My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PR0535342
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MACARTHUR
>
29425
>
4700 - Waste Tire Program
>
PR0535342
>
PR0535342
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2020 5:32:38 PM
Creation date
7/22/2020 8:36:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4700 - Waste Tire Program
RECORD_ID
PR0535342
PE
4740
FACILITY_ID
FA0020390
FACILITY_NAME
RENEWED RESOURCES CORP
STREET_NUMBER
29425
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
MACARTHUR
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376
APN
25312026
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
29425 S MACARTHUR RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
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.
/
10992
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
2 <br /> 1 . Okay. <br /> 2 . The tires are where they have- been for many years - before he <br /> bought the property. His machine is mobile and moves about. <br /> He is shredding tires as fast as he can. A new site plan <br /> would be an attempt to pin him down to specific dates as to <br /> when he will have the tires out of there. He cannot do that. <br /> He 1 .objected to a requirement of a new site plan. <br /> Mr . Van Buren explained that a new site plan is necessary in order to <br /> identify areas for different types of tire storage: processing areas , <br /> structure areas , piling of chopped-up tires , and storage area for <br /> whole tires . <br /> Mr. Royster said he had no objection to making a new plot plan but did <br /> object to being pinned down to dates and times. <br /> Comm. Gillispie said that condition does not pin Mr. Royster down , <br /> except it states that the plan is to be submitted by April 1 , 1987 . <br /> Mr. Royster said that is not a problem. He could submit a new plot <br /> plan . <br /> 3 . That 30 day period has long-since passed. It was put on in <br /> 1973 or 1975 . <br /> Mr . Walker said that staff had no objection to removal of condition <br /> No. 3 . <br /> 4 . Language to Mr . Royster means he must start doing some <br /> building there within 18 months , and he does not plan to do <br /> any building. <br /> Mr. Walker said that if there are no buildings that are going to be <br /> constructed, then this condition would not be needed. But when we get <br /> the site plan and if he wants to build a structure, then this con- <br /> dition would be needed. <br /> Mr. Royster was agreeable to that explanation. <br /> 5 . Okay. <br /> 6 . Will be comments later on in the meeting. <br /> 7 . Mr. Royster asked if the Use Permit ran with the land. <br /> Deputy County Counsel Sandra Affonso said that was the case. <br /> Mr. Royster asked if this was a 12-month Use Permit that would have to <br /> be renewed every year . Mr. Walker said that at the end of 12 months <br /> staff will make an investigation and will report to the Planning <br /> Commission. If there are no problems , the report will be filed until <br /> PC: 1/22/87 -3- MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.