My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0004546
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
F
>
FAIROAKS
>
8472
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-0200576
>
SU0004546
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/22/2020 8:13:48 PM
Creation date
9/4/2019 6:31:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0004546
PE
2687
FACILITY_NAME
PA-0200576
STREET_NUMBER
8472
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
FAIROAKS
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
ENTERED_DATE
7/13/2004 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
8472 W FAIROAKS RD
RECEIVED_DATE
11/27/2002 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\F\FAIROAKS\8472\PA-0200576_PA-0200577\SU0004546\APPL.PDF
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
San Joaquin County <br /> Community Development Department , <br /> Development Services Division <br /> 1810 E Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton, CA 95205 <br /> Attn: Leanne Mueller <br /> Subject Application#PA-0200577(GP) & PA-0200576(ZR) <br /> Ms Mueller, <br /> I guess I'm confused by the notification. My impression on the zoning from Rural <br /> Residential to Very Low Density Residential seems to be incorrect. I thought it was <br /> required by the owners of the properties because of the subdivision to the south. Now I <br /> understand that it is being requested by the owner in order to have the ability to divide the <br /> Iots in half then to put two living units on each half...three residential lots becoming <br /> twelve residences. How, by any stretch of the imagination, does that meet the definition <br /> of Very Low Density Residential? <br /> Where I first felt chagrined by the loss of the open space,now f'm incensed by the <br /> spoiling of a rural neighborhood where no such HIGH density exists. How can this be <br /> allowed? Surely the planners recognize this rezoning as a ruse! I thought we'd already <br /> resolved this issue of proper lot size compatible with the area in other engagements with <br /> planning entities. It seems the county` didn't get the'message. Retain density compatible <br /> with the area Period! <br /> I know our new Supervisor understands the value of rural environment,regardless of <br /> housing pr ores. is desired rezoning by the property owner,is ill advise and <br /> unwanted Ll forwarding a copy of this correspondence to Leroy Ornellas asking <br /> that he ad hi of to mine...and others—proclaiming this effort to rezone a very bad <br /> idea. <br /> gar r. <br /> Terrance E. nd Ann S. bangle <br /> CC Leroy Ornellas; County Supervisor <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.