Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout047-260-199 (7)BUTTE t !.W COUNTY MAR 12 2007 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 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 theCdunty of Butte and Z'V t 1-.YN 1-(P. T-AA P on a /a Lg 9 as it relates to land in�Agricultural Preserve No. of the County of Butte which is presently owned by the undersigned. s In support of this petition, the undersigned alleges. 1. That the undersigned presently owns the land covered by .said agreement • described as follows: �} P �`O y % a? to D - (I o o o Cd vlW S i i,y e fGAL D£SGR100 7--1PAJ, 2. That the Cancellation is not inconsistent with the purpose of th-- Williamson Act (government Code Section 51200 et seq.) in that: The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perju-y. </A BUTTE Petition to Cancel COUNTY Land Conservation Agreement MAR) 2 2007 DEVELOPMENT Response to item 2.) SERVICES 2. That the Cancellation is not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act (government Code Section 51200 et 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 -as well 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 • r Consistency Findings Required forBUTTE COUNT' Immediate Cancellation MAR 12 2007 Of the DE�'ELOPN�ENT SERVICES Kittyhawk Land Conservation Agreement as detailed in California Government Code Sections 51280-51287 Section 51282 (1) (b) states that cancellation of a contract shall be consistent with the purposes of this chapter only if the board :)r 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 cd non- renewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245. The original request for cancellation was delivered to Butte County on September 7, 2003, and was subsequently acknowle3ged_by a notarized Notice of Non -renewal (see exhibit 4a and 4b).. Immediate cancellation is acceptable as notice was given in a timely manner and is thereby consistent with government code. 2. That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adiacent lands from agricultural use j Lands which lie north, south and east of Kittyhawk (the. subject property) are located within the North Chico Specific PIF-n's (NCSP) designated area for development (see exhibit 5) and are (a) not currently in agricultural use, (b) are already utilized as :suburban residential or (c) are presently in process with Butte County 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 1 and may not he 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. Therefore, immediate cancellation is consistent with government code as it will not result in adjacent lanais being removed from agricultural uses. 3. ' That cancellation is for an alternative use which is vonsistent 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 5). Located within Chicds sphere of influence, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) is- a concise guideline for growth and development within the overall context of the ButteCounty General Plan. The NCSP is the result of an . extended effortby 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 spec=fic 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 pl'2ns 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 patterns of urban development 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 1he two conditions be met for immediate cancellation. <A> In response to the first point under Item 5: The letter from Mr. Eric Christensen (see exhibit 8) 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 property listed which was suitable (zoned SR -1) nor available in the entire north Chico/Butte County area (see exhibits 9a, fib, 9c and • 9d). There was a parcel zoned SR -1 which came on the =narket 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 other parcel was listed (see exhibit 10). 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 phrase in the second point of Item 5 is "more 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: I. Urban development of Kittyhawk most certainly creates a more contiguous pattern of urban development than development of non -contracted land to the west. The "green line" was specifically enacted to prevent urban development in agricultural areas. Conversely, it was also created to • provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development in areas specifically designated for development. As 3 • ,-y E' ., �� 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 s ;^ Specific Plan area) as a future growth area and constrains w; r -growth in other areas. 