Laserfiche WebLink
Item No . 1 <br /> PC : 3-19-87 <br /> SU-86-10 <br /> Page 3 <br /> "The owners of the land to be developed as Woodson Estates feel <br /> that they have previously paid a substantial amount of money for <br /> an EIR to cover this project and invested thousands of dollars on <br /> a fire protection well and engineering studies to cover the <br /> entire project . They have also entered into an agreement with <br /> the Department of Public Works to pay for widening Woodson Road. <br /> "We feel any inadequacy or errors in the previous EIR is the <br /> responsibility of your department . We further feel that your <br /> department has a responsibility to the owners and developers of <br /> this property with respect to the significant investment that was <br /> made based upon the previous EIR that was prepared by the County <br /> Staff . <br /> "Therefore , we wish to appeal the Staff ' s requirement that we pay <br /> for preparing a new EIR for this area. " <br /> RESPONSE TO APPEAL : <br /> 1 . The appellant makes reference to the fact that substantial <br /> fees were paid for an EIR. According to Planning Division <br /> records , the appellant paid a total of $810 . 00 as his portion <br /> of the preparation of the General Plan Amendment EIR-79-1 , <br /> which is a minimal amount . <br /> 2 . The appellant notes that they have invested thousands of <br /> dollars on a fire protection well and engineering studies and <br /> have entered into an agreement with the Department of Public <br /> Works to pay for widening of Woodson Road. The references to <br /> engineering studies , a fire protection well , and improvements <br /> to Woodson Road were all part of the process in satisfying <br /> conditions of approval applied to 5-81-10 . Expenditures of <br /> this type are typical of subdivision projects and not unusual . <br /> These costs cannot be equated with any costs incurred in <br /> reviewing a new application for environmental impacts. It is <br /> also pertinent to note that this is a new application. The <br /> costs incurred under the previous subdivision approval have <br /> no bearing on any aspect of the review of this application. <br /> The application must be reviewed on its own merits based on <br /> all current ordinance requirements . <br /> 3 . The appellant notes that any errors or any inadequacy in the <br /> previous EIR is the responsibility of the Planning Division. <br /> At the time is was prepared, EIR-79-1 was adequate for the <br /> general level of review necessary for a General Plan <br /> Amendment , as opposed to a subdivision. The issues that have <br /> subsequently arisen were not known at that time, but rather , <br /> only as a result of this recent application did these <br />