My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0012748
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
ALPINE
>
704
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
MS-87-93
>
SU0012748
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2020 5:19:42 PM
Creation date
2/3/2020 2:47:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0012748
PE
2622
FACILITY_NAME
MS-87-93
STREET_NUMBER
704
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
ALPINE
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205-
APN
10302011
ENTERED_DATE
12/30/2019 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
704 N ALPINE RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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
Item No. 2 ' <br /> research. He said that if he concludes that County Counsel is <br /> correct, he will drop this request. He asked for a continuance. <br /> In answer to a question, Ms. Affonso said that if the County has no <br /> jurisdiction, the full application fee will be refunded. <br /> Mr. Hansen said he has complied with the Local Health District <br /> request. <br /> Comm. Gillispie said he felt that this item should be continued based <br /> on the new information received from County Counsel. <br /> David Smith, 405 North Alpine Road, expressed concern over notifica- <br /> tion to the surrounding property owners. Further, he said that if the <br /> application fee is refunded based on lack of jurisdiction of the <br /> County to act on this matter, then the appeal fee also should be <br /> refunded. Further, he said that if Mr. Hansen is allowed to have <br /> approval of this type of project, he would be interested in the same <br /> type of treatment. He did not object to a continuance. <br /> Ms. Satterness said that there is a possibility that some people did <br /> not receive notification of the first hearing, but that problem was <br /> corrected for the appeal hearing. <br /> John Armenino, appellant, said he had not been notified of the origi- <br /> nal hearing and that is why this item had been appealed. He said he <br /> owns the property to the east. <br /> Patrick Donnelly, Navy Drive, said he was in favor of the project. <br /> REBUTTAL: Mr. Hansen said his ownership of his property pre-dates Mr. <br /> Smith' s ownership of property in the area by several years . Further, <br /> Mr. Hansen said he is "pro-agriculture. " He said that people in the <br /> area knew about the project by the many discussions among the neigh- <br /> bors. He said he had a letter by a neighbor in favor of the project. <br /> Lynne Armenino asked that another photograph be taken to show the <br /> blind curve on the south side of the road. She said it is a dangerous <br /> area. <br /> MOTION: Moved, seconded (Gillispie-Gabbard) and carried by a unani- <br /> mous voice vote to continue this item to June 18 , 1987 and it is to be <br /> one of the first items on the agenda. <br /> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> PC: 5/7/87 -2- MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.