My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0002530
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
L
>
LAMMERS
>
26088
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
SA-01-21
>
SU0002530
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2020 11:29:16 AM
Creation date
9/6/2019 10:47:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0002530
PE
2633
FACILITY_NAME
SA-01-21
STREET_NUMBER
26088
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
LAMMERS
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376
ENTERED_DATE
10/29/2001 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
26088 S LAMMERS RD
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\rtan
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\L\LAMMERS\26088\SA-01-21\SU0002530\APPL.PDF \MIGRATIONS\L\LAMMERS\26088\SA-01-21\SU0002530\CDD OK.PDF \MIGRATIONS\L\LAMMERS\26088\SA-01-21\SU0002530\EH COND.PDF \MIGRATIONS\L\LAMMERS\26088\SA-01-21\SU0002530\CORRESPOND.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.
/
75
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
I•ILt rvo.V" 1C11V vc ii ` .... <br /> CITY OF TRACY <br /> a <br /> Department of Development and Engineering Services Telephone: (209)831.4600 <br /> 520 Tracy Boulevard Fax' (209)831-4606 <br /> • "O"� Tracy.California 95376 <br /> December 9, 2002 <br /> Chandler Martin <br /> Senior Planner, Planning Division <br /> San Joaquin Community Development Department <br /> 1810 East Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton, CA 95205-6232 <br /> RE. Site Approval Extension for Application Number SA-01-21(TE): Wellhead, LLC <br /> Power Generation Facility <br /> Dear Mr. Martin, <br /> This letter is submitted in opposition to the proposed time extension for the Wellhead, <br /> LLC power generation facility, proposed for development adjacent to the west side of the <br /> City of Tracy. Since the initial submittal of the power plant project in March 2001, this <br /> project has not moved forward. Surprisingly, within the 18-month timeframe for this <br /> project, three additional major power generation facilities in the vicinity of Tracy have <br /> either received California Energy Commission (CEC) approval, or are in the review <br /> process. The proliferation of these other plants calls in to question the approval of an <br /> extension for this, a fourth, power plant <br /> It is our understanding that this project was initially approved in March 2001, at the staff <br /> level and without the benefit of a community meeting or public hearing Additionally, <br /> after reviewing the Initial Study/Negative Declaration that was prepared for the project, <br /> we noted the miscalculation of geographic distance from the proposed power plant site <br /> to the City limits. It appears that the decision to approve such a facility was made- <br /> without <br /> adewithout the understanding that the project was within the City of Tracy Sphere of <br /> Influence, and roughly % of a mile from residential development within the City of Tracy <br /> limits. While this may have been merely an oversight in completing the initial study form, <br /> we didn't have the benefit of commenting on the environmental document, nor the <br /> opportunity to express concerns, discuss potential mitigation measures, or verify <br /> statements in the Negative Declaration as they pertain to air quality and other concerns. <br /> Moreover, the application for a time extension has been forwarded to the San Joaquin <br /> Planning Commission for review on January 9, 2003 with newly written environmental <br /> documentation that appears to be incomplete. Based on the knowledge that three other <br /> major power plants have been approved or are in the review process by the CEC, the <br /> proposed extension should have been reviewed in context of cumulative impacts to air <br /> quality and other environmental issues. The City feels that the analysis provided in the <br /> negative declaration for the proposed Time Extension is inadequate because it fails to <br /> address potentially significant cumulative impacts of siting several energy plants in the <br /> area <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.