SU0004398 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Analysis Background A similar project (SA-96-85) was submitted in 1996. Due to neighborhood opposition, the project was scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission. The neighbors' concerns were an increase in Crime, traffic congestion, noise, and aesthetics. On February 20, 1997, the Planning Commission approved the Site Approval with the additions of Conditions of Approval No. 1.e. and f., as follows: I. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: e. A speed bump shall be installed across the driveway access to Grigsby Place. f. The public telephones shall be relocated away from the building. The telephones shall make outgoing calls only, with calls lasting no more than 90 seconds. On February 28, 1997, the Planning Commission's approval was appealed to the Board of Supervisors. On April 8, 1997, the Board of Supervisors voted to approve the appealand deny the project. The Board's decision was based on the inability to make all of the required Finding; for a Site Approval. The Board determined that the project would have a significant negative effect on the neighborhood environment in regard to noise, aesthetics, traffic congestion, and a potential increase in crime. The current application was submitted on December 24, 2001, and went to Development Committee on January 28, 2002. The differences between the current project and the previous one are the number of driveways proposed for Benjamin Holt Drive (now one instead of two) and the proposed width of the northern driveway on Grigsby Place (now 35 feet instead of 28 feet). [ Traffic ..r� The Department of Public Works required a traffic study to be prepared for the current project due to the potential traffic to be generated from the proposed development. The traffic study dated October 2002 found that the project's impact on peak hour levels of service would be less than significant at the existing project traffic levels and at the 2025+project traffic levels and that no mitigation improvements would be necessary. Planning Commissions Site Approval applications are normally processed at staff level. However, this application is very similar to the application noted above (SA-96-85), which was heard before the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, the Community Development Department has determined that this application should be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission, The Community Development Department has reviewed the application and will be recommending that it be denied based on the inability to make all the required findings for a Site Approval. The Community Development Department could not make Findings 4 and 5 in the affirmative. Specifically, based upon the earlier denial of a similar project by the Board of Supervisors, the Community Development Department could not make Finding 4, that the permit will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to the property of improvements of adjacent properties, because the Board of Supervisors had identified several significant impacts the previous project would have upon the neighborhood, such as additional noise, aesthetics, and a potential increase in crime. For these same reasons, the Community Development Department could not make Finding 5, that the use is San Joaquin County SA-01-941Southland Corp. Community Development Page 3