2024-02-29 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Tamara D. Goesch Testimony

Home

years down the road. And the fact is that EXL's obligation to fix the existing utility-pre-dates and is completely independent of her resort application, not to speak of the fact that the utility has been and is failing NOW. The fact that she is not fulfilling that obligation should be grounds enough to turn down SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION PL-SMA- 2023-000046, because that failure is indicative of a complete and willful failure and inability to respect rules, regulations, and legal obligations. Ironically, I understand that in the full application, EXL implies that the utility is basically pristine, and inasmuch as it is running at only 10% of (ORIGINAL - over 40 years old!) capacity, requires no investment. If the Planning Commission were to order a current EIS and/or EA in conjunction with its consideration of this application, that misrepresentation would be corrected. I will close by urging the Planning Commission to in any case order a current EIS/EA, not least because of sewer, water, and fire safety matters, but also the following concerns: * electric grid capacity * noise pollution (both from construction and operation) * construction impact on air quality * asbestos abatement * boat ramp access * traffic (both internal circulation and at the highway) * evacuation planning * tsunami zone * light pollution * increased crime * employee housing * impact on housing supply * odor from expanded sewage treatment * impact on fire & other emergency response times and services * increased need for water to serve required building sprinklers * increased need for water for guests, residents, and staff * trash and garbage volumes * vermin and vectors * nene * turtles * PONC-identified Conservation parcels held (hostage?) by EXL Thank you again for your consideration of my concerns. I believe many of them are shared by numerous other stakeholders. Sincerely, Tamara D. Goesch