2005-05-20 EXHIBIT C HUGGETT PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

that warrants people to be able to comment from a contested case hearing if they choose or they can basically go through and try to negotiate. Were saying it is a substantial change and it is an amendment of such consequence. Were not talking about moving a little tree here, were talking about the ownership of the project. It is such a change in the actual application that it allows for contested case hearings. And thats whats before you today. So, as an attorney if I might, youre not prohibited by State law. You have the power to say, were not going to allow straw men to come in and put a face up for an application and then flip it internally so that a new person can come in without having the public input. In this case, yes, people are here to oppose the project but that doesnt give them a right to affect the project. And so, we feel and again its your call, we feel that as a matter of public policy it would be prudent to allow the contested case hearing than to disallow the contested case hearing as a matter of public policy. If I may just address my notes one second. Lastly, with regard to Director Yuens position, I dont think that we can sort of a quid pro quo with regard to saying to the applicant you have to wait until the County Council addresses the issue of the driveway. But the issue of the driveway is a severe safetyproblem,whichotherpeoplewilltalkaboutandwehavetalkedabout.Thosestatutes, those rules will be adopted and we would ask that if you dont grant my motion to strike their memorandum but we be allowed a continuance to be able to respond and so. Thats the bulk of my address. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you Mr. Kim. Before we proceed with questions, who are your clients? KIM:My clients are Brian Haney and Charles Buscemi. And they are residents of the Sea Village Condominium or owners of the Sea Village Condominium. Sorry. SPRINGER:Thank you. Just a moment please. At this time Id like to give the Applicant followed by the Commissioners and the Director the opportunity to respond to Mr. Kims testimony. Mr. Mooers? MOOERS:Thank you very much. I just have a couple of points Id like to bring up. As far as the issue about the 10 days, I think in my recollection of the hearing and certainly a copy of the unofficial minutes indicate that Mr. Torigoe said perhaps 10 days. And I did say that I thought we could do that. Unfortunately Mr. Vitousek as you notice is not with us here today and this created a situation. He was unable to be here. He needed to find people within his firm that could be here. Secondly in order to prepare any sort of argument they needed to know what happened at the last hearing and we were talking about fairness here. Mr. Kim was present at the last hearing and had the luxury of understanding what the arguments were, what the discussions were. We did not have that situation so our attorneys asked to see the minutes of the meeting so that they could form their position paper and submit something to the Commission. It was not my understanding that we had a 10 day notice that this was going to create a problem and if it is I apologize. Regarding the- using the minutes as exhibits if the Commission would like to disregard them that is fine because they really arent intrical parts of any argument being placed here. So if you find that those minutes are unacceptable or shouldnt be used then by all means please disregard them. Couple of points I would like to point out regarding the notice and whether or not contested case rights should have been granted and they should have been noticed. I think Mr. Yuen has been pretty clear in that regard and you recall at the last hearing I EXHIBIT C 10