The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEmail from George Sipple - TSM 17-0001 Menchaca, Clarissa From: George Sipple <gsipple@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 24, 2018 4:19 PM To: Icgrundmann@gmail.com;jacquechase@gmail.com; rockdonati@aol.com; Pjohn7179 @aol.com; Michelena, Mark; Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete;Thistlethwaite, Charles; Fossum,Tom; cboyd@fire.ca.gov; 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: TSM 17-0001 Attachments: TSM17-0001.pdf 1 7/11/18 To Whom It May Concern: My name is George Sipple, and this letter is in reference to TSM17-0001. The developer started out this project as TSM16-0002 . It was rejected 3 to 1 by the Planning Commission, then appealed and rejected again 4 to 1 by the County Board of Supervisors.The only dissenting vote was cast by a Supervisor that was summarily voted out of office in an upset. The developer bought this property thinking that he could subvert the rules, and no one would be the wiser. As shown in exhibit 1,the property was listed as being in Durham not Chico. Now he is trying to push through a cluster development that will be a blight to the neighborhood and destroy its character. When the neighbors proposed a kinder alternative, he responded with an angry email, see exhibit 2. When Mr. Michelena was asked if we could go a look at any cluster developments,we were informed that there no specific projects in Butte County,see exhibit 3. The developer was asked to perform a complete traffic study by public works, and submitted a small portion of what was asked of him,see exhibit 4. An environmental impact study was performed several years ago, and in my opinion was substandard.As you can see in exhibit 5,there are many large elderberry bushes(?),that are not noted,and a 5 gallon oil can left by the pump that filled with the winter rain, causing the oil to run out in the soil.All of these pictures were taken without stepping on the property, I can only imagine what exists on the property. I request a more comprehensive study be done before this project is allowed to go forward. The ag buffer to the active farming to the east and north of the property has been reduced from 80 feet without an approved vegetative buffer to 50 feet. Note that the only change is that more homes will be affected. I am not sure who would approve a vegetative buffer,as the lack of any expert on the County level was apparent during the last proceedings. In my opinion the developer should be sent back to the drawing board in order to come back with something more suitable for the neighborhood.As your general plan states,VLDR is to provide a smooth transition from rural to city. He should further complete a traffic study,and be held financially responsible for all improvements that need to be done. Butte County is broke and is in no way able to pay for this. Thank you, George Sipple 1336 Stanley Avenue Chico, CA 95928 Exhibit 1 Original application from county records for subdivision. Controaor Search Results IS PREAP76-0007 039.090.061 16LO76PLIT STAN1.EYAVE - DURHAM ?REAPPLICATION TSM ram 1 CL-051380 26-050-050 38RH Stanley Dr. EH CLEARANCE LOO Shoppi no Cart I page 2 of 2 Exhibit Z Letter to County suggesting possible changes to cluster. 10/9/2017 To Whom It May Concern: After having a neighborhood meeting, and discussing project with key neighbors, this is what we came up with that would be supported by most involved. I am not an engineer so the drawing submitted is not to any type of scale,just an idea. Reason to support smaller cluster: 1. More compatible with neighborhood. 2. Require less money spent on infrastructure to lots, gas, electric, water, size of ]each field. 3. Less money spent to improve Stanley Ave for higher traffic. 4. Lots and homes worth more money due to park setting and larger lots offering more privacy. 5. Revenue of money received from sale of land to East, which would add no value to lots. Thank you, George Sipple An idea for proposed project w 7 i 1 9 73-.. This land to be sold at.apprdtecd value to _ _.-%• 1€ Taus land to be used fn ccptie or new lots.Titis.cun be watcrcd existing any• g of IId oi[lttt lots that Will allow it to be ... - well creating a park like.tur the HOA, ac e6sed This piece of land Will add.no _ Will be fenced to;keep anyone from W31'l1E to proposed prnject'Ind drily add to. :.harm;duo to�.Uler attractive nuLSuneo, ., the-.HOA ex0ense - .(_:caumd.by comrnapChc Email Response from Developer We don't need any help from you or any other Stanley neighbor in regards to subdivision design. You neighbors have never had our best interest in mind. You conveniently leave us out of ALL of your neighborhood meetings, potlucks etc.