SU0012885 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r rr Page 2 of 3 Sullivan 1/21/68 r: Page 23 , ( 2 ) Rural Residential Principles #2 ( Discussion) 13 The proposed project in not within nor in the fringe of designated growth areas . Furthermore , there is nothing in this Principle that precludes the expansion of an already designated Rural Residential area. i Page 23 , ( 3 ) Rural Residential Principles #3 ( Discussion) 14 The discussion should note that the General Plan Amendment , is for the purpose of making the project consistent with the ` r Principle. J Page 24 , ( 5 ) Agricultural Principle #5 (Discussion) The discussion fails to recognize that included as a part of 15 the proposed project is a General Plan Amendment to designate the project site as rural residential . Thus making the project consistent with the General Plan. Page 25 , ( 3 ) open Space/Conservation Element #3 (Discussion) t 16 Again, the purpose of the general plan amendment is to make proposed underline project consistent with the general plan. Pages 40 - 42 Sewage Disposal The analysis (discussed on the bottom of page 40 and the top of page 41 ) for potential nitrate impacts on ground water resulted in a long term projected nitrate-nitrogen I concentration of 4 . 0 mg/l which is within State drinking 17 water standards. How then can there be a conclusion on page 42 , item b that by increasing the lot sizes to two acres would reduce the concentration of nitrate-nitrogen from 6 . 5 to 5 . 0 Mg/1? The mitigation for determining the appropriate septic system should be based only on Health District standards . Page 44 ( 3 ) (a ) (b) Drainage ` Mitigation of 2 acres for lot size has no quantitative analysis to support the position, nor is there any quantitative information that demonstrates that 1 1/2 acres 18 are not adequate for on site services. it appears on its face that the only basis for the two acre parcel size is so that this project conforms to present development policies to which this project is not included. 16 i `