'Growth in the Chico area is further ' ` constrained through agricultural preservation policies, zoning, i 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 11) 11 -• •• As a result of the requirements of the Chico General Plan and >F" • Buite County's expressed intent to comply with the General '1 Plan through Resolution 95-47, immediate cancellation is consistent with government code in that the subject property dies within an area designated for urban development and 4 • A:a therefore -will provide for a more contiguous pattern of , .f Po development than development roximate non -contracted P + land to the west. IL '; The subject property is currently surrounded on three sides t€ by existing urban development (to the east) and,proposed Y g ;• development (to the north and south) (see exhibit .7). < 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 z the final stages of approval for approximately 50 suburban - 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' !�• ProPert3•This parcel is currently being processed through r: t R l Development Services as well, pending approval for . • ; suburban -residential development. It is contiguous with the. :*R subject property. With the subject property literally surrounded by urban development on three sides (the fourth side being.outside the ai• '. , - ' i` `green line' and preserved for agricultural uses), immediate < • cancellation is .consistent with government code as it will n :' 4 I ; cancellation is consistent with government •code as it will • .` 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 Autumn Park subdivision has two streets which `dead- .. 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 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 • '� ' connect to and extend -to the west in an effort to create a ,,"Tore contiguous pattern of urban development".: • The presence of Anjou Court and Magness Court indicate that i _ •: 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. r" IV.,, The Autumn Park subdivision has a street, identified as Bosc ' -,-'Drive, which dead -ends into the 68 acre parcel (the Levy r . property) to the north (see exhibit 12a and 12c). As noted in .''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 completed, will make fo_r' a more contiguous pattern of urban development" as part of the NCSP format. ' - The Levy property cannot, however, be developed to its zoned .suburban -residential potential until there is access. While there is the potential for access at Bosc Drive Butte ' County Subdivision Code Section 20-133 requires additional ' points of ingress and egress to a residential subdivision p, - . where cul-de-sac streets serve more than 20 lots (see exhibit, •> 13a). These access points can only take place through the Autumn Park subdivision and the Kittyhawk property. This ' limitation exists because (a) there is an insufficient 60' cross section to the east to connect with Garner lane as required by Butte County Subdivision Code 20-134 (see exhibits 13b • 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 !... i A, - 'J .. .. S - r ••. motif ` - .. , ,- q. .M1 planned for the extension of Kittyhawk Drive. Specifically, a • sixty foot easement was established in 1999 for the purpose, • PrP • ,.- _ . ,• `; . ° r � ` of extending Kittyhawk Drive .or! the south side of the • _ P .:� ►Kittyhawk parcel. The long range build-outlan for this 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 i f, Butte County Board .of Supervisors Resolution 95-47 (see.,- ` r exhibit .14c). f M ' The presence of Bosc Drive as it connects, to the Levy property V _ , clearly indicates that immediate cancellation of the Kittyhawk - - LCA will allowfor a more: contiguous pattern" of urban development (onto the Levy property) than development of , } proximate non -contracted land because the restrictans of the ~ . ~ Williamson Act on the Kittyhawk parcel prevent the 'construction of additional roads required for ingress and ; _ egress onto the Levy parcel. •.The presence of the Kittyhawk property as an, operating - r orchard, and in it's current Williamson Act status actually, •precludes a more contiguous pattern of urban development. ' The resence o an operating orchard in the Williamson Act in , p .f P n9 ' , this location is therefore inconsistent with government code ' J - encourages contiguous patterns of urban development. ��which The " V.