( I don't think we would come anyway, knowing how you neighbors feel towards our family) We were told when we purchased the property that all the neighbors were so wonderful and friendly. Well, maybe in your click, but none of that hospitality has been shown or extended to our family Exhibit 3 Email from Mr. Michelena regarding other clusters to see. Good Afternoon George. There are no specific clustered development projects in Butte County that this project is comparable to. The project will create residential lot sizes are roughly 0.2 acres,with one being 0.75 acres. The development portion would look similar to other residential development on parcels sizes around 0.2 acres. The remaining open space area (Lot A)will be approximately 12 acres. Exhibit 4 What the county requested for a traffic study. BUTTE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE September 4,2017 PRED17-0002-Leen APN: 039-370-019&039-090-061 A proposed Clustered Development Tentative Subdivision Map. Divide the two parcels 18.5 acres into 21 lots(approximately 8,500 sgfi to 32,700 sgft)and open space lot(12.02 acres). The parcel is developed with an existing residence. The parcels are accessed of Stanley Avenue. Departments Comments Planning Land Use,Zoning,&Permitting • Zoning: V LDR(Very Low Density Residential--1-acre minimum). • Project will need to be in compliance with Chapter 24,Article 18(Clustered Development)requirements. . Proposed open space 10L(64%)orproject site size(18.5 acres). • 'ncc Very Low Density Residential"Lone allows one dwelling per acre. Under the Clustered Development requirements,irmore than 50%and less than 70%is dedicated open space area,and additional 15%residential density intensive is permitted. With this 15%residential density,the Clustered Development project allowed number of units is 18.5 acres x 1.15 dufac=21.275,rounding down,21 lots are allowed. . Will need to provide an Open Space Maintenance Plan(SCC Section 24-90.13) • Open space area shal I be guaranteed in perpetuity using one of the options under BCC Section 24-90.D. For additional information regarding these requirements,please contact Mark Michelena Senior Planner at 530 538-7376/mmichelenaabuttecountynet. Public Works . Creation of a Permanent Road Division(PRD)for streets,drainage,lighting . Provide street sections as part of the application • Otter for dedication the proposed cul-de-sac • Hire a traffic engineer and prepare a traffic analysiststudy. The analysWtraffic study should analyze the entire traffic for the surrounding area(Stanley Avenue,Marian Avenue,Orchard Way,Diamond Avenue&Old Chico Way. Traffic analysisrstudy should identify what impacts are for traffic improvements and the project's fair share of the costs. For additional information regarding these requirements,please contact: Tom Fossum,Land Development Deputy Director 530 538-7266 Afossu m(Whuttecounty.net Environmental . This area is outside the Chico Urban Nitrate Prohibition Area as per Order Y 90-126 CVRWQCB Health The traffic study that was done. One week day on Stanley, and Dayton intersection only. TrAc Impact Study Leen Subdivision tebruary 20,2018 INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of a Traffic Impact Study completed to assess the potential impacts on local roadways and intersections associated with development of the Leen Subdivision project.This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared to describe existing traffic conditions,quantify traffic volumes generated by the proposed project,identify potential impacts on all modes of travel,document fundings,and make recommendations to mitigate impacts,if any are found. h Study Area and Evaluated Scenarios The project is generally located on Stanley Avenue east of the Dayton Road/Stanley A enue intersection in Butte County,CA.The following intersections and roadway aeg»eegwere analyzedlbased on scoping discussions and correspondence with Butte County staff: • Dayton Road/Stanley Avenue • Stanley Avenue/Street A(project access) • Stanley Avenue roadway segment—Dayton Road to the project site The locations of these intersections and the study roadway segment are shown on Figur:1 and the project site plan is provided in Figure 2. This study includes analysis of both the weekday AM and PM peak hours as these are the periods of time in which peak traffic conditions are anticipated to occur.The evaluated development 5 enaries are: • Existing Conditions(no project) i • Existing Plus Project Conditions f t{+ tisa 9 } 6 � lowI nA r s h 8 .Jn. liijj j�. Y1("r}7'�'` r�� 'S4' aY 'a ai� r�/ '}1 , - 1FAy►� �S-