HomeMy WebLinkAbout047-260-199 (12)GEORGE R. Nic OLAUS
Since 1951
BUTTE
December 7, 2006 DEC 07 2006
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
Dear Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. Troester:
Re Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement
APN 047-260-199; Landowner, George & Connie Nicolaus
The following is a draft of what will be submitted to the LCA committee,
hopefully at their December 19th meeting. This assumes that the Board
adopts the I recommendations of the Committee at their meeting on
December 12th.
The final written report will have enhanced digital images for exhibits as
well as a Power Point presentation of those areas requiring additional
emphasis. Please review this document at your earliest convenience. If
you find anything that appears to be incorrect or requiring additional
documentation, bring it to my attention so it can be a part of the final
draft for the Committee's review.
Thank you both for your diverse efforts in helping me get me to this
point! I'm confident that closure is near at hand and all parties to the
decision will see the wisdom of granting immediate cancellation.
Respectfully yours,
George R. Nicolaus
• 66 Marybill Ranch Road
Chico, California 95928--9563
Ph -one 530--894-6171 Fax 530 - 345-9'5`857
V
. BUTTE .
1 COUNTY
DEC 07 2006
DEVELOPMENT
• SERVICES -
t
PETITION TO CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
• _ (Submit Original and 4 copies)
To the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte. '
The undersigned hereby petition(s) the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Butte to Cancel the Land Conservation Agreement executed between theCounty of Butte
and CV F L Y V C. 4(p rAA P on as it re.ates to land
in Agricultural Preserve No. of the County of Butte which is presently owned
by the undersigned. '
In support of this peiition, the undersigned alleges:
1. That the undersigned presently owns the land covered by said agreement
• described as follows: /0 `O �!'% -a & d l 006 S r/ AJ
ep-
14 C2 a,1"tf F2 gS C /I 1A gG '
L f SG 2 ! P Ti o/u_
2. That the Cancellation is not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson
Act (government Code Section 51200 et seq.) in that: :.
The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury.
f':
e
Executed this day of ^l�fF�13 fR , OD , in of « o >
California.
Petitioner(s)
o L q-
i
K:\Planning\PROJECTS\LCA\FORMS\PETITION TO CANCEL LAND CON,ERVATION
AGREEMENT.doc
4
BUTTE
COUNTY
DEC 017 1006
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
r
BU�E
Couny
Petition to Cancel DEC 0`71006
Land Conservation Agreement �E ERvicESNT
(Response to item 2.)
That the Can is not inconsistent with the purpose
f the: 2. ,
Williamson Act (government Code Section 51200 et q
✓ This Petition addresses and satisfies all 5 consistency findings ,
required for immediate cancellation,
✓ The subject property, known as Kittyhawk, is the onl Williamson
Act contract located within the 3,590 acre a e wand tha esignatew as the
North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) (see )
✓ Immediate cancellation will allow the Kittyhawk property as well as
other contiguous properties to be utilized in a manner consistent
with the NCSP which has as its number one goal, to: t
"Create a functional and attractive community, complimented
necessary by
cultural amenities and all public facilities and services to
support the population which will result from Plan
levelopmenta broad,
roait
develo ment of a variet of h6ua0 t es to accommodate
range of household needs."
Page 2-6, Specific Plan Overview
-Table 2-2, North Chico Specific Plan Goals
(see Exriibit 2)
A Yy
s
• J
t • r
KittyhawkPetition 102
i
,, .
BUTTE
• ConsistencyFindings COUNW
DEC 07 2006
#'+ .
Required for
DEVELOPMENT
Immediate Cancellation SER�CES
+ of the
Kittyhawk ;
Land Conservation Agreement +
as detailed in
California Government
Code Sections 51280-51287 .
6
Section 51282 (1) •(b) states that cancellation of a contract shad be
consistent with the purposes of this chapter only if the board car council
makes all of the following (five) findings (see exhibit 3 for full text):.
1. That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of non- '
renewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245. .
z
The original request for cancellation was delivered to Butte County
• on September.7, 2003, and was subsequently acknowledged by a
notarized.Notice of Non -renewal (see exhibit 4 and 5).
TImmediate cancellation is acceptable as notice was giver_ in a timely �z
manner and is thereby consistent with government code.
z ,
• - . 2. That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of
adjacent lands from agricultural use. ,
Lands which lie north, south and east of Kittyhawk (the subject
,property) are located within the North Chico Specific Plan's (NCSP)
• designated area for development (see exhibit 8) and are (a) not
-} currently in agricultural use, (b) are already utilized as suburban
residential or (c) are.presently in process with Butte County F'
• Development Services for the creation of suburban residential lots.
• _ -~ Land which lies'to the west of Kittyhawk (across Highway 99)
which would be considered `adjacent' is outside of the NCSP scope
• and may not be considered for residential development under the
plan (see exhibit 6). In addition, the Butte County Agricultural
Element provides for a 300' buffer (see exhibit 7) between
agriculture and urban development. Any residential development
of Kittyhawk would be subject to this 300' buffer and would, as a
result, assure that no adjacent land would be removed from
agricultural use.
Therefore, immediate cancellation is consistent with
government code as it will not result in adjacent lands being
removed from agricultural uses.
3. That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent
with the applicable provisions of the city or county general
plan.
Kittyhawk was zoned SR -1 (suburban -residential; one acre lot
minimum) in 1995 (see exhibit 8). Located within Chico's sphere of .
influence, the North Chico Specific `Plan (NCSP) is a concise
guideline for growth and development within the overall context of
the Butte County General Plan. The NCSP is the result of an .
• extended effort by the City of Chico and Butte County. This long-
range plan for growth and development in our community relies on
property being utilized within the parameters of its specific zoning.
Cancellation of the Williamson Act on Kittyhawk will allow the
property to be used for the purpose expressly put forth in. the
NCSP.
Immediate cancellation is appropriate as the alternative use is.
clearly consistent with the' city and county general plans and is
therefore consistent with government code.
4. That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of
urban development.
Cancellation of Kittyhawk will not result in a discontiguo-.is pattern
of urban development because (a) it is already contiguous with
urban development to the east, (b) is already contiguous with
proposed urban development to the north and south, and (c) the
property is specifically zoned for urban development (see exhibit 9).
Immediate cancellation is appropriate as it will not result in a
discontiguous pattern of urban development and is therefore
• consistent with government code.
2
.
•• t '
�. f ' Aft
l R•� T.
't } yJ
.. .
..
, 5. That there -is no proximate non -contracted land which is both
.a
available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the
'! contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted
} +'
land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban
developmea_ t than development of proximate non -contracted
.. land.
} : This Petition will address and satisfy both parts of item 5, despite,,.,-
•
' �. the fact.that government code requires that only one of the two
conditions be met for immediate cancellation.
r ` <A>,.I'n response to the first point under Item 5:
-The letter from Mr. Eric Christensen (see exhibit' 10) explains that
• - there"was no other "non -contracted suitable and available"
_
'property' on the market in this area from 2003 through April 13;
2005. He illustrates this' point following a thorough search of the
' Chico -Multiple Listing Service data -base covering a 4 year period.
From January, 2003'through April 8, 2005, there was no other r
R. property listed which was suitable (zoned SR -1) nor available` in the
-
' ' entire north Chico/Butte County area (see exhibits 11,, 12, 13 and
�°
•
: ': 14).` There was a parcel zoned SR -1 which came on the market on
�•
April 14, 2005, and sold within six days of being listed. The
. 'Kittyhawk property went into escrow,in November, 2003; closed`
escrow,and was recorded on April 8, 2005, one week before this
otherparcel was listed. ,
'r, •` Based on the fact that there was no other proximate, non -contracted,;
• ,
suitable and available land, immediate cancellation is appropriate
;
under the provisions of the government code.
<B>' In response to the second point under Item 5:
'
- The definitive in the second of Item 5,is rimore
phrase point
contiguous": `The following 7 points illustrate how immediate
"
- T cancellation provides for a more contiguous pattern of urban
!
