Laserfiche WebLink
<br />We do not consider the geotechnical reports provided as part of past applications applicable and <br />dispute them for a number of reasons. Of most significance is the requirement for compaction <br />testing and moisture content. These tests are not considered relevant or required of the subject <br />activity. You’ll notice in my proposed conditions reference to those reports and requirements of <br />testing have been stricken. <br /> <br />If I have to get an affidavit from MSHA, other quarry operators, or licensed contractors familiar <br />with the activity for proof--maybe I should have gotten that prior to this meeting--however, it <br />should be noted that Arrow Hawai‛i has not received a single inspection comment from MSHA <br />relating to compaction testing and moisture content. Why? Because MSHA does not include <br />this in their protocols, guidelines, or requirements. <br /> <br />It should also be noted that MSHA does look for stability and safety of the entire quarry. If <br />you’re unfamiliar with MSHA, it is a Federal entity of the United States Department of Labor. It <br />is the Mine Safety Health Administration. Its name about says it all with regards to activity and <br />personnel employed. <br /> <br />If I may ask you all to read the proposed condition inserted by HOVE RMC counsel, final <br />sentence in their conditions that you have here. Condition No. 4, final sentence, “semi-annual <br />tests and observations of fills, cuts, benching, and direction of surface water runoff to determine <br />the degree of compaction and moisture content obtained by the contractor.” Staff and <br />Commissioners, please understand that contractors will not be employed and fill slopes are not <br />typical to quarry activities. The only fill slopes required would be to support the already <br />specified condition of 15-foot setbacks to all property lines and top of slopes, which I quote. <br /> <br />Addressed earlier in the condition, excuse me, with the exception of the large hole inherited by <br />my client adjacent to Mahimahi Drive, the anticipated fill slope to correct encroachments would <br />be minimal. Topographic maps have been provided within the application for reference and <br />taken recently for historical record. My client intends to comply with the conservative setbacks <br />recommended by the Planning Department, and for this work to be under the cooperative <br />supervision of my office and HOVE RMC. The condition of semi-annual determination and <br />degree of compaction and moisture content is not only questionable, it actually implies and <br />conditions a lot of expensive tests not relevant to the permit activity. <br /> <br />Assuming this condition and recommendation of the CEL 2009 Report flawed, we ask the <br />reference to the report be removed from the permit conditions. Language specified in Condition <br />4 and 6 is sufficient and concise with regards to the directed slope and quarry construction, <br />setbacks to roads, property lines, and materials to be used for such construction. My office will <br />be responsible to oversee the specified conditions in coordination and cooperation with HOVE <br />RMC. I have pledged this to their representatives. I’ve met with them the past couple days. I’ve <br />talked to them on the phone prior to this meeting. I intend to work with HOVE RMC. <br /> <br />Please take a moment to compare my edits to the Planning Department’s proposed conditions <br />and to that of HOVE RMC. We consider their edits excessive. We agree to more frequent, up <br /> <br />6 <br />EXHIBIT B <br /> <br /> <br />