--.'' Butte County Agricultural Element was enacted in 1995." J d Homes on the west border of Autumn Park are not only . i 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 use • • - chemicals are.present in the back and side yards of -the, ' ==�' . + adjacent residences. The presence of this orchard creates issues ranging from mere nuisance to hazardous chemicals into contact with residences in an urban _ - ; environment. . ,i. •Immediate cancellation will eliminate the numerous and .. potentially hazardous conditions cited above and provide for a ' more. co ntiguous 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, ► •' . : ;dated_4/26/2004 (and utilized in thispetition's initial Land -:.. Conservation Act Committee meeting in June, 2004), is attached as exhibit 16. In his correspondence, Acting • Assistant Director Dennis J. Ory 'B ant states that California 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, "... that ' development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land." ' On page 4 of thin letter from Mr. O'Bryant, he goes on to .make the. following observations: "The express purpose and intent at (the time the North Chico r 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 planning area identified for " development, the initiation of the Land Conservation Agr'ement in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to - preserve agricultural land." In points 5 I, 5 II, 5 III, 51V, and 5 V. above, I have illustrated it the reasons why immediate cancellation results in a" more contiguous pattern of urban development than deveilopment of j proximate non -contracted land.. In point 5 VL, 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, w 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 I• Petition for Immediate. Cancellation. y 7 FJ ;x CARMEN LN �..'.,'MERIDIAN RD is • . ' - f. � • GARNER 4 r I J HICKS LN *tee • r� COHASSET RD 101 4 • TABLE 2-2 - NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS QCreate 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, pans 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 should not exceec 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 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. 8 Provide public and community services which both adequately serve the community and are cost-offec:ive II TABLE 2-3 II SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES General Policies 1 Create a functional and attractive residential community, with development of a variety of housing types 10 accommodate a broad range of household needs complimented by cultural amenities and all public facilities and services necessary b support the population which N result from Plan development. 2� Create integrated open space, parks and recreational amenities which will result in improved quality of lid 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 atr.omotive and non -vehicular transportation. 16. 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. OProvide public and community services which both adequately serve the community and are cost effective. 9. 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, adequate setbacks; avigation easements, signing, and other measures. r 1 4 11 %.r1 %-Uucb `SVV.JLLVV-J LLU/� • GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51280-51287 51280. It is hereby declared that provide relief -from the provisions pursuant to this chapter under the provided herein. Lau}l.ii VV iv v..a�.�aauv.�.a.w�i�.�a-wauuwJ�aaywu�.: owuvu—�V vu.g.vuN... 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 lof7 �x k_/ -i I.UUCs kgUV:J1LOV-J1L0/) llup.//www.lcgnuU.ca.guV/cgs U1wulSplayWLLC!sCGUUII guVOcgwup... 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 ofa 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 O | W | � � .� . . � . .. ,. O | W | � � 1JO64 llwy 77 11 - 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 n a ,i . J After recording return to: COUNTY OF BUTTE , • ] Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 , I� 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 NOTTO BE RENEWED. The . expiration'date.for that portion of said contract is the last day of December, 2012. Owners i. Receipt of.Notice of Nonrenewal - Land Conservation Agreement acknowledged by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte at its meetuig of 20 Paul McIntosh, Clerk of the Burd ,E By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF B TTE Development Services On �oL —�-- before me, —dam , it e o is r - .g. "ane oe, otray a rc" personally appearedm 10 , Name(s) o Si er(s) . ❑ personally known to me - OR proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence.tc be 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 _ !