•. '' development than development of proximate, non -contracted land:
,
:• 'r ' I • Urban development of Kittyhawk most certainly creates a
z V s more contiguous pattern of urban development than
development of non -contracted land to the west. 'The "green,--
:,Z ,
linen was specifically enacted to prevent urban development,,
in agricultural areas. Conversely, it was also created to
•'
�.' `,,, t provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development
in areas specifically designated for development. As
`' a 3 �,,r
• .Kittyhawk is located within the North Chico Specific Plan
Area, it qualifies at this level as being more contiguous"
than other proximate, non -contracted land to the west.
-Butte County Board of Supervisors .Resolution 95-47,
adopted 3/28/1995, on page 3, paragraph 3, states:
"The Chico General Plan identifies this land (the North Chico
Specific Plan area) as a future growth. area and constrains
growth in other areas. Growth in the Chico area is further �.
• constrained through agricultural preservation policies, zoning,
and "the green line". The Chico General Plan requires the
infilling and increased densities to create a more compact
urban form. Thus, development within the North Chico
Specific Plan area is necessary to accommodate future
growth." (see exhibit 15)
As a result of the requirements of the Chico General Plan and
.Butte County's expressed intent to comply with the General
Plan through Resolution 95-47, immediate cancellation is F
' consistent with government code in that the subject property
• lies within an area designated for urban development and.
therefore will provide for a more contiguous pattern of
'development than development of proximate non -contracted
land to the west.
IL The subject property is currently surrounded on three sides
by existing,urban development (to the east) and proposed
development (to the north and south) (see exhibit Af
` < 1> Specifically, the Autumn Park subdivision to the east, '
circa 1999, has 43 suburban -residential lots.
<2> Mr. Pat Guernsey's subdivision map to the south is in
the final stages of approval for approximately 50 suburban
i residential lots. It is contiguous with the subject property.
<3> As the petitioner, I am in escrow on the 68 acre parcel
(known as the Levy property) to the north of the subject
property. This parcel is currently being processed through'
Development Services as well, pending approval for !
suburban -residential development. It is contiguous with the
subject property.
With the subject property literally surrounded by urban
- development on three sides (the fourth side being outside the
• `green line' and preserved for agricultural uses), immediate
cancellation is consistent with government code as it will t
4
- result in a- more contiguous pattern of urban development than ;
development of proximate non -contracted land which is not
."already surrounded by development on all sides.
III. The'Auf'n Park subdivision has two streets which 'dead -
um .
' end' into the Kittyhawk property, identified as Anjou Court
' and Magness Court (see exhibit 17). As Autumn Park was
submitted to, and approved by Butte County, these two :k
streets are 'shown on their final map as continuing in a '
- westerly direction and connecting directly to the Kittyhawk
parcel. These two streets running directly into the Kittyhawk"
' 'parcel provides conclusive evidence that it was the intention
of Development Services that these streets would eventually
r connect to and extend to the west in an effort to create a '
more contiguous pattern of urban development".
a The presence of Anjou Court and Magness Court indicate` that
immediate cancellation of the Kittyhawk LCA will allow fora`
?-more contiguous pattern of urban development than proximate
'= non -contracted land which does -not contain existing dead-end ,
streets and is therefore consistent with government code.
• IV:. ' The Autumn Park subdivision hasa street, identified as Bosc
`f Drive; which dead -ends into the 68 acre parcel (the Levy
• "' property) to the north (see exhibit 18). As noted in 5.. C.
` above, the intent for Bosc Drive was to continue in.a
northerly direction and connect with the adjoining property.,..
• This connection, when completed, will make fora more.
'• > • ' . ti.� z contiguous pattern of urban development" as part of the' , ;;:
NCSP format.. ,,• ,
The Levy property cannot, however, be developed to its'zoned ; K,
1 suburban -residential potential until there is <1> access and
<2> the Williamson Act is canceled on the Kittyhawk parcel: '
s'As to item < 1'>; While there is the potential for access at Bosc f'
Drive, Butte County Subdivision Code Section 20-133 =
- requires' additional points of ingress and egress. to a
' . residential subdivision where cul-de-sac, streets' serve more..
than 20 lots (see exhibit 19). These access points can only
take,place through the Autumn Park subdivision and the .
Kittyhawk property. This'limitation exists because (a) there',v.
' is an insufficient 60' cross section to the east to connect with ' k.
r Garner lane as required by Butte County Subdivision Code
• .. 20-134 (see exhibits 20 and 21) and (b) connecting to
r' • Highway 99 to the west is not an option as the east -west
5 '?
• ,.
. arterial for this area is already planned for the extension of
= .t Kittyhawk Drive. Specifically; a sixty foot easement was `
established in 1999 for the purpose,of extending Kittyhawk
Drive ori the south side of the Kittyhawk parcel. The long 'R
♦.' . range build -out plan for this the,
roadway is detailed in
' the Traffic Impact Analysis for Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey -
Siibdivisions (see exhibit 22). Construction of this arterial is , t
also sited in the Butte County Board of Supervisors
' . 4 Resolution 95-47 (see exhibit 23).
The presence of Bosc Drive as it connects to the Levproperty
• ' y ,• ,
-,clearly indicates that immediate cancellation of the Kittyhawk,
t LCA will allow for a more contiguous pattern of urban ,
'development (onto the Levy property) than development of `
proximate non -contracted land because the restrictions of the
Williamson Act on the Kittyhawk parcel prevent the
construction of additional roads required for ingress and `
egress onto the Levy parcel. r
" As to item <2>; The Levy property is effectively incapable of
development due to the 300' agricultural -to -urban buffer
::required through the Butte County 1995 Agricultural
. ;.
• Element. - The Levy parcel measures approximately 700' from
north to south: Compliance with the 300' buffer effectively
prohibits one-half of the parcel from being developed as its `
s *' suburban -residential zoning allows (see exhibit 18).
'The presence of the Kittyhawk property as an operating ;
r' orchard and in its current Williamson Act status actually - =
precludes a more contiguous pattern of urban development on '
the Levy parcel. The presence of an operating orchard in the
Williamson Act is therefore inconsistent with government code;
RWhich encourages contiguous patterns of urban development.
f !
Mr. Guernsey's 50 acre subdivision to the south of
' Kittyhawk faces similar restriction due to the 300' urban to
ag buffer requirement (see exhibit.24). Butte County has
} 'J_ informed Mr' Guernsey that he `may not create nor develop
approximately 4 parcels which are contiguous to and within
.300' feet of the Kittyhawk property. Once again, compliance `
ti with ,the 300' buffer effectively prohibits nearly 10% of the',',
L, . 2 ' 'potential lots from being developed as its suburban-
r f residential zoning allows. This creates an additional gap in
• M what would otherwise be a contiguous pattern of urban :
development. '
6
• T + .
This is the second case in point where the presence orthe
• property as an operating orchard and in its current ;
�. •Kittyhawk prop y P n9 ,
Williamson Act status actually precludes a more contiguous--, a '
k, } pattern of urban development. The Guernsy parcel, as '
» proximate, contiguous, non -contracted land, is forced. to
develop in a non-contiguous manner as a result. The presence ,T
of an operating orchard in the Williamson Act is therefore `-
inconsisten.t.with government code which encourages
A
contiguous patterns of urban development. - ' T.!;
VI. The .Butte County Agricultural Element was enacted in 1995. r r
The Autumn Park subdivision was approved for development
in .1999. Although the 300' ag-to-urban buffer had. been
required for four years prior to the approval of Autumn Park,,
- •, , . it was not enforced or required as a part of their approval r '
{ process. • Homes on the west -border of Autumn Park are not., ►'
`•', only contiguous with the Kittyhawk orchard, the mature
' orchard trees grow up to the fences of these homey (see ;
exhibit 25). As a result, the issues of noise, dust and
restricted use chemicals are present in- the back and side
` yards of the adjacent residences. The presence of this.
orchard creates issues ranging from mere nuisanc-6 to ,
•' hazardous chemicals coming into contact with res-_dences ini-
` an urban environment.
