2021-11-04 Windward Exh E ConnectionsCBESS SPP12-138

Home

would change the outcome of your decision. But at the same time, I guess I'll leave it at that. I don't think that you're locked into to these findings or making the same determination that the original Commission did. LIN: Thank you and I think based on my understanding and you may correct me if I'm incorrect. But the ICA's decision was to allow the Planning Commission to make a decision on this case no matter what they said right? Although they said we vacate this, we don't vacate this. Those results is up for us as the Commission to interpret, to understand and used to make our decision. Whether or not we do agree if it was vacated or not that is up to us, and it does not mean that we have to make exceptions? KEKAL I don't know if I would go so far as exceptions, but I will say that once when a Court vacates a decision and remands it back to a Commission. You are basically ordered to follow the Court's orders and therefore you couldn't go back and rely again on a Finding of Fact that was vacated for being arbitrary or clearly erroneous or anything like that. You couldn't do that so that's basically the parameters which in the Commission has to play. You can't go and basically directly contradict something that was already stated. Outside of that the Court gives the agency discretion to make their ruling based on the record. If you had made the same decision as you made initially that would be allowable, but you would have to create more findings to line that up. Now in this situation, where you guys have changed your decision to an approval, you just have to make sure that you have the requisite findings to show that your decision is supported by substantial evidence. REPLOGLE Thank you. Mr. Hong? HONG: I have advised Boards and Commissions before; I've sat on Boards and Commissions before on the State and County level The section that Mr. Matsukawa is referring to, basically says that in the normal course of a Board or Commission when people are cycled through because of terms if somebody comes on midway in a contestant case hearing or something else, what the law requires is that Commissioner has to go back into the record and read the record. That's all it says, it doesn't say anything about making a decision or having had that Commissioner or Board member bound by prior decision. All it says is look, if you're coming in midway into this game, you just got to make sure you know what happened before you came into the game. That's all that section is applies, that is how that section is applied and I submit that Mr. Matsukawa's extension of this argument, or this particular section of the law is inappropriate similar to his extension of the Kauai Springs's case. But anyway, that's another issue. Thank you. REPLOGLE: Anyone else? Planning department anything? CAMPBELL: Nope nothing from us. The Planning Department is satisfied with the draft findings, conclusions, and order as they're drafted. Thank you. CLARKSON: So, I have procedural question. So— REPLOGLE: Yes, please. 6 EXHIBIT E