HomeMy WebLinkAbout047-260-199 (3)Y
Land Conservation Advisor.
y
A , Committee ;
BUTTE
COUNTY j
{ ' MAR 1 2 2007
DEVELOPMENT
Petition for SERVICES
s
,; tee, +; * ,
k: - Immediate Cancellation';,
'1 :{ pp
A lication 04-02
.� . #
Parcel 047-260-199.
Petitioner: George R. Nicolaus {
• -. "I. • • � C� .rte.. - � ,.
r"
p k
tt� �
0
• )BUTTE
COUNTY
PETITION TO CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT MAR 1 2.2007
(Submit Original and 4 copies)
DEVELOPMENT
16 SERVICES
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 t 1.1(nl C P r2A P on as it relates to land
in Agricultural Preserve No. of the County' of Butte which is presently owned
by the undersigned.
In support of this petition, the undersigned alleges:
1. That the undersigned presently owns the land covered. by said agreement
• described As follows: P to 0. t!7 4 • 0 O o C6111StS 7-'l A) 6-
2Ttr r !L Z2 9s C 2 tr G
'elf ATT/fc11FDfG/-IL D"f5C2rP7-ipN
2. That the Cancellation is not inconsistent. with the purpose of the Williamson
-Act (government Code Section 51200 et seq.) in that:
7-7- ti 1.1 r_ 7>
The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury-
Executed this day of 12CC 13 fR , a 00 in !-f << o
Petition to Cancel co�N E
Land Conservation Agreement MAR 1 21007
DE VELOPI►IE1VT
Response to item 2.) SERVICES
2. That the Cancellation is not inconsistent with the purpose of the
Williamson Act (government Code Section 51200 -t seq.) in that:
✓ This Petition addresses and satisfies all 5 consistency findings
required for immediate cancellation,
✓ The .subject property, known as Kittyhawk, is the only Williamson
Act contract located within the 3,590 acre area designated as the
North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) (see exhibit 1), and that
Immediate cancellation will allow the Kittyhawk property aswell as
other contiguous properties. to be utilized in a manner consistent
with the NCSP which has as its number one goal,, to:
"Create a functional and attractive 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."
Page 2-6, Specific Plan Overview
Table 2-2, North Chico Specific Plan Goals
(see Exhibit 2)
KittyhawkPetition 102
Consistency%Findings
T
- Required for . , pv, rt ,
�.
COUNT•]'
-Immediate Cancellation'. BAR
zoo?
`
a; `# : 'T' .= of the DEVELOP ,
Kit
hawk
Land Conservation A reement_
,as detailed in
:California Government -
Code Sections '51280-512-87- y
Section 51282 (1) (b) states that cancellation of a contract shall be.
consistent with the purposes of this chapter only if the Board or council.
-
makes all of the following (five) findings (see exhibit 3 for full text):
That the cancellation is for land on which a 'notice of non --".'!'Jr
y {
renewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245. ,
x '
The original request for cancellation was delivered to Butte County
r
on September 7, 2003, and was subsequently acknowledged byf,a
�
notarized Notice of Non -renewal (see exhibit 4a and 4b). s
; ..
Immediate cancellation is acceptable as notice was given in a timely • s
manner and is thereby consistent with governmenr code. y '
' , f
2.. ; •
That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of i
'
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 5) and are (a) not w
,
currently in agricultural use, (b) are already utilized as suburban;
residential or (c) are presently in process with Butte County.-
ounty._Development
r
DevelopmentServices 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 6a). In addition, the Butte County Agricultural.
Element provides for a 300' buffer (see exhibit 6b) 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. t
is
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
pian.
Kittyhawk was zoned SR -1 (suburban -residential; one acre lot
minimum) in 1995 (see exhibit 5).. 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 discontiguous 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 7).
Immediate cancellation is appropriate as it will not result. in a
discontiguous pattern of urban development and is therefore
consistent .with government code.
2
` 5.That there is no proximate non -contracted 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'patteins of urban
development than development of proximate non -contracted
land. ,
' iThis Petition will address and satisfy both parts of item S; despite
the fact'that government code requires that only one` of the two,
- conditions be met for immediate cancellation.
„f <A> In response to the first point under. Item 5:
*,.The. letter from Mr. Eric Christensen (see exhibit 8) explains that t,
_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 `r
'Chico Multiple Listing Service data -base covering a 4 year period.
t.
- ' From January, 2003 through April 8, 2005, there was no other-'
property listed which was suitable (zoned SR -1) nor available inthe "
entire north Chico/Butte County area (see exhibits 9a, 9b, 9c and '
94' There was a parcel zoned SR -1 -which came on the market on
• r 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'-
other
his-
other parcel was listed (see exhibit 10).
f
.`.'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.
..
T'
•' <B> In response to the second point under Item 5: - y'
4, Thedefinitive phrase in the second point of Item 5 is "more
,L
contiguous". The following 6 points illustrate how immediate.
cancellation provides for a more contiguous pattern of urban
development than development of proximate, non -contracted land: -
t IA
Urban development of Kittyhawk most certainly,creates a-, '
` r more contiguous pattern of urban development thanF '
' development of non -contracted land to the west. The "green `
y line" was specifically enacted to prevent urban development r
,in agricultural areas. Conversely, it was also created to
r� provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development
• ''; _ in areas specifically designated for development. As
' . .. •- _ , - . `.� ALT -
Kittyhawk is located within the North Chico Specific Plan
;= r
Area, it qualifies at this level as being "more contiguous"
f
than other proximate, non -contracted land to the west.
