GRB statement: LAFCO meeting June 6, 2012 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today Regretfully, I stand before you today to say that I cannot, as Chancellor, accept the conditions that were proposed during your board's March 7 meeting As was communicated in our May 14 letter to your counsel, the March conditions have many policy and legal issues which if adopted would inevitably result in litigation - taking us back to the expensive and adversarial situation that ended with the adoption of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement. Let me emphasize that my reference to the likelihood of litigation is not done lightly. We absolutely believe that some of the proposed conditions clearly exceed LAFCO's authority to impose which, unlike a county or city, does not include general police powers to regulate for the public health, safety and welfare. In summary, here is our view of each of the conditions proposed in March: Condition 1 requires the City to off-set all new future increases in water demand in the proposed sphere of influence area and on the UCSC main campus. UCSC's main campus is already within the City's water service area and is not the subject of either our or the city's applications before you. Neither CEQA nor Cortese-Knox empowers LAFCO to regulate water use on portions of the campus already within the City's jurisdiction. Such a condition can only apply to the Sphere of Influence and Extraterritorial Water Service applications. Condition 1.a sets a baseline of 176 million gallons per year (MGY) from which future increases in water demand on the entire UCSC campus will be offset. The 176 million gallon baseline was established by a five-year average that includes a year in which the campus doubled a request from the City to conserve in a drought year and by a five-year average that includes multiple years of savings due to the campus's accelerated implementation of a number of water- conservation projects at the request of the City. The 176 MGY proposal, in effect, essentially punishes the campus for having far exceeded our water conservation goals, and it should be obvious that this is not good public policy. A 206 million gallons per year baseline is necessary and important and legally required under CEQA. LAFCO did not file a legal challenge to the Sphere of Influence and Extraterritorial Service Environmental Impact Report and therefore LAFCO is required to accept the EIR analysis and conclusions or make the findings, as required by CEQA, that would allow it to prepare a new EIR analysis. LAFCO is therefore required to use the 206 baseline. Condition 1.b attempts to set the initial amount of the university's fee to the City and confer on LAFCO continuing jurisdiction to adjust the fee. Under state law, only the City, as the service provider, is authorized to collect a fee from the University and only after the amount of the fee is agreed to through a negotiated process as occurred as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Settlement Agreement signed by the City, by the County, by citizen groups opposed to our growth, and by the campus itself. Condition 1.d defines the conditions in which the City could cease the delivery of water to UCSC. We agree with the City's position on th matter, as expressed by City Attorney, John Barisone, in his April 6 letter to you. Not only would the basic health and sanitation needs of the University's students, staff, and visitors be jeopardized, but this requirement would further present an extreme health and safety hazard given the absence of any guarantee that water would be available for fire suppression. Moreover, my lawyers tell me there is no provision of State or City law that would authorize the City to discontinue service for failure to meet a City prescribed conservation goal (much less a goal prescribed by LAFCO which lacks any jurisdiction to regulate in this area). Condition 2, prohibits the City from delivering any water to the North Campus area until the City enters into a binding HCP agreement and obtains an incidental take permit from state and federal wildlife agencies Again, we agree with the City attorney's position that the condition is illegally tied to the actions of a third party over which LAFCO, the City and UCSC have no control. There is also no evidence or findings before the Commission that would a|owo, the preparation of new EIR analysis and therefore LAFCO .8 required by law to rely on the EIR's analysis and conclusions regarding the impacts of the applications. Condition 3, requires the City to annex the area covered by the applications before you. We continue to believe that an annexation condition is unnecessary as outlined in multiple communications with your board. In December, we were prepared to accept the annexation requirement in an effort to achieve a reasonable compromise, but I would in no way describe the March conditions as a reasonable compromise. Condition 4, requires the campus to prepare a report evaluating the feasibility of utilizing a well or wells on the main campus I would like to point out that this Information has already been included and analyzed in the LRDP EIR so there is no reason to duplicate it. In December, your board endorsed a resolution that would have underscored the importance of the historic 2008 agreement between the City, County, citizen groups, and the campus. At the time. I indicated that we were prepared to accept the December conditions. To be clear, the University previously agreed to LAFCO's proposed reduction in the scope of the application for extraterritorial service by 134 acres from 374 acres to 240 acres. The University was also prepared to accept the water neutrality policy proposed in December as well as the annexation requirement. These are significant concessions that should not be overlooked. I sincerely believe that in returning to its December action, LAFCO can put its mark on the project in a manner that will protect the water resources of the region. This spirit of cooperation has been the hallmark of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement. The University has worked together with the city, county and citizens to solve problems and relieve impacts to water, housing, traffic and community concerns such as loud and unruly parties. We share a common goal of protecting the environment and the quality of life in Santa Cruz. Consistent with that goal, our 2005 LRDP land-use plan designates 335 acres of undeveloped land in the upper campus and elsewhere on campus as campus resource lands that are not planned for development It also designates 410 acres as campus natural reserve to remain in its natural state as teaching and research reserve. Development in these areas is not allowed. In the spirit of compromise, I would even be willing to allocate funds for water use between 176 and 206 MGY to be placed in a separate account for water-conservation projects on campus. I can't stand here today without reminding you of the university's mission, which I am proud to represent. Any expansion of the campus would enable us to provide the same educational opportunities to tomorrow's students that yesterday's and today's students had access to. And we would be providing those opportunities to an increasing number of first-generation college students, who are much more representative of California's population. In closing, the conditions proposed near the end of your March meeting are completely at odds with the principled approach to problem solving that is the reason the City and we are before you today. I urge you to reconsider the conditions proposed in December. In fact, if members of this board are prepared to endorse the conditions imposed in your March meeting, I respectfully request that you extend at least one courtesy to the campus before taking such a vote: Permit me to withdraw our application before it is voted upon. This will allow us all a timeout, and such a pause will give all parties a chance to consider whether they are truly prepared to once again favor costly and unproductive litigation, paid for by all our taxpayers, over sensible and results-oriented cooperation. Therefore, I urge you to reconsider the conditions proposed in December.