My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0003099
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
F
>
FAIRCHILD
>
13361
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
SA-93-04
>
SU0003099
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/22/2020 9:09:23 PM
Creation date
9/4/2019 6:29:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0003099
PE
2633
FACILITY_NAME
SA-93-04
STREET_NUMBER
13361
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
FAIRCHILD
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
STOCKTON
ENTERED_DATE
11/6/2001 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
13361 E FAIRCHILD LN
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\F\FAIRCHILD\13361\SA-93-04_SA-93-03\SU0003099\APPL.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.
/
237
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
RESPONSE: <br /> The Plarating Commission determined that this is not the proper location for a project of this scale and <br /> Intensity and that these projects would crease problems relative to traffic and noise. <br /> 5. APPF, L UATEMEM. <br /> "The Planning Commission did not consider the recommendation of its staff that the site Is physically <br /> suable for the type of developrnM and for the Intensity of the development.` <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> This Fmx ft was not a basis for the denial of these applications. The Development Title does not limit <br /> the building intensity in a AG-40 zone. <br /> 6. APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> Thi the Environmental Initial Study prepared found no potert sally significant mental impacts that <br /> were detrimental to the public health, safety of welfare to the property or improvement of adjacent <br /> Pr'oP -" <br /> RESPONSE: , <br /> The Planning Commission denied the appkAdon based on the potential problems that the truck traf�c <br /> would cause to the public safely and welfare, and the potentially adverse impacts. The neighbor to the <br /> north said that the CoUnty Agricultural Inspector WIN require them to isob d their spraying operation in <br /> order to create a buffer and he would have to forfeit four rows of trees because of their proximity to the <br /> porposed packing y <br /> 7. APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> "The Planning Commission ignored the economic benefits to the County,the growers and the employees <br /> of the applicant, and the local businesses In the community. The Busirtess Council of San Joaquin <br /> County appeared. This project was and is supported by the San Joaquin County Farm Bureau. The <br /> Farm Bureau letter was submitted to the Planning Staff.` <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> One of the Comrriissioners commented that the economics should be considered when decisions are <br /> made and the Consnisslon should try to help and encourage Wk stry to locate where it can grow. The <br /> projects were denied based on potentially signiticartt traafflc Impacts and the likelihood of adversely <br /> Impacting ung ply. <br /> M)D� <br /> CHET DAV ISSON <br /> DIRECTOR <br /> CD:La:fa <br /> Eno Appeal, Mme, Staff Report <br /> c: Henry Foppiano and Robert Chinchiolo <br /> Joseph Rishwaln <br /> Mike Hakeem <br /> SOS LETTER PACE 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.