� , .F A. BURCHAM • authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the +� T- �`p s9p. Comm. #1281413 instrument the persons) or the entity upon behalf o --"which the i rO� NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA person(s) acted, executed the instrument: V BUTTE COUNTY 1 My commission Expires Oct. 22, 2004 WITNESS my hand and official seal. ' Signa re of Notary K:\LCA\partial nonrenew. Ldoc North Chico, Specific -LAND USE MAP Figure 3-1 � LEGEND SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BOUNDARY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (CITY OF CHICO) .p 0 MEET WrrH F E)OBLE ALIGNMENT STREET WITH Glrcn At muucut SR -3 SUBURBAN REST. 3 AC. MIN AND REVIEW PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT, ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING - LAND USE CATEGORY. -9 Heritage Proper, SR -1 SUBURBAN REST. 1 AC. MIN. 0 R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL r==' R-2 MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL © M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ® M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL _ C-1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL ' ® BP BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL ®� PO PUBLIC / QUASI -PUBLIC OS GREENBELT/OPEN SPACE THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE 'GREENBEL OPEN SPACE' LAND USE DESIGNATION SHALL DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPME. CROSS -HATCH INDICATES LANDS THAT M CONTAIN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENSIT HABITAT AND REQUIRE SITE-SPECIFIC PLANNI AND REVIEW PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT, ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING - LAND USE CATEGORY. -9 Heritage Proper, 0 • *I . 0 AGRICULTURAL LANDS Legend Orchard & Field Crops Field crops, row crops, arrharda, vinyardi, and nursery stock Grazing & Open Lands Irrigated pagture, graztnr_ and animal busbandry PLUMAS COUNTY % is A. GLENN COUNTY -2 v, % A�- COLUSA COUNTY PLUMAS COUNTY SUTTER COUNTY 6curce: Sulto County Planning D"'on, 198E Butte County Comprehensive Plan YUBA COUNTY Figure LU -4 N TH e % is A. GLENN COUNTY A�- COLUSA COUNTY SUTTER COUNTY 6curce: Sulto County Planning D"'on, 198E Butte County Comprehensive Plan YUBA COUNTY Figure LU -4 N TH e • 2.2 2.3 i ■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT ■ 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. Require 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 2.6 L 2.7 • 2.8 2.1 C 2.3 • 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. �I New residences within agricultural areas shall be required to pay its fair. share of !;development impacts on public services and infrastructure. If 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. i ;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. mut a ones, as part ofahe General Plan's 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 COMPREHENSNE PLAN ■ EXHIBIT A. - Adopted M /^ II AE -11 X11 i of oo� #1 • • • `, h _.... �_t �- 4 �� - ,a � Ri _- _.-- — - _ �� ` r `� K}j.k•� � C' , t..�" _ -yk - - `P1 •'b `l j,, ',� • .." r . ,. � .. yr �. X, +.�.� - 3'� �•ja-., ti +`. -.:3'�,6"i� 1.}.��'k+ x! d S x J..k., i - _ - .� - .. _Rf F..fS+r ♦• L/ • �� �•r .:s � r �:t`�,fi- '�^'�rYr.r. � �v� �' J r+•y�� i ;;j rr''" - r �„ r"'�"`�f-':i� 't.'.'f'^ � a s^' ` � a ,T 71 P:Y�. �-. SCALE 1 "-500' ..qi �`\�� �` s ' -"fit'+ S{sf 3• 't '' . "� '':#. r.a - '`. F wr ` � s`i '� k ~ - , �,, : c � rt* },•�•.. is # r���'r'��i'r� y�� t� c �: SF�t�('�,��r h r F•�". a _ • 1t la's` •• .� . v - {j,.{y Sr • p ,2 i,. ,4a^, ;., , ~',4 . k-. �w,�� ''. "� .t : � �` � 1+11 sem. s �,►` ¢ 1 -- <t > �` +` .r c�^s t 4 > • I 66 V� e . • . � , f � ry. .- .v L :. ,_ ♦'(i, R. _ r''0 - Y ri ,;F ,� # .t ;. -�a ., i a,,;,i •. .;, �• i4 . ,��♦ i � � .1 1 � +t .. - 1 ., .� _ * - w . � ' r,'y n {i - #L.. 1 t e �`t •.L� e j�� � � ��� .'�1 _t-.....L{� r.. 3� ,7'.+r. i.5� ! 1 y.i � �r � y �} r . \ -\�.� ,S b f. ", - - 9 i 'L�,�s• �# , •\,.+ }',. .y: : ua _,�', '1 wL� t tl.:. w : h wJ�•r+�t ~ r V 30-003 HAUSELTANAWAM H4 do MA GARET S `4y "•`•'ar r \ •. , - L +'6 o a ' R R �, t , y t•; .� + ' 'yi,.; ~ a • a_` V ,..,a.ti - rM '-'r"�c. , y .. Rs . �� � �"; �. C'" � # � +•✓,. �X a • .R. n I per-! — � � .. .•1 "~� LEVY SUBDIVISION APN: 047-440-012 \1' PAUL LEVY REVOCABLE TRUS ` r ..�.+.-.�,•...�+„a y -'+?fr r,.r.+ +t� ,i ,p\n.w1+,- . id.1 . 'ri••.grr,,te;�, y"l - �C ' ^ \FY . -+d•l. �tr • ,.,ni:{�ce`+ '.4'- l�-„1 �'r�Yf', y.�'y.`~%4Y��j7rh', .R.4�/�'��yj' i,” .£.� '! ' it:_ /g 1 . . Y :,�:, :4)c wj•.1?-�'�', '�.Y::':;:t'.Su.+1-,1F s�.