2006-09-22 T Giacometti - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ALAMEDA:We do, the Commission does have that. Fellow Commissioners, are there any objections to our Intervenor pointing out those five areas? Seeing none, you may proceed, sir. TUHY:Thank you. The first area deals with what we have referred to as the stockpile material. The stockpile material is really not addressed at all in the report, other than a Finding of Fact that it was brought on to the property for the purpose of using it as a fill to grade the property from the ocean to Ehukai Street. That’s one of the Findings of Mr. Gibson. And no other Findings were made until you get to the Hearing Officer’s No. 59, which is the very last paragraph of his proposed or recommended decision where, if I can quote that. I believe he says that the Commission, without a great deal of parameters on it -. I’m sorry, that’s Finding, or Item No. 78 of the last paragraph. It says, and it’s the very last sentence -. IWASHITA:What page is that? TUHYI’m sorry, that’s Page 16, Item No. 78. ALAMEDA:Okay. MCCALL:This is of the -? TUHY:Of the Hearing Officer’s -. ALAMEDA:Report? TUHY:Report. ALAMEDA:Okay. TUHYAnd the last sentence is, “Additionally, the Hearings Officer recommends that the Applicant be required to take steps to mitigate any potential runoff from the imported th dirt/loamy material situated on the subject property.” The, quite a bit of the hearing on July 11 centered around that material. It is, if you have the exhibits before you, pictures of it are reflected in Exhibits J as in joy – B as in boy and C. It shows the stockpile material. It’s 300 to 400 cubic yards of material that was imported onto the property by the Applicant in approximately 2004. The material has not been anchored, it has not been stabilized. And a very significant concern that the petitioner has and my client has, as well as expressed by other witnesses at the hearing, is the very significant possibility of environmental damage which could be caused to Keauhou Bay, a very sensitive area, should that material be taken out to the ocean or there’ll be siltation or wind-blown effects from the stockpile. In our Findings of Fact, which we had submitted to the Hearings Officer at Pages 9 and 10, we had made certain proposed Findings of Fact which are supported by the record, numbered 7 through 10, dealing with that particular material. The evidence I think was uncontroverted that there have been no protected measures taken. The Hearings officer essentially adopted that. EXHIBIT B 5