2014-05-01HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-CONNECTIONSCBESSSPP12-138

Home

So, this is what the County Zoning Code says about a Use Permit. It shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial adverse impact to the community’s character, to surrounding properties, and shall not unreasonably burden public agencies, etc., etc. If you look at the Special Permit criteria, it still talks about, does not adversely affect surrounding properties. Talks about public, burden to public agencies, substantially alter or change the character of the land and unusual conditions. The common theme you know between the General Plan, the Use Permit, and the Special Permit in terms of the kinds of considerations that go into the decision-making process, really relies, you know really relates to the community. Now, what are Jeff and the rest of the community are saying about why it should be denied is here on the question of the water. Look at the application itself. And that’s critical. The application says that what’s available, they got 4,200 gallons per day. How much is required per student? Sixty gallons per day. How many can that serve? Seventy students. What is the total requirement for the school? And bearing in mind, the school they’re talking about is like about 400 students, 70 full and part time employees, a gym, a cafeteria, etc., etc. So, if you got only 4,200 gallons of water, and your total requirement is 26,100 based on the application now, that represents the amount of water you have today is only 16 percent. So, then the question becomes true, the consultant did testify that their alternative design scenarios you can reduce the water use, but still there was no answer as to how the potable water needs for the entire development was going to be provided. True, no construction plans are needed, but there is a need to represent how you’re going to provide water for the balance of the project. Whether you’re going to development wells, or you’re going to work something together with the Water Department, but all it said in the report was to investigate other sources of water to support the project. This is in their application. So essentially what you have is like you know in terms of addressing the water, it’s a kicking— kick the can down the road—kind of approach. It’s like oh, we don’t need to think about it but you know at some point in time when the need comes about, we’ll talk about it. We’ll discuss it. But that’s the type of analysis that’s called like segmentation. If you have like a traffic study, are you going to evaluate the traffic study only by phases? If you have an archaeological requirement, you’re going to do an archaeological inventory survey only of the lower portion and not the entire area? There is an obligation to look at the entire property—that’s what you call like the segmentation. So the EIS, based upon two Supreme Court decisions, they basically shunned the whole—they developed the notion of segmentation. They said you got a project? You’ve got to look at its totality. You cannot take it in segments. So, the question then, basically now, if you look at their Exceptions, and if you ask yourself today then, they said they’re going to build it in phases. But do you know now—can anybody clearly state what will go in the first phase, knowing that you only have 4,200 gallons of water. They represent that they may have like a high school, they might not have a gym, they might not have a cafeteria. But even at the high school, it will not be sufficient to accommodate all of the water that they have. So, I think it’s important to know that if you, if a decision is going to be made, you need to know exactly what you’re approving, and I submit to you at this point in time, you don’t know really what’s going to be coming in on the first phase. You might have an idea as to the total project, but you don’t have an idea as far as how the infrastructure requirements for the total project is going to be addressed. 18 EXHIBIT F