SU0012656 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ANALYSIS Background On July 5, 1989, the Community Development Department approved Minor Subdivision No. MS- 89-0080, to subdivide a 24.84-acre parcel into a 3.0-acre homesite parcel and a 21.84-acre remainder parcel. The remainder parcel is the subject parcel for this application. On March 2, 2005, the Community Development Department approved Second Unit Dwelling No. PA-0500120. This single-family residence located on the southern portion of the property is the applicant's primary residence. A tenant currently occupies the single-family residence located closest to East River Road. The property owner is currently farming the property and is seeking the variance to facilitate a subdivision so that he can continue to live on-site and farm the land in almonds without the responsibility of maintaining two (2) homes. CEQA Exemption Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a project is not defined by the application, but the whole of an action that has the potential for resulting in impacts to the environment. Since the two residences are existing, the Community Development Department determined that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA under a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301) for "Existing Facilities" which states that projects involving existing structures or facilities on the same site with negligible or no expansion of an existing use are exempt from CEQA review. In addition, the project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which states that the project is exempt from CEQA if it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Policy Consideration Pursuant to Development Title Section 9-827.5, the Planning Commission is required to make three (3) findings in the affirmative to approve the Variance application. The applicant submitted findings for the approval of the application. The Community Development Department has reviewed the applicant's findings and recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Variance application because Findings Number 1 and Number 2 cannot be made in the affirmative. Finding 1: Special Circumstances Because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the regulation deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Applicant's Statement: "The Variance seeks the ability to create a parcel of less than the 40-acre minimum proposed by the Code for the purpose of allowing Mr. Van Dyk to continue residing on and farming the property without the burden of maintaining a second residence on the property. The intent and purpose of this variance request are in accord with County policies promoting the continued family farming. Mr. Van Dyk desires to continue to reside on and farm the larger parcel, while conveying Residence 1 to a purchaser who desires 2-acres near town without the obligation to maintain a farm". Planning Commission Staff Report, Item # 1 01/16/2020 — PA-1900247 (VR) 5