.Immediate .cancellation will correct a condition of non -
s conforming use udth the ag-element and provide fo: a more
contiguous pattern of urban development than development'of,
•�' proximate non -contracted land which does not have a similar f
» <� ag-to-urban border, and is therefore consistent with
government code.
' VIL' A letter from the California Department of Conservation,
dated 4/26/2004. (and utilized in this petition's initial Land y :
Conservation Act Committee meeting in June, 2004), is
attached as exhibit 26. In his correspondence, A•_ting
Assistant Director Dennis J. O'Bryant states that California ;d
•Government Code 51282, findings 1 through 4, appear to be
' consistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act.
Regarding finding number 5, Mr. O'Bryant states, ".:. it does , fi
appear that development of the contracted land would
. provide more contiguous patterns of urban develiopment `.
' -than development of proximate noncontracted land." ;
• ,. �,'' On page 4 of this letter from Mr. O'Bryant, he goes on to'
" make the •following observations:
c
I J0
• "'The express purpose and intent at the time the North Chico
Specific Plan was adopted) was that this, property would cease to
be considered as viable agricultural property and would convert to
residential housing. The Department; notes that the Count.; adopted
the NCSP in 1995 and the County and the Landowner entered into a
Land Conservation Agreement in December, 1999. Since he
(Kittyhawk) property was clearly within a planning area i&ntified
for development, the initiation'of the Land Conservation Agreement
in 1999 was contrary to the expressed, intent of the Williamson Act,
to preserve agricultural land."
In point 5. A, B, C, D, E and F above, I have illustrated the
reasons why immediate cancellation results in a more
contiguous pattern of urban development than development of
proximate non -contracted land.. In point G., the Department of
Conservation further confirms this conclusion.
As required by California Government Code 51280, the preceding points
conclusively illustrate why this Petition for Cancellation meets 0
requirements for consistency within the purposes of this chapter.
I would further point out that at no time during -the required public
notice periods, committee hearings nor the Board of Supervisor=s meeting
on December 13, 2005, did any member of the public come forward to
object to this Petition for Immediate Cancellation.
Thank you for your methodical and thoughtful consideration of this
Petition. I look forward to providing any additional answers or
clarification. you may require at the next meeting.
Respectfully yours,
George R. Nicolaus
Petitioner for Cancellation
Kittyhawk_Petition 101
8
A0, �, UMIW
-----
City of Chico
NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN
• TABLE 2-2
NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS
OCrete a functional and attractive residential community, complimented by cultural amenities and all public facilities and services necessary
to support the population which will result from Plan development, with development of a variety of housing types to accommodate a broad
range of household needs.
2. Create integrated open space, parks and recreational amenities which will result in improved quality of life for residents of both the Plan area
and greater Chico area.
3. Plan areas for commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities which will meet the needs orarea residents and reduce the
need for daily travel outside the Plan area. Traffic on all streets within the plan area should not exceed a _evel of Service (LOS) 'C'. In
no case shall the LOS exceed "D'.
4. Develop a circulation system which provides for the efficient and uncongested movement of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists with
minimum intrusion upon the rural and residential character of the area.
5. Increase the mobility of residents through development of an adequate and balanced transportation system that includes automotive and
non-vehicular transportation considerations.
6. Develop a community complimented by compatible and harmonious architectural and landscape design.
7. Establish a balanced, pedestrian-oriented Village Core which supports a variety of uses.
B.Z Provide public and community services which both adequately serve the community and are cost-effective ,
Y , TABLE 2-3
SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES '
General Policies
1 Create a functional and attractive residential community, with development of a variety of housing types to accommodate a broad range
of household needs complimented by cultural amenities and all public facilities and services necessary to support the population which
will result from Plan development.
2� Create integrated open space, parks and recreational amenities which will result in improved quality of life for residents of both the Plan
area and greater Chico area.
3. , Provide commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities which will meet the needs of area residents and reduce the need
for daily travel outside the Plan area.
4. Develop a circulation system which provides for the efficient and uncongested movement of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists with
minimum intrusion upon the rural and residential character of the area.
5. Increase the mobility of the residents through development of a transportation system which includes automotive and non-vehicular
transportation.
F �
6. Develop a community of compatible and harmonious architectural and landscape design. t
7. Establish a balanced, pedestrian-oriented Village Core which supports a variety of uses and provide a focal point for the area.
OProvide public and community services which both adequately serve the community and are cost effective.
9.4 Preserve the semi-rural lifestyle of the Plan area, while providing for the future housing. needs.
10. Protect the long-term operations of the Chico Municipal Airport by providing compatible land uses, adequaL- setbacks, avigation
easements, signing, and other measures.
CA Codes (gov:51280-51287)
GOVERNMENT CODE
• SECTION 51280-51287
51280. It is hereby declared that
provide relief from the provisions
pursuant to this chapter under the
provided herein.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode section=gov&group...
the purpose of this article is to
of contracts entered into
circumstances and conditions
51280.1. As used in this chapter, the finding of a board or council
that "cancellation and alternative use will not result in
discontiguous patterns of urban development" authorizes, but does not
require, the board or council to cancel a contract if it finds that
the alternative use will be rural in character and that the
alternative use will result within the foreseeable future in a
contiguous pattern of development within the relevant subregion. The
board or council is not required to find that the alternative use
will be immediately contiguous to like development. In rendering its
finding, the board or council acts in its own discretion to evaluate
the proposed alternative use according to existing and projected
conditions within its local jurisdiction.
The provisions of this section shall apply only to those
proceedings for the cancellation of contracts which were initiated
pursuant to Section 51282.1, and, consistent with the provisions of
Section 9 of Chapter 1095 of the Statutes of 1981, shall apply to the
same extent as the provisions of Section 51282.1, notwithstanding
their repeal.
• 51281. A contract may not be canceled except pursuant to a request
by the landowner, and as provided in this article.
51281.1. The board or council may require the payment of a
reasonable application fee to be made at the time a petition for
cancellation is filed.
51282. (a) The landowner may petition the board or council for
cancellation of any contract as to all or any part of the subject
land. The board or council may grant tentative approval for
cancellation of a contract only if it makes one of the following
,findings:
(1) That the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of this
chapter; or
(2) That cancellation is in the public interest.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) cancellation
of a contract shall be consistent with the purposes of this chapter
only if the board or council makes all of the following findings:
(1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of
nonrenewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245.
.(2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of
adjacent lands from agricultural use.
(3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is
consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county
general plan.
(4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of
urban development.
•
(5) That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both
available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the
1 of 7
12/5/2006 1:20 PM
CA Codes(gov:51280-51287)
•
C]
•
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group...
contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land
would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than
development of proximate noncontracted land.
As used in this subdivision "proximate, noncontracted land" means
land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is
sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve
as a practical alternative for the use which is proposed for the
restricted land.
As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means
that the salient features of the proposed use can be served by land
not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. Such
nonrestricted land may be a single parcel or may be a combination of
contiguous or discontiguous parcels.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) cancellation
of a contract shall be in the public interest only if the council or
board makes the following findings: (1) that other public concerns
substantially outweigh the objectives of this chapter ; and (2) that
there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and
suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be
put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more
contiguous patterns of urban development than development of
proximate noncontracted land.
As used in this subdivision "proximate, noncontracted land" means
land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is
sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve
as a practical alternative for the use which is proposed for the
restricted land.
As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means
that the salient features of the proposed use can be served by land
not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. Such
nonrestricted land may be a single parcel or may be a combination of
contiguous or discontiguous parcels.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (a), the uneconomic character of
an existing agricultural use shall not by itself be sufficient reason
for cancellation of the contract. The uneconomic character of the
existing use may be considered only if there is no other reasonable
or comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put.
