HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from Mark Habib on behalf of Nels Leen - TSM17-0001 Clarissa
From: Mark Habib <mhabib@peterslawchico.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:52 PM
To: Clerk of the Board
Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete; Michelena, Mark; SneU|imgs, Tim;
sknow|es@chiooVawyerzonTus4|eens8Daoicnm;jstevens@northstareng.com; Mark
Habib
Subject: FW: Tentative Subdivision Map Application—TSM17-0001 (Leen)
Attachments: Letter BC'BOD_10-23-18.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Clerk: Please see the attached correspondence being sent on behalf of Mr. Nels Leen, for inciusion in the materiais
presented to the Board for the hearing on November 6, 2018. Thank you for your assistance. Mark Habib
Mark A. Habib
Peters, Habib, McKenna,
]uhV-Rhodes & Cardoza
414SaVernStreet/ P.0. Box 3509
Chico, CA 95927
Office: 530.342.3593 Cell: (530): 520-8780
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding,this e-mail without the express permission
of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are nottbc intended recipient of this message and/orutuuhoocnts, please notify
the sender and destroy this message immediately.
From:Toni Campbell
Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:43 PM
To: Mark Habib <mhabib@peterslawchico.com>
Subject:Tentative Subdivision Map Application—TSM17-0001 (Leen)
PETERS HABIB McKENNA
JUHL-RHODES &CARDOZA LLP
ATTORNEYS Al LAW
MARK A. HABIB GUY R. KENNEDY (1871•1933)
JAMES P. M`KENNA JEROME D. PETERS (1891.1953)
LIA M. JUHL-RHODES JEROME D. PETERS, JR. (19142000)
ANTHONY R. CARDOZA
DAVID H. RUSH (RETIRED)
October 23, 2018
SENT VIA EMAIL
Clerk of the Butte County Board of Supervisors
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200
Oroville, California 95965
Email: ClerkoflheBoard@ButteCounty.net
ButteCounty.net
Bill Connelly, Supervisor Steve Lambert, Supervisor
District 1 District 4
•
Larry Wahl, Supervisor Doug Teeter, Supervisor
District 2 District 5
Maureen Kirk, Supervisor
District 3
Re: Appeal of Approved Tentative Subdivision Map Application—TSM17-0001 (Leen)
Dear Ms. Kirk and Messrs. Connelly, Wahl,Teeter and Lambert:
This office represents applicant Nels Leen in connection with the above referenced
Tentative Subdivision Map approved by the Butte County Planning Commission. This responds
to the appeal filed on October 8,2018, by appellants David Gallo and Tom Hall.
A. Summary of the Appeal
The appeal consists of a 5 page letter argument submitted by counsel for appellants, with
14 pages of conclusory allegations and summaries prepared by appellants,set forth on"Exhibit B"
to that letter. On appeal, appellants seek to substitute their non-expert judgment for the carefully
considered judgment, 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.
The Planning Commission Memorandum consists of twenty-five (25) pages of summaries and
conditions of approval for the project, followed by summaries of, and comments on, each public
comment made during the hearing and approval process.
414 SALEM STREET CHICO CALIFORNIA 95925 TEL 530 342 3593 FAX 530 342 4272
Clerk of the Butte County Board of Supervisors
Re: Tentative Subdivision Map Application—TSM 17-0001 (Leen)
October 23, 2018
Page 2
It is also worth initially noting that creating and interpreting traffic studies, and interpreting
zoning and general plan provisions, are not within the common knowledge and purview of lay
citizens. Analyzing and interpreting such data is normally left to professionals in areas of traffic
circulation, land use, attorneys interpreting land use ordinances, City and County land planning
and zoning officials, and the like.
Here, in conclusionary fashion that ignores essential facts pertaining to this subdivision,
appellants attempt to substitute their judgment for the considered judgment of the Planning
Commission after years of analysis and review. During consideration of this appeal, we ask each
Board Member to consider each point below raised in opposition. Because the Planning
Commission Memorandum sets forth highly "substantial evidence" in support of issuing the
project with a mitigated negative declaration,approval of this project by the Planning Commission
should remain undisturbed. This appeal should be denied.
B. A Formal EIR Is Not Required Where There is Substantial Evidence That Impacts
From the Project Will Be Mitigated Through Conditions of Approval Issued With A
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appellants argue on appeal that a formal, exhaustive,time consuming and very expensive EIR
should have been required for this small project before it was considered for approval and approved.
