CCP 11-27-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Ilrainagc Eascmcnt Issues The survey document filed as part ofthc Application indicates the cxistencc of a 30-11 wide east-west drainage easement, supposedly "15 n eaeh side of stonn sewer", approximately I I ft of whose width would be along the south bonier of my property, including a portion of my garagc. This is incorrect. The drainage casement in rcality is only 8 n in width, along the northern edge of the Applicant's property. per the n:corded casement document dated June 23, 1958, Contrary to the survey drawing, thcre is no drainage easemcnt on my property, and I must take exception to the City accepting any document which attempts to create a new encumbrance on my property. Sit(. Dninage Drainaee to Fairvicw Avenuc . _1.______. _ ______. _ _ _____ h \\<1S conceded at the October 4 meeting that the proposed water garden will not, as originally daimed, handle all new site runoff caused by the impervious arcas cstablished tlY the proposed house, garage, and driveway. Instead of being directed to the on-site iVall.,T garden, a significant portion of the site runoffwill flow westward, into Fairview Avenue. This will intensify the overflow situation that exists at the Fairview A venue/Grant Road intersection, where my neighbor (3449 Lake Johanna Boulevard) has . reported experiencing storm water tlowing over the curb and aeross their property "7 inches deep" during the Septemba 2005 storm due to the existing strect drainage system's inadequacy. Adding more loading to an inadequate drainage system appears inadvisable and illogical, as it aggravates the plight of the existing rcsidents, Howcvcr, if the City elccts to permit this type ofdrainagc arrangement, I would ask and expect that I be allowed a similar amount of incremental runoff into Fairview A venue when I construct my new house and garage next ycar. This will be ofinlcrest because my existing driveway is mostly not paved, whereas the City requires that nc\v driveways havc hard surl:1cing. p(::sign ofW.~!1er Q~lnJg} The wakr garden \vas originally claimed to bc capable of addressing a1\ the site's new runoff The materials on the City's website sho\\!O the outline of" the \vater garden and elevations, but do not show an "undcrdrain"' that is shown on the more-detailed drawings available at the October 4 meeting. This "underdrain" is a 4" pipe leading to the existing storm sewer. Any water garden or this design is ohviously just window dressing, and not a serious water management feature_ .