SU0012885 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meleyco states that the reasons that the applicant gives for the Time Extension are legally and factually insufficientto allow a Time Extension. The Map Act,the Development Title,and Department Policy do not require a finding of adequacy as a reason for a Time Extension. Staff analyzes the project to determine if there are any changes in circumstance which might affect the original findings for approval of the subdivision. No such changes in circumstance have been identified. In his letter,Mr. Meleyco argues that the Initial Study for the Time Extension is inadequate because it was prepared on an"old" form and it did not examine the prior record. Staff has determined that the form it uses complies with CEQA law and guidelines. The Initial Study was prepared for the proposed Time Extension and deals with the Time Extension and not the project. Mr. Meleyco includes with his lettera copy of a supplemental 1997 report prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation(attached)regarding the use of septic systems on one-acre lots. A copy of that report was forwarded to Mike Huggins of Environmental Health prior to the earlierTime Extension for this projectthat was heard by the Planning Commission on June 19, 1997. Environmental Health's position is that the use of septic tanks has already been determined and that it has not been documented that there is a water quality problem. In the following discussion,Mr. Meleyco's statements are in quotes and are followed by staffs comments. "The Community Development Department ignores the 100%vocal community opposition to this project." The County has considered all oral and written testimony given at the various public hearings this project has had before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. "Aside from all the reasons below, the developers bought this property and let an orchard die from lack of water, remove the orchard and had been trying to develop it without regard to any type of CEQA considerations for the past ten (10) years." Letting an orchard die does not affect this project and does not trigger any CEQA concerns. "They had the zoning rechanged but there is no consistent line with the zoning (originally it had been the Central Traction Railroad tracks). On December 8, 1998, 1 presented the Board with a petition signed by 373 residents surrounding the project, requesting that the zoning be changed back from rural residential one to Ag 40." In a letter to the Morada MAC dated November 24, 1992, County Counsel stated: "The San Joaquin County Community Development Department will not initiate a General Plan Amendment for an individually owned parcel. The landowner must initiate the request." "Finally, there is no indication from the developers that they have ever been able to obtain the consent from Central Traction Railroad to put a water line along the railroad tracks to the Calaveras River to hold a draining basin. Without that consent from the railroad, the project cannot go forward. It has now been over four years since it has been approved and still there is no consent. If the developers have not been able to obtain it in this four year period, it would seers unlikely that they will be able to obtain it in the future. If there is no place to drain the water that is going to be coming off this project, then the project is improperly designed and there should be an environmental impact report to study what should be done with this water. I would note that developers admit that the slope leads of the property leads onto the houses that are on the east side of the property (not the farmland that surrounds it). These houses would then be flooded in heavy rains." The requested Time Extension does not change the original condition of approval which requires a community detention pond and terminal drainage. If that cannot be provided, the project cannot proceed. In his letter, Mr. Meleyco included ten concerns regarding the Initial Study for the Time Extension. Aesthetics: "This development would have a potentially significant impact on the scenic vista. It would change the quality of the site and further, create substantial light and glare during the nighttime. This is San Joaquin County SU-92-151Carroll Community Development Page 4