Laserfiche WebLink
SAN JOAQUIN CVUNTY <br /> > .o <br /> COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT <br /> 1010 E.HAZELTON AVE..STOCKTON,CA 952056292 <br /> • c�[i'cg a� ' PHONE:209l466J120 Faa:2091�31W <br /> February 9, 1994 <br /> Board of Supervisors <br /> Courthouse <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> Dear Board Members: <br /> APPEAL OF NORMOYLE & NEWMAN ON BEHALF OF WATERLOO PARK PLAZA, ERNEST <br /> GIANNECCHINI, RENA CAMPODONICO, ADRIANNE JENSEN, DONALD G. SCHRADER, CRAIG <br /> SCHRADER, PATRICIA J. FLANNIGAN ON BEHALF OF DENNY S INC. AND ALLEN BEEBE, ON <br /> BEHALF OF TACO BELL AND RONALD YOUNG, DBA BEST WESTERNSTOCKTON INN, <br /> CONCERNING PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION <br /> NO. MS-93-134 OF JOE BUOISELICH, ET AL (C/O WONG ENGINEERS) (SUPERVISORIAL <br /> DISTRICT 2) <br /> IT IS RECOMMENDED: <br /> That the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action to approve <br /> Minor Subdivision application no. MS-93-134. <br /> REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION <br /> The Commission heard this item at its regularly scheduled meeting of January 20, 1994. Jerry Sperry, <br /> attorney for the applicant, spoke in favor of the project Michael Normoyle, attorney for Waterloo Park <br /> Plaza, et al, and Ernest Giannecchini, spoke in opposition of the project Michael Normoyle submitted <br /> 19 documents for the file. After considering all oral and written testimony, the Commission voted 4-2 to <br /> approve the Minor Subdivision. <br /> On January 28, 1994, Normoyle & Newman, attorneys for Waterloo Park Plaza, et al, appealed the <br /> Planning Commission's action to the Board of Supervisors. <br /> Appeal Statement No. 1 <br /> In their appeal, the appellants make the following statement: <br /> Failure to comply with provisions of CEQA relating to processing and approval of negative <br /> declarations; failure to comply with CEQA provisions relating to the use of mitigated negative <br /> declarations, and failure to order the preparation of an EIR or at least a focused EIR based upon <br /> substantial evidence in the record that significant environmental impacts may be associated with <br /> the project as proposed. The conditions for using a mitigated negative declaration were not met <br /> in this case. <br /> Response to Apoeal Statement <br /> The Commission determined that the processing and approval of the Negative Declaration complied with <br /> the requirements of CEGA. Mitigations were not required. The issue of odor was discussed and the <br /> Department of Public Health Services indicated that this project would increase the amount of water in <br />