My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-12-02 TVURICH
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2005
>
2005-12-02 TVURICH
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 4:03:26 PM
Creation date
6/14/2011 4:03:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
requests. I dont know what authority he would call for that. But I do think its appropriate that <br />Mr. Hayashi gives you the background on it, and I thought that was going to be what he offered; <br />and it sounds, makes good sense to me. <br />WATANABE:Actually he already did. <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? <br />WATANABE:Im sorry. But actually Mr. Hayashi already provided the background <br />report. He had already done that. And his only point was that he probably should have asked if <br />there were any objections because he was a witness subsequent to already providing the <br />background report. So that actually has been provided. <br />EGER:Well, Mr. Watanabe, not to disagree with you but all I thought I heard <br />wasasummaryoftheproceduresuptonowbutnorealdiscussionabouttheissuesbeforethe <br />Commission. And if Im incorrect in that, then I stand -. <br />ALAMEDA:Mr. Hayashi? <br />HAYASHI:Yeah, basically, all I did was, and all I was proposing to do was just give <br />you a summary as to what had happened to date as far as procedurally. All of you had received <br />your findings of fact, proposed findings from the hearings officer, and basically all of the <br />information is in there. So I was, I did not intend to go into the specifics of the hearings officers <br />report, nor was I going to outline what the issues were. All of these documents have been <br />provided to the Planning Commission. Unless the Planning Commission wants me to go into <br />that -. <br />ALAMEDA:Just to set the record straight, I wanted to just ask the fellow <br />Commissioners if you have any objections to allowing oral argument, not just with the intervenor <br />but with the applicant and the department as well. Any objections to that? Commissioner <br />McCall? <br />MCCALL:No objection. As far as the procedure, as I understand it, and how it has <br />occurred before is if any of the, if the intervenor or anybody asks for oral argument, theyre <br />asking for oral arguments from all the parties, so if it is opened up, then all the parties get to give <br />their oral argument. And I have no objection. <br />ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Mr. Torigoe? <br />TORIGOE:Yeah, I think Commissioner McCall has basically stated what the practice <br />always has been and for matters of due process really has to be. But for purposes of procedural <br />purity I think, as the Chairperson has suggested, its a good idea to simply ask because the <br />Commission has the authority to direct oral argument on its own motion. And, therefore, if at <br />this point in time the Commission would like to make clear on the record that all parties will be <br />allowed oral argument then, as the Commissioner has said, if there is no objection to that then, <br />you know, you can do that. <br />5EXHIBIT B <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.