2005-04-01 TVURICH - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HAYASHI:Madam Chair, motion carries withfive ayes and three noes. SPRINGER:Thank you. Were now on the matter of how the Contested Case will be handled. At this time, Mr. Torigoe, this is a matter for the Planning Commission to decide. Do the Applicant and the Petitioner remain at the table through this discussion? TORIGOE:You can call on them. They may have some input. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you. So if you can stay with us through this portion of our deliberations. Now comes that matter of whether or not we will hear the Contested Case ourselves or outsource it to a hearings officer. At this time Id like to, before we go into discussion, ask the Planning Director if there are sufficient funds in the County coffer to be considering outsourcing. YUEN:Yes, there are. SPRINGER:Thank you. Okay. Commissioners? ALAMEDA:Madam Chair? Ill be in favor of outsourcing. SPRINGER:Is that a motion? ALAMEDA:Not yet. Im just wondering if my colleagues -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well, having been through at least one case where we heard the Contested Case ourselves and one where there was a hearings officer who presented it to us, it seemed to me that it was really more expeditious for us to hear it ourselves because otherwise we have to go through the whole thing all over again anyway when the hearing officer is reporting, and its like going through the whole thing twice. So it seems to me a lot more efficient, besides cost-effective, for us to hear it ourselves. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Other members, right now we have one in favor of outsourcing and one in favor of handling the matter ourselves. Further discussion? IWASHITA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Yes. I just have a question about whether or not its common practice for a hearings officer to do a site visit on a case like this? YUEN:I think its pretty common. 27