2013-01-10 Windward Transcript PD Rule 12

Home

that that process will probably take, depending on how the conversations proceed, into April, probably before a final report is due. It’s due to you with a set of recommendations that will help improve your capacity to understand the challenge of use of those monies, since those monies are, I believe, in the responsibility of the Commission to approve. So it will set a context, it will try to provide a, some guidance about what this group arrives at in terms of the sequence of science. And maybe the part of the issue that the group arrives at is we really ought to do monitoring, we need to do -. I mean who knows what they’re going to come up with. But the point is that the sequence is something that they will come up with as a body of recommendations for you. So that helps to build your capacity to make better decisions in this process and to give the County Planning Department some clarity about what is, what amounts to significance science, what’s gone on with other places in the world, what’s gone on in New Zealand and other places around the world - so that we not just jump in at whatever point, you know, somebody pushes us - that we actually use that body of science in as constructive way as we can. So this is a tool to be useful to your deliberations going forward. So any questions, clarifications? It’s really a serious effort to get to the, to get clarity and to do the study that I think Mr. Petricci is asking to get done. AU: Thank you very much. Any questions? Okay, well, thank you. I’m glad to see that we’re moving along even though we didn’t hear from you guys for four months, even with that you guys are still going along; and I’m glad to see that both of you guys are involved in the process. PETRICCI: Thank you for staying late. AU: We all have to do our part in serving our community. So thank you guys. Madam Director, could we get a report on where we go from here and what are we doing? LEITHEAD TODD: The biggest concern we had when we reviewed Rule 12 is that it didn’t seem to fully implement Condition 49. And Condition 49, you know, it was clearly intended that you could do mitigation projects. And I consider something like funding a health fund, I mean, a health study a mitigation project, because you can’t really mitigate unless you know what is it or is it not the impact, because you have to know what the impact is in order to do mitigation. So I felt that that was a reasonable use and implementation of Condition 49. The problem is that Rule 12 as written only addresses claims for direct impact and says that those claims go through a Claims Adjuster. So I thought that the Rule probably needs to be tweaked to follow Condition 49 more, and also create a process by which you would fund something like a health study, as opposed to sending it to a Claims Adjuster. And so, you know, I’m just saying I think there needs to be something tweaked. I need some direction from the Commission if you want me to go and draft something along those lines which would then come back, you would take a look at that draft. If you were interested in amending the Rule, then we would have to conduct a public hearing on amending the Rule, at which point people could comment on whether the Rule satisfied what they thought it needed to have, whether it addressed the concerns, whether it was implementing 49. And you have that authority because, you have that authority under your approval of the geothermal resource permit and under your condition which set up the $50,000 per year, cause you folks did that. The reason the fund is specifically created in the County Code is under the Charter you have to, for accounting purposes, you have to set up a special fund so that the Finance Department can segregate the money and account for it separately. And then the Council said go and make rules up to administer 9 EXHIBIT D