Commission Impossible

The trailer park reminds me of the phrase from Star Wars (the first one) where Obi Wan looks down on Mos Eisley and says: "I have never seen a more wretched hive of scum and villany."

I think a lot of folks, including Chico PD, think of the trailer park that way. So, they are probably turning a blind eye to the shenanigans of Sly and the family Stone in hopes of ridding the community of this mess.

Anthony,

I'm sure you're right. I think most people would even agree that the Stone development is not a bad concept for this area. However, the neighbor that I spoke to was not aware of the size of the project when it was proposed. I'm not sure a lot of people, including some on the council, have not grasped it's magnitude.

What seems out of place is that developers are held to a pretty strict standard when it comes to dealing with neighbor's concerns. But in this case, where taxpayer money is being used, and the city is knee-deep in the development, some of the neighbors feel ignored.

Based on the election antics I referenced above, this looks really bad. The councilors are all reasonable people, and they ought to be talking to neighbors about this project.

Lon

And the CIC is the poster for the movie Romancing the Stone

http://www.impawards.com/1984/posters/romancing_the_stone.jpg

it's romancing the stone - yeah, I was a girl once, I thought Michael Douglas was a hottie. It was the hair.

Good post here. I wish you worked for the ER.

What is the etiquette when one finds a disc laying around unattended? Is it Finders Keepers? Is there a Lost and Found tree?

Jaunita,

You write your name and phone number on the back of the disc. If you find one, call the number and try to return it. If you find one that's not labeled it's yours.

Lon

"Stone cold Anthony Watts."

I'm not dead, yet.

I received this from Randall Stone via email asking me to remove the copyrighted image of the Democratic Action Club if Chico.

Hi Lon:

I would appreciate it if you would remove the copyrighted DACC logo from your Commission Impossible blog. This was not the logo used in 2006 when we submitted our letter you cite in the blog (which is disingenuous). You might recall that that logo had our 330 Wall Street address. I’m sure you understand that the use of the logo was distributed refutes your claims of impropriety considering my business address has been at 976 Mangrove since 2004. While DACC has had various mailing addresses, at the time you cite our involvement in the election we were located at the Wall Street address. So in fairness, we would be happy to permit you to use the Wall Street logo on the blog for this post or remove it altogether.

I know your blog post was not in the interest of finding truth so I won’t bother with any discussion about how off the wall it was. Tongue in cheek. I always enjoy tongue-in-cheek.

Take care.

Randall

Anthony,

Stone Cold Steve Austin is the reference.

Lon

Randall,

I have no problem removing the material that you feel is copyrighted. I apologize for the mistake.

City documents given to me by neighbors of your development identify you as an employee of Stone Building Corporation with a mailing address of 976 Mangrove, which is the current address of the D.A.C.C. Perhaps you should clarify with the city that the 976 address is for a political action committee.

If you want to clarify or refute my comments on the blog, please do. I won’t treat you unfairly or antagonistically. There are readers who live near your development project that feel the process has not moved forward in their best interest. Perhaps having a public discussion with them would limit the impression that you are helping to serve a niche interest with this project. I’ll post this email to my blog as well.

Lon

Randall.
I want to know if you think all is well to lead a project based on significanly false data. If you are a man of intergity, where is your concern for the mess this project fouts on middle class neighbors and the poor who deserve to live in a quality facility.

Your development creates Three 3 story buildings,hovering just 15 feet away from Hwy 32. It will result in a 400 % increase of living space, from the current use. There are 21 trailers on site with approx. sq.ft of 400. This base has been converted to a 38 unit project that will be approx. 40,000 sq feet. That is not a project that is of similiar density and use. Just a crowded, shoddy, compacted, site that is surrounded by Hwy 32 on the north and south side, and single family homes north south east and west.

That's 3 three story buildings folks, 15 feet from HWY 32. Mr. Stone is this what you asked for? A high density project based on false data, sloppy reports, with lack of proper notice,so neighbors, land owners working more than 1 job, tending to disabled family members, and who's spare time is trying to figure out how this slop is getting shoved down their throat.
The RDA, City Council and the Planning commission all based their decisions on the faith that neighbors were given proper notice and that the reports and documents used for their decisions had correct information.
All reports used for this decision state neighbors received a "30"-day notice for approval of the Mitigated Negative Dec. Neighbors received only 10 day notice, a violation of CEQA law. Does that concern you?
Where's your love of the people and your integrity when you personally benefit from these wildy inaccurate reports. You build a project based on lies and walk away with millions. This is an invite to meet with some of the neighbors and discuss these issues. I am hoping you would not want a project based on manipulations and lies . These neighbors are all polite, intelligent and looking for a quality project. Just respond to this blog,we'll drink trade free coffee and cumminicate like civilized human beings.Looking forward to it- Jean Lee

Hey ! Any City Council Member want to sit down and talk about this problem?
Can't believe all are comfortable w/ a project based on false data and improper notice . Surely they make decisions based on correct data and would give ahoot if the basis for their decisions were false? I'd be concerned about making decisions based on an invalid procedure and wildly inaccurate information.
So,
Steve Bertagna
Mary Flynn
Scott Gruendl
Andy Holcombe
Tom Nickell
Ann Schwab
Larry Wahl
A moment of your time please? Kind, intelligent,concerned citizens. You can email:Suhearne@mac.com and we'll get together.Nothing hostile, just eduational.