They base their appeal on "aesthetics" of the project [Item 2, on page 3 of Appeal]; on "land use"
issues [Item 3, on page 4 of the Appeal]; and on"traffic" concerns [Item 4, page 5 of the Appeal]. In
each of these areas,considerable and substantial evidence including expert evidence was presented by
the applicant. The applicant's substantial evidence was fully and fairly considered by the Planning
Commission after taking into consideration all comments from the public, before the project was
approved.
Approval of this project must be left undisturbed if there is substantial evidence supporting
the approval of the project by the Planning Commission. In administrative proceedings, this
standard requires a party to provide enough evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as
adequate to support a particular conclusion. Substantial evidence is defined in CEQA guidelines
as follows:
15384. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
(a) "Substantial evidence" as used in these guidelines means enough
relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information
that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though
other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can
be made that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before
the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or
narrative,evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate,or evidence
of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not
Clerk of the Butte County Board of Supervisors
Re: Tentative Subdivision Map Application—TSM17-0001 (Leen)
October 23, 2018
Page 3
caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute
substantial evidence.
(b) Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions
predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.
Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code;
References: Sections 21080, 21082.2, 21168, and 21168.5, Public
Resources Code; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d
68; Running Fence Corp. v. Superior Court(1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 400;
Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988.
I.
Discussion of"Substantial Evidence" on the Record and Comments from the Public
The "substantial evidence" before the Planning Commission and Supervisors allowing and
requiring approval of this project, as defined above, overwhelmingly supports the Planning
Commission's decision to approve the project with a mitigated negative declaration. The evidence
consists not only of public comment, but of(1) appropriate and qualified interpretation of zoning and
general plan ordinances by County land use personnel; (2) appropriate and qualified interpretation of
zoning and general plan ordinances by professional land use engineering consultants;and (3) a formal
traffic study prepared by a traffic engineering firm establishing no material impacts on traffic
pertaining to the project. All information presented to the Planning Commission was carefully
considered and evaluated in the Memorandum from Butte County Planning Commission dated
September 27, 2018, consisting of twenty five (25) pages of internal analysis and conclusions made
by the Planning Commission after considering the entire public record and applicable documents
submitted in favor of, and against,the project.
The entire Memorandum and Staff Report consists of approximately two-hundred thirty-five
(235)pages that articulates all discussions raised in connection with the project,and details the reasons
supporting approval of this project. The Planning Commission Memorandum describes in detail the
basis on which the project was appropriately approved with a mitigated negative declaration,based on
substantial evidence in the record allowing for approval of the project with a mitigated negative
declaration. As a result,the findings of the Planning Commission should not be disturbed.
II.
Discussion of Appeal Based on Aesthetic Considerations
In Item 2 of their appeal appellants focus heavily on a suggestion that the"character of the
neighborhood" and "aesthetics" will be negatively impacted by the project. These arguments do
not withstand scrutiny.
Clerk of the Butte County Board of Supervisors
Re: Tentative Subdivision Map Application—TSM17-0001 (Leen)
October 23, 2018
Page 4
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, 5S 21000 et seq., the
question is whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, not whether a project
will affect particular persons.Thus,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.
An agency may rely on the expertise of its planning staff in determining whether a project will not
have a significant impact on the environment. Unsubstantiated fears and desires of project opponents
do not constitute substantial evidence. In the absence of a specific factual foundation in the record,
dire predictions by non-experts regarding the consequences of a project do not constitute substantial
evidence. Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City ofPorterville (2007) 157
Cal. App. 4th 885.
The two appellants suggest that the project and homes planned for the project are inconsistent
with the neighborhood. However,even a cursory look at the neighborhood refutes this notion entirely.
As indicated in the Staff Report and as will be discussed and presented further at the hearing on appeal,
the neighborhood consists of approximately four hundred (400) homes and approximately two
hundred and fifty (250) parcels of land with many, many streets serving the neighborhood. [See
Exhibit 1] Many of the lots in the neighborhood are currently underdeveloped. Some of these
underdeveloped parcels will likely be further divided into additional parcels of land in the future.
Home sites in the neighborhood range in size from less than one-half(1/2) acre to more than one (1)
acre.
The two appellants argue on appeal that the aesthetics of Stanley Avenue will be adversely
impacted by the project, without any objective discussion of exactly how or why that might be the
case. Beauty and "aesthetics" are often in the eyes of the beholder. No doubt many residents in the
neighborhood will be pleased to see two new homes along Stanley Avenue in lieu of an undeveloped
lot with weeds. According to the record, there is no specific, factual foundation in the record to
constitute substantial evidence that there would be a significant environmental impact on the general
public relating to aesthetics by the project. [See Porterville case, et. seq.]