(e) The landowner's petition shall be accompanied by a proposal
for a specified alternative use of the land. The proposal for the
alternative use shall list those governmental agencies known by the
landowner'to have permit authority related to the proposed
alternative use, and the provisions and requirements of Section
51283.4 shall be fully applicable thereto. The level of specificity
required in a proposal for a specified alternate use shall be
determined by the board or council as that necessary to permit them
to make the findings required.
(f) In approving a cancellation pursuant to this section, the
board or council shall not be required to make any findings other
than or in addition to those expresssly set forth in this section,
and, where applicable, in Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code.
51282.3. (a) The landowner may petition the board or council,
pursuant to Section 51282, for cancellation of any contract or of any
portion of a contract if the board or council has determined that
agricultural laborer housing is not a compatible use on the
contracted lands. The petition, and any subsequent cancellation
based thereon, shall (1) particularly describe the acreage to be
subject to cancellation; (2) stipulate that the purpose of the
cancellation is to allow the land to be used exclusively for
agricultural laborer housing facilities; (3) demonstrate that the
contracted lands, or portion thereof, for which cancellation is being
sought are reasonably necessary for the development and siting of
agricultural laborer housing; and (4) certify that the contracted
lands, or portion thereof, for which cancellation is being sought,
shall not be converted to any other alternative use within the first
2 of 7 12/5/2006 1:20 PM
• t •
r t
September 7, 2003
Butte County Planning Dept
#7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Re: APN 047-026-199
13822 Hwy 99 N
,. Chico, CA ' 95973
Approx 52 Acres
Lot A Autumn Park Subdivision '
I would like to remove this -property from the Williamson Land
Conservation Act. '
Please advise nae if I need to rill out any additional forms. ,
• /'u
Evelyn Liptrap
13822 Hwy 99 N.
Chico CA 95973
Phone: 530 342-9100 '
Fax 530 342-0100
• 4
r
After recording return to:
COUNTY OF BUTTE
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ,
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Space above this line for Recorder's Use
NOTICE OF NONRENEWAL - LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN BY "OWNER" that the Land Conservation Agreement by and between
Evelyn C. Liptrap and the County of Butte, which agreement is recorded December 22, 1999, as Instrument
Number 0052839 of the Official Records of Butte County, California, IS NOT TO BE RENEWED. The
expiration date for that portion of said contract is the last day of December, 2012.
}
Owners
Receipt of Notice of Nonrenewal -Land Conservation Agreement acknowledged by the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Butte at its meeting of , -2p
Paul McIntosh, Clerk of the Boa: d
By:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF BUTTE Development ServicesA—M
�j /71,P/On ! oLJ before me, iti t* " `�
G /p Namg, it e o is r - .g., "Jane Doe, _tray 'u ic"
personally appeared
Name(s) of Si er(s) .
❑ personally known to me - OR OPproved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to b- the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ,
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
y °°'^. A. BURCHAM authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
'^ Comm. #1281413 I@ instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
�Q�RR =' NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA Q person(s) acted, executed the instrument:
BUTTE COUNTY
My Commission Expires Oct. 22, 2004
WITNESS my hand a d official seal.
Signat re of Notary
K:\LCA\partial nonrenew.l.doc 7
0 �
•
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Legend
}.;': "Orchard-&-Field-Crops'-.�,
`Field -crops; row crops; orchards, vinyards, and nursery stock -
0 Grazing & Open Lands
Irrigated pasture, grazing, and animal husbandry
O
O
TEHAMA
COUNTY
r
Figure
LU -4
N TH
6 ,
PLUMAS
------
_ -: COUNTY
_ anti Lr ,�
•••� of � ��� ~�..�• ' . '�'• ---
�ftif• ,j�f. :•j`,'��:-•� _ ::red r` _ �_ J ,
`;%fti •�� .j: f. 'f�1�r• :��`•�•.
'tib ••,ti�ti,t'ti.::ti: •t, '•�`•
GLENN •tiftif`;'•';ti; •r:,f: . ( '�
COUNTY 'r' : f: ,•t� P YUBA
ti.• :fti: : ti .` . ti . f',• : - COUNTY
r'' 'f �� ti fti: j' :L: :ti •� '��' •••.,1...:,•; 3..:V.
COLUSA ;:�:� ';fti •'`•. :a ::•fti �^
COUNTY r`:• r-: •f:r�r•f� r
Q.
SUTTER COUNTY `
6ource; 9uttn County Nanning C)"'on. 189E D 0
• Butte County Comprehensive Plan —
•
f
■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT ■ f
2.2 Encourage urban,' infill development within city limits and within existing
unincorporated communities where development can more easily and readily be `
served by public infrastructure facilities.
2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks and buffers
between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference and ,
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
. 5
2.8
2.1
2.2
2.3
conflict.
Create development and performance standards designed to pro`ect agricultural .
uses from urban encroachment conflicts.
Encourage. urban development to the LAFCo adopted Spheres of Influence.
Provide a clear delineation, on the General Plan Land Use Map, between long-term
agricultural production lands and city/community areas.
Allow for the conversion 'of agricultural land within LAFCo Spheres of Influence
where land has been determined to be irretrievably lost to urbanization. These
would likely be areas where urban development has surrounded or substantially.
encroached upon agricultural land and has limited its continued productive use:
New residences within agricultural areas shall be required to pay its fair share of
development impacts on public services and infrastructure.
Programs
Rezone unincorporated land within LAFCo-adopted Spheres of Influence to be
consistent with urban densities and City -adopted General Plans. Cooperate with
cities to make maximum efficient use' of vacant lands within adopted Spheres of „
Influence.•
5
The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be establisl ed on property
proposed for residential development in order to protect existing agricultural uses
from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet,. but may.
be adjusted to address unusual circumstance— s. dui a mes, as part of the General
Plan's r implementation, shall be developed illustrating buffer requirements for
various'situations. `
Where development approval, other than residential, is proposed on lot(s) adjacent
to an agricultural operation or Orchard and Field Crops land use category, the
..Zoning Ordinance shall require a natural or man-made buffer between the
development and the agricultural land use. The buffer shall be totally on the lot(s)
where development is proposed. A buffer could be a topographic feature; a
BUTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ■ DQ-IIBIT A - Adopted May 9, 1995'
AE - 11
a
• 11A.1i SELT • i
PROPERTY'.. .
\ WEIR #1
\ \ awran mm EXTEND KEEFER OVERFLOW III I I I
\\\� L-2174 LF ' ! =o.00a �F'r KEEFER St
sl
TRANSITION I
-5U3-DM- f
CELL 1 .. ; /
4 4`
•\\\\ WEIR #2
r
_ UNcn".faooar LJ �
\�\\\ w s A srsn u - - F f UT U. �.N = I:f�..It_
\\\ 200 AC tT
�'
-� P.HASL;� 3
... rT f SH:I3DIVISI.ON,
\\ _ R #
CRM aV.111M
Lonf-faaoar ccr�y _
Y Z
r
SKU
NICOLA US, ET AL.
LOT 'LA -YO UT Y 66 MARYBILL'RANCH RD-
-
CHICO, CA 95928
17- -
i. f
KI TlT YHAWK/_LEVY _ .71 THE -ENGINEERIM
SUBDIVISIONS _ ' 1250 EAST, AVENUE
(530)899-0409 'F,
Dear Mr. Nicolaus/Land Conservation Act Committee:
Re Petition, for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement:
APN 047-260-199; Nicolaus as Petitioner
Mr. George Nicolaus approached me in November, 2006, requesting a search of the Chico
Multiple Listing database. Specifically, he wanted to determine what undeveloped
property(s) were listed for sale and/or sold which were both `available and suitable' for
development as SR -1 (suburban -residential, one acre minimum). In addition, the
following parameters'were included:
1. All parcels from 10-100 acres in size.
®2. All land north. of East Avenue and on both sides of Highway 99..
