2016-01-07 Hearing Transcript - Arrow SPP 09-076 & Rodrigues SPP 15-178

Home

kind of impacts that exist, we do believe that it really is, in this instance, going to be a much more effective way and better way for the Commission to take a look at the issues from that perspective. And, you know, we now have, you know, some addition public testimony from some surrounding property owners that’s been recently received that, again, also gives you some idea of the impacts that are occurring out there. And, some of it includes, you know, prevailing winds and those kinds of things. You don’t have a chance maybe to see how dust-creating activities affects these neighbors, but to get a sense when you’re out there, what is happening physically on the ground. I think that’s just something that is really difficult to replace sitting here in this room, so we would just state that position. Thank you. HENKEL: Regarding the site inspection, oh, do any of the other parties have any comment? VITOUSEK: Yeah, Chairman Henkel, you know, we submitted an opposition to the request for site visit. We felt that, you know, there’s been more than adequate opportunity for the Commissioners to familiarize themselves with the site. There have been aerial photographs. There’s been a series of photographs that were introduced into evidence. We’ve been through a contested case hearing where we’ve had two days of testimony about the site and about different components of the site. You know, we think that there’s been more than adequate information that’s been presented to the Commissioners. We point out that this is an area that’s been quarried for more than 50 years, and that there are several on-going quarries in this area. And, we just would—in balance, you know, at the time of the contested case hearing, we took the position that if the Commission, if the Hearings Officer wanted to do it, that was fine. We didn’t object to it. But, at this point, it would just result in an unnecessary delay and additional cost of the proceeding and so we are opposing the site visit at this time. Thank you. HENKEL: Okay, thank you. There has been extensive photographic evidence presented to us, and Mrs. Sheldon gave us some new photographs today. As the Presiding Officer, unless any Commissioner feels differently, I’m inclined to deny the motion for a site objection \[sic\], site inspection. If—if there’s any objections by the Commissioners, please speak up, and I would look for a motion. MOSES: I would prefer to have a site visit, Mr. Henkel. HENKEL: Okay, we’ve got one Commissioner who would like to have a site inspection so would you put that in the form of a motion, please? MOSES: I make a motion that we do a site visit based on the information that we have received and the—I’m inclined to agree with Tom Yeh there that opposition of surrounding neighbors have come to—more have been received today, and I, I think it makes a difference. HENKEL: Is there a second? MIYASATO: I’ll second. HENKEL: Okay, discussion? 10 EXHIBIT C