Laserfiche WebLink
STRAUSS: I’m sorry. I anticipated such an argument regarding jurisdiction. And certainly the <br />Court has jurisdiction to order you to do certain things because an appeal was taken and in <br />remand he can certainly give a partial remand. But what he can’t prevent you from doing is that, <br />having the Director initiate revocation proceedings, having the Department create a better record <br />so you can look at the cumulative effects. He can’t prevent you from doing that because you can <br />reconsider this permit at any time. <br /> <br />Now the Applicant may later argue that we have vested interest because you granted the permit. <br />The case laws are kind of split on that. But particularly when something on appeal, it’s very <br />difficult to answer that there’s a vest, there’s a vested interest there. And, in addition, my <br />understanding is, at least until recent times, maybe there’s some minor activity going on now, <br />because the operations to construct the necessary facilities at the power plant to retrofit it <br />stopped. And so there really is no harm in now if you take the time to fully educate yourselves, <br />have the Planning Department do what it should have done in the first place. And, again, the <br />argument comes from – look at where we’re at? You have a Judge sending you back part of the <br />case. We’re going to appeal all, all of his decisions if we have to. And although Mr. Grimmer is <br />correct, he has taken a very narrow view of what’s on appeal, I don’t think the appellate courts <br />are going to do the same. <br /> <br />But you have the opportunity to not just fix this portion of it but to re-examine your reliance on <br />Planning Director’s and Hearings Officer’s determinations which are now proved to be incorrect. <br />So should you just look at what the Court has identified as incorrect or should you as public <br />servants dealing with a power plant that’s going to be poisoning your fellow citizen and <br />neighbors, unrebutted evidence, should you look at it as a whole? And you can do that in the <br />context, I submit you can do that in the context of a revocation of the permit, even as this case <br />goes on and it’s appellate frozen in time view. And really this, this order from the Court shows <br />how flexible time is. He is basically inviting you to fix what was wrong. And it’s up to you to <br />decide whether you can just take that alone and whether you have to have, as I submit, <br />opportunities for citizens to testify and know what’s going on. Your agenda today doesn’t really, <br />doesn’t really present that, and I don’t think that people had public notice of what really is at issue <br />here. Or you can just simply sign off and say, oh, yeah, we’ll treat it as if we really had to shift the <br />approval at the time that we gave the permit, we’re going to affirm the permit. So you have the <br />opportunity to take another look. <br /> <br />And I submit that the demonstrated errors of the Hearings Officer, of the Planning Director, and <br />of the Planning Commission are all wrong under the law. If you look at the Judge’s decision it <br />should give you an indication that there may be other problems. <br /> <br />Finally, Charlie, if you look at the decision, at the Order, it asks you to clarify whether you need <br />to conduct further hearings and receive additional evidence just for this narrow purpose. It’s at <br />page 2 of the Order under part 1. So I think they’re rubberstamping. What Mr. Grimmer has <br />prepared for you would be an in appropriate course of action. <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: Thank you. <br /> <br /> 8 EXHIBIT B <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />