SU0000632 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

water system in the area. This poses a significant public health risk to residents in the area. A letter written by George J. Vasconcelos,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency national expert in environmental microbiology, testifying as to the environmental effects of the project is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Response to Appeal Statement No. 2: This subdivision will reduce the potential impacts associated with horses. Horse raising is permitted as an accessory use in the R-R zone. For less than five acres, one horse is permitted for the first acre, and one additional horse is permitted for each 10,000 square feet over one acre. Before subdivision, 16 horses may be permitted on this property. If the property is subdivided as proposed, six horses may be permitted on each parcel for a total of 12 horses. Cattle and other ruminants (except horses), sheep, goats, and similar livestock (except swine) may be permitted under the "Family Food Production" and "Educational Animal Project" use types. These uses are limited to five animals per parcel. This approval could lead to permitting a larger number of animals other than horses. However, there would be a corresponding decrease in the number of horses permitted. Therefore, the net effect of this subdivision will be to reduce the total number of animals permitted on this property. George J.Vasconcelos wrote the attached letter as a surrounding property owner, not as a representative of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Department of Public Health Services has determined that the number of horses that may be permitted on property zoned R-R does not present a health problem. Appeal Statement No. 3: The creation of a flag lot creates an undesirable precedent for development in the area. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is thus inconsistent with the land use goals and objectives of the General Plan. The project should be redesigned. Response to Appeal Statement No. 3: The access requirements are consistent with the circulation plan and all County standards and requirements. As the area develops, access will be by a County road. Appeal Statement No. 4: Additional mitigation measures should have been imposed on the project to mitigate the impacts on adjoining properties as set forth in 1 -3, above. In the alternative, further environmental review should be performed. Response to Appeal Statement No. 4: The Department of Public Health Services has determined that the number of animals that may be permittee' in the R-R zone will not have a significant, adverse impact on public health. Appeal statements 1 and 3 do not address environmental impacts. The access, as conditioned, is consistent with the circulation plan and all County standards and requirements. Additional mitigation measures are not required. San Joaquin County MS-96-9/Minata Family Trust Community Development Page 6