Laserfiche WebLink
OLSON:A point of order. <br />GALDONES:Whats your point, sir? <br />OLSON:If it would simplify the thing, I could always testify as a member of the <br />public. I could fill out a form and give my testimony as a member of the public, because I have <br />that right to do that because it is on the agenda. So if that would simplify things, Id be happy to <br />do that. <br />TORIGOE:Probably, I was trying to look at the transcript to see if there was a specific <br />closing of the hearing. I think Mr. Alameda was chairing at that time. Do you recall that, <br />Commissioner Alameda? <br />ALAMEDA:I think we did close the meeting, the hearing. <br />TORIGOE:At this point if the parties do not object, you know, to reopening the <br />hearingforthepurposesoffinishingthisdiscussion,thiswouldprobablybetheeasiestwayto <br />deal with this. <br />GALDONES:So, Mr. Torigoe, is it the purview of the Commissioners to decide? <br />TORIGOE:Yeah, you have the power to reopen the hearing and, you know, finish up <br />taking evidence and making a decision. <br />GALDONES:Okay. Mr. Yuen? <br />YUEN:The Department does not object to Mr. Olson making an additional <br />statement. <br />TORIGOE:And, Mr. Olson, are you in agreement with that, that basically well <br />consider what the Planning Department has -? <br />OLSON:I have no objection. <br />TORIGOE:Okay. If thats the case and if the Commissioners are okay with that, then <br />by unanimous consent I think you can consider the hearing reopened and go ahead and conduct <br />this discussion based on the letter that the Planning Director has put in and Mr. Olsons response. <br />Any objections from the Commissioners? Hearing none, Mr. Olson, you may proceed with your <br />testimony. <br />OLSON:Thank you. I think, just as a couple of minor issues here. When I went in <br />last week to review the minutes of the last meeting, I think it was Tuesday or Wednesday of last <br />week, they were not available, so I cant really address some of the issues that were brought up <br />after I left. What I can address is some of the discussion that went on after the meeting was <br />closed in the body. I suppose the first issue was that of the assessment of the crops as a separate <br />entity. And in agricultural law it is quite common, in fact, FEMA and Department of Agriculture <br />4 <br /> <br />