2003-12-04 TDOUTOR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Now the bases for this request and -. You know, itÓs true that we recognize that your rule, Rule 6, allows a permittee to apply to amend a portion of the permit that was granted. We understand that, okay? Your rules, however, also allow Roberts Rules to apply. And the reason why we felt that we would look at Roberts Rules and present that to you is because there is a way if thereÓs a perceived misunderstanding in an action that was taken, the Commission has the ability under Roberts Rules to consider reviewing the action that they took, perhaps amending it, if it felt that it was warranted. And that is very different from the Applicant coming in under another portion of the rule and seeking changes. That procedure, if the Applicant does it, itÓs the same as filing a new application. And, so, itÓs very different; and this is more of a procedural issue. Now, in our previous filings we indicated that we thought the misunderstanding might be related to discussion that was held about how a large bus had been used previously or large buses have been used previously. And what I heard and what I have here in a transcript is the statement by Mr. Mina who was, I think, commenting on or making, involved in discussion on another motion to allow us, to allow my client to have one bus a day. Mr. Mina is reflecting that the tour bus is going to cause a safety hazard for the visitors in walking across the street. Mr. Chairman, would you, I brought copies of this. Should I distribute them right now so that you can see what the words are without me having to paraphrase it? GALDONES:Yes, if youÓre going to be referring to that, it would be helpful to the Commissioners if they have a copy of that. TSUKAZAKI:If I may, this is the, you know, the cover page for th st August 1. The very next page is page 52, and I included it because it gives you some background there that there was an attempt by an amendment to the main motion to allow Condition 5(c) to be amended to allow one large bus. And then on the last page, page 53, during the discussion in about the middle of the page, Mr. Mina, basically, indicates he would be going against the change to allow a large bus because of his concern of the visitors walking across the street to get on the bus. And what we had argued and submitted in this request is that that information is nowhere in evidence in the Contested Case hearing. And, so, we believe that it was something I had said or something that somebody else had said which gave Mr. Mina the understanding that the bus would be parked in such a way, outside the property, where visitors would have to walk across that highway. And we felt that if Mr. Mina, you know, got that misunderstanding from one of us, itÓs possible that some other people did as well. So we wanted to bring this back and ask you to take another look at it because this is, as I said before, is a really critical issue for my client. ItÓs not a case of merely being unhappy with the way that decision came out. It is because we want to be absolutely sure that if there was a mistake that it hasnÓt resulted in a prohibition, in a restriction of a large bus that really does affect my client greatly. So I wonÓt go over all the rules Òcause they are attached to my request. I believe itÓs clear that under Roberts Rules, anyway, this body can entertain a motion to amend something 3