SU0003029 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Analysis Neighborhood Opposition Eighteen letters in opposition containing 23 signatures and one petition also containing 23 signatures were received in response to the application referral for the project. Eleven of the people who signed the petition subsequently submitted letters requesting that their names be removed from the petition. The opponents of the project addressed the following concerns: the intent of the application, the project's effects on water quality and quantity, traffic,the operation of a nearby adult care facility, land use conflicts, and the need for such a large building. Based upon an analysis of the potential environmental impacts noted in those letters, staff concluded that the project would not result in any potentially significant, adverse environmental impacts, and a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The need for such a large building for the farm services office is discussed below in the response to the appeal statement. Background On July 21, 1995, the Development Services Division denied Site Approval Application No. SA-95-16 based upon the inability to make the third of five required Findings for approval. That Finding deals with the site's suitability for the type and intensity of development proposed by the application. On July 27, 1995, Don Moyer, representing the owner of the property, filed an appeal of that action. In his appeal, the appellant listed the following bases for appeal: 1. APPEAL STATEMENT: 'Staff says they cannot make the Findings because the building is too large. The fact is, the applicants got a bargain at a bankruptcy auction, and actually paid less for a bigger building than they would have for a smaller one. It appears they are being penalized for obtaining a bargain.' The appellant further states that 'their site will, in fact, handle a 2,800 [square] foot building with no problem. There are certainly hundreds of such sites and perhaps thousands within the County. As to intensity, the proposed project will occupy 4.1% of the parcel, leaving 95.9% for crop production. This is an application for an agricultural office in an agricultural zone that occupies less than 5% of the site area.' RESPONSE: The inability to make the required Finding for approval was not based upon either the cost of the building or whether the parcel could accommodate a structure of that size. The Finding could not be made in the affirmative because the size of the proposed 2,880-square-foot farm services office is much larger than needed for the three farm employees that would use it and because a majority of the agricultural acreage under the owners' control is not located in the vicinity of the project site. Information provided by the appellant in response to a request from staff indicates that 32 acres are owned by the applicants on Jahant Road near Acampo, one acre is owned on Sunny Road, east of Stockton, and approximately 14 acres are owned on Castle Road. San Joaquin County SA-95-16/Perry Community Development Page 5