Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 1 <br /> PC : 12-4-86 <br /> SU-86-10 <br /> Page 2 <br /> appeal was scheduled for review by the Planning Commissionon <br /> September 4 , 1986 . At that time, the applicant was advised that <br /> the Commission did not have the authority to waive the required <br /> fees , and if he wished to proceed, he would need to appeal the <br /> requirement of the EIR. <br /> On October 1 , 1986, an appeal was filed with the Planning <br /> Division. <br /> BASES OF APPEAL: <br /> The applicant makes the following points in his appeal : <br /> 1 . An EIR was previously prepared and certified by the County of <br /> San Joaquin. The project description included the change <br /> from agricultural to residential uses . This EIR was used to <br /> amend the County' s General Plan as well as a tentative sub- <br /> division map that has subsequently expired. In that the EIR <br /> contained a legally adequate project description to act as <br /> the underlying environmental document for the earlier ten- <br /> tative subdivision map, then the document should be suf- <br /> ficient for the present purpose . <br /> 2 . Pursuant to California Administrative Code Section 15183 , the <br /> requirement for an entirely new EIR is not justified. <br /> 3 . The prior EIR was used to approve the now expired tentative <br /> subdivision map and to decide to allow the subdivider to <br /> phase approval and recording of the final map. <br /> 4 . The tentative subdivision map as filed is substantially in <br /> conformity with the design and improvements of the earlier <br /> tentative subdivision map. In fact, the total number of <br /> residential lots have been reduced. <br /> 5 . The recommendation of the Planning Department is not sup- <br /> ported by substantial evidence . <br /> 6 . The County induced the landowners to participate in certain <br /> improvements to existing streets as those streets make up the <br /> design of the prior tentative subdivision map . The lan- <br /> downers have thusly relied to their detriment and expended <br /> substantial monies in expectation that they would develop the <br /> subject property. <br /> RESPONSE TO APPEAL: <br /> 1 . The appellant asserts that since an EIR was previously pre- <br /> pared which included this property, then that document should <br />