Butte County Board of Supervisors Resolue--ion•95-47; • -
' '
• adopted 3/28/ 1995, on page 3, paragraph 3, states: '
~:�
w :�•
"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
w'r Specific Plan area is necessary to accommodate future
growth! (see exhibit 11) '
As a result of the requirements of the Chico general Plan and
• a ft.
Butte County's expressed intent to comply with the General
Plan through Resolution 95-47, immediate cancellation is '
.:
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.
H.
-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 7),
< 1> Specifically, the Autumn Park subdivision to the east;
R*
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- t '
` 'residential lots. It is contiguous with the subject property.
s .: =.
<3> As the petitioner, .1 am in escrow on the 68 acre parcel,
r
`(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-resideniial development. It is contiguous with -the '
subject. property. A
With the subject property literally surrounded by urban „
development on three sides (the fourth side Eyeing outside the '
'
`green line' and preserved for agricultural uses), immediate'•
••'
cancellation is consistent with government code as it will
r
cancellation is consistent with gouernment code as it will.
• r;•°,)
t
resuli 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.
The Autumn Park subdivision has two streets which `dead-; '
Y
end' into the Kittyhawk property, identified as Anjou Court '
` {
and Magness Court (see exhibit 12a and 12b). As. Autumn
Park was submitted to and approved by Butte County, these.
two streets are shown on their final map as continuing in a `
a •1� ',
westerly direction and connecting directly to the Kittyhawk;
'
parcel. These two streets running directly into the Kittyhawk'
- >ti+ .; .. ' •.
-parcel provides conclusive evidence that it was the intention -
n
of Development Services that these streets would eventually
• . G . ° .; ar :.
connect to and extend to ' the west in an effort to create a-
• ` r1 ',�;
"more contiguous pattern of urban develop_-nent".
The presence of Anjou Court and Magness Court'indicate'that
'
immediate cancellation of the 'Kittyhawk LCA will allow fora '
` �• *,�
r
more contiguous pattern of urban development than proximate'-
.
,� �•
non -contracted land which does not contain existing dead-end
streets and is therefore consistent with govemment.code.
• ;' IV.`
The Autumn Park subdivision has a.street, identified as Bosc
Drive, which dead -ends into'the 68'acre pa_cel (the Levy, '
r'
property): to the north (see exhibit 12a and 12c). As noted yin '
item 5. III. above, the intent for Bosc Drive was to continue
in a northerly "direction and connect with the adjoining;
property. This connection, when complete(., will make for, -a
"more contiguous pattern ofurban development" as part of
the NCSP format. F ,_
' =-
r
The Levy property cannot, however, be developed to its zoned -
` ; �; �, =•
= suburban -residential potential until there is access.-
ccess:•While
Whilethere is the potential for access at Bosc Drive, Butte �.
w
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
13a). These access points can only take place through the V
}
.,Autumn Park subdivision and the Kittyhawkproperty. This
limitation,. exists because (a) there is an insufficient 60' cross f
section to the east to connect with Garner lane as required
by Butte County Subdivision Code 20=134 (:gee exhibits'l3b '
•
-'and 13c) 'and (b) connecting to Highway 99 to the west is not .
, -
., an option_ as the, east -west arterial for this area is already:' ; ;
-
planned for the extensionofKittyhawk Drive. Specifically, a
• >'
sixty foot easement was established in 1999 for the purpose
of extending Kittyhawk Drive on the south side of the
Kittyhawk parcel. The long range build -out plan for this
4
, ' arterial roadway is detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis for
Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey Subdivisions (see exhibit 14a
+ "
and 14b). Construction of this arterial is also sited in the
Butte County Board of Supervisors Resolution 95-47 (see,
r
- exhibit 14c). ,
-The presence of Bosc Drive as it connects to the Levy property
t''�'
clearly indicates that immediate cancellation of the Kittyhawk
t
• LCA will allow for a more contiguous pattern of urban - ..
de:velo ment onto the Levy property)than development of
ti
• 'Proximate non. -contracted land because the restrictions of the
Williamson, Acton the Kittyhawk parcel prevent the
construction of additional roads required for ingress and i,
'
egress onto the Levy parcel.
{ ; '
The presence of the Kittyhawk property as an operating'
orchard and in it's current Williamson Act status actually
' precludes a more'contiguous pattern of urban development.'
•
The presence of an operating orchard in the Williamsori'Act in
this location is inconsistent
-therefore with government code
r
which encourages contiguous patterns of urban development.
- ' 4 V.
The Butte County Agricultural Element was enacted .in 1995..
Homes on the west border of Autumn Park are not only
_
r contiguous with the Kittyhawk orchard, the mature orchard
trees grow up to the fences of these homes (see exhibit,,15):
As,a result, the issues of noise, dust and restricted user
chemicals are present in the back and side yards of the
'_-'adjacent residences. The presence of this orchard create's '
issues ranging from mere nuisance to hazardous chemicals
coming into contact with residences in an urban '
environment.
