HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from David Gallo - Comments on Planning Commission Meeting RE TSM17-0001 Menchaca, Clarissa
From: David Gallo <degallo457@gmaiLcom>
Sent: Monday,July 30, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Larry Grundmann;jacquechase@gmail.com; rockdonati@aol.com; Pjohn7179@aol.com;
Michelena, Mark; Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete;Thistlethwaite, Charles; Fossum,Tom;
Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill;Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District 4;Teeter,
Doug; Debra Lucero; Info@ritterforsupervisor.com; Mendoza, Louie;Alpert, Bruce
Subject: Comments on the July 26 Planning Commission Meeting
Attachments: Follow up letter to the Commission and Board.docx
1
To: Butte County Planning Commission—Commissioners and Staff, Butte County Board of Supervisors,
and Butte County Council
From: Dr. David Gallo,degallo@csuchico.edu,degallo457@gmail.com
RE:TSM17-0001 and the July 26 meeting with the Butte County Planning Commission
1 JULY 26, 2018 MEETING ATTHE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
1.1 CONSISTENCY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES AND THE QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
The meeting was attended by approximately 40 members of the Stanley Avenue neighborhood, 20 of
whom spoke at the meeting. In addition the Commission received a number of letters and emails, all of
which were in opposition to the proposed development. As pointed out by the commission staff,there
were a number of issues addressed in the letters and emails, as well as the presentations, but the most
frequent concern expressed was how the development is inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood and the surrounding land uses.
Yet,with the exception of one Commissioner,that topic received little or no attention in the discussion.
One of the factors to be considered is, "New projects are evaluated to determine whether they are
consistent with existing uses on surrounding properties." (Clustered Development Application Guide,
p.7) The opinion expressed universally by the residents in attendance is that the project is not
consistent with existing land uses and the character of the neighborhood. Was the inattention to the
topic by the Commissioners indicative of their placing little or no weight on this important
consideration?
When Jim Stevens made the claim near the end of the meeting that 43 percent of the lots in the
neighborhood are already on small lots,that figure was not questioned. Of course this percentage does
not hold for the Stanley Avenue neighborhood—the group that was notified of the meeting, potentially
most affected by the project, and was in attendance. There is just one lot of the size proposed for
TSM17-0001 on the entire street, and only a handful that are smaller than one acre. In addition, one of
the Commissioners dismissed the concern by stating that all the neighbors would see is the first two
houses on the cul-du-sac. That is neither true (particularly for those living on the south side of Stanley
Avenue) nor are the visuals the only measure of compatibility. Certainly one additional concern,
expressed by those in attendance, is that the 50 percent increase in traffic on Stanley Avenue—a
substandard road--will affect both the safety and the lifestyle of the neighbors.
1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY GOALS
Another topic that was brought up in both letters and presentations is that the proposed project is
inconsistent with various goals contained within the Butte County and City of Chico general plans. Again
this topic received virtually no attention during the Planning Commission meeting. The Clustered
Development Application Guide, Section C states that:
A proposed project that furthers community planning goals is more likely to be approved than
one that hinders them. Most communities have goals that encourage certain land uses or
densities within the community. Projects should have the community's support and further
2
those goals,such as avoiding"leapfrog"growth and achieving the community's desired mixture
and type of land uses. Some communities have neighborhood groups or homeowners
associations which provide comments to decision-makers about how the project does,or does
not, further the community's goals.
There are a number of goals that the proposed development does not meet and this conflict was
pointed out in more than one letter,email, and/or presentation. Apparently the Commission did not
think it was important to consider how the project fails to meet the following:
1.2.1 Butte County General Plan Goals
• Standards for the VLDR zone are intended to preserve and protect the character of existing
neighborhoods and to ensure that new residential neighborhoods provide an appropriate
transition from rural to more developed areas.
• The Zoning Ordinance is adopted to implement the Butte County General Plan and to protect
and promote the health, safety,and welfare of Butte County residents.
• Preserve the quality of life and character of existing residential neighborhoods.
• Allow for public participation in government decision-making regarding land use and
development in a manner consistent with State law.
• Preserve, protect, and enhance the fundamentally rural character of Butte County.
1.2.2 City of Chico General Plan Goals
• Promote orderly and balanced growth by working with the County and the LAFCO to establish
long-term growth boundaries for the Planning Area consistent with Plan objectives.
• Promote infill development.
• Ensure that new development is at an intensity to ensure a long-term compact urban form.
• Maintain long-term boundaries between urban and agricultural uses in the west, and urban
uses and the hillside in the east, and limit expansion north and south to maintain compact urban
form.
• Ensure consistency between the General Plan and implementing ordinances and regulations.
