My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0008325
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
THORNTON
>
15300
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-1000131
>
SU0008325
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2020 11:33:27 AM
Creation date
9/9/2019 10:36:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0008325
PE
2626
FACILITY_NAME
PA-1000131
STREET_NUMBER
15300
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
THORNTON
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
LODI
Zip
95240
APN
02519016 18 19
ENTERED_DATE
6/28/2010 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
15300 N THORNTON RD
RECEIVED_DATE
6/24/2010 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\rtan
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\T\THORNTON\15300\PA-1000131\SU0008325\APPL.PDF \MIGRATIONS\T\THORNTON\15300\PA-1000131\SU0008325\CDD OK.PDF \MIGRATIONS\T\THORNTON\15300\PA-1000131\SU0008325\EH COND.PDF \MIGRATIONS\T\THORNTON\15300\PA-1000131\SU0008325\BOS APPEAL.PDF
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.
/
226
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
ATTACIEVIENT "A" <br /> Appeal of PA— 1000 13 1 IPA-1200065 <br /> Approved by Planning Commission on December 20, 2012 <br /> 1. Basis ofAppeal. The Planning Commission erred in certifying the Environmental Impact <br /> Report(EIR) (PA-1200065) and in approving the conditional use permit(PA-1000131) <br /> (collectively, the Project). As stated in Appellant's counsel's letters dated November 13, <br /> 2012 and December 20, 2012 (incorporated herein by this reference), the Project's traffic <br /> and air quality impacts still have not been properly assessed pursuant to the requirements <br /> of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Additionally,the County's <br /> statement of overriding considerations is not supported by substantial evidence. As a <br /> result, the Planning Commission lacked sufficient and substantial evidence to support <br /> required Findings 2, 4, and 5. The Planning Commission also contradicted its long- <br /> standing practice of granting each side to a contested land use matter at least one <br /> continuance, prejudicing Appellant's ability to present its case. <br /> 2. Conditions and/or Findings Being Appealed. In the absence of the appropriate analysis <br /> and mitigation measures and conditions of approval for the Project's traffic and air <br /> quality impacts, the Planning Commission erred in making required Findings 2, 4, and 5 <br /> in the affirmative. Appropriate environmental review should be conducted to determine <br /> whether the required findings can be made, and if so, to provide substantial evidence to <br /> support the findings. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.