My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0014565 (2)
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
F
>
FAIROAKS
>
8350
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
SU-86-12
>
SU0014565 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2022 4:46:01 PM
Creation date
1/4/2022 9:32:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0014565
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
SU-86-12
STREET_NUMBER
8350
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
FAIROAKS
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
APN
24813001
ENTERED_DATE
12/8/2021 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
8350 W FAIROAKS RD
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
805
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
•ir. Fondse - I think the board is pretty well aware now that <br />the property owners in this area are not really happy <br />with the <br />type of zoning that has been recommended by the Planning Commission. <br />It is sort of different and unique than what we've experienced <br />in the Dist as far as other areas in the county where we have had <br />to rezone to rural residential and gone through the proper hearings <br />and cone to the Board later on and object to rural residential <br />and this is just about the opposite of the situation of this <br />hearing. Unfortunately, of course, through the,,process of* <br />planning stages that we have to experience we now come to the <br />point where we have to do some rezoning. I will just make a quick <br />_ question to staff. yr. Hunter and ?fir. Kern. If it is at all <br />possible at this time to refer back to the planning department <br />w; r •. <br />for psrrtission for rehearing. If that is part of the process? <br />I am not sure if that is or not. <br />45 Staff (Hunter or Kern) - I don't know what you were to ask <br />the planning commission at this point to consider in referring <br />it back since they have reaffirmed the agricultural designation / <br />on the general plan and the state mandates us to rezone it in <br />44• accordance with the general plan designationso it would seem to <br />me that the same considerations. <br />Yr. Fondse - would we only be able to re_`er it back to P.C. <br />H, for rehearing or reconsideration or rezoning, and not to amend <br />the general plan? And that's about it. It would not do any good <br />at this stage to send it back to the commission because that would <br />.' not be possible.. It would only be on the rezoning and the re- <br />GA10 on up. I think that is most <br />zoning was only advertised for <br />x: <br />impossible at this time. The other problem is, i think that there <br />large of an area that the planning department considered <br />was just too <br />... <br />a for rural residential <br />for rezoning. 410 acres is a large are <br />and again thepolicy is to infill before we spread out into other <br />areas. I wish there was some way we could stage the area so that <br />there could be a complete and most comprehensive plan for development <br />tive development, streets, flood <br />so that there would be a correc <br />1-7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.