Immediate cancellation will eliminate the numerous and -
•
potentially hazardous conditions cited above and provide for a
• ..;
more contiguous pattern of urban development than
development. of proximate non -contracted land which does'not
• have a similar ag-to-urban border, and is therefore consistent
with government code.
VI:
•„ A letter from the California Department of Conservation,
• ;�rr •
dated 4/26/2004 (and utilized in this petition's initial Land...
,
_ 6
Conservation Act Committee meeting in June, 2004), is
• ; ' attached as exhibit 16. In his correspondence, Acting
Assistant Director Dennis J. O'Bryant states that California
Government Code 51282, findings 1 through 4, lappear to be
;> 'consistent with the .purpose of the Williamson Act.
Regarding finding number 5, Mr. OBryant states, "... that`
development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous '
patterns of urban development than development of proximate r:
t fiT, noncontracted land." '
r -.A On' page 4 of this letter from Mr. O'Bryant, 'ie goes on to
make the following observations: r
`° ''• "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 County adopted'-'
the NCSP in 1995 and the County and the Landowner entered into a-
�' ' Land Conservation Agreement in December, 1999. Since the
(Kittyhawk) property was clearly within a plannir.g area identified for
't development,- the initiation of the Land Conservation Agreements in
1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to
preserve agricultural land."
►In points 5 I, 5 II, S. III, 5 IV, and 5 V. above, I have. illustrated
the reasons why immediate cancellation results in a more =
T; contiguous pattern of urban development than development of
f' proximate non -contracted land.. In point 5 L.7., 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 all '
requirements for consistency within the purposes of this chapter.
Please' note 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. ;
m
1� I
v VIA
7;:7ZI
IQ
r
. �'• �•..
*' •MERIDIAN R®
. R
� F
•COHASSET F
TF
�/�
• 777 r�
4
i
•
GARNER LN_
XS LN
f � -
�" 1 f 7
01
r1
NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN
TABLE 2-2
NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS
I� Create 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.
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 of. area residents and reduce the
need for daily travel outside the. Plan area. Traffic on all streets within the plan area sho ild not exceed a Level 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 tranzportation system that includes automotive and
non -vehicular transportation considerations_
6. Develop a community complimented by compatible and harmonious architectural and lancscape design.
7. Establish a balanced, pedestrian -oriented Village Core which supports a variety of uses.
8. Provide public and community ,PM,... r i,t, .i,
TA6LE 2-3
SPECIFIC PLAN P(
General Policies
Ke
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.
II 3 Provide commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities which will meet the reeds of area residents and red
for daily travel outside the Plan area. uce the need
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.
6. Develop a community of compatible and harmonious architectural and landscape design.
7. Establish a balanced, pedestrian -oriented Village Core which supports a variety of uses and 'provide a focal point for.the area.
IItJ Provide public and community services which both adequately serve the community and are cost effective.
II9 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 txses, adequate setbacks, avigation
easemnts, signing, and other measures.
•
2-6 Specific Plan Overview
1
t,; ..
5
k.tk %_Uucs kb'VV.JIL0V-J1L0/)
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 51280-51287
51280. It is hereby declared that
provide relief from the provisions
pursuant to this chapter. under the
piovided herein.
ua.aY.i i r' yr vr, n,�uuv.�.a.�vvi �.�rvuar woYau�wu�.: �wuvu -bv v wbavuY...
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 toes 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
contiguous pattern of development within the relevant subregicn. 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 provisicns of
Section 9 of Chapter 1095 of the Statutes of 1981, shall apple to the
same extent as the provisions of Section 51282.1, notwi.thstanc.ing
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.
0,51282. (a) The landowner may petition the board or council fcr
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 cf 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 Doth
available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the
-
I of 7
t -ti k.uues kguv:3iL6u-.31L3i) uup:uwww.iegiiuu.ca.gjwcgi-oiivuispiaycoacesecuon=govacgroup... .
contracted.land be put, or, that development of the contracted land
would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development tian
development of proximate•noncontracted land.
As used in this subdivision "proximate, noncontracted land' means
r
`
land not restricted by.contract pursuant to this chapter, whi•::h is
c`f y
0
sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve
.
as a practical alternative for the use which is proposed for -he
restricted_land. .-
As•used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means,,
,-
.•that.the"salie'nt features of the proposed use can be served b�f land
;
not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. Such
-
nonrestricted land:may be a single parcel or may be a combination of
r:
" contiguousor discontiguous parcels.
(c),For',purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision'(a) cancerlation
•
,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:
suitabTe`ifor the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be _
rput,'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
suffic'ieni ly 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
u
nonrestricted land may be a single parcel or may be a combination of
contiguous or discontiguous parcels.
`
y (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 maybe put.
(e) The landowner's petition shall be accompanied by a propDsal
for a specified alternative use of the land. The -proposal for'the
• +;,,
alternative use shall list those governmental agencies known bi 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 permi=•them
to make the findings required.
,
ti (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 sect_on,
'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 tY_at
agricultural laborer housing is not a compatible use on the
contracted lands. The petition, and any subsequent cancellaticn
based thereon, shall (1) particularly describe the acreage to he
`
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 fiFst
^4
2 of 7
E
12/5/2006 1:20 PM
`, .
i
�.
•
,o
• �
�
•
i�
� � II.•
i'
��
li
jj
..
i
�•
-�
.�
�I
0
•
3:
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 me if I need to fill out any additional forms.
