SU0014674 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mitigated Negative Declaration by Jones and Stokes in connection with the Mountain House Wastewater Treatment Plant. e) Contrary to the assertions in the CLAW letter,the Neighborhood F Project Negative Declaration, and previous conditions of approval for the Mountain House Project (including Condition D of SU98-4)provide that if the SJMSCP is not adopted within a specified time frame,the monies collected will be applied to the implementation of the Mountain House HMP. Within the context of CEQA, it is not dispositive that the Mountain House HMP has not been approved by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The legal validity of the HMP under CEQA has been litigated and upheld, and the HMP is conclusively presumed to comply with CEQA. f) The County finds that CLAW's citation to Gentry v. City of Murietta (1995) 36 Cal.4`t' 1359 is inapplicable. In Gentry, both the evaluation of impacts, and resulting mitigation measures, were improperly deferred. In this case, the Master Plan EIR, the 1999 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Neighborhood F Project,have properly evaluated and mitigated the biological and other impacts of the Neighborhood F Project. In response to the letter from Delta Keeper dated August 26,2000,the County incorporates herein by reference the letter from Condor Earth Technologies, Inc., dated August 31, 2000, which disposes of many of the comments by Delta Keeper. In addition, the County finds that: a) The "impacts" alleged by Delta Keeper have been previously identified and mitigated in the 1999 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mountain House Wastewater Treatment Plant by Jones and Stokes Associates. b)The environmental findings and conclusions of the 1999 Mitigated Negative Declaration were never challenged by any party, including Delta Keeper, and are conclusively presumed to comply with CEQA. c) As it relates to the comments by Delta Keeper, there is no new information or substantial changes with respect to the Neighborhood F Project which would contradict or negate the findings and conclusions of the 1999 Mitigated Negative Declaration. d) Furthermore,the "new information" alleged by Delta Keeper as to listing of new threatened and endangered species has already been evaluated and mitigated in the 1999 Mitigated Negative Declaration. III.B. Finding: No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the 1994 Master EIR was certified. CEQA Requirements: To more clearly address the required findings above, Section 15162 of CEQA has been addressed below. This section deals with Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations but defines more clearly the issues of"substantial changes". 26