2003-10-02 TSOTO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

requirements of the rule. ThatÓs a very different issue. ThereÓs nothing in the rules that says, ÐOh, gee, well, these rules donÓt apply if we can come up with some argument that say nobodyÓs hurt by it.Ñ ThatÓs really not what the rules say. ÒCause if they were, weÓll be sitting here arguing about meeting with every rule based on peopleÓs good faith. And, you know, Mr. TsukazakiÓs made a lot of factual representations to you about who had authority to act, and what he said when he talked to the board; and none of thatÓs in the petition. The only thing thatÓs in the, the reason that the notary is there is so that there can be proof that the person who signed it is authorized to do so; and that proof is lacking. ThatÓs the reason the notary requirement is there. In fact, when they filed, the next one has somebody elseÓs name on it. So what the notarization does is it requires some degree of rigor before you just drop a petition in here and put a matter in a contested case hearing, so that you can start arguing your own personal interest about viewplanes from your apartments and what not. So the only issue here is whether there was compliance with the rule. And if there was not a proper timely petition which met the requirements of the rule, then thereÓs no further argument. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, any question to Mr. Vitousek or Mr. Tsukazaki? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Obviously, you know, the legal issue is very important here. Do st you remember the August 1 meeting when this was first brought up? Mr. Mooers was representing the client at that time and we had a discussion about Petition for Contested Case. And, as I recall, the feeling was that the deficiency wasnÓt such a big problem. st And by chance I happen to have the minutes of the August 1 meeting here with me. And I do notice after we had testimony by Mr. Mooers, I made a comment to Mr. Mooers saying and IÓll quote from the minutes, ÐJust to ask Mr. Mooers to verify that, in fact, this is not, the deficiency in the Petition doesnÓt represent any substantial adversity to you. Is that correct?Ñ And I had a long response by Representative Mooers. It starts out, ÐYeah, I would like to comment.Ñ I must acknowledge that I think Mr. Mooers was very clear to us at the time that he was not an attorney and he was not repres capacity of an attorney. However, the sense at that time was, I didnÓt have a sense that this applicant made any note of any sufficient adversity suffered by him by virtue of the fact that the petition had not been notarized properly at that time. So I do have the minutes here if anybody and the Commission would like to look at it. And IÓd just want to offer those comments as being, reading what transpired at that time. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question from the Commissioners? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Kubota, go ahead. KUBOTA:You know, on this first communication from Ben TsukazakiÓ office, July 25, 2003, the County accepted this filing for stand 5