Laserfiche WebLink
APPEAL OF JOHN D. NEWBOLD <br /> QUARRY EXCAVATION APPLICATION NO. QX-90-1 <br /> OF CLAUDE C. WOOD CO. <br /> the river habitat or the extensive mitigation required to <br /> offset the project ' s negative impacts. The appellant states <br /> that one such required mitigation should have been the <br /> Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of the site ' s riparian habitat <br /> to San Joaquin Open Space and Farmland Trust, as was <br /> recommended in the staff report for this project. <br /> Response <br /> The Commission' s discussions at the hearing dealt with plant <br /> and animal life on the site, as well as the project' s impacts <br /> on residents in the area. Prior to approving the project, the <br /> Planning Commission certified the EIR that was prepared for <br /> the proposed quarry. That document thoroughly analyzed the <br /> project' s impacts on both area residents and the local <br /> environment and developed mitigation measures to reduce the <br /> significance of those impacts. The Irrevocable Offer of <br /> Dedication was a recommended Condition of Approval that was <br /> developed by staff, rather than being identified as a required <br /> mitigation by the EIR. It was, therefore, within the <br /> Commission' s discretionary authority to delete the condition, <br /> as it did upon hearing from staff that the Open Space and <br /> Farmland Trust was not able, at the time, to accept such an <br /> offer of dedication. <br /> 3 . Appeal Statement: <br /> The appellant states that the Planning Commission "seemed bent <br /> on finding ways to water down" the mitigations intended to <br /> protect the portions of the site identified as wetlands. <br /> Response: <br /> None of the Conditions of Approval developed as part of the <br /> EIR to mitigate the project' s impacts on wetland areas were <br /> either modified or deleted by the Planning Commission. The <br /> information contained in the appeal does not support the <br /> appellant's appeal statement. <br /> 4 . Appeal Statement: <br /> The appellant states that the Planning Commission "disregarded <br /> any adverse effects to the environment" that may result from <br /> the project and that it was "set on finding a way to mitigate <br /> the mitigation. " The result of this was "the recommendation <br /> by the Commission that the applicant and the California <br /> BOS LETTER PAGE 3 <br />