Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from Daniel Gonzales - Nels Leen Tentative Subdivision Map TSM 17-0001 Menchaca, Clarissa Subject: FW: FW RE: BCS correspondence Attachments: 2018-07-24-2018 Daniel Gonzales re Nels Leen Subdivision Map TS,pdf From: Bennett, Robin Sent:Tuesday,July 24, 2018 12:46 PM To: Menchaca, Clarissaqrnenchaca.&Lutte qLit qgL _y,.qgl>; Snyder, Ashley<a_n.sri..Y.d!t[��buttecounly.Liot> Cc: McCracken, Shari<SMcCracl(��n @bU tecoun�Ly net> Subject: BGS correspondence Please find a letter to the EGOS from Daniel Gonzales regarding the Nels, Leen Subdivision Map TSM 17-0001. Thank you, ROA4Z r ],,xvcfahw llssl�,Ianl (53'0) 872-6304 r6i .11et I?wte ("oil nilysupeorl.Sor.S Offico Supervisor 0ou", 7,ceier. I)IMU'd 747 hs'fluitt 1?oud Poradise. �.,A 9-)969 Project Name --- Nels Leen Tentative Subdivision Map, File # TSM17-0001 To: Butte County Planning Division: Attention - Mark Michelena CC: Tim Snellings, Director AND Butte County Planninq Commsioners: Butte County Board of Supervisors: Larrry Grundman Bill Connelly Jacquelyn Chase Larry Wahl Rocky Donati Maureen Kirk Phil John Steve Lambert Doug Teeter This letter is submitted as comment to the NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for Tentative Subdivision Map TSM17-0001. According to the Notice and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISIMND), the proposed subdivsion includes 21 units and will be served by Stanley Ave. and a proposed cul-de-sac. I am a resident of Stanley Ave. and have several concerns with this proposal and subdivision: 1. The proposed subdivision is ROW housing and ROW housing is not consistent with the spirit and intent of clustered housing concepts outlined in Butte County Code. The project exists in the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) zone and the minimum permitted parcel size in the VLDR is 1 acre. To assuage opposition to the proposed subdivision, the IS/MND cites, Chapter 24, Article l 1, Division 8 of Butte County Code, which allows for Clusterered Developments in the VLDR. The ISIMND fails to disclose Clvstere_red Development Concepts, which are cited in Figure 24-85-1 (attached) of Butte County Code, Specific objectives of the provision for Clustered Development are not discussed in any detail. From 24-85 Purpose, I want to know and/or have publicly addressed: B. Preservation of WHAT? C. ROW housing is not an innovative housing concept D. What natural resource? E. This whole proposal CONFLICTS with neighborhood quality of life F. What recreational oppurtunities are proposed? How does the neighborhood access this space? Also, if Lot A is potentially used for agriculture, doesn't this place the new houses within the 300' agricultural buffer? 2. The proposed housing units will exist within an area —5.6 acre (including the cul-de-sac); therefore, the density should be 3.57 UNITS/acre with 20 houses_ Or more, if secondary units are built; which is allowed by the ISIMND pg. 58 (Setting:). The enitire project is —18.5 acres on two parcels (APN: 039-370-019 & 039-090-061) and the density is calculated at 1.'13 lots/acres (more than VLRD zoning); (ISIMND, pg. 10). The actual footprint for the proposed parcels with new houses is on only --5.6 acres and nearly all are situated within the smaller APN: 039-370-019 lot_ Lot A (currently APN: 039-090-061 minus, the —1.5 acres for lots#10 thru#13) only benefits the proposed subdivision as a waste water disposal area and otherwise has a narrow access point for the proposed residential area of the subdivision. I Project Name — Nels Leen Tentative Subdivision Map, File # TSM17-0001 3. The 30' access easement to Lot A not only encumbers the owners of the lots to the west(APN 039-370- 068 and 039-370-169) of the subdivsion, but also suspiciously resembles a future road; perhaps to service additonal units to be built on Lot A. Lot A would be a designated dedicated open sace; what assurance does the neighborhood have that future development will not occur at this location? Future Land Use Proposals could negate any deed. 4. Any septic system within 100' of Comanche Creek, an estabished riparian area and water source for agriculture, is unacceptable. A paltry 100' setback is a concern; recall the entire Marian-Diamond area is serviced by Cal Water because of groundwater contamination from a site at least 1.5 to 2.0 miles away. The waste water disposal area is within 100' of a water way. The Notice of Intent states the project 'proposes a community waste water system, with individual septic systems and a community wastewater area", yet there are several instances in the IS/MND that contradict this statement and suggest future houses within the proposed subdivision will be serviced by a_single septic system, not individual_systems (pages 11,.43_50., and.65) 5. Recent projects are consistent with the neighborhood character. The proposed subdivision, with it's ROW housing,is NOT in step with the character of the neighborhood. Recent developments off Walnut Tree Lane (east and adjacent to the proposed project site) and off Old Chico Way (-0.5 miles north-east of the proposed project site,and within the general neighborhood) are consistent with VLDR zoning. Side Note:The applicant would likely realize little to no opposition to future subdivision proposals if they are modeled after the two deveopments mentioned above, which pay respect to: • VLDR zoning and 1 unit per acre • 300' agricutural buffer 6. What assurance do the residents of Stanley Ave. have that full road upgrades will occur? The way the ISIMND reads on pg. 62, the applicant "might" pay a proportionate cost, or "might" pay a fee; and the County "might" upgrade Stanley