SU0008455 SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10 Facts not included in staff report to Commission: The Isolas and many of their neighbors have already had their lives and the use of their property disrupted by the St. Jorge Winery's "events," as evidence by their own comment letters which have been sent to the CDD in this case and are part of its official record. Conclusion: The proposed use is not compatible with the Isolas' and their neighbors' adjoining residential land use. D. 3. Reason #2 Why Finding 5 is Wrong: The Properties Surrounding the Project Site are Not Being Used for Agricultural Purposes and are Not "Scattered Residences" The finding reads: "This finding can be made because [. . . 21 The properties surrounding the project site are zoned AG-40 and are being used for agricultural purposes with scattered residences." The finding's logic: 1) Because "The properties surrounding the project site are zoned AG-40 and are being used for agricultural purposes with scattered residences," therefore 2) "This finding can be made" Incorrect statement of material fact in staff report to Commission: This portion of Finding 5 is wrong because the term "scattered residences" is not only inaccurate, it is materially misleading. It suggests an atomized, disconnected scattering of houses, which is the opposite of what actually exists. Facts not included in staff report to Commission: As stated above, the clustering and locations of the neighboring landowner-residents and their proximity to the proposed expansion project, the density of their clustered housing, the community cohesion which exists among these residents are not in keeping with the AG-40 archetype of 40 acres and a house, but rather of innumerable neighborhoods in San Joaquin County. Conclusion: The proposed use is not compatible with the adjoining cluster of residential land uses. D. 4. Reason#3 Why Finding 5 is Wrong: Staff Report Improperly Employs Presumptive Correctness