2006-09-22 T Giacometti - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

added. In substance what they do is they address certain issues that I think, that were brought by the Hearing Officer to be superfluous, but which actually support. It comes out the same way, except that the Findings that we have would also point directly to evidence that was also part of the record that would support those Findings. The same with Conclusions of Law, they refer to the specific ordinances and statutes which need to be addressed in a situation, in an application like this. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right. Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I’m just concerned that we could get into a really lengthy recitation here or something. And I don’t know how to avoid that, except maybe what I was thinking is if instead of doing that at this time we proceed with the process here. And when it becomes more apparent on what bases we make our decisions or something, then any of your Findings that you feel like they’re relevant to the bases of our decisions, you’d want to have in there, or something like that, rather than us try to decide what’s superfluous in our point of view right now. I’m just trying to think of any way to streamline the process, ‘cause it sounds like it might be very lengthy what you’re thinking. JUNG:If I understand it correctly, thank you, Mr. Graham. But if I, depending on what the concern is or what’s brought up, I think that we would actually concur with the Corporation Counsel’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.Ours are very similar to theirs and we don’t have a disagreement with them. As a matter of fact, we fairly well adopted the County’s position. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:So maybe it would be okay to put this off for now as long as you have an opportunity at the appropriate to come in with anything you feel we’ve missed or that is necessary? JUNG:That would be fine. Thank you, Mr. Graham. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. All right, also, Fellow Commissioners, please know that there are no Exceptions filed for this, right now where we’re at. So, basically, kind of what we’re doing is just looking at the Hearings Officer’s report and looking to see whether we’re going to reverse it, modify it or adopt it. And, so, right now I’m just kind of getting the feel for our parties here and kind of what, how they feel towards the report. So let me ask the Intervenor, I know you’ve read the Hearing Officer’s report, do you have any position on it? TUHYThank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, we do. First of all, I would note that there are a number of areas in which we think that the Hearings Officer’s report is deficient. It really starts with kind of an absence of a number of Findings of Fact. And that’s really what I would want to highlight for the Commission, is what the Hearings Officer did not find but that the record did support. If the Chairman and the Board Members would permit, I could go through, really, what I conceive to be five essential areas where the Hearings Officer’s report is deficient. And I can point to that if the Commission Members have copies of our proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well. EXHIBIT B 4