SU0000632 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Analysis Background On June 4, 1996, the Community Development Department approved Minor Subdivision No. MS-96-9, consistent with the circulation plan discussed below. On June 14, 1996, Monique Etcheverry appealed staff's action. On September 7, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved Minor Subdivision No. MS-92-175 for Sue Lindly. That tentative map is to subdivide APN 248-080-19 to create four parcels (Attachment 1). The configuration of that subdivision is consistent with a circulation plan prepared by Schack and Company in August 1993 (Attachment 2). That circulation plan was prepared at the request of the Public Works Department to show that the configuration for the Lindly map did not preclude the development of a reasonable circulation plan for the area. The circulation plan has not been adopted by the County and can be revised or replaced during the review of any subsequent tentative map. During review of the Lindly subdivision, both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors indicated that they wanted cuts and road encroachments onto Linne Road minimized. Appeal Statement No. 1: The County staff erred in its approval of minor subdivision application MS 96-9 when it did not take into consideration the effects the approval of the project would have on the adjoining property located to the east (Etcheverry Property). The approval of MS-96-9 provides for the creation of a right-of-way which is to be used by the Minatas and Etcheverry. Sharing the proposed road would significantly impact the Etcheverry Property as it would eliminate the desirability and uniqueness of the property for future development as a stand-alone project. In addition, the proposed road is inconsistent with the future development plans of the Etcheverry Property. At a minimum, the entire width of the future 50' roadway, as depicted on the Traffic Circulation Plan for the Lindly Study Area (1993), should come from the applicant's property (Minata), not from the Etcheverry Property. Response to Appeal Statement No. 1: Approval of MS-96-9 does not directly affect the Etcheverry property. All dedications and improvements are limited to the Minata property. This tentative map is consistent with the circulation plan. If the appellant wishes to subdivide, Public Works will ask that the tentative map be consistent with the circulation plan or another circulation plan that minimizes the number of encroachments onto Linne Road. The configuration of this tentative map, and the Conditions of Approval, are consistent with all County requirements and standards. At this time, the appellant has not submitted a tentative map or an alternate circulation plan. The Etcheverry property does benefit from the future road configuration and should be responsible for half of its improvement. For the best use of the land, the properties should be developed together rather than as separate, stand-alone projects. Appeal Statement No. 2: The County staff further erred in its approval of MS 96-9 when it ignored the potential long term public health effects associated with horses and other large domestic animals on the drinking San Joaquin County MS-96-9/Minata Family Trust Community Development Page 5