Here, the approved project consists of a single cul-de-sac running perpendicular to Stanley
Avenue. Most of the project will not be visible to the general public from Stanley Avenue. The vast
majority of project neighborhood residents driving down Stanley Avenue will have little or no reason
to view or even examine the project area unless they choose to drive down the new cul-de-sac serving
the project. Instead of seeing a vacant lot that now exists contiguous to Stanley Avenue where the
entrance to the cul-de-sac will be created, future drivers will see two new homes (one on each side of
the new cul-de-sac serving the subdivision) along Stanley Avenue. There is no objective basis to
conclude that seeing two (2) new homes along Stanley Avenue in lieu of a vacant field, in a
neighborhood consisting of more than 400 homes, might detract from the "aesthetics" of all
neighborhood residents. In sum,there is no basis to even suggest the possible requirement of a formal
EIR under the"aesthetics" component of this appeal.
Clerk of the Butte County Board of Supervisors
Re: Tentative Subdivision Map Application—TSM17-0001 (Leen)
October 23, 2018
Page 5
III,
Discussion of"Land Use" Considerations Raised on Appeal
Item three (3) of the appeal entitled "substantial evidence regarding land use" seems to
complain that the approved development does not meet the standards for clustered developments set
forth in Butte County's land use designations. In determining the provisions of the County's zoning
requirements,the determinations of the County are given deference. Eureka Citizens for Responsible
Government v. City of Eureka(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357. Ironically,the appeal itself cites why the
currently approved cluster development complies with pertinent Butte County land use regulations
governing cluster developments. Although appellants seem to argue otherwise, under Section 24.86
Paragraph A, Article 18 (Clustered Development), VLDL zoning is expressly appropriate for
clustered development. All of the requirements of that Section are met for this development. [See
Exhibit 2]
The"purpose"of clustered development,set forth in Article 18, Section 24-85 of the applicable
County Code [See Exhibit 2], confirms that Mr. Leen's project advances the purpose of clustered
development in all material respects. Specifically, under paragraph A, ". . . special conditions exist"
here [the 300 foot setback] ". . . that prevent the attainment of the maximum permitted density of a
property that could otherwise be attained through conventional subdivision designs; . . .". Under
paragraph C,this project facilitates". . .innovated developed concepts that achieve greater consistency
of the Butte County General Plan and provide permanent open space for a variety of natural resource
purposes . . ."that remain subject to determination and approval of the"open space management plan"
required pursuant to the conditions of approval for this project. Similarly, under Paragraph F, the
project as designed and approved provides ". . . increased open space" that may reduce the demand
for public parkland, depending on the exact provisions of the management plan that is yet to be
submitted for review and approval by the County in connection with recording the final map.
Appellants go to great, speculative lengths to raise questions about how designated open space for the
project might be used, ignoring that the project applicant must submit a Management Plan for the open
space that is consistent with Butte County requirements to Butte County officials, for review and
approval,prior to the recording of a Final Map. Finally,but importantly,under Paragraph G the project
as approved". . . reduce[s] infrastructure requirements by reducing the length of streets and water and
sewer lines . . ." within the project, enhancing the environmental aspects of the project. This
specifically advances the purposes set forth in the cluster development ordinances.
Appellants argue and suggest that the 300 foot setback area within the project should not be
included in the gross acreage for the project. However, appellants point to nothing in the record, and
nothing in zoning or general plan designations, to support this suggestion. Using appellant's logic,
every land division project would be first subjected to a subtraction of all setback and non-
development zone areas before determining the "size" of the parcel being developed. For example,
the examining agency would subtract the front setback area, side setback areas,rear setback area, and
subtract for all environmentally sensitive areas that might not be suitable for development (e.g.
wetland areas, elderberry vegetation areas, riparian setback areas, etc.) to determine net developable
acreage and whether that diminished size satisfies minimum parcel size requirements. Appellants cite
Clerk of the Butte County Board of Supervisors
Re: Tentative Subdivision Map Application—TSM 17-0001 (Leen)
October 23, 2018
Page 6
no basis for their interpretation of why this project should be analyzed in such a fashion. They make
no citation to the Zoning Code,the General Plan,or applicable law to support this unfair and unrealistic
suggestion.
Appellants go further in their argument by mischaracterizing the neighborhood as consisting
"...mainly of one(1)acre lots...". In fact, lots of one (1)acre or larger in size constitute less than one-
third, or a minority of lots in the neighborhood. [See Exhibit 1] Appellants even suggest that "any
use that deviates from the existing status-quo represents a significant effect", claiming that any_
development of any nature whatsoever requires a full blown Environmental Impact Report. Such a
burden would defeat any possibility of any small development project being implemented in Butte
County. This is not the intent of Butte County's land use regulations,nor does this describe applicable
law pertaining to CEQA. Conclusory statements by appellants that the subject project "is not
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood" do not constitute "substantial evidence" of that fact.
