My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013248
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
E
>
88 (STATE ROUTE 88)
>
17749
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
QX-90-1
>
SU0013248
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/20/2024 9:24:21 AM
Creation date
5/8/2020 10:56:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013248
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
QX-90-1
STREET_NUMBER
17749
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
STATE ROUTE 88
City
CLEMENTS
Zip
95227-
APN
01922024
ENTERED_DATE
5/6/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
17749 E HWY 88
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
406
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
APPEAL OF LESTER AND ROBERTA RAINES <br /> QUARRY EXCAVATION APPLICATION NO. QX-90-1 <br /> OF CLAUDE C. WOOD CO. <br /> Planning Commission as Conditions of Approval which must be <br /> complied with prior to the initiation of extraction <br /> operations. The Air Pollution Control District, through its <br /> review responsibility for the Dust Control Plan, must approve <br /> the use of all dust suppressants prior to their placement on <br /> the site. <br /> 5. Appeal Statement: <br /> "An existing operational quarry at the base of the bluff, <br /> immediately adjacent to Clements, will most certainly have its <br /> effect on devaluation of properties and the type of future <br /> development in the town of Clements. " <br /> Response: <br /> The EIR's analysis of land use and compatibility issues <br /> indicated that the approval of this project would not result <br /> in any significant land use conflicts, subject to meeting <br /> identified mitigation measures. The appellant' s statement <br /> does not substantiate the contention that property values will <br /> decrease as a result of the quarry' s operation. <br /> 6. Appeal Statement: <br /> The appellants indicate that the project should be denied <br /> because the following questions were not answered: "Where <br /> will the material come from to replace the materials removed <br /> to restore the property to its original topographical contour; <br /> and will they restore it in a reasonable amount of time?" <br /> Response: <br /> Neither the Planning Title nor the Conditions of Approval <br /> require the property to be restored to its original contour <br /> following excavation. Rather, the site must be rehabilitated <br /> for agricultural use and the topsoil replaced following <br /> excavation. The rehabilitation of the site will occur in two <br /> phases: temporary rehabilitation and revegetation will take <br /> place following the excavation of each "strip" and final <br /> rehabilitation, contouring and return to agricultural use at <br /> the completion of each five-year phase. <br /> 7 . Appeal Statement: <br /> The appellants state that the quarry should not have been <br /> BOS LETTER PAGE 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.