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

Home

ROHR: You did limit what I had to speak to, and he expanded it. HALL: But, you'll have a chance after they have a chance. ROHR: Okay. CLARKSON: Please, please hand the microphone to ROHR: Oh, sorry. I'm so sorry. CLARKSON: Please introduce yourself and then proceed. YAMAMOTO, W.: Sure, my name is Wil Yamamoto. I represent Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC, the propertyI don't want to say property owner, but the lessee of the property who has an interest in the property in this matter. We join in the Planning Department's position on this. We believe that the petition for standing on the contested, requesting a contested case hearing is untimely based on Planning Commission Rule 4-6(a) and as a threshold matter, we agree that on that basis alone, the Petitioner should not be allowed to have standing in this matter. In addition to that, if the Planning Commission looks back in the record, on August 12 of 2010, the Planning Commission already made a ruling as to Ms. Rohr's standing when she petitioned to intervene back then, and they deemed two things. One is that her petition was untimely, and the second is that her interests is not clearly distinguishable from that of the general public. So, I just wanted the Planning Commission to know that. CLARKSON: Please respond if you wish, Ms. Rohr. ROHR: Mr. Chairman, I started out my petition to intervene with stating why I believed the letter that Warren Lee wrote to the Commission asking for this hearing today was asking for new—approval of new development that wasn't part of the original application. That they are asking you to approve injection wells, three of them, and also use of the Old Mill foundation and Outfall. They want to tie their storm water system into it. And, they have plans to do construction. They didn't have that in 2011. But, now, there's a letter which I provided you that says that they are planning on doing construction. They say it is 82 feet from the shoreline. I say it's in the shoreline area. But, anyway, they also are building a—they call it a water treatment building and facility. I call it a wastewater treatment unit. And, they're going to be injecting wastewater into Hakalau aquifer. This deserves a new amendment where you do public notification, you allow people to intervene if they so can establish their interest, and that you don't allow them under the guise of a remand to get you to approve new development in the SMA without applying, without getting a shoreline survey, without doing an EA, all of these things that they should have to do. That, and so I'm saying that because of the letter and the nature of the letter, they're saying that they have a right to decide whether they're impacting the public trust resource, the public resources. They don't. Only government has the right to decide that. A letter that asks for you to approve so many things and to take their representation that these things are existing when there's no permits for changing the Old Mill building, tearing it town, using the foundation as a big EXHIBIT C 4