Angels Camp, CA…Calaveras & Sonora Lumber owner Mike Fullaway has submitted an open letter to the City of Angels Camp on potential rezoning problems. The summary is as follows and the complete letter follows the summary. “This zoning ordinance appears to be a back-door way of permitting retail uses in districts that were not intended to accommodate retail, but were intended for light industrial and office uses that support good-paying jobs. To do this under the guise of passing a zoning ordinance consistent with the General Plan is disingenuous and misleading. I am requesting a postponement on any rezoning decision until the City Attorney reviews these facts and makes a determination whether this ordinance is subject to CEQA.

Diane and I have served this community for years, and we believe that development can occur responsibly and in a way that fits with the character of our town. We are speaking out because we care about the future of Angels Camp.

Thank you for your consideration

Yours truly,

Mike Fullaway

Below is the entire letter with images…

Date: April 17, 2018

To: City of Angels Camp, City Council
City of Angels Camp, City Attorney
City of Angels Camp, Planning Department

From: Mike Fullaway

Re: Ordinance 481: Rezoning 30 Parcels to Business Attraction and Expansion (BAE)
Request Review Whether Rezoning Ordinance is Subject to CEQA

Summary Request
This is a letter requesting the City Attorney to review Ordinance 481 and determine whether it is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is evidence to suggest that the zoning ordinance for Business Attraction and Expansion (BAE) is more expansive than the uses outlined for Business Attraction and Expansion in the Angels Camp General Plan 2020. This represents a departure from the analysis conducted in the EIR completed for the General Plan 2020, and as such, this rezoning may warrant a separate study under CEQA.

The following analysis was based on a review of Ordinance 481, the City’s General Plan 2020, the General Plan EIR, the General Plan Land Use Map, and the City’s zoning ordinance. I am requesting that the City Attorney review this and provide guidance to the City Council. I also formally request that the City Council postpone decision and not waive the second reading of Ordinance 481 tonight as proposed by staff.

Background
According to California Government Code Section 65860, all California cities must define their development policies, objectives, and standards in a general plan. The General Plan is the blueprint for a city’s development, and the Supreme Court has held that the general plan is “the constitution for all future development” (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek). Other land use documents, including zoning ordinances, are subordinate to the general plan. Therefore, if a zoning ordinance is not consistent with the general plan, the general plan controls and the zoning ordinance is “invalid at the time it is passed.”

Angels Camp General Plan: Business Attraction & Expansion (BAE) Purpose and Intent
In 2009, the City published the Angels Camp 2020 General Plan. There are two sections of the General Plan that allude to the goals of the Business Attraction & Expansion (BAE) land use category: the Economic Development chapter and the Land Use chapter.

According to Chapter 10 of the General Plan, Economic Development, the concept for the BAE district originated from a desire to “develop jobs with a median wage.” A series of studies was conducted by Applied Development Economics beginning in the 1990s through the early 2000s, and these studies formed the basis of the types of uses intended for BAE. Tables 10-2 to 10-3 on the following pages, taken directly from the General Plan, highlight the target industries recommended for Business Attraction and Expansion.

Angels Camp General Plan: Business Attraction & Expansion (BAE) Purpose and Intent (continued)
The General Plan’s Land Use Element extends the target industries and assigns a land use designation intended to provide an area within the City to support these proposed sectors. According to the Land Use Element, the purpose and intent of BAE is:

• To provide for a mixture of light industrial land uses with light commercial land uses servicing employees (e.g. small-scale food service, day-care). This designation encourages light manufacturing, processing, assembly, wholesale businesses and research and development activities in a campus-like business setting (e.g. extensive landscaping, integrated architectural design).

• Under special circumstances, Business Attraction and Expansion areas designed to accommodate high tech or similar developments that do not generate noise, fumes, or other deterrents to residential development, may incorporate High Density Residential Development offering live-work opportunities for employees.

Nowhere in the General Plan does Business Attraction & Expansion describe an intent to accommodate retail. The only reference to commercial include “light commercial land uses”, and the examples include small-scale food service and day care. Neither of these examples conjure retail establishments selling apparel, home goods, or grocery stores. In fact, the General Plan clearly targets retail in historic commercial, community commercial, and shopping commercial districts. Business Attraction & Expansion appears to be geared for office, light manufacturing, light commercial, and attendant uses.

