Laserfiche WebLink
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4. <br /> Development Services Division <br /> Attention: Chandler Martin <br /> Re: Application No. SU-92--15 <br /> January 13 , 1999 <br /> Page 6 <br /> all this water going to go? Further, the pipeline is inadequate to <br /> handle all the water that would fall in a significant rainfall. <br /> For example, in the rainfall of 1996, this holding basin and <br /> pumping station would be totally inadequate and as a result, all <br /> the houses on the west side would flood. Who is going to maintain <br /> this inadequate pumping station, pay for the insurance for the <br /> pipeline along the existing railroad tracks, is also unclear. <br /> XVII. Mandatory_FindiAgs__of Significance <br /> This project has many impacts that are individually <br /> limited but they are considerably considerable because of the poor <br /> planning of the project. In their request for an extension, the <br /> developers note that they have problems with the design and this is <br /> because the project simply is an attempt to put a round peg in a <br /> square hole. There are significant design problems that cannot be <br /> rectified with this project. They are addressed above. It should <br /> be noted that the storm water removal system, the septic tanks, the <br /> removal of the farmland, all point to a significant impact in the <br /> environment necessitating an environmental impact report before <br /> this extension is considered. <br /> The foremost principle under CEQA, according to the California <br /> Supreme Court in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of <br /> University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 253 Ca1.Rptr. 426, <br /> is that the legislature intended the act "to be interpreted in such <br /> manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the <br /> environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. " <br /> In uail Botanical Gardens Foundation Inc. v. City of Encinitas <br /> (1994) 29 Cal.App. 4th 1597, 35 Cal.Rptr. 2d 470, the court noted <br /> that "CEQA requires a governmental agency [to] prepare an [EIR] <br /> whenever it considers approval of a proposed project that 'may have <br /> a significant effect on the environment. ' The decision goes on to <br /> note that if substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair <br /> argument" significant impacts or effects may occur an EIR is <br /> required and a negative declaration cannot be certified. <br /> Subdivision (b) of section 15384 of the Guidelines (California Code <br /> of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq. ) provide that <br /> "substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions <br />