� i,' _ [.f�? .k 3[i�..1/�e`W•`, � --. .r�'r. r�rZ,_l ; {,�.f 'rir•' iF- .•,FY�•l'*£*°. e_:-.•O-'4C',+Y,., n ly',�i�,..'•i.y* ' i ' • h. "�r- � -��, .• s .i.'�; 1 - —_ #+' 11..1 ���'}'+., r - ?: :.• v rj a tir- . �• S i :•y, ,�� �e# } � ✓+`.. f. ' �01 t40E, $sik `,C'�r+ 14 �..r:•r:.;.t;.� ."�#►`t.1'�•��x �` •� =�! y9, f.. 1,e�1,.+'�77�� 'r,'�w.yyt�]��R-:y KITTYHAWK}•r �.�IF;y.�j $`..�> +cS'. �,... +'0 �_ .,�: �J. •J. ♦. �rvp i'$j�,y1, vr•' T .`�','."w-'f.. ,.A ,C�rt•�' `�.� .,. #.ti ••.Tirs+.,�..{,�,- ..-ru'.>: SUBDIVISION �.'r•,'.•.:�.�.a;, is K, ki, AUTUMN PARK AUTUMN PARK' 'i, APN: 047-260-199 ;tai �} +� DIVISION ' ' ti r. A r '� t^` • :, �{ ` �'P + iN;i l NICOLA IS, GEORGE R. AND tl � r �k 4i •y 'L x FCJ+i SUB ' SUBDIVISION wrts;�s`aC, PHASE I i CONNIE J. y?4 E PHAS3 �' J (' ♦,LL:: t� YT Y {1�K, 'tf. C p r.� t;ti1 e-. , �' $',� 'ice; O' -� •*'r? k' -y, itlt e'l s, # . a•Y IT_" :f . •[f' c. ,C' �. i', ��'� � � f N�, � 'r. } r J • �i' .�..�t,t r�r.r'�5 � - � +_ t i� J.' � ' `�,,, .i — •„'.n Lr k��. `� #�J. 1i � �� �� � �' .� }�+ ��4' �`� .,i i %;�, 'zr f=:`ilJ,, W"t'1}�'' � i �!as+l! �.� � .•,• `'1 'f. r f,� � �[ 7,:r 'j - x i > All 1,: „_j • '��, '� •.j� R�1 1• � yj,�ap:. .�','' tiRA,..:1Wu...4. N,+X-15;.''"rr�.1�.1�..�.:kar J r „ r X. X+" C. 1� A �. � t � + i h. J�. �airr fit# iYri � i ! 1R;r�.i � A• t o ,AI �%,i � yl 1 � � ci�� + _ � � iA �. .4-,�j,.. + M.y y -, t.^ .#=t "it.1'�`-'t"'r '�' �: r'• � L �atr� �7�y��"+t � ?5�4� h�I��'i�,�iu }.���.r-T� � .�# •�{,i 777 � 'rN�� i} � � � t ?,�,,,...�...... - .. ` lob � � -- ^' yC�S” y [V� a i • ! rl;y r ei4 �tiP� r 4 # _ 1 \�y�. j ja. s R l^'• AL: , a ' '' _ ..✓. _ !' �, -,.. �� Z _. �.f_ ^-'V'":. + , • �; 'ti= GUERNSEY SUBDIVISION t ,�•. kf�� y •?R # ! r.�' t, C. ]� a APN: 047-260-198 r : ` -J_j� MEREDITH TESTAMENTARY .C� + m M,. M GUERNSEY C. TRUST ET AL .I �, � j ( � 'r� � ti �„'f�, � . .. 1� ' v _ 4 � M � I , .r_ -� • ,A.,� .:.C1. •. Y�1 -- # aR � s '�� � - r ' ,f j �1 M n } , �. •�r 0 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 Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated. � g ERIC CHRISTENSEN Broker Associate • • .1350 E. LASSEN AVE., SUITE I CHICO, CA 95973 Liiii do BUS. (530) 895-1545 FAX (530) 343-8233 DUFOUR REALTY eric@ericsells.com w tvw.ericsens.eom 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 Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated. � g t 0 HIGH LOW AVERAGE MEDIAN TOTALAWE LISTING COUNT • LIST PRICE: $2,300,000 $99,999 $706,214 $359,500 $9,88, 0 14 SOLD PRICE: $1,800,000 $99,999 $496,999 $145,000 $2,484,999 Default MLS Defined Spreadsheet Status Original Sold Price Ask Price Address Acres oning LotDim Agent - Agt Name OM Cross Street Lst Date Contract Close Type MLS # Price Date Date EXP $155,000 $155,000 000 LEFTOUT LN 40.00 AG- JAIME 98 Renkow 8/29/2003 1 RE 0 VERCRUSE 00503689 SLD $175,000 $145,000 $175,000 000 LEFTOUT LN 40.00 A-40 SHELLY 61 Renkow Road 122/2004 2/20/2004 RE ITTSELL /23/2004 200503773 WDN $120,000 $120,000 0000 DENVER RD 20.00 A10 LEIF PETERSON 23 trinidad 7/13/2004 RE 00503878 SLD $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 0000 DENVER RD 20.00 �0 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 ���} 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 R�l] JOANNE SKEEN 89 Richardson Springs Road 2/10/2005 RE R 00504007 SLD $1,800,000 0000 GARNER LN 77 13.' SR -1 DARCY 6 Rio Bravo/Green Meadow 4/14/2005 4 20/2005 RE 1,800,000 1,800,000 JOHNSON n /30/2006 00504072 SLD $99,999 $99,999 $99,999 1395 VI LAS RD 20.24 'SFR SCOTT HUBER 20 PONDEROSA 729/2005 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 F/ZAO40.66 DAN GORDON 266 Richardson Springs Road 3/8/2006 RE CLIFFS DR acres 00601525 EXP $2,300,000 0000 GARNER LN 13.77 SR, I DONALD CAMY 185 Rio Bravo 5/1/2006 RE 2,300,000 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 RE R ROAD 200607287 ACT $995,000 $995,000 3000 THORNTREE q BRUCE ROE. 43 Cohassett RA DR 100.00 10/17/2006 00607895 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 JAVERAGE MEDIAN T TOTAL PAW I LISTING COUNT • LIST PRICE: $995,000 $775,000 $892,500 $900,000 1 $3,570, 4 • SOLD PRICE. $725,000 $725,000 $725,000 $725,000 1 $725,000 DefauIYMLS Defined S readsheet Status Ask Sold Addressdroom th SQF Agent -Agt YrBlt Acres oning .otDi DOM Lst Date Close Date oSho OccN.ame OccPh MLS # Price Price Name EXP 4729 KILKARE LN ROBERT 30.00 A-5 172 4/1/2004 APPT Bill and Cheryl 343-4575 925,000 1151 ROSISE 1977 Hum hrey 2005176641 WDN 4867 MICHAEL 20.00 RS 1 LYNCH 192 5/6/2005 CFG 530-874- $875,000 STARFLOWER LN 547 TEARNS 1996 051 200530343 14577 CAMENZIND 4 SHERRY