Ave. There has been no communication from the County with a commitment to improve Stanley Ave. Prior to anyconstruction activities the county should develop a comprehensive roadway improvement plan for Stanley Ave. (to include speed bumps), and make needed improvements BEFORE any construction activities commence at the proposed subdivision. This goes for any future proposals at the project site as well. Additionally, Butte County Senior Planner Mark Michena disregarded written and oral comments reagrding traffic safety along Stanley Ave. at the public hearing held March 23rd, 2017 for last year's TSM16-0002. During comment period, 1 submitted a letter to the Planning Division citing safety concerns with regards to the additional traffic which would have been generated by the TSM16-0002 project. In my letter I mentioned the poor condition of Stanley Ave. and the need for improvement. Also, during the public hearing I provided pictures of the Stanley Ave. roadway as factual evidence demonstrating potholes, flooding and the overall poor conditions. Interestingly now, TSM17-0001 has a new Traffic Impact Study (which contains inaccurate and questionable information). IS/MND states on pg. 62 "that the applicant will provide a proportionate cost sharing contribution for widening of the pavement section on Stanley Avenue to a 20 foot width from Dayton Road to the project entry point. If the applicant is required to physically construct widening improvements in a dollar amount equal to the 2 Project Name — Nels Leen Tentative Subdivision Map, File # TSM17-0001 proportionate share, in lieu of paying the fee, the traffic study recommends that the widening begin at Dayton Road and move east to the extent possible with the fee amount." To the extent possible? This does not ensure any upgrades will be made to Stanley Ave. The Traffic Impact Study erroneously states the proposed cul-de-sac is less than 1500 ft. from Dayton Rd. According to Google Earth Pro, and TWO separate measurements taken with a measuring wheel; the distance exceeds 1500 ft. and therefore the width of the road should be 22 ft. according to AASHTO Exhibit 5-5. M Ruler• "nn immtJne ! Path. Polygon Garde 3D path 3D, v�. e Measure the distance betvreen two poinig ort the ground } Map Length: 1,54202 feet:.:. ._.:.._. ` Ground Len 1,542.04 ing,. grees —Mouse Navt anon Save Clear t r A • 4 From pq 11 of the ©RAFT Traffic Impact Study for Leen Subdivision ROADWAY WIDTH Stanley Avenue has a relatively narrow paved width (16 feet at the narrowest but typically 17 to 18 feet) this is less than the 20 foot roadway width recommended in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2004) published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The existing roadway is also narrower than Butte County standards for new construction within the County. Project Name — Nels Leen Tentative Subdivision Map, File #TSM17-0001 The table on pg. 11 of the Traffic Impact Study shows the recommended minimum width for traveled ways for rural cross-sections as set forth by AASHTO. This is erroneously highlighted as 20', when it should reflect 22,' according to the table for the traveled way of 1500 to 2000 ft. Minimum width of traveled way(ft)for specified design volume(veh/da ) Design Speed under o 1500 to over (mph) 400 2000 2E]00 Correct Length 15 18 20 20 22 20 z8 2024 25 18 _ rye` 22 .� �� � Correct Width 30 18 20 24 40 is 20 22 24 45 20 22 22 24 s0 20 22 22 24 55 22 22 24 24 60 22 22 24 24 Width of graded shoulder on each side of the road(ft) All Speeds 2 S 6 S 7. Mr. Leen is holding a grudge and trying to punish the neighborhood with this ROW housing proposal (TSM17-0001) for opposing his TSM16-0002 proposal and not inviting his family to neighborhood functions. Last year the applicant proposed subdivision TSM16-0002, this was not approved, as the Planning Commision decided the 300' agricultural buffer should be honored. During, or around, the comment period Mr. Leen was offered recommendations from concerned neighbors for his proposed development. In an email response Mr. Leen, not only petulantly disregarded the recommendations, subsequently lashed out at the entire neighborhood citing his family was not invited to neighborhood functions and get togethers. I respectfully submit to the Butte County Planning Commision that this project not be appoved for the reasons and concerns stated above in bola. Also, I opinion that at minimum, the applicant needs to consult with quality development firms who can create proposals that meets the character of the neighborhood. This concept is relatively easy, as demonstrated by previous developers who have built new, respectful, housing in the area (Old Chico Way and Walnut Tree Lane). I expect the Planning Division take serious my concerns and any other concerns received for this project. I also request that any future submission for an IS/MND, at this site, be consistent with the VLDR zoning, the neighborhood character, honor the 300' agricultural buffer and offer clear mititgation to increased traffic along Stanley Ave. Sincerely, Daniel Gonzales (1187 Stanley Ave.) Project Dame — Nels Leen Tentative Subdivision Map, File # TSM17-0001 Figure 24-85-1 Butte County Code .. `' S"'-; Y '^:� .'"' � •- ,� ', Open SPa[d rl-- a It Conventional Subdivision Clustered Subdivision - 30 acre site - 30 acre site - 18 1-acre residential parcels - 23 7,500 sq.ft. residential parcels - 20% land dedicated for roads - 10% land dedicated for roads - 0.75 units per acre - 0.85 units per acre - No dedicated open space - 15 acres (75%) dedicated open space 5 yzt T� y t X 09 5 9 �vf 4 O LO m t O �Z +C, La �N� pg o CO 671-0 `•..} d 4 {kE k z f a .03 Key] n � 1