Laserfiche WebLink
Director’s conditions were good, we just wanted to improve them a little bit more by providing a <br />little more clarity in compliance standards, as well as the stabilization of the sites. I mean, we’re <br />talking about a history of, of non-compliance where the applicants today have said that they’ve <br />been reasonable, and they’ve been compliant operators. We disagree with that. We’ve provided <br />you some pictures today that show, for Arrow especially, who has had permits that show areas of <br />those permitted properties that are not in compliance in terms of benching, in terms of setbacks. <br />So, we were just trying to tighten these up so to speak. <br /> <br />Also, in regards to restoration, erosion control—all of these areas that affect these quarrying. <br />And you’re talking about large swaths of areas and as Laura was talking about, many miles of <br />roadways, and these roadways are further deteriorating every day, so we just wanted to have <br />conditions that were really tight, and that really addressed these issues for stabilization, <br />mitigation, remediation, safety, and the repair of the roads. I hope that answers your question. <br /> <br />MOSES: Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay, so, the petitioners, what is your response <br />to the petition of standing? <br /> <br />PATEL: Do the applicants have any response— <br /> <br />MOSES: --have any response to the— <br /> <br />DAHLBERG (from audience): We don’t-- <br /> <br />PATEL: Can you— <br /> <br />DAHLBERG: We don’t believe the petition for standing is necessary or should be granted. <br />HOVE Road has all the powers to levy assessments and correct their roads personally and to an <br />extent, that actually these proposed conditions would limit them in how they repair their roads to <br />their standard. Petition for standing is not grant—is not necessary. It would cost everybody <br />money to include HOVE RMC. <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: I think that the question really is whether they’ve made met all of the <br />standards for the petition they filed, right? That’s the posi—I’m not really looking for your <br />factual arguments at this point. I’d like to know whether or not you agree with them that they’ve <br />met the standards as set forth in our rules of procedure to enter this case. <br /> <br />DAHLBERG: They’re not your typical neighbor. They’re a corporation. They own these roads. <br />They fix these roads at their discretion. As far as being threatened by the activity, they’re not <br />threatened by the activity. They can take any measure they wish to fix the roads to the standard <br />they have. <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: You’re kind of dancing around my question a little bit. <br /> <br />DAHLBERG: I’m sorry, sir. Yes, they are clearly distinguishable from the general public. <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br />EXHIBIT B <br /> <br /> <br />