SU0014565 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT On the evening of September 10, 1987, the Planning Commission approved subdivision number SU -86-12, subject to conditions which we find to be unacceptable. One is irrelevant, one should be subject to negotiation and one in unacceptable, which we brought out at the beginning of our application many months ago. The first being: Item lA concerning Tracy Municipal Airport. Tracy airport is 1 1/2, miles from the sight of the subdivision. One of the principals in the project, Carl Trinkle has probably made more take -offs and landings from that airport than any other person in the county. He indicates that the runway lies from the southeast to the northwest and traffic approaching the airport is at least 1 1/2 miles from the subdivision sight and traffic leaving the airport is even further, probably 2 miles. The traffic pattern at Tracy Municipal Airport lies to the south of the airport toward the foothills. Mr. Trinkle flew out of the airport as a cropduster from 1946 to probably 1950. Traffic activity of civilian aircraft has not increased, to speak of, since that time even to the present. The runway is not long enough to accomodate the heavy jet commercial traffic and consequently we feel that this item should be deleted from the conditions because we wouldn't know how to address it in the first place. Item 1, paragraph D is concerning the subdivider holding harmless, the county, the county employees, the agencies and officers against any claims or actions from anyone. At the Planning Commission hearing, the chairman thought this was a good idea in that he thought that benefitors should be responsible for all of these things. We don't think that is quite true. The county employees, agencies and officers should be responsible for their own actions because certainly the developer and contractors are responsible for their own actions. We believe that if the county commits acts of commision or ommision they should be equally responsible for those acts. As far as benefitor we hope to make a one time profit and at this point it is somewhat shaky whether thats possible. The county, on the other hand, stands to benefit from this project from now on and forever. The tax base difference between farmland to 13, $300,000.00 houses, as anyone can see is substantial and continuing forever, not one time such as the developer. Item 2, paragraph C - The Master Drainage Plan. Two of the principals in this subdivision have lived in that area for 40 years and are more than aware of the permability of the soil in that area. It would be inappropriate to put a master drain system in there because of the ground being so absorbant, it would be a waste of effort, eyesore and an additional cost to the count to maintain. It would be self-defeat- ing. If it needs any drainage system at all, that can be worked out with public works in the form of, I don't want to say ponds, because ponds are not needed, at most it would be in the form of a swail or a depression because if anything as Mr. Traina, who is the owner will testify to that in farming that piece for 40 years, he found that it took too much water. The problem is just the opposite from needing drainage. Item 2, paragraph D - Central Water System. We find this to be unaccept- able to deal with. When we first made an application for this rezoning and subdividing, we indicated to the planning department that a central water system was out of the question to serve 13 houses. It would be impossible to develop that in a cost effective warmer. Our tentative map was filed prior to May 28, 1987 and it was to be considered under development standards in effect prior to that date. After that date they adopted an ordinance which requires rural residential parcels less than 2 acres to be served by a community water system, but prior to that date it did not. We continued on the plan to develop this project under the assumption that we would be considered under the law in effect prior to May 28, 1987. We cannot comply with this condition of approval be- cause it would be wrong to do so. You can find from other developments in this area that this has to be the largest pool of underground water in the county. It is also the best water in the Tracy area. That isn't saying its good, but its the best and we are all pretty used to it, so its good enough.