|
one of the party’s granted the intervenor’s status. Is that right? And so, I think that Mr. Hardy-
<br />Sullivan basically ended his comment by a request for a continuance. Just to clarify, Mr. Hardy-
<br />Sullivan, are you saying that you want or Mr. Rusalavitch wants to be here and that’s the basis of
<br />the request, or is the basis of the request because of the alleged irregularities or -?
<br />HARDY-SULLIVAN: Both, sir. He is in Chicago at this time, left on Saturday on a family
<br />emergency. He called me this morning, he apologized and he wanted me to express those
<br />wishes. I would like to have him here because, I presented my affidavit, he had not completed
<br />his affidavit, but was going to give some testimony of very incorrect procedures between himself
<br />and Ms. Song that, I cannot, would be hearsay for me to say today. And also the fact that again
<br />all the intervenors, although were small, we had very valid concerns and both to the application
<br />but mostly right now to the process. We have constitutional right to a fair and just hearing,
<br />which was not afforded, and we can show proof for that. So, again we ask the Council, uh,
<br />Commission, please, to defer this until other decisions can be made so. And that would be in the
<br />best interest to the general public also, not just the intervenor’s, because due process should be
<br />allowed to everybody. There would be irreparable harm at this point, if a positive vote came
<br />from the Commission. We would fight that. There would be substantial, actual or threatened
<br />injury to the property owners directly across from the development both from flooding and from
<br />safety issues, and which would also, especially the safety issues, directly affect the general
<br />public. So, I think, in all fairness, that the, to all of that a correct and fair hearing should be
<br />done. That’s all we are asking. We are not disputinganything else, we’d just like our point of
<br />views to be taken and but -.
<br />ALAMEDA: Are you, Commissioner Iwashita, just checking if he answered. Did
<br />he answer your question?
<br />IWASHITA: Uh, yes. So, I guess I’d like some guidance on this request cause the
<br />parties, Mr. Rusalavitch is not here so.
<br />LIM: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. During the contested case hearing
<br />proceedings, the intervenors agreed that Mr. Hardy-Sullivan would be the one representing
<br />everybody, and that that has continued through today. We have been, I guess our position at
<br />least is the intervenors have been trying to drag it out as long as possible. You know, we came
<br />before you back in May. We had nearly, I would say, 14 to 15 hours of testimony over two days
<br />period. They had ample time to bring all their witnesses. We let them bring in witnesses that
<br />they hadn’t listed. I think we gave them as much of a chance to conduct a fair hearing as
<br />possible, and they’ve continually tried to delay the hearing dates that we had with the hearings
<br />officer. We finally got it finished, and now we are back with you today six months later. So, we
<br />would ask that the proceedings not be delayed any further. The intervenors have not, essentially,
<br />they decided after the hearing closed that they were not going to participate any more, and under
<br />your Rules they have waived any exceptions to the hearings officer’s report, and instead now
<br />they are trying to essentially leap frog out of the Planning Commission hearing into the Third
<br />Circuit Court. We think we are going to be able to defeat them at that because essentially they
<br />filed it too early. But I would urge the Commission not to continue to delay the matter, and we
<br />would like to see we can move forward on the matter. We had the full contested case hearing
<br />with the hearings officer, and I don’t know that next time we come that they won’t have another
<br />reason why we should continue it.
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />10
<br />
<br />
|