Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Please look at my handout that I made for you. Turn to the second page on the bottom, this is the <br />school minutes, local school board minutes, July 2, 2009. Mr. Thatcher reported “…our <br />Environmental Assessment has been made available to relevant government agencies. If it is not <br />questioned or contested, we would be doing a ‘No Significant Impact Statement’ rather than an <br />Environmental Impact Statement.” He had no intention of notifying us. The School had no intention <br />of letting us know they were going to sneak this EA by. It’s right there. <br /> <br />AU: Okay, any questions for the testifier? No? Okay, well, with that, the public testimony is done. <br />So I’d like to entertain a motion for discussion. So what we have on the table now is Planning <br />Department is recommending we continue this special permit. Any questions, Commissioners? <br />Would you like to ask the applicant questions? Would you like to ask staff questions? If not, we’ll be <br />ready to entertain a motion. <br /> <br />ONO: I have a question for the Director. <br /> <br />AU: Go ahead. <br /> <br />ONO: I wasn’t quite clear on this, the announcement about the Attorney General’s office in the paper, <br />what’s the rationale behind that? <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: The Attorney General’s office has indicated that they wish to take over <br />representation for Connections School. So they will be replacing Mr. Hong. <br /> <br />ONO: I’m assuming we’re talking about the State Attorney General? <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: The State Attorney General’s office is going to be, Connections is a State School. <br /> <br />ONO: So in terms of being a party representing a group, in this case Connections – this is what I’m <br />concerned about. Does that mean that they’re siding with one party over the other? <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: Connections is a State public school. The Attorney General’s Office represents <br />the State and its agencies. And so this would be like an agency or department, or just as if a State <br />employee had an action, in certain circumstances the AG’s office would represent the State employee. <br />So this is no different. And this is somewhat, I mean we don’t have this issue come up very often in <br />our meetings, but this is very analogous to Court proceedings where you start off with one attorney, <br />another attorney is going to come in so the first one withdraws. And typically the courts routinely <br />grant the continuance in the interest of, in fairness to the applicant. Because it’s basically, you know, <br />no one is really disadvantaged in the sense of a continuance. You know, it’s a little inconvenient for <br />people who have to come back out again. But the disadvantage to the applicant if you deny them the <br />opportunity to have their new attorney represent them and have time to come in, as Mr. Hong indicated <br />the reason the AG couldn’t come today is that they had another deposition which was also scheduled, <br />there’s a tremendous disadvantage to the applicant if you don’t allow the continuance. And, you <br />know, it’s my recommendation that you allow the continuance. Because, frankly, let me be blunt, if <br />you deny the continuance, that’s appealable. That would go to court, a judge would look at this and <br />say we have been unreasonable in denying the continuance, and they would send it right back down to <br /> 23 <br /> EXHIBIT D <br /> <br /> <br />