Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> Awp� <br /> COWAUNITY DEVELOPMEW DEPARTNIM <br /> T <br /> PWOKe 2mmaG MV FAX 2QiAW3193 <br /> September 13,205 <br /> Board of Supervisors <br /> Courthouse <br /> StocNdorr,CA 9520!2 <br /> ©ear Boamd Members: <br /> PUBLIC HEARING REGAR151NG APPEAL BY EDUARDO ARAYA.OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S <br /> APPROVAL.OF USE PERMIT NO. PA-030D666 OF FAROOQIA ISLAMIC CENTER <br /> (FOURTH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT) <br /> IT IS RECOMMENDED � <br /> i <br /> That the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and uphold-the Planning Commission's approval of <br /> Use Permit.No. PA-0300666: <br /> BACKGROUND: <br /> The proRerty is developed with two single family residences a garage and a barn. The application was <br /> submitted on December 18, 2003. As part of the review of the proposed project the San'Joaquin County <br /> Public Works.Department required that a traffic impact, analysis.be performed. A traffic analysis dated <br /> June. 16, 2004 was prepared by Dowling:Associates. The project was-first scheduled to be heard by the <br /> Pianning Commission on September 2, 2004: After four continuances-forvarious reasons, the Planning <br /> Commission heard this item on April 21, 2W5, and continued the item with,the hearing dosed to June 16, <br /> 2005. On June 16, 2005 the Planning Commission continued the item to July 21, 2005. On July 21, 2005, <br /> the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. PA-030066. On July 27, 2005, Eduardo Araya appealed <br /> the Planning Commission's action to the Board of Supervisors. <br /> i <br /> APPEALUAIMMENT NO. 1 i <br /> In the appeal,the appellant stated the following grounds for appeal: <br /> `Failure to property consider the ongoing and significant adverse impacts on the residential <br /> properties in the immediate area of the proposed site'. <br /> RESPONSE TO APPEAL STATEMENT NO. 1 <br /> The Community Development Department received eleven(11) letters in opposition to the proposed project. <br /> The letters raised concerns regarding traffic, loss of agricultural land, land use compatibility, and impacts to <br /> wildlife. The staff report addressed these issues and the Planning Commission packet included the letters <br /> in opposition. After reviewing all written and oral testimony,the Planning Commission was able to make all <br /> of the required Findings in the affirmative,and voted 3-1 to approve the project. . <br /> APPEAL STATEMENT NO.2 <br /> In the appeal,the appellant stated the following grounds for appeal: <br /> j <br />