My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0009195 (3)
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
TADDEI
>
151
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-1200063
>
SU0009195 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2020 11:33:53 AM
Creation date
9/9/2019 10:33:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0009195
PE
2656
FACILITY_NAME
PA-1200063
STREET_NUMBER
151
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
TADDEI
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
ACAMPO
APN
00317010 54
ENTERED_DATE
5/21/2012 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
151 W TADDEI RD
RECEIVED_DATE
5/18/2012 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\rtan
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\T\TADDEI\151\PA-1200063\SU0009195\REV EH COND 2.PDF \MIGRATIONS\T\TADDEI\151\PA-1200063\SU0009195\CDD OK.PDF \MIGRATIONS\T\TADDEI\151\PA-1200063\SU0009195\APPEAL.PDF \MIGRATIONS\T\TADDEI\151\PA-1200063\SU0009195\MISC.PDF
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Table of Contents <br /> Comment Letter,St. Jorge Winery Expansion Application <br /> IV. FRAUD IN THE 2005 APPLICATION AND THE BUSINESS CONDUCT SINCE.. . 14 <br /> A. The Terms of the 2005 Permit Did Not Contemplate"Full Service Event <br /> Destination".. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 <br /> 1. Internet Advertising.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 <br /> 2. Fraud in the Operation of the"Small Winery.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 14 <br /> B. The 2012 Expansion Application Seeks More Than Double the Current <br /> Permitted Area-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 <br /> C. The Fraud Has Been Active Since the 2005 Permit Was Granted.. . . . . . . . . . . . 15 <br /> V. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY'S ROLE AS GOVERNMENT AGENCY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 <br /> A. The San Joaquin County Code Prohibits and Punishes This Behavior. . . . . . . . . 15 <br /> 1. "Wineries and Related Facilities"Regulation Has Enforcement Sanctions <br /> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 <br /> 2. Grounds for Winery Enforcement Sanctions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 <br /> 3. The St. Jorge Winery Has Violated Each of the County Code's Three <br /> Grounds for Enforcement Action.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 <br /> B. The San Joaquin County Planning Commission is Being Asked to <br /> Commit Hypocrisy.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 <br /> C. The San Joaquin County Planning Commission Should Not Approve This <br /> Expansion Application.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 <br /> D. The San Joaquin County Planning Commission Should Revoke the St.Jorge <br /> Winery Permit and Require the Illegally-Built Structures Be Removed. . . . . . . . 17 <br /> VI. THE"INITIAL STUDY"FOR THE 2012 EXPANSION APPLICATION IS FLAWED <br /> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 <br /> A. The"Mitigated Negative Declaration"is this Project's CEQA Review Document <br /> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 <br /> B. The Required"Noise Study"Was Conducted Without Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 <br /> 1. Noise Study Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 17 <br /> 2. The Absence of Controls Renders the Noise Study Useless. . . . . . . . . . . 18 <br /> C. Conclusions of"Less Than Significant"Impacts Are Flawed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 <br /> 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 <br /> 2. "2. Earth". . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 <br /> 3. "5. Noise". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 <br /> 4. "9. Transportation/Circulation'.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 <br /> 5. "13. Land Use.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 <br /> VII. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 <br /> A. The Expansion Project Application's Environmental Review Is Inadequate and <br /> Does Not Support Approval.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 <br /> B. The County Must Both Deny This Application and Enforce Its Own Laws. . . . .21 <br /> C. Close. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 <br /> iii <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.