---

---

Del Norte County supervisors will allow a housing development to move forward despite planning commissioners’ concerns regarding stormwater runoff.

The Board’s 4-1 vote Tuesday overturned a Planning Commission decision in October preventing Nato Flores from using a pond to control stormwater at the 1.25 acre parcel at 1600 Northcrest Drive he is developing.

District 1 Supervisor Roger Gitlin dissented.

The Del Norte County Planning Commission had required the Los Angeles-based developer to construct a means of diverting runoff to the existing storm drainage system — a stipulation Flores said made the project infeasible.

“I made sure I hired an engineer who knew the area, who has done this particular design before in the area,” Flores told supervisors on Tuesday, referring to Crescent City-based Stover Engineering. “And we’re using permeable surfaces everywhere so when water does fall onto the driveways or sidewalks, they are permeable and water will go through them. I feel this is a more environmentally-friendly solution because we don’t put additional load onto the existing stormwater system if we can absorb it right into the property.”

Flores’ property currently has one three-bedroom house and eight studio bungalows. His goal is to build 15 more one-bedroom cottages and a laundry room, according to a description his firm sent to the Del Norte County Planning Commission.

Flores also proposed upgrading the electrical power from a 200 amp service to an 800 amp service; connecting the property to Crescent City’s water and sewer systems; constructing a new driveway and rennovating three bungalows.

Flores also requested a zoning change from combination of residential and commercial to planned community, which allowed for a total of 19 dwellings on the property. There will be a total of 24 units on the property, four of which will be reserved for low-income households.

The Planning Commission granted Flores a conditional use permit on May 1, 2019, requiring that he demonstrate how stormwater runoff from a 25-year event could be collected and diverted into the existing drainage system.

This requirement differed from Flores’ proposal to construct a retention pond on the property with the goal of avoiding added costs.

Later in 2019, Flores submitted an amendment to his use permit asking Planning Commissioners to re-think their requirement regarding diversion of stormwater into the existing drainage system.

After challenges and delays due to COVID-19, the Planning Commission denied Flores’ request for an amendment on Oct. 7, 2020 with one commissioner, Keith Restad, recusing himself.

On Tuesday, county planner Taylor Carsley told supervisors that planning commissioners raised concerns about children getting into the proposed retention pond as well as material such as lawn clippings reducing its effectiveness of containing stormwater.

According to Carsley, the project’s engineer, Ryan Young, said a fence could be built around the pond to prevent access. Carsley said Flores also offered to sign a maintenance agreement so the pond would continue to be effective.

A neighbor’s opposition to an on-site retention pond may have also played a role in the Planning Commission’s denial of Flores’ request, Carsley said.

Those neighbors, Jerry and Rebecca Young, submitted a letter to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday opposing Flores’s plans to develop the 1600 Northcrest Drive property.

In their letter, the Youngs stated Flores had promised to build a six-foot cement wall after removing a fence of theirs that was over the property line.  They also stated that Flores’ property is much higher than theirs and as a result runoff during heavy rainstorms drains onto their property.

“There’s less area for the water to be naturally absorbed,” they said. “A settling pond is a breeding ground for mosquitos. There’s no assurance it would work.”

On Tuesday, Flores told supervisors that the Youngs’ fence was 15 feet into his property and needed to be moved back to the original property line. He proposed to construct a temporary chainlink fence in January before building a concrete wall as part of the Planning Commission’s conditions.

Flores said the retention pond he is proposing will be 12 inches deep and about 1200 square feet large. It would slope gently and become part of the lawn. A lawn service would come twice a month to maintain the property, he said.

“You won’t even be able to see it unless you really look for it,” Flores told supervisors.

Board Chair Gerry Hemmingsen praised Flores’ efforts to clean up the property and willingness to build low-income housing.

But Gitlin said he didn’t like overturning the Planning Commission’s decision, noting that Flores was appealing to county supervisors a second time. Gitlin also asked Flores about the type of construction that would be used for some of the proposed housing units.

“I’ve heard from a number of your neighbors, and not just Mr. Young, but other neighbors to the south of you and they’re none to happy with the kind of construction you’re about to engage in,” Gitlin said. “I have these concerns to consider in terms of the impact of the neighborhood in which you’re developing additional housing. Though I do appreciate we have housing shortages, I’m not sure this is the answer to that question.”

Flores said he plans to build one-bedroom dwelling units using two 20-foot high cube shipping containers that are adjacent to each other. They will have a pitched roof with gable ends. Flores said they won’t look like shipping containers, but one-bedroom cottages with windows and doors.

Those structures will be partially builtin a factory, will be finished onsite and will undergo building inspections, Flores said.

“They are going to look like typical one-bedroom cottages,” he said. “they’re going to be very pleasant looking actually.”

Carsley said project will have to comply with the California Building Code.

Gitlin, however, referred to the Planning Commission’s decision, pointing out to Flores that no one supported his proposal.

“I think that’s telling and that’s a message to you to come back and return the project to the Planning Commission in a way that doesn’t come to the attention and to the purview (of) the Board of Supervisors,” Gitlin said. “I’m loath to reverse such a decision on a 4-0 vote.”

Hemmingsen noted that planning commissioners didn’t raise concerns about how the development would be built, but about storm drainage. He noted that Flores was just looking for an alternative way to make his project work better financially.

“He’s not asking for something special as far as the building, he’s only asking for a different solution to the drainage,” Hemmingsen said.

Documents

• Nato Flores Use Permit Amendment Appeal

---

SHARE →