To the contrary, the objective evidence considered by the Planning Commission and discussed in the
Planning Commission's Memorandum approving the project on a mitigated negative declaration,fully
demonstrates that the approved project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, in all
material respects.
IV.
Discussion of"Traffic" Considerations Raised on Appeal
The fourth component of this appeal seems to suggest that "traffic" related impacts require a
complete EIR for this project. Evidence in the record pertaining to traffic impacts is exclusively set
forth in that certain "traffic impact study" prepared by professional traffic engineers qualified to
perform such a study, on behalf of the applicant. Traffic engineering studies and conclusions fall
squarely within the purview of experts and professionals in that field. The study in the record
concludes beginning on page twelve (12) that ". . . with the addition of project traffic, all state
intersections and roadway segments are projected to continue operating at acceptable.. . conditions
. . . in both the AM and PM peak hours. The project would have no notable operation impacts on
local intersections or roadways."[See Exhibit 3 -Excerpts from Traffic Impact Study]. Since the
only evidence in the record meeting the substantial evidence standard confirms that traffic
considerations pertaining to the project will not adversely impact the neighborhood, this aspect of the
appeal does not begin to warrant reversing the decision of the Planning Commission approving the
project on a mitigated negative declaration. Here, in the absence of a specific factual foundation by
experts setting forth problems pertaining to traffic impacts of the project, the opinions of non-experts
(appellants) do not constitute substantial evidence in any form or fashion.
On a related,unfounded economic issue raised on appeal,appellants suggest that area residents
will be unfairly required to pay for street improvements along Stanley Avenue to support the project.
It should be noted that economic impacts of a project are not subject to review and mitigation under
CEQA as environmental impacts. [See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15384, above]. Appellants
apparently misunderstand conditions imposed on the project relating to Stanley Avenue
improvements. The County,as the entity required to maintain these roadways,will be responsible for
making such improvements. The conditions of approval require the applicant to pay their pro-rata
Clerk of the Butte County Board of Supervisors
Re: Tentative Subdivision Map Application—TSM17-0001 (Leen)
October 23, 2018
Page 7
share of the necessary improvements required. County Public Works staff calculated the roadway
improvement required (Stanley Avenue from Dayton Road to Diamond Avenue half way between
Stanley and Marian), determined the number of potential users (after full development build-out
potential) and the number of users being created by this project. There is a potential for 107 parcels
within that area for the required improvements,with this project generating 21 of those parcels or 20%
of the potential users. The conditions require the project to provide twenty percent (20%) of
recommended improvements for Stanley Avenue directly to the County. The County is in a position
to collect additional amounts required for the improvement of Stanley Avenue from other development
projects in the neighborhood, as they occur. There is nothing in the record to suggest that appellants
will be required to pay directly for Stanley Avenue improvements pertaining to this project. In
addition, the two appellants seem to believe that the Permanent Road Division (PRD) somehow
obligates the neighborhood to contribute to the maintenance costs of the new road. The PRD obligates
the owners within the project to support that maintenance —not appellants or their neighbors. As a
result,this aspect of the appeal does not warrant serious consideration here.
V.
Conclusion
The objective, expert evidence considered by the Planning Commission and discussed in the
Planning Commission's Memorandum approving the project on a mitigated negative declaration,fully
demonstrates that the approved project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood,in all material
respects. There is no fair or rational basis whatsoever in the administrative record to require a full
blown EIR for this project. When looked at carefully and objectively,the basis for the appeal by these
two appellants amounts to little more than a"not in my backyard"reaction to a well-planned project,
which provides needed housing to the neighborhood, and which has a minimal impact on the
environment.
To project proponents, to the County Staff, and to the Planning Commission, it is evident this
project is fully consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. This particular type of
development is actually encouraged by the underlying ordinances relied on in approving the project.
Accordingly,based on the record before the Board of Supervisors, it is respectfully requested that this
appeal be denied in all respects.