3. All listings identified as "lots / land" and "farm / ranch".
Of the four pages generated from my search of the MLS database, only one parcel came
up with the SR- T zoning. It was a 13.7 acre parcel located on Garner Lane. It was listed
for 6 days before it sold in April, 2005, and is highlighted on page 4. This parcel was
approximately one quarter the size of the property Mr. Nicolaus seeks to develop. While
the location and zoning are similar, the scope of a 13 acre parcel is significantly smaller
than Mr. Nicolaus's 52 acre property.
Bare land "suitable" for development into one acre home sites in the Chico area is, by
definition, limited to property which is zoned SR -1. As noted above, this same bare land
is rarely "available" to the public as a real estate listing. The fact that there was only one
such listing in the past four years points toward a lack of "availability".
With (17) years of experience as a Realtor, a recipient of the Chico Association's Realtor of
the Year Award and past president of the Association, I believe the statements in this
letter represent an objective assessment of the facts as requested by Mr. Nicolaus.. If you
have any questions or need further clarification, please contact me at your convenience.
Yours truly,
Eric Christensen
KittyHawk Eric_PetitionLetter
Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated.
ERIC CHRISTENSEN
Broker Associate
•Gee ED _
1350 E. LASSEN AVE., SUITE 1
— 4
CHICO, CA 95973
BUS. (530) 895-1545.
FAX (530) 343-8233
DUFOUR REALTY
eric@ericsells.com
www.ericsells.com
December 4, 2007
George R. Nicolaus
66 Marybill Ranch Road
Chico, CA 95928,
Dear Mr. Nicolaus/Land Conservation Act Committee:
Re Petition, for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement:
APN 047-260-199; Nicolaus as Petitioner
Mr. George Nicolaus approached me in November, 2006, requesting a search of the Chico
Multiple Listing database. Specifically, he wanted to determine what undeveloped
property(s) were listed for sale and/or sold which were both `available and suitable' for
development as SR -1 (suburban -residential, one acre minimum). In addition, the
following parameters'were included:
1. All parcels from 10-100 acres in size.
®2. All land north. of East Avenue and on both sides of Highway 99..
3. All listings identified as "lots / land" and "farm / ranch".
Of the four pages generated from my search of the MLS database, only one parcel came
up with the SR- T zoning. It was a 13.7 acre parcel located on Garner Lane. It was listed
for 6 days before it sold in April, 2005, and is highlighted on page 4. This parcel was
approximately one quarter the size of the property Mr. Nicolaus seeks to develop. While
the location and zoning are similar, the scope of a 13 acre parcel is significantly smaller
than Mr. Nicolaus's 52 acre property.
Bare land "suitable" for development into one acre home sites in the Chico area is, by
definition, limited to property which is zoned SR -1. As noted above, this same bare land
is rarely "available" to the public as a real estate listing. The fact that there was only one
such listing in the past four years points toward a lack of "availability".
With (17) years of experience as a Realtor, a recipient of the Chico Association's Realtor of
the Year Award and past president of the Association, I believe the statements in this
letter represent an objective assessment of the facts as requested by Mr. Nicolaus.. If you
have any questions or need further clarification, please contact me at your convenience.
Yours truly,
Eric Christensen
KittyHawk Eric_PetitionLetter
Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY.
Mid Valley Title & Escrow Company
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
George R. Nicolaus and Connie J. Nicolaus
66 Marybill Ranch Road
Chico, CA 95928
A.P.N.*: 047-260-197 & 199
IIIIlillii!(illlllliillililiiUlfi .
20lQ5!2i—t,bQ5 1 9Ea2Z
Recorded I REC S=EE 13.00
Official Recor-cs . I TAX 1486.00
County Of i
BUTTE I
CANDACE J. SRUBES I
/ Recorder I
l ROSEMARY UICKSLEN I
Assi-stant-------,I Jason
u9 ttiioAhi �Dd-Apr-ciGv16 i) page i of 3A
Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only
File No.: 0401-217175 (DP)
GRANT DEED,-� SC'
The Undersigned Grantor(s) Declare(s): DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $1,485.00; CITY TRANSFER TAX $0.00;
SURVEY MONUMENT FEE $
X computed on the consideration or full value of property conveyed, OR
computed on the consideration or full value less value of liens and/or encumbrances remaining at time of sale
X unincorporated area; [ ] City of Chico, and
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Evelyn C. Liptrap, an
unmarried woman
.-hereby GRANTS to George R. Nicolaus and Connie 7. Nicolaus, husband and wife as joint tenants
• the following described property in.the unincorporated area of Chico, County of Butte, State of California:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" :
Dated: 04/05/2005
Evelyn C. Liptrap
•
LIST PRICE:
SOLD PRICE:
HIGH
LOW
AVERAGE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P LISTING COUNT
$2,300,000
$99,999
1
$706,214
$359,500
$9,886,999
14
$1,800,000 $99,999 $496,999 $145,000
$2,484,999
LMIUUII
ITJL.0 LlCIIIICu
Original
J ICtlu. ICCs
r� �f
'Acres
"'��
LotDim
Agent Agt Name
DOM
-
Cross Street
--�
�st Date
�Contract'
Close
ype
MLS #
Status
Price
Sold Price
Ask Price
a Address
Acres
�
onmg
_ _
-
Date
Date
EXP
$155,000
$155,000
000 LEFTOUT LN
40.00
OG-
JAIME
ERCRUSE
98
Renkow
8/29/2003
RE
00503689
SLD
$175,000
$145,000
$175,000
000 LEFTOUT LN
40.00
A-40
SHELLY
TTSELL
61
Renkow Road
1/22/2004
2/20/2004
/23/2004
RE
200503773
WDN
$120,000
$120,000
0000 DENVER RD
20.00
A�l)
LEIF PETERSON
23 1
trinidad
7/13/2004
RE
00503878
SLD 1
$120,000
$120,000
$120,000
0000 DENVER RD
20.00
LEIF PETERSON
53
trinidad
7/14/2004
8/1/2004
9/5/2004
RE
00530506
SLD
$325,000
$320,000
$325,000
000 INDIAN CLIFFS
40.45
f(� 4
GEORGIE A
77
Richardson Springs Rd.
10/20/2004
12/6/2004
1/5/2005
RE
00503953
R
f
ELLIN
EXP
$344,000
$344,000
R OO INDIAN CLIFFS
40.52
FA
JOANNE SKEEN
89
Richardson Springs Road
2/10/2005
RE
00504007
SLD
$1,800,000
•- ---- - _ _
0000 GARNER LN-
"13.77
- SR -1'
� � �
DARCY
Rio Bravo/Green Meadow
4/14/2005
4/20/2005
/30/2006
RE
00504072
1,800,000
1,800,000
- -
JOHNSON t
y 1
Ln
-
---
SLD
$99,999
$99,999
$99,999
1395 VILAS RD
20.24
SFR
SCOTT HUBER
20
PONDEROSA
7/29/2005
8/18/2005
/30/2005
RE
00532532
EXP
$399,000
$399,000
0 INDIAN CLIFFS
41.56
FR -40
JOANNE SKEEN
182
Richardson Springs Road
2/23/2006
RE
00601178
R
ACT
$429,000
$379,000
Lot 10 INDIAN
40.60
FIR4040.66
DAN GORDON
266
Richardson Springs Road
3/8/2006
RE
00601525
CLIFFS DR
acres
EXP
$2,300,000
0000 GARNER LN
13.77
SR,I
DONALD CAMY
185
Rio Bravo
5/1/2006
RE
00602885
2,300,000
ACT
$2,300,000
000 HICKS LN
18.82
R1-4
GERALDINE LEE
90
1 Caballo
8/31/2006
RE
00607158
$2,300,000
1
ACT
$375,000
$375,000
INDIAN CLIFFS
R
41.56
fr-40
STEVE DEPA
65
IADARDSON SPRINGS
9/25/2006
RE
00607287
00
ROAD
ACT
$995,000
$995,000
3000 THORNTREE
DR
100.00
BRUCE ROE
43
CohassettRA
10!17/2006
00607895
Disciaimer
This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed; this list of properties may represent listings of all the Real Estate Office Participants of the Sierra North Valley MLS and not just the Agent/Office
which has provided this list.
