Laserfiche WebLink
.a�!n DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL <br /> �o <br /> t2 ,� PATRICIA M.FREDERICK <br /> 'a REBECCA DAVIS <br /> e_ :< OFFICE OF THE FRANK V.BRUNO,JR. <br /> COUNTY COUNS] SANDRA ARCHAEI.AFWNSO <br /> <<iib"aN� DAVID WOOTEN <br /> � <br /> STEVEN B.BASSOFF <br /> COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN CATION DEPUTY: <br /> JOHN F. CHEADLE COURTHOUSE,ROOM 711 V T GII'TO CUHERREZ <br /> COUNTY COUNSEL 222 EAST WEBER AVENUE ,� ! DAVM)T.HAYDEN <br /> STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95 ;/ RONALD J.D•ANTo <br /> TERRENCE R DERMODY TELEPHONE 944-3551 (AREA Cq� V[9I f ,7 C ILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES <br /> ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL /' pm, O//�j�/,/ry /�/� COUNSEL <br /> PATRICK H.CURRAN �141lj ^V'/� ` C, J NINE MOLD RD SREAFF <br /> ER <br /> CFRFF IIIIGAnON DERRY (J£p���u�Y' /� MARSH <br /> LITIGATION RESEARCH <br /> MICHAEL McGREW M�ryr ANALYST: <br /> CHEF DEPUTY <br /> CAROL D.sTBPs,Eq. <br /> September 28, 1987 <br /> HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS <br /> County of San Joaquin <br /> 222 East Weber Avenue <br /> Stockton, California 95202 <br /> Re: Appeal of William D. Edwards Regarding Planning <br /> Commission ' s Approval of Subdivision SU-86-12 <br /> (Apricot Acres ) <br /> Dear Board Members: <br /> Although the appeal of Tentative Map Approval SU-86-12 pri- <br /> marily addresses conditions that were imposed to promote health <br /> and safety, there are a few issues raised which are of a legal <br /> nature. <br /> First, the appellant objects to the requirement for indem- <br /> nification. This condition is statutorily authorized under the <br /> provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, specifically Government <br /> Code Section 66474.9. This hold harmless requirement is not wide <br /> open as appellant suggests, but is limited to actions filed <br /> against the County "to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an <br /> approval of the local agency, advisory agency, appeal board or <br /> legislative body concerning a subdivision . . . " In other words, <br /> since any land use decision made by the County is subject to <br /> legal attack, the State Legislature has recognized that local <br /> jurisdictions may be reluctant to issue land use approvals when <br /> faced with the potential of mounting legal and defense costs <br /> incurred when defending its approval for development. Therefore, <br /> the indemnification provision removes this chilling effect and <br /> places the risk of bearing this expense upon the developer who <br /> seeks the approval. Thus, the applicant is charged with the <br /> knowledge of local regulations and bears the responsibility to <br /> assure that the approval of his project complies with the legal <br /> requirements. <br /> The second legal issue raised by the appeal concerns the ade- <br /> quacy of the EIR when considering the deletion of a public water <br /> BOS LETTER PAGE 12 <br />