2 FLAWS IN THE CLUSTERED HOUSING ORDINANCE
2.1 INCONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN GOALS
The clustered housing ordinance is part of the zoning ordinance, and "...is adopted to implement the
Butte County General Plan..." and presumably the general plan goals listed in section 1.21 above. Yet,
by bypassing the more stringent review process associated with a planned development(of which it
surely is a subset) and a rezoning application, it fails to:
1. "...ensure that new residential neighborhoods provide an appropriate transition from rural to
more developed areas"
2. Honor the intention of creating the VLDR which is"...to preserve and protect the character of
existing neighborhoods..."
3. "Preserve, protect, and enhance the fundamentally rural character of Butte County."
TSM17-0001 Comments on the July 26 meeting Dr. David Gallo
3
The City of Chico General Plan uses more direct language in that it requires that there be "...consistency
betxveentheGenera| P|anandimp|mmemdngordinance»amdregu|etions." The general plan document
and the accompanying goals is the dog and the ordinances contained within are the tail, and,the tail
does not wag the dog. (https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/97-815.pdf). Thus I believe that
the cluster housing ordinance is not supported by legal precedent.
2.2 INCONSISTENCY WITH THE MODEL CLUSTER HOUSING ORDINANCE
The cluster housing ordinance as adopted by Butte County does not meet the intent of the model
cluster housing ordinance designed by the American Planning Association. In diverging from that
document it promotes a development pattern that eliminates many of the benefits associated with
cluster housing. Among the provisions in the model cluster housing ordinance are the following:
• "Except as provided in paragraph (3) below,the maximum numbers of dwelling units proposed
for a residential cluster development shall not exceed the number of dwelling units otherwise
permitted for the residential zoning district in which the parcel is located."
Paragraph 3 refers to the inclusion of affordable housing and is offered as the exclusive purpose
of the density credit.
• "Not less than [25] percent of the site shall be conveyed as common open space in the manner
provided for in Section [110] below. 110. Conveyance of Open Space (1) Common open space
provided by a residential cluster development shall be conveyed as follows: (a) To the [local
government] and accepted by it for park, open space, agricultural, or other specified use or
uses, provided that the conveyance is approved by the [local planning commission] and is in a
form approved by the [local government] law director; or(b)To a nonprofit organization whose
principal purpose is the conservation of open space, to a corporation or trust owned or to be
owned by the owners of lots or dwelling units within the residential cluster development, or to
owners of shares within a cooperative development. If such a corporation or trust is used,
nwnershipshaNpasnvviththeconveyance»ofthelotsordvveNingunits."
http://|ebcounty.oro/depts/P|ann|ng/DncWnuemts/CnnnpP|an'
AppendixIUi/LCCP App|1| 07 Resident|a|[|usterDeve|opment.pdf
The purpose of this element is to provide the residents of the development a benefit in the form or
recreational property, and this to decrease the demand for parkland elsewhere. The applicant
stated during the July 26, 2018 meeting that he will maintain ownership of the 12 acre parcel and
keep it in agriculture. Thus, the Leen proposal for cluster development does not bestow the
benefits of open space to the future residents of the prject, but rather is maintained for exclusive
benefit of the present property owner.
3 SEPTEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission must consider the neighborhood's legitimate concerns at the follow up
meeting in September. At the July meeting one of the commissioners stated that approval is automatic,
implying that our concerns are of no consequence—that since approval of a clustered housing project
does not require a rezone, it is just a matter of ironing out the details. But no ordinance can be used to
approve a land use decision that is in conflict with the County General Plain goals. We are a long way
TSM17-0001 Comments on the July 26 meeting Dr. David Gallo
4
from having to deal with only the details of what some on the Commission appear to believe is an
acceptable project.
There are alternative ways the property can be developed. And although the Commission's
responsibility does not extend to insuring the profitability of Mr. Leen's investment,there are options
that will protect the quality of the neighborhood, meet the goals of the County General Plan and yet will
still allow the developer to profit. In fact,a project compatible with the neighborhood will also
eliminate a significant portion of the developer's infrastructure costs by eliminating the need to widen
the street and to realign the intersection at Dayton Road. A smaller footprint with just six new homes
on one acre lots will not lead to an increase in traffic sufficient to justify the infrastructure investment
needed for the more extensive residential development that has been proposed. The lower density
project would also result in additional savings from less complex on-site infrastructure, in particular by
eliminating the need for a community leach field,curbs,gutters, and sidewalks. I doubt that the profit
from the additional lots proposed will offset the higher infrastructure costs implicit in the current
project configuration.
TSM17-0001. Comments on the July 26 meeting Dr. David Gallo