|
we delegated the report of who we delegated all this to, then why are we even, you know, going
<br />through the process? It doesn’t make sense. We paid the hearings officer, we selected her, we
<br />said we don’t want to hear this, you know, because it’s going to take 4 or 5 days or whatever it
<br />is, and then you get the report and you say, well, I don’t like the answer so, you know, let’s
<br />disqualify this and start all over again. I think we are going backwards.
<br />ALAMEDA: Well, let me just say I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. I think he
<br />meant to say he didn’t like the process, not the answer. Commissioner Graham?
<br />GRAHAM: Thank you. I‘d like to maybe respond to Ms. Siracusa a little bit by
<br />what I saw from reading the transcript and what I see from the hearing officer’s report and all. In
<br />my mind I separate the two a lot. I agree that, I don’t think the hearings officer’s report contains
<br />all what I think is represented and what went on, like when she spoke of Mr. Tyler’s
<br />considerations and others. However, as Mr. Torigoe said, it’s up to us to decide what to do with
<br />the hearing officer’s report. We can go wherever we want with it and I certainly plan to go
<br />somewhat differently than where it heads. However, the actual contested case hearing that was
<br />held is different than the report that came at the end; and when I read the transcript of those two
<br />long days of testimony on, again, what I would say is, you know, relatively well defined issues,
<br />the location of the road and the flood issues and all, that’s a lot of time spent on just a couple of
<br />issues. And you know, I think that the intervenor, as well as the applicant, had plenty of time
<br />and plenty of ability to put forth what their concerns were, and I think, when I read the transcript,
<br />I get a very good sense of that. So, to me, you know, I can nitpick how the hearing officer
<br />conducted the hearing here and there, but basically I don’t think anybody was deprived of a full
<br />and adequate opportunity to state their issues, state their case and all.So, I certainly feel okay
<br />with the substance of the contested case hearing that went on with the exhibits and with the
<br />transcript we have. So, you know, I’m fully willing to move forward from there and deal with
<br />the case as we should as a representative of the public.
<br />ALAMEDA: I agree. Mr. Iwashita? I think we have agreement except
<br />Commissioner, probably, Iwashita probably disagree on that on moving forward or -?
<br />IWASHITA: No, no. I, well, let me say this. I tried to be clear earlier, right, that
<br />the Commission really should address the concerns raised by the intervenors. We can’t, we
<br />shouldn’t ignore them, and I think what Mr. Torigoe said earlier, I think, sounded like
<br />concurrence that since it’s been raised, right, today, it should be addressed one way or another.
<br />Looking at the Rule in terms of where you proceed, Rule 4-33 Part (b) references oral argument,
<br />which is, you know, what we discussed as going forward. It also, after oral argument, states the
<br />Commission may reopen the docket and take further evidence or may make such other
<br />disposition of the case that is necessary under the circumstances. So, we have the authority and
<br />discretion to do more than just review this record and make a decision. And I think in all
<br />fairness, to the applicant actually, given the concerns raised by Commissioner Graham earlier,
<br />perhaps some consideration should be given to for the applicant to decide or consider and decide
<br />whether it wants to submit more evidence beyond what the limited issues that the Commissioner
<br />Graham perceive or addressed by the hearings officer.
<br />LIM: Right. You know as we are listening to the discussion, we do have the
<br />information, it’s in the application. That’s what Mr. Mooers is going to testify about as to the
<br />overall SMA criteria and how they satisfy that with the project. But you know, in light of what’s
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />16
<br />
<br />
|