SLD 775,000 725,000 T 3 934 AYNE 005 40.00 �(, 80 8/5/2005 11/11/2005 GOV 00532795 ACT 3000 THORNTREE 3 2 BRUCE ROE 189 GOV $995 000 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. . cr�`� HIGH LOW AVERAGE MEDIAN TOTAL JME LISTING COUNT OILIST PRICE: $1,000,000 $225,000 $510,212 $400,000 -$8,16JW 16 SOLD PRICE: $1,250,000 $230,000 $490,500 $325,000 $2,452,500 . Default MLS Defined Spreadsheet Status Original Sold Price Ask Price Address Acres oning 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 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 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 200503711 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 181 Nord RC 0.00 7HOWARD (� JOHNSON /26/2003 00503712 WDN $310,000 $310,000 0 NORD HWY A-10 MIKE WIEGERT 472 Esplanade RE 11.05 12/9/2003 00503751 WDN $350,000 $325,000 000 MERIDIAN RD 13.17 A-10 KELLY BROWN 313 Welding Way 5/4/2004 1 RE 00503840 EXP $375,000 $350,000 000 NORD HWY BRANDON C 182 Carmen RE 6.36 � HARRIS /15/2004 00503881 SLD $275,000 $250,000 $250,000 000 NORD HWY/1n . BRANDON C 131 Carmen 11/23/2004 RE 10.64 7u HARRIS /15/2004 11/23/2004 200503880 SLD $349,000 $325,000 $349,000 0 WILSON LANDING RD A40 BILL CHANCE 4 Hamilton Nord Cana 5/2/2005 6/3/2005 RE 0.00 Hwy. 4/28/2005 1 200504094 EXP $425,000 $425,000 000 NORD HWY AG TERESA LARSON 92 ESPLANADE 9/3/2005 RE 19.55 00533540 SLD $237,400 $230,000 $237,400 00 CANA HWY A40 1731 X TERRY CHENEY 34 Hamilton Nord Cana 11/1/2005 MX 7.48 1191 /28/2005 12/16/2005 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 600535796' 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 Agri BERNARD 93 Muir Avenue AG VE 5.30 FARMER /28/2006 MW8555 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. *LISTHIGH LOW AVERAGE MEDIAN TOTAL E LISTING COUNT• PRICE: $3,900,000 $220,000 $954,214 $687,500 $13,35O 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 SQF ent - A t Name YrBlt Acres Zonina LotDim IDOM Lst Date lClose Date ToShoW OccName OccPh MLS # WDN $3,900,000 16414 HWY 99 000 KEN MARTIN A-40 751 7/10/2002 APPT 1960 305.00 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 WILSONILA NDING RD 0 BILL CHANCE 69.00 A40 279 3/26/2003 CA 1000 00517609 SLD 1 $220,000 $220,000 1 111 BELL RD 0 1 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 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 200517662 WDN $750,000 0 WILSON LANDING RD 0 BILL CHANCE 0 A40 300 4/7/2004 CA 109.00 200517663 SLD $350,000 $350,000 • CANA PINE REEK 0 GIL JOHNSTON 44.00 AG 133 8/16/2004 CA RD 999 12/27/2004 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 AKWAY TOM HAMPTON 5.00 A10 186 4/29/2005 GOV vacant 1450 1930 00517721 'EXP $595,000 .3191 3193 - AK WAY - TOM HAMPTON 5.00 A-10 366 11/2/2005 GOV 1450 1930 00534968 EXP $1,300,000 000 HWY 32 0 Ed Becker 0149.00 .,L(� 185 3/1/2006 GOV 00601617 ACT $910,000 3191 & 3193 OAK AY MARK LEIKER 15 660 X 21 11/8/2006 GOV 6006083991 1450 1930 JACRE 1660 i VACANT 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. I • 11W ` �' �• �,1 '� 4 N �' F �` e I. {A ' ..� i i e(' � �� Sr �,J I �� j i, t', IIIIi�Illi�lil�(IIli�lllllll�Ul�i ' 2109215—:b 125 1 -_�oEE, Z2 RECORDING REQUESTED BY' Recorded.. I REG1=EE 13.00 Mid Valley Title & Escrow Company Official Reccxds I TAX r '1465.00 County Of i ' �. AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CANDACE 1iUTTE J. GRUBBS i George R. Nicolaus and Connie J. Nicolaus ROSEMiRARY DIcar'deC I C>:>tiOi�l. 1 66 Marybill Ranch Road _-_Assistant,,.,,. !. Jaso l Chico, CA 95928 1u5:0041 �'1i3-Apr-2005_- ;i' Nage i of 3 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use only A.P.•N.: 047-260-197 & 199 File No.: 0401-217175 (DP) GRANT DEED _s 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 1 .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 ash 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 • F t F Mail Tax Statements To: SAME AS ABOVE 51 t 0 "F -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 periodonly, 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 CalTrans on the installation of traffic - signals at SR 99 and the new arterial and Keefer Road. The Specific - Plan utilizes the e.dsting creeks and sloughs as bicycle and pedestrian trails connecting to the various land use area. This will assist in r 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 Genefal Plan identifies this land as a future growth area and constrains growth in other areas. The Chico General Plan Map also depictsthe 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 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 