Very truly yours,
P TERS, HABIB,McKENNA,
J L-R s . = DOZA,LLP
1110
MARK A. HABI
MAH/tc
Enclosures
Clerk of the Butte County Board of Supervisors
Re: Tentative Subdivision Map Application—TSM17-0001 (Leen)
October 23, 2018
Page 8
cc: Chuck Thistlethwaite: CthistlethwaiteRbuttecounty.net
Pete Calarco: pcalarco rl�i�buttecounty.net
Mark Michelena: mmichelenaQbuttecounty.net
Tim Snellings: tsneliings@buttecounty.net
Sara M. Knowles: sknowles@chicolawyer.com
Nels Leen: uselleens@aol.com
Jim Stevens: jstevens(northstareng.com
EXHIBIT 1
i
Cn
• A�Nl Cry '• = • _ Y
,n s �~ �
•
•
•
•
. Mw'-'\
•ob
C
. 4
•
0 -y
F
a
•
•
i
. ., Wnlnul4rea ;,,<., a .. '�
b
•
•
rfir
•
1' J°lOri
•
r•
i 1 Flonllr lmra Dr
ti
- -
�.�t3 • n 5m g1 g o o{J,
tl__...•f13 j !
C N
u b 1 -,3l N e A. .T o
p ` j- 1lORy AVII)uM1V 11IQWPW
m2
I '''I
�7 1..;-•'%;
T ! f N y,'D n1 o N
p i E ! Q = CO
C y a p W C
a a • m ((D�
7 Ov wm� n(!.N 1 i .
O (D
s a
0= y y c.
Q
acsr
°q y Ul
A Z'S� o
m
3 n
EXHIBIT 2
Article 18. CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
24-85—Purpose
24-86—Applicability
24-87—Application Requirements
24-88—Development Standards
24-89—Permitted Uses
24-90—Clustered Development Open Space Requirements
24-85 Purpose
This article establishes provisions for clustered development in order to facilitate. the retention of natural
resources, open space (a minimum of 40 percent of the total project site must be dedicated as permanent
open space to qualify as a Clustered Development), and wildlife habitat; avoid hazardous areas; and Further
implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. Figure 24-85-1 (Clustered Development Concept)
illustrates the clustered development concept for a prototypical 30-acre subdivision. Specific objectives of
these provisions are to:
A. Provide an incentive to create quality residential developments, particularly where special conditions
exist that prevent the attainment of the maximum permitted density of,a property that could otherwise
be attained through conventional subdivision design;
B. Require the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands and special-status species
habitat),productive agricultural and timber lands,and important cultural and scenic resources;
C. Facilitate innovative development concepts that achieve greater consistency with the Butte County
General Plan;
D. Provide permanent open space for a variety of natural resource purposes;
E. Preclude additional development that may conflict with neighborhood quality of life;
F. Provide increased open space which may include active and passive recreation features that reduce
demand for public park land;and
G. Reduce infrastructure requirements by reducing the length of streets and water and sewer lines and by
potentially reducing street width requirements.
121
•
74 86 C-USTEREO DEMON&IN I
FIGURE 24-85-1 CLUSTERED D DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
•.'.17-711
1 -mss.-.J ,^5�� 1 •il: JK,�
..,.. Ir ''•...tip.",, `
L.
I
ill
} f �
-i---k-'7:7:� ) \ �' �.1 /�) ` �./i 2- il� S,_`` 7:7" 1l
__ ~_r"`- -fs==_.c.' i fr.(' ' / r •— fir, (
A .kc
Conventional Subdivision Clustered Subdivision
- 30 acre site - 30 acre site
- 381-acre residential parcels - 23 7,500 sq.ft.residential parcels
- 20%land dedicated for roads - 10%land dedicated for roads
- 0.75 units per acre - 0.85 units per acre
- No dedicated open space - 15 acres(75%)dedicated
open space
24-86 Applicability
1 A. Location. Clustered development shall be allowed as an alternative to conventional subdivision design
in the TM, NR, RR, VI DR, VLDR-2.5, VI,DCR, and LDR zones. Clustered Development
subdivisions are subject to all of the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and local
•
subdivision ordinance in addition to the provisions set-forth under this chapter. A Conditional Use
Permit, Planned Development (PD), or other rezoning application is not required to utilize these
ion
• provisions.
B. Optional Use. The use of clustered development provisions is optional. Persons wishing to subdivide
and develop land may utilize these provisions or proceed under the otherwise applicable Zoning
• Ordinance requirements without use of these provisions.
C. Applicable Parcel Size. Clustered development projects may be proposed for parcels that could
potentially be subdivided based on the minimum parcel size specified in the applicable zone.
1??
•
24-S7 Application Requirements
A. Preliminary Application. Prior to submitting a formal application for a clustered development
project, an applicant shall submit to the County a preliminary application. The preliminary application
shall include the following materials:
1. An opportunities and constraints map that illustrates land riot suitable for development, as
described in Section 24-90(Clustered Development Open Space Requirements).
