Laserfiche WebLink
HERU M\CRABTREE\SU NTAG <br /> Steven A.Herum <br /> sheN m @herumcrobtree.c am <br /> July 9, 2015 <br /> VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL <br /> Ms. Mo Hatef <br /> San Joaquin County Development Department <br /> Development Services Division <br /> 1801 East Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton, Ca 95205 <br /> Email: mhatef@sjgov_org <br /> Re: San Joaquin County Community Development Department <br /> Application No. PA-1500106 (LA) <br /> Dear Ms. Hatef: <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to comment about the pending division of land <br /> application. <br /> The Lima Ranch opposes this proposed division of land. It is inconsistent with the intent <br /> and substance of the Williamson Act. In particular the landowner is receiving a <br /> substantial tax subsidy from the taxpayers yet wishes to avoid the general public benefit <br /> that are intended to be conferred on the general public through these fax subsidy <br /> contracts. <br /> In addition, the board conditioned approval of the applicant's earlier request for a <br /> winery by requiring cancellation of the Williamson Act before further actions in <br /> furtherance of establishing the winery. This proposed division of land furthers the <br /> applicant's winery project and processing; approving the application prior to <br /> cancelling the Williamson Act conflicts with the Board's condition of approval. <br /> Since the land division is clearly for development and not agricultural purposes the <br /> County is required to evaluate in depth the growth inducing aspect of the request. <br /> Controlling decisional law leaves no doubt that the fact that land is subject to <br /> Williamson Act and agricultural classified zoning restrictions still mandates a public <br /> agency to fully evaluate growth inducing impacts before considering the merits of <br /> even minor land use applications. See Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of <br /> Stanislous (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144. In reversing Stanislaus County's decision to process <br /> a project on Williamson Act land through a negative declaration rather than an EIR the <br /> Court explained: <br /> 5757 PACIFIC AVENUE%SUITE 222\STOCKTON,CA 95207\PH 209.472.7700\MODESTO PH 209.525.8444\FX 209.472.7986\APC <br />