2007-02-15 tmartinage-nunn - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ALAMEDA: Thank you. We didn’t agree yet. I didn’t feel that we came to consensus yet on letting Mr. Farwell respond.So I would like to have an opportunity to discuss it further before we even go there. GRAHAM: Okay, fine. So -. ALAMEDA: Yeah, I’m just going back to my own feelings on that. I think it’s unnecessary for Mr. Farwell to respond because the testimony is pretty much the same as the previous testimony, with a little twist about the website and all, but I don’t think that’s substantial enough to reopen. So personally I feel it’s unnecessary to reopen the hearing. But that’s just me; I’m just one out of two – or maybe three – I don’t know. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. Any other comments on that? Or maybe we can just do a motion to reopen and see if it passes. And maybe I would like to take this second just to ask Mr. Torigoe if he felt we are off base by not reopening for this purpose, or whether he believes it’s reasonably within our discretion to not reopen. TORIGOE: Well, this is the kind of question that can be dangerous to ask your Counsel to answer on the record. But it’s within your discretion, I would say. GRAHAM: Okay. Be brief, please. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I move that the SPP 06-000039, Applicants: Michael Martinage and Greg Nunn, we reopen the hearing for the limited purpose of allowing the Intervenor and the Applicants to address the public testimony that was presented today, and that the reopening be limited for the purpose of allowing the parties to address the comments in the testimony given today. And – yeah, then I’ll explain. GRAHAM: All right. Thank you. Is there a second for the motion? RHO: Second. GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Rho. As I understand the motion, there is no provision for any new evidence; it’s only for verbal comments regarding to today’s testimony. Is that correct? IWASHITA: Yes. This is a contested case that the Commission is hearing without -. We are hearing it; we didn’t refer it out to a hearings officer. So I view our obligation to procedurally, to present the parties with the full benefit of this hearing process. And since one of the parties has expressed a desire – and I’m assuming that the Intervenor still wishes to make a comment – based upon that we ought to give them an opportunity. It’s not going to take that long, as I see it. And then we can re-close the hearing. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. I’d also like to ask the Planning Director. Mr. Yuen, since you were a party also before, if you have any comment – before we vote on – whether you think it’s appropriate for us to reopen for this purpose alone. YUEN: It’s up to the Commission. EXHIBIT D 7