SU0004543 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1910 E.HAZELTON AVE..STOCKTON,CA 95208232 5 ��CiF(jaa`p PHONE:209/488-3121 FAX:209/488-3163 September 5,2002 MEMORANDUM p�� TO: Development Commlittee "U_r�.�` FROM: Chandler Martin \� Senior Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN PRE-APPLICATION NO. PA-0200363 OF HIRAM AND NANCY SIBLEY(APN:209-310-20,34 AND 209-180-13;2071 S. REEVE ROAD,TRACY) This is a Pre-application for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation of approximately 100 acres from A/G (General Agriculture)to R/R(Rural Residential). The applicant submitted a 41-lot subdivision as a potential underlying project. The site is located on the west side of Reeve Road, 1500 feet south of Bethany Road,northwest of Tracy. The Community Development Department has reviewed this item and offers the following comments: General Plan Prior to approving a General Plan amendment,the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must determine that the internal consistency of the General Plan is maintained in the adoption of the amendment. Key Plan Strategy/Growth Accommodation(General Plan Volume 1 Page III-2) Rural areas encompass all land outside designated communities and shall accommodate minimal growth because open space and agricultural preservation are paramount in these areas. The project site is located in a rural area and the project would take approximately 100 acres out of agriculture. The underlying project includes a proposal to leave approximately 50 acres in open space. In spite of the intent to leave a portion of the property in open space,the project does not appear to be consistent with the above Key Plan Strategy. Residential Development Policy I(a)(General Plan Volume 1 Page IV-18) (3) Locational Criteria: Appropriate in rural communities and only for areas of existing rural residential densities in urban communities. The project site is not in a rural community and is not in an area of existing rural residential development in an urban community. The proposal does not appear to be consistent with the above Residential Development Policy.