SU0008455 SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 nor "subordinate" to "the primary agricultural use," as required by County policy. And regardless of their nomenclature, having 150 people routinely gathering more than twice a month for social events of the size and scope proposed is incompatible with the ambiance of this particular agricultural area as required by the County Code. D. 2. Residential Neighborhood,Not Factually an 11AG-40" Setting These"marketing events" are taking place in a community neighborhood setting, in which over twenty families live in close proximity to one another, in a residential, subdivision-fashion land-use setting. D.3. The Project's Impacts Would Constitute a Nuisance in San Joaquin County Neighborhoods Elsewhere These "marketing events" would never be permitted in any area which (a) contains a subdivision cluster of neighborhood homes like those here, and (b) is not zoned "Agriculture." The unavoidable nature of the activities inherent in the proposed "marketing events" would constitute a nuisance if conducted in the same type of residential setting in an area of San Joaquin County zoned other than Agriculture. Stated differently, the mere fact of a zoning designation does not make a nuisance into a non-nuisance. If your next-door neighbors are having a large outdoor party with a hundred or more people at a wedding, social gathering, etc., and loud music is being played, etc., as proposed here, that activity is a nuisance regardless of the zoning in which you live. This would never be allowed but for the land's"AG-40"zoning designation. III. FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE STAFF WHICH WERE WRONG,WITH REASONS: A. Findings 1,4,and 5 are Wrong; Finding 2 is Highly Suspect The Community Development Department's staff report recommended five findings to the Planning Commission, all of which were accepted as proposed. Three of these five findings are factually incorrect and cannot be supported by the facts presented or assumed, and a fourth is highly suspect. Findings 1, 4, and 5, are incorrect and are not be supported by the facts. Further, some of the material "facts" presented areatP ently incorrect,hence they are not"facts"at all. Much of the logic given in support of these three findings is tautological, stating that(a) simply because the San Joaquin County Code technically allows such a thing, (b) that technicality justifies the thing being allowed `in this case.' Such logic is employed to make a finding, recommendation, or condition presumptively correct, but not factually correct. Presumptions are inadequate to support formal findings of fact.