we’ve filed some pleadings, and so that’s another reason why we feel that her application should be denied. And I just wanted to respond to just a question that Mr. Domingo had asked. The issues related to the thoroughness of Hu Honua’s assertions in the application are all going to be vetted through the process of the SMA hearing. So they’ll ask us plenty of questions I’m sure. There are already 21 or so intervenors. And we’ll have to be, for the, to the sufficiency of the hearing officer and then eventually to you to, you know, make sure that we’ve made our point clear and that we do meet all the requirements as required by law. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, do we have any questions for Mr. Austin? Okay, seeing none, you may be seated. Do we have a motion? Commissioner Au. ROHR: Could I say one more thing? He said something new. NOMURA: Excuse me, mike when you speak please. GONZALEZ: She has a right to rebut. 17 EXHIBITC