|
GRAHAM: I think I’m a little bit different, but, you know, generally in the same
<br />idea, and maybe Mr. Torigoe can, you know, listen carefully what I’m thinking here and tell me
<br />if I’m a little bit off track. But it feels to me like, at the beginning, we had a full record brought
<br />in by the applicant with the application and all the other materials, and then we had one party and
<br />turned out numerous parties, who chose to contest the case, and they went and, you know, made
<br />their case, brought their witnesses, questioned all before the hearings officer, and now that part is
<br />finished. So, it’s like one part of what’s before us has been very thoroughly vetted and argued
<br />and all that, regarding the issues that were of concerns to them. So, I feel like we’ve kind of
<br />closed the loop. And now we are back a little bit more like where we started where we have
<br />other issues and the application that was before us right at the beginning. So, I feel like we could
<br />continue without any contested case hearing, but just continue right ahead with what we’ve got.
<br />And if, in the course of hearing Mr. Mooers’ presentation and the course of the discussion
<br />amongst the Commissioners today and all, we feel like we want to get more information about
<br />something rather, or we feel like, you know, we are not ready to make a decision, we do a split
<br />vote or however we want to do it, we go forward. But if we feel like what was originally given
<br />to us as supplemented by the contested case hearing is enough for us to make a decision today,
<br />we go right ahead and do that. That’s sort of my preferred way.
<br />ALAMEDA: Okay. Mr. Torigoe, what do you think?
<br />TORIGOE: Well, that’s kind of what I was suggesting about 20 minutes ago is that
<br />you have final argument, allow everybody, you know, basically to put their case out on table for
<br />you, and you decided whether you want to make a decision or call for, you know, further
<br />evidence or whatever.
<br />LIM: I guess, maybe, we will make it easier cause because of the way that
<br />things are turning out today, I feel very uncomfortable about the procedures and how clear it’s
<br />going to be to a reviewing court as to what really happened and what the Commission thought.
<br />So, we’d like to request a continuance of the hearing. I like the suggestion that we retain and
<br />bring into the record things that happened at the hearings officer’s level because that was, you
<br />know, a long and arduous presentation of evidence. We keep that as part of the evidence, and we
<br />would come in, we are anticipating coming in maybe with an about half a day presentation. I’ll
<br />have Mr. Mooers give the planning overview of the SMA criteria. We’ll probably have
<br />available, even if they don’t testify, we’ll have them available for questions by the Commission,
<br />David Bills who is our project engineer, for some of the drainage issues if you wish to ask him
<br />about that, then Dr. Ron Terry who did a lot of the visual studies and the SMA criteria issues.
<br />So, you know, we’d of course not want to continue it for too long, but we’d like to ask for the
<br />Commission’s next meeting in Kona in late January or February.
<br />ALAMEDA: Commissioners, the applicant has asked for a continuance. I don’t
<br />know what’s your thoughts on that. Commissioner Siracusa?
<br />SIRACUSA: This is relative to the applicant’s request. You know, we got this
<br />st
<br />whole pile on the afternoon of December 1 at the end of the Hilo meeting. That’s an awful lot
<br />of material to go through in detail and digest, as though none of us have lives or jobs or anything
<br />else to do with our time. I know I was not able to totally finish everything, and I’m wondering
<br />how prepared the rest of the Commissioners actually are. Who of you guys read everything?
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />18
<br />
<br />
|