La1�Vj
•
LIST PRICE:
SOLD PRICE:
HIGH LOW AVERAGE MEDIAN TOTAL PR LISTING COUNT
$995,000 $775,000 $892,500 $900,000 $3,570,000
1
4
$725,000 $725,000 $725,000 $725,000 $725,000
Status
. Ask . •....
Sold•�Y
` Address
Bedroom
th SQFAgent
-Agt
YrBlt
Acres
oning
otDi
OM
Lst Date
Close Date
oSho
OccName
OccPh
MLS #
Price
Price
Name
EXP
925,000
4729 KILKARE LN
1151
ROBERT
ROSISE
1977
30.00
A-5
172
4/1/2004
APPT
Bill and Cheryl
Humphrey
343-4575
00517664
�ypN
$875,000
4867
STARFLOWER LN
547
MICHAEL
TEARNS
1996
20.00
RS i
192
5/6/2005
CFG
LYNCH
530-874-
051
200530343
SLD
14577 CAMENZIND
4
3
SHERRY
40.00
�(,
80
8/5/2005
GOV
00532795
775,000
$725,000
T
934
PAYNE
005
11/11/2005
ACT
$995,000
3000 THORNTREE
DR
3 '
2BRUCE
1560
ROE
001
00.00
189
124/2006
GOV
00606207
Disclaimer
This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed; this list of properties may represent listings of all the Real Estate Office Participants of the Sierra North Valley MLS and not just the Agent/Office
which has provided this list.
-
C
7
0
LIST PRICE:
SOLD PRICE:
Irl
HIGH LOW AVERAGE MEDIAN TOTAL P
LISTING COUNT
$1,000,000 $225,000 $510,212 $400,000 $8,163,400
1 1
16
$1,250,000 $230,000 $490,500 $325,000 $2,452,500
C:
Status
'. Original YvSold
Price
Price`
Ask Price
I
Address
Acresoning
k
LotDim
Agent - Agt Name
I
DOM
Cross Street
Lst Date
Contract
Date
Close Date
Type
MLS #
SLD
$1,000,000
$1,250,000
1,000,000
0 BAY AVE
0.00
A-5
FRAN SHELTON
792
Shasta ave.
1/7/2003
12/22/2003
3/9/2005
RE
00503512
EXP
$225,000
$225,000
000 MERIDIAN RD
10.00
A-20
KELLY BROWN
100
WELDING WAY
/22/2003
RE
00503699
EXP
$904,000
$904,000
525 BELL RD
0.00
AH -0
HOWARD
JOHNSON
181
Nona
/26/2003
RC
00503711
EXP
$904,000
$904,000
5251 BELL RD
0.00
a40,
HOWARD
JOHNSON
444
Hwy 32.
/26/2003
RE
200503887
EXP
$904,000
$904,000
5251 BELL RD!�
0.00
HOWARD
POHNSON
181
Nord
/26/2003
RC
00503712
WDN
$310,000
$310,000
0 NORD HWY
11.05
A-10
MIKE WIEGERT
472
Esplanade
12/9/2003
RE
00503751
WDN
$350,000
$325,000
000 MERIDIAN RD
13.17
A-10
KELLY BROWN
313
Welding Way
5/4/2004
RE
00503840
EXP
$375,000
$350,000
000 NORD HWYdo
6.36
1"
BRANDON C
HARRIS
182
Carmen
/15/2004
RE
200503881
SLD
$275,000
$250,000
$250,000
000 NORD HWYQn
10.64
'N
BRANDON C
HARRIS
131
Carmen
/15/2004
11/23/2004
11/23/2004
RE
200503880
SLD
$349,000
$325,000
$349,000
0 WILSON LANDING RD
0.00
A40
BILL CHANCE
4
Hamilton Nord Cana
Hwy.
4/28/2005
5/2/2005
6/3/2005
RE
200504094
EXP
$425,000
$425,000
000 NORD HWY
19.55
AG
TERESA LARSON
92
ESPLANADE
9/3/2005
RE
00533540
SLD
$237,400
$230,000
$237,400
00 CANA HWY
7.48
A40
1731 X
1191
TERRY CHENEY
34
Harrvlton Nord Cana
/28/2005
11/1/2005
12/16/2005
MX
200534179
WDN
$405,000
$405,000
000 MERIDIAN RD
13.17
A-10
KELLY BROWN
2
Welding Way
11/6/2005
RE
00535088
SLD
$405,000
$397,500
$405,000
000 MERIDIAN RD
13.17
A-10
KELLY BROWN
69
Welding Way
12!1/2005
2/8/2006
3/16/2006
RE
00535796
ACT
$395,000
$395,000
8765 BELL RD
1000
A-10
660 x 660
KELLY BROWN
126
Meridan
/26/2006
AG
00605649
ACT
$950,000
$775,000
0000 W SACRAMENTO
VE
5.30
Agri
BERNARD
FARMER
93
Muir Avenue
/28/2006
AG
00606555
Disclaimer
This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed; this list of properties may represent listings of all the Real Estate Office Participants of the Sierra North Valley MLS and not just the Agent/Office
which has provided this list.
L'�' / L' '�
', f . L -'j
i
LIST PRICE:
SOLD PRICE:
Default MLS Defined Snreadsheet
HIGH LOW AVERAGE MEDIAN TOTAL P
LISTING COUNT
$3,900,000 $220,000 $954,214 $687,500 $13,359,000
1
14
$1,193,500 $220,000 $522,125 $337,500 $2,088,500
C:
tatusl
Ask Price
Sold Price
Address
BedroodBaths
SGF
ent - A t Name
YrBtt
Acres I
Zoning
LotDim IDOM
Lst Date lClose
Date
ToShow
OccName
OccPh
MLS #
WDN
3,900 000
16414 HWY 99
000
KEN MARTIN
1960
305.00
A-40
751
7/10/2002
APPT
00517576
WDN
$350,000
0 WILSON
0
BILL CHANCE
40.00
A40
279
3/26/2003
CA
DING RD
1000
00517608
WDN
$450,000
0 WILSON
LANDING RD
0
BILL CHANCE
1000
69.00
A40
279
3/26/2003
CA
00517609
SLD
$220,000
$220,000
111 BELL RD
0
JERRY LAYMAN
0
20.38
A5
317
6/4/2003
4/16/2004
CA
00517620
EXP
0000 W CANA
0
BEPPIE LEACH
0.00
A40
123
8/19/2003
GOV
Vugrenes
1 200,000
WY
1973
arms
200517641
SLD
1,500,000
1,193,500
6110 CANA HWY
070
DENNIS
DEROMEDI
1989
80.00
A-40
201
4/1/2004
10/19/2004
GOV
Vacant
00517662
WDN
$750,000
0 WILSON
LANDING RD
0
BILL CHANCE
0
109.00
A40
300
4/7/2004
CA
0517663
SLD
$350,000
$350,000
• CANA PINE
REEK RD
0
GIL JOHNSTON
999
44.00
AG
133
8/16/2004
12/27/2004
CA
00517682
EXP
$860,000
CANA HWY
0
JERRY LAYMAN
1914
40.00
40
13810/14/2004
CA
Clark
00517691
SLD
$349,000
$325,000
0 WILSON
LANDING RD
0
BILL CHANCE
1000
40.00
A40
4
4/28/2005
6/3/2005
GOV
00517719
EXP
$625,000
3191 3193
AKWAY
1450
TOM HAMPTON
1930
5.00
A 10
186
4/29/2005
GOV
vacant
00517721
EXP
$595,000
3191 3193
AKWAY
1450
TOM HAMPTON
1930
5.00
A-10
366
11/2/2005
GOV
00534968
EXP
1 300 000
000 HWY 32
0
Ed Becker
0
149.00
1L11
185
3/1/2006
GOV
00601617
ACT
1 $910,000
3191 & 3193 OAK
AY
1450
MARK LEIKER
1930
5
CRE
660 X
60
21
11/8/2006
GOV
ACANT
1200608399
Disclaimer
This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed; this list of properties may represent listings of all the Real Estate Office Participants of the Sierra North Valley MLS and not just the Agent/Office
which has provided this list.