Inconsistency Between BAE General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance 481 seeks to update the City’s zoning, so that zoning is consistent with the General Plan. A comparison of the land areas designated for BAE in the General Plan and the proposed zoning ordinance shows the areas are virtually identical, with a few minor exceptions. However, the types of uses permitted under the BAE zoning text significantly exceed the intent of the uses described in the General Plan.

The table below summarizes Title 17.34.808 of the City’s municipal code, which governs Zoning. The table shows uses that are permitted, conditionally permitted, subject to site plan review, and not permitted in areas zoned for Business Attraction and Expansion.

Summary of Allowable Uses in BAE Zoned Areas

Here are some salient points to note:
• Light industrial businesses, which often pay decent wages, are generally not permitted as-of-right in the BAE zoning. Corp yards are the only industrial use permitted as-of-right. Most light industrial are allowed only by a conditional use permit, and many light industrial uses are not permitted at all. This runs counter to the purpose established in the general plan to “provide for a mixture of light industrial land uses” in BAE. This also runs counter to the Economic Development section of the General Plan, which suggests the creation of this district is mainly to support jobs that pay living wages.

• In contrast, multiple categories of retail are permitted as-of-right, with only a few retail types requiring a conditional use permit or site plan approval. Shockingly, shopping centers are allowed as-of-right in BAE zoned districts, in direct contrast to the General Plan, which makes no mention of large-format retail in BAE districts.

Lack of Sufficient Analysis in Final EIR on Retail Impacts within BAE Land Use Designation
The staff report issued by the Planning Department to the City Council dated April 17, 2018 suggests the proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for two reasons:

(1) The ordinance is not expected to have a significant effect on the environment, and

(2) The General Plan Land Use designation was certified by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which already studied the impacts of BAE. Because the proposed ordinance is bringing the zoning districts into compliance with the adopted general plan land use designation, the provisions of the rezoning should have already been covered by the certified EIR and does not warrant further study.

On both points, I believe the assertions are inaccurate. In reviewing the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Angels Camp 2020 General Plan and its appendices, there was no traffic study included in the documentation. However, mitigation measures related to circulation are described in Appendix C of the General Plan. There is only one to mitigation measures related to land use impacts associated with Business Attraction and Expansion in Appendix 3D (see Measure L-3), which applies to the following BAE Service Roads (Murphys Grade, North State Route 4 Bypass, China Gulch, North Main Street). There is no mention of BAE-related traffic impacts on Highway 49 north of State Route 4, which if retail had been envisioned, would have been addressed in the EIR. Moreover, the table below highlights the planned traffic signals the City had identified, and there is no reference to potential traffic impacts of BAE zoned areas on Highway 49 north of State Route 4.

If the EIR had envisioned that retail would have been permitted as-of-right in BAE land use designations, I believe there would have been significantly more circulation impacts and mitigation measures identified for BAE districts, particularly for those directly adjacent to Highway 49. Anyone who has attempted a left turn onto Highway 49 within the City limits knows the challenges. Retail is synonymous with significantly more traffic impacts, and given the lack of mitigation measures near BAE zones, I doubt the EIR studied retail impacts in BAE.

If this is true, then the certified EIR does not “cover” this proposed zoning ordinance, and the full impacts of this proposed ordinance need to be analyzed under CEQA, and considered with respect to the guidelines of the General Plan. In fact, if retail were to be allowed as-of-right on Highway 49, there would most definitely be significant effects on the environment, as seen in recent development proposals near Dogtown Road.

Summary
This zoning ordinance appears to be a back-door way of permitting retail uses in districts that were not intended to accommodate retail, but were intended for light industrial and office uses that support good-paying jobs. To do this under the guise of passing a zoning ordinance consistent with the General Plan is disingenuous and misleading. I am requesting a postponement on any rezoning decision until the City Attorney reviews these facts and makes a determination whether this ordinance is subject to CEQA.

Diane and I have served this community for years, and we believe that development can occur responsibly and in a way that fits with the character of our town. We are speaking out because we care about the future of Angels Camp.

Thank you for your consideration

Yours truly,

Mike Fullaway

cc: The Pine Tree
The Calaveras Enterprise
The Union Democrat