Evelyn Liptrap
13822 Hwy 99 N.
Chico CA 95973
Phone: 530 342-9100 '
Fax 530 342-0100
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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF BUTTE Development Services
On before me, N
personally appeared �V .
120
Paul McIntosh, Clerk of t --ie Board
By:
rt e o 7cTr =Tg. ane Me, otrav u is
Name(s) of Sig$er(s) .
❑ personally known to me - OR proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within in3trument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
45pyl OF rhf�t A. BURCHAM p authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/theij• signatures) on the
p� "R Comm. #1281413 ,�i instrument the person(s), or the entity upon beha_f of which the
rR NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA Q person(s) acted, executed the instrument:
V BUTTE COUNTY —►
My Commission Expires Oct. 22, 2004
•
WITNESS my hand a d official seal..
Signat re of Notary .
K:\LCA\partial nonrenew.Ldoc
� � h
•
0
North -Chico Specific
LAND USE MAP
Figure 3-1
LEGEND
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BOUNDARY
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
(CITY OF CHICO)
0 0 o STREET WITH FLEXIBLE ALIGNMENT
SR -3
SUBURBAN REST. 3 AC. MIN
SR -1
SUBURBAN REST. 1 AC. MIN
R-1
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
R-2
MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIA
® R-3
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIA
M-2
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
M-1
LIGHTINDUSTRIAL-
C-2
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
C-1
LIMITED COMMERCIAL
_ . BP-..
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONA
PO
PUBLIC / OUASI-PUBUC
] OS
GREENBELT/ OPEN SPACE
PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE 'GREENBE
I SPACE' LAND USE' DESIGNATION SHALI
:RMINED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMI
3S -HATCH'
INDICATES LANDS THAT 1
'AIN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENST
TAT AND REQUIRE SITE-SPECIFIC PLANK
7Heritagc PanPcm
0 1500 .3000
LL
SCALE
C-2
•�' 1111®-�"�� ` • ��\
ami
Z% 9
'�1���`:• : ��I,���ii .�. _null. ��
%�•�♦♦ `fit % �•• ����j �i
i
1 ;�
1
i
t
1
� 1
i
r
y
�a
��
��
is
�
t
i
I.
1
5
. �
;
1 ;�
"a
,�.�
i
t
t • +�
S
� 1
i
0
q
r.
�a
��
r.
r;
{
i
I.
1
•
16
Figure
LU -4
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Legend N TH
Orohard & Field Crops
Field crops, row crops, orchards, vinyards• and nursery stock -
0 Grazing & Open Lands
Irrigated pasture, eruln& and anlmal husbandry
• O
r
TEH.A.rdA
COUNTY
PLLMAS
COUNTY
f .•,. •.• •lam. ���• ' �:... ,�•t' .
.ti.•,f� :f •ti`;`• •t•L`.,.f: :� •'•••1;~ :. .' rr� iii. r'r,, .
nom.
GLENN ' r•r•::l:: •: ••J;
COUNTY r•: •: •: •: •: • ,•n P YUBA
•!''r` •• •r; - COUNTY.
ti::, :�: ; til a • f.
}{:�::; tit •.ti: •!•• ti: • ` :r-` j
COLUSA
COUNTY �: :1• ::' ::` :, y.• ti. : �::,.:3
SUTTER COUNTY
6aurce; Butt County Planning O'wicion, 188E
Butte County Comprehensive Pian
■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT ■
• 2.2 Encourage urban infill development within. city limits and within existing .
unincorporated communities where development can more eas ly and readily be
served by public infrastructure facilities.
2.3 Requite development to provide Land use transitions, setbacks and buffers
between "urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference and
conflict.
2.4 Create development and performance standards designed to protect agricultural
uses from urban encroachment conflicts.
2.5 Encourage,urban development to the LAFCo adopted Spheres of Influence.
2.6 Provide a clear delineation, on the General Plan Land Use Map,: between long-term
agricultural production lands and city/community areas.
2.7 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.
2.8 New residences within agricultural areas shall be required to pay its fair share of
• development impacts on public services and infrastructure.
Programs
2.1 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 aclopted Spheres of
Influence.
2.2 The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established 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 circumstances. dui e mes, as part of the General
Plan's implementation, shall be developed illustrating buffer requirements for
various situations.
2.3 Where development approval, other than residential, is proposec 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 lots)
where development is proposed. A buffer could be a topographic feature, a
■- BUTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSNE PLAN E)GHIBIT A - Adopted M!
AE- 11 Y�
sim"'i �
11
.,
.
.,
;
���
�
�
. . . •
� .
�
.; � .
. •
}
11
I
-RIC CHRISTENSEN
Broker Associate
r • ■ D I 1 cJ ■ 1350 E LASSEN AVE., SUITE 1
CHICO, CA 95973
BUS. (530) 895-1545
FAX (530) 343-5233
DUFOUR REALTY eric@ericsells.com
W\ w.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 -1 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
g
Each Office'Is Independently Owned And Operated.
