HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Matthew C. Harrison - TSM16-0002 I�NOM I A
JUN 12 2917 02
MILLER STARR 1331 N.California Blvd. T 925 935 9400
REGALIA Fifth Floor F 925 933 4126
Walnut Creek,CA 94596 www.msrlegal.com
Matthew C. Henderson
Direct Dial:925 941 3271
matthew.henderson@msrlegaV.com
June 9, 2017
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Butte County Board of Supervisors
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200
Oroville, CA 95965
E-Mail: ClerkoftheBoard@ButteCounty.net
BConnelly@BufteCounty.net
LWahl@ButteCounty.net
MKirk@BufteCounty.net
District4@ButteCounty.net
DTeeter@ButteCounty.net
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of TSM16-0002
Dear Supervisors Connelly, Kirk, Lambert, Teeter, and Wahl,
I represent Nels Leen in connection with the above-referenced matter. I'm taking
the time to write to you in advance of next week's hearing to go over some of the
issues under consideration and to help explain how and why the Planning
Commission erred and the appeal should be upheld.
As you know, this matter involves the subdivision of approximately 18.5 acres of
land zoned for residential use (Very Low Density Residential, VLDR-1.0) outside of
the City of Chico ("Subdivision"). In brief, what is at stake here is a reasonable
interpretation and application of the County's agricultural buffer ordinance (the
"Ordinance," Butte County Code sections 24-81 through 24-84) to the Subdivision.
The facts of this case are such that a 300 foot agricultural buffer is not only
unwarranted but unneeded. Almost 90% of the Subdivision's acreage usable for
residential development (a use that is permitted as of right under the existing
zoning) will be lost without the reduced 150 foot buffer (a distance the County
deemed acceptable under a previous iteration of the Ordinance). Furthermore, the
existence of a natural barrier between the Subdivision and the nearest qualified
agricultural operation will obviate any impacts from one parcel upon, the other.
Additionally, my client is prepared to offer additional safeguards in, the form of
binding deed restrictions or covenants to protect the agricultural operations to the
south. Finally, prior to the Planning Commission hearing the Butte County
Agriculture Department and County staff had consistently supported the Subdivision
and found that it complied with the Ordinance.
MCH19999911242826A
Offices:! Walnut Creek I San Francisco/Newport Beach
Butte County Board of Supervisors
June 9, 2017
Page 2
In short, the Planning Commission made an unfortunate error, but my client and I
are certain that with a full understanding of the facts and law applicable to the
Subdivision you will reach the right decision.
Background
An application for the Subdivision was filed with the County on June 30, 2016. Part
of the application included a request for a reduction of the southern setback of the
Subdivision under the Ordinance. Pursuant to the Ordinance (County Code section
24-64.D), planning and zoning staff consulted with the Agriculture Department as to
the advisability of the reduction. In a letter dated February 23, 2016, the Agriculture
Department wrote to Mr. Leen as follows:
The proposed plan sent to me by Jim Stevens of NorthStar
Engineering on February 19, 2016... consisting of 16 new residential
lots and a designated residential building area for each lot appears to
be the best subdivision placement in regards to the adjacent
commercially farmed agricultural operation. This map proposal will
require a reduction in the required 300' Agriculture Buffer. During the
site visit it has been determined that mitigation measures can be met
to protect the adjacent agriculture operation.
Thus, the Agriculture Department satisfied the consultation requirement and
endorsed the reduced setback.
Given the Agriculture Department's determination, the County undertook a thorough
review of the project, including the preparation of an Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA"). Following this review County staff concluded that the Subdivision
should be approved. Staff found that the Subdivision was consistent with the
County's General Plan (including Policy AG-P5.3.3 which requires the 300 foot
setback as discussed below). (Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report,
March 23, 2017, pp. 4-10.) With respect to the buffer issue, the County's own Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration makes the following observation:
The Agricultural Commissioner's Office is recommending an
Agricultural Buffer of 150 feet from existing agriculturally-zone [sic]
property located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project
site. The buffer would be established from the southern boundary of
APN 039-090-061 and extend 150 feet to the north and encroach into
Parcels 6-15. The reduced buffer is recommended due to the
presence of riparian vegetation along Comanche Creek
separating the parcels from the agricultural uses to the south.
(Id. at pp. 39-40, emphasis added.)
MCH19999911242826.1