Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. <br /> PC : 12-4-86 <br /> SU-86-10 <br /> Page 3 <br /> impacts of the previously approved subdivision. However, as <br /> noted earlier, comments were received from other agencies <br /> identifying several new or previously unidentified impacts, <br /> particularly air safety, noise, and toxic waste. In <br /> reviewing the existing EIR in light of the new information, <br /> it became clear that the provisions of CEQA requiring a <br /> "subsequent" EIR would apply. It is important to note that <br /> even if the original EIR were not outdated in certain subject <br /> areas, it would still need to be redone since it was a <br /> General Plan Amendment EIR. The level of review in this <br /> earlier EIR was quite general since it addressed four dif- <br /> ferent properties, all considered for amendment . Specific <br /> mitigation measures could not be recommended since it was not <br /> known what the actual projects would be or when they would be <br /> submitted. <br /> 2 . Section 15183 (State CEQA Guidelines) refers to residential <br /> projects consistent with a community plan or zoning. The <br /> appellant does not note why a new EIR is not justified. <br /> 3 . The appellant notes correctly that a prior EIR was used to <br /> approve the now expired subdivision. However, based on new <br /> information, new impacts have been identified that need to be <br /> addressed. <br /> 4. The appellant notes that the map is substantially in confor- <br /> mance with the previous map, and the number of proposed par- <br /> cels have decreased. Although the appellant is correct in <br /> noting that the design is similar and the number of lots are <br /> reduced, the previous map has expired. This proposal is a <br /> new project and must be reviewed on its own merits based on <br /> all current ordinance requirements. <br /> 5 . The appellant states that the Planning Division' s recommen- <br /> dation is not supported by substantial evidence . <br /> Traffic/Circulation: <br /> Letters from both CalTrans and the San Joaquin County Council <br /> of Governments (COG) indicate that the present circulation <br /> system ( including the Jahant Road/Highway 99 interchange) are <br /> not adequate for the anticipated increase in traffic . <br /> Noise• <br /> A report prepared in February 1986 titled "Current and <br /> Projected Noise Contours for . . . Roads, Railroads and <br /> Airports in S. J. County" revised noise contours along <br /> I <br />