HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from David Gallo - TSM17-0001 Menchaca, Clarissa
From: David E Gallo <DEGallo@csuchico.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:02 PM
To: Connelly, Bill;Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District 4;Teeter, Doug
Cc: tamiritter2012@gmail.com; Debra@debralucero.us;Alpert, Bruce; Clerk of the Board
Subject: In the matter of TSM17-0001
Attachments: Response to Habib Letter.docx
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have attached the response of David Gallo and Tom Hall, appellants, to the letter submitted by Mark Habib
representing Nels Leen in the matter of TSM17-0001.
Dr. David E. Gallo
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
CSUChico
1
To: Butte County Board of Supervisors:
Bill Connelly, Supervisor District 1
Larry Wahl, Supervisor District 2
Maureen Kirk, Supervisor District 3
Steve Lambert,Supervisor District 4
Doug Teeter,Supervisor District 5
Prom: David Gallo and Tom Hall, Appellants for TSM17-0001
RE: Letter from Mark Habib representing Nels Leen
There are many positions taken by Mr. Habib in his letter that we could dispute here, but much of what
we would have to say regarding several of his points is already addressed in our appeal document.
Instead we will focus on statements made under the heading, "Discussion of'Substantial Evidence'on
the Record and Comments from the Public".
It is quite clear that Mr. Habib has little use for the opinions of the appellants and the more than 40
additional neighbors represented through our appeal. Under the heading"Summary of the Appeal" he
appears particularly concerned with,what he describes, as our seeking to, "substitute [our] non-expert
judgement for the carefully considered judgement, analysis,and formal findings of experts leading to
approval of this project as set forth in the Planning Commission's Memorandum with findings dated
September 27, 2018". Mr. Habib goes on in this vein for several additional paragraphs making it clear
that he believes the appellants are tilting at windmills manned by a bevy of experts incapable of either
error or bias.
The appellants and the other neighbors participating in the appeal process have consistently opposed
this project on the basis of(1) inconsistency with the character of the neighborhood, (2) safety issues
related to traffic and the substandard road,and (3)the fact that the project is proposed for the
agricultural side of the Greenline.
Character of the Neighborhood
In his discussion of consistency of the project with the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Habib states
that"the mere possibility of adverse impact on a few people, as opposed to the environment in general,
is not sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of an adverse effect". He goes on to define the
neighborhood as containing 400 residents on 250 lots, implying that the residents of Stanley Avenue are
a "few people" relative to the size of the neighborhood. Yet,the neighborhood we are referring to is
Stanley Avenue, not the arbitrarily broad area defined by Mr. Habib. And since virtually all of the
residents of Stanley Avenue signed a petition opposing the original proposal of 15 homes(and
supporting one of eight or fewer homes), it is clearly not a small percentage of our neighborhood that
believes our environment will be adversely affected by this project. And the alternative to seeing"two
(2) new homes along Stanley Avenue" need not be"an undeveloped lot with weeds", but rather a
development at a scale and density consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Traffic and Safety on Stanley Avenue
In the case of the traffic and safety issues raised by residents, Mr. Habib relies on the expert opinion of
the traffic engineer who prepared the traffic study of the applicant. Yet apparently neither Mr. Habib
nor the traffic engineer are familiar with the Butte County General Plan, in particular LU-P4.3.That
policy states, "Generally, higher density housing shall be located along collector and arterial streets and
within easy walking distance of public facilities." Stanley Avenue is neither an arterial nor a collector
street(nor is it within walking distance of public facilities),each of which requires a minimum lane width
of ten feet. According to the Department of Transportation a street of 16-18 feet(the width of Stanley
Avenue) is defined as a local street, with daily traffic of up to 400 vehicles. According to the applicant's
traffic engineer, current traffic on Stanley Avenue is at this upper limit, and with the proposed
development, it would reach 600 vehicles per day.
Perhaps the traffic engineer should have considered that potentially 20 four-bedroom houses will be
added to the road with perhaps 40 or more children who will bicycle,walk, and play on Stanley Avenue.
Or maybe he assumes their parents will inform their children of the dangers of playing on Stanley
Avenue and the safety risk will only be to the existing residents.
The Project is proposed for the Agricultural side of the Chico Greenline
In our appeal we cited five goals contained within the Butte county General Plan that are inconsistent
with the location and configuration of TSM17-0001. Only one of these goals was mentioned by the
"experts" who completed the "analysis" at Development Services. LU-P13.3: Recognize the Chico Area
Greenline as the boundary between the "Urban Side of the Chico Area Greenline" and the "Agricultural
Side of the Chico Area Greenline"and LU-P13.8:"Accommodate future urban and suburban growth that
occurs in the Chico area of Butte County on lands situated in the Urban Side of Chico Area Greenline".
This second policy goal was used by the infallible experts at Deveiopment Services in the Staff Report to
justify the project, saying it was proposed for the urban side of the Greenline). But, in fact,the project is
proposed for the agricultural side of the Greenline and these goals are unambiguous in defining Stanley
Avenue as an inappropriate location for a project of this size and density.
And what was not addressed by Mr. Habib includes:
California Government Code 66474 that states: "A legislative body of a city or county shall deny
approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any
of the following findings. . . (b)That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans." (Emphasis added)
And:
Butte County Clustered Housing Application form: On page 7 of the Butte County"Clustered
Development Application Guide" it states that, "A proposed project must be found to be consistent with
all the goals, policies, and actions that are set forth in the adopted general plan." 1 It does not state that
it must meet some goals or most goals, but rather,all goals. (Emphasis added)
1 https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/10/Docs/PLG/PLG-
15_Cl ustered%20 Devel o p m e nt%20Appl i cati o n%20G u id e.pdf