My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0012885
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CANEPA
>
8721
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
SU-92-15
>
SU0012885
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2020 4:51:22 PM
Creation date
9/4/2019 10:53:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0012885
PE
2611
FACILITY_NAME
SU-92-15
STREET_NUMBER
8721
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
CANEPA
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95212-
APN
08640008
ENTERED_DATE
1/14/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
8721 N CANEPA RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\C\CANEPA\8721\SU-92-15_SU-87-21\MISC.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.
/
451
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
- <br /> N6 ember 18, 1992 199 <br /> PLANNING DIVISION <br /> Ms. Loree Goold <br /> San Joaquin County Planning Division <br /> 1810 East Hazelton , <br /> Stockton, CA 95205 <br /> Dear Ms. Goold, <br /> We write in response to your referral mailed October 30, 1992, and concerning a <br /> proposal to develop a major subdivicsion in the Morada neighborhood. <br /> .First, this letter is not meant as a waiver of our objection to the property involved <br /> being re-zoned from its previous agricultural zoning to its newly acquired rural residential <br /> classification or the process by which that was accomplished. As you know, the developer <br /> had previously attempted to re-zone by way of a noticed request for rezoning and, at least <br /> in part because of near unanimous public opposition, that had been denied. Now it <br /> appears that the rezoning has been, to this point at least, accomplished by use of a <br /> proceedure that denied notice to and ignored the stated wishes of the same affected <br /> community that so vigorously opposes this development in their neighborhood. <br /> We realize that, in accord with long-standing precedent and sound planning } <br /> principles, the planning department recommended against the rezoning at all stages and <br /> that the planning commission determined that the property should remain in its previous <br /> agricultural classification. However, we also realize that you are stuck at this point with <br /> the rezoning undertaken by the county Board of Supervisors on its 3 to 2 vote. <br /> So, this letter is state our opposition to the attempted development at the stage <br /> you presently must deal with. This is based on many specificgrounds but it ultimately is <br /> based on the cumulative effect of those items, present and future. In short and in sum, this <br /> proposed development will have a substantial detrimental effect on the quality of life and <br /> the environment in our neighborhood. These impacts adversly affect nearly every aspect <br /> of life in the Morada area and, taken together, are unacceptable. <br /> First, it introduces a density of housing that has been not allowed in this area for <br /> many years. Allowing for roads, services, etc. it appears that the subdivision contemplates <br /> a useable lot size of approximately three-quarters to one acre. As you know, this density <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.