HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from David Gallo – Proposed Open Space Management Plan for TSM17-0001 Schuman, Amy
From: Menchaca, Clarissa
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 9:16 AM
To: Schuman, Amy
Subject: FW: Open Space Management Plan for TSM17-0001
Attachments: Open Space Management Plan analysis Dec 2018.docx
Correspondence.
Cl cw ov Mucha ccv
Associate Clerk of the Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive,Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.33081 F: 530.538.7120
Twitter 1 Facebook 1 YouTube I Pinterest
From: David E Gallo<DEGaIlo@csuchico.edu>
Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:54 AM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>; Connelly, Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Wahl, Larry
<LWahl@buttecounty.net>; Kirk, Maureen<MKirk@buttecounty.net>; BOS District 4<District4@buttecounty.net>;
Teeter, Doug<DTeeter@buttecounty.net>
Cc: Icgrundmann@gmail.com;jacquechase@gmail.com; rockdonati@aol.com; pjohn7179@aol.com; Michelena, Mark
<MMichelena@buttecounty.net>; Snellings,Tim <TSnellings@buttecounty.net>;Calarco, Pete
<PCalarco@buttecounty.net>;Thistlethwaite, Charles<cthistlethwaite@buttecounty.net>; Mendoza, Louie
<LMendoza@buttecounty.net>;Alpert, Bruce<BAlpert@buttecounty.net>; Debra@debralucero.us; Fossum,Tom
<TFossum@buttecounty.net>;tamiritter2012@gmail.com
Subject: Open Space Management Plan for TSM17-0001
Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors,
The attached file presents my view on the proposed Open Space Management Plan for TSM 17-0001. My view
is that it is not consistent with the purpose of approving development under the Clustered Housing
Ordinance.
Dr. David E. Gallo
Resident of Stanley Avenue
1
To: Butte County Board of Supervisors:
From: David Gallo, Resident of Stanley Avenue
Subject: Board of Supervisor agenda item scheduled for December 11,2018, regarding Stanley Avenue
development. (TSM17-0001)
Open Space Management Plan
The intent of the Clustered Housing Ordinance is to provide public benefits in the form of open space.
The function of that preserved open space is to accomplish one of three goals listed under"Purpose" in
the ordinance:
Preservation of environmentally sensitive areas(e.g., wetlands and special-status species
habitat), productive agricultural and timber lands, and important cultural and scenic resources;
Provide permanent open space for a variety of natural resource purposes;
Provide increased open space which may include active and passive recreation features that
reduce demand for public park land
The Leen proposal for managing the project's open space meets none of these goals or purposes. The
proposal is to simply fence the current weed growth and to prevent the potential fire hazard from
impacting adjacent property owners. So essentially the "open space" is a tool that was used to justify
concentrating the 18 homes onto six acres. Now that it has served its primary purpose it is to be largely
abandoned in a manner that provides no benefit to the new residents or to the county as a whole.
At the September 27 Board of Supervisor's meeting the applicant's attorney asked whether the
neighbors would prefer 21 homes on the property or a field full of weeds. He didn't mention the option
of 18 homes and a field full of weeds.
Agricultural Uses
Twelve acres of prime agricultural land is capable of producing significant income with any number of
crops? Gross income for 12 acres of grapes would be$35,000,for Walnuts,just under$40,000, and for
almonds,$72,000. With a local output multiplier of approximately 1.3,the amount of county economic
activity lost by keeping those 12 acres out of production ranges from $46,000 to$94,000.
