SU0000157 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the treatment ponds which could decrease the odor associated with those ponds. The Planning Commission determined that there was not substantial evidence to indicate that this project might have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, an EIR is not required. Appeal Statement No. 2 In their appeal, the appellants make the following statement: Failure to deny approval of the application until such time as pending litigation relating to the enforcement of the November 4, 1988 'Agreement for Expansion of Existing Sewer Treatment Plant'is fully decided by the courts; failure to impose conditions on approval which would assure that no hookups from the Minor Subdivision would be allowed until adequate expan- sionrmprovement of the existing sewer treatment plant is completed in a manner consistent with the 1988 agreement; and failure to deny approval based upon substantial evidence record which should have prevented the Planning Commission from making affirmative findings (e.g. findings 5 and 6) in support of the project approval. Response to Appeal Statement No. 2 County Counsel determined that pending litigation concerning the use of County Service Area (CSA) No. 15 should not have any direct bearing on the Commission's decision. It should be noted that on September 1, 1992 the Board of Supervisors amended the November 4, 1988 agreement to the effect that in lieu of expanding the plant,the Board authorized that a study be performed to investigate the feasibility of connecting to the City of Stockton or other aftematives. Further, the Board authorized the use of the money paid for the expansion of the plant to be used to fund the study and/or expansion of the plant. Findings 5 and 6 regarding environmental damage and public health impacts were made in the affirmative by the Commission. The proposed parcels (not the remainder) are in CSA 15. The Department of Public Works has determined that sufficient wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed parcels, with the restriction that each lot is limited to a maximum allowable effluent discharge of 1,600 gallons per acre per day. Appeal Statement No. 3 In addition to what is stated above, appellants submit that at least Conditions 2(c), 2(d), 2(h) and 3(a) should all be modified. Response to Appeal Statement No. 3 Public Works Condition 2(c) requires improvements to meet County standards. Condition 2(d) provides for an agreement to meet those standards within one year after filing the Parcel Map. Condition 2(h) requires: ' Service by a public sewer collection and treatment system. ' No development on the remainder until public sewer service capacity is available and the remainder is annexed to CSA 15. ' A limited effluent discharge of 1,600 gallons per acre per day.