Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> LAW OFFICE OF DONALD B. MOONEY <br /> 129 C Street,Suite 2 <br /> Davis.CA 95616 <br /> 503-758-2377 <br /> dbmooney@dcn.on, <br /> April 10,2017 <br /> VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL <br /> mduzenski@sigov.orQ AND <br /> FASCIMILE 209.4683694 <br /> San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors <br /> County of San Joaquin <br /> 44 North San Joaquin Street <br /> Sixth Floor Suite 627 <br /> Stockton,CA 95202 <br /> Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Use Permit <br /> Application No.PA-160212 of James Sanchez (C/O Baumbach & <br /> Piazza/Harvest Power <br /> Dear Supervisors: <br /> This office represents Jeff Reedy regarding the County of San Joaquin's <br /> consideration of Use Permit Application No.PA-160212 of James Sanchez(C/O <br /> Baumbach&Piazza/Harvest Power("Project"). On January 5,2017,the San Joaquin <br /> County Planning Commission approved the Project. On January 13,2017,Haven Acres <br /> River Club timely appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the Project. Mr. <br /> Reedy objects to the Project and objects to the approval of the Mitigated Negative <br /> Declaration(MND)for the Project on the grounds that the MND/Initial Study fail to <br /> comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), <br /> Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. Mr. Reedy respectfully requests that the <br /> Board of Supervisors grant the appeal and deny the Project. <br /> The County's approval of the Project,based on a mitigated negative declaration <br /> instead of an environmental impact report(EIR) violates CEQA as substantial evidence <br /> supports a fair argument that the Project may have potentially significant impacts. CEQA <br /> was enacted to ensure environmental protection and encourage governmental <br /> transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.Bd.of Supervisors(1990)52 Cal.3d 553, <br /> 564.) CEQA requires full disclosure of a project's significant environmental effects so <br /> that decision makers and the public are informed of consequences before a project is <br /> approved,to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these <br /> consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco v.Regents of the <br /> University of California(1988)47 Cal.3d 376,392.) In the present case,the IS/MND <br /> contains a legally inadequate project description. Additionally,substantial evidence <br /> supports a fair argument that the Project may potentially significant impacts to traffic, <br /> public safety (fire) and air quality. The IS/MND also inappropriately relies on deferred <br /> � �PA <br /> ED <br />