Laserfiche WebLink
Analysis <br /> Neighborhood Opposition <br /> One letter in opposition containing the signatures of 12 property owners in the vicinity of the project site <br /> was received in response to the application referral for the project. The opponents of the project <br /> requested that the application be referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing to discuss <br /> traffic and circulation problems in the area that were claimed to be caused by the various uses on the <br /> owner's French Camp Road property. Based upon an analysis of the letter's contents, the Department <br /> of Public Works concluded that the project would not result in any significant, adverse, traffic related <br /> impacts. That analysis also determined that the number of traffic trip ends that would be generated by <br /> the requested use were not high enough to trigger the requirement for preparation of a traffic study. <br /> Background <br /> On July 28, 1995, the Development Services Division approved Site Approval Application No. SA-95-20. <br /> On August 7, 1995, Rex Ramsey, representing himself and 'interested parties that currently reside in the <br /> neighborhood,' filed an appeal of that action. In his appeal, the appellant listed the following bases for <br /> appeal: <br /> 1. APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> The appellant states that the application should be denied because the County will not receive <br /> Traffic Mitigation Fees from the project. <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> Condition of Approval No. 2.b. from the Department of Public Works requires payment of Traffic <br /> Impact Mitigation Fees for the approved project. <br /> 2. APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> The appellant states that the project should be denied because of'inadequate traffic management <br /> for an ever-expanding agricultural industrial area.' <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> Based upon its analysis of the project's traffic-related impacts, the Department of Public Works <br /> determined that the project would not have a significant, adverse impact on the area's roadways <br /> or Levels of Service. <br /> 3. APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> The appellant stated that staff disregarded'prior commitments from the Planning Commission that <br /> the traffic issues would be reviewed and resolved with the next project.' <br /> San Joaquin County SA-95-20/Ace Tomato <br /> Community Development Page 5 <br />