My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013128
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
ALPINE
>
704
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
GP-89-6
>
SU0013128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2020 11:06:11 AM
Creation date
4/9/2020 8:07:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013128
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
GP-89-6
STREET_NUMBER
704
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
ALPINE
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205-
APN
10302020
ENTERED_DATE
4/1/2020 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.
/
99
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. 5 <br /> PC : 6-1-89 <br /> GP-89-6/ZR-89-9 <br /> Page 1 <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny GP-89-6 and <br /> ZR-89-9 due to the inability to make the required Bases for a <br /> General Plan Map Amendment and Zone Reclassification. <br /> BASIS FOR GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT <br /> The internal consistency of the General Plan is not maintained i <br /> the adoption of the General Plan Map Amendment because the propo <br /> sal is inconsistent with Rural Residential Principles within the <br /> Land Use/Circulation Element of the General Plan. In particular, <br /> Rural Residential Principle No. 3 states, "Future rural residen- <br /> tial development will take place only within the designated areas <br /> Rural Residential Principle No. 1 further restricts rural <br /> residential development by stating, "Rural residential areas <br /> should be kept to a minimum in number and extent . " <br /> BASES FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION <br /> 1 . The proposed zone district is not consistent with the General <br /> Plan because under the adopted Zoning/General Plan <br /> Consistency Matrix, the proposed RR-65 zone is not consistent <br /> with Agriculture, and as stated above, the change to Rural <br /> Residential is not consistent with the General Plan. <br /> 2 . The site of the proposed zone district is not suitable for <br /> the land uses permitted within the proposed zone district <br /> because the RR-65 zone creates the potential for I%-acre lots <br /> and thus the need for public services. <br /> 3 . The proposed zone district is not reasonable and beneficial <br /> at this time because a need for further residential develop- <br /> ment in this area has not been established. An RR-65 zone <br /> would not be beneficial in preserving the agricultural <br /> interests in the area. <br /> 4 . The proposed zone district may have a substantial , adverse <br /> effect on surrounding properties . The Initial Study prepared <br /> for this project concluded that land use conflicts could <br /> occur between residential and agricultural uses . The project <br /> may be growth inducing because it will encourage other pro- <br /> perty owners in the area to submit similar applications. <br /> PROJECT DESCRIPTION <br /> The applicant is proposing a General Plan Map Amendment to change <br /> 17 acres from Agriculture to Rural Residential and a Zone <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.