2007-02-15 tmartinage-nunn - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GRAHAM: Thank you. I would like to limit it to that and reopen it for that purpose, if the rest of you feel in agreement with that. But if you don’t, then feel free to move otherwise. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: For the most part I’m pretty much satisfied with what we have. However, for appearance sake, if we are going to very strictly limit it to response to the testimony provided, because the testimony was so one-sided, I’m fine with reopening it for that – only that limited purpose, though – expressed limited purpose. GRAHAM: Are the other Commissioners okay with that? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yeah, I have no objection. And I guess I would suggest that Chair ask the parties if there are any objections to reopening it for the limited purpose of allowing any of the parties to address the comments provided by the public testimony today, and that the reopening would be limited to that purpose. GRAHAM: Okay. Well, I think we get indications from the parties here today; from Mr. Martinage and Mr. Nunn that it’s okay, and I know Mr. Farwell indicated before that he would like to have another chance. Sir, you have to come up to the microphone, and identify yourself, please. MARTINAGE: Aloha. Michael Martinage, Applicant. I just agree to that, as long as we are not only addressing the public testimony, but also addressing the evidence that was presented after Mr. Farwell’s testimony, that proves that he was not representing the proper information when he was under oath in front of you. So we would like to make sure, if he’s allowed to speak with the testimony, we are allowed to introduce new evidence that will counter his oath on th December 6. Because we have afforded Mr. Farwell an extensive amount of privileges: First to listen to the contested case to save him from the fact of not having to hire a lawyer; second, after we had that move forward that the Planning Commission had not supposedly sent him a letter th when we had our employees come here, other people testify, etc., that on January 19 we were here, Mr. Farwell wasn’t here, therefore we postponed it again. So again we have been acting in good faith all the way through. So if we allow him to respond to testimony, we should be able to th allow to show you the evidence that we have to counter his testimony on December 6. And I trust you would do that. Thank you. GRAHAM: Okay, hold on a second. I think where we are at this point is that we are not really looking for new evidence. And I think what the Commission has agreed to here is that he can respond to what he heard from testimony today and you folks could also do the same. But I think we’d like to hold it only to that, just so that we can move along. And I don’t think we view it as an adversarial issue between the two of you. We are just trying to decide on the Permit, so I don’t think all the “i’s” and “t’s” got to be doted and all that. We just need to have a sense of what the Commission wants to know. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair. Real quick. GRAHAM: Excuse me. Commissioner Alameda? EXHIBIT D 6