Laserfiche WebLink
capricious, an abuse of discretion, and violates law and that, among other things, the Planning <br /> Department Rule 22 is arbitrary, capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and made on <br /> unlawful procedure. (ROA at 00656.) The Board heard the Appeal on July 13, 2007. <br /> (ROA at 00446, 00652.) Jin and Lu were not present at the hearing but were represented by <br /> counsel. (ROA at 00447.) <br /> During the contested case hearing, while under cross examination, Jin and Lu's expert <br /> witness, Steve Bowles, testified to the following: <br /> (1) He does not know whether the Property receives an average annual <br /> rainfall of at least 60 inches or more per year. (ROA at 00476.) <br /> (2) He acknowledged that rainfall has declined in the past 20 years. (ROA at 00476.) <br /> (3) He authored a chapter in a report(Exhibit 23)that states that as a result of <br /> this decline in rainfall in the past 20 years, "the total amount of rainfall is less <br /> than half due to drought conditions." (ROA at 00476.) <br /> (4) He agreed that the rainfall at Ocean View has diminished over the years, <br /> particularly since 1983, and that it has resulted in an increase in reliance on water <br /> hauling. (ROA at 00477.) <br /> (5) He agreed that the lack of adequate rainfall and the cost of hauling causes <br /> fire protection problems and other problems. (ROA at 00477.) <br /> (6) He agreed that periods of drought will require more water hauling that will <br /> be using the County water system. (ROA at 00479.) <br /> (7) He acknowledged that he did not conduct a study for Jin and Lu to determine if <br /> there would be adequate rainfall for catchment. (ROA at 00482.) <br /> Notwithstanding the foregoing evidence,the Board voted to grant the Appeal on the <br /> basis: <br /> 6 <br />