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

Home

HENKEL: Thank you. Any other discussion? Mr. Ikeda. IKEDA: I would like to know that if we approve the site inspection, do we have a continuance on this and then we start all over again? PATEL: So, there would be a continuance. You wouldn’t start all over from the very beginning, but the site inspection would be taking additional evidence. But, you wouldn’t need to redo everything that’s happened up until this point. HENKEL: Yes, Mr. Rodrigues? RODRIGUES, D.: And would we be able to meet with you there at the site also and talk to you folks or is this you guys just drive up and look at it yourself? PATEL: I think we can address that later, you know, if the motion is granted. HENKEL: Okay, let’s a— SELF: —Could I? I’d just like to draw your attention to Planning Commission Rule 4-23. There is a time limit for decisions, so I’m not sure if this is not more than 90 days after the close of the hearing. So, when the—when we had the hearing before the Hearings Officers, that hearing was closed, and in order to get a longer period of time, it has to be agreed by all the parties. So, I’m—I think procedurally, you’d have to get all parties to agree to continue or to—I mean, you can ask your attorney, but I’m just reading the rule. VITOUSEK: If I may, Chairman Henkel, in fact, there’s already been an extension. You know, the Corp. Counsel requested an extension of the deadline for 30 days in order to complete the Hearings Officers’ Report and recommendation so there’s been an agreement of the parties that th extended the 90-day deadline to January 29, 2016. So, I don’t—I mean, I don’t—I mean, I don’t see a motion to reopen the contested case hearing. All we’ve seen is a request for site visit by the Commission, and so I think the hearing, the contested case hearing record would still be closed and has been accepted by the Commission. But, I think that Ms. Self correctly points out that under 4-24 there’s a, there is a deadline to make a decision unless it is extended by agreement of the parties. HENKEL: Thank you. Any other statements from Commissioners or interested parties? PATEL: So, with all of that said, maybe as part of the motion, do we have a time frame for conducting the site inspection? Because, as Mr. Vitousek points out, the extension is to the end of January so, if it’s possible, we could potentially conduct the site inspection, come back here, and, you know, wrap this up before then. If all the parties are agreeable to that, then by agreement we could proceed that way, you know, and not necessarily have to reopen the docket. Absent the parties’ agreement, there should be an additional motion to reopen the docket to take further evidence, and that would restart the clock. 12 EXHIBIT C