Laserfiche WebLink
MIYASATO: I make a motion so moved as stated by the Chair. <br /> <br />HENKEL: Is there a second to— <br /> <br />IKEDA: —I second. <br /> <br />HENKEL: —accept the— <br /> <br />IKEDA: —Second. <br /> <br />HENKEL: —the Hearings Officer—. There’s been a motion and a second to accept, to accept <br />the proceedings before the Hearings Officer as part of the Commission. All in favor? <br /> <br />COMMISSIONERS: Aye. <br /> <br />HENKEL: Opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Next, the Intervenor made a motion for oral <br />argument and renewed motion for a site inspection. Regarding the motion for oral argument, <br />have the two parties come to any agreement on this? <br /> <br />YEH: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Chair, no, not yet. I did get a chance to review—apparently from the <br />Arrow’s perspective, they don’t have a problem with oral argument. They requested a 15-minute <br />limit. You know, I would just point out that from the Intervenor’s perspective, we’re dealing <br />with two applications; Arrow’s dealing with one. So, we would ask for a bit more time than the <br />15 minutes that’s been requested. I don’t plan to go over, much over 15 or 20 minutes, but I do <br />want to have a little bit of leeway. <br /> <br />And, I think Mr. Rodrigues, the Rodrigues indicated they didn’t feel oral argument was <br />necessary. I think it is because I believe that we can best crystalize the evidence that’s now on <br />the on the record that you’ve had a chance to review and kind of get into some of the exceptions <br />that the respective parties have submitted. <br /> <br />HENKEL: Okay, thank you. Unless any Commissioner feels differently, I am, as Presiding <br />Officer, am inclined to grant the motion but limit the arguments to 20 minutes each. <br />Commissioners, are there any objections to this? Then—then, we can begin. So the motion is <br />granted. <br /> <br />YEH: Thank you. <br /> <br />HENKEL: Okay, I was going to do the oral arguments first, but regarding the motion for a site <br />inspection, have the parties come to an agreement? <br /> <br />YEH: Mr. Chair, Tom Yeh again. As I understand from the Rodrigues position, they don’t have <br />an objection to a site inspection. From Arrow’s perspective, they do. From our perspective, we <br />feel that, yes, there’s been photographic evidence, but really to get a sense of the perspective, the <br />extent to which activities have been occurring in the area, the actual damage to the roads, and the <br /> <br />9 <br />EXHIBIT C <br /> <br /> <br />