May 13, 2008 — The Susanville City Council recently approved two new measures that should keep the ball rolling for the construction of a new 10-unit multi-family development on the east side of Hall Street near Highway 139. As described in the environmental checklist approved by Community Development Director Bill Nebeker, the site will stretch across three connected lots, which altogether constitutes about a half an acre. The 10-unit housing development will be split into three structures, with paved parking and landscaping provided in the front. The parking lot will connect to Hall Street. A recreation area will be put in the front yard of the complex.

The project description also mentioned how “these units are being designed for visiting medical personnel for the local hospital and other medical service providers.”

Nebeker said the city planning commission adopted a resolution which recommended the city council amend the general plan land use Map to allow for the multifamily development during a hearing at its regular meeting on April 8. The previous general plan listing for three lots was zoned as R-3A, zoned for duplex and triplex residential areas, whereas the new designation has it now listed as R-4, a multi-family residential zone, generally meant for apartments.

Nebeker also mentioned how the planning commission found that the amendment and rezone was in the public’s interest, as it provides much needed alternate housing choices for city residents.

Nebeker also said in his presentation that if constructed, the 7,600 square feet project would generate roughly $20,345 in mitigation fees for the city, plus an unknown amount of additional revenue with the project’s increased property taxes.

A public hearing was held during the Wednesday, April 16 meeting of the city council about the proposed amendment and declaration. During the hearing, neighboring homeowner Robert Borders told both Kirack and the city council how he was concerned about the project’s impact on drainage, health and safety issues. He simply told the council he wanted to make sure those issues were addressed at the appropriate time. City Attorney Peter Talia told the council he researched Border’s issues and concluded that it was not a city issue, because Border’s property was located in a county zoning area.

Councilmember Kurt Bonham reminded Kirack at the May 7 meeting to do as much as he could to accommodate the neighbors of the project.

“The neighbors have made a point that there are animals in close proximity to the property,” Bonham said. “Is there anyway you can accommodate in the lease agreement so your tenants are fully aware that the animals are there so we don’t have to deal with you in another year?”

Kirack responded that he hasn’t seen any animals in the pasture behind the property since he bought the property, but he said he would handle it appropriately.

Officially, the council adopted Resolution 08-4368 and Ordinance 08-0956, which are a general plan amendment rezone and a negative declaration, respectively.

Rezoning a property is essentially the process of allowing it to function as something other than what it was originally zoned for, such as an industrial zone for warehouses being rezoned to a commercial zone, which would be occupied by a store.

The adoption of the negative declaration essentially means the environmental impact study conducted for the project site found nothing that would impact the environment.

According to the California Environmental Quality Act, “a decision-making body can adopt the negative declaration only if it finds there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.”