F -9-r 1— / . 4,�c t-,
Iq t.
intersection is:proposed to remain as an at grade intersection of State
Route 99. As stated on Page 2-2 of the Final E1R (FEIR), traffic -
operations at the unsignalized intersection of Keefer Road/State Route '
• 99 intersection will operate at unacceptable levels, during the morning
peak period only, for left turn movements from Keefer Road onto State
Route 99.
4
The Specific Plan, through conditions of approval, has been modified to
require the County to work with CafTrans on the installation of traffic 4
signals at SR 99 and the new arterial and Keefer Road. The Specific
A •
Plan utilizes the eoasting creeks and sloughs as bicycle and pedestrian ;s -
trails connecting to the various land use area. This will assist in
minimizing the use of the automobile. In addition, the Specific Plan has
planned office, commercial and industrial areas which will snake local jobs,
available for persons residing within the North Chico Specific Plan Area
and thereby reduce commuting traffic into and out of the area
The Chico'General Plan identifies this land as a future growth area and =
constrains growth in other areas. The Chico General Plan, Map also
depicts the Alternative Land Use Plan identified in the FEIR. Growth in, ;
the Chico area is further constrained through agricultural preservation '-
policies, zoning, and 'the greenline'. The Chico General Plan requires'
the infilling and increased densities to create a more compact urban r
form. Thus, development within -the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP)
area is necessary to accommodate future growth. - k'
2 Air Quality Impacts: As discussed on Pages 10-1 through 10-11 of the ` `.
Draft E1R, the project,will contribute indirect emissions associated with
project -related automobile use, and will cumulatively exceed emissions
thresholds contained in the Air Quality Attainment Plan.
Implementation of the Specific Plan will contribute indirect emissions'
associated with project related automobile use, and will cumulatively
exceed emission thresholds contained in the Air Quality Attainment Plan.,
The NCSP, more than any plan In the vicinity is designed to reduce the
dependency upon the automobile and to reduce automobile trips. The
1 location of the Village Core, the connection of the Village amore to the
various land uses within the Plan, and the extensive trail and pathway
4 , ' system, will contribute to lower emissions than standard urban/suburban'
development .
'Ar quality impacts affect a regional area much larger than just the North `
Chico Specific Plan. Air quality impacts from any development within the
Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin are of a type which would be' '
expected to occur. in, connection with development anywh ire in the
• ,, `
20-133 Cul-de-sac streets. Page 1 of 1
Chapter 20 SUBDIVISIONS"
Article VI. Design Standards
20-133 Cul-de-sac streets.
A cul-de-sac street in an urban area, as shown in appendix I of the design standards, shall not exceed five
hundred (500) feet in length and shall not serve more than twenty (20) lots or parcels. No cul-de-sac, in a rural
area, shall provide sole legal access to more than twenty (20) parcels, except where all parcels are more than
twenty (20) acres in lot area, or circulation is not practical or feasible because of topography. (Ord. No. 3188, §
1(Exh. A), 3-14-95)
<< previous] next >>
•
•
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/buttec%DATA/CHAPTER20/Article_VI_Design_Standar... 11/20/2006
20-134 Minimum widths. Page 1 of 1
Chapter 20 SUBDIVISIONS'
Article VI. Design Standards
20-134 Minimum widths.
Normally a minimum sixty-foot street right-of-way shall be required. A minimum fifty-foot street right-of-way
shall be permitted for local access streets, short through streets, or unusual situations where the cul-de-sac is
appropriate, except as provided for in section 20-136. In an industrial area a minimum sixty-foot richt-of-way is
required. (Ord. No. 3188, § 1(Exh. A), 3-14-95)
« previous next >>
Z c 40
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/buttec%DATA/CHAPTER20/Article_VI Design_S=ctu... 11/20/2006
• Civil and Transportation Engineering
DHAIFT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KITTYHAWK PARK/GUERNSEY SUBDIVISIONS
BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
r
February 8, 2005
• a 1
Prepared for -
The Engineering Group
1250 East Avenue
Suite 10
Chico, CA 95926
*r ,
• 1
837 Columba Lane Foster City, CA 94404 (650) 212-0837 FAX (650) 2-2-3150
I i• I I _ 1 t I 1 I ! i I
I i I
I`
? i ! 1 I I '• I I 1 1 I i I I V
-
I- - - L --J--.J---1----.L --I- --J ---� --1--J---�S--, i -- j --J L--L�
7- - 7 - - 7 - - 7 - - - - - T- - - r - --- - --- - - 1-77 T-
IL
�•—,----�IG
!
I I I i 1 I I I I I ! I I I I I
- I I' L--L--I---�---I--J--J---I-- �-----1--J L_-L--I---I---1—
• ' I I 1 ! I 1 I ! I I ! 1 I I I I
i, _ 1 _.J_ _---1--1--1--1---I-__-I---I---I--J.-.
jTt`Y:r.LN_T:;_--5 +�LajiE^i_pct: _ili :Ts`L_°; JS:� '�„—_---_.—_--------------------------_
I I I h. � �! j I .7 I I i • I
1 --
jNOT A PART
\
\1
-wl%
SCALE: 1"=400'
23
I
f
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 10
q p p I
m
-wl%
SCALE: 1"=400'
23
I
f
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 10
intersection is' proposed to remain as an at grade intersection of State
' Route 99. As stated on Page 2-2 of the Final EIR (FE1R), traffic
operations at the unsignalized intersection of Keefer Roa4 :/State Route -
• 99 intersection will operate at unacceptable levels, during.the morning
peak period only, for left turn movements from Keefer Road onto State
• Route 99.
The Specific Plan, through conditions of approval, has been modified to
• require the County to work with Caffrans on the installation of traffic -t
signals at SR 99 and the new arterial and Keefer Road. The Spe c
' Plan utilizes the existing creeks and sloughs as bicycle and pedestrian
trails connecting to the various land use area. This will assist in
minimizing the use of the automobile. In addition, the Specific Plan has`
planned office, commercial and industrial areas which will make local jobs
available for persons residing within the North Chico Specific Plan Area
and thereby reduce commuting traffic into and out of the area
The Chico General Plan identifies this land'as a future growth area and '
constrains growth in other areas. The Chico General Plan Map also
depicts the Alternative Land Use Plan identified in the FEIR. Growth in
the Chico area is further constrained through agricultural preservation
policies, zoning, and 'the greenline'. The Chico General Plan requires
the infilling and increased densities to create a more compact urban
form. Thus, development within- the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP)
area is necessary to accommodate future growth.
• 2. Air Quality Imga tg s: As discussed on Pages 10-1 through 10-11 of the'
•
r : Draft EIR, the project will contribute .indirect emissions associated with
project -related -automobile use, and will cumulatively exceed emissions
thresholds contained in the Air Quality Attainment Plan.
- Implementation of the Specific Plan will contribute indirect. emissions
" associated with project related automobile use, and will cumulatively '
exceed emission thresholds contained in the Air Quality Attainment Plan.
