Laserfiche WebLink
-3- <br /> The Public Works Department responded in a memo dated March 3, 2010 stating:, <br /> The application for Revision of Approved Actions is essentially a request to <br /> continue the previously approved excavation. The permittee has complied with <br /> all Public Works conditions, SMARA regulations, and inspections. The Public <br /> Works Department conditions of approval for the Revisions of Approved Actions <br /> application stated all previous conditions would still apply. The governing i <br /> agency for the San Joaquin River, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, has <br /> not opposed the continuation of the existing permit. <br /> i <br /> Appeal Statement No. 2 <br /> The Reclamation District stated: <br /> The problem is to provide [underwater excavation] permits as soon as possible <br /> and to extend the existing excavation permit only until the underwater permits are <br /> provided. It seems to me that the County has a major interest in resolving this <br /> problem. The more aggraded sediment we remove here, the less aggradation will <br /> continue to occur downstream. Also,solving this problem will reduce the risk of <br /> substantial downstream and eastward flooding. I propose that the County should ` <br /> take the lead in obtaining the necessary permits on an' expedited basis. I hope Tom <br /> Flinn Will agree that the County should undertake this. <br /> Response to Appeal Statement No.2 <br /> The Reclamation District's solution is for a new underwater excavation permit that is <br /> outside the jurisdiction of the Community Development Department. The applicant has <br /> chosen to move forward with this permit(QX-89-0003). The appellant has not provided <br /> any additional conditions of approval. Their original conditions are still in effect. <br /> The appeal discusses obtaining permits for underwater excavation in lieu of the existing <br /> permitted above water method of excavation. This is a different request from the <br /> application currently under consideration. Mr. Hildebrand further suggests that the Public ! <br /> Works Department take the lead in this new permit application. Because the Public <br /> Works Department is not the governing agency for this body of water, it would be more <br /> appropriate for the appellant and the permittee to take this request to the Central Valley <br /> Flood Protection Board. <br /> i, <br /> A legal ad for the public hearing was published in The Record on March 19 2010. <br /> Public hearing notices were mailed on March 17, 2010. <br /> p <br />