HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/4/2023 Item 6a, Rowley
Sandra Rowley <
To:City Council
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:Subject: Item 6a, 841 Patricia Drive Appeal
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Mayor Stewart and Members of the Council,
There are two concerns I would like to share with you - the mis-characterization of the creek that is on the property and
the care of an aging and/or infirm parent.
The letter from Thomas D. Green of Adamski, Moroski, Madden, Cumberland & Green LLP, mis-named and mis-
characterized the creek as a drainage ditch. According to the legal dictionaries I consulted, a drainage ditch is a man-
made structure. A creek, however, is a natural occurrence. The creek on this property is part of an above-ground and
underground creek system in this area of town, and it is part of a well-used wildlife corridor.
Regarding the care of an aging and/or infirm parent, having been in the position of the applicant as the adult child of such
a parent, there are several things I learned. The parent needs to be in a location where he/she can routinely interact with
others, where he/she can feel needed and safe with someone close by, i.e., within hearing distance, in case of a fall or
other medical or non-medical need.
In addition, relocating a parent involves separating them from people and places with which they are familiar. This is
traumatic and can result in the parent feeling isolated and depressed. They need to be around people they know, people
with whom they can converse daily, people who have been part of their lives and with whom they can share common
memories of people and places.
An ADU, especially if it may at some time house an aging parent, should be near or attached to the main house. The size
of the western portion of the property seems more than adequate to accommodate construction of the ADU at that
location.
An ADU is “by right;” everyone knows that. There are ADU’s elsewhere in that neighborhood. The ADU is not the
problem; damage to the creek/wildlife corridor during construction of the dwelling and the bridge to access it is the
problem.
In the letter, included in the packet, Brian Leveille states, “The decision making body may reverse my decision to prepare
a Mitigated Negative Declaration or may add or delete mitigation measures based on their review of the project and public
comment received at the public hearing.”
Recommend that you deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
P.S. I support Mr. Schmidt’s recommendation and hope you will direct staff to place a conservation open space easement
on the eastern portion of the property prior to issuance of a construction permit so as to continue protection of the
creek/wildlife corridor.
1