SU0014573 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No . 1 PC: 3-19-87 SU-86-10 Page 2 nal EIR (EIR-79-1 ) that had never been reflected in the initial subdivision approval . In fact , the original EIR had never been recirculated for the subdivision as required by CEQA, but rather , a Negative Declaration had been adopted. The referrals received for this most recent application iden- tify several new or previously unidentified impacts , par- ticularly air safety, noise, and toxic waste. In reviewing the existing EIR in light of the new information, it became clear that the provisions in CEQA requiring a "subsequent" EIR would apply. It is important to note that even if the original EIR were not outdated and deficient in certain subject areas, it still would have to be redone, since it was a General Plan Amendment EIR. The level of review in this earlier EIR was quite general since it addressed four different properties all being considered for amendment . Specific mitigation measures could not be recommended since it was not known what the actual projects would be or when they would be submitted. This earlier EIR will still help reduce the costs of preparing the subsequent EIR, since much of the "Setting" portion and insignificant issues can be referenced. However , this new EIR will need to update the earlier document and be expanded to assess in detail the following impacts: 1 . Traffic/Circulation. 2 . Noise (air and auto traffic) . 3 . Air safety/Hazards . 4 . Air quality. 5 . Hazardous waste site at Lind' s Airport . 6. Jahant Slough: Drainage, flooding, and riparian habitat concerns . 7 . Conflicts with the County General Plan: Specifically, noise and aviation policies . On July 25 , 1986, staff formally advised the applicant of the requirement of an EIR. The applicant responded on July 30, 1986 , and is appealing the requirement that he pay for the preparation of an EIR, not the requirement that one is needed. THE APPELLANT STATES :