SU0013411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

has to be two-thirds of the voters approval before it can be implemented. If that is the case, who carries the cost of edu- cating our children if it is turned down. Linden is concerned with the quality of education. We cannot leave these figures up to fate . You have to have something substantial to mitigate them. The developer should pay part of that cost . As of August 22 , 1988 , Linden will be implementing a fee to new development . In the Santos property, there is no reference to square footage per dwelling. How can you assess how much money you are going to make when you don' t know how many square feet there is going to be per dwelling. $1 . 52 seems to be the figure they are going by, but you cannot estimate it unless you have something more substantial . Also, the safety of children is not addressed at all . What needs to be considered is how the children are going to cross Highway 26 . There needs to be mitigation for stop signs or lighting or whatever. Also, up to now recreation has been covered by the school district , which means that the ground has been found adequate, but these projects do not take into con- sideration acquisition of further land that the school district needs. It is not the responsibility of the existing community to have to pay for these things. The cost of purchasing more buses should also be addressed. All of these mitigations should be included. When addressing alternative sites to the project , mitigations on these items in every one of them should also be included, not merely state that there is another alternative to the project. Some things cannot be mitigated, such as the destruction of farm land, but in areas where there are mitiga- tions possible, she does want to see alternatives. i John Eilers, representing POLP, said that the EIR document was well done; he had never seen so many impacts that were clearly identified and adequately, except the glaring one which was the }} same problem with the last one and that was in the air quality category. We do have that Air Quality Management Plan, and the ;.• , impacts of this particular project should be compared to that Plan and relationship given. When he looked at the preliminary study on this that the County did, under environmental effects, atmospheric conditions, carbon monoxide, reactive hydrocarbons, which relate to ozone, particulates, other pollutants, were all marked no effect . He asked why that showed up that way. He said '::a;.= he thought there was some significant effect. In the CEQA ?. Guidelines, it states, "Violation of any ambient air quality standard contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or exposes sensitive receptors to substan- tive pollutant concentrations. " That is what spells out signifi- cant, and you have to check significant in the preliminary study. The key is does it violate any ambient air quality standard. It does. Does it contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violation. It does, because we are a nonattainment County area, so the key may be substantially. Is there some threshold that keys that word substantially. It would seem that cumulatively, you have two projects before you in draft form on the same night. Cumulatively, it becomes a much larger word and lends itself to this contribution being substantial. According to Section 15-125 of the CEAQ Guidelines, an EIR shall discuss PC Minutes - 9 - (PC: 7-21-88)