SU0012885 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mandatory Findings of.Significance: "This project has many impacts that are individually limited but they are considerably considerable because of the poor planning of the project. In their request for an extension, the developers note that they have problems with the design and this is because the project simply is an attempt to put a round peg in a square hole. There are significant design problems that cannot be rectified with this project. They are addressed above. It should be noted that the storm water removal system, the septic tanks, the removal of the farmland, all point to a significant impact in the environment necessitating an environmental impact report before this extension is considered." "The foremost principle under CEQA according to the California Supreme Court in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. V. Regents of University_of_California (1988)47 Cal.3d 376, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, is that the legislature intended the act'to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.' In Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation Inc. v. Ci of Encinitas (1994)29 Cal.App.41` 1597, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, the court noted whenever it considers approval of a proposed project that'may have a significant effect on the environment.' The decision goes on to note that if substantial evidence in the record supports a 'fair argument' significant impacts or effects may occur an EIR is required and a negative declaration cannot be certified. Subdivision (b) of section 15384 of the Guidelines (California Code of Regulation, Title 14, section 1500 et seq.) provide that'substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts.' The Questa report alone legally compels an EIR." No changes in circumstance have been identified regarding mandatory findings of significance. Mr. Meleyco summarizes his comments with the following statement: "Therefore, for the reasons contained herein, IT IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED that the mater either be renoticed with the proper notice, denied or that there be an order of an environmental impact report concerning this project." All of the issues raised by Mr. Meleyco were addressed prior to approval of the project with a Negative Declaration by the Board of Supervisors.. As stated under"Background," that approval was challenged in court.. After a trial was held, a judgment was entered in favor of San Joaquin County and the project proponent, James Carroll. The Initial Study for the Time Extension is intended to determine if there is substantial evidence to indicate that the Time Extension, not the project, might have a significant impact on the environment. To make that determination, staff analyzes any changes in circumstance since the project was approved. Staff has not identified any substantial changes in circumstance. Mr. Meleyco has not documented that there have been any substantial changes in circumstance. The applicant has indicated that the project could not move forward during the period of litigation,and the design and funding have taken longer than anticipated. The Time Extension does not alter any of the adopted Conditions of Approval,and the approval of the Time Extension is consistentwith the requirements of the DevelopmentTitle. All Conditions of approval must be met prior to the approval and recording of the Final Map. San Joaquin County SU-92-151Carroll Community Development Page 6