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 Vail and pathway , f system, will contribute to lower emissions than standard urban/suburban n 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 0 • 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION CONTOUR UNE (NGVD), TYP LIMITS OF AREA OF 100 -YEAR FLOOD ZONE A AS IT APPEARS ON THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT EX NG WELL WITH 100' AGENCY FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP RMATH LEACHFIELD FOR BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MAP F SETB�. TYP NUMBER 0600700320 D, EFFECTIVE DATE APRIL 20; 2000 29 14�� + �, -------L------I----- 44• A I . A I 30' LFS f SETBACK ' — J MAGNESS COURT - -----r--- -- \ r 1 32 — 33 34 39 /�� � 38 37��'— ANJOU COURT I 1 � / \ '4 \ 40 41 / \ �_- 42 H*CONSTRUCnON— £WENT ON LOT 40. PROPOSED WE1L- LOCATION WITH 100' RADIUS LEACHFFELD FREE SETBACK (LFS). TYPICAL EACH LOT «tL.irctLAL. rLUMt9N1;, FIRE. WATER. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. 3) ALL LOT DEVELOPMENT/PREP ARATNJN GRADINC AND EROSION CONTROL GUI SPECIFIC PLAN. ALL DEVELOPMENT i PLANNING DIVISION AND THE DEPARTI WTI'- THE NORTH C flCO. SPECWIC PL) ON-SITE. T.B.M. 3/E- RESA N .10,47' C -30.83. ELEV. t! BUILDING SETBA( LINE, TYP I�— 26 i \ I \ I � I r I / I / I � \ 24 1 , IA I I I I I 23 SUW0 4SON FRE H' LOCAT". TIP. AUTY-UN-PrAM DRIVE \ 1 �' l`Y f (k r✓¢� G !Z T.B.N. 3/8' REI N- 10,0 E-30,^. ELEV. • • /� eq J—(,) (-) �f 1 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 I next » CIAK_ 2L http://muiiicipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes./butteco/_DATA/CHAPTER2.0/Article VI_Design_Standar... 11/20/2006 °I 4°, E 104 • l ' 91.00' • ��d °p. 1� 17-1 rE,1 753.7o XI... ............ N 90'00'00", W X09.(50'..-- ..........._ 4 `` I I 20-134 Minimum widths. Page 1 of 1 Chapter 20 SUBDIVISIONS' Article VL...Design Standards ' 20-134 Minimum "widths. Normally a minimum sixty -foot street right-of-way shall be required. A minimum fifty -foot street r;ght-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 right-of-way is required. (Ord. No. 3188, § 1(Exh. A), 3-14-95) « previous 1 -next >. ' . ec http://municipalcodeslexisnexis.com/codes/butteco/_DATA/CHAPTER20/Article_VI_Design_Standar._. '11/20/2006 1#1 1 .. 1 � i � � � 4 ti Civil and Transportation Engineering DHAG7 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KITTYHAWK PARK/GUERNSEY SUBDIVISIONS BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA February 8, 2005 Prepared for - The Engineering Group 1250 East Avenue Suite 10 Chico, CA 95926 837 Columba'Lane Foster City, CA 94404 (650) 212-0837 FAX (650) 212-3150 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 T'-----T--r--r- Y Oil ---------------- -------------------------------------------- NOI A SCALE: V=400' 23 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 (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 Spedfic Ptah, through conditions of approval, has been modified to require the County to work with CalTrans on the installation of traffic signals at SR 99 and the new arterial and Keefer Road. The-s—pe—cffic Plan utilizes the eoasting 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 reaThe 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 forma 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 will'contribute indirect emissions s' 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- Ar, evelopmentAir, 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 ' [.' L 0 �I 01 0 , war �+ ' r � • � ', by + {- - J � N •�;( ,- . r r v • Jul 15 04 0114?p DIVICION OF , LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION 601 K STRCr.T SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95614 PHONC 916;314-0050 Dev Svcs & tnv Heairn odu ood-r(do P.1 DEPARIrMENT OF CONSERVATION :3 T A T E O P C A L I F O R N I A April 26, 2004 Mr. Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Butte County Dept. of Developmental Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: Petition for Cancellation of LarYd Conservation Agreement; API\ 047-260-199, Landowner�.Evelyn Liptrap Dear Mr. Breedon: FAX 916/31.7-3430 Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation INTERNCT (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 for th= above. . tonsrv.ca.gov referenced matter. O R A Y 0 AVIS The petition proposes to cancel the Williamson Act contract on GOVERNOR approximately 48.23 prime agricultural acres, currently planted with productive walnut tree::, for the development of 53 residential building lots, The