2. A conceptual development plan that identifies proposed building lots and sites, and a description
of the maximum number of lots, roads, open space areas, and other features based on the
opportunities and constraints mapping. The conceptual development plan shall address all items
listed in Section 24-90 (Clustered Development Open Space Requirements). Where appropriate,
information may be provided in narrative form.
B. Preliminary Application Review Meeting.
1. Once a preliminary application has been submitted, the applicant shall schedule a preliminary
application review meeting with County staff, including representatives from the Development
Services Department, Environmental Health Division, Public Works Department, Butte County
Eire Department,and any other agency with applicable interest in the proposed development site.
The purpose of this meeting is to provide the following preliminary direction to the applicant:
a. Identify any potential inconsistencies between the proposed project and County ordinances
and policies;
b. Identify design components and filing requirements recommended for the formal project
application;
c. Discuss the application review process;
d. Identify potential environmental impacts;and
c. Identify special studies that may be required to accompany the formal application.
2. Any direction given to the applicant by County staff shall be preliminary and subject to further
refinement or change as the proposed project progresses through the formal application process.
Following the meeting, the Department of Development Services shall send a letter to the
applicant describing recommended direction, additional filing requirements for the formal
application,and other determinations reached at the meeting.
C. Formal Application Requirements. Following completion of the required preliminary application
process, a formal subdivision application for a clustered development project shall be Fled and
reviewed in compliance with Butte County Code and the State Subdivision Map Act requirements
governing tentative subdivision, parcel map and parcel map waiver applications. Residential
development applications submitted pursuant to this article shall be clearly identified as being so-
designed on the tentative map.
f"d".i
24-Be CI.IJS I ERED DEVELOPMENT
24-88 Development Standards
Clustered development projects shall adhere to the development standards for the zone applicable to the
property,except as modified below.
A. Density Incentives,
I. As an incentive for development projects tneo eve 0i xi_ space and protect natural resources,an
additional residential density incentive shall be granted for projects that provide additional
dedicated open space beyond 50 percent. Additional residential density incentive shall be granted
as specified in "Table 2488-1 (Additional Density Incentive for Dedicated Open Space). In no
event shall the maximum density incentive for a clustered development project be greater than 25
percent.Density is determined by the number of residences not by the number of parcels. Parcels
not used for residential purposes (e.g. water or sewer systems or other type of utility), shall be
clearly marked for that purpose and will not be available for residential development.
TABLE 24-88-1 ADDITIONAL DENSITY INCENTIVE FOR DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE
Percentage of Project Area Maximum Density Incentive
Provided as Dedicated (Percentage of Residential Density
Open Space Allowed by Base Zone)
50---70 15
71 15.5
72 16
73 16.5
74 17
75 17.5
76 18
• 77 18.5
78 19
•
79 19.5
80 20
81 20.5
82 21
83 21.5
84 22
85 22.5
86 23
87 23.5
88 24
89 24.5
90%or more 25%
•
•
124
•
CI;JS FRFt7`)F'JELOPMENT 24-88
B. Lot Size.
1. The minimum lot size in a clustered development project shall be 7,5QU.square
2. The maximum residential lot size in a clustered development project shall be 1 acre.
3. Final subdivision and parcel maps shall include a notation that stipulates that the parcels created as
part of a clustered development project cannot be further divided.
C. Building Setbacks/Yard Area and Parcel Dimension Requirements. Primary structures shall be
setback a minimum of 5 feet from all property lines, except the front property line setback, which will
be in accordance with the applicable zone. All site development shall be consistent with the County's
Fire Safe requirements and Public Resources Code Section 4290.
D. Street Design. Street improvements within a clustered development project shall be governed by the
following factors:
1. Streets may be privately owned and maintained,or may be proposed for dedication to the County.
2. Deviation from conventional road and sidewalk requirements may be requested by the applicant.
The review authority may approve deviations depending upon project design, site conditions,and
other factors.
3. All street design standards shall be approved for safety by the Director of Public Works and the
County Fire Marshal.
E. Sewage Disposal/Potable Water. Each application for a clustered development project shall obtain
tentative clearance from the Butte County Health Department,Environmental Health Division for the
proposed parcel sizes. Soil rests, drilling of test wells, or geologic reports may be required to provide
evidence of sewage disposal capacity and domestic water availability.