W
0
a .� ..
i`
�S
i
�-
1
I
LIST PRICE:
SOLD PRICE:
Default MLS Defined Snrpadsheet
HIGH LOW AVERAGE MEDIAN TOTALIME
LISTING COUNT
$2,300,000 $99,999 $706,214 $359,500 $9,88W
14
$1,800,000 $99,999 $496,999 $145,000 $2,484,999
•
latus
Original
Sold Price
Ask Price
Address
Acres
oning
LotDim
Agent - Agt Name
OM
Cross Street
Lst Date
Contract
Close
ype
MLS #
Price
Date
Date
EXP
$155,000
$155,000
000 LEFTOUT LN
40.00
AG-
JAIME
98
Renkow
829/2003
RE
0
VERCRUSE
200503689
SLD
$175,000
$145,000
$175,000
000 LEFTOUT LN
40.00
A 40
SHELLY
6f-Renkow
Road
122/2004
220/2004
RE
ITTSELL
23/2004
00503773
WON
$120,000
$120,000
0000 DENVER.RD
20.00
A�l)
LEIF PETERSON
23
trinidad
7/13/2004
RE
00503878
SLD
$120,000
$120,000
$120,000
0000 DENVER RD'
20.009�
LEIF PETERSON
53
trinidad r
7/14/2004
8/1%2004
9/5/2004
RE
00530506
SLD
$325,000
$320,000
$325,000
000 INDIAN CLIFFS
40.45
��2}
GEORGIE A
77
Richardson Springs Rd.
12/62004
1/5/2005
RE
R
ELLIN
1020/2004
00503953
EXP
$344,000
$344,000
00 INDIAN CLIFFS
40.52
JOANNE SKEEN
89
Richardson Springs Road
2/10/2005
RE
R
i�R�(]
00504007
SLD.
$1,800,000
0000 GARNER LN
13.77
SR -1'
DARCY
6
Rio Bravo/Green Meadow
4/14/2005
420/2005
RE
1,800,000
1,800,000
JOHNSON
Ln
3/30/2006
2005D4072
SLD
$99,999
$99,999
$99,999
1395 VI LAS RD
20.24
SFR
SCOTT HUBER
20
PONDEROSA.
7/29/2005
8/18/2005
/30/2005
RE
00532532
EXP
$399,000
$399,000
R 0 INDIAN CLIFFS
41.56
FR -40
JOANNE SKEEN
182
Richardson Springs Road
2/23/2006
RE
00601178
ACT
$429,000
$379,000
Lot 10 INDIAN
40.60
Fi2�}Q
40.66
DAN GORDON
266
Richardson Springs Road
3/8/2006
RE
CLIFFS DR
cres
00601525
EXP
$2,300,000
2,300,000
0000 GARNER LN
13.77
SR,
DONALD CAMY
185
Rio Bravo
5/1/2006
RE
00602885
ACT
$2,300,000
$2,300,000
000 HICKS LN
18.82
R1-4
GERALDINE LEE
90
Caballo
8/31/2006
RE
00607158
ACT
$375,000
$375,000
0000 INDIAN CLIFFS
41.56
fr-40
STEVE DEPA
65
RICHARDSON SPRINGS
925/2006
RE00607287
R
ROAD
100607895
ACT
$995,000
$995,000
3000 THORNTREE
q0
BRUCE ROE
43
Cohassett
RA
DR
100.00
10/17/2006
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.
• LIST PRICE:
SOLD PRICE:
Default MI S tlafinad S.nraadchant
HIGH LOW AVERAGE MEDIAN TOTAL 'E
LISTING COUNT
$995,000 $775,000 $892,500 $900,000 $3,57
4
$725,000 $725,000 $725,000 $725,000 $725,000
•
Status
Ask
Price
Sold
Price
Address
Bedroom
th
SQF
Agent -Agt
Name
YrBIt
Acres
oning
otDi
DOM
Lst Date
Close Date
oSho
OccName
OccPh
MLS #
EXP
925,000
4729 KILKARE LN
1151
ROBERT
30.00
A-5
172
4/1/2004
APPT
Bill and Cheryl
.343-4575
ROSISE
1977
Humphrey00517664
WDN
$875,000
4867
STARFLOWER LN
547
MICHAEL
20.00
RS 1
192
5/6/2005,
CFG
LYNCH
530-874-
TEARNS
1.996
051
00530343
SLD
775,000
725,000
14577 CAMENZIND
T
4
3
SHERRY
40.00
(,
80
8/5/2005
GOV
934
AYNE
005
11/11/2005
•"
00532795
ACT
995,0001
3000 THORNTREE
3 �
2
BRUCE ROE
189
GOV
- �
"
R
1560
001
100.00.