Susan,

Can I go to that meeting? I don't live in that neighborhood, but I have a project across the street from it that we have currently in early design phase.

Admittedly, I don't know very much about the Stone project, but I am sure that I could learn something from the experience. I would just like to be there to listen and learn; "just educational"

All,

Aside from Randall Stone and the politics the project has merit.
In the beginning in front of Council I spoke in favor of this project. I still support the project in concept.
Where things went wrong for me is I assumed this project would follow the well defined and well traveled course of public review.
It turns out the process is calculated to limit public review at every turn.
I expected and was lead to believe this project would have architectural review and vetted by the planning commision.
What I learned from this... all the deals are made up front. The Planning Commision is charged only with recomendations to the Council. In this case staff enginerred it so that ARB was conducted by the planning commission.
In fairness the Planning commision did attempt staffs request for architectural review. But key Information and materials that staff would require at ARB was missing. It was the worst case of architectural review I have witnessed.
I tried to file an appeal on this project and was informed because it was all Council action I would have to file a lawsuit.
So from the Chapman side of things here is what we are left with. A good idea that needed public input to make it a good project. And one more low income city project that meets the Quota for wharehousing the poor.

Mike

I'm one of those "worried neighbors" of Bidwell Apartments, the low income housing development. We are worried about the impact of a 3 story, 72 bedroom complex, that was politely marketed to us as an addition of 7 units. There are 31 currently and 38 after construction. But hey, who knew a unit (a mobile home) would be called the same as a unit that will be 3 bedrooms and greater than 1000 square feet. Neighbors had to find that out for themselves, and only neighbors within 300 feet of the development were notified. The ones that were notified, were sent information not within the legal time lines and the hearing notice stated in bold type "no project is proposed at this time." (In reality Bidwell Apts was already designed and the high density/zone-waivered project was well underway).
During the City Council meeting of March 4th neighbors brought up obvious topics that will have a damaging effect on the residents of the complex and the neighborhood. Everything from questioning the logic of putting so many people (small kids, elderly, disabled) in a meridian between two major highways, east 8th and 9th streets, and providing no crosswalks or traffic lights. We were told Cal-Trans will do an evaluation after the project is complete. Gee, that's reassuring.
There will be fewer parking spaces. Apparently, low income housing doesn't require as many parking spaces (the developers further reduced that number) with the city council's blessings.
I guess low income people don't sleep together either. Because neighbors were told, when asked the total number of expected residents, the average was one person per bedroom. I thought low income people, disabled people, even old people, marry, and have children that share bedrooms.
Larry Wahl seemed like the only council member who had not already make up his mind prior to the meeting. Succinctly put, he said, "good project, wrong place." But if the project doesn't keep it's current density level, it looses it's funding, and the council is determined not to loose funding. In their zest to provide low income housing, they have allowed the waiver of multiple zoning rules that help preserve the safety of the Bidwell Apartment residents and their neighbors. The City Council's solution of elevating or frosting third floor windows wasn't an understanding, it was a slap in the face. Susan Parke
Delete Reply Forward Move...

Im curious about the neigborhood meeting held for this project.
It was said a meeting was going to happen but I was never informed of one. Did anyone go to this?

Susan Parke's comment about Councils attempt to fix design at a council meeting pretty well describes my complaint. Council has no skill or experience in the disipline of architecture but demonstrated the projects lack of integrity by attempting design repairs.

Mike

BTW I own the cabins directly across 9th

Mike

It seems to me like a double standard is being applied to this development that wouldn't be applied to one privately funded.

Why would a development be have less oversight when the city is footing $2.6 millioh of the bill? Has the city done this in other instances?

Lon

I spoke to someone today in the building industry that was at the Planning Commission when this project was reviewed. He felt that the project was beat up pretty badly by the Planning Commission with significant changes made, that would have heavily impacted the project.

This perspective is important since it comes from someone familiar with the Planning Commission's activity but not involved in this project.

The expedited time frame for approval was caused by the funding needs of this project, which is why the Planning Commission took over the duties of the ARB.

However, I've never heard of a private development approval being sped up to ensure funding was available.

Lon

I was at that meeting.

The developer had 5 months to get the plans into the process.
The strategy to wait until the last possible minute paid off big time.

Lon.. maybe with all your skill the tape can be played here.

Mike

The Planning guy I talked to agrees something went awry. The Hearing dates were not given timely to neighbors.( 10 days before the Mitigated Nec. Declaration.) But the report to the City Council states neighbors had 30 days, so the council was mislead as to the notice for the neighbors.
A manipulative statement in bold, on the hearing noticed stated: "No development of this site is proposed at this time. All related development applications will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at subsequent noticed meetings"

Does this mean there is no development proposed? So don't worry about going to this meeting, cause Planning Commission and City Council will be dealing with this later.? Seems that is what is being stated. Oops if you did not attend that elusive meeting, the rest was a done deal, the impact report approved , specifically to provide the money, impact report approvals, all BEFORE the Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
Huh?