SU0007732 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Y 1 -2- The appellants and the applicants discussed the Reclamation District's concerns before this project was approved. The project was on hold while the applicant looked into the alternatives. However, the applicants decided against any alternatives, such as dredging, as.the appellants would prefer, and chose to pursue the Revisions of Approved Actions. On February 4,2010,the Planning Commission approved the Revisions of Approved Actions for previously approved Quarry Excavation permit No. QX-89-0003. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission heard this matter at its regular meeting on February 4, 2010, Tony Alegre, representing the applicant, and Chris Neudeck, engineer for the applicant, spoke in favor of the project. Jed Cardoza, a trustee of Reclamation District 2075, Tony Cardoza, representing the San Joaquin Water District, and Johnny Cardoza spoke in opposition to the project. After consideration of all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve the project with the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in the Staff Report. McMullin Reclamation District No. 2075 appealed the Planning Commission approval on February 16, 2010. Their concerns are summarized below. APPEAL STATEMENTS Appeal Statement No. I In the Appeal, the Reclamation District stated: The RD 2075 interests believe that an extension of the permit could have devastating consequences for RD 2075 irrigation interests and could lead to an RD 2075 levee break which would in turn also flood RD 2094 and 2096 and flood eastward toward Manteca. Response to Appeal Statement No. 1 The original approval contains conditions from McMullin Reclamation District No. 2075. Those conditions still apply. The appeal does not state that the conditions are inadequate, nor does it recommend any new conditions. Reclamation Districts Nos. 2094 and 2096 did not submit a written response to the appeal.