Laserfiche WebLink
Item No . 1 <br /> PC : 3-19-87 <br /> SU-86-10 <br /> Page 1 <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> It is recommended that the Planning Commission uphold staff ' s <br /> determination that the applicant pay for preparation of an <br /> Environmental Impact Report for Major Subdivision Application No . <br /> SU-86-10 . <br /> BACKGROUND: <br /> Subdivision Background : <br /> The applicant is appealing a staff decision that he pay the <br /> fees for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report <br /> (EIR) before further processing of Major Subdivison Application <br /> No . SU-86-10 . The project consists of an 82-lot rural resi- <br /> dential subdivision on approximately 229 . 5 acres in the <br /> Collierville area, north of Lodi . <br /> The project is essentially the same subdivision first approved <br /> by the Board of Supervisors on October 5 , 1981 (S-81-10) , which <br /> involved 102 lots . That approval was extended through October <br /> 15 , 1985 . Unit or Phase 1 , consisting of 13 lots, was all that <br /> was completed before the final extension expired. <br /> Preapplication conferences for the refiling of this project <br /> were held before the Development Committee on December 4 , 1985 , <br /> and March 19 , 1986 . Concerns regarding lot and street design, <br /> access restrictions, drainage, and sanitation were addressed at <br /> these meetings . <br /> EIR Background : <br /> In 1979, EIR-79-1 was prepared by County staff to address <br /> potential environmental impacts for a General Plan Amendment <br /> proposal containing four different properties . This EIR exa- <br /> mined the impacts of expanding the Rural Residential designa- <br /> tion in Collierville. The subject property was one of four <br /> properties assessed. Once this General Plan Amendment was <br /> approved, the applicant submitted a subdivision application, <br /> 5-81-50 , which was also processed and approved. <br /> When the current application was submitted, staff erroneously <br /> assumed there were no new environmental impacts and scheduled <br /> the subdivision for hearing on June 19 , 1986 , with referrals <br /> subsequently sent out to all applicable agencies . Once staff <br /> began receiving referrals from other agencies , it became clear <br /> that not only were there several new issues that had to be <br /> addressed, but there were also impacts identified in the origi- <br />