2018-04-05 Hearing Transcript - Hu Honua Bioenergy SMA 221 (Partial Remand)

Home

be able to have a B&B because people—there won't be enough people coming to Hilo. They're going to avoid Hilo in my opinion. And, I guess under Rule 4, basically I'm saying that I have an injury -in -fact, but I also believe I have a procedural injury; meaning that I believe what's happening is illegal, and I have a right because my interests are being affected, that I have a right to—it's the last quote on my submission. That I have a right to protest and be involved if they're doing something illegal or my government is, my County government. So, that's my position. CLARKSON: Thank you. At this time, I'll ask the representative from the Planning Department to discuss whether they feel—whether they have any objections to the Petition. KIM: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Ronald Kim. I'm a Deputy Corporation Counsel representing the Director for the Planning Department, Michael Yee, at this proceeding. The Planning Director would object to this petition to intervene as being untimely, and that is based upon the Planning Commission's own rule, Rule 4-6(a) which does require a party who is seeking to intervene in a proceeding to do so no less than seven days prior to the first meeting on the matter. In this case, the first meeting on the matter occurred on May 7, 2010. It went—and actually the Petitioner did seek to intervene in that proceeding after that meeting, and the Planning Commission in 2010, on July 13, 2010, denied that petition as being untimely. [Secretary's Note: The petition was dated July 13, 2010 and denied by the Commission on August 12, 2010.] So, if the petition was untimely in 2010, it's certainly still untimely now. We don't have a new matter or a new application before the Planning Commission now. What we have before the Commission is a remand from the Intermediate Court of Appeals to consider a narrow issue of the impacts of the Outfall on the public trust and our natural resources. So, it's not a whole new matter. It's a limited remand. Now, I'm not going to get into the arguments about injury -in -fact because I believe or the Planning Department's position is that as a threshold issue, the petition is untimely, so we shouldn't spend time going into these other issues if as a threshold the Petitioner didn't meet the deadline needed to intervene as a party. Now, having said that, the Petitioner is able to give testimony as a member of the public to express her concerns, but she can't actually intervene in the case as a party. That would be the Planning Department's position, and I would say that the rule itself sets forth the requirements, and with all due respect to the Commission, you don't really have discretion or leeway to change those requirements. CLARKSON: Thank you, and will a representative from—you'll get ROHR: Okay CLARKSON: you'll get a chance to respond. EXHIBIT C 3