24/2006
-
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. "
HIGH LOW AVERAGE MEDIAN TOTAL"E LISTING COUNT
• LIST PRICE: $1,000,000 $225,000 $510,212 $400,000 $8,163M 16 •
SOLD PRICE: $1,250,000 .$230,000 $490,500 $325,000 $2,452,500 '
Default MLS Dafinad Snrreadsheet
Status
Original
Sold Price
Ask Price
Address
Acresoning
LotDim
Agent - Agt Name
DOM
Cross Street
Lst Date
Contract
Close Date
Type
MLS #
Price
Date
SLD
$1,000,000
1 250,000
$1,000,000
0 BAY AVE
20.00
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
A-20
KELLY BROWN
100
WELDING WAY
RE
10.00
9/22/2003
00503699
EXP
$904,000
$904,000
525 BELL RD
AH -O
HOWARD
181
Nord
RC
0.00
JOHNSON
/26/2003
00503711
EXP
$904,000
$904,000
5251 BELL RD
a40
HOWARD
444
Hwy 32 -
RE
0.00
JOHNSON
9/26/2003
200503887
EXP
$904,000
$904,000
5251 BELL RD
Q ��
HOWARD
181
Nord
RC
0.00
r f
JOHNSON
/26/2003
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 HWY
6.36
� �
BRANDON C
HARRIS
182
Carmen
7/15/2004
RE
00503881
SLD
$275,000
$250,000
$250,000
000 NORD HWY
10.64
/In
'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
/28/2005
5/2/2005
6/3/2005
RE
00504094
'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
Hamilton 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
218/2006•
3/16/2006
RE
00535796
ACT
$395,000
$395,000
8765 BELL RD
10 00
A-10
660 x 660
KELLY BROWN
126
Meridan
/26/2006
AG
00605649
ACT
$950,000
$775,000
0000 W SACRAMENTO
Agri
BERNARD
93
Muir Avenue
AG
VE
25.30 1
IFARMER
8/28/20061
200606555
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.
0 HIGH LOW AVERAGE I MEDIAN I TOTALME I LISTING COUNT •
LIST PRICE: $3,900,000 $220,000 $954,214 1 $687,500 $13,35MO 0 14
SOLD PRICE: $1,193,500 $220,000 $522,125 $337,500 $2,088,500
Default MLS Defined Spreadsheet
Status
Ask Price
Sold Price
Address
Bedroom
Bath
SQFT
Agent - A t Name
YrBIt1
Acres
Zoning
LotDim
DOMI
Lst Date
Close Date
ToShov4
OccName
OccPh
MLS #
WDN
$3,900,000
16414 HWY 99
KEN MARTIN
k05.00
A-40
751
7/10/2002
APPT
000
1960
00517576
WDN
$350,000
0 WILSON
LANDING RD
0
BILL CHANCE
40.00
A40
279
3/26/2003
CA
1000
00517608
WDN
$450,000
0 WILSON
LANDING RD
0
BILLCHANCE
69.00
A40
279
3/26/2003
CA
1000
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
1200,000
0000 W CANA
HWY
0
BEPPIE LEACH
0.00
A40
123
8/19/2003
GOV
Vugrenes
1973
arms
2005176411
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
200517662
WDN
$750,000
0 WILSON
NDING RD
0
BILL CHANCE
0
A40
300
4/7/2004
CA
109.00
0517663
SLD
$350,000
$350,000
• CANA PINE
REEK RD9999,12/27/2004
0
GIL JOHNSTON
44.00
AG
133
8/16/2004
CA
200517682
EXP
$860,000
CANA HWY
0
JERRY LAYMAN
40.00
40
13810/14/2004
CA
Clark
1914-
00517691
SLD
$349,000
$325,000
0 WILSON
LANDING RD
0
BILL CHANCE
40.00
A40
4
4/28/2005
6/3/2005
GOV
1000
00517719
EXP
$625,000
3191 3193
AK WAY
TOM HAMPTON
5.00
A 10
186
4/29/2005
GOV
vacant
.1450
1930
00517721
EXP
$595,000
3191 3193
AK WAY
1450
TOM HAMPTON
5.00
A-10
366
11/2/2005
GOV
1930
00534968
EXP
1 300,000
000 HWY 32
0
Ed Becker
0
1-f
3/1/2006
GOV
149.00
0060161
ACT
$910,000
3191 & 3193 OAK
AY
MARK LEIKER
5
660 X
21
11/8/2006
GOV
1450
1930
CRE
60
VACANT606083991,
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. .
/
"
1*
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
Mid Valley Title & Escrow Company
• AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
George R. Nicolaus and Connie 1. Nicolaus
66 Marybill Ranch Road
Chico, CA 95928
IIII ill 11� � I�I� I II li�l I! I VIII �1 �I
20��—�b�11t 1 9622
Recorded I .REC FEE 13. CIO
Official Rec&rds I TAX 1465.016
County Of i
BUTTE
CANDACE J. GRUBBS i
Recorder I
ROSEMARY DIC€;SDN i
Ass dI1C I Jason.
u5:lilOA'ri-6d-Aptvvi i Page. i bf 3
Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only
A.P.N.:,047-260-197 &.199 File No.:.0401-217175 (DP)
GRANT DEEP--------
The
EED_ 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 J. 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: 04105/2005
Evelyn C. Liptrap
Mail Tax Statements To: SAME AS ABOVE
�
� .
`
`
[
�
| `
� ,
.
. ( .
| '
|
|
�
� .
/
�
'
!
..
.
`
/`
,`
.
.
.
`
`
'
,
/
^
'>
,
. .
^
.
�
.'
�
. �
�
�
�
.
`
'
�
�
.
.
.
�
�
/
.
.
/
|
|
^
,
�
|
^
.
.
.
� `
'
,
.
.
' . �
.
^
� .
/'
�
`
`
(
`
.
�
.
�
.
.
. �
`
�
`
� �
^
�
l
.'
. �
^,
.
�
.
..
�
/
`
^
'
.�
.
'
^
^ )
| .
�
�
�
�
'
/
�
` .
.
/
.
^
.
`
.
`
'
^,
�
`
�
. .
.
�
^
.
.
�
.
./ �
�
..
