Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGRD13-0001_Appeal_of_PC_Decision_2014-06-02MACKENZIE LAND LAW RoBERT W. MAcKENZIE, Eso. June 2, 2014 Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte C/0 Paul Hahn, CAO and Clerk of the Board 25 County Center Drive, Suite 200 Oroville, Ca 95965 BUTTECO!JNTY ADMINISTRATION JUN 0 2 20Vf RE: Travis Curran; APN 058-210-097; GRD13-0001; Appeal ofthe Planning Commission's Denial of Mr. Curran's Grading Permit Application at the May 22, 2014 Hearing on Mr. Curran's Grading Permit Application Dear honorable members ofthe Board of Supervisors: Pursuant Butte County Code Section 13-14(c)(2) of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance we hereby appeal the denial of the grading permit application for the above referenced parcel, as set forth in section Butte County Code 24-267. Butte County Department of Development Services (DDS) staff completed an initial study, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, and a staff report, concerning the above referenced project ("the Project"). The Staff Report recommended approval of the Project. The staff report set forth several mitigation measures, which staff concluded would mitigate to a level of less than significant, any significant environmental impacts potentially imposed by the Project. The said potential impacts which the staff report set forth, were those posed by soil, dislodged by the project. These environmental impacts were the only category of impacts relevant to the Planning Commission's decision. The Planning Commission was not reviewing a conditional use permit, nor any zoning related decision, but was solely reviewing a permit application submitted pursuant to the Grading Ordinance, Butte County Code, Chapter 13, Article I. Several letters were sent to the Planning Commission which voiced opposition to the project. None of the said letters asserted that the Project would result in significant environmental impacts which were relevant to the consideration of the Project, pursuant to Butte County Code, Chapter 13, Article I. No evidence presented at the hearing showed that the Project would result in significant environmental impacts which were relevant to consideration of the Project pursuant to Butte County Code, Chapter 13, Article I. None of the said letters asserted that mitigation measures, which staff concluded would mitigate to a level of less than significant, any significant environmental impacts potentially imposed by the Project were insufficient to mitigate Te/530.895.9902 Fax 530.899.1102 330 Wall Street, Suite 40 Chico, CA 95928 rwm@mackezielandlaw.com Board of Supervisors ofthe County ofButte June 2, 2014 Page2 to a level of less than significant, any significant environmental impacts potentially imposed by the Project. No evidence presented at the hearing showed that mitigation measures, which staff concluded would mitigate to a level of less than significant, any significant environmental impacts potentially imposed by the Project were insufficient to mitigate to a level of less than significant, any significant environmental impacts potentially imposed by the Project. The Planning Commission's decision denying Mr. Curran a Grading Permit for the Project is not supported by substantial evidence. Indeed, Tthe Planning Commission's decision denying Mr. Curran a Grading Permit for the Project is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. The three planning commissioners who voted to deny Mr. Curran a Grading Permit for the Project simply assumed that the proposed land use for the property upon which the grading was done, would be cultivation of medical marijuana, These three planning commissioners simply voted to deny a permit for the project, because they themselves do not approve of cultivation of medical marijuana. The discussion during the hearing went beyond the scope of evidence which it is permissible to consider pursuant to Butte County Code, Chapter 13, Article I and the decision that was made was made for unlawful reason(s). that were not supposed to be considered. Hence, as stated above, the Comission's decision was not and is not supported by substantial evidence. rather it was based upon personal feelings concerning medical marijuana. For the foregoing reasons, Your Board should vacate and reverse the Planning Commission's denial of Mr. Curran's Project and approve a Grading Permit for the Project. Thank you very much for your consideration of the foregoing. RWM:jb 2