2006-12-06 tsunstone - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

happening now I don’t think the Commission is anywhere near to even, you know, knowing which door to go through to take an action on this proceeding. One thing I’m concerned about is the feeling that, at least from our side, that because of the way that the, and I think that the hearings officer did a fair job, you know, we can make that argument later on, but what I want the Commission to have a feeling of is that you’ve got the evidence yourself. And because a couple of members of the Commission are looking like they are going to discount what happened at the hearings officer’s level for whatever reason, then we want the chance to present the whole shooting match to you folks personally. So, maybe at this point in time I think our concern is that we don’t want to get the court action that he has filed mixed up with what the Commission is doing. We would like to proceed on our own track with the SMA proceedings with the Planning Commission. We want to get a, if we could, a date certain to come back, and essentially present our case. We’ll put on witnesses and those type of things directly to you on those issues because I think at this point in time having the question with the hearings officer’s hearing and what happened with the proceeding is not good for the applicant. We want to be able to make a measured and complete presentation to you, so you’ll feel like you’ve got all the facts. ALAMEDA: That sounds good to me. Fellow Commissioners? I’d also allow the intervenor as well sometime to address your concerns as well so. Mr. Hardy-Sullivan, do you agree with that, kind of pushing this back? HARDY-SULLIVAN: No, in that, meaning that witnesses will be brought before the Commission itself, and I thought the reason for special hearing is you have many things on your agenda, and we are just asking not to come up and have a 3 or 4 day hearing or whatever it would be or with the testimony of witnesses. A lot of that has been done. There are some other new things that have occurred. Again, we feel that it should be deferred until the civil case will be heard. Mr. Lim of course, as I agree, is an excellent attorney; but the claims that we are using it as for delay, we’ve never done that. In our first filing of our statement of issues, we included that the statement of issues and request for reconsideration review by the Commission were not for any purpose of delay other than for the issues stated, and we’ve continued with that. He states, well, the applicant through his attorney has tried to dismiss our claims three times right from the very, I think it was a July Planning hearing, asked for dismissal; at that time Mr. Yuen allowed it to proceed. At our first hearing date asked for dismissal and we got beyond that, and same at the September hearing. So, we’ve been fighting that all the way. The only time we asked for continuation that actually occurred was because of a custody issue of myself with my son, which I only have every two weeks on a Friday instead of a Thursday, we just asked if it could be the next day. Not until, we did not get any response to our request for clarification, and we sent a second request and asked for an extra week to file our Findings of Fact, that we ever asked for an extension. And then, we didn’t even ask when it was, we said we didn’t even need it after we heard what her reaction was. The only continuance we’ve asked was with our motion for continuance rehearing of the contested case and recusal of the special hearing officer and at th that point we did motion and that was October 10 and that’s still standing. ALAMEDA: All right. I hear you, Mr. Hardy-Sullivan. Our procedure does allow us to reopen and take further evidence, so, and witnesses for the matter so, and believe me it won’t be four days because we wouldn’t tolerate four days. But certainly we would be open to further data for the evidence. So, I feel more kind of inclined to and I don’t know what my fellow Commissioners think, but I feel inclined to follow the process, and move forward that way. Commissioner Graham? EXHIBIT B 17