`
intersection is proposed to remain as an at grade intersection of State
Route 99. As stated on .Page 2-2 of the Final EIR (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:
The Specific Plan, through conditions of approval, has been modified to
require the County to work with CatTrans on the installation of traffic
signals at SR 99 and the new arterial and Keefer Road. The Specific
Plan utilizes the wdsting 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 Ct& area is further constrained through agricultural preservation
policies, zoning, and 'the gfeenline'. 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 Impacts: As discussed on Pages 10-1 through 10-11 of the
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 wiU 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 to 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 Village Core to the
various land uses within the Plan, and the extensive trail and pathway
system, will contribute to lower emissions than standard urban/suburban
development-
Ar
evelopment
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
3
� it
0
0
01
100—YEAR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION
CONTOUR LINE (NM), TYP LIMITS OF AREA OF 100—YEAR FLOOD
ZONE A AS IT APPEARS ON THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
EXI TING .WELL WITH 100' AGENCY FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
-RWITH LEACHFIELD FOR BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MAP
FMWSETBACK. TYP NUMBER 0600700320 D, EFFECTIVE
DATE. APRIL 20; 2000
\ \
cLc4,1MA�0-k , rLUNitJINU tIKE, TWER.
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
3) ALL LOT DEVELOPMENT/PREPAlRAWN
GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL GUii
SPECM PLAN. ALL DEVELOPMENT I
PLANNING DIVISION AND THE DEPART
W1" THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLo
ON—SITE.
T.a.M.
3/57. REBA
N . 10, 97
E 30.93
ELEV. - t1
.
f
/
I
I 30' r
27
31 � �
� � 30 29 � � �
_ � � 28 ! 1 �\
_ MAGNESS. COURT
26
-----
BUILDING SETBA(
LINE, TYP
25
44•
32
33 34
36 1 11 1 A
I
I I /
I I 24
39/i��r.
37/-'
I
�\36 I I \\\
\IA
\ I
�---
-----L------L—Jl--
I �
I
-----1--1
/
ANJOU COURT j
I /
/ 23
_ _ f
I
—
50' I SUBOI�tSION FRE M'
I
,,---=
— — — — LOCATION. TTP.
r. --- ---i----- �—f---rte.
SETBACKI
I �\ 40
41// �
'
42
---
------j �'-----t•--I--
R He CONSTTrucnON
IENENT ON LOT 40. �
AU
AUTO 1C DRIVE \
PROPOSED WELL LOCATION NTH 100' RADIUS
jj
T'TY
LEACHFIELD FREE SETBACK (LFS). TYPICAL
EACH LOT
3/6' REI
°
N - 10,(
E-30,11
ELEV.
r 1
U
0
0
a
iV \ /.-kA►<-
I s e
V
a^ � A. �.Y t. ii :t.,.« .t.i.i b i i tT `► afi�w - Tx J } -. C ✓�
�♦���1 R�t � '�A�'t� ��' Mi 1y�j� � �P�f�- etl.
��}�d., �� as �.. ,� `a ►r �� r �'p t... �r. ' , (� y� � ;�` .,�i ioZ►� r
♦ �1� -it Yom-+• �4-y� r i.
- _ - .-�_-.,msµ o�wt�:'1-e!<.u@s-.��•,4�`�. ;Fk►'s•.
1Lgc
y,. H tY J..'vc♦ i' �;.''. �.?•}' .t�7' t
'�,•=+.'` U�tey,,� fi S,+PJ:�G+ '.; r 7. P7 _�� ��� .. � 4✓�",'G�-t ttr � •,� Yy��!�`'��� - A
y����t�� �� �`,y1�5��,�'!• ���. t' , / •'.r��r,- � ,�a-k� 1 jrr••�ytC•�'�1. ±J,s�^RS�r.l� s� L^"i y*r"�s�
��Y g r . •
r
��
.��
i
��
r
� r
i
• 1
4
i
i
� ..
1 4
I
~ �
±
f
a �
J
�
y
I
1
�
1
2.0-133 Cul-de-sac streets.
Chanter 20 SUBDIVISIONS"
Article.Vl. Design Standards
Page 1 of 1
• 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. (Crd. No. 3188, §
1(Exh. A), 3-14-95)
previews I next ,> --
•
!,I
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/butteco/_DATA/CHAPTER20/Article_VI_Desi z.i_Standar... 11/20/2006
i
1
i
1
�
7
1
1
i
t
0
AV-
___; ----------
.............
-
-----
:Pill I
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=400'. 23 FIGURE 10'
•
0
intersection is proposed to remain as an at grade intersection of State
Route 99. As stated on Page 2-2 of the Final EIR (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.
The Specific Plan, through conditions of approval, has been modified to
require the County to work with Cal Trans on the installation of traffic
signals at SR 99 and the new arterial and Keefer Road. The Specific
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 Imp As discussed on Pages 10-1 through 10-11 'of the
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 Village Core to the
various land uses within the Plan, and the extensive trail and pathway
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
I
i
`
�, ,
J
1
�I�I
t '
1 3l
r}
''
�
.,
..
T
r� i.,
��
!
i'
�
X �.'
. ,4 �
.
'
. ._
. 'f.. w
1
', r�
•
� �'� � '
'
.x
..tib, � ;�U�� �
..
,� :.
