Laserfiche WebLink
APPLICATIb� - APPEA1- OF STAFF ACTION <br /> SAV JOAUUIN COUNTY COMA'S QTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT <br /> ' t ' F - � s Y"!+'x�1»"ktd elh c@V X yt'rly,kyj <R },r ,• <br /> N. <br /> c <br /> r .. <br /> �s <br /> FLAG CITY �r ' <br /> TX Pax �,� <br /> ,Nemo: " C/0 JOSE L. ALVA ES <br /> f <br /> Address: 7510 Shoreline Dr, Suite A-1 <br /> Stockton CA 95 <br /> 2fl9477-60-1 <br /> I� trJ b,,K,'� .t..t _4rM l.. Arrp <br /> i ` .$G tft9fOt7[3i}+rl SYi711t"falEK art o 4ti ' �'r"'"sro1 r - •yr __ <br /> grn*n1 figc:ititr��y$tglltsdid��rrid�ic�jro�t tb�s4{� „ifri`��gaF��tr+� <br /> 1 ..,..:..:. .,:_r, si�SFa°�'a}zur�.trx3h+��latfning Crrm:rneatnp�xAtfaak��#�aq�l,aHe� {" � : <br /> .yr. ry�, lluc�sa art tate <br /> Fila number. MS-94-42 Action beinq appealed: Approval of MS-94-42 <br /> Date of Staff action: Feb--- 16 995 <br /> Ststo this hasis of tate aepeal. riet any findings of tact made by the staff which you}eel were wrong and your reasons: <br /> i <br /> 1 <br /> j - The appeal is made on the basis of: <br /> A) The design of the subdivision in relation to: I) the <br /> surrounding area 's circulation pattern, 2) the adequacy of the size <br /> Of' future logical parcels for commercial uses, and 3) the location <br /> and speculative access to required infrastructure, are inconsistent <br /> f{— with the Subdivision Map Act and with the County's Development— <br /> Title. <br /> Title. � <br /> i <br /> I I <br /> i --' <br /> i-- B) The approval of this application provides for the i <br /> expansion of the current Commercial Freeway Service Zone into the <br /> Agricultural Urban Reserve Zone, without the required: a) � <br /> CApplication, b) Review and Recommendation by the Planning <br /> Commission, and c) Final Approval by the Board of Supervisors. <br /> The limits of the Commercial Freeway Service Zone on the subject <br /> property are very specific and are not subject to interpretation. -, <br /> I <br /> List any ccncr ion(') and or findings�meirtg appealed andIve reasons why y you;bink it should..e modified Of remavad: <br /> i <br /> if Public Works : <br /> Condition 4 6 the mandatory construction of a transition <br /> i�L section of Flag City Boulevard does nothing to improve the <br /> circulation pattern of the area, in fact it can create additional <br /> problems . <br /> !IL <br /> i Condition 1 8, allows for the applicant to dispose of drainage I <br /> if water into the Flag City drainage detention pond, which was not <br /> r designed for its inclusion. It furthermore, requires connection to <br /> it the forced main discharge lines without requirement of paYmenz for <br /> G Applicant 's proportionate share of the costs of construction to the <br /> is Flag City Partners for its use of the facilities . <br /> ij <br /> �f <br /> t <br /> r4 V <br /> r� <br /> a� w�yj �k ryl� ii w.?iti>T�x3k J ny }p' <br /> 27 February 1995 <br /> 7-- �se-F4 <br /> �$.�� i +. rX Gtr FFA es-S i a y <br />