2021-08-05 Exh B (SPP 12-138) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

complete record "—"will be the only basis on which to discuss any future action and that all testimony from the public presumably from the parties, from the Planning Department will be disregarded by the Commission because it's not already on the record. So, we will be I guess reviewing the record separately on our own time and then discussing the record in our next meeting in order to make a new decision, but without any ability to clarify any point within the record with additional information. AU: Mr. Chair, I got a question for Ms. Hall. REPLOGLE: Go ahead Mr. Au. AU: So, Ms. Hall,just to clarify or confirm or just to make sure for my piece of mind. Commissioner Clarkson is stating that we won't be able to hear the applicant, but I believe we will be able to talk to both applicants and the applicant's attorney, is that correct? HALL: Yes. AU: Okay, well I believe through that process things could get mitigated. The attorneys and the parties could work on their own to figure things out. This has been a long haul for all parties, for the community, for the applicant and we are giving them a shot to work it out and whether they do so it's up to them. But for our hearing, we're only going to hear what was already on the record so, I hope that addresses some of your concerns, Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: No, no. REPLOGLE: Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: It does not address my concerns because there's a contradiction between what I understand the record to be and the fact that additional discussion will be added to the record at the next meeting by the applicant and the intervenors and others. Are we going to add information to the record or are we going to strictly consider the written information that's in the record? That is what I'd like to know, I thought we should be able to add it, but the Commission obviously disagrees, so I just like to know what that means. Will the applicant be able to speak to interpret the record again in our additional hearings or will we only and I don't know if that's the case why that wouldn't be the same as opening the record for new information. AU: I think that is a fair question, Ms. Hall can you answer that for us? HALL: There's a distinguishing between allowing the applicant to speak to their original arguments and their original application and that of bringing in completely new facts that are not on the record. So, if the applicant so choses, they will be able to present on the original application as is with no new facts as will the intervenor be able present on the original facts with no new facts. REPLOGLE: Mr. Lin? 10 EXHIBIT B