The land could potentially generate even more income if it were planted in a higher value crop such as
strawberries(or double-cropped with both a winter and a summer crop). Using the statewide average
yield per acre the annual income from a strawberry crop would be$550,000 with a total impact on
annual Butte County economic activity of$715,000.2
Not only has TSM17-0001 taken land out of agriculture, it may have permantly removed it from that use
by reducing the amount of land available. The area designated for the community leach field cannot be
farmed,so that amount of land potentially available for cultivation is reduced below the 10-acre
threshold for statewide mapping of agricultural lands.3 It also brings the acreage below that necessary
1 http://www.consry.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/index.htm
2 https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/PDFs/2016Report.pdf
https://www.conservation.ca.Rov/dIrp/fmmp
for economic viability,and according to some studies,the amount of land necessary to support a farm
family where the farm is producing high value crops.' In addition, 10 acres is the minimum farm size for
acquiring Williamson Act protections.5
By converting farmland to non-agricultural uses,there is possibly a significant impact on the
environment, particularly where there is no reason to do so.
"According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on
the environment if the project would:AG-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use."6 Development
Services did not address this issue in the Staff Report, perhaps because at that time,the applicant
indicated his intention to continue to farm Lot A.
Preservation of Natural Resources
Prior to conversion to agricultural uses,the land in on the deep soils of the west side of Chico was
largely oak forest. That is evidenced by the mature oaks just west of the Leen property and within the
riparian corridor along Comanche Creek. Preservation of natural habitat first requires creation of that
natural habitat. The weed growth on Lot A is not natural habitat, but what grows following the
abandonment of agricultural uses. Unfortunately, among those weeds are some invasive species
(including bull thistle)that will not be confined to the property through the proposed management plan.
The proper solution is to restore the property to one of its former uses—active cultivation or habitat
restoration. The latter would also serve to provide an attractive environment for passive recreation
including walking trails (similar to the Sacramento River Park at the west end of Sacramento Avenue).
Restoration of the oak forest could also be on just a part of the land with some of the land devoted to
community gardens accessible exclusively for the new residents.
Active and Passive Recreation
The proposed Open Space Management Plan offers no access for the new residents of the Leen
development. Yet,there are any number of passive recreational uses that would simultaneously meet
environmental preservation goals and provide the public benefits envisioned by the clustered housing
ordinance. There is nothing in the management plan that will "reduce the demand for public park land".
Some combination of restored habitat and community garden space would meet that purpose of the
ordinance,while limiting access to new residents would provide the security for both the environment
and the new residents.
4 https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/189882/2/290 klonsky.pdf
https://h u m bol dtgov.o rg/Docu m entCente r/View/1428/Agri cu Itu ra I-Resources-and-Po l icies-Fu l l-R a port-
PDF?bidld=
5 https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Sec-05-02-Agricultural-Fresno-MEIR.pdf
6 https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1102/Ch-05-02-AG?bidld=
Purpose of Open Space in the Clustered Housing Ordinance vs minimizing the Cost to the Applicant
in order to uphold the intent and purpose of the Clustered Housing Ordinance the Board of Supervisors
must reject the applicant's current Open Space Management Plan. Presentations at the September 27
board meeting pointed out that the proposed development does not meet the preferred condition that
the open space be integrated with the residences and in visual contact with all lots. Now the applicant
has come back with a management proposal that ignores all of the listed purposes of creating the open
space.
It is apparent that the applicant has chosen the option of minimizing the cost of managing the open
space, but in direct contradiction to the stated purpose of the ordinance. The land is being removed
from agricultural production, imposing costs on the county economy, without providing mitigation
either in the form of restored and protected habitat or as a source of recreation that will reduce the
demand for parkland elsewhere in the area.
Cc: Bill Connelly, Supervisor District 1
Larry Wahl,Supervisor District 2
Maureen Kirk, Supervisor District 3
Steve Lambert, Superior District 4
Doug Teeter,Supervisor District 5
Other email recipients
Icgrundmann@gmail.com;
iacci uechase @gma il.com;
rockdonati@aol.com;
piohn7179@aol.com;
mmichelenapbuttecounty.net;
tsnellings@buttecounty.net;
PCalarco@buttecounty.net;
cthistlethwaite@buttecounty.net;
LMendoza@buttecounty.net;
balpert@buttecounty.net;
Debra@debralucero.us;
tfo ss u m @ b utte co u nty.n et;
tamiritter2012@gmail.com