75A - LETTER REGARDING ITEM 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? The staff report states that there are health and safety impacts from increased runoff that This is not true. would increase the number of pollutants entering the storm drain system. There are elements of design that could be utilized such that the amount of post- development runoff is the same as pre-development runoff. In fact, it is quite common for this to be a requirement of the Public Works Department. Other elements such as unique drainage systems and the use of pervious surfaces can easily be imposed on the project so that this is a non-issue. In addition, the capacity of the infrastructure, while so-called “rural”, was built for single-family residences and associated livestock uses (i.e. – stables, sheds, etc.) The proposal of one additional home (keeping in mind that one home was previously existing) in the neighborhood will not cause an exceedence in capacity of available infrastructure. ? The findings state several policies of the General plan in which the project is incompatible for the surrounding area. However, there are many policies that the project does comply with. These policies (Land Use Element 1.4, 3.1 and 4.1) were pointed out to the Zoning Administrator and can be cited by the Council to approve the subdivision. One of the policies the Planning Department cites states that the neighborhoods should be protected from “intrusive development”. How is the addition of one single-family residence considered “intrusive development” in an area where the zoning and General Plan land use designations allow single-family residential and the applicant is not requesting any variances or deviations from the City’s codes?? Especially when considering the fact that the property owner could construct 2 single-family residences on the property without subdividing. Would this all of a sudden not be considered “intrusive development”? It doesn’t make sense. The other General Plan policies the Planning Department cites are working with the applicant design-related and could easily be achieved by on the design of the homes rather than denying the subdivision. ? The Planning Department staff report states that the lot sizes are not compatible with the existing neighborhood and that the parcels would be 3,000 square feet smaller than the next This is not true.There are 4 lots in the tract that are smallest lot in the neighborhood. smaller than the proposed parcels and 8 lots that are similarly sized. The Planning Department gets around this by loosely using the term “neighborhood” to disguise this inaccuracy and later in the staff report indicates that these 8 lots are “technically” within the they are, in fact, within the tractThey tract. They are not “technically” within the tract; . are part of the neighborhood; and they should be part of the analysis!! ? The Planning Department, in the staff report, indicates that the subdivision would cause “adverse public health impacts” due to the proximity of livestock to humans. “Negative health impacts including noxious odors and communicable diseases have been associated with the close proximity of humans to livestock. The approval of this subdivision request would further a non-conformity with this code requirement by reducing the lot size and street frontage to the point of becoming practically impossible for the proposed lots to maintain the 100-foot separation from the neighboring properties.”