subject parcel was, placed in the North Chico Specific Plan ;Plan) in 1995 with Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum zoning. The Iandowner 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) prcvides 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 Ly the Board. Government Code §51240 provides that contract provisions may provide for restrictions, terms and conditions, including paymenta 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 to 250% of the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be paya_�le to the State of Callfornia pursuant to Government Code §51283, and one-half sha'I be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124." We request a copy of the Butte County Assessor's cancellation valuation for the proposed cancellatio-1 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 Consistent with file Purposes of the Williamson Act For the cancellation to be consistent with purposes of the Williamson Act, t.ne Butte County Board of Supervisors (Board) must make findings with respect to a'1 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 consistent with the Cou-Ity's General Plan, 4) discontiguous patterns of urban development will not resu-t, and 5) that there is no proximate noncontracted land Which is available and suitab e 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. A notice of nonrenewal was served by Evelyn C. Lipt'ap to Butte County on ar about December 29, 2003. The expiration date for the contract will be December 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 bethe preferable method of contract termination for the Department. The subject parcel is contiguous to oxisting one acre rural ranchette developr-nEnt 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 it 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, i- 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 s zoned L ca; r-aoc nen uatsraH nu3 19 song na0 d0jsT0 J,0 St int' • 0 Jul 15 04 01:471* Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Dev Svcs & tnv heaion oou JJO'f Ql r" . - .for residential use and contiguous to existing and planned development to they 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 Ile to the north 'of the subject site and southeast of Mudd Creek, However, since tho Liptrap propHrty is adjacent to similarly developed property to the east and southeast, and the G rn:;ey property to the south is scheduled fo- development in the near future it 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 thg 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 ofthe following: (1) other pbb is concerns substantially outweigh the objectiives of the Williamson Act and (2) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the usa 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 fincing required under public Interest finding above. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, stiction 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 profitab a 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 necessary. 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 contriact cancellation serves the public interest because the developer offers Butte County tree 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 • 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 pian area, Bu County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization", ITf-e express Purpose and intent at that point in time was that this; property would cease b be considered viable as agricultural property and woul+i convert to residential ousing. The. Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in 1995 and the County and they landowner entered into a Land Conservation AgreemerT, 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 land, The County should' review its policies relating to Im lemewation of al Land Conservation Contracts, especially when lands -des gnated forurbanusestir�gene al 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 a have sufficient supporting evidence for making the required find gs.ars aPlea t the eeard prov dey our office with a copy of the Notice of the Public Hear'ng on this matter tAn 0 0) working days before the hearing and a copy of the published notice of the Board's dc-cision within 30 days of the tentative cancellation pursuant to section 51284. If yot: have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Patricia Gatz, Associate Environmental Planner at (916) 324.0869. Sincerely Dennis J. O'Bryant Acting Assistant Director •d sALr.-ees oes u,TQ-;H nu3 I SOAS naQ :IrStT,0 +,o ST Tnr