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

Home

catchment basin, detention basin, turning it into a sedimentation basin and using that Outfall for a storm water drainage system. There's no permits. No shoreline setback variance. It's a new, it's new development in the SMA, and so are the injection wells. You know nothing about them. They haven't told you anything. [Clapping in audience.] CLARKSON: Please, remember this is discussion on Ms. Rohr's petition for standing in a contested case hearing. I am not going to get into the merits of the matter before us. We'll have one more rebuttal from each of the parties, and then we'll have public testimony if anybody wants to testify about this petition only, not about the agenda item itself. Please proceed. KIM: Ronald Kim, Deputy Corporation Counsel on behalf of the Planning Director. You know, I just would like to remind the Commission that what is on the agenda today, what is here before you today is the same SMA permit. Now, the letter from Mr. Lee, it did appear to propose some changes or some difference to what was previously before the Commission, but that, what procedurally you are here before is still the same SMA application, same permit. Now, if you choose to deny the permit, then you might have a new application, new permit, and then that would open the door for parties to intervene. But, what is here before you today presently is the remand from the ICA on the same SMA permit application. Thank you. YAMAMOTO, W.: Wil Yamamoto here on behalf of Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC. Very briefly, I'd like to address Ms. Rohr's comment, and actually one comment from the Planning Department. I wanted to clarify that Mr. Lee's February 27, 2018, letter to the Planning Commission was very specific and very narrow. It was specifically addressing the single issue on remand from the ICA and, you know, the ICA was looking at, asking the Planning Commission to specifically address the impacts to the public shoreline related to any repairing or replacing of Outfall 001. In that letter, we referred to essentially two things that were kind of alternatives to the use of Outfall 001. One was underground injection control wells, UIC wells, and that is not new. That was discussed during the original 2010 contested case; and, in fact, the Planning Department confirmed that in its December 27, 2017 letter. So, we referenced that in our letter, and in addition, the use of on-site disposal to take care of the development generated storm water, that's something we mentioned in the letter. That also is not new. In fact, this Planning Commission issued in its Decision & Order back in 2011 a line item that talks about us doing on-site disposal to address water discharge and that's what we're complying with. So, our position is that nothing is new that we've introduced by way of that letter and that it is inappropriate for Ms. Rohr to participate as a party in this contested case hearing which has its origins back in 2010. CLARKSON: Thank you. At this time, since all the parties have had their say, we'll hear from public testimony, if any. Please be seated. And, does any member of the public wish to testify? Now, this is strictly on the matter of standing according to Planning Commission rules for EXHIBIT C 5