HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Richard L. Harriman - TSM16-0002 Law Offices of
Richard L. Harriman
1078 Via Verona Drive
Chico, California 959731031
Telephone: (530) 3431386
Email: harrimanlawl@sbcglobal.net
June 13, 2017
Bill Connelly, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of TSM 16-0002
OUTLINE OF ISSUES
Northern California Regional Land Trust(NCRLT)holds legal title to conservation easement in
perpetuity on agricultural property located adjacent to the south side of the Leen project site.
The Land Trust supports the current recommendation of the County Agricultural Commissioner
for a 300' buffer on the project site.
The Land Trust's interest in this matter is based on policy considerations with respect to the
precedent established by the decision and action of the BOS VO4i and the process issues in the
manner in which this matter was reviewed under General Plan and the Butte County Code
sections 24-81-24-84.
The Land Trust joins in the objections stated by the Nicolaus family's representative, Rory
Crowley, regarding the lack of an initial written analysis and determination by the Agricultural
Commissioner's Office, as well as an analysis by a competent witness of the alleged buffering
capabilities of the existing riparian vegetation along Commanche Creek/Edgar Slough.
The Land Trust believes that the Applicant's Appeal of the Planning Commission lacks a specific
statement of the grounds for its objection to the Findings of the Planning Commission and the
lack of reasonable notice to the public of the reasons for its objections.
The Land Trust notes that there is a Iack of substantial evidence in support of the
Applicant/Appellant's assertion that the natural riparian vegetation along Commanche
Creek/Edgar Slough is adequate to avoid all significant adverse impacts of the normal farm
operations on the Nicolaus walnut orchard from noise, dust, odor, and agricultural chemicals.
Applicant/Appellant has submitted no credible evidence in the form of expert testimony by a
competent witness. The BOS cannot make a finding that the natural vegetation"provides
1
adequate protection to residential uses from adjacent agricultural operations." [Guidelines,
para.E(2)(b).]
The Land Trust notes that the residences to the northwest were developed prior to the adoption of
the current County General Plan. The argument that there should be no discrimination against
the use proposed by the Applicant/Appellant suggests that the County's land use policies to
protect existing agricultural operations should not evolve to avoid future land use conflicts
between residential uses and adjacent agricultural operations.
The Land Trust notes that the density of residential development could remain at 16 du/acre with
a"cluster" development that could accommodate a comparable number of dwelling units, while
still maintaining the 300' buffer, through an application for a variance in the set backs and other
site specific requirements to avoid encroaching on the 300' buffer recommended by the County
Agricultural Commissioner.
Conclusion
The BOS should remand the matter to County Staff to complete the necessary analysis of the
effectiveness of the riparian vegetation barrier and to allow the Applicant to determine whether it
wishes to submit a revised proposed tentative map which utilizes cluster development outside of
the 300' buffer and allows the protected area to be used as a developed open space amenity, in
order to avoid the potentially significant noise, dust, odor, and agricultural chemical impacts on
the residents.
2