HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from David Gallo - TSM17-0001 Menchaca, Clarissa
From: David Gallo <degallo457@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 12:04 PM
To: Larry Grundmann;Jacquelyn Chase; rockdonati@aol.com; pjohn7179@aol.com;
Michelena, Mark;tsnellings@buttecounty.xn--net-to0a; Calarco, Pete;Thistlethwaite,
Charles; Clerk of the Board;Connelly, Bill;Wahl, Larry; MKirk@buttecounty.xn--net-to0a;
BOS District 4; Teeter, Doug;AGCommisioner@aol.com; Mendoza, Louie;
CountyCounsel@aoicom; balpert@buttecounty.xn--net-to0a; Debra Lucero; Fossum,
Tom; Boyd, Chris;tamiritter2012@gmail.com
Subject: TSM 17-0001
To: Butte County Planning Commission, Planning Commission Staff,County Counsel, and Stanley Avenue Neighborhood
RE:TSM17-0001 as a clustered development project
From: Dr. David Gallo
degallo@csuchico.edu; degallo457@gmail.com
I believe that the project application TSM117-0001 must be denied based on California Code 66474 and the conditions
for approval included in the Butte County clustered housing ordinance contained in the application form. I will address
these legal issues in a later email. The question that I want to address here is whether the proposed project adheres to
the spirit and purpose of allowing clustered housing.
1. Conservation of Resources-- Permitting clustered housing on the five or six acres of the Leen property does
not conserve any resources that are not already conserved by application of the county's 300 foot agricultural
setback rule.
2. Innovative Design—One purpose of the County ordinance is to, "provide an incentive to create quality
residential developments..." and to "facilitate innovative development concepts that achieve greater
consistency with the Butte County General Plan". There is nothing innovative about a long cul-de-sac lined on
both sides with homes. The example of a 30-acre clustered housing project contained within the county's
presentation of the clustered housing ordinance looks nothing like the tentative parcel map submitted with the
application for TSM17-0001.
3. Contact with the Open Space—The County ordinance states that, "to the extent possible, all residential
parcels shall have physical or visual contact with permanent open space to facilitate surveillance,foster routine
maintenance, and improve the quality of life for project residents through the integration of home sites into a
permanent open space setting." Clearly the TSM17-0001 project design does not meet this condition, and thus
the spirit of the ordinance since there will be little connection between the housing units and the open space.
4. Use of the Open Space—It was proposed by the applicant at the July 26 meeting that he would maintain
ownership of the 12 acre parcel (Lot A) and return it to agricultural use, The implication is that the open space
would not be available to the lot owners for recreational use.A stated purpose of the County's clustered
housing ordinance is to, "provide increased open space which may include active and passive recreation
features that reduce demand for public park land." The project design offers neither active nor passive
recreational use of the open space.
5. Ownership of the Open Space—The model ordinance assembled by the American Planning Association
states that, "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
1
units within the residential cluster development, or to owners of shares within a cooperative development. If
such a corporation or trust is used,ownership shall pass with the conveyances of the lots or dwelling units."
2