SU0013240 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3 , 1993 4 . GENERAL PLAN MAP APPLICATION NO. GP-93-2 AND ZONE RECLASSIFICA- TION APPLICATION NO. ZR-93-2 OF LEROY METTLER: A General Plan Map Amendment to amend 19 acres from A/G (General Agriculture) to R/L (Low Density Residential) , and a Zone Reclassification of 19 acres from AG-40 to AU-20. The project site is located on the south side of State Route 12/88, 350 feet east of Sierra Drive, east of Lockeford (Supervisorial District 4) . Associate Planner Chandler Martin introduced a staff report into the record. Comm. Demichelis said he had viewed the site. Senior Civil Engineer Tom Gau said that a plan line study has been done on the secondary access. Alternate "E" access would come from Phase 2 of the original subdivision. This has been reviewed by Caltrans and indications are that they are not in favor of additonal access points to State Route 88/12 and they will recommend conditions at the time that Phase 2 is heard by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PROPONENTS: Attorney Ron Stein, 5345 N. E1 Dorado St. , Stockton, was present for the application. He noted that the applicant' s engineer and traffic consultant were also present to answer questions. Mr. Stein said he did not object to the conditions recommended by Caltrans. Regarding the Williamson Act contract on the land, the property owner does not wish to ask for a cancella- tion of the contract but will file a Notice of Nonrenewal. Jonathan Flecker, Elk Grove, the traffic consultant for this application, said that there will be a nominal increase in traffic from this development. OPPONENTS: Bruce Blodgett, representing the San Joaquin Farm Bureau, 3290 Ad Art Way, said the Farm Bureau sent a letter in opposition to the project. He said that the internal consistency of the General Plan is not being maintained in that this project conflicts with policy. He referred to a statement on growth accommodation in General Plan 2010. He said the basis for the Zone Reclassification is inconsistent with the policy of protection of agricultural land. He said that this is a planned extension of a subdivision that has not been started. This project appears to be premature. He said that this subdivision will have an adverse effect on surrounding properties and that conflicts with Finding No. 4. He said the Williamson Act is not to be used as a holding zone for development. REBUTTAL: Mr. Stein said the property owner is not asking for cancellation of his contract; the contract will expire in 3 years -1-