SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 2- On May 19,2011, the San Joaquin County Planning Commission unanimously approved this Use Permit application and concurrently adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. The Planning Commission's approval was subsequently appealed by Pilot Travel Centers LLC ("Pilot"),owner of the existing Pilot Flying J Truck Stop immediately west of and across Thornton Road from the site. The appeal was heard by the County Board of Supervisors on July 12, 2011. The Board upheld the Planning Commission's Use Permit approval and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and denied the appeal. On August 10, 2011, Pilot filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the adequacy of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. On April 9, 2012, the Superior Court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate, which directed the County to prepare a limited Environmental Impact Report(EIR)analyzing the Project's project-level and cumulative traffic and air quality impacts and alternatives. A focused EIR was prepared for the project. The EIR identified the following significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts: 1)consistency with Level of Service (LOS) standards for freeway ramp junctions; and 2)cumulative impacts for freeway ramp junctions. Based upon the significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, a Statement of Overriding Consideration has been prepared and is included in this board letter. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: On December 20, 2012,the Planning Commission heard testimony regarding the Use Permit and Environmental Impact Report and then voted 5-0 to take the following actions: certify Environmental Impact Report No. PA-1200065; adopt"Findings of Significant Environmental Impact"; adopt"Statement of Overriding Considerations"; adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program"; and approve Use Permit No. PA-1000131. On December 31, 2012, Pilot/Flying J appealed the Use Permit application to the Board of Supervisors, stating that Findings Nos. 2, 4, and 5 made by the Planning Commission were wrong and cannot be made in the affirmative due to alleged flaws in the EIR. Pilot also contended that the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the Planning Commission did not include substantial evidence to support its conclusions.