2003-05-27 TBLASMAN (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TORIGOE:I think those are well-taken points. And, as I said, this was just thrown out for discussion purposes. So if the parties would prefer to wait until Lester -. I donÓt know if we got anything from Lester. ISHADO: If I could just comment. We agree that the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation would not come until the close of the evidence. But I donÓt think that should mean that the parties should not begin the data processing of their forms and their recommendations. Because I think this should be done in a manner that expedites the close of this case. And so what I would suggest is, you know, IÓll be glad to share forms with the intervenors, and I probably, indicated that in terms of trying to familiarize themselves with what the forms would look like. And I think that Mr. VitousekÓs offer is well taken. So I would encourage the parties to begin the process even though the hearing is not closed. It doesnÓt mean you canÓt make a draft. It doesnÓt mean you canÓt change y GIFFIN:And the basic format. ISHADO:The basic format. It basically, Mr. Vitousek has indicated this is where, this is how he makes his map for his case. And I think the parties have an idea of where theyÓre going. What IÓd like to suggest and maybe offer is, weÓd be willing to, to get a laptop from our office. If the parties wish to work on it during the hearing, they just have to bring their own floppies and -. What I wanted to also suggest is that if we come back, and this is just for discussion purposes. You know, I donÓt know if I want to come back, weÓre going to have to come back for a hearing before the Planning Commission on the adoption of the findings of fact, that much is clear. And weÓre going to have to come back for the hearing on the merits of the witnesses. Then what IÓd like to suggest is that the parties stipulate that the panel can go ahead and make itÓs adoption of the findings of facts after arguments, of course, but without coming back for further discussion just so that the -. You know, IÓm willing to hear further comments. Again, weÓre throwing things out at this point. GIFFIN:Randy? VITOUSEK:What about the possibility of that, of the Hearing Officers giving notice of a continued contested case hearing at the same time as the Planning Commission hearing and the st regular Planning Commission meeting on the 1? In other words, you know, if you gave public notice that there may be a continued contested case hearing, then at least theoretically between thst the conclusion of the hearing on the 30 and the Commission meeting on the 1, that the Hearings Officers could meet as a, you know, the Hearings Officers could reconvene the contested case hearing and make a decision just as the Hearings Officers. In other words, all IÓm saying, at this point, it might make sense to just put in the notice that the st matter of the continued contested case hearing may proceed on the 1. And then, and then, you know, clearly we could complete the testimony, do oral argument. The Commission could, I mean the Hearings Officers could, could do whatever they wanted to do, and then, and then -. See, this is not, as I understand it, Mr. Torigoe, this is not a situation where under Chapter 91 14