2003-12-04 TCLIFTO120403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

YUEN:They could. It would depend upon the economics of whether, are requiring that you either have an on-site sewer treatment or you hook up to the County Kealakehe plant, which is a considerable distance away, and itÓs expensive to pump. I donÓt know what the, whether, I think the economics are going to lead to development of a wastewater treatment plant. ThereÓs, I donÓt know that thereÓs, and the private owners can get together and decide to have the wastewater treatment plant on one of these properties rather than have two. From an environmental point of view, I donÓt know that thereÓs a big difference between having one or two private sewer treatment plants. FUJIKAWA:I see. So, in other words, on your condition on item N could add on to the developer that in event that they do come to a decision of consolidation, they may? Right now youÓre applying to one individual person on his own treatment system. YUEN:You mean -? Well, we have Condition 18 and it says that, ÐAll wastewater shall be treated at an approved wastewater treatment plant, to a minimum of secondary treatment, with R-2 effluent, unless a greater level of treatment is required by the Department of Health. Wastewater shall be used for irrigation of landscaping or other beneficial reuse to the maximum extent feasible.Ñ So this doesnÓt mean that they have to do one, a wastewater treatment plant could be on the adjoining property; it doesnÓt have to be on their property; but they do have to have a secondary treatment -. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, but what IÓm saying is that according to the condition that the developer as well as Kohanaiki may consolidate together. IÓm trying to avoid all these sewer treatment plants all over the area. YUEN:Yeah, thatÓs -. I donÓt think a change to the condition needs to be made in order to accomplish that because it doesnÓt say that the wastewater treatment plant has to be on-site. It also, the way itÓs written it also would be acceptable for them to pipe it to Kealakehe. FUJIKAWA:ThatÓs it. KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:I would like to go back to this issue of this recommendation by the Planning Department on the SMA application. And I would like to argue, again, about the numbers 400 versus 200, and IÓve done this before on record and I wish to bring it up again. I guess, to some extent, my belief that 400 versus 200, 400 ought to have been the number that was allowed but we did recommend to the Council a lesser number. However, when I considered this recommendation again back, supported by the Planning CommitteeÓs decision yesterday, I think it was, I am more convinced, I am re-convinced, more convinced, that the reason or the rationale that Mr. Yuen presents to us to bring it 13