a 30-day continuance. i would be interested in making a motion like that to see that happen if you think that appropriate? >> if we could hear from the other commissioners on that? >> i would ask that to be a friendly amendment and reduce that time period. it did strike me that the so-called independent experts were paid for by one side. but at the same time, there does need to -- i would be inclined to continue it only for one week. i don't know if that is adequate time. i don't know what the onsclure agreement is or if that is going to be a deal-breaker, but that is my inclination. if we did a continuance, i would amend to significantly shorten that time period.

>> commissioners, the amount of review here, the amount of structural firments that -- firms that have been involved exceeds my experience with much larger projects, and i don't think that is continuance is warranted given the high levels of review that have already occurred. i think we should resolve the situation and let them continue with their practices. >> and not to get into anything having to do with an engineering issues because i would be swimming in very dangerous southeast, but some of the changes that may have been made, like talking about cutting the sill, it was explained to us that that had already been taken into consideration, and that the

movement itself would have cut the sill. it is designed that way. so that whatever is achieved by cutting the sill would have in fact occurred with the movement . the small amount of sill that was there was almost designed to fail in order to provide that. at least that is my understanding. we have had so much review of this whole process, so many engineers have weighed in on it. if we were to weigh the engineers on one side or the other, it will seem we have more advocating for it than against it. i am saying it because it is absurd to think that we are going to gain anything from more review. there are real issues here. the project sponsor is into this very deeply. it is shovel-ready, ready to go. there are jobs that could be provided. i think for what we would gain compared to what we would lose by continuing this, it would be

absurd. >> with due respect to my fellow commissioners, i am going to make a motion to continue for one week. >> being away that we don't meet next week, correct? >> we do meet next week? >> we do? >> yes, we do. it is the week after we don't meet. so your motion is to continue this item to october 20th? >> october 20th. >> what would be the directive to the parties? >> to allow time to review the new material, the changes, and run the numbers, the squiggley lines. >> this is the first time the other side has seen it on the overhead, the new rerun on the line? >> that's right. the other side has not seen the

numbers run with the new changes. >> so they have >> home run it. >> the other side hasn't run the numbers. i'm sorry. >> the permit holder has run the numbers and has just not delivered -- >> the professor's suggestion was to have someone from the other side to look at that. >> it has been done. [inaudible] >> if the president allows you to speak, then you must speak in front of the mic. >> madam president, may i make a comment? >> not right now. it would be best if you don't. >> i think out of fairness, the other side is entitled to more time to react. i don't think bringing in an

independent body to review -- these complicated tests are given at the last minute, and i think to the credit of the professor, he raised issues to which the party responded. so it is more out of fairness to the state bar and to the professor. having said that, i am mostly in favor of this project. it is just that i think we should all feel comfortable that the t's have been crossed and the i's dotted. it was more out of equity in terms of timing. some of this could have been avoided by providing materials sooner. [inaudible] >> no, sir. otherwise, we could engage independent experts and really open this up.

>> so the idea of engaging an independent expert, i didn't mean to suggest that would happen in the next week. my thought was to give the appellants the week to look at the new material. >> vice president goh, would you invite the parties to address the board again? there is no time for briefing. >> there is no time for briefing, so it would be tomorrow. so orally presentations, five minutes each side. >> all right. >> how many votes do we need for a continuance. >> you need three votes. >> so then the motion is from the vice president to continue this matter one week to october 20th. the public hearing is held in and closed.

no additional briefing is allowed, but five-minute presentations per side. right? >> right. >> on that motion, commissioner fung? >> no. >> commissioner garcia? >> can i vote twice? no. >> president peterson? >> aye. >> commissioner hwang? >> aye. >> the vote is 3-2. the matter is continued one week to october 20th. with that, there is no further business. we are adjourned.

>> i work with the department of

environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil changes and sell it anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and used for other products. >> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor

oil from customers. we have a 75-gallon tank that we used and we have someone take it from here to recycle. >> so far, we have 35 people. we have collected 78 gallons, if not more. these are other locations that you can go. it is absolutely free. you just need to have the location open. you are set to go.

the biggest issue in america today? segregation still exists... racism... the repression and oppression of women the educational system stem cell research homeless people cloning government health care taxation announcer: so, is there anything you're doing to help make a change? i'm not really doin' anything. ummmm [sighs] got me on that one...