,_ l
'_
�� t
�h J�"
j�, '
h�v :w'
�j� � _
o
��
II
U
I'
I�
11 ��
t.
II
��"
III
. �'y _
�� _
I�,
t
I
II . .,
0
�i
.. Ii
��
. d
U
�i
�i
it �
II
II
a
i'
�j� � _
o
��
II
U
I'
I�
11 ��
t.
II
��"
III
. �'y _
�� _
I�,
3.
I
II . .,
0
�i
.. Ii
��
. d
U
�i
�i
it �
II
II
-
� '_
^
- _
Jul 15-04 Oli4710 Dev-Svcs & Env Health
DERARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
:5 T A T E 0 F C A L I F 0 R N I A
April 26, 2004
DIVIC20N OF
Mr. Uan Breedon, Principal Planner
LAND RFSOVACr;
PROTECTION
Butte County Dept. of Developmental Service's
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
6 0 1 K 5 T A C r. T
SACRAMENTO
C A L I F 0 P. N I A
RE.-. Petition for Cancellation of Laryd Conservation Agreemert;
1 4
APN 047-260-199, LandownemEvelyn Lipti'ap
PHONE
916!324-0050
Dear Mr. Breedon:
F A X
016/3.17-3430
Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conse,vation
(Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 for the above
J N T f R N C' T
consrv.ca.QoV
referenced matter.
The petition proposes to cancel the Williamson Act contract on
0 It A Y D A V I S
GOVERNOR
approximately 48.23 prime agricultural acres, currently planteid with
productive walnut trees, for the development of 53 residential bLilding lots.
The subje6t 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 Past 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 purposes 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 Committeewill 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 .ontract
(Section VII, page 3) also provides for a cancellation "fee in an amount equal to 2501-b of
the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be payaole to the
State of Callfornia pursuant to Government Code §; 1283, and one-half shat be payable
to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124." Wo request a copy of the
Butte County .Assessor's cancellation valuation for the proposed cancellation and a
copy of the discussion of the Board's findings pursuant to Government Code §51282.
The Department has reviewed ttie petition for cancellation and information provided and
provides the following comments,
Cancellation is Consistent 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 al of the
following: 1) a notice of nonrenewal has been served, 2) removal of adjacent land from
agricultural use is unlikely, 3) the alternative use is (=sistent 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 suitabl= for the
use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would
• provide more contiguous pattems of urban development than development of
proximate noncontracted land.
A notice of nonrenewal was served by Evelyn C. Liptrap to Butte County on or about
December 29, 2003. The expiration date for the contract will be Decomber 3--, 2012:
The Attorney General has opined that nonrenewal is -the preferred contract te-mination
method: "If a landowner do -sires to change the use of his land under contract #o uses
other than agricultural production and'compatible uses, the proper procedure 's 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 oxisting one acre mural 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 tentative
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 consistent with the
County's General Plan -and the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject parcel is zoned
L 4 ca -R�ti nfq u'AjaaH nu3 'a song nab dOti�jC b0 Si. Inc
Jul 15'04 01:47p Dev Svcs & Env Health bju
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 nct result in a
discontiguous pattern of urban development..
Cl
0
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 r-ot appear
adequate. In reviewing the County's Williamson Act map and the North Chi�;o Specific
Plan there appears to be noncontracted land within the Plan available and zoned for
residential use. These noncontracted lands are contiguous to existing urbal
development and Ile to the north of the subject site and southeast of Mudd Creek,
However, since tho. Liptrap proptirty is adjacent to similarly developed property to the
east and southeast, and the Gu�ggrn!;ey property to the south is scheduled for
development in the near futuretit does appear that, development of the contracted
land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development
of proximate noncontracted land.
Cancellation is in the Public Interest
For the cancellation to be in the public Interest, the Butte County Board of Supervisors
(Board) must make findings with respect to SII of the following; (1) other public
concerns substantially outweigh the objeet!_ives of the Williamson Act and (2) -hat 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 find ng
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 conslitutlo•-tal 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. City of Hayward (1986), 177 Cal. App. 3d 103, 113) A clear
showing on the record of the public interest benefits is.ne'cessary.
The cancellation 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 arerial
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
P•C_
11
Mr. Dan Breedon
• . April 26, 2004
Page 4of4
criteria used for originally restrictinga 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's ta,,e$ that by placing this property within the Plan area, Bu-
clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization", afxpress
., e
be
purpose and intent at that point in time was that thi;; property would cease - e
considered' viable as agricultural property and:woul+j convert to residential 11-ousing, The.
Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in 1996 and
-the County and the landowner entered into a Land Conservation Agreement in
December 1999. Since the Liptrap property was clearly within a planning area identified
for development, the initiation of the land conservation agreement in 1999 W'a- s contrary
to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land.
The County should review its policies relating to Im lementati J -
al Conservation Contracts, especially when lands -designated forurbanu sestirfi general or
specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restriction to agricultural use
• provided for in the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development
as well as to preserve agricultural land.
•
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed cancellation. After
reviewing the documentation and information provided, it'appears that the 8card 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 (I D) 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 nave any
questions concerning our comments, please contact Patricia Gatz, Associate
Environmental Planner at (916) 324-0869.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. O'Bryant
Acting Assistant Director
i
' d SEiLl.-- 9ES 'OES W419 -)H AL13 11 song naa air§ ; T O b0 S1 I nr