The NCSP, more than any plan In the vicinity is designed to reduce the
_ - dependency upon the automobile and to reduce automobile trips. The '
' location .of the Village Core, the connection of the Alage Core to the k,
various land uses within the Plan, and the extensive trail and pathway F ' .
system, will contribute to lower emissions than standard urban/suburban
development
Air quality impacts affect a regional area much larger than just the North,,
Chico Specific Plan. Air quality impacts from any development within the
Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin are of a type which would be
expected to occur in connection with development anywhere in the
• ` t, 3 k h
Jul 15 04 a1i47'p Dev SVCS,& Env Health 530 538-7785 p•1
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
:5 T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
April 26, 2004
D I V I C I O N or. Mr. Dan Breedon, Principal Planner
, LAND ReSOVACE '
P R O Y E C T I O N Butte County Dept. of Developmental Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
901 K STRECT
SACRAMENTO
CACI A RNA � RE: Petition for Cancellation of LarYd Conservation Agreement'. -
95 814 APN 047-260-190, Landownerk.Eveiyn Liptrap
?HONE
9161324-0050 Dear Mr. Breedon:
FAX
916/327-3430 Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation
I N T f R N E T (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 for the, above
COnSrv.ca.gov referenced matter.
The petition proposes to cancel the Williamson Act contract on
G
G OVERATDAVIS
OD A �: S approximately 48.23 prime agricultural acres, currently planted with
RNR
productive walnut tree;, for the development of 53 residential bu Iding lots.
The subject parcel was, placed in the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) in
1995 with Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum zoning. The landowner
entered into the land conservation agreement with Butte County -on
December 22, 1999. The subject site Is located east of Highway 99, north
of Wilson Landing Road In Butte County.
Cancellation Findings
The applicable Williamson Act contract (Section VII, page 3) provides that
tentative approval for cancellation may be granted only if the Board makes
both,of the following findings: 1) cancellation is consistent with lyirposes of
the Williamson Act, and 2) cancellation is in the public interest. The
contract requirements that both findings must be made.are more stringent
than required in Government Code §51282. Section 51282 requires that
either the consistency or public interest findings must be made by the
Board. Government Code §51240 provides that contract provisions may ,
provide for restrictions, terms and conditions, including payments and
fees, more restrictive than or in addition to those required by the Act. The
Butte County Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee will make a
recommendation on the proposed cancellation to the Board of
Supervisors.
• Mr. Dan Breedon
April 26, 2004
Page 2 of 4
In addition to the requirement that both findings be .made by the Board, the contract
(Section VII, page 3) also provides for a cancellation "fee in an amount equal :o 25% of
the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be payable to the
State of Callfornia pursuant to Government Code §51283, and one-half shall be payable
to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124." We request a cop, of the
Suite County Assessor's cancellation valuation for Oe proposed cancellation and a
copy of the discussion of the Board's findings pursuant to Government Code §51282.
The Department has reviewed the petition for cancellation and information provided and
provides the following comments,
Cancellation is Consistant with tide Purposes of the Williamson Act
For the cancellation to be consistent with purposes of the Williamson Act, the Butte
County Board of Supervisors (Board) must make findings with respect to all of the
following: 1) a notice of nonrenewal has been served, 2) removal of adjacent land from
agricultural use is unlikely, 3) the altema.tive use is consistent with the County's
General Plan, 4) discontiguous patterns of urban development will not result, and 5)
• that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the
use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted end would
provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of
.proximate noncontracted land.
A notice of nonrenewal was served by Evelyn C, Lipt-ap to Butte County on or about
December 29, 2003. The expiration date for the contract will be Decomber 31, 2012,
The Attorney General has opined that nonrenewal is the preferred contract termination
method: "If a landowner desires to change the use of his land under contract to uses
other than agricultural production and compatible uses, the proper procedure is to give
notices of nonrenewal pursuant to Government Code §51245." (54 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen
90, 92 (1971).) The nonrenewal process continues to be the preferable method of
contract termination for the Department.
The subject parcel is contiguous to existing one acre rural ranchette development to the
east on approximately 50 acres of land formerly owned by Ms. Liptrap. The Guernsey
subdivision is proposed on 50 acres, adjacent to the south. A request for a teltative
map has been submitted for the Guernsey subdivision. The property north of the
Liptrap contracted land was recently cleared of all almond trees in an older orchard. It
is speculated that this property is subject to development pressure from proposed and
completed development in the Specific Plan area. Since agricultural lands lie west
across Highway 99, outside the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan, it appears
the requested contract cancellation is unlikely to result in the removal of adjacent land
from agricultural use.
• The proposed alternative use, fifty-three residential building lots, is consisten• with the
County's General Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject parcel is zoned
_ U'lTgQW nua I GOAS n��] �OS�'TC t•0 S? Tnr
Jul 15 04 01:47p Dev.Sves & Env Health 530 538-7785 p•2
Mr. Dan Breedon
April 26, 2004
• Page 3 of 4
for residential use and contiguous to existing and planned development to the east and
south. The Department agrees that development of the subject parcel will not result in a
discontiguous pattern of urban development. .
Evidence to substantiate a finding that there is no proximate noncontracted land which
is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land does not appear
adequate. In reviewing the County's Williamson Act map and the North Chico Specific
Plan there appears to be noncontracted land within the Plan available and zoned for
residential use. These noncontracted lands are contiguous to existing urban
development and lie to the north of the subject site and southeast of Mudd Creek.
However, since tho Liptrap property is adjacent to similarly developed property to the
east and southeast, and the GLArnsey property to the south is scheduled for
development in the near future it does appear that development of the contracted
land would provide more cog
contiguous patterns of urban development than development »,
of proximate noncontracted land.
Cancellation ig in thp, Public Interest
For the cancellation to be in the public Interest, the Butte County Board of Supervisors
(Board) must make findings with respect to all of the following: (1) other public
• concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act and (2) that there
is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed
on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would provide more
contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate
noncontracted land. Our comments have already addressed the second finding
required under public Interest finding above.
A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of
the California Constitution and Government Code §51252. To pass constitutional muster,
a restriction must be enforceable in the face of imminent urban development, and may
not be terminable merely because such development is desirable or profitable to the
landowner. (Lewis v. Ci y of Hayward (1986), 177 Cal. App. 3d 103, 113) A clear
showing on the record of the public interest benefits is necessary.
The canoellation petition addresses the public interest finding in three areas; public
safety and emergency services, contiguous growth pattern and agricultural element
issues. It states that allowing contract cancellation serves the public interest because
the developer offers Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial
roadway connecting State Highway 99 and. Garner Road thereby providing a more
direct route for emergency vehicles.
Any decision to cancel a land conservation contract based upon a finding that the
continued restricted use is contrary to the public interest must also investigate the
0
• Mr. Dan Breedon
April 26, 2004
Page 4 of 4
criteria used for originally restricting a landowner's use of the land and allowing for a
preferential tax assessment on behalf of the public interest. In enacting the Williamson
Act, the Legislature deliberately required a landowner's long-term commitment to
agriculture or other open -space use in exchange for preferential taxation.
The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Bu County
clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". IThe express
purpose and intent at that point in time was that this; property would cease t:) be
considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential 4ousing, The.
Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Spocific.Plan in; 1996 and
the County and th& landowner entered into a Land t"onservatlon Agreement in
December 1999. Since the Liptrap property was clearly within a planning a,'ea identified
for development, the initiation of the land conservation agreement in 1999 was contrary
to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural lan j
The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land
Conservation Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or
• specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restriction to agricLItural use
provided for in the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development
as well as to preserve agricultural land.
C]
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed cancegation. After
reviewing the documentation and information provided, it appears that the Board may
have sufficient supporting evidence for making the required findings. Please provide
our office with a copy of the Notice of the Public Hear'ng on this matter ton ;10) working
days before the hearing and a copy of the published notice of the Board's decision
within 30 days of the tentative cancellation pursuant to section 51284. if you have any
questions conoerning our comments, please contact Patricia Gatz, Associa-`e
Environmental Planner at (916) 324-0869.
Sincereiy,
Dennis J. O'Bryant
Acting Assistant Director
- . . __ , . fin T eau n.u7:3 Kk SDACZ nafT cjoc i o io 9T Z nr