Laserfiche WebLink
Commission’s prior action to deny, but which also are somewhat supplemented by <br />access-oriented issues. So it seems like kind of what we have before us is maybe if we <br />vote to approve we have the Planning Director’s recommendation and that conditions <br />therein. To deny, if we vote to deny we have both what Mr. Torigoe created last time and <br />submitted to the party, as well as the Court about the findings of fact, decision and order, <br />whatever, of the Commission. And then we have a new one which he has created which <br />is somewhat supplemented to include access issues, which I kind of asked that he try do. <br />So I think we have those three things before us. I don’t know that this new one has been <br />distributed yet. But, Mr. Vitousek, would you care to comment on my portrayal? <br />VITOUSEK: Yeah, sure. I’d, you know, I would be somewhat troubled by the <br />idea that the Commission drafted a decision before it voted; but what the rule requires is <br />that a proposal for a decision be drafted and be served on the parties, and that the parties <br />have the opportunity to comment on it. And that has not, that hasn’t occurred. The <br />parties have not been served with a proposed decision. So I think that the procedure, you <br />know, that I’m familiar with that’s certainly followed by other boards is that the Board <br />(sic) would make a vote and indicate what its decision is, and then proposed decision and <br />order is drafted and circulated to the parties, and the parties have the opportunity to <br />comment on that and come back and argue that to the Commission, and then the <br />Commission adopts a final decision. You know, that’s certainly the procedure that the <br />Board of Appeals routinely follows and other, and the Board of Land and Natural <br />Resources and other agencies. <br />GRAHAM: Okay, so if I understand you correctly then, Mr. Torigoe has <br />formulated a newer version, then you’re saying that should be served on you folks. And <br />that if we in fact vote, but if in fact vote against the application, you know, we could at <br />that time if we choose when we vote to use these, we would serve them upon you, and <br />then you would have a chance to rebut them either today or at some continued hearing? <br />Is that the general gist? <br />VITOUSEK: Well, yeah, what I believe is I believe that the Commission has not <br />made a decision yet -. <br />GRAHAM: Of course. <br />VITOUSEK: And so I think that the Commission has to make a decision, and <br />then someone has to draft a proposal for a decision. And then, I mean, the Commission <br />has to give an indication of what its decision is, and then a proposed decision has to be <br />drafted and circulated to the parties; and then they have the opportunity to comment on it, <br />and then a decision is adopted by the Commission. <br />GRAHAM: Good, I think I understand you clearly. Commissioner Iwashita, <br />you had something to offer? <br />IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t necessarily agree that there hasn’t <br />been a decision in this case. There was a decision, it was appealed. It has been reversed <br /> EXHIBIT B <br />9 <br /> <br />