Laserfiche WebLink
OLSON: That’s fine. If we set up a status conference or a status meeting, we are amenable to <br />that. And we appreciate, you know, other counsels’ professional courtesy and having our <br />witness testify today. That’s fine, so -. <br />HOUSEL: Thank you. Mr. Ghalamfarsa, would you respond to that? <br />GHALAMFARSA: I do -. I have no problem with continuance. The only problem that I have <br />is try to make these communications simple enough that the public like me – I’m not an attorney <br />– understands clearly. The main concerns that me as a neighbor, me as an architect, and I’m <br />going to also testify as a witness architect and qualify myself why what’s being proposed does <br />not comply at all. And I’m just afraid if these deferrals take place, all the community members <br />and the public cannot be allowed time to hear these major concerns that we all have, and not get <br />caught up with, you know, certain technicalities that I’m almost, I get lost in it also. So if I could <br />have a few minutes to state some of my concerns that the public can hear today, if that’s <br />appropriate at all. <br />HOUSEL: The question is if you are in agreement with the continuance. <br />GHALAMFARSA: Yes, I am. <br />HOUSEL: You are. <br />GHALAMFARSA: Yes, I am. <br />HOUSEL: Okay, that will -. Okay, thank you. And I’d like to ask the Planning Director. <br />SELF: Yes, we have no objection and we are in agreement with the continuance. <br />HOUSEL: Okay. <br />(LISTEN FROM HERE) <br />YEH: Mr. Chair, related to this continuance request, if we are able to accomplish our objective <br />of getting the comments back from SHPD in a timely manner, then what, you know, we set <br />something in four months, but if we can move something up earlier than that, we’ll notify the <br />staff about that. Thank you. <br />HOUSEL: Okay. We will, you know, deal with that. There are a few things that I do need to <br />take care of just to be sure we are clear about, just to make sure – I need to read this – at our <br />previous duly noticed public meeting on this matter, the Commission voted and decided to <br />conduct this contested case hearing as a whole – that’s the Rule 4-6 (d). There is a presiding <br />officer, the presiding officer means any commissioner or a hearings officer duly designated as <br />such, okay, unless otherwise designated the chairperson shall be the presiding officer. Are there <br />any objections to this arrangement from the parties? <br />27 <br />EXHIBIT C <br /> <br />