F. Flood Zones. Clustered development projects shall be prohibited within flood zones unless one or
more of the following apply
1. Fewer dwelling units are located within the flood zone as part of a clustered development than
would be allowed by conventional development;
2. The clustered development will be developed in an area of the flood zone that has a higher
average elevation as compared to what would be allowed by conventional development,and thus
would be subject to less flooding and associated impacts;or
3. Clustered development allows the preservation of natural vegetation and topography on the site
that reduces flood-related hazards,
G. Final Subdivision and Parcel Maps. Final subdivision and parcel maps shall include a notation that
stipulates that the parcels created as part of a clustered development project cannot be further divided.
H. Adjacent Clustered Developments, As shown in Figure 24-884 (Clustered Development),
developed areas within adjacent clustered developed projects shall be separated by dedicated open space
as required by this article.
125
k'lui:itti 24-8b..1 C1.LYs 1'EREll Din'Is1,op M1.N F
' ,...... ..-......,., ' i :.\.,.)\
1
/57" I' •• ..' '' ' -.
/ . -- '"‘"-,.._i''---/' /I.
(___
t r � ''f ' (( � i4Col
24-89 Permitted Uses
• A. Applicable Zone. All land uses permitted in the zone applicable to the property shall be permitted for
•
clustered development projects, except within the dedicated open space area, which is regulated under
Section 24-90(Clustered Development Open Space Requirements).
B. Open Space Areas. Uses allowed in dedicated open space shall only be as described in Section 24-90
•
(Clustered Development Open Space Requirements).
i
24-90 Clustered Development Open Space Requirements
Dedicated open space areas within a clustered development project shall be separated from residential parcels
and shall comply with the following standards:
A. Primary Areas Not Suitable for Development. Primary areas shall be avoided and reserved as
permanent open space in all instances. Primary areas shall include the following:
1. 100-year flood zones unless development is allowed by 24-88.F(Development Standards);
2. Wetlands,riparian areas and other sensitive biological habitats;
3. Unstable slopes;and
4. Sensitive archaeological sites.
B. Secondary Areas Not Suitable for Development. The review authority may require that secondary
areas or portions of secondary areas be avoided and reserved as permanent open space. Secondary
areas shall include the following:
1. Timber areas;
2. Scenic areas;
3. Historic areas;
4. Deer migration,established fawning and winter range areas;
126
Ci Jr.treco i)rvi(.1PNAE 0.lI 14-ill)
5. Areas with a slope of 30 percent or greater;and
6. Viable/important grazing lands.
C. Other Areas Not Suitable for Development. Portions of a site that do not qualify as Primary or
Secondary Areas Not Suitable for Development, as defined in Subsections A and B above, may be
reserved as open space if proposed by the applicant or when necessary to comply with minimum open
space requirements.
D. Dedication or Reservation of Open Space. Areas within a clustered development project not
designated for development shall he reserved as open space. Open space shall be guaranteed in
perpetuity using one or more of the following control mechanisms:
1. Dedication of a conservation (or open space) easement to the County, other public agency or a
public interest land I.rust;
2. Dedication of land in fee-tide to the County or other public agency;or
• 3. Deed restrictions recorded with the County Recorder.
E. Open Space Management Plan Required. Public and private open space shall be maintained in
accordance with an open space management plan acceptable to and approved by the County. Such
plans shall,at a minimum,address the following:
•
i. A description of site conditions such as vegetation and habitat type, natural and man-made
features,and other characteristics of the site;
2. Grass and brush clearing for tire fuel management,as required by site conditions;
3. Erosion control;
444' Sewage disposal, water well, and stormwater drainage facilities, including ditches and detention
basins,if proposed for the development;
5. Fencing if required for the protection of resources;
6. Recreational activities compatible with open space;and
7. Other natural resource management activities and uses. Open space management plans shall
include provisions for long-term maintenance of improvements and facilities that will not result in
a Fiscal impact on the County,
F. Open Space Minimums. The amount of dedicated open space reserved in a clustered development
project shall comply with the following requirements:
1. A minimum of 40 percent of the total project site shall be dedicated as permanent open space.
2. Projects granted density incentives as allowed by Section 24-88 (Development Standards) shall
dedicate the amount of permanent open space as specified in Table 24-88-1 (Additional Density
Incentive for Dedicated Open Space).
