Laserfiche WebLink
to hear from them and then we decide, or -, just a little bit of the particulars there. Commissioner <br />McCall? <br />MCCALL: Sure, I would give you an opinion if that’s what you are looking for. <br />GRAHAM: I’ll be very happy to hear your opinion. <br />MCCALL: Well, in my opinion, if it doesn’t affect anything, I think it would be fair to <br />get something to the effect of a final argument again from each of the two parties, see if they <br />have anything new to bring to the table that, you know, they didn’t at our last meeting. That <br />would be my thought whether, you know, if that conflicts with some of the contested case <br />procedure, maybe we shouldn’t do it, but my thought would be just to let them recap or have a <br />final say, final argument. <br />GRAHAM: Good, that certainly sounds reasonable. And Mr. Torigoe, if we do reopen <br />the hearing, is there a way we can open it with the sense of that’s all we are really looking for at <br />this time? <br />TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to inform you also that the Staff has just <br />informed you that there has been a possible defect in the notice to the intervenor. Apparently the <br />intervenor was sent a letter that said the matter would be continued to today but the details would <br />be forthcoming. And apparently there was a second letter that was sent out, but apparently was <br />not sent to the intervenor. Perhaps you should inquire of the Staff as to the details on that. <br />GRAHAM: Mr. Darrow? <br />DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, that’s correct. We had sent out a letter <br />thth <br />after our last meeting on December 6, on December 18, informing the applicant and the <br />intervenor of the results of the meeting, and did mention that the action would be continued to <br />th <br />January 19, but it did mention also that the parties would be apprised of details regarding the <br />th <br />continued hearing. A letter did go out on December 20, informing the applicant of the <br />continued hearing, but it did not list the intervenor. So that was an oversight on our part. <br />GRAHAM: Are all the parties here today? <br />DARROW: I do not see the intervenor present today. <br />GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Watanabe? <br />WATANABE: In light of that new information, and since the Rules don’t determine <br />exactly what happens beyond the sixty days, I would suggest that we continue this. Especially <br />since we only have five Commissioners here, and it would take a unanimous vote to get this <br />done. That way we could at least have the intervenor present. <br />ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? <br />GRAHAM: Yes? <br />EXHIBIT A <br />6 <br /> <br />