4` G. Uses Permitted In Dedicated Open Space. Uses and activities within dedicated open space shall be
compatible with open space land. Unless limited or restricted by a conservation easement,
127
•
24-90 CLuSICaLu DEVFIDPiMENT
development agreement,conditions on the approved tentative map,or other restricting mechanism,the
following uses shall be permitted:
1. Agriculture,including grazing and timber management,when allowable by the zone applicable to
the property;
2. Rcsourcc conservation;
3. Wildlife management;
•
4. Recreational activities compatible with the objectives of the open space management plan;
• 5. Community wells,community septic systems,community sewage disposal systems,and individual
wells under certain circumstances;
6. Pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails. Public access is not required, but may be permitted
subject to a public access easement being recorded;and
7. Other similar uses,as determined through the application review process.
H. Contiguity. Dedicated open space areas shall not be fragmented but shall be consolidated or linked to
facilitate wildlife movement, maintain functioning biological communities, and accommodate
recreational opportunities. Open space connections to adjoining land beyond the project site should be
anticipated and identified where possible.
I. Access to Open Space. 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.
J. Trails. Where pedestrian,bicycle or equestrian trails are constructed in dedicated open space areas,the
following requirements shall apply:
1. Environmentally sensitive areas shall not be impacted.
2. Privacy of proposed on-site and existing off-site residences shall not be intruded upon.
3. Public access shall be permitted only where public access easements, consistent with an adopted
trail master plan,have been acquired.
128
EXHIBIT 3
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
for
Leen Subdivision
February 20,I018
PREPARED FOR:
Nels Leen&Associates
PREPARED BY:
TRAFFIC
W-24\--RKc
yip, •~';''�:
rfi1 ts.`5 Ji
o. 6142.;
ExpI
TRAFFIC WORKS,LLC
2240 St.George Ln,Suite I,Chico,CA 95926
530.897.0199
www.Traffic-Works.com
Traffic Impact Study
Leen Subdivision
February 20, 2018
To provide a safe and efficient roadway with increased traffic,the applicant will provide a proportionate
cost sharing contribution for widening of the pavement section on Stanley Avenue to a 20 foot width from
Dayton Road to the project entry point. If the County requests the applicant to physically construct
widening improvements in an dollar amount equal to the proportionate share,in lieu of paying the fee,it
is our recommendation that the widen begin at Dayton Road and move east to the extent possible with
the fee amount. The greatest widening benefit will be realized where traffic volumes are the highest,
which is closest to Dayton Road.
With proportionate cost sharing for the widening,or by constructing equal value widening improvements,
the project will offset/mitigate its impacts of increased traffic related to the width of Stanley Avenue.
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)states that"Center line markings
should be placed on all rural arterials and collectors that have a traveled way of 18 feet or more in width
and an ADT of 3,000 vehicles per day or greater. Center line markings should also be placed on other
traveled ways where an engineering study indicates such a need." The ADT on Stanley Avenue is well
under 3,000 vehicles per day(622 ADT with the project)and we did not identify any special circumstances
(horizontal or vertical curves,unusual conditions,etc.),therefore centerline striping is not justified at this
time.
CONCLUSIONS& RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a list of our key findings and recommendations:
Proposed Project:The project is a 21 unit single-family detached housing subdivision.The project site is
generally located on the south side of Stanley Avenue about 1,500 feet east of the Dayton Road/Stanley
Avenue intersection In Butte County,CA.
Project Trips: The Leen Subdivision project is anticipated to generate 198 Daily trips, 16 AM peak hour
trips,and 21 PM peak hour trips.
•
Project Access: One access point is proposed for the project, located on Stanley Avenue, as shown on
Figure 2.The access point is proposed as a full access intersection allowing for all possible movements
with side-street stop control.
Existing Level of Service:All study intersections and roadway segments currently operate at acceptable
level of service conditions(LOS"B"or better)during the AM and PM peak hours.
Existing Plus Project Level of Service: With the addition of project traffic, all study intersections and
roadway segments are projected to continue operating at acceptable LOS conditions(LOS "B"or better)
under the"Existing Plus Project"conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The project would
have no notable operational impacts on local intersections or roadway segments.
TRAFFIC
WAS-RKS Page 12 of 13
Traffic Impact Study
Leen Subdivision
February 20,2018
Summary of Proposed Improvements: To provide a safe and efficient roadway cross-section on Stanley
Avenue with increased traffic, the applicant will provide a proportionate cost sharing contribution for
widening of the pavement section to a 20 foot width from Dayton Road to the project entry point. If the
County requests the applicant to physically construct widening improvements in an dollar amount equal
to the proportionate share, in lieu of paying the fee, it is our recommendation that the widen begin at
Dayton Road and move east to the extent possible with the fee amount. The greatest widening benefit
will be realized where traffic volumes are the highest,which is closest to Dayton Road.
With proportionate cost sharing for the widening,or by constructing equal value widening improvements,
the project will offset/mitigate its impacts of increased traffic related to the width of Stanley Avenue.
TRAFFIC
Page 13 of 13
1rr